babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Who's a feminist? the old question with new angles...
November 7, 2009 - 8:28pm
__
From a closed thread:
to which Stargazer responded:
I did not say anything about people who hold that view as not being feminist -- I said that those who disagreed that the position is pro-feminist seem to be getting silenced on this issue. There is quite a difference, in my opinion. Having said that, I do find it somewhat objectionable that a whole forum as been devoted to "sex worker rights" as if this discussion has reached it conclusion and that we all agree that it is feminist to support full decriminalization or legalization. What other way of supporting oneself has a whole forum? And, if there is a whole forum in support of "sex worker rights and their allies", where is the room to safely object to that point of view?
I joined this board many years ago and have posted in fits and starts. I find it interesting and have learned a lot. However, I often lurk because there are certain unwritten rules that have been fostered here and it would seem as though if one violates them, there is grief. This issue strikes me as being among them -- it's coming across as though the truly enlightened support "sex worker rights" as being fully feminist and any arguments to the contrary are coming from those who either don't get it or don't get "real" feminism. Yet, you've heard from those who have been hurt badly by being in that work and from others who have been wounded sexually, including myself. But never mind that, it's just our woundedness talking, not really an accurate portrayal of how those with power wield in the lives of those who don't, particularly women.
Frankly, it's interesting but sort like driving by a car wreck to see how this discussion has shaped up in favour of one side of the discussion and those who are on the wrong side are misinterpreted and maligned.
The only person we've "silenced" is one person who kept attacking another poster after being told to stop. She was not the only voice here critical of prostitution, and no other voices have been silenced or told they can't put forth the arguments you outlined in this or the other thread.
Clearly the discussion has reached zero conclusions. The reason the forum was created was because women in sex work were getting drowned out by those against it. Doesn't that indicate a lack of debate, discussion and understanding?
I'm not sure why you ask, "who is a feminist?" when I've clearly stated that feminists don't agree on this issue, or in fact on many issues.
Loretta, my post was not directed AT you it was directed towards everyone who would read it. I apologize if it came across as being directed at you.
Anyways, I think enough has been said regarding voices and whose are being heard and it is more than clear that both sides of this debate, and those who can easily meet in the middle, have all had their say in the at least 10 - 15 threads now on this topic.
I am not sure what your goal is. Do yoiu wish to shut down the voices of those who do not follow the abolutionist view? I don't think that is healthy as feminists see this issue very differently. Why is it so hard to accept that there is room for debate? Read the threads here and you'll see that the abolutionist group has had a whole lot to say and started a lot of threads on this topic.
There are also those who prefer full legalization as well. Should that not be allowed?
I think this thread will end badly.
How stark of contrast you make Michelle, as you well know there are differeing types of silencing used here all the time....it does rabble a disservice to deny that silencing occurs here in many forms other than banning, or suspending.
most here, and reading, are way too intelligent to accept that kind of propaganda...
In fact, Loretta herself indicated such in her post, which you over looked in your assurances that it was not happening..
...arbitrarily closing threads is one form...starting biased forums is another...or even your post was closed and silencing with its brooking no contest kinda talk...
and then there is this truthful observation of Loretta's
because of course we all know I am in favour of having women's rights stripped from them afterall...just because of my stance
so..... someone can attack me by slandering me like that, and it is all good...but let me tell you if I said that to those wanting decrim with no regulations, I would have been warned and/or suspended, or attacked for attacking....
I have to give it some thought but I think this may have been the final straw for me. Yes, she may have crossed some lines. But she's not the only one to have crossed lines. Just the only one to be banned - not suspended but banned.
Yes, why was this supension (a first-time one, too) turned into a permanent ban, despite no additional offense and without explanation? And why does Infosaturated go on being smeared here, in absentia? That used to be beyond the pale, too.
Occasionally in rare instances, challenging situations must certainly present themselves, where commentary is provided in such a way as to understandably cause a fair degree of difficulty in terms of warnings or temporary suspensions, where no rational accommodation between the commentators and those subjected to the remarks can reasonably be expected going forward. I can't imagine the decisions being altogether tough calls to make, just necessary ones where no other practical choice is available.
