Misogyny as "entertainment"

[Summerspeaker]

MISOGYNY HAS a new musical manifesto. The single "Ode to Women" by the band Your Best Friend's Ex revolves around the refrain "*****, shut your mouth" and is polluting the Internet with a music video full of women in not much clothing, dancing, lip synching and barely containing their excitement at being treated like dirt.

There's little to separate this video from a million other manifestations of pornographied pop culture--except that it so aggressively presents the most unreconstructed hatred for women as entertainment.

It suggests that if a man is bothered by a woman talking, he should have her give him a blow job to shut her up. It makes a special detour to patronize "library chicks" for daring to "think for themselves." It even features a woman on her hands and knees with duct tape over her mouth.
It seems to say: I dare you to call this out for the heinous, hateful garbage that it is. So here goes.

"Ode to Women" epitomizes today's "raunch culture"--the ubiquitous, hyper-sexualized portrayal of women that in fact damages and degrades us but is passed off as irony, wit and even empowerment.

A timely and worthwhile critique. Read the rest here.

[Princess Luna]

Article starts out good, but slides into anti-sex bullshit

IT'S HARD to take seriously arguments that the commodification of women's bodies can be an expression of women's own sexuality. But that argument gets credence not only from sex industry tycoons but also from some "feminist" camps as well.

Decades of backlash against the women's liberation movement of the 1970s--including the allegation that all feminists are joyless puritans--have worn a deep grove of defensiveness into the ground on which third-wave feminists stand, inducing many publications, theorists and activists who try to prove feminism is "sexy." Some just hedge their comments with the disclaimer they're "pro-sex" or "sex positive," as if the default feminism were "anti-sex." But others adopt painfully sexist attitudes to defend raunch feminism.

Anti-sex feminists refuse to look at anything objectivily, instead they see the porn industry as exploitive (which it is to a large degree) and jump to the conclusion porn is exploitive, which is as dumb as saying the clothing industry is exploitive (which it is) so clothing must be exploitive. Not to mention their postion on prostitution is really fucked up. Many women are forced into prostitution because of economic reasons and if it wasn't for prostitution they would be homeless. Anti-sex feminists acknowlage this however instead of going after the economic conditions that force women into prostitution they go after prostitution itself, which is like saying "my god! that rug your standing on is covered in shit, here let me pull it out from under you." I could on about how anti-sex feminists have helped men retain control women's sexuallity by pressuring governments pass restrictions on things like BDSM and don't even get me started on the Transphobia that used to (and in some cases still does) infest the anti-sex movement. In short the pro-sex movement has a much cleaner and non-hypocritical history. As for the music video, it is disgusting i won't deny that but the problem with censorship is were do you draw the line? really the best thing to do is just ignore it, making it into a controversy will bring more attention to it only increase its sales,

[TC]

...Pretty much opposing men using women in any way they want to use women is going to rendered as "anti-sex" on this forum. The fact that some women internalize the pressure to be valued for their sex appeal because thats how women are most valued in a male dominate society (along with the value of being incubators, child minders and housekeepers) doesn't make it any less part of the system of male dominance. It just shows that its a culturally hegemonic system that is effective at controlling the people it subordinates.

Women are valued as stereotypical women: sex objects and mothers. Men on the other hand are valued as people: anything they want to do or be. Its not "sex-positive" to say "but we really want to conform to male expectations and desires" - it is just pro-patriarchy. People don't form their preferences in a vacuum, they form their preferences according to the preferences that society values in them, what they are told they should do from a young age - the thoughts that are socially rewarded to express etc - and these do not come from nowhere but from underyling power dynamics in society.

[Tim Finnegan]

A timely and worthwhile critique. Read the rest here.

To be quite honest, it's nothing I haven't read before, and not as well constructed as much that I have.

Women are valued as stereotypical women: sex objects and mothers. Men on the other hand are valued as people: anything they want to do or be.

I didn't realise we had all become suddenly bourgeois. I suppose I shall pop out and inspect my factory, yes?

Which is to say: yes, women are sexually objectified, but let's not make the liberal mistake of making our analysis of patriarchy without reference to our analysis of capitalism. The vast majority of men are objectified as well, it's simply that their experience of objectification is economic and so non-gender specific.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Article starts out good, but slides into anti-sex bullshit

I don't see where you get that impression. The article is not talking about porn in the abstract, it is going after all the causal sexist bullshit we are sold: that "learning poll-dancing" or "lap-dancing" is "empowering" for women and all the other crap we are told in the "post-sexist" world.

