Who's a feminist? the old question with new angles...

The only person we've "silenced" is one person who kept attacking another poster after being told to stop.  She was not the only voice here critical of prostitution, and no other voices have been silenced or told they can't put forth the arguments you outlined in this or the other thread.

How stark of contrast you make Michelle, as  you well know there are differeing types of silencing used here all the time....it does rabble a disservice to deny that silencing occurs here in many forms other than banning, or suspending.

 

most here, and reading, are way too intelligent to accept that kind of propaganda...

 

In fact, Loretta herself indicated such in her post, which you  over looked in your assurances that it was not happening..

 

...arbitrarily closing threads is one form...starting biased forums is another...or even your post was closed and silencing with its brooking no contest kinda talk...

 

and then there is this truthful observation of Loretta's

Quote:

those who are on the wrong side are misinterpreted and maligned.

 

because of course we all know I am in favour of having women's rights stripped from them afterall...just because of my stance

 

so..... someone can attack me by slandering me like that, and it is all good...but let me tell you if I said that to those wanting decrim with no regulations, I would  have been warned and/or suspended, or attacked for attacking....

Yes, why was this supension (a first-time one, too) turned into a permanent ban, despite no additional offense and without explanation? And why does Infosaturated go on being smeared here, in absentia? That used to be beyond the pale, too.

 

Actually, you're right, Martin, normally we don't talk about people who have been banned.  But you guys keep bringing it up, so of course I'm going to answer.  But this will be the last time I answer about Infosaturated.  The moderators had to field many, many complaints about her behaviour over the past few weeks, and this was the final straw.  Beyond the behaviour, we just don't have the moderating time to deal with all the complaints she was constantly making about other people (many of which we felt were without merit, some of which were), and all the complaints others made about her (many of which we felt had merit, some without).  She was also clearly unhappy with the site anyhow, demanding changes that the moderators weren't and aren't willing to make.  It's a time suck.  And we don't have that kind of time.  The attacks on susan davis, which she continued after being warned to stop, were the final straw.  And it is a unanimous decision by all the moderators, backed by the publisher.

That's my last word on this issue.

You are welcome to discuss the abolitionist viewpoint in the feminism forum.  You always were.  Please do!  In fact, I would be really interested in seeing you expand on this:

Quote:

Those reasons include the inherent sexism in sex work/prostitution, the fact that the poor are without true choices, the fact that many of those involved in the sex trade were abused as children and the fact that to do so would be to support a "business owner" financial model.

Loretta wrote:

I joined this board many years ago and have posted in fits and starts. I find it interesting and have learned a lot. However, I often lurk because there are certain unwritten rules that have been fostered here and it would seem as though if one violates them, there is grief. This issue strikes me as being among them -- it's coming across as though the truly enlightened support "sex worker rights" as being fully feminist and any arguments to the contrary are coming from those who either don't get it or don't get "real" feminism.

Loretta, thank you for starting this thread.  I highlighted the words that particularly resonate. 

I have read all of the sex work threads but made a conscious decision not to post in any of them. 

I do not support the sex trade as a legitimate business.  I think it's repulsive and should be shut down.  I realize we've heard some articulate individuals who say they enjoy their work and I have no reason to disbelieve them.  The thing is that I just cannot believe such a point of view is a common one.  The people I see involved in the sex trade are slaves to their addictions.  I just don't see purchasing sexual services as being a legitimate need for anyone.  I haven't had a sexual partner for two years but that doesn't mean I'm interested in renting one. 

Loretta wrote:

Lest I be thought of as a prude, let me assure you that I fully support those ways including freedom of sexual expression, and celebration of our sexuality. Sexual freedom is not what we're talking about here, at least for most women in the sex trade.

I definitely don't think that, and I know lots of women who aren't "prudes" but also have a huge problem with prostitution.

One of the arguments that hits home for me is that the sex trade in general creates an expectation that sex from women should always be available, and perhaps divides women into two categories - women who are willing to provide it on demand, and women who are not.

Hello, Loretta. Lovely to talk to you again.

 

I joined these conversations because I support the Charter challenge. It bothers me a lot to see how willing people are to conflate (no doubt important) social debates with the foundational principles and structures of democracy -- see, eg, the discussion going on in another thread about the CPCCA, aka the Commons Un-Canadian Activities Committee. I mean, that is the threat that looms if we begin to confuse our own moral and social convictions with more basic law that is necessary to protect everyone's liberty and equality. If we can enforce our politics through the Criminal Code, the day could well come when the tables will be turned on us by fascists using the same logic, and we will have opened the door to Atwood's vision in The Handmaid's Tale.

