Was just reading an article that catchfire posted over in the sex worker's rights forum, and I was struck by the patriarchaial presentation of what was being said by the sex workers and their reality.
Patriarchial propaganda in media news articles.
Mon, 2010-08-09 13:24
#1
remind
Patriarchial propaganda in media news articles.
Mon, 2010-08-09 14:12
#2
remind
Oh and i forgot to mention "fret" really? The using of a sexist term like that should have set off a 'red light' as to what the article contains and what it is doing. or attempting to.
Mon, 2010-08-09 16:46
#3
Oh and i forgot to mention "fret" really? The using of a sexist term like that should have set off a 'red light' as to what the article contains and what it is doing. or attempting to.
remind, i am honestly curious as to how the word 'fret' is sexist? not to nitpick, but i'd personally be interested in the reasoning so i can better understand what power that this word holds.
Mon, 2010-08-09 19:55
#4
remind
That patriarchial presentation I was speaking of was primarily in the Guardian article, but it was also somewhat carried over in catchfire's presentation of it.
The article stated in the title and introductory statement that it was presenting a fact that sex workers were fretting about their plight, but the reality they presented in the article was really that the males, who are profiteering off of the women sex workers, are the ones who are concerned. Given this statement by the reporter;
For those who run the local clubs..it is a lucrative business. The former owner of one club said bar managers could draw an annual salary of up to £35,000 from their "pontos" or "points" - a sizeable wage in a country where the minimum monthly wage is around £185.Life is less kind to the women who work here, earning as little as £10 per "program", many of them trying to pay college fees or support their families....
Prostitution is not a crime in Brazil and for tens of thousands impoverished women - from the wealthy south-eastern metropolises to the isolated frontier towns of the Amazon - it represents a viable if often dangerous means of survival. A recent UN report suggested there could be close to 20,000 South American prostitutes working in Europe, some of them victims of human trafficking. With the World Cup on the way, Brazilian authorities are concerned about a boom in child prostitution, particularly in host cities in the sun-kissed but often poor north-east such as Recife and Fortaleza.
Life in Vila Mimosa, said to be controlled by a mixture of criminal gangs and off-duty police officers who charge a protection tax from workers, brings at least a touch of security.
Patriachial positions such as the ones above, are peppered through the article, apparently for the reader to accept a wrongfully "normalized" reality. Another good one was;
life is less kind to the women who work here
WTF? We are supposed to accept the thought terminating cliche that "life is less kind to the women" there, as if it just happens and is in fact not planned poverty and exploitation of them, apparently.
From this we can realize that we the reader are being told that we should consider it normal and okay that the sex workers, who one can safely say are impoverished on purpose, are exploited by those "hundreds of drunken men" who "packed this sprawling warren of brothels and bars for another evening ". The tacit accompanying the comes along with this is we are told we should be believing it is okay that there are those making huge profits off of the sex workers, and that they should continue to exploit, as many women as they want, so men can continue to have, what they believe is, sexual gratification, on demand. And the article is even extolling a supposed fact that the women should continue to be grateful that they are "protected" in the VM area, by those exploiting them and keeping them poor and prostituting, while enriching themselves.
Somehow I don't believe the plight of the Brazialian women should be portrayed as a status quo normal thing here at babble, and that it is just a "safety issue".
As we the reader are also being told; 'how dare anyone want to take away the sex workers safety zone and endanger those poor women by sending them to the streets.'
Setting aside the reality that the article should have spoken about the plight of the prostitued women, if it was to speak at all, one can say the real reality is that the article's title and introductory statement should not have read this way:
Rio prostitutes fret over facelift for World Cup and OlympicsSex workers fear spending on Olympics and World Cup might drive them out of Rio's largest open-air red light zone
It should have read:
Rio bar managers, gang pimps and off duty police fret over facelift for World Cup and OlympicsThey fear spending on Olympics and World Cup might drive the prostitutes out of Rio's largest open-air red light zone and out of their control
Mon, 2010-08-09 20:04
#5
remind
Fret has been used against women in a diminishing context for millenia, depicting our worries and fears as inconsequential or smaller than a man's.
