Radical Feminism's Irrational Attack on Prostitution
Radical feminism is the perspective that
has done the most to distort our understanding of prostitution, yet it remains
quite popular
Radical feminism sees prostitution as the quintessential form of male domination
over women – the epitome of women’s subordination, degradation, and
victimization (Barry, 1995; Dworkin, 1981; 1997; Jeffreys, 1997; MacKinnon,
1987, 1989). It has been called an essentialist perspective because its sweeping
claims apply to all historical time periods, all societies, and all types of
prostitution.
In this perspective, prostitution involves not only specific acts of violence
but is a form of violence by definition. Violence is depicted as “intrinsic” and
“endemic” to prostitution – categorically, universally, and trans-historically.
These authors argue that any distinction between forced and voluntary
prostitution is a myth, since some coercion is claimed to always be involved,
even if the worker is unaware of it.
Radical feminist work on prostitution is not limited to the abstract theorizing
found in the writings of Dworkin, MacKinnon, and others. A number of empirical
studies take this perspective as well. One book-length study concluded that
prostitution is an “abomination” and “brutal oppression” that “must be opposed,”
even though the authors’ findings do not justify this indictment (Hoigard and
Finstad, 1992: 76, 183, 184). Similarly, a study of street prostitution in five
countries proclaims that “prostitution is violence against women” and that
“numerous violations of human rights” are “intrinsic” to prostitution (Farley et
al., 1998: 406, 421). Some writers attempt to present their work as scientific,
while others acknowledge their ideological biases. A Chicago study, for
instance, indicates that the “research project was designed within a framework
of prostitution as a form of violence against women and not prostitution as a
legitimate industry . . . The survey questions and administration were likely
biased to some degree by working within this framework and by employing
surveyors who had left prostitution” (Raphael and Shapiro, 2004: 132). The
interviewers “did not see their own [prior prostitution] experiences as ‘work’
or a choice” (Raphael and Shapiro, 2002: 9). This overarching bias stacks the
deck: “When researchers have difficulty understanding rational, not to mention
positive, reasons for choosing sex work and find it easier to think of
prostitutes as victims, it is understandable that the sex workers [interviewed]
will stress their victim status and negative motivations for working” (Vanwesenbeeck,
2001: 259).
Authors who adopt this perspective make claims designed for maximum shock value.
Customers are labeled “prostitute users,” “batterers,” and “sexual predators.”
Farley declares that “the difference between pimps who terrorize women on the
street and pimps in business suits who terrorize women in gentlemen’s clubs is a
difference in class only, not a difference in woman hating” (Farley, 2004:
1101). All male customers and managers are motivated by animus: “When men use
women in prostitution, they are expressing a pure hatred for the female body” (Dworkin,
1997: 145).
These sweeping claims are not supported by empirical studies
The legal context under which prostitution occurs is important, a context
typically ignored in radical feminism. Many of the harms that seem to be
associated with prostitution are traceable to its prohibited and penalized
status: “It is not sex work per se that promotes oppressive values of capitalist
patriarchy but rather the particular cultural and legal production of a
marginalized, degraded prostitution that ensures its oppressive characteristics
while acting to limit the subversive potential that might attend a
decriminalized, culturally legitimized form of sex work” (Zatz, 1997: 291).
Under criminalization, prostitution is set apart from “legitimate” work, workers
are marginalized and stigmatized, and the police provide little protection. Each
of these problems is at least somewhat reduced under conditions where
prostitution is legal
Violating the canons of scientific inquiry, the radical feminist literature on
prostitution and other types of sex work is filled with “sloppy definitions,
unsupported assertions, and outlandish claims” (Rubin, 1993: 36); such writers
select the “worst available examples” of sex work and treat them as
representative (Rubin, 1984: 301). Anecdotes are generalized and presented as
conclusive evidence, sampling is selective, and counterevidence is routinely
ignored. Such research cannot help but produce questionable findings and
spurious conclusions (Weitzer, 2005a,b). What is needed is an alternative
paradigm that is (1) based on sound empirical evidence, (2) incorporates the
multiple realities ofworkers and other actors, and (3) encompasses different
types of prostitution.
Workers differ in their risk of victimization: Assault, robbery, and rape are
occupational hazards for streetwalkers and for those coercively trafficked into
prostitution, but are relatively uncommon among off-street workers who have not
been recruited by force or fraud.
Full article at http://www.bayswan.org/New_Directions_prost.pdf