And the would be saviours / experts/ concerned citizens continue to speak!
You know, I just spent a whole weekend with and listening to sex workers who are in the biz by choice. Not "choice", by choice. I hang, talk with, blog with, listen to work with a lot of women, most of 'em sex workers or former sex workers who actually work on harm reduction and take choice seriously, rather than spectulate, tut-tut, theorize and wonder about "the plan".
By the way, what is the fucking plan???????????????
And you know, 'cause it seems timely and dead on...why not link to some actual sex workers, rather than Amanda, who, as far as any one knows, has never done any form of sex work ever, and does no sex worker out reach, yet, she somehow has the low down/411/facts? Just like....Nicholas Kristof????
Fucking Hell. How fucking narrow can your vision go? Nice to see the respect you showed the sex worker who bothered to reply to you, too.
With concerned "allies" like that....
Monday, April 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Wanted to pass on a link I thought you might find interesting:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/working/
"Nice to see the respect you showed the sex worker who bothered to reply to you, too."
- that really fucked me off, the way they talked to her. I get the impression from the "allies" that they really do think, ah, she's just a sex worker, not that bright. It really really fucking shows sometimes.
I'm responding later, been busy all weekend (I haven't actually, I've been badly organised all weekend). Will formulate a suitable response this evening.
That would be too much like letting actual women have a voice and speak for ourselves.
It reminds me of Lenin's "vanguard of the revolution" theory. The radfems are going to rise up and lead all of us deluded women out of bondage!
...and then, just like Lenin, set up a dictatorship under which they get to tell all women what to do and how to think.
No thanks. I don't want matriarchy any more than patriarchy.
Sarah –
Yep, I've been making this analogy for years – radical feminism is to feminism what Leninism is to socialism.
yeah, the "vanguard" thing does make a lot of sense.
and some even more extreme/obscure factions are closer to Red Guard Maoism, I have to say.
It's true. Most hookers do it for the love of it - the glory, fun & money.
It's no different than gigolos. People need to drop the double-standard here - that says when a male does it - he's a stud, but when a female does - she's an unwitting victim.
It's 2008 and women are gettin their's now!
"It's true. Most hookers do it for the love of it - the glory, fun & money.
It's no different than gigolos. People need to drop the double-standard here - that says when a male does it - he's a stud, but when a female does - she's an unwitting victim."
Well, no double-standard here between male and female sex workers here, but the idea that most prostitutes, male or female, do it simply for the love of it is a tad simplistic.
god, is it troll season or what?
BD writes:
"and some even more extreme/obscure factions are closer to Red Guard Maoism, I have to say."
Yep.
Getting back to the original post topic, I've always found the "A Feminism 101 Blog" more than a little questionable, since that implies it represents a baseline feminism that's independent of the various very different factions of feminism. But here, as elsewhere, I think it shows otherwise. Are sex worker feminists therefore less feminist because they disagree with Tigtog's "consensus" feminism?
I HIGHLY suggest they all read sexwork101.com, and take notes.
"I HIGHLY suggest they all read sexwork101.com, and take notes."
Oh cool – I hadn't seen this one yet.
I HIGHLY suggest they all read sexwork101.com, and take notes
Is there a lab associated with this course?
"Nice to see the respect you showed the sex worker who bothered to reply to you, too."
Cleo got the same respect that anyone else who accuses me of making an argument that I did not in fact make gets i.e. not a lot. Should I have treated a fallacious argument with extra respect simply because it came from a sex worker? I know that there are plenty of smart women in sex work, and Cleo may even ordinarily be one of them, but in that comment her accusation (that my post said that all clients who weren't patronising elite sex workers were just rapists) was flat out WRONG.
I'd be happy to discuss specific criticisms of points that were actually raised in the post over at FF101 with any sex worker or sex worker advocate who cares to comment.
I've always found the "A Feminism 101 Blog" more than a little questionable, since that implies it represents a baseline feminism that's independent of the various very different factions of feminism.
The FAQs are meant to be descriptive of many different sorts of feminisms from a neutral POV. The op-eds, of which this post is one, are more issues-based opinion pieces. This is clearly laid out in the introductory sections of the blog.
Of course it's not perfect, and many of the different feminisms are not gone into in depth. It's a 101 blog, a jumping-off point, not the last word on anything.
tigtog;
If a WoC, or a lesbian, or some other sort of marginalized person who had perhaps misread your argument, would you have treated them in a similar manner?
And I do find it ironic that out of all I said which was critical of your piece, that is the thing you choose to focus on. The point, you see, is the following...
