K. Morris's Blog, page 781

Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, Surrogacy and the Split Self | By Kajsa Ekis Ekman

Publication of the below should not be taken as an endorsement by me of the views expressed by either Ekman or the reviewer. The book expounds a particular perspective and I would advise that you read it and draw your own conclusions. I am blind and the book is only available in print in the United Kingdom. I have contacted the publisher requesting that it be made available in an accessible format (for example as a Kindle title with text to speech enabled) so that I can read Ekman’s work.

 

—

 

 

Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, Surrogacy and the Split Self | By Kajsa Ekis Ekman | Spinifex Press (January 1, 2014) | Paperback: 223 pages | $21.31

ISBN: 1742198767

 

The mantra “my body, my choice” has a long association with radical feminism. The term has become synonymous with what we perceive to be the feminist view

of all things related to human sexuality, and gender relations. Within the feminist movement, even to dialogue with the idea that there may be legitimate

restrictions to choice and the unrestrained use of our bodies is the great feminist heresy.

 

So, to read a book that begins to challenge the view that one has complete license over the body is refreshing, to say the least. Kajsa Ekman, a radical

feminist herself, tackles the hotly debated topics of prostitution and surrogacy, arguing that neither “choice” has helped the feminist cause; she is not

convinced that either choice is truly free, good, or empowering.

 

While intellectuals and advocates alike argue that women should be able to use their bodies in anyway they see fit, Ekman objects. The idea that prostitution

and surrogacy could be likened to any other contractual relationship is misguided, she argues. Underneath the romanticized narrative of the empowered prostitute

and the benevolent surrogate lies the simple truth that these acts exploit and commercialize not only women’s bodies, but their very being.

 

How prostitution became “work”

 

In 1999 Sweden made it illegal to buy sexual services, but not to sell them. Pimping and operating a brothel also became illegal. Sweden practically stood

alone in its strategy to curb prostitution based on it’s own investigation into the inner workings of the industry and the lived conditions of prostituted

people. The Swedish inquiry into prostitution discovered, first hand, that women in the industry were not liberated at all, but on the whole were subject

to violence, engaged in high rates of drug use, and had a death rate 40 times the average of the general population. What is more, researchers established

a very clear link between legalized prostitution and the trafficking of human persons.

 

One would think that these findings were confronting enough not to be pushed aside. Strangely, instead of drawing on and learning from the Swedish experiment,

countries began to fall like dominoes when it came to the legalization of prostitution. While the raw realities of the prostitution industry were well

documented, politicians ignored the facts and were swayed by the fashionable mantra that all choices are equal. From there they made the leap to treating

this form of modern day slavery as professional work.

 

Ekman’s explanation of how this happened is intriguing.

 

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, trade unions became the magic bullet for the problems besetting prostitution. Advocates claimed that these

could be remedied by regulation of the “industry”. Talk of worker rights appealed to the Left as it suggested that prostitutes would organize for fair

conditions. In practice, Ekman argues, this was a ploy to legitimize prostitution. The term “trade union” was introduced to coax people into thinking of

it in terms of work, and to hide the lived realities of prostitutes themselves.

 

Ekman doesn’t mince words: “It shifts the discussion from being about what prostitution is – inequality between men and women, the fulfillment of men’s

sexual demands, and the vulnerability of women who were sexually abused as children (to name just one reason why women are in prostitution) – to a conversation

about work, salaries, unemployment benefits, work conditions, union organizing.” (p. 70). We are thus led to believe that, while prostitution is not for

the faint-hearted, it is in no way dehumanizing or dangerous.

 

Her argument is reinforced by the fact that sex workers of the world didn’t actually unite, and neither did their organizations focus on work conditions.

Ekman spent two years travelling to meet with representatives from various European organizations. She discovered that what both trade unions for sex workers

and prostitute support groups had in common was that membership did not actually comprise prostitutes, yet they all presented themselves as representatives

of prostituted people. Ekman gives example after example of how these unions did not engage in industrial disputes, or seek to address the atrocious work

conditions that prostitutes are subject to on a daily basis. The violence, the rape, the economic exploitation by their pimps were never on the agenda;

instead, the unions, by and large, were made up of researchers, politicians, lobbyists and social workers.

 

The voice of the prostitute herself is relegated to the sidelines and the real purpose of trade unions for sex work becomes startlingly clear; they have

only one real function: to legitimize prostitution as work and ultimately create the image of a strong woman who can separate what she does from who she

 

“Happy hookers”?