Why would we judge the subjectively produced (i.e. for-profit) porn, or ranch-culture in general, objectively as "images of sexuality" anyway? When people say, "Don't drop bombs on Libya" should we take a step back and consider that "anti-technology" since bombs objectively aren't the problem?

In fact, being against porn and raunch culture isn't "anti-sex" since porn and raunch culture have really little to do with pure sexual gratification or desire. It's all based on teasing and non-gratification - even for men. If people felt gratified from porn, then it would hurt sales! I read something written - in counterpunch I think - that was about the modern porn industry consciously using anger rather than affection as the main emotion to hook viewers. Male viewers are encouraged to live out their daily frustrations vicariously through the lap dancing or porno-movies because they get to order women around in the strip club when they probably can't get the time of day normally.

I don't think many on the radical left support outlawing prostitution or bans on pornography as a real road to ending exploitation and sexism - criminalization which would make life worse for prostitutes (and increase police power) and porn-bans that would be used by the ruling class to demonize "loose women" and "homosexual depravity" anyway. So this argument is kind of a straw-man IMO. Banning porn or moralizing about sex-work is really just the rhelm of some bourgeois feminists - and even then, not many these days.

[¿Que?]

It's easy to criticize, it's much harder to offer solutions. I'll give the author the fact that they mentioned the government should be providing services to assist in domestic life for couples. That's something. But all too often these anti-porn critiques harp on the same points since the 60's and really have nothing to offer by way of making real changes. I particularly don't think, for example, that censorship would be the best policy. Making porn illegal will only drive it underground, for example. However, we do need to deal with specifically reasons why men (and some women) look at porn, and how to make that whole situation less exploitative. I think unionizing sex workers would be a start, but it doesn't solve all the problems. In any case, I do think that in a patriarchal/capitalist society, most of your relations, including sexual, will be to some extent defined by the exploitative nature of the system, and that includes considering things like race, sex, orientation, class etc etc.

[Princess Luna]

I don't see where you get that impression. The article is not talking about porn in the abstract, it is going after all the causal sexist bullshit we are sold: that "learning poll-dancing" or "lap-dancing" is "empowering" for women and all the other crap we are told in the "post-sexist" world.

Pole dancing and lap dancing may not be "empowering" but in cases were women are not forced into it because of economic reasons, enjoy their work and are well paid and protected from sexual harrashment by patrons then it is no different then male strippers and certainly less opressive then working for minium wage at a fast food restaurant.

Why would we judge the subjectively produced (i.e. for-profit) porn, or ranch-culture in general, objectively as "images of sexuality" anyway? When people say, "Don't drop bombs on Libya" should we take a step back and consider that "anti-technology" since bombs objectively aren't the problem?

Exactly, hate the system not the tools it uses. I don't hate porn, i hate the system that forces women into because they need the money but despise the job that gives them shit pay and horrible working conditions. I don't hate the bomb, I hate the people who ordered it dropped.

In fact, being against porn and raunch culture isn't "anti-sex" since porn and raunch culture have really little to do with pure sexual gratification or desire. It's all based on teasing and non-gratification - even for men. If people felt gratified from porn, then it would hurt sales! I read something written - in counterpunch I think - that was about the modern porn industry consciously using anger rather than affection as the main emotion to hook viewers. Male viewers are encouraged to live out their daily frustrations vicariously through the lap dancing or porno-movies because they get to order women around in the strip club when they probably can't get the time of day normally.

Sorry but this is bullshit, porn doesn't leave you "feeling empty" or any of that crap and the whole thing about men wanting to live out their frustrations by going to strip clubs is pseudo-psychology. You want to know why people go to strip clubs and watch porn? its because people (of both genders) find other people sexually attractive and enjoy watching them in a sexual context. Of course some people do get off from dominating another human being,but that is a whole different topic.

I don't think many on the radical left support outlawing prostitution or bans on pornography as a real road to ending exploitation and sexism - criminalization which would make life worse for prostitutes (and increase police power) and porn-bans that would be used by the ruling class to demonize "loose women" and "homosexual depravity" anyway. So this argument is kind of a straw-man IMO. Banning porn or moralizing about sex-work is really just the rhelm of some bourgeois feminists - and even then, not many these days.

