If You Think “End Demand” is a “Progressive” Program, You Need to Read This

People who label themselves political or social progressives like to think of themselves as both forward-thinking and freedom-loving. That has not always been the case, however. Progressives have at times been divided on certain issues, just as they are today over sex workers’ rights. Those who currently favor the so-called “end demand” policies first instituted by Sweden in 1999 (hence its nicknames of “Swedish model” and “Nordic model”) follow a basic logic of social engineering:

  1. X is bad for society.
  2. If X were eliminated, it would benefit society.
  3. Therefore, government should institute policies for eliminating X.

Where this logic fails is in identifying “X” in utterly simplistic ways. Alcohol, for example, was considered “bad for society,” leading to failed experiments in prohibition which increased crime, thus making things worse for society. Homosexuals were (and in many places still are) branded as harmful deviants, subject to criminal penalties and dubious cures.

Progressives forget that, from the late 19th century until well past the end of World War II, there was a movement dedicated to improving humanity through a series of programs, all justified by the mantle of science. In fact, primitive forms of this form of social engineering had been practiced in ancient societies, and supported by philosophers like Plato. The ideas behind this organized movement began with an eminent scientist, motivated by his cousin Charles Darwin, and were promoted in many countries in Europe, the Americas, and Australia. In the United States, feminists and other progressives embraced the movement, leading to the adoption of laws in many states and the Federal government. In Great Britain, they found support across political lines, from conservatives like Winston Churchill to members of the Fabian Society. Sweden adopted elements of the movement’s agenda as part of the folkhemmet envisioned by Social Democrats and other reformers. Of course, the movement did have its critics, from public intellectuals like G. K Chesterton to notable scientists like Franz Boas and J. B. S. Haldane. Still, many embraced the ideas of the movement, even after witnessing its most brutal implementation in Nazi Germany.

That movement was eugenics.

Sir Francis Galton first conceived of the idea that, if animals could be selectively bred for certain traits, then the same principle ought to be applied to humans. He also suggested that those considered unfit “could find a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods,” and that prospective immigrants should be screened for their potential fitness (thus anticipating policies to be enacted in the United States, Australia, and other countries). While he was motivated by Darwin’s ideas of natural selection, his illustrious cousin did not openly embrace his views; indeed, his writings indicated that he preferred that such choices be left to individuals rather than the state. But others picked up where Galton left off, and started a worldwide eugenics movement to improve the human race, whether by positive means (e.g., “Fit Family” competitions) or negative ones (compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill and “feeble-minded”).

A vocal minority raised serious questions. They worried about who was to decide whether someone was “fit” enough to breed, and how. They raised the point that many supposed weaknesses were not inheritable at all. They pointed to outstanding intellects and artists who also exhibited supposedly congenital weaknesses. G. K. Chesterton argued that the vague definitions of unfitness could very well lead to an unjust imposition of conformity: “Every tramp who is sulk, every labourer who is shy, every rustic who is eccentric, can quite easily be brought under such conditions as were designed for homicidal maniacs.”

Sure enough, eugenics programs were being implemented to rationalize exclusion of racial minorities, forced sterilization of “degenerates,” presumption of guilt in criminal cases based on pseudoscientific theories, and other violations of human rights. Sex workers were especially victimized by these programs, as prostitution and other “lewd and lascivious behavior” was considered a sign of degeneracy, leading to governments on both sides of the Atlantic including them in their compulsory sterilization programs. When the Nazis were questioned about the barbaric measures they took to achieve their goal of “racial purity,” they tried to argue that the only differences from the eugenics programs being implemented in countries like Sweden and the United States was a matter of scale.

Nowadays, many self-described progressives are so horrified at the idea of eugenics that it leads them to be skeptical about everything from reproductive surrogacy to genetically modified foods. They need to remember that their ideological predecessors were some of the biggest supporters of this failed program – and that the same simplistic logic behind it is now being used to promote the cruel failure of the Swedish model and other prohibitionist policies against sex workers.

Advertisements

What’s the Real Reason for Julie Bindel’s Obsession with Abolishing Sex Work?

In the United Kingdom, radical feminist Julie Bindel is perhaps the most prominent prohibitionist crusader. In her latest book, she claims to expose the “myths” behind the commercial sex industry, painting it as irredeemably horrid, dismissing anything that does not fit her worldview.

To me, a person’s view of the world, and their vision of an ideal future, answers the question of that person’s motivation more than any scripted response. And from what I’ve seen of Bindel, it’s darker than any portrait she paints of those she opposes.

