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.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
i work with first nations women and men and trans people....do you? expals aren't a first nations group....
The coop develpment and industry association development projects reflect the diversity of the sex working community as it includes women, men and trans-individuals as well as those from different 'classes' and varying capacities and abilities. More specifically, sex workers engaged are multi-literate and culturally diverse. First Nations, Asian, Caucasian, Black workers and those of mixed race are currently invested.
i am not a cheerleader, i am a worker fighting for my rights. and once agaain, i am not funded by pimps and traffickers, i pay my own way by turning tricks and seem to be the person you refer to as profiting from billions of dollars made on trafficking as i am the one posting about sex work for the most part.
I'm a very infrequent poster but I read almost all the posts in the anti-racism, aboriginal and feminist forums. I post occasionally in the feminist forum and on other topics that I see on the TAT. Part of the reason I post infrequently is because so many others contribute much more than I can and I enjoy learning and being exposed to different points of view. Many of my views are not fleshed out yet and coming here helps develop them.
I see a crucial distinction between posting on behalf of an oppressed group and posting about a topic that involves an oppressed group. Anyone can have an opinion on any topic. People will disagree. We can talk about Afghanistan even though we're in Canada and no one here (as far as I know) is Afghani. We can't talk on behalf of Afghanis. We can talk about the Conservative Party even though none of us are members (or hopefully even voted for them). We can't talk on behalf of the Cons.
The issue really is how much weight each poster's opinion should get and what to do if people don't like your opinion. (Tehanu uses the word consideration instead of weight and that's probably a better one) People tend to throw their "weight" around for different reasons and say their opinion is more valid because of x or another poster's opinion is less valid because of y.
If you are a member of the oppressed group in question, then you can give your opinion as a member of that group. I don't think you can even speak on behalf of the whole group. But your opinion should be given weight and you should be recognized - you are speaking from personal experience. If you're not a member of that group but of another and/or have done research in the area or worked in the area or have an interest in that area, you get an opinion and different people will weigh it more or less. If you're a person who read an article once or saw a movie like the topic, you get an opinion too. In my view, it is unacceptable to tell a member of the oppressed group that their opinion is wrong. You can disagree with them -but they have a right to express their opinion.
At the end of the day, everyone's post is just their own personal opinion. No more; no less. Different posters (and lurkers) will form an opinion of the relative weight to give your opinion based on your body of posts and who you are (or are perceived to be). For example, I give Maysie's posts lots of weight because she's well-measured/calm in her posts and speaks with much experience. I give Stargazer's posts much weight because she speaks passionately but is also measured and seems to pick her battles carefully. I give R-P's posts about being a young black man weight. I give his posts about young black women much less weight. I give Unionist's posts about union issues weight. Some posters might give Martin's posts weight because of his involvement and research in pro-feminist issues/causes. Every time a poster deems to speak on behalf of a group, they lose a bit of weight. Every time a poster flies off the handle and/or marginalizes another poster, they lose a bit of weight.
Some people are probably already bristling: "why do I care what you think of me?" That's fine. But in my view, Babble is a dialogue and when you're talking to someone or group of people you should care what they think of your opinion: do they get it? Do they agree? How are you perceived? If they disagree is it because of the way you're framing your post/opinion or is it fundamental disagreement? If it's the former, try to explain your view again. If it's the latter, pick your battles. Sometimes it's ok to disagree and/or let someone else have the last word.
Great post, Summer. Thank you. Sometimes it's hard in cyberspace to realize that the internet and all its constituent parts are social practice and experience. Dialogue is really at the nub of what we are talking about here.
It is actually no one's business what anyone else thinks of them.
I'm not here to make friends
Susan, everything I say is not about you in fact most of it isn't.
If I say "Susan" I am referring to you. If I say "sex workers" I am either referring to what you define as your work, and your attitude which is that it is a job you willing chose. Sometimes I mean "sex workers" in in the broader sense that includes other forms of work within the sex industry but context will usually make that clear.
If I say "prostitutes" I am referring to women who were or are trapped in the industry against their will which is not your situation.
When I refer to "Sex Industry" I am referring to the entire business from playboy magazine to trafficking in women. Clearly you cannot be personally involved in all that.
