Abolitionism and regulationism: Weakens the feminist movement
After having participated in the V State Encounter 8M, which took place at the end of January in Valencia, and followed the controversies arising in the 8M Organizational Assemblies in Barcelona and Madrid, I encourage me to intervene in the open debate – like a painful gap andbleeding— that faces abolitionism and regulationism to argue that this confrontation is not only a false dilemma, quite reductionist, but also weakens the feminist movement for 8m.I consider that it is a reductionist dilemma because it presents two only options, incompatible and exclusive, which force themselves to position themselves. Broadly speaking, these options would be "you are with the abolitionists" or "you are with the prostituent, pimp, antimuxist, violent and neoliberal system" would be. Maybe it may seem that I exaggerate, but remember how the debates gave themselves – or better, the Broncas – in Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia. If they were not there, look for @mabolition publications on Twitter or read items like this.When the dilemma considers like that, there is no way out, but breakup. Or the one: "true" feminism. Or the other: exploitation, pugerío and violence everywhere. It gives the impression that if in the feminist spaces there is a voice to a prostitute, this is going to be the end of 8M, which will be colonized by pimps and men with “painted lips, some dyed hair, a couple of them (or Elles) are very large ”, literal expression, copied from the article linked above. I write with the conviction that in feminism you cannot give closed, opposite and exclusive categories. When everything becomes so rigid, it is when the ruptures that weaken are given.
Three false reductionism and three responses from 99% feminism
The reductionism carried out by abolitionists in this confrontation can be explained through three different and related dimensions. First, all possible variants of feminism are reduced to two only options: abolitionism or regulationism, and "true feminism" is identified with abolitionism, without any other option there. The second type of reductionism refers to who is the authorized subject of feminism that, in principle, would only be CIS women (and curiously, in Valencia, the most belligerent abolitionists were Spanish women, not racialized, close to leftist parties and unions). All other women, prostitutes and especially trans, are not accepted as subjects of feminism. The third reductionism is the one that understands that prostitution is the worst of all possible forms of violence against women, so it must be confronted and attacked, to end patriarchy. This can be read here, where prostitution is defined as "the most violent patriarchal institution that exists against women" or here, where it is described as "one of the most terrifying ways of violence and machismo for women".
Any dialogue becomes impossible because there is no minimum space to argue, only confrontation or opposition. "You are with us or you are evil"
With this triple reduction, any dialogue becomes impossible because there is no minimum space to argue, only confrontation or opposition. "You are with us or you are with evil," and then, we have already lost strength and allies against patriarchy, which weakens us. Another consequence of these three reductions is the invisibility of the plurality and diversity of feminism, which is now self-denominated "99%feminism" and faced by each of the exposed reductionisms.First, 99% feminism is broad, diverse, discrepant and conflicting. Pushes us out of our comfort zones, the assemblies and classrooms where we were all equal and to rethink ideas that we believed certain. Pushes us to recognize that we can be wrong. 99% feminism is formed by a plurality of different voices and struggles, from vegan and animalists to those that we oppose free trade treaties;those that jump borders and those that make menstrual coaching. We are no longer worth a single definition, closed and exclusive, of feminism. Now we live in plurality, conflict and discrepancy. The time has come to accept that we are different, that in the feminist debates we are going to meet positions with which we do not agree and that we have to learn to live with the differences, fighting together against the patriarchy.Second, the 99% feminism subject is plural and changing. We understand that there are multiple ways of being a woman, all mistreated by patriarchy. It is time to think beyond the binary and exclusive categories, who like patriarchy and modern thinking so much. It is time to think about the concrete problems of migrant, racialized women, to accept transminism and receive trans as sisters in the fight in the fight.Thirdly, 99% feminism understands that patriarchy has a thousand faces that manifest in multiple different violence, from the most subtle (no less denigrant) such as micromachisms, jokes, compliments, insults … evenmore aggressive (abuse, rapes …) and mortals (femicides), through a wide range of violent and forced acts such as the ablation of the clitoris, children’s marriages, sexual abuse in childhood, trafficking … trafficking ..
