On International Women’s Day, Mia Freedman reflects on how damaging it is when it is women who silence other women…
Exactly two years ago today, on International Women’s Day, I was sitting on Q&A’s women’s panel.
With me, were Germaine Greer, journalist Janet Albrechtson, opera singer Deborah Cheedham and an English researcher and writer called Brooke Magnanti who is better known as Belle du Jour, the pseudonym under which she wrote a blog and then a book during the two years she spent as a sex worker.
Host Tony Jones was asking Brooke at length about this period in her life and she was expounding at length on her views about sex work.
She was very effusive about how empowering it was.
How she had used the great money she’d made as a sex worker to fund her university studies and how sex work was about so much more than sex – it was about self-discovery and identity and having love and empathy for her clients.
As I listened to Brooke speak so glowingly about her time as a sex worker, I became increasingly uncomfortable with this Pretty Woman meets go-girl feminist empowerment picture she was painting of prostitution. She paid brief lip service to the fact that some sex workers did have ‘chaotic lives’ but this was quickly glossed over.
Directly in front of me, in the audience, were more than a dozen teenage girls in their school uniforms.
They were listening intently to Brooke’s sunny, uncomplicated description of sex work with wide eyes.
Top Comments
Oh Mia. You're discovering something that I suspect is really uncomfortable for you: that those who proclaim to be the most tolerant, who call for diversity of dialogue and change in the status quo (those who inhabit the status quo being ipso facto 'intolerant') actually can't stand for anyone to say anything that doesn't accord with what they, the tolerant, the open-arms intelligentsia, have to say on the matter.
This transcends feminism and gender relations. This pitchfork-waving intolerance, rapid-fire shutting down of debate is facilitated by sound-bite media platforms (thanks for that, Twitter. If reason could happen in 140 characters or less, I wouldn't have bothered with that damn thesis) and it covers everything from parenting to vaccination to politics to multiculturalism. Consider this site and it's own incoherent ranting against:
- anyone who dares to suggest that you can only live so long spending other people's money, be it at a micro or macro level. No really, let's all have a welfare party, there's no need to balance budgets, that stuff is for amateurs!
- anyone who dares to suggest that there might be a few resourcing and policy issues worth discussing around the rapid arrival of a bunch of people who don't speak the local lingo, have varying qualifications/ability to find employment in the local economy, and may have (oh the outrage) exploited a quirk of geography to land on our shores ahead of others in the same tragic situation, displaced and stateless, waiting in unending purgatory of official intake camps around the world.
- anyone who dares to suggest that flexible working arrangements sure sound awesome, but still probably won't be feasible for a lot of jobs, a lot of the time. You mean there are certain realities in certain roles that really can't be overcome with a laptop and an internet connection? P*ss orrff reality, you suck.
- anyone who dares to suggest that a certain religion* might fuel certain anti-social behaviour dangerous to us all.
Mia, you try hard, but like most people, you're really only ever prepared to hear one side of the story: the one you agree with. Your efforts in making, what must be acknowledged as entirely reasonable criticisms of modern feminist dialogue, absolutely worthy of discussion, frankly only serve to highlight just how prone you and your colleagues are to the exact same behaviour on this website, when you don't like what someone else has to say.
And it is true and you are right: we should be capable of having a real, calm, meaningful conversation about all of it. Disagreeing with someone is not the worst thing that can happen to you and we should all be capable of critical analysis and reasoned debate. What the H* is all that education we're privileged to have as females in this great country of ours if we don't bother using it?!?
*For all the numpties who want to take the bait, that could equally apply to Catholicism and sexual abuse as Islam and mass murder. Thanks for playing ;)
You spoke about alcohol and sexual assault, but why is it when both a man and a woman drink, and have sex, the man is somehow guilty but the woman was not? Could the woman have been exploiting the man? There is NOTHING the woman could have done to avoid such a situation? Are they equal, or aren't they? Do women have any agency any more, or have feminists taken it away?