Published at Feminist Law Professors blog on December 15, 2011
A few days ago I wrote a comment at the Reclusive Leftist blog
about misogynistic verbal abuse being unacceptable whether the target
is a blogger or a prostitute and whether they are paid or not. Since
then I’ve been fleshing out what it means to be paid for sexual abuse in
the context of the internet.
Men call prostituted women a
creative litany of slurs that women bloggers are only now learning.
Radical feminists have long known the hate speech of pornography is
itself sexual abuse that perpetuates further abuse against prostituted
women and all women, and for our accurate assessment we have had that
hate hurled at us faster and more aggressively.Many women bloggers have shared complaints through the #mencallmethings Twitter hashtag,
but few solutions have been offered by liberal feminists more worried
about being perceived as pro-censorship than in stopping men’s verbal
harassments.In the name of harm reduction, I propose the Internet Swear Jar.Sex
workers are paid to be called misogynistic names and people consider it
a fair transaction. Most high-profile feminist bloggers – ones who ask
for donations to support their feminism – agree with that status quo
situation. By the usual rationales for accepting prostitution and
pornography, why shouldn’t men be allowed to pay any woman willing to
take money in exchange for having some control over the verbal abuse she
must endure?Bloggers could post a menu of prices, and of course
they would have the final choice on whether or not to accept twenty
dollars to be publicly called a cocksucking cunt, but if your political
ethic encompasses Yes Means Yes and Sex Work Is Work beliefs then men
should be able to ask you ‘yes or no’ sex work questions. People who
reject prostitution as employment wouldn’t participate, but there’s no
reason for pro-sexwork bloggers to reject hearing out sincere “sass for
cash” offers they would expect other women to accept. The sex work
declared so rife with diversity that “not a monolith!” has become its
mantra can’t be considered 100% monolithically terrible when the
question becomes one of pro-sex work women considering freelance job
offers.Men are going to threaten and call women bloggers
horrifically violent names anyway. Like the common belief in
prostitution’s inevitability, it can’t be stopped. However, the extra
harm reduction money can make blogging a little easier for women who
have to deal with verbal sexism.Grievances taken through the
legal system commonly result in financial compensation. A system of
direct payment would be a less time-consuming and economical way of
achieving an already established form of justice.Maybe disabled
men with no other emotional outlet than anonymously spitting invective
at women bloggers need that catharthic emoting to be healthy, and the
conscientious women who consent to provide that service should be
financially compensated.By now I hope you’ve figured out I’m
speaking hypothetically. There is no logical and humane answer to the
question, “When is it all right to call a woman a flea-bitten whore who
deserves to be raped?” that kicks off the start of payment negotiations.But
pro-sex work bloggers are not being philosophically cheeky about women
arranging their own sexualized abuse in exchange for money. They really
support the status quo of prostitution that permits payment for sexist
humiliation. A key difference is that bloggers aren’t physically
assaulted after getting called dehumanizing names, whereas no one in the
world is more raped than prostituted women.With credit to
Stephen Roberts for amending his famous quote about atheism, “I contend
that we are both abolitionists. I just believe in fewer sex workers than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all sex work jobs for
yourself, you will understand why I dismiss all sex work jobs for
women.”
Copyright © by genderberg.com All Right Reserved.