Fair enough

[gorillafuck]

...Pretty much opposing men using women in any way they want to use women is going to rendered as "anti-sex" on this forum.

According to you, promiscuous sex is objectification, as is finding women you don't know attractive. Is that what you mean when you say "using women in any way they want"?

Anywho, I dunno what "Ode To Women" is but if you watch any music video, they're usually pretty misogynistic. They basically show loads of women in sexual service to men.

[Summerspeaker]

To be quite honest, it's nothing I haven't read before, and not as well constructed as much that I have.

Sure. There's nothing new under the sun. This applies to the vast majority of radical propaganda. But if we keep on yelling enough folks might eventually hear us.

Which is to say: yes, women are sexually objectified, but let's not make the liberal mistake of making our analysis of patriarchy without reference to our analysis of capitalism. The vast majority of men are objectified as well, it's simply that their experience of objectification is economic and so non-gender specific.

This is an important point. The objectification of workers absolutely connects to the construction of women as sex objects. As historian Marion Goldman wrote about silver miners and prostitution, the dudely miners were treated "treated liked like objects rather individuals" and thus conditioned to "think of themselves and others that way."

[GX.]

Pretty much opposing men using women in any way they want to use women is going to rendered as "anti-sex" on this forum.

Exactly. The idea that anyone is "anti-sex" is just a bullshit cover for male supremacy. And now we get this gem:

Pole dancing and lap dancing may not be "empowering" but in cases were women are not forced into it because of economic reasons, enjoy their work and are well paid and protected from sexual harrashment [sic] by patrons then it is no different then [sic] male strippers and certainly less opressive [sic] then working for minium [sic] wage at a fast food restaurant.

Women should be thankful for sexual exploitation, they could be waiting tables or something horrible like that!

[Princess Luna]

Exactly. The idea that anyone is "anti-sex" is just a bullshit cover for male supremacy. And now we get this gem:

Women should be thankful for sexual exploitation, they could be waiting tables or something horrible like that!

Please show me how a woman in a well paying sex job she enjoys is more oppressed then a women working for $6 a hour scrubbing toilets at a fast food place, indeed i don't think you have a clue how fucking bad waitresses are treated when you can stupid sarcastic jokes about it.

[GX.]

I'm anti having to wait tables just like I'm anti commodified, alienated sex (but obviously that doesn't make me anti-food or anti-sex). And there are extreme power differences within the sex industry just like any other. What you're describing isn't the reality for many sex workers, for many of them it's a brutal, abusive, extremely dangerous environment. It's nothing to trivialize. If you missed it the article was critiquing the culture that perpetuates this violence and the idea that it's in any way pro-sex.

And I must say that the idea that femnisist critics haven't addressed "the economic conditions that force women into prostitution" is totally false.

[GX.]

and don't even get me started on the Transphobia that used to (and in some cases still does) infest the anti-sex movement.

Erm, actually a lot of third wave feminism has a rather harsh view of binary trans people (MTF's and FTM's). I don't think being "sex positive" or "anti sex" really has any bearing on your attitude towards trans people and I resent being used as a pawn in these arguments.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Women should be thankful for sexual exploitation, they could be waiting tables or something horrible like that!

"Well, I've had very few experiences on porn sets that I would classify as 'degrading.' I've had infinitely more degrading experiences as a waitress or a barista in a chain coffeeshop than I've ever had on set. That, of course, has everything to do with working conditions and nothing to do with what I'm actually doing as my job." - Lorelei Lee

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

People may like a singer for his songs, but then want to learn more about him, his interests, his ideas on different issues, etc. Or they may not. They may just enjoy the songs and go no further.

A man, or a woman, can admire the body of a woman in a photo, movie, magazine. They can then try to learn more about the woman, or not. They may just like what they see and that's that.

The objectification stuff is really abstract and arbitrary. Yeah, a woman in an ad or a naked photo is being "reduced" to an object of admiration or desire, or whatever the case may be. A singer is reduced to their songs. A teacher is reduced to their lesson. You pay someone to help you move, and you're reducing them to their muscles and ability to carry stuff.

We don't and can't find out everything about each person every time we come in contact with them in any way. You don't always, or even usually get the complete picture.