Actually, you're right, Martin, normally we don't talk about people who have been banned. But you guys keep bringing it up, so of course I'm going to answer. But this will be the last time I answer about Infosaturated. The moderators had to field many, many complaints about her behaviour over the past few weeks, and this was the final straw. Beyond the behaviour, we just don't have the moderating time to deal with all the complaints she was constantly making about other people (many of which we felt were without merit, some of which were), and all the complaints others made about her (many of which we felt had merit, some without). She was also clearly unhappy with the site anyhow, demanding changes that the moderators weren't and aren't willing to make. It's a time suck. And we don't have that kind of time. The attacks on susan davis, which she continued after being warned to stop, were the final straw. And it is a unanimous decision by all the moderators, backed by the publisher.
That's my last word on this issue.
There is an entire forum for those who don't follow the "abolutionist" view. (I take it that you mean those who want to abolish prostitution.) Where is the place to discuss that view, for those of us who are feminist and hold it?
Should what not be allowed? The discussion or full legalization? If the former, again, there is a whole forum devoted to that topic, with no place for those who don't agree.
It doesn't need to but, in my view, it is appropriate to challenge the direction in which this whole topic is weighted.
You are welcome to discuss the abolitionist viewpoint in the feminism forum. You always were. Please do! In fact, I would be really interested in seeing you expand on this:
Wll state what i see from those words:
1. the poor are without true choices; Absolute freaking fact and that is the main demographic in the sex trade
2. many of those involved in the sex trade were abused as childre: The stats show over 50% of those in BC's sex trade are FN women, who have been abused by the Canadian system and white people, as children and as adults...
3. to do so would be to support a "business owner" financial model: Common sense dictates it as so, I have detailed at length what will have to happen once it is given an industry designation...
Loretta, thank you for starting this thread. I highlighted the words that particularly resonate.
I have read all of the sex work threads but made a conscious decision not to post in any of them.
I do not support the sex trade as a legitimate business. I think it's repulsive and should be shut down. I realize we've heard some articulate individuals who say they enjoy their work and I have no reason to disbelieve them. The thing is that I just cannot believe such a point of view is a common one. The people I see involved in the sex trade are slaves to their addictions. I just don't see purchasing sexual services as being a legitimate need for anyone. I haven't had a sexual partner for two years but that doesn't mean I'm interested in renting one.
I started out seeing this issue as one similar to the issue of decriminalization of marijuana -- that is, the majority of the harm comes out of the criminalization of possession and use. That's a simplistic view but captures the essence.
Having thought about it and done more reading, I no longer see this issue that way. This is not a victimless act and women who are in this work do so without much in the way of choices, or at least the majority do. In the same way that the vast majority of young pregnant women (who don't choose abortion) who have real supports don't lose their children to adoption, neither do women who have better options choose to support themselves through having sex with many men for money.
I also question this paradigm around the economic model that's being promoted here. I have read that susan davis desires to start some sort of a coop that would include sex workers, artists, and would also include a liaison kind of arrangement that would allow women who wanted out of that work other mechanisms to do so. That doesn't address the arguments related to Employment Standards, zoning issues, WCB or public health issues but let's put that aside for a minute.
Assuming that this is what susan davis wants, I highly doubt that most of those who are proponents of complete decrim or legalization have this vision for sex work and its workers. I have every reason to believe that we are looking at the corporate/capitialist economy taking this decriminalized/legalized industry and distorting the vision of these workers until it's a complete perversion of what it started out as...so why would we champion a cause of this nature?
We are talking about getting behind a business-oriented economic model, not a socialist or collectivist movement in reality. So, what's in it for us as women collectively? How does this advance the well-being of women, not only in the sex trade but around the world? How does it advance the cause of socialism? Why would we fight for the right to lower our collective well-being rather than fight for raising it in appropriate, caring, healthy ways?
