My Views on Feminism Part 3

     So! Today as I was reading the Edmonton Sun (big mistake), I stumbled upon something that caused me some pretty serious inner conflict. About half way through the paper, there was an article that took up the whole entire page called "Sex Trade Pioneers". This article was obviously about pioneers and the sex trade. And I'd like to explain to you why it made me feel sort of amazed and sort of like I wanted to hit myself in the face.
     First of all, here is a little overview. The article was about a U of A student who did an exhibit on pioneer women and the sex trade. The article, again, took up the whole page, and explained to the reader the importance of the sex trade in the 1800s. It gave examples of women who owned brothels, took pornographic images, defied the RCMP, got arrested and sometimes ended up killing police officers. It also explained how when Edmonton's last brothel was shut down in the 1880s, many people deemed Edmonton to be uninhabitable. At the very end of the article, the journalist states that the student created this exhibit so that people would rethink the dehumanization of sex trade workers today.
     I'd like to tell you what I liked about this article. It was about women.
     Now, I'd like to tell you what I didn't like about this article. EVERYTHING ELSE. To start with, the article is about the freaking sex trade. Being a feminist, and an angry one, I cannot tolerate any sort of objectification of women at any time for any reason. There are definitely more opportunities for jobs today than there were in the 1880s, which is why the sex trade should be crumbling, but back then, do you really think there were many options? These women in the article who were killing police officers to save their brothels were most likely running a brothel so they could stay alive. I don't care if you own a gas station or a museum, if someone comes in and tries to take away from you what you've created, it's obvious that you will defend what is rightfully yours. Without being able to go to school or vote or make any type of decision without a husband, these women were left to do the "only thing  they're good for anyway": sex. I'm absolutely sure that they did not purposely become vigilantes. They were just trying to make a living and this is what happened. Now, I'm sure that this is what the U of A student was trying to get across. That these women were people trying to make a living and that's why they deserve some respect. I'm sure she was trying to show the strength of these women. I believe that they were strong. But, for goodness sakes, can we talk about strong women that weren't being used as objects for the pleasure of men? Where are the first wave feminists in this exhibit? If we're trying to get people to stop dehumanizing sex trade workers, maybe we should try to get them to stop dehumanizing women first.
     As I mentioned, there were women in the 1880s that were beginning the first wave of feminism. Lucy Stone was the first woman in 1884 to change her wedding vows and get rid of the word "obey". There were so many women fighting for their equality. WHY ISN'T THIS ARTICLE ABOUT  THEM? Where is Lucy Stone in the Edmonton Sun? Sadly, Lucy Stone isn't there because equality doesn't sell. Sex sells. Sex sells so well, in fact, that there was a whole page devoted to these poor women of the sex trade. Do you know how disappointing it is that this is the first article I've ever read in the Edmonton Sun about a group of women? I guess the only way that we can get in the paper at all is if we're objects. "Oh, Lucy Stone wasn't topless when she changed her marriage vows? Sorry, we can't write about that." I know for a fact that if this probably very intelligent university student did an exhibit on suffrage instead, it wouldn't have taken up half a page. Frankly, I'm disgusted.
     If we continue to focus on our sexuality being the only thing we're good for, we will not go anywhere. We are now at a point where we, as women, can freely choose to exercise our sexuality or not, but these women were not there yet! Not even close! They had to sell their bodies and other womens' bodies to men to make a living without a husband. Why is this being celebrated?  Women have had to put up with objectification since the 1800s, I now know, and they definitely had to put up with it before then too. We are still putting up with it every single day. From the time we're old enough to understand sentences, our mothers have been telling us to never go anywhere alone, always bring a trusted (male) friend just in case, never go anywhere in the dark, etc. We are familiar with objectification. Every single girl has been dealing with it her whole life. Why are we still treating it like it's okay? Why are we glorifying the objectification of the past for everyone to see? Yes. It happened, we understand that. Let's move on and make things better.