Sex Workers, a lot of them, are tired of this "choice" bullshit. They are tired of the Kristof's and Farley's and Amanda's of the world being taken as some great authority on the lives, choices, and motivations of Sex Workers, the group, or even Sex Workers, the majority. They are SICK of these people talking over, around, about sex workers when gee, oddly enough, many sex workers can speak just fine for themselves, no matter what their stories are. They are SICK of being exploited by these supposed allies for their own means- academic prestige, books sales, big headlines. They are sick of the stereoytpes, the assertion of some universal experience, the patronizing victim image plastered on everyone in any aspect of sex work, and the constant questioning of our agency and CHOICE.
And gee, guess what? We're sick of all these pearl clutching feminists and activists tut-tutting over and for us and never freaking listening to us, especially if we don't sing the prefered tune- if we don't fit the perfect sob story victim streetwalker profile these people make money off of.
You care about sex workers? Actually give a shit about what they think and feel? Well, check out some of the links I provided. Listen to the SWOP radio program. Read some actual sex workers words. Look at the methods and goals of the outreach networks...listen, read, and hear.
Then maybe, just maybe, I might think you care about both sides of a story and what actual sex workers- not filtered through the eyes of academics building careers on their backs- think and say and feel.
If a WoC, or a lesbian, or some other sort of marginalized person who had perhaps misread your argument, would you have treated them in a similar manner?
I have done in the past. I'm impatient with erroneous arguments. That's quite possibly a failing, but it's broadly applied.
And I do find it ironic that out of all I said which was critical of your piece, that is the thing you choose to focus on.
I find it ironic that out of all I wrote focussing on whether sex workers deserved at least a similar level of workplace protection as miners or prize-fighters or liquor store workers or taxi drivers (given a higher workplace mortality rate), all that you are responding to is the choice stuff, which was an introduction to the meat of the post about mortality rates.
I know, and I acknowledged in the post, that many women freely choose sex work for the money and independence. Like many highly paid professions, there's risks involved, and the Colorado Springs study shows just how high those risks are compared to other professions.
Professions with a high rate of risk where the workers are men are all regulated to provide workplace protections. Don't women in a risky profession deserve at least as much workplace protection as men receive?
tigtog: Well, if that sort of response is the standard M.O., I guess don't be surprised when members of whatever marginalized group get pissed about it. And when you put choice "in scare quotes", expect people who have chosen yet see "That Shit" all the time to be dubious of your actual ability to believe that people can and DO chose to do sex work, even amid other attractive options, or while holding mainstream jobs.
As for the dangers, well, yes, no one says their aren't any. In fact, the dangers are one of the things Sex Worker outreach advocates spend a lot of time addressing and hoping to prevent. But, I will add that people (why yes, people, there are male prostitutes and sex workers out there) who choose the business know it can be dangerous. And yeah, sure, we'd love to see it be less so, which is why you will find most of us leaning towards decrim, if not legalization...so we have recourse, and offenders are punished. Funny though, you won't see a lot of Sex Workers talking about the glory of the Swedish Model like so many non-sex worker "experts" do.
And my point still stands, sorry, I think if one is going to discuss sex work, perhaps one should link to sex workers to get some idea of what they think....cause a lot of em? Well, they tell Farley, Kristof and Amanda to blow it out their asses...even if the job IS dangerous.
tigtog: Well, if that sort of response is the standard M.O., I guess don't be surprised when members of whatever marginalized group get pissed about it.
That's a fair point. I'm re-examining this tendency of mine in general, as it happens (after reading the many discussions in the wake of the debacle which led to brownfemipower taking down her blog). I just wanted to emphasise that such a reaction from me has been a habit, not just something I only do to a commentor identifying as a sex worker.
I'll also point out my habit has been that I am less abrupt if a commentor has a blog that I can read (like you and most of your commentors here), or is someone I know already as a commentor elsewhere. How do I know whether cleo is actually a sex worker without a web-history to examine? Just because she says so?
As to the scarequotes on choice, I do see your point there as well. I didn't mean that punctuation choice to imply all that you have objected to, but I can see now that it does carry that baggage as well. I will be more careful about how I discuss choice arguments in future, although obviously I won't be ignoring the underbelly of the sex business where workers don't have free choice due to coercion via violence and drugs.
For clarification re the Swedish model: I didn't cheerlead for it, it was part of the background information for the rest of the post. And I certainly don't claim to be an expert.
Anyway, if anyone wants to discuss the issue further, I'm happy to do so over at FF101.
the blogs that tigtog comments at are very much about not listening to what actual women have to say.
that's why they insist that if a woman says she was not raped, it's okay for them to say she was raped.
if a woman says she disagrees with some aspects of feminism, it is okay for them to call her an anti-feminist.