I am not suggesting in any way shape or form that you are taking money from traffickers or playboy but you are not the only person involved in the drive to decriminization the prostitution industry.
Are you and your friends paying the market rate for all the lawyers involved in the charter challenge from the beginning until the end of the charter challenge? That would seem to be an extremely expensive project.
Sorry catchfire, I do not do youtube. So whatever snark you are implying with it is wasted.
http://www.locateacoach.com/article.cfm?articleid=187747
http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Other-People-Think-of-Me-is-None-of-My-Bu...
Trying to define people in a patriarchial thinking mode, and to force them into it, is distasteful at best.
*bolding mine
I would like to speak on behalf of myself in my deep respect for the women of AWAN. I have met most of the women of the group and have had the pleasure to share some of the important moments of our lives including some shared political actions. I have been awstruck by their personal integrity and courage and by their collective political wisdom, generosity and determination. They conduct themsleves with intelligence, sobriety, good sense and political patience while recognizing the urgency of their fight. My fight for my freedom and my future has been much enriched by theirs. My efforts to understand and walk the routes to women's liberation and social justice for all have been enriched by their company and their part of the road maps.
I want for myself and all other women including Susan and the women of Burma to clean up less other people's toilets and to more often escape being used like toilets. I want for them, their daughters and mine, their sons and mine to live with less prostitution and trafficking, to live with more connection to meaningful purposeful work, land and water and joy. Like AWAN, I believe that unless we start with the revolutionary premise that it is possible and desrable to end prostitution we will not find the appropriate reforms that could ease the lives of those still trapped while we get closer and closer to that end.
I am so impressed that AWAN women in spite of the conditons they face as aboirignal women are prepared to recognize their position in the industrialized west and north which leads them to see the plight of the women of the south, the rural poor who are those most liekly to be trafficked in the forced migrations of the world. Their alliance was spectacular to see in the pacific rim gathering in vancouver this past winter called Flesh Mapping: vancouver markets pacific women
I have benefitted by the company and solidarity of the women of AWAN in our shared fight to end the behaviour of too many men in buying sex, in abusing and trading in the bodies of women and in tolerating that behaviour in others. I have learned from AWAN women a way to live with some of the humiliation of watching others justify the sometimes squalid behaviour of the oppressed when I would so much rather that they take up the struggle against oppression. I have marvelled at the unity struck between women in BC in the aboliton movement whether our herstory included prostitution or not. We have eben managed some trust in our alliance across the racist divide
I have been instructed and strethened in our shared struggle to abolish all forms of violence against women no matter who chooses it: wives daughters students sexually exploited women. My future is tied up with theirs because we were born to this similar condition: we were designated women and told what that meant including that men commit violence against women and get away with it. The progessive movements of the world have yet to stop it However, there are now women in every community of the world trying our damndest to do so. And in every community some of those women see prostitution as a form of violence against women. Not least among them are the brave women of AWAN.
Disagree if you must with their strategies and tactics, they are my stategies and tacitcs and I am more than willing to debate and discuss how to get to liberty. But I have seen none of that on these posts. Let's use Dorothy Smith's sense of category and discuss whether women or sex worker is the more useful category of oppression: you can't have it both ways is that a category of oppression or a job? Let's discuss what we risk if we end prostitution? what exactly would be lost? What is the danger? Let's discuss what happened to the key categories of race and class and sex? And if we accept those as the key lines of oppression Then where does prostituion get addressed? What movement ought to betaking the lead and what must every movment do about the abuses of men to women in prostituion? Let's talk about how regulating prostitution will leave the poorest in the streets and see if that seems likely? But let's not do the character assassination or the patronizing bit while avoiding the theme of this thread
Thank you very much Lee, much appreciated.
Right. Well, I think that we live in a society, and the best way to build that soceity is through engaging with our fellow citizens in meaningful and reciprocal dialogue. That means that if I say something, or express myself, it matters who hears it and in what context. It also means I expect a response (even if that response is silence). That means gauging, evaluating, considering the people I am interacting with. I don't really buy this mode of thinking where the only person that matters is myself, what I believe, etc.--isolated, operating in a vacuum. I guess that outlook might work for lifestyle coaches looking to self-promote, but I don't think it's a particularly useful one for building consensus and extending social democracy. In fact, it strikes me as a individualist and neo-libertarian way of thinking.
