...and if we refuse...death penalty...that'll get rid of the prostitute problem....
I have reported this.
This statement is a deliberate misrepresentation of the abolitionist position, and should not be allowed on this forum. Susan, if you have run out of arguments, please don't write anything.
hey, read back through this thread...its been said a few times that the happiness and safety of adult consensual sex workers is secondary to the goal of fighting patriarchy...has it not?
what is the price of that? if we are to be considered the reasonable casualty, why are you surprised by my remarks?
in some countries the things i describe in my post are happening...read the GAATW reports....
sex workers are being rounded up into concentration camps with other "undesirables" in greece, sex workers are forced into re-education camps in china.....sometimes are executed in china and korea....
if you read the swedish criminal code it becomes all too clear....abolitionists do not care about the safety of sex workers, they want to get rid of sex workers. in vancouver we have seen the results of the get rid of prostitution approach....
you misrepresent the voices of sex workers fighting for decrim as the pro prostitution lobby and as representing organized crime...i have been called all kinds of names here on rabble....how do you think it makes us feel to know what you really think of us? what do you think the result will be of abolition? how will that play out? do you think no one will die?
as far as running out of arguements, perhaps you should heed your own advice and stop quoting debunked, unethical, disallowed research findings as if they were the bible...
This statement is a deliberate misrepresentation of the abolitionist position, and should not be allowed on this forum. Susan, if you have run out of arguments, please don't write anything.
1 Does that apply also to the misrepresentation of sex workers positions? Should that be allowed?
2 The first misrepresentation of the abolitionnist position is done by those calling themselves abolitionnists. They call for criminalisation of the transaction. They are hiding their prohibitionnist view behind a label that appeals to emotions but that has nothing to do with prohibition. Are you going to report that?
3 If you want to accuse susan to run out of arguments, may I suggest that you first stop the use of ad hominem arguments like the one you made about Dodillet?
hey, read back through this thread...its been said a few times that the happiness and safety of adult consensual sex workers is secondary to the goal of fighting patriarchy...has it not?
what is the price of that? if we are to be considered the reasonable casualty, why are you surprised by my remarks?
in some countries the things i describe in my post are happening...read the GAATW reports....
Once again, Susan you are misrepresenting what has been written by abolitionists. Abolitionists and radical feminists believe that elimination of patriarchy = elimination of all forms of violence against women, including prostitution. So, ELIMINATING (note: not just reducing) harm done to sex workers is the ultimate goal. "Sex work" exists BECAUSE of patriarchy. Eliminate patriarchy and there would be no "sex work" in the first place. In a patriarchy-free world, women would be having sex with people they WANT/ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO, not because they are hard up for cash. It's simple, really.
sex workers are being rounded up into concentration camps with other "undesirables" in greece, sex workers are forced into re-education camps in china.....sometimes are executed in china and korea....
I'm sorry, but no one on this forum supports this practice, and it is very disingenuous to suggest that.
if you read the swedish criminal code it becomes all too clear....abolitionists do not care about the safety of sex workers, they want to get rid of sex workers. in vancouver we have seen the results of the get rid of prostitution approach....
Wrong again. Abolitionists want to get rid of "sex work", not sex workers. Most supporters of the Swedish model want young boys/men to grow up knowing that it is not okay to buy women for sex. Most supporters of the Swedish model want young boys/men to grow up knowing that is important that the women they want to have sex with want them too. Women's sexual desires matter, and it is illogical to think desire is something that can be purchased.
you misrepresent the voices of sex workers fighting for decrim as the pro prostitution lobby and as representing organized crime...i have been called all kinds of names here on rabble....how do you think it makes us feel to know what you really think of us? what do you think the result will be of abolition? how will that play out? do you think no one will die?
Prostituted women die because pimps and johns kill them. Pimps and johns kill them in countries where prostitution is legalized and decriminalized too. You can look that up.
I also have to write, I am pretty ticked that the moderators gave me a warning once because I pointed out that those who support prostitution use neoliberal arguments to support this view, yet when a pro prostitution commentator makes the outrageous statement that abolitionists want to give sex workers the death penalty, they are silent. This is very unfair, and I am seriously reconsidering stopping my donations to this pro prostitution rag.
i didn't state it as fact, i am simply highlighting the cost of prohibition and criminalization in other countries.
1 Does that apply also to the misrepresentation of sex workers positions? Should that be allowed?
Point out where I did this, please.
2 The first misrepresentation of the abolitionnist position is done by those calling themselves abolitionnists. They call for criminalisation of the transaction. They are hiding their prohibitionnist view behind a label that appeals to emotions but that has nothing to do with prohibition. Are you going to report that?
Abolitionists call themselves abolitionists because of the connotations associated with the term prohibition (in other words, women are people, not an inanimate thing like alcohol) and because they see prostitution as a form of female enslavement. And yes, we should feel both the emotions of anger and sadness about female enslavement. But thanks for calling the women who support this feminist position "emotional". Your true colours are showing.
3 If you want to accuse susan to run out of arguments, may I suggest that you first stop the use of ad hominem arguments like the one you made about Dodillet?
I pointed out she had an agenda, like you pointed out about Kajsa Wahlberg. So it's okay for you to do it, but not me. Alright then.
Point out where I did this, please.
There was nothing personal in that remark. I did not scan you contributions. I have no idea if you did it or not. Some others did, that's for sure.
Abolitionists call themselves abolitionists because of the connotations associated with the term prohibition (in other words, women are people, not an inanimate thing like alcohol) and because they see prostitution as a form of female enslavement.
I've never heard that argument before.
Wiki:
Prohibitionism is a legal philosophy and political theory often used in lobbying which holds that citizens will abstain from actions if the actions are typed as unlawful (i.e. prohibited) and the prohibitions are enforced by law enforcement.[1] This philosophy has been the basis for many acts of statutory law throughout history, most notably when a large group of a given population disapproves of and/or feels threatened by an activity in which a smaller group of that population engages, and seeks to render that activity legally prohibited.