The main problem with this and a lot of other stuff here is that sex is being giving some sort of sacred status. The irony is that this sort of thing historically comes out of religion, women being the property of men, women being used as baby factories and domestic slaves, etc.

If we're out to abolish exploitation, then we're out to abolish it wherever it exists. People are exploited in the porn industry, but they're also exploited in coal mines, factories and salons.

As one actress in porn put it, "We all get fucked at work. I just happen to do it on film."

And exploitation and the status of women all come from the material conditions we're dealing with in a fucked up capitalist society. The source has to be eliminated before the symptoms will go away.

The class approach is definitely missing here.

[Jimmie Higgins]

People may like a singer for his songs, but then want to learn more about him, his interests, his ideas on different issues, etc. Or they may not. They may just enjoy the songs and go no further.

What? Not quite the same thing as the pornography industry or all the sexist messages beamed at us daily.

A man, or a woman, can admire the body of a woman in a photo, movie, magazine. They can then try to learn more about the woman, or not. They may just like what they see and that's that.

Yeah, that's not really what the porn industry is like either.

The objectification stuff is really abstract and arbitrary. Yeah, a woman in an ad or a naked photo is being "reduced" to an object of admiration or desire, or whatever the case may be. A singer is reduced to their songs. A teacher is reduced to their lesson. You pay someone to help you move, and you're reducing them to their muscles and ability to carry stuff.

Breaking down sexual acts into commodities is not really that abstract. People walking down the street with a guitar aren't approached by strangers telling them to play a song for $5, but promoting sexual acts as a trade-able item does have the effect of putting a price-tag on people's bodies. Just because some people can sing and sell a song, it's not like everyone with vocal cords is expected to sing for their supper.

The main problem with this and a lot of other stuff here is that sex is being giving some sort of sacred status. The irony is that this sort of thing historically comes out of religion, women being the property of men, women being used as baby factories and domestic slaves, etc.

What does the porn industry do - I'd say that that is just as influential as religion in shaping how people in modern society view sex. Sexual behaviors and acts are broken down artificially into separate marketable acts including things like "money shots". What the hell does any of that shit have to do with real sex? Nothing, it's just as repressed, unloving, and fucked up as orthodox religions.

I don't think it should be the business of the left to try and control or stop porn or "raunch culture" - ultimately these are just symptoms of the bigger issues of class and sexual oppression/repression. But I also don't think the left should excuse these things or say it is "anti-sex" to critique these things that have about as much to do with "natural" human sexuality as Parlements have to do with real popular democracy.

And exploitation and the status of women all come from the material conditions we're dealing with in a fucked up capitalist society. The source has to be eliminated before the symptoms will go away.

Agreed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't think it should be the business of the left to try and control or stop porn or "raunch culture" - ultimately these are just symptoms of the bigger issues of class and sexual oppression/repression. But I also don't think the left should excuse these things or say it is "anti-sex" to critique these things that have about as much to do with "natural" human sexuality as Parlements have to do with real popular democracy.

"'Natural' is a very dangerous word to use about sexuality ... Our society's notions of normality are completely fake and meta-trendy, since they rely on the changing standards of superstition, religion, Christianity and gender bias to define themselves. Americans, in particular, exhibit very childish reactions to sexual practices that are new to them, much like little kids who are offered a vegetable they haven't seen before: 'That's disgusting!' 'But darling, you haven't even tried it!' 'I don't care, I hate it, I hate it!'" - Nothing But the Girl, Susie Bright and Jill Posner

What the fuck is "natural"? Especially in this society when we're alienated from each other and even our own beings.

We can talk about that when we build a human community that's actually suitable for human beings.

People walking down the street with a guitar aren't approached by strangers telling them to play a song for $5,

Heard of record companies? Agents? Points on albums? Etc., etc., etc.?

but promoting sexual acts as a trade-able item does have the effect of putting a price-tag on people's bodies.

As is hiring someone to load boxes, lift wood, pick vegetables, add things up, etc. It's just different parts of the body that are being used. It's all wage slavery.

Just because some people can sing and sell a song, it's not like everyone with vocal cords is expected to sing for their supper.

And everyone with a dick isn't expected to fuck for theirs either.

What the hell are you even talking about?