I didn't realize I was defining people in a "patriarchal thinking mode", but if you're willing to elaborate, I'll listen
Have you read the book by Whitaker, as it is not about lifestyle coaching and well worth the read.
In fact, it is not about anything you specified at all. It is is about our sense of our own self worth, and not what society determines as our worth. Someone can have degrees out of the ying yang and still be a piece of shit, for example.
And I am not going to go back to feminist basics with you, as one would think by this time you would have at least learned something by being here. Moreover, you learned NOTHING from what I posted, as you have your mind set, so won't bother wasting my words.
Actually changed my mind a little bit:
You say:
"consensus and extending social democracy"
But you make it quite evident that the consensus would only be achieved if, it was on the place, or plain, where you judged it should be, aka, if said person(s) is meeting your "expectations" enough on the sliding isms scale for you to accept it. Like for a simple example or 2:
Do they look right, do they smell right, do they talk right, do they move right, are they educated enough to be worth my while, did they use a word I do not like, what is their laugh like, would I be embarrassed to be seen with them in public, would they be an asset/detrement to our movement, will they make babble look bad...and a myriad of other judgemental measures. If they don't measure, no consensus is reached.
And of course you apply this to yourself too, as you believe that is what other people are thinking about you, so you do the complying dance internally to meet what you think others expectations of you are. It doesn't work one on one, so how can it work in a discussion forum?
How is everyone going to meet the 1000's of other people's expectations on what they want see, hear and know? People would be doing the internal complying dance forever and not a thing would be said worthwhile.
Patriarchial thinking indicates compliance to the dominent norm, and that is patriarchy.
Not even going to touch that neo-libertarian accusation rhetoric, as the discontinuity continues, a pace.
you name me personally several times and for the last time, osgood law school, their students and professor alan younge are working in kind on behalf of sex workers...no one is paying the bills...get it? no underhanded back door dealings as much as it would please you i am sure. are you of the same mind that professor alan young and osgood law school are part of a big pimp and trafficking conspiracy? please, we've been down this road before.
Actually any of us paying taxes are paying for the Osgood Hall intervention in the criminal law challenge. While I resent it I approve of public dollars and university profs doing what they think is right in the community. What I do not think is fair is that the conservatives have ended the Court Challnges fund which would have been avaialable only to equality seeking groups to use to fund a court challenge or to intervene in this case. I would just make one correction to Susan's post: Allan young is not representing all sex workers, he is representing three women who want to decriminalize the sex trade in particular the bawdy house and communications and lving off the avails laws. What I find all too familiar is that a civil libertarian activist like Allan Young rejects the notion of violence against women requiring the rule of law. That too is an important political debate we could have: should women call police when overpowered by violence against women? Is it a crime against all women or only the one at wounded when men to commit such acts and therfore are we obliged as a community or through government to intervene to protect her or are we saying she is on her own? Or perhaps that we as political people will organize to interven some other way not involving the state?
Thanks for the nice to see you, remind!
I don't know what you mean by discontinuity, so I've been trying to figure it out. Are you saying that my previous posts (mostly on enMasse) on feminism and its inclusion of trans women is inconsistent with what I've been saying about checking privilege? Because of course I have a lot of privilege related to trans issues, and have had to work on a whole lot of assumptions. In fact, it was trans people who helped me understand my privilege in this respect. Not only that, I have learned a great deal from trans women about misogyny and sexism, helping to refine my own feminism. That's a gift I'm very grateful for.
When posting on feminism and trans issues, I have tried to speak as a feminist, not on behalf of trans people. I may indeed have crossed the line on more than one occasion into "speaking for" trans people, which I probably shouldn't have done.
Or maybe you're saying that my advocacy of including trans women in women-only spaces somehow implies I don't recognize the oppression faced by cissexual women as well? Because as you know, I don't think that's at all the case.
Anyway, since you have said I have discontinuity in my words and positions, I would appreciate it if you would be willing to clarify what you mean ...