And yes, we should feel both the emotions of anger and sadness about female enslavement. But thanks for calling the women who support this feminist position "emotional". Your true colours are showing.
Ad hominem argument. Also, as we say in french, "Faire pleurer Margot."
My true colors are that I think many prohibitionnist activists act like moral entreprenors. They use emotions as arguments and call heartless people who are not lured. Some sex workers are enslaved, some are not. I never called whatever feminist position emotional. It's the appeal to emotions, as you just did, in defending the position that is problematic.
I pointed out she had an agenda, like you pointed out about Kajsa Wahlberg. So it's okay for you to do it, but not me. Alright then.
You certainly haven't shown that for Dodillet, but I guess you're maybe talking about Susan. It's obvious Susan has a agenda, at least her own as a sex worker. She's not hiding anything.
I pointed out that those who support prostitution use neoliberal arguments to support this view,
I never quite understood what is meant by "neoliberal arguments". What's the difference with the classical liberal arguments of liberty, equality of rights and limiting the intervention of the State in private affairs when they have no consequences for the collectivity?
Abolitionists and radical feminists believe that elimination of patriarchy = elimination of all forms of violence against women, including prostitution.
I would like to propose a very simple thought experiment.
Step one
Imagine a closed society with equality of women and men. Differences on all variables are not anymore statistically significant in all spheres of life: economics, politics, science, control of institutions, etc. The society got rid of patriarchy. Not one citizen would even think about it anymore.
Life goes on otherwise, with people playing with the kids, exchanging goods and services, going to concerts, backpacking, seducing that attractive guy next door.
Step two
A non-patriarchal society could be more or less equal in the distribution of assets. It could be a class society, unless we consider classes as a patriarchal institution, a more equalitarian peasant society, a commune or whatever, but with no patriarchy in it.
Very unequal societies tolerating misery will always have a supply side of survival prostitution, even without patriarchy. You’ll supply anything when confronted to death. So I would suggest considering the perfect equal society, each citizen having the same assets at the starting point.
What could be expected about prostitution in such a society?
I think we all agree that inequalities are an explanation factor of prostitution. For some, it’s the sole factor so prostitution would disappear: no patriarchy no prostitution. For the others it’s a main factor so prostitution would drop quite a lot. The available bits of data we have tend to show that there is less prostitution in societies where women’s equality is higher.
The fascinating thing about prostitution is that it solves the inequality factor quite rapidly, at least for the sex workers themselves. Once started, you can rapidly raise over the average income so the reasons that got some there are no longer applicable from then on.
If prostitution continues to exist in the equal society, it would certainly be at much higher equilibrium price, thus lower quantity, and among people having no problem with the idea of sex as a commodity. I’m not talking about women’s body as a commodity. That would be contrary to the non-patriarchal principal.
Suppose a sex worker in a market with an equilibrium price rising from 250$ today to 500$/h in the equal society. I hardly see an argument for her/him to quit.
oh ya it's all economics....like it's supposed to mean squat!
[/quote]
I never quite understood what is meant by "neoliberal arguments".
[/quote]
Basically, this political philosophy ignores the existence of systematic oppression and class inequality and boils everything down to individual choice. That some sex workers "choose" sex work is all that matters to neolibs. They do not bother to think about all the factors that lead to the making of this "choice"- i.e. the economic and social inequality between men and women and/or the socialization of how oppressed groups view themselves- i.e. women are socialized from birth to see themselves as sex objects to be used by men . See: the media:https://genderandsociety2013.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tom-ford.jpg Neoliberals tend to also want to get rid of most social goods and to commodify every aspect of human interaction so there is nothing left that has any intrinsic value. In terms of how it has impacted feminism, see here:http://theleftsideoffeminism.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/reflections-on-fem...
It was a clear example of policy based evidence. I prefer evidence based policy.
plus, the entire rest of the article is, once again the voices of the sex workers themselves, what they know to be true, what they are saying, completely cut out and edited out of quizzical's quote? That seems to be cherry picking in the extreme. And the article also says trafficking stats are up, and we know that sex workers under report acts of violence against them when they know that they can be in trouble with the law, or due to the stigma of admitting that they do sex work, and knowing that the police attitude is 'oh, they say it is more dangerous, do they? Well, too bad, i hope it continues to be more dangerous, and maybe they, the sex workers, will stop doing it".
And that is the ultimate solution according to the police in that country, not hassle the clients and make them pay a fine, but take the livelihood from the sex workers obviiously willing ones, and say too bad if they have to work in less than ideal conditions.
What is worse of course is they claim this is to improve their lives, and to protect them.
Suppose a sex worker in a market with an equilibrium price rising from 250$ today to 500$/h in the equal society. I hardly see an argument for her/him to quit.
Work is work. There is a camp that believes that if that work means that a man will enjoy himself while a woman is doing the work, that and only that is what makes it wrong. If she is a massage therapist, that stigma is not there. If she is a doctor, that stigma is not there. Yet both those are considered professions that the woman chose to do, in some cases because it is what she liked to do, but ultimately she continues to do it because she gets paid. She feels good, but she does get paid. if she isn't paid, she isn't going to do it. (Seinfeld had a great episode where Jerry dates a massuese, and she won't give him a free one)
No one accuses the woman masseuse of being enslaved to the economics of what she does for work. No one accuses the man getting a massage of being privileged, and that she wouldn't have to touch his body if she had other options.
I think in an egalitarian society, that someone sometime is going to have to let go of the hate (of men) and admit that they are human beings with feelings, emotions, and are not actually involved in any conspiracy to keep women enslaved so that they can have sex on demand. I think it makes some people uncomfortable to have to let go of that mindset, and that the easiest way to deal is to run around saving women, even if the women themselves object. I mean, how many ways can someone give the info that this is a valid choice because actually 'patriarchy' doesn't make sex work 'OK". If patriarchy is the one shaping this society now, in the near future, in the recent past, in any way, shape or form, it has never once said sex work is OK.