We are and have been portrayed as being "fretful" or "fretting needlessly"...
It is a term used almost exclusively for women and children.
When people are speaking about men's concerns, fretful is almost never used, words like worry/worried, anger, and even concern are used.
...it is one of those loaded expressions that is and has been used, as a diminishment, without conscious regard, for the most part, of the skewing that it implies, and that it thus leaves a subtle impression that whatever is concerning, or worrying a woman, is not so significant in the scheme of things. thereby re-enforcing an impression that women's concerns are fairly trivial compared to a man's.
Even the article itself re-enforced this notion, as it mainly dwelled on those men who would be inconvenienced, not really on the women being prostituted at all. It created a focus point shift from the concerns of the women, to the concerns of those who exploit them, men. A matter of weighting that diminishes women's parts in this issue.
The article did this diminishing to all the women who have a part in this. Even the wives of those men getting drunk and exploiting the impovished women who are just trying to survive.
This was done when the article alleged that a prostitute stated that they improve marriages, not harm them. That way any women's complaints that their husbands were off getting drunk and spending the families disposable income on their desire to have convenience store sex, would also be diminished as "fretting" over nothing.
Personally, I have never met a woman who thought that her partners getting drunk and buying sex and spending the family's money every weekend was good for their marriage.
but yet we had a media man tell us so.....
Mon, 2010-08-09 22:01
#6
Fri, 2010-08-13 13:21
#7
The proliferation of more convenient "saunas" in Rio's downtown business centre had hit the area hard, she claimed. "In the olden days it would be packed now with lawyers, oil executives, all sorts," she said, looking around at her half empty bar decorated with red neon strip lights and a clay plant pot filled with five drooping yellow roses. "Now just look at this place."
As always the layers are onion like and often induce involuntary tears. FIFA and the local officials will protect rich men's privileged "right" to dominate poor women.
Mon, 2010-08-16 12:20
#8
susan davis
of course remind, sex workers couldn't be concerned about threats to their income,it must the "men in control" who are worried about their revenues.
when auto plants are closing do we dismiss the fears of auto workers who will loose their income and places to work? do we say, it';s the automaker who is worried they will not be able to profit from the exploitation of auto worker labour for profit?
i find your post to be insulting to the workers who expressed their concerns. you dismiss them as if all women in red light areas are exploited. these workers have legitmate concerns about their safety if their safe work spaces are closed. they will face the same ongoing slaughter as canadian sex workers who are for some reason being punished the same way as workers in brazil.
we are sex workers, we must be exploited, only men profit from our work.
we need safe and healthy work environments, as is the right of every canadian worker. the charter of human rights is not just a piece of paper. in vancouver we saw the impacts of the olympics and it's anti trafficking fear mongering. the sex workers in brazil have every reason to be fearful.
maybe you should leave speculation out of it remind and stick to the facts. why not respect the women affected and their voices rather than undermine them by insinuating they represent "men" and are exploited controled or whatever it is you are suggesting.
i think your manipulation of the content of those articles is a patriachal presentation of the facts. you present it as if only men profit from sex workers as if we have no agency of our own or are some how less able to with stand abusive men or all easily victimized by men. you are wrong.why do you feel we are so weak and unable to speak for our selves? isn't that patriarchal?
Mon, 2010-08-16 12:28
#9
remind
not getting into this susan with you, we disagree, end of story.
Mon, 2010-08-16 14:01
#10
Well if you won't engage someone who actually has extensive knowledge and experience on the topic, I don't suppose you're going to engage anyone who disagrees with you on this. Nonetheless I'd like to register that I also found your approach very belittling, and indeed patriarchal in that it utterly strips agency from sex workers, the bulk of whom are women. You tell us we should focus on the exploitation of women, while dismissing women their own voice on this particular topic. This suggests an approach which holds that sex workers do not understand their own reality, and are therefore not the ones who should be looked to for solutions or commentary.