 

Ekman tackles the glaring problems associated with the narrative of the “happy hooker” used by prostitution advocates to promote legalization and social

legitimacy. Post-modern intellectuals have created a romanticized view of prostitution under the claim that all sex is equal and empowering. The prostitute

is a businesswoman and an entrepreneur, never a victim of violence and rape, let alone death! Post-modernity has made the topic of sex taboo in the sense

that, since all sexual acts are empowering, all challengers are merely prudish and anti-sex.

 

block quote

“Nothing is said about what prostitution is, why it exists, or how it works. Instead, we have heard a contemporary saga of progress, a romantic tale of

how an old, decaying tradition long tried to keep people down and tell them how they should live – until some brave individuals rebelled in order to gain

the right to live the way that they wanted, standing up for freedom and sexuality.” (p.80)

block quote end

 

A common theme in Ekman’s research is that academics, advocates and politicians alike claim to speak for the prostitute but rarely take the time to acquaint

themselves with the stories of a wide range of prostituted women. They claim to present the authentic voice of these women but do not. With all the talk

of sexual empowerment and high-class escorts who get paid to have sex, the lived reality of prostitution – based on facts and statistics – is replaced

with a glamorized version of the prostitute’s story.

 

Take, for example, the research of Petra Osttergren. Her work is held up as an exemplar for documenting the experiences of prostituted women. While Osttergren

does focus on the experiences of women in the trade, her sources are telling: she interviews twelve women, all because of the positive experiences that

they have had. In turn, she relegates any women with negative experiences to the sidelines, silencing her and the statistics confirming that her “work

conditions” are not to be revered, let alone envied.

 

When all notions of victimhood are forgotten, however, so too are the perpetrators. Those who buy sex are excluded from this story, along with the violence

that they inflict. Everything becomes defensible within a relativistic narrative; even child prostitution and sexual trafficking become justifiable.

 

For example, social anthropologist Heather Montgomery comes to some disturbing conclusions based on her observation of children in prostitution in Thailand.

She documents their plight in one Thai village where at least 40 of the 65 children under the age of 15 have worked in prostitution. And yet she concludes:

“The children that I knew did have ‘a sense of control’ and to deny them this is to deny the skillful way that they used the very small amount of control

they do have. The search for victims of child abuse sometimes obscures the acknowledgement of children’s agency.”

 

While she recounts the effect on these children in the form of bruises, STDs and drug use, she refuses to pass judgment: ‘I do not believe that Western

models of psychology can be applied directly to children in other countries and still be useful.” Thus, even children are no longer victims, and the men

who prey on them are automatically exempt from their transgressions.

 

Surrogacy: prostitution’s twin sister?

 

Like prostitution, the hiring of wombs has become a booming trade in recent years. Although it is currently legal only in the USA, Ukraine and India, many

countries (such as Ekman’s native Sweden) are considering whether surrogacy should be legalized. This is partly the motivation for Ekman’s book – she wants

to draw out many of the ethically dubious theoretical and practical assumptions that cannot be separated from the act of surrogacy itself.

 

One might struggle, initially, to see the link between prostitution and surrogacy but Ekman does a good job of highlighting key similarities between the

two industries. Essentially, what binds the two together is that in both instances the human person is reduced to a body that can be bought and sold like

any other item on the free market. Ekman states:

 

block quote

“[T]oday’s prostitution is not limited to sexuality. It has expanded into other parts of the woman’s body. For thirty years now, we have seen a trade in

pregnancy. A reproductive type of prostitution has arisen in which women are inseminated and made pregnant in exchange for money. They are paid to bear

children of others and they give away these children shortly after the birth.” (p.121).

block quote end

 

The story of surrogacy, she argues, resembles that of the sex worker; pregnancy, too, can be work. As with prostitution, there is little critical reflection

on exactly how surrogacy happens, and the consequences of it. Surrogacy, too, is glamorized, in this case within a narrative of benevolence and service;

surrogacy becomes progressive and selfless instead of dehumanizing and degrading.

 

What lies beneath the façade of creating happy families, Ekman argues, is an extremely lucrative industry that trades in the human person – not just women

but babies as well. In India thousands of children have been born in this way – in 2006 analysts estimated the value of the Indian surrogacy industry to

be around 449 Million USD.

 

India is a perfect location for (typically) westerners seeking surrogates. Third-world surrogates come at a cheap price for first-world earners; Indian

women receive between $2500 and $6500, which could be up to 10 years’ salary for a peasant woman in India. These women are made to stay at clinics throughout

the duration of their pregnancy where their every move and mouthful is supervised, and where they are administered painful injections and medicines without

much say in the matter.