In fact they say the opposite all the time. Someone has to make a real effort to be a sex worker, knowing that they aren't going to be acceptable to 'society' by anyone, not their friends, family, or neighbours. We see that every day in this very forum. The sex workers post, they are ridiculed or told they don't know what they are thinking, they aren't competent to choose what they think, and someone will come along and set them straight.
Is that how posters really want to be viewed?
Basically, this political philosophy ignores the existence of systematic oppression and class inequality and boils everything down to individual choice.
I would tranform that statement into this:
Basically, this political philosophy creates systematic oppression and class inequality and boils everything down to the regimentation of individuals to the needs of a tiny power elite.
I don’t want to enter a discussion about what neoliberalism means. However, my instinctive understanding of it is that neoliberals have no room for marginality. So they do what comes naturally in their mind: turn it into a profitable business, that of the prisons. It’s a sellers market. They just go and grab their “clients” on the streets, if I take a shortcut. I don’t think neoliberals have any other special thoughts on prostitution, except maybe for those buying escort services themselves. Abolitionnists see clients of sex workers just like neoliberals see marginal people and they want to apply the same “neoliberal” type of solution: prison.
Moral entrepreneurs are very much into branding. Neoliberal is just an other word they shout at their adversaries. I have yet to find a theoretical perspective on prostitution pretending to be based on neoliberalism. No need to send a link to The Economist. Of course, they see no problems with women deciding to sell sex and man to buy it. But that has nothing specific to do with neoliberalism. It’s based on the founding principal, to which I subscribe, of liberalism: the freedom of the individuals.
Those exploited women need to be freed? It derives directly from your definition of prostitution as a system of patriarchal, economical and racial exploitation. The great success of the abolitionist campaign that has been going on in the last 20 years was the creation of labels and definitions. Once you subscribe to those, you mind starts operating on an ideological cruise control.
I’m more empiricist. Let’s hear from those to be freed. Listen to the personal stories and the visions of freedom in them. I see nothing but a continuum of situations between being trapped in prostitution and complete freedom in prostitution.
My personal experience was that the more stories I heard, the more I noticed personal stories and visions of freedom are hard to regroup. I also noticed they cover the whole spectra of political orientations and normative conformity. Of those I have listened to (more than a hundred), the great majority did not want to be rescued. They had their lives into their own hands.
There are hundreds of sex workers organisations around the world. They are all fighting for their emancipation through the emancipation of their trade. The more the abolitionist campaign intensifies, the more NGO militia stupidly raid brothels in Asia, the more we hear a unified message: “we don’t want to be rescued.” When the sex workers organisations started in the seventies, the enemies were the pimps and the police. Today, it’s obvious that the enemies are the rescuers. It tells a lot.
I have listened to the Gail Dimes video you linked to. I have not much to say about the porn industry. I’m as much ignorant about it as she probably is. Her thing has nothing to do with sociological inquiry. It’s an amusing caricature of third wave feminism, a gross exercise of intergenerational condescendence, an incomprehensible exposition of the sociological concept of agency and a peculiar representation of radical feminism as the orthodoxy of feminism. The funniest part is when she explains you should never question a “prostituted women” unless she has quit the trade for more then five ago. A clear message to sex workers: STFU.
I never quite understood what is meant by "neoliberal arguments".
Basically, this political philosophy ignores the existence of systematic oppression and class inequality and boils everything down to individual choice. That some sex workers "choose" sex work is all that matters to neolibs. They do not bother to think about all the factors that lead to the making of this "choice"- i.e. the economic and social inequality between men and women and/or the socialization of how oppressed groups view themselves- i.e. women are socialized from birth to see themselves as sex objects to be used by men .See: the media:https://genderandsociety2013.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tom-ford.jpg
Neoliberals tend to also want to get rid of most social goods and to commodify every aspect of human interaction so there is nothing left that has any intrinsic value. In terms of how it has impacted feminism, see here:http://theleftsideoffeminism.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/reflections-on-fem...
huh...tks
Remember that the US use of "liberal", which is seeping into English-speaking Canada at least, is atypical. "Liberal" parties are usually "business-friendly" ones; not "social conservatives" but free-market ones.
Neo-liberalism is classical liberalism on steroids, and seeks to commodify all areas of life.
I was wondering about the "moral entrepreneur" label applied by the defenders of the commercial sex industry here. You can google it; it seems such a broad term that it could be used not only for prohibitionists of alcohol and other substances but also for abolitionists in the original sense: those who were striving to abolish slavery.
However (slavery) abolitionists were not only wealthy people who saw slavery as morally evil. There were many textile mill workers in Britian who protested cotton from the US South produced by slaves, although this endangered their already scant and precarious means of earning a living. Moreover, there were many Black abolitionists in the Americas; freed or escaped slaves and other free Black people.
Are we moral entrepreneurs if we want an exit from petroleum and carcentric society, or arms production? Those are also "moral" goals in a sense, and could cause job loss for workers in those industries if society is not attentive to the reconversion of these industries for social good (moral again?) and ensuring that capitalists, and not workers, bear any cost.
It’s a legitimate critic that has been debated at length in the academia. Also you say I used it as a label. I admit I did. But when he defines the moral entrepreneur, Howard S. Becker happens to do that: label groups of people as moral entrepreneurs.
There is no unified classification or characterisation of moral entrepreneurs. Marxists, new left, left libertarians and liberals would all have different views on that. No unified version within each school neither. I would suggest that it is because, at a personal level, we all have a distinct experience and appreciation of what living in a society implies and, where there is presumed victimisation involved, of what agency is. Whatever the groups we adhere to, we want to keep our final judgement to ourselves, our own morality being our ultimate master.
Becker’s three-page definition of the moral entrepreneur is a piece of art in sociological writing.