Mon, 2010-08-16 14:19
#11
remind
perhaps you read a different article than I, as there was really only 1 "sex worker" voice stated, all the rest of the article was about the men involved who are unhappy.
Mon, 2010-08-16 14:27
#12
While only one sex worker was interviewed, other women involved in the sex trade through other avenues (running a brothel, or being the head of a residents association which also represents sex workers) were spoken to as well.
So my comments are related to the particular way you have presented this article.
Tue, 2010-08-17 10:35
#13
remind
Yes...well.. I guess the reality of the words of those who are making money by exploiting the women mean very little to me, and the voice of 1 sex worker is not sufficient to sway my opinion that; those who make sure the women only make a pittance, thereby keeping them as prostitutes, while they enrich themselves are the ones who are primarily concerned.
When off duty cops are concerned about losing their protection racket money, I really have no interest on being on their side. Add the voice of pimps connected to gangs and I have even less interest.
Tue, 2010-08-17 10:47
#14
Fair enough, and I can see your point. However, you do have a particular view of sex workers, which you have expressed a number of times, that is fairly dismissive of their voices because of their status as 'exploited'. This view comes out fairly strongly in your presentation of the article. While I am in agreement with some of your points, I am very much in disagreement with your stance on sex worker agency, for many of the reasons Susan Davis expressed.
Perhaps this is an area you have decided to agree to disagree on. That's fine. I simply wanted to express the way I felt, reading this.
Tue, 2010-08-17 12:50
#15
remind
oh, and what would that view be?
...as really I have not expressed a "view" on sex workers.
So, do slap some quotes up of my "view", eh!
ETA: Still waiting, or are you just all about a drive by smear?
Tue, 2010-08-17 12:55
#16
ETA: Still waiting, or are you just all about a drive by smear?
Your edit, and your impatience, are unwarranted.
Tue, 2010-08-17 13:03
#17
You lay your position out quite clearly [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/feminism/divide-and-conquer-strategy-working... Your view, in my opinion, strips sex workers of their agency. You are entitled to your view.
I, and others, disagree with you on some points. One of the people you disagree with, you have just told that you will not discuss this issue with, end of story. I assumed that applies to others who disagree with you, but spoke nonetheless.
Tue, 2010-08-17 13:19
#18
I'm still wondering why Catchfire was mentioned in the OP. That appeared to me to be a smear.
Tue, 2010-08-17 13:19
#19
remind
You still have not indicated what "view" it is I have...and the thread linked to does not do so either.
Not that it is any of your concern, or business, whom I will debate with, or not, but, as it seems you think it is, I will state;
There is no point in Susan Davis and I discussing further as we have exhausted anything we may have to say to one another about it, long ago now.
Tue, 2010-08-17 13:23
#20
remind
I'm still wondering why Catchfire was mentioned in the OP. That appeared to me to be a smear.
are you still stalking me around trying to get me banned for what your perceptions are caissa?
If you really paid attention, you would realize that when I start off shoots from another thread or posting, I give credit/cite those who have stated or started such.
anyhow you got a comment on the topic or are you just here to personally attack me?
Tue, 2010-08-17 13:42
#21
Just calling it like I see it. Since all catchfire did was cut and paste from the article in his OP your reference to his "presentation of the topic" was gartuitous at best.
As to the topic, my views are more in line with Yiwah and Suan Davis' on this topic so i don't think we have any common ground to discuss this matter. As well, I would hate to be accused on mansplaining; that would be a definite conversation stopper.
Tue, 2010-08-17 13:47
#22
You still have not indicated what "view" it is I have...and the thread linked to does not do so either.
Not that it is any of your concern, or business, whom I will debate with, or not, but, as it seems you think it is, I will state;
There is no point in Susan Davis and I discussing further as we have exhausted anything we may have to say to one another about it, long ago now.
Or you know...you could dial down the hostility.
Perhaps this is an area you have decided to agree to disagree on. That's fine. I simply wanted to express the way I felt, reading this.
Tue, 2010-08-17 17:51
#23
remind
