Maybe this is all an endless debate. What I am only sure of, making the phrase by Evelyn Beatrice Hall my own, although it is erroneously attributed to Voltaire (she was his biographer), is that “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death” . It already happened at the university, when a debate on the same topic was attempted. Members of our supposed cathedral of knowledge prohibited such a debate, since there are Masses that only priests or priestesses consecrated by one current of feminist ideas, but not by the other, can officiate. From what I see, there are parties that do not defend that the other party has the right to say what he thinks because it contradicts the purity of the principles of feminism, which, as in any movement of ideas, sometimes forgets that its purity resides in the debate and argumentation, not in the metaphysics of quasi-religious principles.
The infantilism of the university is painful. Although, if I have to be fair, the infantilism of a part of the university. Feminism is not a one-sided coin. The field of struggle is not between factions of feminism, at least it should not be because of what they do or decide to do with their bodies, but because of what they are (due to their gender identity: women), formatted by what the crossroads of history and culture have made gender relations and that still favors us more than them. Because it is eloquent that women’s autonomy and freedom to decide about their bodies (or their lives in general) is defended, except if it is to earn a living with it, because then they would not be free, but would obey male desire or the mandates of the patriarchy. I understand that patriarchal morality is to sublimate the feminine desire to the masculine desire, I understand it and for that reason I aim that both desires are freed from the overlapping of catechisms applied without considering the life situations of each person. As long as we think that there are some abstract and autonomous principles of human production in the process of history, we will not only fall into idealism, but even go so far as to oppress those individuals who depart from the mainstream or mainstream to live in the world that it has touched them, while they seek to change it.
We are historically in a system that stigmatizes those who are not white, which is understood as the privilege of being white; and, indeed, feminists from the non-white periphery blame mainstream feminism for neglecting racialized women and the direct link between race, gender, and social class. It is a constant complaint to feminism by those other feminists who do not use the same categories of interpretation. In my opinion, the same thing happens in the field of debate between feminists (and between feminists and non-feminists) about prostitution. Like racialized women, they feel excluded, not because of white and male power, but because of the power represented in that abolitionist feminism that excludes them because their discourse does not fit with the discourse of the hegemonic current.
The inclusion of prostitutes as a human category that is also a victim of the oppressive gender system, a victim of class and race, as well as sexual orientation, are broad categories of social advocacy practiced by the Asociación Draga Espacio Feminista- LGTBIQ, giving a voice to all people, since they understand that feminism is not censorship. And it should not be censorship because, certainly, feminism will be with sex workers or it will not be, but it will also be with racialized women and social class or it will not be. And social class means that poverty and exploitation must be resolved and not only morally lament, since the needs for personal and social fulfillment of exploited women must go hand in hand with the satisfaction of their material life needs.
And in the field of identity, as a man, I understand that it is about supporting women in their struggle for their historical condition as women in a patriarchal society, not about practicing sex in exchange for money or other benefit. It is easy to fall into a witch hunt and dehumanization of these women, treating them as if they were lost who after criminalizing them are infantilized for not knowing what is best for them. It is thought that there is a great ideology that distorts their jagged wills, that the instrumental reason of the sex industry rubs their hands with their bodies, which is true, but it is not the whole truth to choose this statement as a totalizing argument of the question and that closes any purpose of qualification. Unfortunately, at this intersection there are feminists with their divergences, as well as conservatives on the right and on the left, and who, together, seek to save them when they only want to normalize. They are in a crossfire of well-intentioned arguments, where there is more and more resemblance to the persecution of witches in the Middle Ages. Were witches a social problem or rather the social problem were women and it had to be said that they were witches? And, what do you want me to tell you, it seems to me that there is a certain paralogism between what happened to women and the patriarchal power at that time that considered them witches (there were witches, but 85% were witches)
After being built as a social problem by informers and the Holy Inquisition, in the medieval world the so-called witches were burned. For centuries they would persecute anyone who deviated from the ideal of life proposed by the church. Superstition and fear, suggestion and mass hysteria did the rest. But also the fact that the informer could keep the property of the defendant once burned at the stake. Why were 85% of those persecuted and burned women between the 14th and 17th centuries? Perhaps they think that it is an exaggeration on my part, but the great belligerence against the discourse of inclusive feminism of the Asociación Draga Espacio Feminista-LGTBIQ, accusing them of practicing a feminism alien to the religion of that other feminism, makes the debate remind me That same feminism, apparently dominant and in good conscience of that historical moment, did not answer or fight for Dolores Vázquez, the dumpling witch.
Even today we pejoratively call witches those women who tell us some truths to our faces or remove our masks. The Wanninkhof case is a case of serious legal error that occurred when, in an atmosphere of popular hysteria created by the media and in a trial plagued by irregularities by the judicial and police authorities, Dolores Vázquez Mosquera was found guilty of a popular jury for the death of Rocío Wanninkhof, who had been murdered in October 1999 near Mijas, Málaga province. A few years later the case took a turn when another subsequent murder was solved, that of the young Sonia Carabantes. The murderer of the two was Tony Alexander King. Dolores Vázquez, in addition to being a woman, was a lesbian. A witch, come on.
There is no doubt that there is a discourse that essentializes everything feminine. If men’s brothels were opened for women to come for a little comfort, women who paid for sex would still be treated as whores, while men would be simply gigolos. The woman who charges for sex is prohibited and is censored as a vicious whore if she pays a man for sex (as in fact it exists and more than what is being said, no matter how much it is hidden) She is prohibited from selling sex and buying sex , but it will still be just as whore. It is the woman trapped in her own imposed essence. Actually, that essentialism dehumanizes them, when, in my childhood memories, I have them very humanized because several of my friends from the neighborhood where I lived in 1967 had prostitute grandmothers or mothers. I never saw whores, I only saw women. What do you want me to say? I would like to hear from women.