In it, he’s interested in how rules are created. He explains a process involving rule creators (acting on moral grounds), experts (having their own interests) and rule enforcers (police acting with a larger spectrum of morals concerns). The rule creator (or moral entrepreneur), he says, “operates with an absolute ethic. What he sees is truly and totally evil with no qualification. Any mean is justified to do with it. The crusader is fervent and righteous, often self-righteous.”
I see it as an ideal type, each case having very distinct characteristics. I have a simplified set of emotional criteria to identify moral entrepreneurs. It’s when I feel the devotion, the hatred for some groups of deviants, the willingness to generate fear, and the evil (a very common word in the prohibitionist discourse).
Murphy, Perrin, Smith and Mourani are crusaders on the issue of prostitution. It’s obvious that they are on a mission. When knowledge and testimonies overwhelm their believes, they just turn to other believes or worst, keep telling them anyway. And they have a ton. They are masterminds at creating new language, confusing everybody’s mind. To me, it’s just like going to mass when I was 6. The priest used incomprehensible words — but he was not talking to me anyway.
I know a bit better about Mourani because she’s a Montréal MP. Our little girls are subdued on the streets by gangs of thugs who seduce them, drug them, abuse them and sell them. That’s what a prostitute is, proven by testimonies. That’s it for her, no discussion possible and, as she likes to point out, she’s a criminologist! When she says prostitution is little girls being sold, she’s not using an ethical metaphor about objectification, she’s in the description of the acts of violence and of the dangers facing our children in this evil world. It’s all about generating fear. That’s how churches, the supreme moral entrepreneurs, have always operated.
Moral entrepreneurs rarely succeed in changing the public opinion. But that’s only their ultimate goal. Their more immediate one is to have the law changed. And anti-choice groups in prostitution are incredibly successful at it. The recipe is fairly simple: they blackmail politicians. The first one to speak publicly against criminalisation will be fired on as anti women and will have his past scrutinized to find out shaming material.
On your other examples, abolitionists (slavery) were moral entrepreneurs in a sense, in direct line with the development of the liberal ideas of the Enlightment. I don't think churches had a big role. Cars, gas, arms could be seen also as moral issues, but they are more fundamentally scientific issues at least in a consequentialist perspective.
Will you please stop posting such videos, fortunate?
Listening to those little girls who are being raped and subdued every day remind me I should start a psychoanalysis. I had their character at their age and I unfortunately (no pun intended) still have it in my fifties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TdEYqOZY_E&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
This video... I don't even... know where to begin. Men are more objectified in pornography than women because we don't see their faces? Seriously? ........ Just went back to see if this video was actually posted by an MRA group.
The reason the camera does not focus on the male actors in pornography is because it is assumed the viewer of the pornographic video is male himself and wants to imagine himself in the same position as the male actor. In other words, he is the subject, and the woman in the film is the object being acted upon. Ever heard of the male gaze? http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%E2%8...
Like, I'm just wondering if some of the posters on here actually consider themselves to be feminists? Because this is a feminist forum, and it boggles my mind that many do not understand basic concepts of the theory. I mean, some of the speakers in the video even deny the existence of patriarchy and the oppression of women? Really...REALLY? A quick google search should tell you that men continue to dominate positions of political and economic power all over the world. Sorry, but this is reality.
i watched the video last night and couldn't even bother to respond...once 3 different girls used the same hands movements and words (with minor changes) i realized it was scripted and they were paid to put out the propaganda....
Did someone actually post a porno video here? I refused to look at that post.
If they did, it imperils the site.
Why would you assume it was porn? Its a bunch of young women talking about porn and feminism and sex
I didn't assume it was porn. I just didn't want to click on something without knowing its provenance.
abolitionists do not own feminism. women own feminism. i am not defending the video and also did not click the link.
it has been implied here that some of us who post in favour of decrim are some how uneducated on what feminism is....as if our ignorance of the foundations of feminism are the reason we support decrim or post alternative positions on this divisive issue.
we all agree human trafficking, exploitation of any kind and underage workers are all unaccpetable.
we disagree on how to adress these issues with the smallest amount of harm to people who freely choose to work in the sex industry.
some here believe that it is ok to sacrifice the lives and safety of adult consensual sex workers in the name of ending patriatchy.
we do not. we are tired of being the reasonable casulaty in this war.
i would suggest that abolitionists should heed their own advice and think about what the purpose and foundation of feminism are.
ask yourself, what part of the fight to protect women and empower us was ever to degrade and sacrifice some to protect the rest....?
how can that possibly be feminist?
Like, I'm just wondering if some of the posters on here actually consider themselves to be feminists? Because this is a feminist forum, and it boggles my mind that many do not understand basic concepts of the theory. - elle fury
so like...yes....i understand. the question is...do you?
Basically, this political philosophy ignores the existence of systematic oppression and class inequality and boils everything down to individual choice. That some sex workers "choose" sex work is all that matters to neolibs. They do not bother to think about all the factors that lead to the making of this "choice"- i.e. the economic and social inequality between men and women and/or the socialization of how oppressed groups view themselves- i.e. women are socialized from birth to see themselves as sex objects to be used by men .https://genderandsociety2013.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tom-ford.jpg
Neoliberals tend to also want to get rid of most social goods and to commodify every aspect of human interaction so there is nothing left that has any intrinsic value. In terms of how it has impacted feminism,
I didn't assume it was porn. I just didn't want to click on something without knowing its provenance.
that's ok, at least you made an assumption without actually viewing it, unlike the ones that did and come up with bizarre excuses for not accepting the comments from the sex workers in the video lol. Some people will go to great lengths to discredit the reality experienced by sex workers, and their opinions, as well as their feminist views.
It isn't up to others to decide for women what they know and believe, that diminishes and belittles them. The very opposite of what feminism was meant to do, to empower them and allow them to make these choices. Not only that, but when they do speak up, they are accused of being paid scripted actors. Like they couldn't possibly be independent thinkers who have the same POV.