 

Another conveniently neglected point is that many of these women are coerced by their husbands or families to become surrogates. This adds yet another layer

to the abysmally unjust transaction that is occurring; “free choice” and “consent” can now be bought at a very cheap price. Ultimately, the human person

becomes a commodity, and in this case, those who are more economically advantaged are given free reign to exploit those who go without; one person’s desires

trump another’s right to be valued by virtue of their dignity as a human person.

 

Anyone can now have a baby, whether they are childless, infertile, heterosexual or homosexual, old or young. In fact, if one so pleases, she can outsource

her bodily hardship for less than the minimum wage, and have her own biological baby without having to go through pregnancy or labour! If pregnancy can

be conceived of as just a service, it begs the question, what is the product in this commercial exchange? The product can only be the child, says Ekman.

“The woman bears and births, and hands the product over. At the same moment that she gives up the child, she receives payment. Why is this not considered

human trafficking?” (p. 147-148)

 

Rights, needs and human dignity

 

One of the most perceptive points of this book is that both surrogacy and prostitution — and I dare to say this is true of other moral issues of our time

– are legitimized through the claim that they are human rights. It is a man’s right to have access to sex whenever he wants it or claims to need it. It

is a right of infertile and gay couples – or even those too busy working to get pregnant — to have children. In truth, human rights derive from basic

human needs – in the first place, survival – and not simply from desires, even noble ones such as wanting a child, especially when they infringe the rights

of others.

 

Ekman claims, correctly, that we never have the right to buy another’s very self to satisfy a personal desire. In her straight-talking analysis she spells

out exactly what is happening in these two situations: the human person becomes a commodity and is reduced to a mere body, an empty vessel used and disposed

of once their own desires have been fulfilled.

 

As a feminist myself (of a different variety to Ekman, might I add), I found this book an extremely powerful critique of these two industries; the author

is rigorous in the empirical data she collects, and she knits it nicely into an easily digestible piece. I did, however, find some of her theoretical considerations

not as palatable. Ekman’s work is essentially written through the lens of a Marxist feminism, which tends to make her forget the agency of the human person:

their ability to be virtuous and transcend imperfection and injustice, their ability to change and their ability to grow.

 

This applies also to the faceless perpetrator, whom Ekman never addresses. What is it that contributes to his (or her) downfall? Do they have the capacity

to change, and if so how does this change come about?

 

I am aware that these questions might take another thoroughly researched book to answer, but they are important questions to ask in the context of building

a thorough defense of the rights of women, and ultimately a defense of the rights of the human person.

 

Pauline Cooper-Ioelu is an academic in the area of educational innovation at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. She has an interest in radical histories

including trade unionism and feminism.

 

(For the original article which is freely available under a Creative Commons License please go to http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/being_and_being_bought).

 

The Lie By Sir Walter Ralegh

The Lie by Sir Walter Ralegh is one of my favourite poems. I first came across it on BBC Radio 4’s Poetry Please many years ago and return to it often

 

—

 

Go, soul, the body’s guest,

Upon a thankless errand;

Fear not to touch the best;

The truth shall be thy warrant.

Go, since I needs must die,

And give the world the lie.

Say to the court, it glows

And shines like rotten wood;

Say to the church, it shows

What’s good, and doth no good.

If church and court reply,

Then give them both the lie.

Tell potentates, they live

Acting by others’ action;

Not loved unless they give,

Not strong but by a faction.

If potentates reply,

Give potentates the lie.

Tell men of high condition,

That manage the estate,

Their purpose is ambition,

Their practice only hate.

And if they once reply,

Then give them all the lie.

Tell them that brave it most,

They beg for more by spending,

Who, in their greatest cost,

Seek nothing but commending.

And if they make reply,

Then give them all the lie.

Tell zeal it wants devotion;

Tell love it is but lust;

Tell time it is but motion;

Tell flesh it is but dust.

And wish them not reply,

For thou must give the lie.

Tell age it daily wasteth;

Tell honor how it alters;

Tell beauty how she blasteth;

Tell favor how it falters.

And as they shall reply,

Give every one the lie.

Tell wit how much it wrangles

In tickle points of niceness;

Tell wisdom she entangles

Herself in overwiseness.

And when they do reply,

Straight give them both the lie.

Tell physic of her boldness;

Tell skill it is pretension;

Tell charity of coldness;

Tell law it is contention.

And as they do reply,

So give them still the lie.

Tell fortune of her blindness;

Tell nature of decay;

Tell friendship of unkindness;

Tell justice of delay.

And if they will reply,

Then give them all the lie.

Tell arts they have no soundness,

But vary by esteeming;

Tell schools they want profoundness,

And stand too much on seeming.

If arts and schools reply,

Give arts and schools the lie.