 

Every once in a while, Susan Davis gets a chance to ask why it is only her work that is hamstrung by the Criminal Code, and that's the argument I'm here to support. Like many people here, I wish we could end capitalism yesterday. In the interim, however, most of us have to earn a living, and we all know how compromised we've been in various ways, depending on the work we took up. We have other laws to address the real crimes that legitimately bother people as civil-liberties offences -- human trafficking, exploitation of minors, eg -- and it would be good to see some clearly focused attention to those crimes. 

 

But that's not what Susan or Stargazer is talking about, and that's not why people still object to what they're saying (and in fact doing). People still think that trade in sex should be criminalized somehow, even though, oh, I don't know, flipping real estate isn't. Susan is standing on section 2 of the Charter, which acknowledges her full humanity -- ie, she is as much a human being as anyone else, which means she should be free to make the full range of choices anyone else does. The Charter does not say "You're only free if you're perfect." It says you're free because you're a human bean, and that is where equality is rooted. There are lots of mediocre men around; the Charter freed women to be every bit as mediocre as men are.

 

I happen not to think that Susan or Stargazer is mediocre. I've been interested to read all the work that Susan and her group have done to address the need for regulation, if they can get the restrictions of the Criminal Code gone. That all sounds reasonable to me. And I empathize a lot with Stargazer's feeling that she's being condescended to, whether people intend that or not.

 

But it is exceptionally dangerous to have people confusing admirable social and political arguments and education with criminal law and basic constitutional guarantees of liberty and equality. I'm sure that's why Alan Young and his students took this challenge on pro bono, and that's why I hope they win.

 

 

 

 

Loretta wrote:

Sexual freedom is not what we're talking about here, at least for most women in the sex trade.

No it isn't.

On many levels.

 

 

 

 

Loretta wrote:

Decriminalizing the "sex worker" is reasonable, anything beyond that is a threat to the rights and freedoms of all women, especially those on the margins who are at risk through poverty.

Loretta, do you think it should be a criminal offence for a sex worker and a customer to discuss the terms of their contract in a car parked in the parking lot of a shopping mall? Would you answer this question differently for the sex worker than for the customer?

 

I joined these debates because I think the charter challenges are dangerous for women. I'm all for freedom, but I think it's a mistake to conflate freedom with choice, and choice with autonomy. We are not yet on equal footing, women and men. Men still make more money than do women, men still hold public office, men still make the laws, and enforce them, men still hold the balance of power in the top-heavy beauraucracies of institutions of power, including business, medicine, education, and law...

and men are the ones who demand to buy sex from women. Many people who support the total decriminalization of prostitution insist on describing the abolition postiion as one that would have women in prostitution criminalized. Stargazer, for example,  has made this mistake in several threads, one of which was quoted at the beginning of this one. 

I do not see how allowing men unfettered access to women's bodies will secure 'safety' for women in prostitution. How will the repeal of the bawdy house law protect women who sell (or are sold) through avenues such as craigslist? How can dedcriminalizing men (or women) who offer women for sale protect those women? This is kind of a rhetorical question. We can look at what happened in Amsterdam, Australia, Germany, to see how well women are protected when prostitution is decriminalized or legalized and regulated. Sure we can find a few 'happy hookers', but there are many many more women who are not happy, not safe, not 'choosing'. and these women are in mortal danger.

I know there are women who say they are feminists, and they support tthe charter challenge, and the decriminalization of all aspects of prostitution. I don't think that supporting the continuation of the sex industry can be a feminist stance. I expect a wee shitstorm of invective hurled my way for that statement, but i will stand by it. Just because you say you are feminist doesn't make it so. And advocating for men to be able to buy sexual access to women's bodies is anti-feminist. Feminism is about figuring out a way to freedom. We want women, and men, to be FREE. not "available to the average consumer at a reasonable cost". We don't know what exactly freedom is yet, but it's different again from having the opportunity to choose between selling sex or pushing a broom, or lining up at the foodbank....

Freedom, it seems to me, and feminism both, depend upon working for the well-being of others. Not just having 'choice' but acting in the interests of those with fewer opportunities--working together to expand opportunities for all. I don't see the charter challenge as acting in the interests of those with fewer options for education, work, etcetera. rather it is doing the opposite. and it is anti-feminist.

loretta wrote;

 

Is babble a place where, like with other "givens" (no sexism, no racism, etc,), it is now a given that we must accept the paradigm that susan davis purports around sex work/prostitution? I can get behind respecting her point of view but disagreeing with it, that seems fair. It seems very inappropriate that rabble/babble would take the position to support that paradigm for a number of reasons. Those reasons include the inherent sexism in sex work/prostitution, the fact that the poor are without true choices, the fact that many of those involved in the sex trade were abused as children and the fact that to do so would be to support a "business owner" financial model.