/slight drift/ Infosaturated, I am not a cheerleader for prostitution, nor I imagine is anyone on this site. In fact in many ways I expect my views on how it is an expression of patriarchy and oppression (not just of women) would not be dissimilar to yours, although we would disagree on various points related to how to address the issue. The danger and violence faced by sex workers horrifies me. In addition to that, I see that the sex industry in its current form demonstrating a deeply unhealthy social attitude towards sex and sexuality, and that if we were more sex positive then I expect things would be better. Furthermore, while I don't want to derail this thread by getting into how you were comparing the oppression faced by sex workers and by transgender people, I didn't want to let it pass without noting how inappropriate I thought it was. /end slight drift/
However, back to the thread topic, I have learned a great deal from reading what Susan Davis and others elsewhere have written about their lives. She is clearly passionate and is working extremely hard to improve sex workers' safety. I appreciate how hard she is trying to help people here understand her position, and the courage it takes to be a public sex worker activist. She doesn't need me to validate her knowledge and experience, but I'm certainly going to give her words an immense amount of credence. When Stargazer shared her own experiences, she not only should have been recognized for her strength and generosity in being willing to do so, but also should have been recognized as having a personal understanding of the issue that far exceeds that of, I suspect, virtually everyone else here.
Learning from others is another benefit of recognizing privilege, and can indeed happen when people who have been marginalized are willing to take the time to try and educate others. People are giving us a gift. And we have the opportunity to recognize the patience and tenacity that many people have in educating those of us who do not have that experience.
My post was not intended to express a "side" in the debate on prostitution, which is not the topic of this thread. It was about how speaking on issues of oppression in areas in which we are not ourselves oppressed is problematic. My post was intended to share how I have come to understand that I need to be very, very careful about speaking on behalf of other people, because by doing so, I can make things worse for them.
Well...we all know how that ideology has worked so far for women, given VAW stats.
It does not matter if it has the civil libertarian label, or the label of patriarchy, that we currently suffer under, it is not thought that women require the rule of law to apply to anything, let alone violence against them.
That social liberalism is dancing so close to civil libertarianism, is disquieting. It means, to me, that patriarchy has yet again co-opted women's equality endeavours in a very serious way.
Thank you so much Lee. I just finished writing a rant post at this community in another thread but fortunately didn't hit "post".
The reason my post was going to be a rant was that a comment of support for Susan set me off. The comment was basically, "wish there were more sex workers here because I don't know anything about it but I support you".
It didn't piss me off because it was support for Susan. It pissed me off because it accepted personal lack of knowledge as acceptable and blind support as justifiable. I heard a clip of Dr. Phil saying that he supported the invasion of Iraq even though he "doesn't follow politics ha ha" but that Americans should support the president.
Lack of knowledge and blind support of either side on this issue is unacceptable. Susan has been pouring herself into this heart and soul. Saying you support her is no substitute for informing yourselves. If you are going to support her it shouldn't be because she is a sex worker it should be because she is right based on a critical anaylsis of the available information.
Neither Susan nor I should have to spoonfeed you the information on either side of the issue while you sit back and decide who is making the strongest points. What if I "win" but Susan is actually right, just doesn't have as much time to debate? What if the reverse is true, and Susan "wins" because she is a sex worker and I'm not?
This is not a game. This is not a feminist issue. This is not a theoretical debate. This is an issue that all Canadians have a duty to inform themselves on and I mean factually.
The lives of women and children, literally, depend on what direction Canada takes. It's not just about the Charter Challenge. That battle will be won or lost in the courts. There are brothels running in Canada today. There are women being trafficked into Canada today. There are minors being caught up by pimps and given drugs by those pimps to gain control of them. I am not saying the side Susan speaks of doesn't exist, or that her solution isn't best, maybe it is. I am just saying all these things are happening in our country. They are happening to people with no voice. No one can claim to be progressive while failing to inform themselves about the outcomes of various solutions in other countries. This is not about ideology.
Aside from the suffering of those involved there is also a matter of who we are as a country and what we stand for, what we want to project about ourselves to the world. Again, whatever the "right" outcome is I want to be able to be proud of how it molds our country and what it says about Canadians.
