Was it once so difficult to understand why women stayed in abusive relationships that we had to appeal to their passivity and helplessness by identifying them battered women? Is it so unthinkable that a woman might consider sex work a feasible option, that we must consider them driven and forced into the industry by other beneficiaries rendering them prostituted women? Women who experience domestic abuse and women who work in the sex industry are, according to radical feminism, both victims of male violence, but the way they are referred to is oddly different, as I will explore below.

Over the years our knowledge and understandings of domestic abuse has altered our use of the words we call on to define it. It is, in this country, no longer appropriate to use battered women when speaking about those who experience domestic abuse. And yet, in the words of Ferraro, “the words change but the melody lingers”. Radical feminists refer to women as ‘survivors’ when they identify their experiences of domestic abuse, rendering them anything but helpless, yet they appeal to women’s passivity and helplessness in refusing to call sex workers anything other than prostituted women. How is one term considered inappropriate, but the other considered apt? And why do understandings of women’s vulnerability differ so much?

Whilst knowledge has developed around who is at risk of experiencing domestic abuse, how, and by what means, certain stereotypes remain. The mythical idea of a passive, middle-class, white woman cowering in the corner used to be surmised by the phrase battered woman. As women’s rights and feminist academics highlighted the structural reasons why someone would stay in an abusive relationship (as opposed to being too weak or too beaten down to leave) language subtly shifted to reflect these new understandings.

But language does not simply reflect knowledge, it constructs it.[1] The phrase battered woman was premised on notions of learned helplessness, a psychological condition where women perceived their circumstances as unchangeable and therefore tolerated the abuse. This wasn’t – and isn’t – the case most of the time. Now we know that women in abusive or violent relationships do have agency and regularly show resistance – at times violent, but often not.  It can be physically fighting back in self-defence as well as every day acts of resistance like ‘foot-dragging, evasion, false compliance, feigned ignorance, and sabotage’. Evan Stark writes about victims creating ‘safety zones’ – moments of autonomy within the oppression where they can retain a sense of self. Narratives of passivity remain, of course, but researchers are moving beyond them, showing the help-seeking behaviours and resilience shown by women in abusive relationships, as well as their children. Considering them helpless, and calling them battered is unfair, because it is inaccurate.

Regardless of how resistance manifests, ultimately they are survival strategies for those living with violence, and this includes, at times, strategic passivity and placation. For many women, leaving an abusive partner may increase their risk of femicide, meaning that it is often safest for them to stay: staying then, is an act of resistance to keep themselves alive. They are not consenting to the abuse, but they are exercising agency within the abuse. Whilst it may seem that their actions are passive, this passivity is instrumental and though appropriate terminology is each person’s to self-define, battered woman often undermines this painfully executed agency.

To the same feminists who acknowledge this agency, prostituted woman is a term used to show the lack of agency of women in the sex industry, even though the circumstances of her remaining in it may be identical. Their argument is that sex worker implies that having sex for money is a job, with freely given consent, and they argue that for those who are trafficked or pimped this term is inappropriate. Prostituted woman is far more apt because it is men who do the prostituting and women are the passive and helpless victims. They are being prostituted. But often, women are in the sex industry for the same reasons they remain in abusive relationships (and I contend that a lot of feminists think of the two situations as very similar): because leaving is dangerous. And further, even if the damage is being done to them, as it is in the case of domestic violence, why are only some women granted agency and subjectivity?

Staying in an abusive relationship may mean living with violence and degradation, but leaving comes with its own risks, such as stalking, harassment and murder. Staying can also mean there’s no risk of not being with the children and in cases where the perpetrator is also the breadwinner, they may stay out of prison and able to support the family. In short, out of a range of risks, staying is often the least terrible choice. It’s no different in the sex industry where continuing sex working is a reflection of limited livelihood options and scarce economic resources. Using prostituted woman to highlight the harm being done to them at the hands of men undermines the agency that women show when they exercise self-determination, capacity and awareness of income generation for survival. Lua da Mota Stabile argues that this is especially apparent for women in the Global South who are “continually, voluntarily, and conscientiously engaging” in sex work. She further criticises anti-sex work feminists for constructing a false image of a Third World victim against the wishes of the Third World women they speak about. Collectively we must legitimise sex work as a form of resistance against poverty as much as living with an abuser is resistance against violence.

Whatever one’s opinions are on the sex industry – and I believe that it is a misogynistic, violent, and exploitative industry – the reasons why the battered women terminology is no longer appropriate are frustratingly the exact reasons why prostituted women is continued: because it denies women agency. This is not trivial. Language is important because it is an exercise of power by those who use it. These relationships between power and language create discourses by which power is enacted, reproduced, or legitimised through the talk and text of dominant voices. If dominant voices refer to women as prostituted, they are constructed as ‘vulnerable’, and this justifies others disciplining them, controlling them or making decisions on their behalf. Sex workers’ perceived lack of agency and self-determination justifies a range of coercive interventions from arresting a financial provider, to stigmatising labelling or intrusive and destabilising rescue missions.

Positioning migrant, trafficked or coerced sex workers as victims of crimes, or prostituted women, forgets the whole social, economic and political context which puts people in this situation, often because the place of origin or the alternative circumstances can be so threatening. We have to accept that even women who are forced into working off debt bondage or women who are being pimped by an abusive boyfriend may not totally be denied agency, if actually, they are strategically working in a way to minimize harm to themselves and others. Simply because they are not actively exiting does not mean that they are consenting to sex work any more than a woman is consenting to being abused simply because she is not moving out.

To do justice to all who experience violence, the first step is using politically neutral terms which do not dangerously imply helplessness. Forcing someone out of a situation may put them in greater danger than helping them to stay safe and stay put. Using battered and prostituted women undermine the agency and capacity of women to keep themselves safe. Feminist knowledge production has moved on enough to know that battered women is no longer appropriate. Sex worker rights activists stress the importance of language and its consequences, and feminists must listen.

---

[1] To some, battered woman indicates the same passivity that victim of domestic violence does, whilst survivor may not take into account how abuse undulates and returns for years after the relationship ends. This piece specifically highlights how battered woman has been phased out of use, and the reasons why.