Giving someone a safe place to discuss their point of view in this matter is one thing, it's another to ban those who don't agree and challenge it.

i thougt you had stated something about first nations but i guess i was wrong...sorry. the point remains about calling our parents child molesters......

i also have stated over and over that our plans a geared to empower workers with rights, not business owners and how in our culture older, more experienced workers become madames and share their knowledge with less experienced workers.

do you subscribe to the sink or swim model? all workers must be isolated from each other, have no mentoring or security on their first date with a customer and not be allowed access to critical information about their work in the form of an ex worker become madame?

this casting of all business owners is why we have no where to work, and are forced onto the street. WE NEED JOBS!!! and we need those jobs to be safe work environments. we will be inspected and scurtinized as other industries, no one is asking for carte blanche brothels. in my opinion this is a scare tactic by abolitionists to confuse the greater public as too what decrim  means.

decrim means i am not a criminal. labour law, employment standards act protect workers all over canada, why will it not work for us? why do we require seperate laws? it casts us as different, violence against us as different/unimportant/less, and allows enforcement agencies to apply the law in anyway they see fit including "getting rid of that prostitution problem". we know how well that is working....sex workers are gone. they're dead.

let's not do the typical "quick and dirty" that the canadian government is so famous for. let's do the hard work and do what is right creating a legacy of safety for canadian sex workers. abolitionists seem to think that the swedish model is some how some instant and perfect solution. don't kid yourselves, it will take as much work as full decrim, maybe more. in addition to creating labour standards  and all the other infrastructure required to decrim workers only, you will need to come up with laws and penalties for criminalized comsumers and business owners.

in sweden they get a fine.....or 6 months in jail.....do you think that's going to be an effective deterent? that's pretty much already the sentence in canada now under communication provisions, it doesn't seem to be working now.....

peasant woman, did you call my cohorts and i hookers? please refrain from using language we find offensive. we are sex workers or prostituted people as is prefered by some ex workers here on babble. no where did i see any current or former workers say, yes, call me  hooker, i find it empowering.....

try to be respectful.

Loretta wrote:

susan davis, I didn't do that either. I said that there is a disproportionate number of those involved in exchanging sexual intercourse for money were abused as children and I didn't name it as sexual abuse. This is what I've read from numerous sources however, I will include that question with those I'm asking of my contact in the women's studies department.

numerous sources such as ben perrin and melissa farely? becuase that data is skewed and biased. we know that those sources of data were never subject to research ethics review board scrutiny and only represent workers entrenched in the street level trade.
one cannot compare canadian conditions to cambodian conditions, or a war zone in africa to conditions in canada. the numbers will be skewed and misrepresentative of the true condtions existing within the canadian sex industry.
it has been proven that working conditions improve in indoor sex work venues and that indepent workers enjoy the safest working conditions off all- that's why we support worker owned and controlled, cooperatively run sex industry businessesbrothels.strip clubs,adult film companies.......not the coporate support the business owners enslave us all ..... i don't understand how people can ignore the potential of cooperative business models to adress many issues facing sex industry workers....
Contrary to popular perceptions about prostitution and violence, more than two-thirds of off-street sex workers who participated in a recent SFU study say they don't experience violence while working.
 
http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/Stories/sfunews06280710.shtml
 
Sixty-three cent of the study participants-who work in massage parlours, for escort agencies or independently out of their homes-have never experienced violent behaviour.
Those who did said the majority of incidents were related to a client's refusal to pay or to wear a condom.
School of Criminology grad student Tamara O'Doherty, who conducted the study, says her findings suggest that the off-street sex trade is safer than it is for the 10-20 per cent of prostitutes who work at the street level.
"The lack of violence as shown in this study doesn't reflect what many people typically fear about prostitution in general-that it is a dangerous profession," says O'Doherty, who surveyed 39 off-street sex workers and conducted in-depth interviews with 10 women involved in the sex industry.
The women were mainly Caucasian, aged 22-45, and earned an average of $60,000 annually working four days a week. Ninety per cent had some post-secondary education and more than a third had a university degree.
O'Doherty says the findings suggest that potentially violent men target street prostitutes.
That "should be no surprise," she says. "Street sex workers, forced to work in isolation with little or no protection from police, are ideal prey for violent men."
http://lib-ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/9250

This thesis explores women's experiences working in off-street prostitution venues in Vancouver, BC. The victimization experienced by street-based sex workers has led many people to conclude that prostitution is inherently dangerous. However, street-based workers form the minority of sex workers in Canada. The question remains, can their experiences be generalized to other types of prostitution? Consequently, this thesis examines whether female off-street sex workers face the same degree of victimization as female street-based sex workers, and asks if the experience of prostitution always entails violence. The research contained two components: a) a victimization survey examining interpersonal violence and other forms of victimization of off-street sex workers (n=39); and b) in-depth interviews with ten off-street sex workers exploring their working conditions, safety, stereotypes of prostitution, and law reform (n=10). While violence and exploitation do occur in the off-street industry, this study indicates that some women sell sex without experiencing any violence.

