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
Then you know nothing of lap dances remind. The court challenge is going on because there is a NEED for one.I do not understand your fixation on my vagina and that of other women.
I cannot speak with people who absolutely a) refuse to see the there are legit issues and b) doesn't care when they are shown to them.
No Loretta, it isn't fair. You have opened a thread which was designed solely to discredit anyone who was for decrim or legalization.
I am a feminist and have been since I was 20 or so. I have read a ton of feminist work, took many women's studies courses in universty and I don't know one person who would say I am not a feminist.
Splitting people into two camps: feminist vs non-feminist was your decision because you think we cannot possibly be feminists. I am. The divide and conquering was done by you. No one else questioned whether those partnering up with REAl women of canada the catholic church and the christian fellowship are feminist or not but that case can be made by those who chose to divide us. That is not a case I am going to make.
And once again remind, what part of the criminal code do you not understand?
Under the convoluted Canadian law, buying or selling sex is legal, but it is illegal to communicate about it beforehand, live off its avails, or run a private bawdy house.
I'm not sure about this, but I got the impression that "divide and conquer" referred to prostitution being one of those issues that divides and polarizes feminists so that we are fighting with each other about what we disagree on. Maybe I'm wrong, in which case, I guess I should read more carefully - I didn't read every post in the last thread.
But that's how this whole thing playing out has struck me, anyhow. There are women here who have known each other for years on babble, and every once in a (long) while, some issue will come along, sometimes in the feminism forum, sometimes elsewhere, that will divide and polarize feminists on babble.
This appears to me to be one of those times, and one of those issues.
Thank you for your wording of this...
And yes, michelle, that is how I take it too...in part only though, because most definitely some views being presented here are not a feminist positioning or actions.
Feminists do not accuse other feminists of being man haters for example....first time I have ever experienced it in over 3 decades.
Nor do feminists I know accuse me of being aligned with REAL women....
so I am definitely not sure that these type of prosepectives indicate a discussion of this from a feminist standpoint
Because it is not from a eco-feminist viewpoint, and it does not embody the VAW principles long fought for.
That was my intention, michelle. Along with questioning the framework in which the issue is being presented here and how it's being done. I believe that we all use discernment when examining any issue, whether it be through the lens of feminism or not. If we are concerned about the environment, we filter anything presented to us through that lens, same thing with those who work in the realm of social justice. This thread and topic is being discussed through the lens of feminism so it's completely legitimate to ask if the issue stands up.
The other question that I'm sure many of us ask is: in whose interests is this perspective being presented? In this case, some of us are asking if this proposed change stands up to the goal of promoting women's equality and well-being. Some of us are also asking who might have a stake, that isn't related to women's well-being, in bringing about this change. Those are fair questions when we talk about the environment, social justice and feminism, to my mind.
After lurking on this and other discussions for a while I've decided to toss in a few thoughts for what their worth.
If I understand correctly "divide and conquer" was invoked by Loretta to describe what was happening to the abolitionist camp but I think your take on it describes the situation much more aptly, Michelle.
It seems evident that both sides of the argument stand against certain things in common such as pimping, trafficking, child abuse and abusive john's. However, their approaches to the problem are very different.
Reasonably the success of either approach is contingent on other things.
Decriminalisation cannot offer any material improvement to those negatively impacted by the sex trade unless laws addressing things such as rape, trafficking and child abuse are more effectively enforced. Laws exist to combat these things but they are inadequately enforced now and as it has been pointed out, if the sex trade is allowed expand under looser legislation there is great risk things deteriorating due to greater activity of abusers of mostly women and children.
On the other hand the abolitionist perspective fails to offer adequate consideration to those who remain in the sex trade by choice or at the very least depend on it for survival. If reduction of the sex trade is done it must be ensured that adequate income is available in one way or another to those that might have depended on it (not including parties such as pimps and traffickers). Further more, even if an approach such as the Swedish model is persued it is not evident that those who are in the sex trade by choice will be given adequate access to police protection as they still may be considered less deserving by society.
I may have missed it but much of the arguments presented seem to barely touch upon the fact that much of the evils of the sex trade seem to be tied to broader social phenomenon that make it possible to get away with abusive behaviour typically directed towards women and children but sometimes men as well. Taking remind's story into account, is there a court that would have protected her friend had the situation been reported. How many instances exist in today's society where women are abused by their partners in conventional relationships but nothing is done until it's too late and even then there are times when there is no action.