Tell faith it’s fled the city;

Tell how the country erreth;

Tell manhood shakes off pity;

Tell virtue least preferreth.

And if they do reply,

Spare not to give the lie.

So when thou hast, as I

Commanded thee, done blabbing—

Although to give the lie

Deserves no less than stabbing—

Stab at thee he that will,

No stab the soul can kill.

With Apologies To George Orwell

“If we kill the squire who will take his place?” asked Martha the housemaid.

“No one. We will run the house and the estate collectively, everything will be held in common. “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs”, said Stan the gardener.

“Oh Stan you are clever” Martha said her pretty yet vacant blue eyes shining with the light of infatuation for the handsome gardener. “But who will pay us Stan? How will I get the money to buy nice clothes?”

“Lumpen proletariat” muttered Stan.

“Pardon Stan?”

“Nothing Martha, I was just clearing my throat. When the revolution comes the village will follow our example, then the nearby towns. Today our little estate, tomorrow the world”.

Ian the under gardener guffawed. “I think someone else said something similar Stan”.

“Capitalist running dog, just wait until the revolution comes and you will be laughing on the other side of your bovine face” Stan thought, inwardly seething with anger.

“But the squire’s not a bad old stick. He always gives us a Christmas hamper and he was so kind when I had my miscarriage”, remarked Lisa the housekeeper.

“Its nothing personal. I have no beef with the squire, as the squire but you have to understand it’s what he, as a representative of the ruling class stands for. He stands for the oppression of the working man (sorry working people). The kindly ones are the worst because they stave off the revolution through a little charity here and a minor act of compassion there. What does it cost the squire to provide a Christmas hamper? Next to nothing. He’s rolling in money not just from the estate but all those shares in African diamond and gold mining. The sweat of the workers keeps this beautiful house afloat”.

“And us in jobs” muttered the under gardener”.

“Capitalist lackey, just you wait” Stan thought.

“When the revolution happens will I still be able to go shopping in Oxford Street and spend my wages on the latest fashions?” Martha asked fingering the necklace which she had saved so hard to buy.

“Look, Martha there are millions starving in Africa, children are being exploited in the sweat shops of Bangladesh and all you care about is whether you will still be able to buy tat which is sold at far above the cost of production. The surplus value of the labourer is expropriated by the Capitalist class who get fat while we, the workers starve” Stan said helping himself to another chocolate digestive.

“You will always have those who rule and those who obey and I’d rather be ruled by squire Thomas than others I could mention” remarked the under gardener stirring pointedly in Stan’s direction.

With one bound Stan was on Ian. A blade flashed followed by a horrible gurgling sound. Ian thrashed for a moment then lay still. The girls stirred in horror.

“What have you done, oh god what have you done?” Lisa moaned.

Martha tried to speak but her tongue stuck to the roof of her mouth and she could only croak incoherently.

“Stay here. I’m going to finish it now” Stan said. He strode out of the room locking the door behind him.

 

—

 

The squire looked up as the study door opened. He looked over the top of his spectacles (they where next to useless) his short sighted eyes attempting to focus on his visitor.

“Oh Stanley it’s you. What can I do for you? Please take a seat, can I offer you a chocolate. I don’t really like them but they where a present from little Jenny, my granddaughter”.

Stan looked into the benign face of his employer and for a second felt a twinge of conscience. He collected himself

“It’s nothing personal sir (all his Marxist studies haden’t eradicated the deference he showed when speaking to his employer). you are, in many ways the best of a bad bunch but, for the good of humanity I am afraid you must be sacrificed. I’m sorry”. Stan brought the knife which he had been concealing behind his back round in a sweeping ark plunging it into the squire’s throat.

 

—

 

“I said two sugars Martha, can’t you get anything right?” Stan said glaring at her from behind his former employer’s Queen Ann desk.

“I’m sorry Stan” Martha said biting her lip to prevent her tears from falling. “Squire never used to shout at me like that. He was always kind but, I know you must be under a lot of pressure running the estate”.

“We all run the estate” Stan said helping himself to one of the squire’s fine cigars. “Is dinner nearly ready?”

“Yes Lisa is cooking your favourite, roast venison”.

“Good I’ll have it in here”.

“Aren’t you going to join us?”

“No, you and Lisa eat yours in the kitchen. I need peace and quiet to concentrate and I can’t do that with” (he was going to say servants but, checking himself) said “my fellow workers chatting about trivia”.

“Yes squire. Sorry I mean comrade” Martha said closing the door behind her.

