discrimination, and an abuse of human rights. These bills provided that those who claimed to be harmed
by pornography would be entitled to sue for sex discrimination (although, clearly, substantiating that harm
would be most difficult). The “pro-sex” feminists criticized this legal strategy as well as the fact that the
anti-porn activists allied with Christian conservatives in proposing and supporting these laws; such
ordinances were enacted by several city governments but overturned by the courts. This controversy has
subsided, but feminists’ differences about pornography remain.
Sex work, from Playboy bunnies to prostitution, never produced strong antagonism, but feminists did
differ—and continue to differ—about it. Each of three different policies toward prostitution—prohibition,
legalization, and decriminalization—had advocates. Among prostitutes themselves, some supported
legalization, which exists in some rural areas of Nevada, whereby prostitutes are licensed and inspected;
supporters believed that this system provided greater safety. The majority of prostitutes, however, called
for decriminalization, the repeal of all laws governing the practice. They argue that sex work is a form of
labor that any individual should be free to undertake. Some even asserted that sex work could empower
women and increase their autonomy. Influenced by women’s liberation, some sex workers began to
organize. The earliest and best-known group was COYOTE, “Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics,” founded
in 1973 by the flamboyant and glamorous feminist sex worker Margo St. James in San Francisco. None of
these groups managed to change local laws, however, even though freer sexual norms were
simultaneously reducing moralistic outrage. Many 1970s feminists hoped to abolish prostitution entirely,
since they considered it always damaging to women and degrading to all, through its commercializing of
an activity that should be free of economic pressure. They argued that women and girls are often coerced
into sex work, sometimes by men, and often by an economy that deprives women of opportunity for better
jobs. They also pointed to the fact that sex workers were far more vulnerable to abuse than other working
women.
Still, all feminists and sex workers agreed about fundamental principles and problems. All
condemned policies that criminalize the sex workers as opposed to their clients or employers. All
believed that sex workers need legal and social protection from violence, exploitation, and other hazards
of the occupation, including disease. All condemned coercing people into sex work, of course. Defining
coercion, however, exposes the complexity of the issue. Obviously “trafficking” is coercive, when
women (or men) are duped, kidnapped, imprisoned, or otherwise forced into prostitution. The data show,
however, that the incidence of sex trafficking has been exaggerated (while the incidence of nonsexual
trafficking of low-wage workers has been underemphasized). But when poverty and the lack of other
work force people into only sex work, is that not coercion? When sex work pays a living wage, or just a
higher wage than other jobs, is that not coercion? When we consider what conditions make free choice
impossible, we see that sex work becomes a microcosm of the more universal problems of inequality—
gender inequality and all other forms of inequality and poverty as well.
Work
The single greatest factor changing women’s lives in the twentieth century was that most had to earn
wages. Some chose employment because it offered a stimulating career; for most, however, jobs were
necessary to support themselves and their families. In part because men’s real wages—that is, their
buying power—were falling, more families needed women’s wages. Women’s employment was a major
factor strengthening feminism: there is nothing like seeing one’s hard work and competence disregarded to
make women notice the inequality of the sexes.