Queer theory and violence against women : Melbourne Indymedia

My starting point is that old but now little understood, feminist slogan, 'Our Bodies, Ourselves'. In relation to violence, I suggest, this has two important meanings:

1/ The objectification of women in which our bodies are treated as objects for others to use, irrespective of our will or personhood, as in rape, child rape, prostitution, are damaging to ourselves. What is done to our bodies affects us. To survive the violent or assaultive use of our bodies we have to learn to dissociate to survive. In relation to prostitution the understanding 'our bodies, ourselves' enables us to recognise the harm of the dissociation that prostituted women have to use in order to survive the violation of the self that is constituted by commercial sexual violence.

2/ The slogan 'Our Bodies, Ourselves' also means that our bodies are not the problem. This was the understanding that underlay the consciousness raising groups that enabled so many women to accept the shape of their bodies and to give up makeup and other disguises. The problems that women and men may have with body shape, or genital configuration, are politically constructed out of a male supremacist society in which women, and some men, are sexually and physically violated by men, in which constructions of gender and the perfect body are used to enforce social control and the creation of male dominance and female subordination. Discontent with our bodies which arises from these political conditions is a political problem, and the mutilation of bodies is an attempt to cut up the bodies to fit them into an abusive political system instead of seeking to change the system to fit the bodies which people actually have.

A basic feminist value is the creation of a sexuality of equality in which we can stay in our bodies and celebrate them as they are.

In conditions of oppression none of these things were easy. In the 1980s there was a backlash against these fundamental understandings of feminism. Feminist work on pornography, on sexual harassment, on makeup, high heeled shoes and other harmful beauty practices were labelled: political correctness; puritanism; anti-sex.

What the forces that fuelled this backlash?

Read full story : "Queer theory and violence against women"

The Sisyphe web site delivers cutting-edge analysis of current aspects of women's condition, including big issues such as wars, biotechnologies, violence, globalization, power relationships, the men's movement, etc. Sisyphe also offers sections dedicated to literature, poetry, education, history and a growing English section. No pop-ups, no advertising, no cookies. A great way to brush up on your French. Bookmark it now! Or hyper-link to it.

English articles on Sisyphe

Prostitution

Ten Raisons for Not Legalizing Prostitution, by Janice G. Raymond
Legitimating Prostitution as Sex Work: UN Labour Organization (ILO) Calls for Recognition of the Sex Industry- Part One and Two, by Janice G. Raymond
The Legalisation of Prostitution: A failed social experiment, by Sheila Jeffreys
Prostitution: Rights of Women or right to women ? by Elaine Audet

Feminism Critics

Elisabeth Badinter distorts feminism the better to fight it, by Elaine Audet
A report from Status of Women Canada about the discursive denial of gender inequalities, by Micheline Carrier
The "Stolen Feminism" Hoax: Anti-Feminist Attack Based on Error-Filled Anecdotes, by Laura Flanders

Health

Friendships between women good for health, by Gale Berkowitz
Canadian Women's Health Network, by CWHN
Good clone, bad clone?, by Abby Lippman
Hormone Replacement Therapy, the "Magic Bullet" Ricochets, by Abby Lippman

Divorce

Children of divorce need our protection, by Michele Landsberg
Divorce Bill's flaws inadvertently aid abusers, by Michele Landsberg

Education

Problem isn't little boys, it's little minds, by Michele Landsberg

Poems for Peace

Poem for Peace, by Elaine Audet
Peace Rally Speech of a 12 year old American Girl, by Charlotte Aldebron

Short cut for all english articles on Sisyphe
Sisyphe home

Great, Sheila Jeffries, the notorious transsexual-hater.

Quite frankly, any feminist position that stems from, or is aligned with, her teachings wouldn't bode well for women if it were adopted.

In terms of her position on prostitution, it's unlikely to be adopted because sex workers are in the best position to know what works best for them. They know that keeping prostitution on the criminal code has denied them any sort of police protection, but bolstered police corruption. It's made more dangerous an already dangerous industry, it's forced women to work in less-populated areas (eg industrial areas), it's caused them to serve jail terms for the crime of being poor and having no other choice of employment. It's kept them exploited by brothel owners. So I'm sure they're terribly grateful for Sheila Jeffries' wisdom.