The link didn't come with anything i could copy to show what it is about. it is, quite simply, different sex workers from different areas talking about sex work and feminism. The topic is why it was posted here. Since i've never before steered anyone to 'porn' vids or sites with any of my links, for those who've bothered to click them, why would it now be some kind of violent porn. People here often complain that sex workers are not speaking up and agreeing with the things susi or I reveal, and yet when presented with a video of very different workers doing just that, it is dismissed or ignored.
Gustave, you are very funny, lol.
Excellent article that points out the contradictions in the pro prostitution argument to "listen to sex workers":
(Emphasis mine)
There’s one guaranteed pro-sex-work response whenever you write something unenthusiastic about prostitution, and that response is: listen to sex workers.
In some ways it’s a peculiar logic when it comes to sex work – it claims the privileged status of the victim, while pro-sex-work advocates simultaneously insist that sex workers are not victims...
when I’m told listen to sex workers, the assumption is that “sex workers” as a class adopt a coherent line which I’m obliged to follow. (Again, this is a bit weird because one of the main strands of anti-legislation argument also holds that sex workers are too various to be dealt with under a single framework. Nevertheless, there it is.)
So for example, Gira Grant espouses decriminalisation, and presents that as an aim pertinent to all sex workers– in fact, she argues for total freedom from the state, including no registration and no taxation on income. But in Italy, some sex workers are campaigning for the right to legally register their occupation and to pay tax (doing so would make them eligible for pensions, which is a highly reasonable thing to want). Who to listen to, Gira Grant or the Italian protesters?
Or maybe I should listen to Rachel Moran, a former prostitute who considers the purchase of sex an act of violence against women and campaigns for its criminalisation...
In other words, women as a class are affected by the fact of sex work, which means that all women have the right to be listened to as the affected class.
The “listen to” argument shrugs off responsibility. Rather than make your own judgments, it allows you to outsource your moral thinking to another party, and give up the tricky obligation to weigh facts and balance rights.
Excellent article that points out the contradictions in the pro prostitution argument to "listen to sex workers":(Emphasis mine)
There’s one guaranteed pro-sex-work response whenever you write something unenthusiastic about prostitution, and that response is: listen to sex workers.
In some ways it’s a peculiar logic when it comes to sex work – it claims the privileged status of the victim, while pro-sex-work advocates simultaneously insist that sex workers are not victims...
when I’m told listen to sex workers, the assumption is that “sex workers” as a class adopt a coherent line which I’m obliged to follow. (Again, this is a bit weird because one of the main strands of anti-legislation argument also holds that sex workers are too various to be dealt with under a single framework. Nevertheless, there it is.)
So for example, Gira Grant espouses decriminalisation, and presents that as an aim pertinent to all sex workers– in fact, she argues for total freedom from the state, including no registration and no taxation on income. But in Italy, some sex workers are campaigning for the right to legally register their occupation and to pay tax (doing so would make them eligible for pensions, which is a highly reasonable thing to want). Who to listen to, Gira Grant or the Italian protesters?
Or maybe I should listen to Rachel Moran, a former prostitute who considers the purchase of sex an act of violence against women and campaigns for its criminalisation...
In other words, women as a class are affected by the fact of sex work, which means that all women have the right to be listened to as the affected class.
The “listen to” argument shrugs off responsibility. Rather than make your own judgments, it allows you to outsource your moral thinking to another party, and give up the tricky obligation to weigh facts and balance rights.
good points....in another thread they have a link about sex worker voices...the only thing i saw there were the voices of those they wanted to hear and none of the sex worker voices who are against prostitution. selective reasoning and positioning imv. and they talk about feminists ignoring voices!!!! lololol
what actual sex working person supports abolition quizzical? none i have ever met. those people who experienced violence and exploitation while in the industry and who are now safely exited and selling their experiences to abolitionists to pay the bills, are important also. we all discuss the violence and other issues in our industry. we discuss ways to address them.
those ways do not include comprimising the safety of adult consensual sex workers in the name of fighting patriarchy....
but it is always nice t hear how abolitionists justify ignoring or belittling the voices of sex workers...
of course we are the "priveldged few" of course we must be some how different from the majority ...or else the abolitionists would be working against what women want....so abolitionists justify their position against sex workers as somehow representing the "invisible sex workers"....quitwe convienient if you ask me....its easy to represent the invisble sex workers and to hoist your own ideology as theirs...after all they are invisible and can't speak for themselves...but they would of course be abolitonist....
right?
good grief ranting without cause...again try reading links lots of sex worker voices against decrim or legalization present in this whole topic tthread.
a couple just above.....
to the needs of the many out weigh the needs of a very few
Not really, quizzical. All workers have the right to work and all people have the right to a decent living. However, people do not have the right to work in a harmful or obsolescent industry. It is society's responsibility to retrain and requalify workers in socially or environmentally-harmful industries, and the bosses in those industries have to bear the brunt of the costs.
And I'm certainly not only (or even above all) talking about the commercial sex industry here.
Excellent article that points out the contradictions in the pro prostitution argument to "listen to sex workers":(Emphasis mine)
That is awesome advice for anyone who is confused about how to dismiss and discredit the statements of sex workers about sex work.
Why doesn't Sarah simply listen to the sex workers in her own country, because the sex workers in her own country have different issues than those in Italy.
And as susi points out, why are we even listening to what former sex workers who profit off of abolitionism have to say? They are not concerned with the daily lives of sex workers who are still making a living here and now.
When sex workers tell you to 'listen' to them they are talking about how to make the work they are doing, here and now, better. It is a labour rights issue, just as Melissa Gira Grant brings up in her book. When we talk about labour rights, and criminalization/decriminalization of legal activities, we don't ask retired steel workers what they think we should do with the laws around that industry today. We as the unions and the workers who are out there today, and will be out there tomorrow. We most certainly do NOT talk to the retired steel workers who are advocating for an end to steel work as we know it.
Especially not the ones who get paid every time they are asked for their POV for the media or some kind of panel discussion.