What does the porn industry do - I'd say that that is just as influential as religion in shaping how people in modern society view sex.

So you think the condition of women and men is a product of porn? It's not a product of capitalism and its organization, methods and origins?

Why the idealism?

And what's your plan anyway?

You have to eliminate the source to eliminate the symptoms. Plain and simple. Otherwise you end up with the bourgeois feminists, joining hand in hand with women-hating religious rightists and appealing to the capitalist state to wipe out the evil scourge.

Sexual behaviors and acts are broken down artificially into separate marketable acts including things like "money shots".

That's called capitalism. Commodities and markets are the name of the game.

What the hell does any of that shit have to do with real sex? Nothing, it's just as repressed, unloving, and fucked up as orthodox religions.

You think people never filmed sex on their own? Really? You know how far back portrayals of human sexual relations go?

You think people never ejaculated anywhere but in a vagina before porn was created? Really?

You think all sex is or has to be based on "love?" Really?

And you're making comparisons to religiosity after that?

This is why I stopped participating in the last discussion over these kinds of questions. If I want to debate with people who base their arguments on moralism I can go find a religious forum.

Let us know why sex deserves a special status; why work with a mouth or a vagina is fundamentally and entirely different from work with hands, backs or brains. Do that or admit that your indignation over sex work in particular is not really different than the more outrage of elderly patrons over premarital sex.

[El Chuncho]

Anti-sex feminists refuse to look at anything objectivily, instead they see the porn industry as exploitive (which it is to a large degree) and jump to the conclusion porn is exploitive, which is as dumb as saying the clothing industry is exploitive (which it is) so clothing must be exploitive.

The thing I dislike, and I argued with Noam Chomsky about one, is the view that pornography as a whole is sexist. It is a not a very well thought out argument, because most pornography involves men and women ''copulating'' naturally. If people attack that act as ''sexism'' because they feel that men dominate women in sex, then they have to attack sex and reproduction, which is natural and vital to the survival of man. You also have different types of pornography.

There is a lot of sexism (to males and females) in the world but I prefer to focus on more dangerous portrayals of sexes in the mainstream media, in adverts in the street, in the crap that bourgeois politicians spout, in the action of football managers and all that. There are more disgusting examples of sexism (along with homophobia) in mainstream culture that really needs to be looked at. Infact, in the UK at the moment many TV bosses and sports bosses have been court saying viley sexist things about women recently. It is like an epidemic.

And I believe in basic freedoms, if people want porn they should get it. But the porn industry is, like most industry, capitalist, so a change does need to come, especially if it wants to fit into a socialist society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"'Natural' is a very dangerous word to use about sexuality ... Our society's notions of normality are completely fake and meta-trendy, since they rely on the changing standards of superstition, religion, Christianity and gender bias to define themselves. Americans, in particular, exhibit very childish reactions to sexual practices that are new to them, much like little kids who are offered a vegetable they haven't seen before: 'That's disgusting!' 'But darling, you haven't even tried it!' 'I don't care, I hate it, I hate it!'" - Nothing But the Girl, Susie Bright and Jill Posner

That's why I put natural in quotes. I'm not arguing FOR some ideal "natural" sexuality, as I clearly said I was arguing that the porn industry and sexuality in advertising is not the result of "natural" human sexuality - it's sexuality for profit.

What the fuck is "natural"? Especially in this society when we're alienated from each other and even our own beings.

Yes so how is critiquing the porn industry anti-sex as has been argued in this thread. That is what I am arguing against.

So you think the condition of women and men is a product of porn? It's not a product of capitalism and its organization, methods and origins?

No, I think leftists should not excuse the porn industry or sexism or act like it has not impact in woman's oppression in capitalism. If capitalism commodifies and fetishises the newest technology, it's no big deal if someone swipes an ipod from a store... but if captialism commodifies and fetishises the bodies of young men and women, then it's a little different when someone "steals" sex from them.

Why the idealism?

Why the strawmen?

And what's your plan anyway?

Working class revolution and sexual liberation.

As I said repeatedly, it's not our business to regulate this stuff, oppression will be ended when people organize themselves and fight against sexism and racism and the capitalist system that uses these tools. But IMO the left needs to have a critique and something to say about this or else all the people who are sick of the rampant sexist messages in culture and sexual repression and so on will turn to liberal feminism or other explanations for these kinds of things.

