http://www.lahaine.org/mundo.php/el-discurso-del-trabajo-sexual
Policies that control our body (from our reproductive rights to the tax paid we wear tampons) are dominated by men
The girls invulnerable "sex work"Imagine a child. You can have 8 years can have 17. She lives in extreme poverty. Chances are your father and mother have died in the midst of a conflict of war. Therefore, she has to fend for itself to find the daily bread. Many days can only be dinner and says that hunger gives you a headache, making it difficult to concentrate at school. The girl is not alone; there are many more like her. Apart from the adversities described above girls share more ... First, a fervent desire to go to school and overcome through education. Second, daily men (maybe January 1, maybe 4) in his people will pay less than a dollar to go to bed with them. Ah! ... And third, according to Al Jazeera Inglés that this is neither commercial sexual exploitation of children, or "forced" or generic "prostitution" prostitution without further ado. No, according to Al Jazeera Inglés these girls are sex workers. sex workers who bear the famous "power agency" to decide their oppressions. Will they vomited and or need more context? On 28 September, Al Jazeera public Inglés one photo report entitled "Educating girls in South Sudan," written by the filmmaker and photographer Sara Hylton. The photographic project was developed in collaboration with the International Foundation of Women in the Media. It is a series of photographs that reflect the lives of girls and adolescents Unity State in South Sudan. Sectarian conflicts within his people walk hours to get to and from the nearest school, forced marriages and poverty ...; the relentless extreme poverty are some of the challenges that girls live. "Girls of South Sudan are doubly vulnerable, many are forced to forced marriages, suffer sexual abuse and exploitation. It is three times more likely that a teenage girl in Southern Sudan dies giving birth, to complete their primary education, "Hylton writes. But nevertheless, they are strong girls with dreams and unwavering desire to excel "fighting for their futures in one of the most volatile countries in the world."
It is an inspiring and hopeful history. One of the girls said that no one at home can help with their homework because nobody in his family has gone to school but, still, she dreams of becoming Minister of Education in his country. The courage and determination of girls and adolescents made me mourn ... So I froze when I read the following description in one of the photographs. "Jessica, 14, has multiple personality disorder. She lives in a foster home along with 50 other vulnerable children where they receive care and education ... According to the founder of the shelter, sex work is standardized among girls, earning less than a dollar a "customer." the goal of the founder is to teach girls that "your body is what it is" and teach alternative ways to generate money. " What? How to jump from extreme poverty and the desire of girls to empower themselves through education that girls are sex workers 'clients'? It took me a second to understand the giant leap expressing these words in the context of the article. When I could analyze it I realized that I had before me was a test of how the rhetoric of sex work is incompatible with the material realities that express girls. The discourse of "sex work" admits neither victims nor vulnerabilities or structural oppressions. Every woman and girl becomes a being that is able "to decide" access curiously everything that patriarchy itself wants. No precarious situation enough, no child vulnerable enough to be interpreted as a "sex worker". These are not isolated arguments. Consciously or unconsciously, Hylton to a line of thinking that insidiously has entered feminism and joined colloquial language. Many people, both conservative and progressive, think that using the term "sex work" puts a little dignity and respect to the matter. It works like a blanket to sanitize the industry and not have to think about the material realities of grown men (who are curiously notably absent from photojournalism Al Jazeera) are paying you less than a dollar to poor girls (50 cents, 75 cents? alone?), many orphans, to penetrate.