 
 

Quote:

30% of on street sex workers , disproportionate representation in survival sex work, these things i have heard. street sex work comprises 10% 15 % of our industy

30% in Vancouver.

We are not talking the whole sex trade here, we are talking genital contact sex.

 

Please do not obscure this by trying to merge all types of sex trade  activities together.

 

90% in PG, if not more, close to the same for Kamloops, Kelowna, Terrace, Smithers, FT St John,  and Prince Rupert, are of FN heritages.

 

Then we have all those who are the marginalized poor taking up  most of the rest of the spaces,  and they have been abused by our classist society too. And then they move along to being exploited and abused more, in order to serve the instant gratification needs of the classist society.

 

do refrain from trying to kid us that rich people's daughters, or even middle class ones, are choosing genital contact sex, in the majority of cases in the remaining percentile, as a career choice.

 

 no one said child molesters until you did susan, please also refrain from trying to build conceptual frameworks that were never there.

 

In respect to what is posted in the labour forum, thread by Ms Davis,  it is but a glossy overview of what  things on the surface should be done.

 

Reading that thread, and what was posted regarding the regulations and certifications they were allegedly advocating, made me delve into the reality applications of what those very very surface statements meant. As I have direct experience knowlege, it was easy to break it all down.

 

when that gloss was removed, by my detailing the reality facets under the gloss, it was stated that none of those things were feasible to do, and to impliment them would drive  prostitution back undergound and out into the streets.

 

Which lead me to realize the only thing really being advocated for was decriminalized and unregulated genital contact sex.

 

Trying to also gloss it up as a human rights issue is nonsensical, as Loretta clearly points out above, and I have detailed elsewhere.

 

But for those needing to have it repeated, I would be happy to do so.

So what if you are married susan davis, it plays no part in this discussion. Nor do any of the other numerous, too numerous to count, let alone address, red herrings and misinterpretations in that last post of yours..

I detailed just a few of the  laws and regulations that would have to be made and put in place, as well as all the regulatory bodies needed to oversee, that you gave points on, as supposed things you and others  planned upon doing, in the linked thread to the labour forum above.

You, yourself, and others, immediately dismissed those required industry regulations, as nondoable, so making claims that the industry business people, such  as yourself, want to do those regulatory things and have looked into it all,  fall a bit short of being actual reality. In fact, they appear to be feel good fluff, without substance.

~

As a feminist my first priority is fostering the well being of women. My actions in life flow from that place. Why?

 

men have been fostering their own well being at our expense, for over 2000 years, they know how, and most are not willing to give up that 2000 year old history  in just a mere  80 short years.

 

Women have not even recovered from how our chattal stature for 2000 years has warped our sense of self yet. And it is going to be a few generations yet I suspect, before we do.

 

Meanwhile, this feminist understands that there are no human rights involved in decriminalizing john's, pimps and procurers, as a man's right to have leisure time ejaculations is not a human a right and is just another version of the old patriarchial propaganda  of "every sperm is sacred".

 

 

Loretta wrote:

Unionist, what remind said, "Meanwhile, this feminist understands that there are no human rights involved in decriminalizing john's, pimps and procurers, as a man's right to have leisure time ejaculations is not a human a right and is just another version of the old patriarchial propaganda  of 'every sperm is sacred'."

Doesn't it reinforce the notion that every sperm is not sacred? My take on the "every sperm is sacred notion" is that ejaculation should only occur with hetero, married sex with no birth control. 

Could you definite "leisure time ejaculations"? This does not even mention or imply that any commerce is involved? As long as there is CONSENT, the state has no business saying anything about what adults do sexually in their leisure time - male or female. 

There are human rights involved. It is the right of a an adult to make decisions about her own body with a consenting adult. As long as the adult she or he is hoping to consent to sexual acts with is criminalized - then she may as well be too. 

remind: 2,000 years? The human species is a lot older than that and I would say patriarchal control goes back to the beginning. 

Loretta wrote:

nor is there a right to contract for it.