Just saying we are part of a progressive community doesn't make it so. With the exception of very few threads I think men should feel free to post on the issue as much as they want as long as those posts are based on solid information or reasoned thought. This isn't a feminist issue or a woman's issue it's a Canadians issue. If as women we also want some threads to talk about our feelings or about men's place in the debate we can do that. But if we are debating or evaluating outcomes of various systems there is no reason a man can't offer just as much as a woman can to the debate.
Michelle suggested maybe there should be a separate area for the threads on this topic and I agree. I would hope that members of this community won't accept personal ignorance on this topic as acceptable nor limit their reading to what they find on this site. It's not a simple issue. We shouldn't even be debating who's right and who's wrong without first educating ourselves on the outcomes in various countries and on the views of various interest groups. There should be no kneejerk reactions based on simplistic theory without any real knowledge of the parameters of the issue.
Out of respect for Susan, for Lee, for all women and for Canada we owe it to ourselves to be informed. If we cannot bother to achieve that then this just isn't a progressive community no matter what gets discussed.
Gisele
Tehanu, how great to see you twice in one day, soon I will not have to go to en masse to read your words ;)
Discontinuity means a gap, in this case a gap in what is professed and what is understood, or rather not understood or not realized, especially implication wise.
Did not want to get into it, not only because it is a bit drifty, but also given the painful experience in respect to the issue of gender identification disagreements. But I wanted to note that the discontinuity in position held still exists, hoping you would think about it further, given the thinking person you are.
Overcoming patriarchial indoctrination is often hard to do, and sometimes we do not even realize when we are victimizing ourselves with it, as women.
Well, rather than appropriating someone else's voice, how about I link to him directly. And it would be a disservice to link to him and not to link to her.
[ Quote below from the original posting]
And yet what better time and better place than this to take at least a few tentative steps towards addressing the issue? One of the things that strikes me most forcefully when I read through this thread, and the threads on sex workers that seem to be its progenitors, is the air of presumptive heterosexuality that characterizes the majority of posts. There are exceptions to this I would happily concede, but I would also observe that they (the exceptions) have tended to quickly diminish as the threads lengthen. Before assuming that other voices are not being heard because they don't exist, we have to take a step back and wonder if they are not being heard because they are not willing to engage in a competition over the terms of the debate itself -- that they (we?) might be a little cautious about exposing ourselves to comments about causing thread drift or hijacking.
I agree totally with Maysie that appropriating someone else's voice only leads to grief (my paraphrase). At the same time, I have the expectation that babblers have the ability to step out of their own skins and develop an analysis of issues that affect marginalized groups that they themselves are not members of. Part of the process of developing this analysis is to actively seek input from these groups. As a gay male I really don't want straight people "speaking on my behalf". At the same time, I take heart when I read a post where someone asserts that "one size doesn't fit all" and elicits feedback from those who might have firsthand experience that would confirm or deny their assertion.
Great post and great links, great issue. I have thought of men and transgendered people but been nervous to mention them or figured it leads to a whole different kettle of fish. But mainly, I have foot in mouth disease. I think it would be really interesting to discuss the different opinions coming out of the various communities and why they support whatever view it is they support.
Well, remind, I'm not too sure how to react to this, because it sounds to me as thought you're saying I'm either being willfully inconsistent when I'm talking about the importance of acknowledging and acting on privilege, or that I'm blinded by some form of patriarchal indoctrination that I have failed to examine in myself. I've spent a lot of time thinking of the indoctrination I've experienced (including on trans issues, for that matter) and I think that I am pretty self-aware of any discontinuities in what I profess and what I understand, and am open to having any instances of that pointed out so I can think about them. But since I don't know what the issue is that you're saying I need to examine, it makes it a little hard to do so.
Oh well. I wanted to share my thoughts on the thread topic, I have, it's all good and I'm heading back to enMasse.
See y'all!
Nice to see you, Tehanu - drop in any time. :)
alan younge believes 1 set of laws regarding violence against women should be suffiecient. as i have stated before having 2 sets of laws, one for violece against sex workers, and one for violence against women makes violence against us seem different, less , unimportant. are we not all women, could we not have one set of laws regarding violence and exploitation? why seperate sex workers from ther women in this regard?unless of course women see themselves as different than sex workers, or violence against a "real" woman as different from violence against a sex worker?
this seperation is the reason for the systems failure to protect us. police see violence against a sex worker seperated as different andit allows them to set it as a lower priority. as is seen whenever a younge blonde female child from an affluent neighbourhood goes missing and 100 police are discptched to work on it...as opposed to sex workers going missing and barely making the news. that is beginning to change but it is still disproportionate protection and use of resources. why? because of this kind of othering created by the current legal frame work.