That is a rather poor example, as there are many (active) car workers who are ecosocialists and looking for alternatives to car production (and to a certain extent, truck production). I have been on the facilitation team for conferences on that precise issue.
"Steel production" could be for anything, from non-polluting public transport to structural steel for environmentally-friendly housing developments and neighbourhoods.
No worker should suffer because she or he is in an industry that causes social harm. The bosses should.
and when we are our own bosses? then what? we are victim and pimp criminal all at once?
those people who experienced violence and exploitation while in the industry and who are now safely exited and selling their experiences to abolitionists to pay the bills, are important also.
Belittling the voices of survivors and casting aspirations on their motives is unacceptable. Who does that to victims of violence, exploitation and sexual abuse?
Sex workers who are challenging the right of others to speak and attacking survivors of abuse who disagree with them are not credible. When some sex workers claim they aren't being listened to what they really mean is they don't want anyone else to be heard.
….. we don't ask retired steel workers what they think we should do with the laws around that industry today. …...We most certainly do NOT talk to the retired steel workers who are advocating for an end to steel work as we know it. Especially not the ones who get paid every time they are asked for their POV for the media or some kind of panel discussion. ..
Yes we do. Retired people act as consultants all the time, sometimes paid, sometimes not. I find it appalling that you attack the credibility of survivors of prostitution. I find their testimony far more convincing than those who describe prostitution as a great way for women to join the middle class.
People have a right to gather information and opinions from limitless sources to arrive at their own conclusions including biased sources. I am perfectly capable of taking bias into account when evaluating someone's argument.
I can look at multiple countries that allow prostitution and decide for myself how I think legitimizing prostitution would impact Canada.
The E.U. is a particularly instructive area of the world to examine as countries within it have taken different approaches.
I know I don't want this in Canada: http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/welcome-to-paradise/ .
The fascinating thing about prostitution is that it solves the inequality factor quite rapidly, at least for the sex workers themselves. Once started, you can rapidly raise over the average income so the reasons that got some there are no longer applicable from then on.
http://business.time.com/2013/06/18/germany-has-become-the-cut-rate-prostitution-capital-of-the-world/The presence of thousands of brothels and hundreds of thousands of prostitutes has heightened competition and pushed prices down steeply in the German sex trade.
“Prices are going down,” says Suzi, a 29-year-old Romanian who’s been working at Pascha for two years. “Every day less.” Paradise is near the top of the market. Pascha is a couple of rungs lower and there are many more rungs below that. At the “sex boxes” in Cologne’s Geestemünder Strasse it’s possible to buy sex for as little as 10 euros. “One woman here will even do it for a Big Mac,” a prostitute called Alia told a German newspaper last year.
I'm sure a minority of women do very well in prostitution and you can find a few happy middle-class prostitutes but it isn't the norm and the law won't interfere with that level of prostitution.
People can debate all they like, within months Canada will have it's own version of the Nordic model in place. I believe it will be written to withstand any charter challenges.
At first I was discouraged by the SC ruling but I quickly realized it is the best outcome abolitionists could hope for. It would have taken years, maybe decades, for abolitionists to achieve this result. Before December Canada will have it's own version of the Nordic model. All three major political parties support it so once in place prostitution will join abortion and gay marriage as a closed topic legislatively. Ironic that promoters of prostitution will have contributed so greatly to the abolitionist cause by getting the current laws struck down.
I'm looking forward to reading the details of Canada's version of the Nordic law.
I think abolitionists should define success as I feel some people have unreasonable expectations of what laws can accomplish.
As abolitionists, what results are we expecting from the change in law? I don't really expect much to change in the short term because while prostitution was technically legal the laws surrounding it made prostitution virtually illegal from a practical perspective. The laws are just shifting, it's just illegal in a different way. Prostitutes themselves will no longer be prosecuted which I think most people agree with. I don't think there will be a huge uptick in the arrest of johns although I hope it does happen more frequently to the abusive johns. I hope that fake massage parlours will be closed down.
I expect the law to primarily prevent the expansion of prostitution as opposed to eradicating it. I hope street prostitution is curtailed. I'm grateful that women in Canada won't be having sex in outdoor drive through stalls.
If you are an abolitionist, what outcome do you expect from the new laws?
P.S.
http://www.stoptraffick.ie/eu-parliament-passes-ground-breaking-honeyball-report-on-prostitutions-impact-on-gender-equality/
Slowly but surely the tide is turning. It is a sweet victory for feminism. The movement to legitimize prostitution is failing.
But I don't see how the Cons could enact anything resembling the "Nordic Model", as they are averse to the social services and income support needed to make alternative employment and education feasable for the most vulnerable and desperate people in the sex trade. Look at their utter contempt for the demands of Indigenous women, in terms of murdered and missing women, and many other aspects of deep inequality and unfair treatment (in particular by the police).
People can debate all they like, within months Canada will have it's own version of the Nordic model in place. I believe it will be written to withstand any charter challenges.
Yes, the inevitable outcome.
At first I was discouraged by the SC ruling but I quickly realized it is the best outcome abolitionists could hope for. It would have taken years, maybe decades, for abolitionists to achieve this result. Before December Canada will have it's own version of the Nordic model. All three major political parties support it so once in place prostitution will join abortion and gay marriage as a closed topic legislatively. Ironic that promoters of prostitution will have contributed so greatly to the abolitionist cause by getting the current laws struck down.
The prostitutes involved in the legal fight which ended with the Supreme Court decision had no foresight; they weren’t prepared for a legal win – if you wish to call it that – and had no idea how to capitalize on a success. On the day of the decision Valerie Scott, who had been campaigning for decriminalization for over 20 years, had nothing new to say, not even a fresh 30-second sound bite. Terri-Jean Bedford supported Scott by adding nothing. The silence of the activists foreshadowed the coming months; they never expected the decision they got.
...
it boggles my mind that many do not understand basic concepts of the theory.