I would have to disagree with this, since Prostitution is legal in this country, by definition people in this country over the age of 18 have a right to contract for it.

The swedish model of criminalizing the client has been proven elsewhere, by the Swedish government and police services themselves, to have failed in its intent.  Why not choose something that actually gets the results you desire, if what you desire is to make life easier for street workers with drug and past abuse histories?  I think, because those issues have little or nothing to do with prostitution per se, and the solutions are unrelated to that work.

Quote:

After all, how could someone apply for welfare when work is available in the field of legalized prostitution? You're an abused woman who needs work -- there it is.

 

Loretta, this question has been addressed several times elsewhere. Non-consensual sex is assault, and we have other laws that can prevent the state from pressuring anyone into sex work. We don't even need to mention sex work: no one is required to volunteer for assault.

 

Quote:

There is no right to have sex nor is there a right to contract for it.

 

I can hardly believe you wrote that. The Charter doesn't say you have a right to eat or take a pee either.

 

No one bestows rights upon anyone else. We have rights by virtue of being human beings. The Charter is there to make sure that no one attempts to take those away from us.

 

If you are a human being, you eat, excrete, and like all other animals associate freely with other human beings. You need food, clothing, and shelter. The Charter doesn't single out most of those basic functions, although it does guarantee freedom of association, which, again, is a basic animal function, and it would be a pretty horrific society that denied it. (There have been such societies, unfortunately.)

 

Our animal life precedes all law, and all democratic codifications begin with a recognition of that fact. One of the great glories of animal life is to curl up with another living body of one's choice, and it would be an ugly tyranny that presumed to interfere with that choice and that joy.

 

Och, Rousseau -- where are you now that we really need you? *cue chorus of "Born Free"*

 

 

 

Loretta wrote:

 

If that's the case, what's the fuss about challenging the solicitation laws? Sure, most people work to avoid support themselves and therefore avoid poverty. There is a difference in that most people don't aspire to being a prostitute, or sex worker, if you prefer. Most end up "choosing" it for lack of other options.

 

These have been discussed ad nauseum as to why they harm the sex worker and no one else by preventing her from working specifically in ways that are safer (like from home, which is considered a "bawdy house" or with security which is considered "living off the avails" or with family (also "living off the avails").  How anyone can think that the solicitation laws do not affect the sex worker, particularly the street sex worker, in a negative and harmful way is ludicrous.   How can it be better to jump into a car and drive away from the street to discuss rates and services (which, by the way is perfectly legal to do unless you are standing on the street).   So instead, you would have her get into the car with someone she has no opportunity to talk to with for a bit, to judge his character or seriousness, to find out even if he is prepared to spend what she is charging. 

Let us suppose that your miner goes to work, uncertain as to whether or not he will actually get sent into the mine today, and when he does, only then does he get a chance to tell them what kind of a wage he had in mind, then they tell him, well, since you are here anyway, why don't we pay you half of what you want and see what happens?  

And, btw, ignoring the fact that susi's organization has spent a lot of time, energy and thought into coming up with regulations and work standards is pretty insulting.  Just proves my point.  Posting without actually reading enough to make a direct comment on the post being commented on      Essentially, you are saying sex workers do not deserve or merit regulations and unions, etc, due solely to the nature of their choice to work in this legal occupation.  Well, many, as I say, are self employed so unions would not apply, but on the other hand when the absolute minimum fee for this sort of work is at least 50/hr, you might have a hard time lobbying for high wages.  Working conditions in massage parlours, or through agencies, yes.  There would be a lot of support for that, because currently there is no real regulation and an agency can dip into a workers earnings through the intial percentage of the call, then charge extra for drivers, advertising, and fine the worker for being late, not showing up, and so on.  Such fees could be more reasonable than what they are, for sure.  Perhaps you should be working for this, instead of trying to increase unemployment stats.

I do appreciate however that you said used "most" rather than "all" when referring to those who aspire to be prostitutes.  You would be surprised at how many actually did aspire to these, when younger or choosing it at a later age after serious consideration.  Yes, some people do aspire to this.  It can be glamorous, it can allow people the freedom to pursue other interests, it can simply be that they enjoy men and sex.  Last time I checked, there was nothing sinister about being in touch with one's own sexuality, as an adult.

Loretta wrote:

Let's look at this another way -- why don't we just assume that all workers can decide for themselves what wage they need and in what conditions they will work? Why do we need laws of any kind to restrict business of any kind? Hell, those miners can look after themselves -- labour laws infantalize them, let's get rid of them. In supporting labour laws, you are discounting the voices of those who say they don't want a union so why don't we let them decide what's going to happen?

Exactly Loretta...