First and foremost, Bindel hates men. She’s not been shy about it, and even said in this interview how she would “have their power taken from them”:

I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

She later complained in this article speculating on the “end of men” that: “Within hours of the interview going online, men’s rights groups were accusing me of wanting to put men in ‘Nazi concentration camps’. And they say feminists are the ones with no sense of humour.” Well, I have no sympathy myself for the so-called men’s rights movement, but if she thinks that talk about confining any group of people based on some characteristic is some sort of joke, she’s out of her mind. Granted, I am especially sensitive to her choice of words, given my Jewish relatives in Europe who were confined in camps and reduced to ashes. Bindel’s blatant lack of sensitivity, on the other hand, should give any decent person pause to support her.

If misandry wasn’t enough, Bindel hates transgender people. She would prefer the term “transcritical”, but she’s not content with raising questions. She has openly opposed gender-nonconforming folks from medical treatment, refuses to acknowledge transwomen as women, and doesn’t even talk about transmen or genderqueer people. Her whole beliefs and knowledge on the subject seem stuck in the 1950s, and in contradiction to the opposition of most feminists to biological determinism and gender essentialism.

The list goes on. She’s dissed bisexuality as a fad. She wrote an article titled “Why I Hate Vegetarians”, accusing them of being “humourless, judgmental souls using spurious arguments” (apparently, she doesn’t read her own work that carefully). She expects heterosexual feminists to convert to lesbianism.

Yes, Bindel has done admirable work to fight violence against women, and that is often the basis of her support. But given her propensity for dismissing others, even to have them punished for who they are, one has to wonder if her work is based on genuine concern for victims, or a desire to control and even bully others to conform to her wishes. The only thing more tragic and dangerous is how many such individuals rise to prominence within the prohibitionist movement.

The Need for a Skeptical Feminism

Recently, an acquaintance of mine from college recognized me via social media, and we began some online chats about the issues surrounding sex work, the anti-trafficking movement, and feminism. Having embraced the more radical form of feminism in her youth, my former classmate had gone on to obtain a law degree, then to focus her legal practice on civil cases that advanced women’s rights, most notably in the area of sexual harassment.

What eventually disillusioned her from the ideas of Dworkin, Mackinnon and other radical feminists was when she was invited to talk about her work at a feminist conference. By this time, she had handled a total of seventy-seven cases involving sexual harassment. Reviewing the files, she broke them down as follows:

  • 68 of the 77 involved a man harassing a woman; four involved a woman harassing a man, three involved a man harassing another man, and two involved a woman harassing another woman.
  • Fourteen cases involved a man making a single inappropriate comment, then apologizing and not engaging in any harassing behavior, and no long-term negative impact on the woman’s career; in all of these cases, the attorney advised the plaintiff that the case had insufficient merit to pursue.
  • One case involved a woman making a false accusation which the attorney found was motivated by malice against the defendant; another case involved a woman who was found to have serious mental health issues resulting in confabulation.

Based on this, my acquaintance presented a conclusion that should have been uncontroversial for this conference: that sexual harassment was still predominantly an issue of men using their power over women. After all, two-thirds of cases were bona-fide incidents fitting that narrative. But as soon as she presented her figures showing that individual men could be victims, individual women could be perpetrators, and that a minority of claims were either overblown (18%) or false (2.6%), she saw herself being attacked and denounced by the more strident participants at the conference, and she was never invited back. Fortunately, she found support among the oft-despised liberal and libertarian feminists, whom she said “had no problem seeing the facts as they were, and discussing them thoughtfully”.

In her mind, the “radical feminists” have become authoritarian ideologues, for whom even the slightest disagreement was considered unforgiveable heresy and treason. She has since embraced the label of a “skeptical feminist” – based on the book by British philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards – and, in her own words, “always takes a step back before taking sides”. This is certainly the case with her view of the anti-prostitution and anti-trafficking movements, having seen “outrageous” and “absolutist” claims with scant evidence, and leading her to consider full decriminalization as “a more workable approach” (again, her words).

Our discussions brought us back to a basic concept in the philosophy of ideas – the distinction between open and closed systems of thought. Open systems, while embracing certain core values or principles, are receptive of new evidence and ideas, and thus relatively flexible to change. Closed systems, by contrast, present a comprehensive set of doctrines to explain how the world works, and either explains away any conflicting evidence or rejects it outright.