You have to eliminate the source to eliminate the symptoms. Plain and simple. Otherwise you end up with the bourgeois feminists, joining hand in hand with women-hating religious rightists and appealing to the capitalist state to wipe out the evil scourge.

As I said above, supporting legal restrictions on pornography and so on only plays into the hands of people who would want to use these bans for scapegoating "loose morals" or homosexuality. We agree on the root issue and what ultimately needs to be done, the disagreement is on what kind of stance the left should take in regards to the porn industry or "raunch culture".

You think people never filmed sex on their own? Really? You know how far back portrayals of human sexual relations go?

You think people never ejaculated anywhere but in a vagina before porn was created? Really?

I guess since sex existed before porn, it's just a reflection of human sexuality, eh? And since people sold commodities before capitalism, so I guess the market is natural after-all. People have chopped wood for use for as far back as we know... so I guess criticizing the logging industry and their methods is just silly and anti-worker or lacking in class-analysis, eh?

Erotica and pornographic or sexual images and stories do not have the same function as modern porn industries or sexual images in advertising.

You think all sex is or has to be based on "love?" Really?

Yeah or lust and desire. It shouldn't, however, be about all the tropes that the porn industry leans on like "teachers punishing school girls" and "drunk co-eds" or "sexually confused straight boys" and all that.

This is why I stopped participating in the last discussion over these kinds of questions. If I want to debate with people who base their arguments on moralism I can go find a religious forum.

Let us know why sex deserves a special status; why work with a mouth or a vagina is fundamentally and entirely different from work with hands, backs or brains. Do that or admit that you're indignation over sex work in particular is not really different than the more outrage of elderly patrons over premarital sex.

What argument have I made based on morals? What special status for sex? I can't believe you would equate industries that exploit labor to produce widgets with an industry that does that on top of relying on and promoting sexism and often racism.

We're not talking about movies that throw-in a few scenes of exploitation to titillate the audience or hair-metal songs or rap lyric that use sexuality to shock people, this is an industry that celebrates the idea that sexual acts are often something that men and trick women (or men) into, buy, or blackmail for.

These industries are not sexually "empowering" as is often claimed, it's actually a barrier to sexual liberation IMO.

[Tim Finnegan]

Sure. There's nothing new under the sun. This applies to the vast majority of radical propaganda. But if we keep on yelling enough folks might eventually hear us.

True, but Socialist Worker shouldn't exactly the sort of venue that needs to re-tread the basics like this.

...He said, as it slowly dawned that this very thread exhibits the level of misogyny denialism and apologism on the radical left, and began to wonder if, no, this wasn't an entirely appropriate place for such an article to appear.

This is an important point. The objectification of workers absolutely connects to the construction of women as sex objects. As historian Marion Goldman wrote about silver miners and prostitution, the dudely miners were treated "treated liked like objects rather individuals" and thus conditioned to "think of themselves and others that way."

Very much so. Sexual objectification is, ultimately, an expression of the more general objectification which is generated by and sustains any system of exploitation and oppression. (No coincidence that queer women, trans women, women of colour, and other women in marginalised groups are very often sexually objectified to an even greater extent than their relatively privileged peers!) Misogyny is as much an ideological crutch of capitalism as racism or classism, so we can no more challenge capitalism without challenging patriarchy than we could without challenging white supremacism or bourgeois cultural supremacism.

Please show me how a woman in a well paying sex job she enjoys is more oppressed then a women working for $6 a hour scrubbing toilets at a fast food place, indeed i don't think you have a clue how fucking bad waitresses are treated when you can stupid sarcastic jokes about it.

You're aware that oppression can be social, and not just individual, yes? While a woman in the sex industry may be no more oppressed than in another job, the sex industry plays a role- albeit an often over-stated one- in sustaining patriarchy, and so contributes to the general oppression of women. One could compare it- I hope this isn't crass- to self-caricaturing African-American performers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who were often perfectly well off individually, but were part of an entertainment industry which perpetuated white supremacy.

Which, of course, is not to damn sex workers, merely to observe that the sex industry, as it stands, is hugely complicit in patriarchal oppression, and this cannot be overlooked on individualistic grounds- that is, after all, the same narrow-minded perspective that leads bourgeois feminists to declare all sex work exceptionally individually oppressive.