Re: The Institution of Prostitution under capitalism maintainsthe sexist/class/racist structure of capitalism, and has particulary additional effects

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mine:

>Indian Prostitute as a Colonial Subject
>Bengal 1864-1883
>
>by Ratnabali Chatterjee
>
>The life of a professional courtesan in India is not of the same
>degraded character as that of prostitute in England nor are prostitutes
>as a class looked down upon by other sections of community. They have
>special usage's and relation which are recognised by courts and they are
>not the same objects of mingled aversion and commiseration as persons
>who resort to a similar means of livelihood in more civilised countries.
>(Home Judicial File no. 48 1145)
>
>In 1864, the Contagious Diseases Act was passed in Britain and also
>applied to other parts of the empire. It was amended with a view towards
>greater effectiveness between 1866 and 1869. The key element of this
>measure was the compulsory examination of women (mainly prostitutes)
>suspected of having venereal disease. As such, it became more binding
>upon the prostitutes than their clients. In India, those prostitutes who
>were mainly visited by the British soldiers were picked out, segregated,
>and examined.
<snip>
>Thus the Indian prostitute found herself in a paradoxical position in
>what was considered to her moment of liberation. The pre-colonial norms
>had granted pressures of colonial rule, and she was left without any
>patrons. The new group of compradore elites agreed with the missionaries
>and looked upon her as a 'victim'. setting her up as a subject of
>reform.

Do you notice, Mine, that the article by Ratnabali Chatterjee you
posted here contradicts the other article by Melissa Farley, Isin
Baral, Merab Kiremire and Ufuk Sezgin that you also posted here?
Chatterjee's article is mainly a criticism of colonialism as well as
of paternalism which treats women as victims in need of reform.
Farley, Baral, Kiremire, and Sezgin set up sex workers as nothing but
"subjects of reform," to borrow Chatterjee's words.  It is typical of
bourgeois feminists like Farley, et al. to avoid looking at
capitalism as political economy & women as subjects of their own
labor and to think of sex work mainly as "a sequel of childhood
sexual abuse," not as a result of economic compulsion of capitalism &
of sexism that denies many women jobs that pay as well as sex work.
Why do rape & violence become occupational hazards of sex work?
Because "These people [Yoshie: "these people" -- now that's an
"objective" and sympathetic way of putting it!] live in social and
legal contexts defining them variously as hated and filthy women" &
"criminals" (Farley, Baral, Kiremire, and Sezgin).  The abolition of
capitalism & replacement of it by socialism -- a system of production
for human needs, not profits -- is what we need, and short of that,
we need to decriminalize prostitution & create labor & immigration
laws that do not discriminate against non-citizens (so that when sex
workers become victims of rape & violence, they can report to the
police without fear of getting in trouble with laws & of cops raping
them, as cops often do now).  And it is _sexism_ that motivates men's
violence against women, not men's nature or the fact that sometimes
female victims of violence are prostitutes.  (The occupation of women
should not be allowed to become an excuse of violence.)  Blaming rape
& violence on sex work lets sexism & rapists off the hook.

Yoshie