The universalization of the discourse of "sex work" to talk about prostitution is the triumph of the neoliberal patriarchy
The universalization of the discourse of "sex work" to talk about prostitution is the triumph of the neoliberal patriarchy. Conservatives do not tell them much because they have never worried too much about the rights of women and girls, but I would like to remind and progressive that the design (capitalist) labor is no labor rights, but also duties. If girls and adolescents are sex workers, can one of those men claim they did not do him fellatio as they wanted or they do not feel under any other sexual acts for which they paid? And they can then sue or your money back or do so again? Questions that demonstrate the absurd trap into which fall all who assume the speech without thinking it through. Why such insistence that cover it all under the cloak of "sex work"? Why so insistently called "sex workers" to girls living in the greatest of misfortunes? Why is refusing to say harsh words: sexual exploitation, victims, survivors, rape? As we Kajsa Ekis Ekman explains in his reference work 'Being and Being Bought' (Being and be purchased), the discourse of sex work is constructed as an antithesis of oppression of women under a patriarchal system. The sex worker is an active woman who finds personal empowerment within an oppressive system, says the speech. The sex worker understands that nothing can change the behavior of men and society that objectifies sexuality of women, then, rather than resist or protest it, the sex worker is presented as an entrepreneurial wise using "their power over men "to excel them at their own game. Under this conception, "the sex worker is interpreted as the best feminist" says Ekis Ekman. That's why when someone tries to talk about the harm caused by prostitution, the answer is always "sex workers are strong and active individuals" whom the language of oppression and grievances minimized. Then in the discourse of sex work is no space for any victim or victimization.Desmoronemos the argument:
1. The feminist literature critical prostitution as oppressive system almost never speaks of victims. When I meet with the word "victims" in my research on the subject, it is always in the context of academic prostitution for accusing those who are against stigmatizing as "victims" women in prostitution. These accusations of academic defending the right of men to sexual access and unlimitedly the body of women and girls, never quotes verbatim any examples of rhetorical crime committed by those who do not support prostitution, but always comes with accusations and insults against " moralistic feminists who hate freedom, are suppressed, retrograde and anti-sex. " Putting aside the sexist connotations that have each of these accusations, I do another question what if feminism decided to talk about victims? The word "victim" is not a personal characteristic, in a description of a power relationship. If there are victims, it follows that there are perpetrators. If this conception of power relations we can not talk about victims, then where are the perpetrators? If we focus only on strong and empowered to emphasize that we are all women all the time and not talk about the oppressions of which we are victims under patriarchy, then we'll talk in what context the harm us? Being a victim of oppression speaks ill of the oppressor. The victim of oppression x can be a studious young man, a loving aunt, a mediocre cook, half vague worker, an ambivalent friend, among other things. Why do we assume to be victims of a system that loves to victimize, cancel all our other identities? Instead of denying that the harm we patriarchy is real and that patriarchy is the longest genocide in history, trying to hide their oppression under language (and one language) empowering, we should use that energy to tell the perpetrators "no, no. the victim could have been me, but the abuser is you!"
2. The idea that "sex work" is no oppression against women and girls, but The Great empowering because it allows us to exercise "our power" over men, is entirely misogynistic in the background. Once a friend dancing on the bar to pay for his cancer treatment I rationalized that the real power she had because the men were left drooling when they saw her dance and therefore she had total control of them during the time she had her attention and sexual arousal. Yes, but when they are low erection? When it happens, it is men who still have political, economic, cultural and structural power of our entire society. The money paid by dance for us comes from a financial system that they control. Policies that control our body (from our reproductive rights to the tax paid we wear tampons) are dominated by men. And sadly, it is men who have the power to decide historic tonight is not the Ukrainian redhead brunette Salvadoran who would "work" sexually.Policies that control our body (from our reproductive rights to the tax paid we wear tampons) are dominated by men.
Arguing that we find "power" within our subordinate role is the most subtle way of patriarchy (as good abuser finally) to tell us, "Oh, do not complain much. Rejoice that even you pay attention!" "Why so afraid to call someone a victim?" Ekis Ekman question. "Why is it so important to say that people prostituted can never, under any circumstances, not be a victim?" Because, he says, "convert the word victim taboo is a step toward legitimizing class divisions and gender inequalities ".