Both those advocating for decriminalisation and abolition would likely agree there is a broader social issue where it is unacceptably easy to get away abusive behaviour towards women. Due to their political differences it seems unlikely that these parties would effectively work together to have laws better enforced and society as whole less tolerant towards abusive and violent behaviour. However, it's possible that such cooperation does exist at times and I am simply not aware of it.
Remind, always crying victim but never ever taking responsibility in the many ways you harm people with your words.
BTW, since you actually are against decrim and the charter challenge, and you sided with martin on real women having standing, are you not then a part of that agenda, at least remotely?
See how easy it is to twist the motives of people and assume what isn't there? Sort of like how you are now claiming we're not feminist because our views differ from yours?
I'm sure the irony will be lost on you.
As an aside, you are aware of the different waves of feminism right? You are aware women do not speak uniformly? You are aware that we can differ without being stripped of our feminist credentials (which you can never do BTW regardless of what you write here). I am a feminist and if you ever bothered to actually read what I have posted in the decrim thread perhaps you'll have an understanding of that. Or perhaps not. I'm going with the latter just because it seems to make you happy to have strife here.
Great post, very succinct.
i understnad that but promotion of un proven non fact based opinions is harming sex workers. i deleted my othe post but i will state again. it's promotion of hatred which insights people to discrimination and violence and IMHO is at the very least defaming to sex workers over all...not to me personally but indirectly.
the poster in question has deemed it unimportant to back her biased claims yet demands i provide such links.mis information is one of the biggest threats to sex industry workers safety and stability there is.
especially a claim from "one of the UN reports i don't know i think?" stating sex workers are responsible for spousal abuse rising 47% in the netherlands as a result of legalization- called decriminalization in order to further confuse the situation and informtion being put forth.
it is the same as stating that all sex workers are survivors of child abuse...or 90%...never was a link to back that assertion provided. i would like to point out that many new reports seem to state that 10% of ALL children are the victims of childhood abuse....when you consider that with the percentage of sex workers represented by the street level industry....10%- 15%....it begins to demonstrate what we are trying to say. we are not all abused and victims of chilhood abuse any more than any other part of the population. the fact that abused children end up on the street in prostitution is a shame for us all. it is not the fault of the sex industry, it is our failure as a society to protect children and our failure as a society to continue to support abuse survivours after they have become adults....
crimalizing sex work further marginalizes these vulnerable people and in the meantime legal and legitimate sex industry businesses are close and disrupted based on some twisted interpretation of the above facts. the promotion of these mis interpretations based on data collected solely from street entrenched, drug addicted surviours of abuse engaged in prostitution and that excludes any empowered workers voices, is causing wide spread harm.
i can not understnad how it is legal to be honest. it is one thing to discuss a thing, but to ignore the facts and carry on as if we are right no matter what is presented is deplorable.
i would also like to say, that if any of the actions we are propsing was shown to cause harm, i would be the first one to admit it, i would be there saying, i was wrong, this is wrong, we made a mistake.
will the abolitionist side do the same?it's been 100 years of prohibition....will they admit they may have been wrong? or will they refuse to hear any alternative solutions based on the underlying principle that sex work, in an of itself, is violence against women. not just sex working women but all women....i guess in some ways this has already occured in that the swedish model of decriminalizing workers does finally admit they may have been wrong about labeling us the vector of disease, throwing us into assylums for being crazy and immoral,arresting us.....
or is it as it was 100 years ago in that we should believe their assertions as gospel with no need of a source for credibility and the burden of proof is left to sex workers as of course we are not credible. should we, as 100 years ago, just accept that these people know what is best for us all and be greatful for the benefit of their obvious superior knowledge?
i mean c'mon. does the high number of first nations people in prison mean that all first nations people are criminals?or the high number of african american men in US prisons mean all african american men are criminals?sure if you are only lookng at the population based on people in prison....we know this is a misrepresentation.
yet, over and over then same assertions are made as if they are true, confusing people new to the discussion. if assertions are being made i respectfully request they be backed up by a link and specific quote from the data referenced so everyone can see what research sample population (cambodia, exclusvely survival workers, all rape crisis line connections, all arrested by police) was used, whether research ethics review board scrutiny took place (to ensure a non biased approach to research as per canadian federal government policies) and whether workers interviewed were given enough information and placed in an environment safe enough to form informed consent (were they under duress?did they feel safe not answering questions? what questions were asked, were tey in jail? did the researcher even contribute anything back to the community?)....