99% feminism understands that patriarchy has a thousand faces that manifest in multiple different violence
There is economic violence, maquilas and clandestine workshops, workplace harassment, abortion prohibition, police officers who ask for documents for people for their skin color, obstetric violence, non -recognized work and care hours, straws and strawExhibitionists, CIES, sticky floors and crystal ceilings, abusers, group rapists and patriarchal justice that does not do justice … affirm that prostitution is the worst possible form of violence to women, as abolitionists maintain, it impliesLeave aside the struggles in which we all agree and this also weakens us because we would no longer be with 99%, but only with a sector of feminism, the abolitionist. In addition, by understanding prostitutes as enemies, not as allies, the alliances of all women against these other forms of patriarchal violence would also be cut and blocked in advance. Would a prostitute not be against CIES, group violations, abuse and abuse, that they kill her for being a woman or trans? In short, limit the definitions of feminism for 8m, impose who would be its valid subject and focus the debate on prostitution weakens, faces us and cuts us wings, when we should be building together – and jutes and junctxs – to endWith the patriarchy.
Expanding the debate: some questions about freedom, treats, reification and violence
Finally, I will mention some of the questions and nuances that I would have loved to be able to formulate in the debates of the Valencia meeting, which was not possible due to the confrontation that occurred between abolitionists and regulators.First, one of the reasons for the abolitionist sector to reject prostitution is to consider that "women’s denial implies as a political subject of feminism" (literal phrase of this article). For abolitionism, prostitution is denigrating because it denies women, reduces and reasses it;converts your body into merchandise that can be bought and sold to the highest bidder. However, when some abolitionists prevented prostitutes from expressing themselves in Valencia, when they shouted and insulted every time they tried to speak, when they increased the organizers of the meeting for allowing the participation of prostitutes, were they not doing, the abolitionists, the samethat criticized?, Were they not denying prostitutes to be a political subject of feminism? Moreover, what kind of debate can be given when one sector denies the other?, How will all positions and opinions be represented thus? In the name of this 99% feminism I would like to listen to the regulations, to those of the others, to the whores, no matter how much they can disagree with them. Secondly, in almost all their manifestos, abolitionists identify prostitution and treat, opposing both in a global and radical way, as can be read here where it deals and prostitution is defined as the two sides of the same currency;Or here, where trafficking is understood as the origin of prostitution, pornography and rent bellies. Now, if something differentiates the prostitution is the (apparent) choice of prostitutes, whose work (in principle) seems to have anything to do with the networks of women’s treatments. I would love to know the posture of prostitutes about trafficking, but for this we should let them speak and listen to them.At this, it can also be considered that prostitution differs from all patriarchal forms of violence cited in the previous section – it is included – due to the forced, involuntary and unwanted nature of any form of sexist and patriarchal violence, which (toless and at first) does not seem to be present in prostitution. No one chooses to be raped or murdered;On the other hand, many prostitutes argue that they do freely choose their work, for which they earn much more than with other precarious jobs and where they can put limits on their own exploitation.
To be able to distinguish between free and not free actions, we should be able to listen to the protagonists of this debate, prostitutes
And again, to be able to distinguish between free and not free actions, in order to discuss that differentiation and to even be able, to question and refute it, it would be necessary to listen to the protagonists of this debate, the prostitutes, understand their reasons and their reasons. In that case, I would love to be able to ask them if they consider their completely free decision, as autonomous and entrepreneurof other options … that led them to make the decision to prostitute themselves. Did they have choice?, Would they have chosen another dedication of having been able to choose?, Would a horizon be raised without exploiting works, be it prostitution, black waitress hours or clandestine textile workshops? None of these questions could be raised in Valencia, none of these debates could be opened, since the slightest mention of prostitution, sex work, regulation … Even if only to indicate that there is no consensus on that subject, it was immediately followed by voices, shouts, proclamations and slogans of combative young people and suffocated abolitionist ladies who cried against the supposed presence of pimps in 8m. On the contrary, the question that floated in the air – and that could not be formulated either – was whether that stubbornness, that dogmatism, that reductionism and those violent attitudes – especially verbal to prostitutes – were not going to be precisely those thatThey will burst the assembly, block the debate and weaken the 8M movement, by dividing and facing it. And we cannot afford this, in the current context of the rise of the ultra -right that intends to impose its own woman’s model and snatch all the rights achieved after years of feminist struggles.
Leave feedback