Telescreen

The man behind the screen watches his cold blue eyes intent, malevolent. He sees all, watches the mould slowly eating the walls, but who watches the watcher? Do men with emotionless faces mark his every move as the huntsman does the game,until, at last the rifle is raised and …

Computer Fools Humans Into Believing That It Is One Of Us

Apologies for the previous post which contained a wholly erroneous link. I am, obviously a human for computers do, as we all know never make mistakes! There follows below the post I meant to publish!

The Turing test, developed by Alan Turing has been passed by a computer at London’s Royal Society. Turing postulated that if a machine could convince at least 30 percent of users communicating with it via text chat that it was human then the test would have been passed. This is a milestone in the field of artificial intelligence and as with all such developments possesses the potential to produce great good and (if misused) significant ill for humanity. For the article please go to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10884839/Computer-passes-Turing-Test-for-the-first-time-after-convincing-users-it-is-human.html

Richard Dawkins Believes Fairytales May Be Harmful

Richard Dawkins is a very clever man but his militant atheism is just as bigoted as the religiosity of fundamentalist believers, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/professor-richard-dawkins-claims-fairy-tales-are-harmful-to-children-9489287.html

There’s Non So Blind As Those Who Can Not See

There I was, minding my own business, strolling through the churchyard which lies opposite my flats when a wee small voice intruded into my consciousness,

“Can you see mate?”

I paused my guide dog Trigger waiting patiently at my side,

“Pardon?”

“Can you see?”

With a winning smile I responded,

“Are you stupid?” before continuing on my journey, Trigger leading the way.

The Responsibility Of Writers

How much responsibility do the creators of literature, we authors have regarding how people choose to interpret and use our writings? A recent report in the UK’s Daily Telegraph reports on a trial in America of 2 12-year-old girls who are charged with the attempted murder of their friend (also aged 12) to please the slender man, a fictional character who is frequently portrayed as abducting children (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10873464/Two-12-year-old-girls-charged-with-trying-to-murder-friend-to-please-Internet-demon.html). It is reported that the girls hoped that by killing their friend they could join the cult of Slender man and reside with him in his mantion.

The Slender Man first appeared on the Something Awful forums in 2008 being the creation of one Eric Nudson and as with so much on the web has gone viral since it’s first appearance, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slender_Man). Although 2008 appears to constitute the first modern appearance of Slender Man European and other mythologies are full of stories regarding such a character. Creepypasta Wiki is largely devoted to Slender Man as a modern creation (see http://creepypasta.wikia.com/wiki/The_Slender_Man), however the entry acknowledges that the idea of Slender Man dates back for centuries, (for the mythology and culture surrounding Slender Man see http://theslenderman.wikia.com/wiki/Slender_Man_in_Mythology_and_Culture).

The horrific stabbing of a young girl has caused certain individuals to ask whether the presence of online stories regarding the exploits of Slender Man made (or contributed to) the decision of the 2 12-year-olds to attack their friend. It does appear from the reports of the trial that the girls where obsessed with the character of Slender Man and that they had convinced themselves that he was an actual (not fictional) being. I recall as a child being very interested in the description of the use of the guillotine In Dicken’s A Tale of 2 Cities. I recollect playing games with other children in which we pretended to chop off one another’s heads using that fearsome instrument of retribution. However neither I nor any of my playmates ever thought of using a real guillotine. It was, quite simply a game. Had we had access to a real axe I doubt that any of us would have thought to employ it to remove a fellow pupil’s head. For such a horrific incident to have occurred the person doing the axe wielding would have needed to be mentally unstable or to have “temporarily lost it”. Thankfully none of us had access to an axe or similar implement.

The world is full of stories (some of them fairy tales) regarding creatures (human and supernatural) who commit horrific acts of cruelty. Take, for example the story of Bluebeard or that of Hansel and Grettle. Few people call for the banning of such tales on the grounds that a disturbed child could misconstrue them as being real. The overwhelming majority of children pass through childhood without ever seriously considering cooking their peers (as in Hansel and Grettle). In short if we ban or censure Creepypasta Wiki we need to banish much loved fairy tales to the top shelves of book shops well out of the reach of little hands.

What happened in America is a tragedy for everyone concerned but censuring content is not the answer (apart, of course from parents exercising judgement as to what their children can view on and off line and internet forums requiring age verification prior to allowing access to mature content).

I Heard The Birds Sing

I heard the bird sing, they spoke to me of spring, of joy profound, beauty all around, flowers strew the ground, love of life abounds.

Something Found By A Dog In A Graveyard

My dog found something in a graveyard, was it a bone I wonder? Chomp went his jaws, bone or whatever it was consigned to oblivion, to rumble and tumble in a canine’s stomach. Then out again, back to the ground, from the earth we come and to the earth we shall return.