(melissa mcewan takes it further, if you disagree with feminism, you are not even a liberal.)
tigtog, et. al., are all about forcing people into THEIR boxes, denying agency, and rationality to people that disagree with them, and then claiming that feminism is so superb that it's the ultimate human rights movement though it shouldn't be called humanism.
check out tigtog's faq entry on sexism. turns out, that feminists can't be sexist (and by extension, white feminists cannot be racists.)
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/
they love playing calvinball.
This insistence that women cannot be sexist, that people of color cannot be racists is the flaw and that some women can put other people into boxes even in the face of denial from the subjects, well, that's why we get Amanda Marcotte, Ginmar, Twisty Faster, and so much of the other idiocy.
it's why so many women that we know flee from feminism, or at least the label of feminists.
tigtog:
This made my skin crawl a little:
"How do I know whether cleo is actually a sex worker without a web-history to examine? Just because she says so?"
I mean, how do I know Commenter Jane was raped? Does she have a blog to back it up, or should I believe her just because she said so?
And sure, I could continue the discussion with you over there at FF101....but why should I (or any other sex worker) have to? We go into hostile territory all the time trying to get heard-only, generally, to get shit on and told we know jack about our own industry. Rarely, if ever, do those who applaud the likes of Farley, Kristof, Amanda...poor concerned citizen of the week...ever deign to debate or speak with us on our own turf...which I find odd for people who apparently care so much. So thanks, but no. I seriously doubt I would find your place any more hospitable than say, oh, Pandagon. I've been doing that bad dance for two years, my feet are tired and have been stepped on one too many times. You want to know about sex workers and their thoughts? Venture onto their blogs. Hell, if you really ARE interested in both sides of the story, perhaps a second post out of you is in order, maybe after you read some more sex worker by choice voices.
This made my skin crawl a little:
"How do I know whether cleo is actually a sex worker without a web-history to examine? Just because she says so?"
I mean, how do I know Commenter Jane was raped? Does she have a blog to back it up, or should I believe her just because she said so?
FF101 has had trolls who have claimed to be rape victims and then turned out to simply be womanhating jerks. I'm generally skeptical of commentors without a web-history of some sort, particularly when their comment is essentially just a hostile rant.
Another commentor on my post has offered a critical view with links back to articles and discussions on other sites skeptical of the Swedish model. I don't know that commentor's web-history either, but certainly I am more responsive to that sort of argument than I am to a comment which just rants at me. What a surprise.
Ren, I did quite a lot of lurking on your site (even commented a couple of times IIRC) and on Bound Not Gagged about a year ago. I haven't read them so much much recently, sure, but I'm not entirely ignorant of the voices of sex workers by choice. I'm especially aware of the economic privilege inherent in the common description on BNG of "lower echelon" sex workers in posts about abusive practices. You, personally, have been able to afford to pay for a personal bodyguard, thus you are far less likely to be attacked while you work. That's a privilege and a strong difference between you and many other sex workers.
I've also read quite a bit from writers on the web who survived coerced prostitution, and it doesn't surprise me that coerced sex workers and sex workers by choice have a very different view of the sex trade. Academics who look purely at statistics have another POV, while academics who want to write profitable books have yet another.
I do and will continue to read the voices of sex workers by choice, but I will keep reading other voices too.
That really is it from me. I have had the courtesy to come and engage your post on your blog. Whether you are willing to return the courtesy is up to you.
tigtog:
How, exactly, do you think I pay my security? If you guess money, you'd be wrong. Yeah, I do so by choice, because I don't mind doing it and frankly, it's much cheaper. Farley and Kristof undoubtedly have nicer houses and cars than I do....
and yeah, it is important to listen to everyone. I've never said otherwise.
I'm especially aware of the economic privilege inherent in the common description on BNG of "lower echelon" sex workers in posts about abusive practices.
tigtog, I suggest you read this post, multiple times if necessary: Reaching the media, Sex Workers Against Rape
How do I know whether cleo is actually a sex worker without a web-history to examine? Just because she says so?
Just substitute "woman" for "sex worker", and this describes to a T the crap that trans women put up with from many feminists.
Do you not have any respect for someone's stated self-identity, for fuck's sake? If someone doesn't agree with you, or makes choices about how to earn money and live their lives that you wouldn't make, do we all (sex workers, trans folk, WoC) then have to prove our credentials to you?
I also find it difficult to believe that you can't tell the difference between a troll's fuckwadery and sockpuppetry, and a legitimate, if angry, comment. If your troll filter is too poorly tuned to distinguish between the former and the latter, maybe you should find-tune it or use a different method so that you don't delegitimate the voices of those who are different from you.
That's what so many white, middle-class, cis feminists do all the time. It's what Amanda does, that's what Melissa does, and that's what you are doing with this very question.
Post a Comment