No need to react at all Tehanu, and I am sure you will keep thinking about it, as you are a deep thinker.
Glad you stopped by, always interested in your insights and words.
The law does not protect any women susan, and there is not 2 sets of laws, there is barely one set of laws.
prostitution laws make illegal exploitation of youth or a sex worker. we already have laws making exploitation illiegal, trafficking, unlawful confinement, assault, rape......why do we need laws specifically realted to exploitation of sex workers? there are 2 sets of laws......
Just a couple of basics I hope you will agree with and keep in mind:
Sexual violence is alredy highly gendered. On the whole men do it. It is true that some men do it to other men. It is true that a few women do it and even fewer women do it to girls and women, but on the whole men do it and they do it to girls, boys, the men who they perceive as like women and to women. Overwhelmingly men sexually assualt women.
Whether you care to classify prostitution/trafficking as violence against women or not, it is men who do the prostituting and women who are sold, rented, bought or used as sexual objects. And globally it is women who are the vast number of those prostituted in both domestic and global trade
So we might more clearly ask why then is the law not gendered. When we drafted a version of a new rape law as a coalition of sixty womens groups from across the country, (yes including women in prostitution, domestic workers, migrants, etc) we called for a preamble that laid out these facts. When we invented sexual assualt centers and coalitions we built into our constitutions, the knowlege that violence against women was a force that held all women down: that each act of violence tolerated by society worked to prevent the "rising of the women". Most centers still operate with that feminist lens even if they are not activist in their orientation. That is why in 2001 and then 2005 all the cneters in CASAC participated in debates and discussion as to how we should relate to the NEW crisis of prostitution in the NEW context of neoliberalism and globalization rit large.
We came to the conclusion that the demand for prostitution in our cities was fueling the forced migrations and/or trafficking of women and children from the poorest regions of the world to service the imagined needs of men around us for the profit of other men and that our laws and practices were making that so. We decided to struggle to achieve both more open immigration especially for women and for women and children from the poorest areas and to increase support for the aboriginal women within Canada, and to fight racism in our selves and others and to fight for economic justice particularly by looking at the movement for a guarnateed livable income. But closest to our hearts was to fight prostitution as an institution that allows men to oppress women, to lable and fight it as form of violence against women. that meant fighting for exit services, for protections for sexually exploited youth and for better criminal law and social policies for all women. That motion was brought by women in Quebec and supported by a large majority of centers across the country
Now I have to let this conversation go on without me. Our shelter is full, our volunteers need training, our weekly protest against the next killed wife will be in the street on Sunday, and the abolition coalition is presenting talks this week so I am needed to do my job. Thanks for hearing/reading me out
Thank you Lee, I am copying your words to study so I can better express my own feelings on the topic when I am at a loss for words.
all sex work is not violence....dangit.....i just visited with 2 clients between posting and was not a victim of violence. i understnad the need to protect people from violence but there are alot of gaps in rape reliefs plans. ie- no plan specifically realting to sex work- we have exiting programs, the ngo's in charge support decrim- we tried to creat exiting opportunities with our cooperative but rape relief and their allies misrepresented our intentions and crippled our efforts to achieve our goals....so it's all very well for ms lakeman to claim they support all these things but do they? or do they in fact impead prgress with their uninformed actions against sex workers them selves?
rape relief are not involved in any city or police committees i am on, so exactly where are they working on the issues they claim to support......
Many women, men and trans people around the world have a stake in developing safe avenues for sexualized commerce. Sexualized commerce has become an established set of institutions in most urbanized environments, and the most important thing we should be concentrating on is how to maximize the safety and security of both the workers and the clients in these systems. Were we to continually marginalize these working people, we would risk their having their health compromised, which could lead to their clients health being compromised. These are the vectors for the transmission of some particularly deadly issues.