In terms of her position on transgenderism, it is a de facto endorsement of sexist ideas, which says that men and women should be condemned for identifying as and/or living in a gender other than that which society has prescribed for them. Yes, in an ideal world, people wouldn't self-mutilate in order to feel like a *real* man or woman. But we're not yet in that ideal world, and radical feminists like Jeffries have served only to reinforce society's transphobia, to forge divisions between feminists, and to increase the burdens and miseries which people with a transgender history already face.

The gap between people's real-life experiences, and Jeffries' theory, explains why her theories have flourished in an academic environment, but face round disbelief and outrage in other sectors of society.

>The gap between people's real-life experiences, and
>Jeffries' theory, explains why her theories have
>flourished in an academic environment, but face round
>disbelief and outrage in other sectors of society.

Right on.

It really shits me when I hear the same tired arguments being dragged out. eg, "transsexuals are poor, deluded victims of the patriarchy", "transsexuals rape women", "transsexuals reinforce heteronormativity", et al.

The people making these claims frequently have no experience with the reality of our lives. While some of us have no interest in politics, many of us are politically aware. Ours is an incredibly diverse population, including feminists, queer theorists, queers, socialists, anarchists and conservatives too.

Most of us do not want to reinforce the heterosexist model of gender. Many of us, (including myself), have been involved in feminist and queer activism for many years; articles like this are a slap in the face.

Statements like: "discontent with our bodies which arises from these political conditions is a political problem", beggar belief. Of course our lives are shaped by complex social and political influences, but there is an undoubtable biological component too. Like it or not, biology *is* an important factor and studies that have shown brain differences in transsexuals cannot be ignored. Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus
is one such study.

Ultimately, this reactionary feminism does no one any favours. If we truly want an egalitarian society, where no-one is discriminated against on the basis of their sex or sexuality, everyone is going to have to loosen up on the doctrine and dogma. Your fancy new theory might look great on paper, but if it doesn't fit reality it's not going to help anyone.

The use of ones body for textile work, factory work, sweatshop work, surely this is the feminised work that we should be concerned about and theorising as expolitative and linked to ones gender; we all wear the cheap clothes that come from China, with fabric dyed to the detriment of the environment and sewn by women earning very little.
Sex workers by comparison have control over who, what when and why they provide the services they do. Songarchi (India), Empower (Thailand), Womens Network for Unity (Cambodia), Zi Teng (Hong Kong) and many more grass roots sex worker organisations are fighting for the right to stay in the sex industry and not be forced into factory labour. As the slogan of DMSC (India) says "Don't talk to us about sewing machines, Talk to us about workers rights."
To utilise the analysis that women are exploited in sex work is to ignore the voices of women who are fighting for the right to stay in sex work (where their dollar, services, hours of work and prices are their own) rather than to be forced into factory labour (where a multinational takes the profits and forces them to work long hours in bad conditions).
I deeply believe that Academic Sheila Jeffreys and her publisher Susan Hawthorn see themselves as improving life for the workers. It is a shame they don't listen to what the workers want before espousing their essentially anti-worker views.

Nobody who spends most of their time campaigning against prostitution deserves to be called a feminist or even progressive. It's a right wing, mosralistic, church-based and hatefull position that needs to be smashed. Women dont want more people trying to controll us - what we need is controll of our own lives and bodies to do with, work or fuck as we like.

I agree with all the above comments.
I was tricked by the "Queer" in the title into thinking the ideas would be progressive, instead it's the tired old sepratist rules.
I must confess Sheila et al seem to be as preoccupied by sex as Christian Fundamentalists. How could anyone think that outlawing prostitution would help sex workers? Why do they not see that?
As for the insane hatered of transexuals, it's really sad. They seem to particularly dislike m to f, arguing "it's men trying to infultrate women's space", but they don't have much to say on what motivates f to m.
Anyway, thanks to all those who commented, at least I'm not alone in objecting to these views.