Lest I be thought of as a prude, let me assure you that I fully support those ways including freedom of sexual expression, and celebration of our sexuality. Sexual freedom is not what we're talking about here, at least for most women in the sex trade.
I definitely don't think that, and I know lots of women who aren't "prudes" but also have a huge problem with prostitution.
One of the arguments that hits home for me is that the sex trade in general creates an expectation that sex from women should always be available, and perhaps divides women into two categories - women who are willing to provide it on demand, and women who are not.
Very good point. Indeed, the "What if you were offered (ENTER INORDINATE AMOUNT)?" tries to dismiss that resistance as insignificant.
Hello, Loretta. Lovely to talk to you again.
I joined these conversations because I support the Charter challenge. It bothers me a lot to see how willing people are to conflate (no doubt important) social debates with the foundational principles and structures of democracy -- see, eg, the discussion going on in another thread about the CPCCA, aka the Commons Un-Canadian Activities Committee. I mean, that is the threat that looms if we begin to confuse our own moral and social convictions with more basic law that is necessary to protect everyone's liberty and equality. If we can enforce our politics through the Criminal Code, the day could well come when the tables will be turned on us by fascists using the same logic, and we will have opened the door to Atwood's vision in The Handmaid's Tale.
Every once in a while, Susan Davis gets a chance to ask why it is only her work that is hamstrung by the Criminal Code, and that's the argument I'm here to support. Like many people here, I wish we could end capitalism yesterday. In the interim, however, most of us have to earn a living, and we all know how compromised we've been in various ways, depending on the work we took up. We have other laws to address the real crimes that legitimately bother people as civil-liberties offences -- human trafficking, exploitation of minors, eg -- and it would be good to see some clearly focused attention to those crimes.
But that's not what Susan or Stargazer is talking about, and that's not why people still object to what they're saying (and in fact doing). People still think that trade in sex should be criminalized somehow, even though, oh, I don't know, flipping real estate isn't. Susan is standing on section 2 of the Charter, which acknowledges her full humanity -- ie, she is as much a human being as anyone else, which means she should be free to make the full range of choices anyone else does. The Charter does not say "You're only free if you're perfect." It says you're free because you're a human bean, and that is where equality is rooted. There are lots of mediocre men around; the Charter freed women to be every bit as mediocre as men are.
I happen not to think that Susan or Stargazer is mediocre. I've been interested to read all the work that Susan and her group have done to address the need for regulation, if they can get the restrictions of the Criminal Code gone. That all sounds reasonable to me. And I empathize a lot with Stargazer's feeling that she's being condescended to, whether people intend that or not.
But it is exceptionally dangerous to have people confusing admirable social and political arguments and education with criminal law and basic constitutional guarantees of liberty and equality. I'm sure that's why Alan Young and his students took this challenge on pro bono, and that's why I hope they win.
The Charter does not give unlimited freedoms when there are conflicting rights and freedoms. I hope that it fails since I believe that the right of women to live in freedom without legally sanctioning a practice that's harmful as well as reducing freedom for many involved in it. Decriminalizing the "sex worker" is reasonable, anything beyond that is a threat to the rights and freedoms of all women, especially those on the margins who are at risk through poverty.
ok, i tried not to post here but......i keep getting named so......
the employment standards WCB(which we already qualify for), occupational health and safety training( complete and funded by the health authority) working groups/ review boards (being discussed in vancouver- city staff are already working with sex workers)
did you not see our national industry association thread?
http://rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/sex-industry-association
we are working on the aspects you mention. we do understnad the depth of what is required here. system wide reform.
also, i take exception to you stating that 50 % of sex workers are first nations- where did you find that data? please post a link to that data- i have neverheard that number before and don't believe it is based in reality.