It is no surprise that the prohibitionist camp sees sex work in overly simplistic and absolutist terms. This is, after all, the methodology of its parent ideologies – religious fundamentalism, and radical feminism. Some of the unchallenged presumptions of this system include:

  1. Sexual perfectionism – Sex must be confined to vanilla activities within either marriage or “committed relationships”; any expression outside of this is presumed to be “harmful” and/or “exploitative”.
  2. Gender essentialism – Men view sex a certain way, women view sex another way; this leads to the reduction of prostitution as “men buying women”, thus neglecting or ignoring the reality of male and genderqueer sex workers, and female and genderqueer sex work clients, as well as the complex reasons why people either enter sex work or seek the services of a sex worker.
  3. Punitive/corrective approaches – The way to address commercial sex is to “end demand” by either punishment (fines, jail, public shaming) or so-called therapeutic approaches (e.g., “johns schools”).
  4. Intolerance to opposition – This is exhibited by such methods as:
    • Ignoring questions and/or criticisms, often refusing to answer them.
    • Dismissive labels applied to other side (“not representative”, “pimp lobby”, etc.).
    • Controlling discourse to minimize or eliminate dissent and/or opposition.

This is not to say that the sex worker rights movement does not have its own faults, or that certain elements within it are more closed than others. But there is a greater tendency to base their beliefs upon evidence than ideology, and a greater diversity of viewpoints and approaches than seen within the contemporary prohibitionist movement. This raises the question of which approach is more compatible with the core values of human rights and democratic polity generally, and the feminist principles of achieving greater gender equality and personal autonomy. Is it any wonder that my former classmate and I, and many other “skeptical feminists”, have decided to support this movement?

Swanee Hunt’s Archaic Essentialism

Perhaps the most well-known and influential prohibitionist today is Swanee Hunt, the founder of Demand Abolition. Her large inheritance, extensive social connections, and saccharine Southern charm make her a formidable advocate for this or any cause. But unlike so-called “radical feminist” academics and theoreticians with their belief that sex is a construct for male domination, or evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who conflate sex outside of heterosexual marriage with sin, Hunt seems to draw on yet another ideological source.

I base this on how she has invested the resources of the Hunt Alternatives Fund. Along with Demand Abolition, she has established two other projects:

  • Political Parity – The front page declares: “Elevating the number of women in the highest levels of government is more than a matter of representation. It’s essential to shaping a more just society.”
  • Inclusive Security – “We’re changing who makes decisions about war and peace,” because, according to Hunt, “a greater role for women is essential to global stability.”

Essential. It’s not just a matter of equity to include women in government and peacemaking. Hunt believes that there’s something about being a woman which makes it necessary. The language she uses echoes that of centuries before, that women are somehow the guardians of morality, hence equally if not better qualified than men to govern society.

This belief stemmed from the “separate spheres” ideology, promoted by opponents of women’s suffrage. They argued that the biological sexes were meant to function in different areas of life – men in the public sphere of politics and commerce, women in the private sphere of motherhood and domestic care. Anti-suffrage advocates opined that women did not need the vote, because they were able to influence society profoundly by instilling moral virtues in their sons.

Suffragists such as Christabel Pankhurst responded to this, and the increasingly sexualized attacks on women during the suffrage campaign, with a synthesis. Since women were given the responsibility for moral education, and since men clearly had failed to show moral character in the public sphere, it was therefore necessary for women to gain the vote so as to make the political and public spheres more moral. Pankhurst and other suffragettes hence expanded the original slogan of “Votes for Women” to include “Chastity for Men”.

This blend of feminist indignation and Victorian moralism also led to the anti-prostitution stance of many leading activists. Just as male employers forced their attentions on female staff, and male police and prison guards molested and tortured female inmates, so it must be that prostitution consisted of men commercially coercing women to satisfy men’s libidos. The answer was tougher laws, homes for friendless women, and taming men’s sexual appetites.

Given Hunt’s background, it should be no surprise that her own rhetoric shows traces of such ideas. In her own biography, she describes being raised in a conservative and privileged environment where women were not expected to engage in public affairs, but to be hostesses, wives and mothers. From a culture of feminine domesticity to a belief in women’s “essential” role as moral caregivers – and moral guardians – is no great leap.

I have no doubt that Swanee Hunt would argue that she is no essentialist. I’m sure she would contend that she bases her beliefs on the experiences of women. Granted, women around the world share many common experiences, but (a) there are still significant differences based on other factors such as race and class, and (b) that doesn’t mean that every individual women is automatically qualified for political leadership, or that one woman may dictate the sexual and occupational choices of others. If anything, her overgeneralizing about women’s experience seems just another variation on the essentialist theme.

At best, Hunt’s vision is simplistic and limited. At worst, her ignorance of complex intersectional realities, and her brazenly privileged assertion that she somehow knows what’s best for others, is harmful.