Has anyone read women as sex vendors?

2020-01-11T12:49:54+00:00

It's a short read. It's certainly an interesting historical look into what some leftist thinkers thought at the time - this kind of analysis would be absolutely scorned on "the left" today.

That's not to say I'm not sure to what extent I agree or disagree. It's an interesting thought experiment (although even daring to make this kind of "thought experiment" in 2020 would get you branded a persona non grata in most of today's left-wing circles) but I find it too simplistic in parts.

A good point is that it acknowledges both biological factors in the differences between men and women, as well as social factors:

Please understand that this is in no way a criticism of the conduct of women. We desire to lay no stigma upon them. We lay no stigma upon any class or sex or group, for down at bottom, men and women do what they do because they have to do it. The more we understand the economic and biological status of any group, the more we see they are compelled to act, under the circumstances, and in the environment they occupy, precisely as they do act. In the struggle for ex[Pg 15]istence today the laurels are only to those who use any and all methods to save themselves.

[...]

So that, at birth, it appears that both sexes must remain on an equal footing so far as heredity is concerned. But the social and economic environment differentiates. Boys and girls learn to differ more than they differ physically at birth.

The problem is that the authors sometimes make the biological differences too categorical, rather than speaking of tendencies or averages, thus becoming too essentialist in parts:

We are not inclined to believe this was due to the prevalence of any so-called paternal instinct. Paternal instinct is, we suspect, a minus, rather than a plus, quantity. It seems to us that fathers more often learn to love their children through following the conduct prescribed by good form and pretending to love them, or through love of display, pride or by association, than through any "natural tendency."

It also acknowledges that in different contexts and in different societies, men could be disadvantaged in some ways and women could be disadvantaged in other ways. This attitude differs quite a bit from what we see in most contemporary left/progressive discourse on gender relations. They acknowledge that the nature of these relations are dynamic and fluid and that they change:

Of course, every one knows that marriage is a legal contract; but whom does it bind? Certainly not the woman, nor any woman in America. For she may easily free herself and even divorce and penalize her husband if she is dissatisfied either with him or his earnings; or she may evade all the obligations she is supposed to meet, almost always with absolute impunity.

and:

Every change taking place in industry is always bound to send out infinite ramifications through every branch of our social institutions. The increasing specialization in industry, drawing more and more of the household arts out of the home and into factory, mill and shops, and the following of the jobs by women into the mills and factories, thus freeing woman from economic dependence on man, has already [Pg 55]colored every branch of our social fabric. Having become more independent, woman has grown more exacting. She demands a better bargain when she marries, or, refusing to barter, she chooses a mate.

In the early days of America, when the home was the economic unit, and almost all industry was performed in the home and on the farm, women were economically dependent on men. Then woman's place was undoubtedly in the home, since there was no place else where she could earn a living. Modern industry has changed all that.

Women compete for jobs with men today, force down wages to a lower level and demand more from men before they will marry. And yet we see $25.00 a week stenographers giving up their positions to barter themselves, presumably for life, to $35.00 a week clerks or salesmen, rarely because of the mating instinct, but usually because of the personal triumph [Pg 56]this means in the competition between members of the sex, and the social approbation which marriage brings.

The only certain thing the wisest man may say about our social institutions is that they have changed in the past and that they will continue to change, or be modified, or to pass away, in the future. In one short year, the war has altered some of our old institutions beyond recall. We believe that a continuation of the war for a considerable period will mean economic and social changes that will rock the world. And out of the storm and stress of things we doubt very much whether any of our existing social institutions will emerge intact—if it emerge at all.

The family as it is known in America today, the marriage contract, the relations of the sexes are bound to alter as they reflect changed economic conditions. Some of the old "pillars of the social structure" [Pg 57]in Russia have already crumbled away.

Women are becoming ever more necessary and important in the role they play in industry. With this growing economic importance, and with the increasing need of capitalism for more children to augment the labor and military supply, the power of women will probably increase marvelously during the next few years. Governments will reward the surrender of woman to man, while employers compete among themselves for her labor power. Much will be offered to women.

Overall, I'd say the book is quite outdated - then again, society has also changed a lot in the 100 years after it. But the underlying attitudes and assumptions are not rooted in the superiority or inferiority of one gender or another, or some corrupt desire for dominance in one gender or another. It incorporates economic and biological factors into its analysis.

So I think it's a worthwhile piece of writing, even though I'd say more for the sake of provoking thought than blindly accepting what it says. Let's also note that one of the authors is Mary Marcy, a well-respected female socialist author who wrote, among other things, investigative pieces exposing the corruption in the meat industry, so unlike what many would assume by reading the title, this is not some 100-year old incel screed by a guy who couldn't get laid and resented women for it.

LacklustreFriend · 2020-01-11T14:33:30+00:00

I've never actually read the whole thing, just excerpts, including the (in)famous:

When a man is out of a job and broke, he is flat on his back. His appetites, his desires cry out for satisfaction exactly as they did when he had money in his pockets to pay for the satisfaction of these appetites and these desires. When a woman loses a job, she has always the sale of her sex to fall back upon as a last resort.

So I read the whole thing just now, it's pretty short.

Given it was published in 1918, it holds up remarkably well, though there are obvious signs of its age, such as the parts on biology and anthropology/pre-histoical society. It's also clearly an inspiration for girlwriteswhat's view of gender relations.

I very much agree with the authors' view that women act as the gatekeepers to sex, and how it shapes the gender roles and relations. It's something I've commented about before. However, my core disagreement with the authors' is the portrayal of gender relations as purely as an economical one. Gender relations are far more complicated than that. Don't get me wrong, the economical element is certainly a very important part of the equation, but it's not only part.