i repsectfully once again request that such blantantly misleading statements be backed up with a link to a source.
i will also once agai ask, what are the abolitionists plans for decriminalzing workers?...any word yet....? licensing, mandatory health checks.....? government run faciltities for customers to be tested before accessing our vaginas?
i just would like to point out that with less money and resources being spent on enforcment, and a system of industry accountability in place, we could make traffickers and pimps more visible and redirect ploice efforts to really target offenders. also if we give wokers access to resources through many of the ways we propose, they will more aware of their rights and how to access non biased supports.yes , it is a big job. but really...the typical response of "quick, cheap and dirty" on this issue will not work and cost people their lives. we need system wide reform and to be decriminalized immediately. all sides agree on that after all, workers should be decriminalzied.how will we all work to improve the systmes intended to protect sex workers and the gaps that exist within that system.
we have proposed alot of things in the sex worker rights forum if you care to take a look. sex workers know what we need. our voices are ALL (including those in opposition) important.
I would also like the proof of where New Zealand suddenly became removed from the world, because I cannot fathom how remind can say NONE like that.
It reminds me of how that Farley farce reported that because the rates for rape was higher than average in Las Vegas that meant that the fact that prostitution was legal in Nevada was to blame for it. Let us keep in mind that prostitution is not permitted in Las Vegas city, but actually takes place some 30 miles or so away. The links between legalization and criminal assault are at best faulty, and at worst deliberately misleading lies.
oops, posted before reading all posts-- also went and edited out reference to specifics.
My point, which actually was supported, was that attempts to specify who qualifies, what is okay and what is not okay, when defining feminist is counterproductive and can, (as proven in the past) do more damage than good. Allowing women and men to define themselves under their own conditions is more inclusive.
I would agree completely. A number of us have raised the issue of abusive behaviour toward women and whether or not proposed changes would be detrimental to that matter. As well, a number of us have also raised concern about the need for society to work towards improving the situation with those who are marginalized through racism, sexism, illness, and poverty (list not exhaustive). It is part of a larger picture rather than strictly limited to those who, for whatever reason, are involved in prostitution.
I don't think you understood michelle's point, susan. When people disagree with you, it doesn't mean they are promoting hatred of you or any group to which you belong. No-one is defaming "sex workers" unless you mean those who have power within that industry to the detriment of those who don't.
once again, it is not an illegal activity, tus the challenge, if it is not illegal, then why are we treated like criminals?
no i am specifically refering to misinformation with no back up or what are essentially "opinions" being posted here as if they are facts. and by definition in the international charter of human rights (i am human) can be characterised as such. imho
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 20
Article 26
or how bout this
Article 17
1. no person shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks upon his honor and reputation.
2. everyone has the right to protection of law from such interference or attacks.
Again, susan, these articles are subject to years of case law and interpretation -- they are not a carte blanche to do whatever one wants, whether it's in the name of work or not. Has the UN ruled on "your" case?
ETA: Yes, people hold different opinions that you do and they base them on sources of information that you discount. The same is true in the other direction -- that's debate, it's not hate.
Divide and conquer ?
(generally speaking) (wrote this out before I read p-sto, he said it better)
I try to choose my words very carefully given the intense and valid concerns here, wondering if I (and others think) am here to confuse the issue.
My intention is to cure the disease, "to get to the bottom of it", and focus on what can be agreed upon.
I admire, strong bold women, those that choose their work (whatever it is), and those that lookout for the young, the vulnerable, the underdog. That is the common trait I see here.
Whether you think it is only some, or mostly all men, it is mens behaviour
at the core of this issue. As a few have touched upon (in other threads), it is our culture/society that needs a rethink. What do we do about it ? (I welcome any points to threads on this topic)
I am the product of poverty, broken home, CAS ward, guardian tried to make me his girlfriend, on my own at eighteen.
Things that bother me :
Education. Seems only a half credit in Civics gets you high school diploma.
Media. I would shut down Much Music until further notice (no more primetime pimp rap)
Law. Ex PG judge gets seven years (soft time). Should get twenty breaking rocks.
As a male I'm rather curious about the suppostion that the sex trade is fundamentally degrading to women by creating disposable women and sex on demand.