30% of on street sex workers , disproportionate representation in survival sex work, these things i have heard. street sex work comprises 10% 15 % of our industy
i am willing to discuss these things but please stick to the facts. one of the greatest threats to sex workers and our safety and stability is mis information. if you are going to make assertions such as above, please provide a link to the data to back your assertion. same applies to all sex workers being abused as children. casting our families as pervert, rapist, incestuous creeps is completely insulting. it plays into the tired old assertion of us being too raped and abused to really know what we need. of course we think we choose our jobs, we're dillusional. that is oppressive and i will not stand quietly b while people cast us all as victims, damaged goods, unable to look after ourselves. this is the excuse always used to impose actions against our community and has had disastrous results all over canada.
are you trying to say that our plans will be taken over by orgainized crime, traffickers and pimps? well, that's nice. way to empower the workers trying to do this work. as if we are too stupid or easy to manipulate and will not be able to implement accountability. it seems as if you think we don't ave what it takes or perhaps it's because you think sex workers are too weak to make this happen. others have said the same thing. i think YOU underestimate us. we will gain control of our destinies and bring trasparency ad accountability to the sex industry.
meanwhile the criminalize the customers but decrim the workers crowd have done nothing to even begin to plan fro decriminalizing of workers. bith sides agree on that point i might point out...so what exactly is different? the swedish model will also require WCB, employment standards, occupational health and safety training and many other regulations....where arethe plans for that? oh right....no where. abolitionists are so busy trying to prove they are right, none of the work required to implement their plan has been done ...so you tell me, what exactly do you plan to do to design employment standards, etc for decrimed workers under the swedush.canadian model?
i hear alot of people slamming our plans and yet no one has any other plans to offer.
we are people, we will fight for inclusion, we will challenge people who perpetuate myths about our lives and hold responsible the systems intended to protect us.we are working on these plans every single day.
slamming canada's first sex worker cooperative as if t is some kind of art project is also very insulting. the workers from the DTES worked their asses of to meet the requiremnts for incorporataion and in light of cooperative business models success in stabilizing sex workers all over the world, you would think people would be a little more supportive. the potential f this action for stabilizing localized groups of workers all over canada is enormous as well as it's potnetial for creating alternative income sources.
you claim to want to help workers on the street yet you ignore what they have asked for and belittle their work. i'm sad to say, pretty typical. you know best right?
[see below]
I will read that thread but I'm not convinced, at this point, that standards in your work can be raised to that of other workers.
I would hope that you would do the same -- please show me where I quoted such figures. I deliberately didn't because I don't know what they might be and, at present, am doing some research through contact with a professor in the realm of women's studies. I am working with that person to dig into research on prostitution done through feminist analysis and will reflect upon it and bring it to this discussion when I get it.
No it isn't.
On many levels.
loretta wrote;
Is babble a place where, like with other "givens" (no sexism, no racism, etc,), it is now a given that we must accept the paradigm that susan davis purports around sex work/prostitution? I can get behind respecting her point of view but disagreeing with it, that seems fair. It seems very inappropriate that rabble/babble would take the position to support that paradigm for a number of reasons. Those reasons include the inherent sexism in sex work/prostitution, the fact that the poor are without true choices, the fact that many of those involved in the sex trade were abused as children and the fact that to do so would be to support a "business owner" financial model.
Giving someone a safe place to discuss their point of view in this matter is one thing, it's another to ban those who don't agree and challenge it.
i thougt you had stated something about first nations but i guess i was wrong...sorry. the point remains about calling our parents child molesters......
i also have stated over and over that our plans a geared to empower workers with rights, not business owners and how in our culture older, more experienced workers become madames and share their knowledge with less experienced workers.
do you subscribe to the sink or swim model? all workers must be isolated from each other, have no mentoring or security on their first date with a customer and not be allowed access to critical information about their work in the form of an ex worker become madame?
this casting of all business owners is why we have no where to work, and are forced onto the street. WE NEED JOBS!!! and we need those jobs to be safe work environments. we will be inspected and scurtinized as other industries, no one is asking for carte blanche brothels. in my opinion this is a scare tactic by abolitionists to confuse the greater public as too what decrim means.