Only after abolishing the concept of victim, we can create the person invulnerable.Only after abolishing the concept of victim, we can create the person invulnerable. To get there we need 2 steps: 1. We believe the story that the word victim is not a relationship of power but a characteristic or personal identity. So we believe the story that "victim" means passivity, weakness and apathy. We make the word victim (and any person who is associate) a pathetic caricature. Then nobody will want to be called tildar victim or any other oppression as victimizing. The cartoon we have built is so pathetically inactive anything, from looking the other way while violating a prostituidor you to smoke a cigarette after a harassment, represents an act of resistance. This we know they are coping strategies and who do not cancel or previous oppressions or damage involved. But as we have already determined that victim = absolute passivity and active subject = literally any activity, then assume that the victims actually do not exist. 2. As logically no one (except maybe the people who are in a coma) is "as passive" as the caricature we have invented the victim, we decided that the concept of victim must be replaced because it is a fallacy. "How can any of these girls to be victims of anything if they accept the money they pay men? OK money is an act that makes you active subject, right?" These analyzes remind me of the arguments that people who do not understand one iota of how violence operates ago. The argument goes in the same line that other assumes that unless you are putting a gun in the neck and you are threatening to pull the trigger at that moment, then nothing is required and all you do it by will. A line completely ignores the abuse and oppression is much more multifaceted and more insidious than that. A line of thought that has never been aware that psychological violence is invisible, emotional manipulation and also that poverty is both material and structural and carries a latent power of coercion. As there are no victims that meet the new caricature of passivity that we have turned the word, no perpetrators. And as the victim is "revealed" as an active subject taking charge of your life, because there is then be talking about oppression or abuse or make systematic analysis of violence. They are a rhetorical and ideological somersaults complicated but ultimately serve to reveal the person invulnerable. "The invulnerable person is the neoliberal version of the ancient myth of the strong slave, the poor woman extremely hardworking," black superwoman "the colonized woman who does not feel the lashes and blows. History is full of examples of how conditions life are reinterpreted as personal characteristics. " During the colonial slavery in the United States it was common for "superhuman" qualities of the slaves and the slaves exalted.
The supposed strength and above human qualities that are assigned to the person invulnerable are basically an excuse to avoid having to analyze the conditions that make it need such force or endure so much misery. It is a dehumanizing tactics.
The writer Michele Wallace describes in his book 'Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman' (The Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman) how the black woman who had to survive within several oppressive systems, was turned into a cartoon He extolled, but only in order to deny the oppression itself. Black woman imaginary "is a woman of extraordinary strength, with an unusual ability to tolerate the drudgery and misery. This woman does not have the same fears and insecurities with other women, but she believes that is even stronger emotionally than most men. " The supposed strength and above human qualities that are assigned to the person invulnerable are basically an excuse to avoid having to analyze the conditions that make it need such force or endure so much misery. It is a dehumanizing tactics. Assign girls and girls South Sudan the name of "sex workers" sounded very nice the most liberal feminist circles, but the reality is that we have to do shielding many questions. truly uncomfortable questions: What physical, emotional and psychological impact will develop and adolescents to learn that the men of his community see their bodies as objects for those who can pay less than a dollar? Why men sexually girls living in such precarious are exploiting? Will there be a social context that allows it? What geopolitical context is causing so many internal conflicts in South Sudan? Will something to do Western interests in this conflict and may be directly or indirectly our countries will exacerbate the conditions that subjugate girls and adolescents in this photo report?
How could we allow our feminist movement, a movement that focuses the fight of girls and women, is kidnapped by these ideas that prioritize the interests of both the market and the same patriarchy?How much damage it will cause long term that branch of Western feminism so harmful that insists on doing pirouettes with language and theories without altering the material realities is exported and extrapolated to full power in all corners and nooks imaginable oppression? At what point we girls talk headache that produces the hunger when they want to study, and instead of feeling empathy for their struggle, we justify the oppressive system that considers menial "workers" of patriarchy? Feminism is a movement to end violence against girls and women and dismantle patriarchy. How could we allow our feminist movement, a movement that focuses the fight of girls and women, is kidnapped by these ideas that prioritize the interests of both the market and the same patriarchy? Says one of the teenagers "What I find most horrible is to hear how all the girls have been raped. There is nothing difficult that a girl can not do ... I know that if I get up, all girls also can lift. ... (but) the girls are those who have suffered the most. " I think this is very clear teenager her feminist analysis to prioritize in his account the importance of appointing violence by name. Would you allow to teach us?
Feminist TribuneFull Text: http://www.lahaine.org/el-discurso-del-trabajo-sexual
No comments:
Post a Comment