Ideally speaking a sex worker should be allowed to refuse any client she wishes and have control over the terms of sex. In practice this fails because because the worker may face violence from the person she refuses, violence from a pimp, fear of losing a client due to not meeting their demands, emotional coercion or she may be compelled by financial requirements. These concerns excluding pimps also exist outside the sex trade in more socially accepted relationships. I very much doubt that men would treat their partners or women in general in this fashion do so because they have learned it from sex workers.
As opposed to claiming sex work degrades women I am more inclined to believe that there is a significant portion of society that does not respect women and this lack of respect plays out more frequently within the sex trade as it is viewed as more permissible.
For the record Susan I am in support of decriminialisation. However, I consider the law and the police to really be the smallest part of the battle. A respecting sex trade can't really exist in a society that does not fully respect women. The law is very little if it is not supported fairly by society.
Good luck in your struggle.
Sex Work Elena Eva Reynaga is a Female Sex Worker (FSW) born in San Pedro de Jujuy, Argentina. She started working as a social activist in 1994, together with other FSWs, to denounce the violation of their human rights by the police and government. She became a point of reference both nationally and internationally with regard to sex work related issues, including HIV/AIDS, violence, gender, human rights and labor rights. Ms. Reynaga is the Founder and Executive Secretary of AMMAR, the Argentine Association of Female Sex Workers. Its major achievements have been the elimination of police edicts (minor laws) which criminalized sex work, and the establishment of a syndicate, which gives FSWs the status of workers. About 1,700 FSWs living in 11 provinces of Argentina are affiliated with AMMAR. Her work is considered good practice throughout the Latin America and Caribbean region and in some European and North American countries. Ms. Reynaga is a member of the National Board of the Argentine Workers' Centre, Executive Secretary of the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Female Sex Workers, and a member of the Latin American HIV/AIDS Networks Initiative. In 2006 Ms. Reynaga was a speaker at the United Nations High Level Meeting and at the Women Deliver Conference in London. i met her...it was amazing...there were actually 2 women initially involved but elena's cohort was assiniated by ......some one....organized crime.... i wonder if the people who like to think we "represent "pimps nd traffickers have any idea how much we have really risked by being out there in defense of our rights? i might point out also, they adopted decrim and trusted workers.
i couldn't agree with you more, and thankyou.
man, that judge should have gotten the death penalty...put em in general population i say...
So, susan, what you're saying is that there have been presentations made to the UN but no rulings on the scope of the articles you quoted.
In case you haven't picked it up, for the most part, it's not the "workers" that many of us question here.
what articles, you mean my opinion...on sex workers as qualifying?
not sure i understnad, just making a point that sex workers have been to the UN and that workers have fought for recognition as workers....that's all...
and of course the point i made about the woman from argentina being assasinated, and how people here seem to forget how much we risk by being "out" and fighting for our rights....in particular those who like to insinuate we represent organizaed crime....pimps, traffickers....i have heard it all hear on babble, even professor young was accused of forcing female law students to take part in the challenge using his male privelge.....or was "funded"by organized crime.....ya, canada's foremost law school donating it's time pro bono as part of the pimp and trafficker conspiracy theory.....
also, no one seems willing to acknowlegde the cultural piece of older workers becoming madames and passing on their knowledge....
susan, it's not helpful to accuse people of taking positions that they/we haven't taken. Organized crime does get involved in various elements of life, where there's money to be made. So does the corporate sector. Neither have the interests of workers or women at heart but certainly many have presented arguments based on women's equality and/or worker rights and many of us have called their bluff.
Unfortunately, around the world, those arguments are persuading people to support governments and positions that aren't in their interests so you'll have to cut those of us who are skeptical and want more evidence a little slack.
i am not talking about you loretta, it has been stated here by others.i try to cut people slack, i really do. but i refuse to sit by while mis information about us is promoted as fact.
i understnad what you mean now about articles...duh?sorry brainfart!!
no, i have never seen any UN or human rights cases presented or won in regard to the articles of the charter i posted.we are not recognized as a distinct culture or easily identifialble group...etc-so do not qualify for protection from discrimination
thefword
Low blow remind. Shall I post a few nasty pieces up from the abolitionists crowd? Then I can do so in a passive aggressive way and say, "oh, I posted this not to taint you with that brush! I would never do that". Classy.
How about this: abolitionists don't really care about women, they care about controlling women's sex. Puritanical people who wish to infantilize women. make them slaves.
Really remind. Is this the best you can do?