Some books don’t age very well. They present situations and phenomena of their time as if they were eternal, while others make predictions that now seem laughable. Other books deal with situations of their time and call for change and reform. Many years later, we can see what has changed for the better and what still needs to improve.
In the case of Women Against Censorship, published in 1985, there is a bit of both. At the time, many voices rose against pornography, including Christian fundamentalists opposed to any form of pleasure, and feminists convinced that pornography threatened the status and wellbeing of women. On the other side were those who were opposed to censorship, some because they believed in freedom of expression, and others because they feared that censorship was a threat to voices calling for reform. Women Against Censorship fell into the second category.
The book includes chapters written by different people who generally espouse the same position, but from a different perspective. As editor, Varda Burstyn was responsible for the overall project. The chapter that I always found most interesting was the last, which was written by Burstyn herself. Rather than limiting herself to pornography, she called for greater freedom of sexual expression, a freedom which, in her view, could only be expressed in cultural and artistic works rather than in sex industry offerings, which she found alienating.
Notably, many feminists are worried that due to the hypersexualization of our culture, girls are losing the de facto right to approach sexual experience on the basis of their own needs and personal timing. If 20 years ago it was difficult for a girl to say yes, today it is harder for her to say no. (Page 162.)
In 1985, it was already feared that adolescent sexual autonomy was compromised by a culture that valued the sexual aspect of women more than their other talents. What would she say today, in 2011? The lot of women has improved in some areas, but the hyper-sexualization of girls is still very prevalent. In 1985, the very idea of sex education was opposed by many. This is still the case today, especially with the coming AIDS, the most promising ant-sex tool of all.
In 1985, before the personal computer, culture and art would be found in museums, radio, TV, movies, newspapers and magazines. Some believed that only well-drafted laws could ensure the greatest possible distribution of non-commercial magazines and, thus, a greater circulation of the plurality of ideas, positions and claims. In the name of affirmative action, some advocated for government funding of feminist and gay art and cultural works so the artists could explore sexual themes without fear of reprisals and other negative consequences from corporate sponsors. It was even thought there should be television channel operated by and for women.
How things change! How could Burstyn know at the time that Internet would change the rules forever. Today, a TV network for women only would be a drop in an ocean of media opportunities. And as prevalent as pornography was in 1985, it is even more so today as international borders no longer apply to the electronic world. In fact, its presence almost seems normal. What kind of solutions would work in today’s environment?
Burstyn also presents her thoughts the sex industry in general. Here is an excerpt from page 167:
A feminist-oriented approach to the sex industry must ensure that women are no longer victimized by police and social policies; that greater criminalization of neighbourhoods and risk to women as workers is discouraged; that the audience for sexist pornography and the market for alienated sex is reduced. This kind of approach means that we must address the needs of sex-workers both by improving the quality of their present working lives and by seeking to create real alternatives to alienating sex work.
In all this, I caution that "experts" too often forget to speak to the real workers about this. The authors of Sex Workers in the Maritimes Talk Back make this criticism in their book and try hard to present the views of workers in the sex industry. It may be a marginalised field, but these people still have something to say and may even have possible solutions for better coexistence with the rest of society.
Ms. Burstyn wasn’t presenting a research paper, so it’s unclear whether her information comes from reliable sources. Still, her sincere wish to improve things comes through. Further on the same page, she writes:
While this is not a simple matter, if communities work in conjunction with prostitutes, and if prostitutes are allowed to operate independently and without harassment, a solution can be found. In the case of sex emporiums, strip joints and similar spots, laws regulating working conditions, minimum wages and unionization should apply, since only such regulation can prevent the worst sort of exploitation.
There is a widespread belief that wanting sexual activity in exchange for payment is in itself degrading and alienating. Any type of ordinary employment would be preferable to sex work. But talk to sex workers who previously worked in cafés and donut shops where their bosses would yell at them in exchange for a minimum wage. I find it hard to believe that sex work would be preferable, but I don’t believe I am qualified to tell the sex worker that her way of thinking is wrong.
And to Burstyn’s credit, she does call for meaningful employment. On page 168, she adds: If we believe that sexual encounters are best in conditions of free affectional (sic) choice – a position that I hold both emotionally and intellectually – then we must work toward the creation of meaningful alternatives to alienated sex work. This means that in keeping with a more general commitment to full and meaningful employment (see below), we must demand educational and economic support for women who want to leave this work so that they can live dignified lives without economic hardship while preparing for new ways of earning a living.
However, there is no universal definition of meaningful work. Also, how do we know sex workers chose this field as a last resort? It must be the case for some of them, but not all. There is a perception that sex workers have no choice but to accept all comers and perform all acts demanded of them. Yet research shows that sex workers do indeed turn down certain clients and will refuse to do anything they consider unacceptable. As for “free affectional choice,” I believe that even long-term lovers don’t necessarily use sex to express affection. Sometimes, making “love” is all about having fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment