The Sex Industry Blog – For Media Enquiries please call us on 020 7175 0180 or email firstname.lastname@example.org
This is part of a longer work talking about gender equality and how it is being used by some feminists to justify the criminalisation of clients and the stigmatisation of men as misogynistic. I would be interested in thoughts on this subject.
The ideology promoted by some feminists and which has become law in some nations, specifically Sweden, that stigmatising and criminalising specifically male clients of female sex workers will create gender equality is a dangerous lie. The use of stigma and of the law to engineer societal change is not new. We already live in a society where stigma and law collude to create alienation. Whore stigma exists not because whores are bad people but because society has targeted sex workers as a scapegoat. Societal contempt and alienation of the sex worker is a clear warning to women that this is how society deals with female sexual autonomy. Female sex workers threaten directly the ideal of womanhood within traditional patriarchal society. Men also are not free from societal conditioning with regard to their sexual behaviour. Society already prescribes men to assume behavioural traits that are often mistaken as misogynistic conveniently for some feminists who deliberately inflate that mythology to justify their ideological motivation. Feminists who target men specifically and who encourage their stigmatisation and that that stigma be reinforced by law are not interested in gender equality. They use gender equality as a gesture to justify moralism. What truthfully lies behind this so called feminist ideology is a quite blatant revaluation of age old patriarchal notions of proper moral behaviour repackaged to accommodate the linguistics of modern political debate. A deviation of feminism has reinvented patriarchal moralism to accommodate a modern language of sexual tolerance that poses as something it is not.
Morality of course is always questionable. There is public morality and there is private morality. Both are abstract in that they reflect the influences of spiritual and temporal authority as passive and violent modes of behavioural control. Morality as an idea that influences personal behaviour can be benign but when morality is enforced by the state it can also become the most effective instrument of state violence. It is the latter that pretend feminism promotes when the benign idealism of gender equality becomes their excuse to encourage the state to stigmatise and criminalise specific sectors of society that do not conform to their moral critique of right behaviour.
Patriarchal moralism, despite modern notions of equality, still expects traditional taught behavioural norms to govern how society interacts. Homosexuality for example has become acceptable once it has been normalised to conform to patriarchal notions of family.
Yes these so called feminists insist they want rights for women but it is rights for women contained within an ideological notion of right behaviour and that includes right sexual behaviour. That right behaviour would not be unfamiliar to their Victorian predecessors who also set out to save fallen women, and part of that process was the shaming of men