From: ranjani k.murthy <[email protected]> To: feminists <[email protected]> Cc: asha ramesh <[email protected]>; [email protected] Sent: Mon, 25 April, 2011 9:00:08 AM Subject: opening the pandora's box
Dear friends I would like to open the pandora's box and distinguish between sex work as choice, women compelled into prostitution due to patriarchy, poverty and inequalities and women/girls who are trafficked. I do not come from brahminical notions of morality, for i have cousins of my mother whose legal children's lineage and property is now legally under question! In 1980s the Indian and global women's movements was talking about women in prostitution and trafficking, but now sex work has become the parlance. Why is this? To cite Asha Ramesh (and Lalitha) who, in my opinion, has hit the nail on the head (Not a matter of choice, http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=6520), points to the shift in use of the term women pushed into prostitution and sex work, closely linked to a HIV/AIDS lobby. To quote her: "What is interesting in the Indian context is the fact that the campaign for the rights of women in sex work coincided with the appearance of HIV/AIDS in the country (the first case of HIV infection was detected in 1986). Women in sex work were categorized as high-risk groups and several interventions were initiated. Efforts to introduce mandatory testing met with strong condemnation from the women's movement, which raised a furor, saying that such testing amounted to a violation of women's human rights. During this period, feminists and the women's movement in India were also raising their voice assertively on issues such as a woman's control over her body, and raising their concerns about the 'commodification' of women's bodies. Kathleen Barry in her book, 'Sexual Slavery', speaks of women in prostitution who are victims of violence of the worst form, including rape and abuse. For most of them, sex and sexuality remains savage carnal abuse of their bodies, over which they have no control. For the majority, it is survival and not a matter of choice. The traditional position has been that prostitution is female sexual slavery; its logical conclusion has been that the practice should be abolished. But in recent years, many women activists have argued for legalization of prostitution, as the present law continues to be insensitive, and harassment from the enforcement agencies - who see it as an illegal activity - continues. Once legalized, the advocates claim, women in sex work will not be harassed by the police; they will be allowed to work in certain zones and issued licenses; their names will be in government records; they will have to undergo regular health check-ups; and pay taxes. However, an equally strong lobby has been countering this demand, saying that in the Indian context, legalization will not work, and may result in further trafficking of young girls and boys. Further, legalization will only make women in sex work more vulnerable to state control. The advocates of the somewhat recent, rights-based approach, talk of decriminalization of prostitution. Decriminalization is understood as the removal of laws against prostitution. But the concept of `choice' in decriminalization still needs to be clearly defined. Some advocates of decriminalization declared at the meeting that a woman doing sex work is the same as a woman carrying bricks at a construction site. Such comparisons, however, can be misleading. Prostitution is not Labour, it is a violation of human rights. Besides, it is often rape. It is intrinsically harmful and traumatic. For almost everyone in the profession, prostitution is not about having made a choice out of a range of other available livelihood options. Lalitha S A, an activist, who works with women in a red light area of Delhi, questioned the existence of choice for women in sex work. According to her, she was not aware of even a single woman in sex work who wanted her daughter to enter the trade. According to Lalitha, most of these women put their children in boarding schools, if they can afford it, or leave them with their families back in the village. Most of them have come into sex work either by deceit or have been forced, cheated, kidnapped, deserted or raped into the sex trade. I tend to 99% agree with Asha and Lalitha. While dialoguing with a person from WHO who moved out of HIV work from WHO, he told me that a huge section of HIV/AIDS donor lobby (including Foundations set up from money earned from corporate sector) is for legalising sex work but not all. They are pushing it. Where is the 1% difference in stands?. It is not a disagreement but deepening of discussions Investigations that I have done in Chennai, revealed that a minority who choose sex work do it to get consumer gadgets or go for a holiday abroad in an era of globalization. Is this really choice? or linked to neo-liberal paradigm, as pointed out by my dear friend Gandhimathi who enabled me to think deeply (for at one point i was on the legalising side)? Further, i have been asked by the legalisation of sex worker lobby "do domestic workers want their daughters to do domestic work, why do you ask only sex workers". Yes no poor and exploited women wants their daughters to continue in the same profession. I would like like to argue that we need to put things in perspective. Collective well being/justice of women and girls over rides individual rights to do sex work. In India and in several developing countries a majority of people live under dollar two per day. Discussions with dalit women, poor Muslim women, slum dwellers, migrant workers, women headed households, young couples and adolescent girls from marginalized communities in India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Nepal (also Moldova, Sudan) reveal that they do not want sex work to be legalized. Their position "as it is we are worried about leaving our girls and going to work and liqour shops (chennai), substance abuse (bangaldesh, Nepal) in every corner, what will happen if 'sex work' is legalized. We live in one room houses, our husbands come drunk or high and demand sexual relations. If we have adolescent children we refuse and they beat us up. If brothels come up what will happen to our families. We want families, but non patriarchal families. We want remunerative work, land reform linked to women's property rights, equal wages, full employment, access to markets etc". Let all forms of exploitation of poor women disappear exploitative domestic work, construction work, bonded labour etc I WANT ECONOMIC SOCIAL GENDER JUSTICE FOR THE 75% LIVING UNDER $2 PER DAY. AT NO COST OUR POSITIONS SHOULD JEOPARADISE THAT. Yes sex workers are also poor especially as they grow old, but how much percentage of poor are they? Going by (Paulo Friere) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, should we impose views that 'sex work' is work on non the majority of <$2 per day sex workers. I feel we should only say do not discriminate against those pushed into prostitution or trafficked. Let them have a choice to come back and live with dignity. Till that becomes a reality, rescuing those who do not want to come back is wrong. Decriminalisation of women/girls compelled into prostitution/trafficked is a good alternative, and criminalise the men The laws on prostitution in Sweden make it illegal to buy sexual servicies, but not to sell them. Pimping, procuring and operating a brothel are also illegal. The criminalisation of the purchase, but not selling, of sex was unique when first enacted, in 1999, but since then Norway and Iceland have adopted similar legislation, both in 2009. That is the way to go in my opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden But others are welcome to diverse views Ranjani Kamala Murthy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "humanrights movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement?hl=en.