I’m all willing to understand THE theory that seems, according to your formulation, to gather large approval. Can you seriously subscribe to the Sarah Ditum junk posted by Ell-Fury? Is that THE theory?
It sounds like sub Marxist sub feminist stuff to me. She uses strange concepts :
« the assumption is that “sex workers” as a class adopt a coherent line which I’m obliged to follow »
Sex workers as a class??? Seriously? Apart from this, why look for lines you should feel obliged to follow? Isn’t it a bit gregarian?
« In other words, women as a class are affected by the fact of sex work, which means that all women have the right to be listened to as the affected class »
Women as a class??? Really? So who’s the oppressing class here? Men as a class?
I’m very much interested into learning THE theory. But if you applaud the Sarah Ditum stuff, I’d rather try to learn something more interesting.
No worker should suffer because she or he is in an industry that causes social harm. The bosses should
I think you’re looking at the real issue. If I was convinced of the social harm caused by prostitution, I would reconsider my position. Apart from the direct harm to those involved, what would be your main illustration of the social harm of prostitution?
I'm sure a minority of women do very well in prostitution and you can find a few happy middle-class prostitutes but it isn't the norm and the law won't interfere with that level of prostitution.
That’s loaded with assumptions. You know no more than me what the “norm” is, what the “minority” is. I don’t think there are clear “levels” of prostitution revenue wise. I would guess revenues are spread on a continuum.
Why do you talk about Germany? What does Germany have to do with Canada? There has been an up rise of supply of sex workers throughout Europe with the opening of borders in the last 20 years. Also, Europe has very slack immigration control compared to Canada and USA. The variations of price and revenues in sex work are economic cycles related here, and they vary considerably across the country.
Also, Gustave, let's not forget that there are no restrictions on working within the EU by moving from one country to another, and that the legalization of prostitution in Germany makes it that much more attractive for sex workers than working in a country where law enforcement like to harass landlords to ensure sex workers become homeless. Of course people will go register to work in Germany, where unfortunately, most venues are public brothels, rather than independent. This is also how legal prostitution operates in the Nevada counties. Many sex workers become employees, but maybe would rather not be, it just isn't as easy an option for them.
The more you see criminalization in other European countries, the more sex workers will travel to Germany, the more who end up in Germany, floods the market, supply overwhelms demand, and like anything else, the prices go down because the workers still need to pay the fees and expenses to be there.
And as you say, what does what is or isn't happening in Germany to do with what is and isn't happening in Canada.
The trouble with the abolitionist camp is that the ONLY sex workers they will listen to are the ones who profit from selling their stories as victims. It's like men saying all women want is to be housewives and mothers, and if anyone tries to speak up and say, no that's not true, they just turn around and say, see, there is a perfect example of someone who doesn't know what they really feel or think. Those women have been brainwashed to think they want and need more than that, or to use their education. Aren't they funny!!
So that is what some of these articles, Ditumisms, abolitionists are saying everyday. Look at those sex workers, aren't they funny!! We are obviously not going to listen to someone who is saying the complete opposite of what we want the public to hear!!
The trouble with the abolitionist camp is that the ONLY sex workers they will listen to are the ones who profit from selling their stories as victims.
Again with the nasty smear tactics against ex-prostitutes. They have the right to speak out against the abuse they suffered and people have a right to hear them out.
The simplistic reasoning of prostitution promoters can't stand up against the reality of prostitution. When victims speak out the ugliness is revealed. When people see what acceptance of prostitution has led to in other countries the fairy tale is shattered.
What does Germany have to do with Canada?
Trafficking/smuggling already occurs to and within Canada. Germany is just one example. People can also look at the Netherlands, Ireland, and Switzerland. With the US right on our border demand would increase and supply would have to increase right along with it.
The prostitutes involved in the legal fight which ended with the Supreme Court decision had no foresight; they weren’t prepared for a legal win – if you wish to call it that – and had no idea how to capitalize on a success.
As I understand it the lawyer sought out prostitutes to represent. While the lawyers may believe in the cause I think their motivation was to mount a successful Charter challenge case. Considering they were successful at multiple courts they were certainly aware that they might win. I predict that the law will be written to withstand a Charter challenge.
Media has been flooded with stories, editorials and letters promoting decriminalization. The viewpoint of sex workers who want decriminalization has been amply expressed.
No Canadian government wants to be held responsible for the increase of prostitution and trafficking in Canada. They know that would be the inevitable outcome of decriminalization of the entire sex trade. I predict that the Canadian version of the Nordic model will become as popular in Canada as the Swedish version has become in Sweden.
The difference between countries with some version of the Nordic model in place versus those where prostitution is fully commerciallized will become glaringly apparent as it is spreading in Europe.
But I don't see how the Cons could enact anything resembling the "Nordic Model", as they are averse to the social services and income support needed to make alternative employment and education feasable for the most vulnerable and desperate people in the sex trade…...
That is exactly what I mean by having realistic expectations.
As far as I know the Nordic model has not resulted in instantaneous dramatic changes anywhere that it has been implemented. The Nordic model doesn't solve the issues of drug addiction, poverty or childhood abuse. Canada is not going to suddenly be transformed into a non-patriarchal egalitarian society. This is a long-term battle measured in decades not months. Differences are seen in comparing countries that have accepted prostitution versus those which have not.
In Canada the most significant change will be that prostitutes can no longer be arrested. The laws against procurement etc. will remain in a different format. Enforcement will vary across the country just as it does now.