decrim means i am not a criminal. labour law, employment standards act protect workers all over canada, why will it not work for us? why do we require seperate laws? it casts us as different, violence against us as different/unimportant/less, and allows enforcement agencies to apply the law in anyway they see fit including "getting rid of that prostitution problem". we know how well that is working....sex workers are gone. they're dead.
let's not do the typical "quick and dirty" that the canadian government is so famous for. let's do the hard work and do what is right creating a legacy of safety for canadian sex workers. abolitionists seem to think that the swedish model is some how some instant and perfect solution. don't kid yourselves, it will take as much work as full decrim, maybe more. in addition to creating labour standards and all the other infrastructure required to decrim workers only, you will need to come up with laws and penalties for criminalized comsumers and business owners.
in sweden they get a fine.....or 6 months in jail.....do you think that's going to be an effective deterent? that's pretty much already the sentence in canada now under communication provisions, it doesn't seem to be working now.....
Loretta, do you think it should be a criminal offence for a sex worker and a customer to discuss the terms of their contract in a car parked in the parking lot of a shopping mall? Would you answer this question differently for the sex worker than for the customer?
susan davis, I didn't do that either. I said that there is a disproportionate number of those involved in exchanging sexual intercourse for money were abused as children and I didn't name it as sexual abuse. This is what I've read from numerous sources however, I will include that question with those I'm asking of my contact in the women's studies department.
I joined these debates because I think the charter challenges are dangerous for women. I'm all for freedom, but I think it's a mistake to conflate freedom with choice, and choice with autonomy. We are not yet on equal footing, women and men. Men still make more money than do women, men still hold public office, men still make the laws, and enforce them, men still hold the balance of power in the top-heavy beauraucracies of institutions of power, including business, medicine, education, and law...
and men are the ones who demand to buy sex from women. Many people who support the total decriminalization of prostitution insist on describing the abolition postiion as one that would have women in prostitution criminalized. Stargazer, for example, has made this mistake in several threads, one of which was quoted at the beginning of this one.
I do not see how allowing men unfettered access to women's bodies will secure 'safety' for women in prostitution. How will the repeal of the bawdy house law protect women who sell (or are sold) through avenues such as craigslist? How can dedcriminalizing men (or women) who offer women for sale protect those women? This is kind of a rhetorical question. We can look at what happened in Amsterdam, Australia, Germany, to see how well women are protected when prostitution is decriminalized or legalized and regulated. Sure we can find a few 'happy hookers', but there are many many more women who are not happy, not safe, not 'choosing'. and these women are in mortal danger.
I know there are women who say they are feminists, and they support tthe charter challenge, and the decriminalization of all aspects of prostitution. I don't think that supporting the continuation of the sex industry can be a feminist stance. I expect a wee shitstorm of invective hurled my way for that statement, but i will stand by it. Just because you say you are feminist doesn't make it so. And advocating for men to be able to buy sexual access to women's bodies is anti-feminist. Feminism is about figuring out a way to freedom. We want women, and men, to be FREE. not "available to the average consumer at a reasonable cost". We don't know what exactly freedom is yet, but it's different again from having the opportunity to choose between selling sex or pushing a broom, or lining up at the foodbank....
Freedom, it seems to me, and feminism both, depend upon working for the well-being of others. Not just having 'choice' but acting in the interests of those with fewer opportunities--working together to expand opportunities for all. I don't see the charter challenge as acting in the interests of those with fewer options for education, work, etcetera. rather it is doing the opposite. and it is anti-feminist.
Unionist, it would depend on whether we're talking about now or if and when laws are changed.
Ok, let's talk about today. No change of laws - because I'm only aware of one court challenge, and you say you oppose it. Should discussion in a car in a parking lot be a criminal offence for the sex worker? for the customer?
peasant woman, did you call my cohorts and i hookers? please refrain from using language we find offensive. we are sex workers or prostituted people as is prefered by some ex workers here on babble. no where did i see any current or former workers say, yes, call me hooker, i find it empowering.....
try to be respectful.
I did not mean to be disrespectful. that's why i used the term in quotes. i also find it offensive, as it again puts the blame for male violence on women.