It actually something that is extremely pervasive in most theories of gender relations, where gender relations are just a reworded version of a differing economic or social theory. Most popular being a socialist/Marxist lens (including both this text and feminist patriarchy theory), but compared to racial oppression too. I always find these theories lacking or flawed, because gender relations are fundamentally unique to any other kind of social group relations. Men and women are unique in that they are complementary and entirely interdependent, which cannot be said of any other social group relations.

I think the fundamental problem in comparing gender relations to an economic one (and sex and relationships to a commodity) is that sex, relationships, and ultimately children are fundamentally uneconomical. Having a family is a financial burden - there is really no financial incentive for men to have pursue sex and children. If you tread sex as purely a desire-fulfilling transaction, then why would one sex in particular be the gatekeepers of sex? After all, both sexes have sexual desires. No, gender relations are fundamentally built around the uneconomical reality of raising children. Even the authors' of the text seem to contradict the purely economic nature of sex/relationships:

On the other hand, women disguise the economic basis of the deal in every possible way; lie, cheat and compete in a life and death struggle with others of their sex. A thousand illusions, tricks, subtleties, hypocrisies are employed to cover the bald fact that wares are being displayed, are being bidden for by other men.

If sex was purely just a commodity, then why is the 'sale' by women so hidden, the 'marketplace' so obfuscated? If it was simply a commodity to be traded as any other, than why aren't all women literally prostitutes, long-term clients or otherwise? A society where gender relations are literally treated as a business contract.

Sex and relationships are not just about a economic transaction, or a parasitic relationship, put forth by many gender theories. It's about being mutually beneficial, providing a social function, companionship, love and complementary emotions and behaviors, to create a functioning family (for children or otherwise). Though I guess you can just see the social element merely as a function for biological fulfillment - reproduction ("love is just a chemical" and all that jazz). Men's protector to women's nurturer, men's stoicism and steadfastness to women's empathy and tenderness. Dualist, to a certain extent, like yin-yang.

To end, the predictions about the future of gender relations was surprisingly accurate (though not perfect), especially as this was well before feminism truly existed (first-wave feminism is a relative neologism used to describe suffragettes).

...the power of women will probably increase marvelously during the next few years. Governments will reward the surrender of woman to man, while employers compete among themselves for her labor power. Much will be offered to women.

This supports my theory that feminism is actually the consequence or by-product of social change in gender relations, rather than the cause. Where feminism is the embodiment or representation of women's power, not the creator thereof. The root cause still fundamentally industrialization (and war, to a less extent). Still, I think Engels' was (and will continue to be) wrong. Since gender relations are not simply economical, there will never be a purely symmetrical/gender-blind approach to gender relations. While the nuclear family has certainly lost its popularity, we're just starting to see how fundamental the family is to society (humanity, even), the negative outcomes of fatherlessness, among others issues. Which is why the family and gender relations will always be at least somewhat recognizable, excepting some extreme technological change (e.g. AI, consciousness upload, cloning etc)

StraightGangstaHack · 2020-01-11T13:55:44+00:00

Thanks for sharing this.

I'm pretty floored by how well they predicted the modern world in 1918. They were just glimpsing the end of the patriarchy, but understood many of the implications. They correctly note that women had ruled our species until very recently - just the advent of agriculture - and were regaining their leadership again.

They were wrong, obviously, that we would arrive at a post-capitalist Utopia, free from all want, but what were they right about? What rings true in 2020?

THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT

Of course, every one knows that marriage is a legal contract; but whom does it bind? Certainly not the woman, nor any woman in America. For she may easily free herself and even divorce and penalize her husband if she is dissatisfied either with him or his earnings; or she may evade all the obligations she is supposed to meet, almost always with absolute impunity.

Whatever she may do or leave undone in the marriage relation, if it but be with sufficient pretense and discretion, in America, at least, the world and the courts absolve her from all blame.

If she be discreet, she may entertain lovers galore; she may refuse to perform any of the theoretical duties of the home; she may refuse to bear children or to surrender to her husband, without censure, and often without the knowledge of the world. If she be addicted to drunkenness, people will divine that her husband must have treated her brutally; if she be seen with other men, folks suspect that he neglects her.

If her husband seeks satisfaction for his desires elsewhere, she may divorce him and secure alimony; if he deserts her the law will return him to her side, if it can find him. If he fails to bring home the wherewithall to provide for her, she may have him sent to jail. If she discovers that he is getting the affection and the sex life which she has denied him, outside of his home, and if she buys a revolver and murders him in cold blood, the jury will exonerate her.

And why is that?

Also, one can imagine the feelings of the tax-payers of a small community when the father of several small children deserted his wife and the expenses of supporting his family devolved upon them. It would call for little imagination to picture these respectable members of society scrambling to pass laws for the punishment of the errant one and to force him back to his wife and support-producing labor. But, basically, the legal favoritism which has arisen in the past thirty years in America, is probably due to a desire on the part of the employing class to protect and make secure the mothers of children for the sake of the future labor supply.

...

It is evident, whether due to one cause or to many, that the law, which usually protects those who possess bestowable favors, has gradually built up strong protective measures for women. Among the rich, men and women find protection for their property in the laws, according to the measure of their economic power, but among the wage working and middle classes, woman occupies a privileged legal position.

As long as a husband possesses any thing, his wife may be certain of support or an "adequate" income at least. The husband may be punished for his lack of possessions, or his failure to produce an income.

Comments