Montreal police commander Ian Lafreniere said the force is trying to change its internal culture when it comes to dealing with prostitutes, considering them victims instead of criminals…..Cmdr. Lafreniere said police want to focus on eliminating the sexual exploitation of minors, human trafficking, and street walking….To that end police hope to communicate more with their counterparts in Laval and Longueuil in order to improve their expertise in dealing with sex work, and to increase the awareness of citizens about how woman become sex workers.http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal-police-to-treat-sex-workers-as-victims-1.1817743#ixzz31uWwcBVd
Montreal:The plan includes more training for officers and forming a regional squad with officers from Laval and Longueuil to share information. The force also hopes to provide more psychosocial support to victims, create a 24-hour hotline and open a special centre where victims can receive support……The shift in the force’s attitude toward prostitution has evolved as officers investigating sexual exploitation cases listened to horrific stories of abuse and violence at the hands of their pimps. “We see them as victims,” Monchamp said. “We want them to be comfortable to come and see us and ask for help.”<http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Cops+focus+pimps+prostitutes/9831819/story.html>
Toronto may soon become the second city in Canada to provide specialized housing and support to young women escaping sexual exploitation and human trafficking.…. …..“These youth are among the most damaged that we serve and often need long-term support for physical and psychological problems, including post-traumatic stress and addiction,” executive director Bruce Rivers said in a letter of support last fall.….Councillor Ana Bailao (Ward 18 Davenport), who chairs the affordable housing committee, said staff looked at similar housing projects for these vulnerable women in Vancouver, New York and North Carolina… “The reality is that the home will be just the beginning for these victims to start the healing process and to start integrating in a community. And that’s what we want to facilitate,” Bailao said.
Ottawa police Chief Charles Bordeleau: "What we've been doing here in Ottawa and seen some success is more like the Nordic model where we target the johns and those who prey on vulnerable women purchasing the sex. As a police service we'd like to see that continue down the path that we've taken," he said.In Ottawa, first-time offenders caught in sweeps had to pay $600 to attend john school, with that money going towards a program that helps street prostitutes.
Last year police arrested 117 men in targeted sweeps, including men who were found carrying bondage equipment and in one case a stun gun.
Another man was charged with sexual assault after allegedly choking prostitutes he picked up.
Edmonton:Thirty men, ranging from 18 to 60-years-old, have been charged with communicating for the purpose of prostitution. Between August 12 and August 15, police laid 64 charges and seized 26 vehicles as part of the project. Police also arrested and charged 25 women and one transgendered person for communicating for the purpose of prostitution. Police say the female sex-trade workers who were arrested were offered counseling, treatments for drug addictions and other services through the “Snug Program” in exchange for their charges being dropped. Eighteen of the women have accepted the help and two went into detox treatment. The men who have been charged have been offered a chance to attend “John school.”<http://globalnews.ca/news/789059/edmonton-police-arrest-dozens-during-prostitution-sting/>
Toronto: Of the 31 girls and women identified in Project Home for Christmas, police say 29 per cent were younger than 18.“We have seen a rise in underage prostitution in the Region of York,” Insp. Keith Merith said, to which Det. Sgt. Peter Casey added: "We're digging deep into what's going on out there and this is what we're finding."
Through interviews, investigators learned the average age of entry into the trade for the girls and women was 14 years old. And only a tenth of those found were from York region. The rest, police say, were missing from homes across Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland.
Among the juveniles were two 14-year-old girls and a 15-year-old girl who had all been reported missing from Markham homes, investigators said. All of the underage sex workers were returned home or to places of safety.
Vancouver: Often, the sex industry involves consenting adults who may never come to the attention of the community or the police. Sex work involving consenting adults is not an enforcement priority for the VPD. However, in many situations, sex workers are put into circumstances where there are increased risks to their safety or to those in the community. The VPD is cognizant of the dangers faced by those working in the sex industry and endeavours to reduce these threats. In particular, the VPD views situations involving violence, exploitation, youth, other criminal associations (e.g., street crimes or gang affiliations) or human trafficking as being high risk and therefore a priority for intervention for the safety of the workers and the communityhttp://vancouver.ca/police/assets/pdf/reports-policies/sex-enforcement-guidelines.pdf
The common factor among the various Nordic models is that prostitutes aren't arrested and everyone else is. How it has impacted various countries depends on what the previous laws were and how they were enforced. Canada started moving towards the Nordic model years ago so I don't see a radical change occurring.
and what about the aspects of the nordic model ment to discourage prostitution...? like making sex workers homeless and seizing sex workers children...? do you support that also...? perhaps a greek model of enforcement is more to your liking....you know the round sex workers and other undesirables up into concentration camps approach as is happening there now....or the chinese forced labor camp and re education model...?
the nordic model is hoisted as good for sex workers but actaully casts us out of society into the street and seperates us from our families...how is that good for anyone?
good grief...way to conflate and cloud what is going on in Greece with prostitution issues btw it is legal in Greece.
I don't think it is a matter of a "Greek Model", but of the baneful influence the Neo-Nazi organisation Golden Dawn has within many police forces in that country. As well as Roma, Jews and LGBT people, like the old Nazis they want to incarcerate (and even exterminate) the marginalised.
As for the press clippings, Edmonton is still taking a repressive approach against people in prostitution:
Police also arrested and charged 25 women and one transgendered person for communicating for the purpose of prostitution. Police say the female sex-trade workers who were arrested were offered counseling, treatments for drug addictions and other services through the “Snug Program” in exchange for their charges being dropped.
Counselling and treatment under duress is still punishment. Those services should certainly exist, but be voluntary. In general, the Edmonton police still seem to have the old outlook of targeting people offering sexual services, not just gangs, pimps or clients.
Pondering, while I don't share Susan's stance, making it impossible to sell sex without providing actual alternatives of employment or training (with a bursary that covers living expenses) does worsen the condition of the people in the trade and does nothing to free them from it. Sweden's social-democratic model makes it possible to provide social housing, education and training to these people. The same conditions should apply as apply to people in any other inherently dangerous or harmful occupation, such as asbestos miners. Extreme distress is the cause of much of the trade in the first place.
Edmonton seems to be one place where many people in prostitution seem to be of Indigenous origin. Here is a related story about that police force with respect to marginalised Indigenous people: http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~epeters/Workshop%20Papers/Freistadt.pdf
Regardless of what is enacted, several municipalities in Canada are directing their police forces to enforce no anti-prostitution laws (much like they do for minor pot possession)
