31.738
Bearbeitungen
Abolizionismo 1.4: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Abolizionismo 1.4 (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 6. Dezember 2014, 16:21 Uhr
, 16:21, 6. Dez. 2014→Dibattiti
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
Tiao (Diskussion | Beiträge) |
||
| Zeile 51: | Zeile 51: | ||
== Dibattiti == | == Dibattiti == | ||
*"Only rights can stop the wrongs" vs. "The new Abolitionism" | *"Only rights can stop the wrongs" vs. "The new Abolitionism" | ||
The contemporary feminist debates over sex work seem to be moving beyond the issues of force and consent as the defining characteristics of sex trafficking, to broader ethical questions concerning the very nature of sex work itself. Often, the abolitionist (anti-sex work) position is pushed into a moralistic and sex-negative corner with religious and political conservatives. However, more robust abolitionist arguments are based in a radical critique of liberalism. Miriam (2005) present two fascinating and convincing arguments against the regulationist (pro-sex work) position – namely, “that the pro-sex-work approach depends on a contractual, liberal model of agency that both conceals and presupposes the demand side of the institution of prostitution” (1). In other words, the problem with sex work isn’t necessarily that women provide it, but rather that men demand it. The regulationist claim against abolitionists is that they do not recognize or legitimize women’s agency in sex work. Miriam believes that this is a misconception, since what radical feminist abolitionists are really trying to do is “theorize power and agency outside of the liberal framework”. | |||
The pro-sex work argument, on the other hand, wishes to legitimize sex work to maintain some sense of dignity for the women who have no other economically promising options. Through regulation, sex workers may be less vulnerable to violent assaults, rape, and STI transmission (1). Kelly, for example, notes how we fail to make distinctions between women who are ‘forced’ and those who are ‘migrant sex workers’ (2). The pro-sex work Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women (GAATW) insists on a distinction between coerced and free prostitution so that migrant sex workers will have better access to financial resources and social services, instead of being mistaken for sex trafficking victims. Kelly presents two further reasons why we should make this distinction – on one hand, “most definitions of trafficking are much wider than ‘force’”; and on the other, “to focus on force alone plays into the hands of both traffickers and exploiters who will escape sanction except in the most extreme cases and those law enforcement officials who arrest, detain, prosecute and summarily deport women and girls detected in other countries (2). | |||
Melissa Ditmore: | Melissa Ditmore: | ||