Before I get into details about next week, though, I want to make you aware of one thing: While the general consensus among us for the past two weeks has been that Jeffrey’s abolitionist position is too restrictive, do not discount the value in her analysis. I encourage you (a) to understand fully and be able to explain/offer evidence for her argument that since all prostitution constitutes violence against women, there is no such thing as consensual prostitution (remember: she doesn’t use the term SEX WORK, and you need to be able to explain that, as well) and (b) to fully embrace her notion of the INDUSTRIAL VAGINA. While it may be the case that some of us may not agree with her theoretical perspective, her argument is right on that NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION has made possible the growth of the global sex industry to the point that the global sex industry – and thus the (often) sexual exploitation of women and girls – is now an integral part of international political economy. In other words, it is “not peripheral, but central to the current capitalist project” (Jeffreys 42).Who benefits from this? Why? How? Under what circumstances? And who doesn’t?
Women around the world: How are they doing?
It is the economic piece in Jeffreys – the international political economy of the global sex industry -- that is the most important in her book and why I wanted us to read it in the first place, because the long and short of it is that the global status of women is not good. It is, in fact, dismal economically politically, and socially. Women around the world—including right here in Canada—are in seriously bad shape. Let me offer you some evidence and some examples:
First, statistically speaking, men around the world possess greater economic power than women. It is predominantly men who are in control of economies, financial resources, own more property and occupy more positions of power. Men hold the overwhelming majority of leadership and decision-making positions in business and banking. This has lead to what feminist scholars call the FEMININIZATION OF POVERTY, which is a fancy way of saying that the majority of poor people in the world are women.
Second, men have greater political power than do women. Although women do now have the right to vote in all countries (Saudi Arabia was the last country to pass women’s suffrage this past fall), significantly fewer women than men hold seats in national and municipal legislative bodies. There are precious few women presidents and prime ministers, and very few women hold appointed advisory positions, such as the U.S. president’s cabinet, for example. And when women do want to get involved in formal politics, they face extraordinary gender-based barriers, and if they do finally manage to hold elected or appointed positions, they are often forced to assume traditional styles of leadership that are heavily masculinized so that they can get anything done, which means conforming to the “old boys’ network” of formal politics that already pays little attention to the concerns and experiences of women.
The lack of women involved in formal politics around the world, either as leaders and decision-makers or as voters, is hugely problematic because male lawmakers are less likely to make laws that serve the interests of women and other marginalized groups. It’s just tends not to be on their radar screen.
Lastly, men around the world enjoy higher social status than women. This is how a PATRIARCHAL, ANDROCENTRIC society operates (remember that we defined these words during the first day of class). If men’s greater economic and political power is about the first two components of PATRIARCHY (i.e., male-dominated social structures combined with men’s perspectives, approaches and ways of doing thing), then the fact that men enjoy a higher social status than women is all about the third component of the definition: More value and importance is placed on the activities and characteristics of men, male bodies, and masculinity than on women, female bodies and femininity. This manifests itself in many, many ways; however, some of the most obvious are:
· JOB PRESTIGE: Globally, women are almost always in less prestigious and lower paid jobs than men
· SON PREFERENCE: Around the world, sons are more valued than daughters, which results in negative consequences for girls and women ranging from long term malnutrition and ill health (because boys get fed the best food first) to the extreme cases of FEMALE INFANTICIDE and SEX-SELECTIVE ABORTION.
· The global ubiquity of men’s violence against women, including (but certainly not limited to) domestic violence, rape, dowry deaths, honour killings, and sexual violence and exploitation.
It is here, with this last example of how men’s higher social status manifests itself in men’s violence against women and the sexual exploitation of women and girls, that we start to venture into the territory covered by this course: the global sex industry. And it is also here that Jeffreys’ ABOLITIONIST position perhaps starts to make a bit more sense. As I said above, you don’t have to agree with her, but you do have to understand her arguments in the context of the global status of women as described above.
And one final way that men’s higher social status rears its ugly head is with use of the bodies of women and girls as commodities in every day exchanges. The long legal history of girls and women quite literally belonging to their nearest male relative is alive and well all over the world, and this notion of women as property to be exchanged, which Jeffreys discusses in chapter 2, has been at the foundation of Western feminist critiques of heterosexual marriage for three centuries.
Our classes next week
For next week, we’re going to focus on three aspects of the global sex industry: Mail-order brides (MOBs), pornography and strip clubs. The position of the latter two in the global sex industry is fairly apparent, but MOBs are a bit trickier, so be sure to pay close attention to Jeffreys’ explanation of how/why feminist theorists have historically been quite critical of heterosexual marriage as a SOCIAL INSTITUTION and have often argued that marriage and prostitution are “but two aspects of the one problem” (Jeffreys 39). What is this problem? Historically, why do people get married? And what role does GENDER INEQUALITY (i.e., women’s low social, political and economic status globally) play in this decision? The answer to these related questions is key to understanding why abolitionists are disapproving of MOBs.
So, as you’re doing your reading for Monday, don’t freak out and summarily dismiss Jeffreys’ discussion of the links between marriage and prostitution. If you must, throw the book across the room, take a breath, have some ice cream, and then try again, because her (and other feminists’) argument is crucial to understanding not only what’s going on with women’s low social, economic and political status, but also to the historical development of the global sex industry as constitutive of CAPITALISM, itself a patriarchal system. As the saying goes, prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, but that didn’t just happen; specific historical forces made it so. Thinks about what those might have been/continue to be.
Also, as you’re reading this week, please be sure to pay close attention, first, to how each of these three sectors of the global sex industry operates as a money-making venture (Who’s making the money? How? Who has the power? Why?) and, second, to the conditions under which sex workers in these three aspects of the global sex industry actually do their work. This is where your reading around in Nagle will come in handy, because the feminist whores who contribute to Part 1 address these issues specifically and offer sometimes contradictory and sometimes complementary information to that which Jeffreys presents.
On Monday, we’ll start where we left of last Wednesday with the questions about each feminist theoretical framework, so be sure to remember your notes from last week! After that, we’ll start to tackle some of the questions I’ve asked you to think about above, along with some of your own questions.
Also, don’t forget to keep track of your CRPs, which are due at the start of class on Mondays. Details about the assignment can be found here. Be sure to include all the required components as described and also remember to bring a copy to submit to me as well as a copy for yourself so that you can refer to it during class.
I’ll see you all in class on Monday. In the meantime, happy reading, and please don’t hesitate to stop by during my office hours or e-mail me at kawilliams(at)mtroyal.ca if you have any questions.
