Reykjavík Grapevine - 03.02.2012, Side 12

12
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 2 — 2012
Their websites are: www.pistillinn.is (Eva) and www.modursyki.wordpress.com (Móðursýkin).
In late October last year, a group of
burka-dressed women who called
themselves big Sister, announced
that they had “gone underground”
to collect a list of 56 names and 117
numbers of alleged prostitution pur-
chasers, which they then handed to
the police. Under a clear but self-
denied Orwellian slogan―“big Sister
is watching you!”―they called for le-
gal action to be taken against these
prostitution buyers.
Little to nothing has been heard or seen
of Big Sister since then, but their one
and only act did certainly have a stirring
effect as it snowballed into a discourse,
from which two female voices have par-
ticularly stood out due to their critique
of the mainstream feminist agenda pro-
jected by Big Sister.
Not professing to predominant femi-
nist attitudes on issues like prostitu-
tion, porn, gender quotas, stereotypes,
rhetoric and men, to name a few, these
two women, author Eva Hauksdóttir
and anonymous blogger Móðursýkin
("The Hysteria") have deepened the dis-
course with an often thankless layer of
challenging ideas. To better understand
their stance, I met up with them and be-
gan by simply asking why they take part
in this discourse.
EMPOWERING ERRORS
“I shudder at the mere thought of the
woman's general victimisation,” says
Móðursýkin, a self-described anarcha-
feminist. “I see it as a big error within
feminist theory, which has to undergo
a debate inside the feminist milieu.”
Eva, who doesn’t like to label herself, but
says she relates most to the existential-
feminism of French feminist Simone de
Beauvoir, agrees with Móðursýkin. “A
woman should be allowed to exist on her
own terms―she should be allowed what
is good for her as long as it doesn't vio-
late others.”
But isn't the woman subordinated in
the society we live in? I ask. “Some claim
so but I really disagree,” Móðursýkin
says. “And why should she always be
a victim? I started to feel like my ex-
boyfriend was violent towards me in
our sex life, after spending too much
time on victim-feminist ideas like pen-
etration being violent in itself. Then I
was shocked, realising how sick these
thoughts were and how important it is to
break away from them.”
Eva and Móðursýkin see this general
victimisation working against women's
ability to see and feel themselves as
strong beings, eventually creating a vi-
cious circle. “Feminism is all about em-
powering women, but how can a woman
be empowered when constantly under-
mined as a victim?” Móðursýkin asks.
Eva continues, bringing up the lack of
women in the media and political dis-
course. “Of course we should ask our-
selves how women's position in those
fields can be strengthened, but we don't
do that with a comfortable settlement in
the never-ending victim role.”
SEX, COFFEE AND COALMINES
Back to the original discussion on
Big Sister and their campaign against
prostitution, I ask them about the link
between prostitution on one hand and
violence and human trafficking on the
other. It seems widely recognised that
those phenomena go hand in hand, for
instance in one of the openly stated aims
of Femínistafélag Íslands (Iceland's
Feminist Association), which is “to fight
against any manifestation of gender in-
equality,” including “the pornification,
aggressive, derogatory advertisements,
violence, human trafficking and prosti-
tution.”
“It is true that human trafficking
and other forms of violence can thrive
well where prostitution occurs, especial-
ly in poor areas,” Eva says. “But the same
applies to coffee and cocoa production
and so many other industries. Defin-
ing prostitution as human trafficking
is thus as wrong as defining chocolate
production and consumption as slavery.
The two might cross, but it doesn't make
them one and the same. Absolutely not.
We hear it all the time that we shouldn't
accept the fact that there is a need for
prostitution in society. This argument
implies that prostitutes are all women
in distress. Some of them surely are, but
not all. So shouldn't we first try to cre-
ate a society where women worldwide
can make a living without being forced
to use such a method, before we take it
away from them? It isn't possible to for-
bid poverty.”
Móðursýkin goes on about jobs that
could be considered slave labour, such as
coal mining, and says that if she had to
choose between those two fields, prosti-
tution would be her choice. “What most-
ly shocks me, Eva says, “is how women
who work in this field are not listened to,
but instead defined as victims, even if
they stand up against such a definition
themselves.”
WHERE ARE ALL THE HAPPy PAR-
LIAMENTARIANS?
But are there any substantial examples
of women rising up in order to protect
their honour as prostitutes? Isn't the
happy whore just a mere myth as repeat-
edly stated, for instance by Big Sister? “I
have never understood this demand for
the prostitute to be happy. Why isn't she
just allowed to do her job as most other
people?” Móðursýkin says. I admit that a
demand for the happy doctor, the happy
bank employee―“or the happy parlia-
mentarian,” Móðursýkin adds―isn't very
commonly heard, but at the same time I
I’m not aware of prostitutes rising up to
defend their reputation.
Eva blames the stigmatisation of
prostitution and particularly the small
size of Iceland's society. “But I like to
refer to Susanne Møller, a spokesper-
son for the Danish Sex Workers Inter-
est Group, who in 2008 squeezed into
a conference on prostitution and human
trafficking, which she had not been
invited to take part in,” Eva says. After
finally being allowed to join, Susanne
was not introduced as a spokesperson
for this association but as a representa-
tive of the happy prostitute. “She started
her speech,” explains Eva, “by criticising
the use of this concept as it doesn't come
from prostitutes themselves but from
their opponents, seemingly in order to
humiliate them. Susanne pointed out
how prostitutes simply experience good
days and bad days, just as any other em-
ployees.”
The two believe that the concept
creates a marginalising polarisation―of
the vulnerable victim and the happy
whore.―However, Eva is sure that most
prostitutes are located somewhere on
the large spectrum in between these
two margins. She says that in most Nor-
dic countries, members of sex-workers'
associations find the shame and stigma
surrounding prostitution being the
worst elements of the discourse.
A NECESSARy POISON
“The stigma is strong and dangerous,”
Móðursýkin says, “especially in light of
the victimisation. I have witnessed dis-
cussions where people seriously ques-
tion prostitutes' ability to judge their
own happiness.” Eva continues: “In dis-
cussions on the web I have seen people
state that prostitutes in defence of their
jobs are too brainwashed to even know
and understand what they themselves
are saying.”
Recently, in a widely circulated ar-
ticle, Eva was accused of adding weight
to anti-feminist attitudes. Eva says the
author asked her “not to poison the
discourse.” So I ask them if they aren't
afraid of actually entering an anti-femi-
nist rhetoric, satisfying misogynist men
and thereby destroying the work of those
fighting for gender equality. “No doubt,
some idiotic men can interpret my writ-
ings as such,”Móðursýkin says. “But as
I find today's mainstream feminist dis-
course very unwelcoming―especially for
men, who of course have to be included
in that discourse―I am trying to open up
a conversation about feminism and its
discourse.”
Eva adds: “It will always be possible
to find something against feminism,
and everything coming from feminists
can be abused in a dishonest purpose.
The only thing I ask is for people to back
up what they say with arguments and be
willing to look at things from more than
one perspective. If that demand means
“to poison the discourse,” then I would
feel ashamed of myself for not poisoning
it.”
A Vicious Cycle Of Victimisation
Two feminists discuss their critique of mainstream feminism
Discussion | Feminism
Words
Snorri Páll Jónsson Úlfhildarson
Illustration
Inga María Brynjarsdóttir
Defining
prostitution as
human trafficking
is thus as wrong as
defining chocolate
production and
consumption as
slavery