From decriminalization in Taiwan to harm reduction in Argentina, sex workers across the world have made stunning strides by banding together and demanding basic rights, including the right to tell their own stories. (Most recently, members of the Indian organization VAMP spoke out against a film made by Vice TV that used documentary footage and personal interviews misleading and irresponsibly.) In most contexts, progressives would celebrate workers seizing control of the conditions of their own labor. But radical feminists who want all forms of sexual commerce eliminated are outraged by this turn of events.
Inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks have become the norm when "experts" deign to acknowledge sex worker activists. Melissa Farley, arguably the abolition movement's most visible figure, has stated plainly that BDSM porn company Kink.com -- which has an impeccable reputation and works with outspoken performers such as Lorelei Lee and Madison Young -- is "just like" the abusers at Abu Ghraib, and routinely implies that anyone who suggests prostitution could be improved by better laws and working conditions is akin to a Civil War era slavery apologist. When attending hearings on Rhode Island's proposed criminalization of prostitution, Donna Hughes sneeringly dismissed those speaking against by implying they were déclassé and undereducated, primarily because some smoked cigarettes, had tattoos, or knew English as a second language.
Hughes and others have also routinely attempted to discredit sex work activists by claiming such women are "pimps." Robyn Few, a prominent activist and former sex worker, is one common target. Few was convicted of "promoting prostitution," a charge that can be leveled at any sex worker who gives advice to another, including information about how to screen clients or where it's safer to work. Abolitionist Anne Bissel, who labels herself a sex industry survivor, dismissed Few with the imperative, "quit smoking pot, and get a real job." Few, who lives in California, has been battling cancer since 2007.
This type of attack ignores that abolitionists themselves sometimes have a far more alarming spotted history. Once-prominent and still cited Eveline Giobbe was taken to court by a former sex worker who claimed Giobbe slapped, sexually harassed, and abused her with specific language once used by the woman's pimp. If women with arrest records are categorically unworthy of trust, wouldn't that apply to those Melissa Farley cites as wanting prostitution to remain criminalized as well as those who argue for legalization?
Worse than the regular name-calling and denigration of activists is the anti-prostitution movement's refusal to engage in any of these activists' experiences or to fairly represent their opinions. Samantha Berg and Melissa Farley have both pushed the claim that advocates for decriminalization believe social stigma is the most grievous injury against sex workers. This is an attempt to make activists seem narcissistic and out of touch, and is demonstrably untrue. Quick perusal of the work of Audacia Ray, Juhu Thukral, Melissa Ditmore, or Bound, Not Gagged, will provide ample evidence. Sex worker blogs, conferences, publications, and organizations continuously address state-sanctioned violence and arrests against sex workers as well as abuse at the hands of clients. (To deny the role that social stigma plays in endorsing these acts or letting them go unpunished would be foolish.)
Shelia Jeffreys and Samantha Berg accuse sex worker activists of profiteering, though there's no evidence presented to back up the claims that these women are getting rich from opposing criminalization. On the contrary, former and current sex workers put themselves at tremendous risk for prosecution or harassment by the government. Unapologetic former prostitute Veronica Monet's outspokenness resulted in her audit by the IRS. (All of her finances were in order.) Additionally, abolitionists refuse to use the words "sex worker" or "sex work," claiming such language is deceptive propaganda and instead promoting phrases like "prostituted woman" or "woman used in prostitution"--even when some former prostitutes say these terms make them feel devalued and powerless. Melissa Farley has called the language of sex worker activists and voluntary sex workers, including exotic dancers, "attempts by women in prostitution to retain some shred of dignity" and fallaciously analogizes, "we do not refer to battered women as 'battering workers.'"
This has fostered astounding amounts of bitterness and mistrust, not only between sex workers and feminists but also within the feminist movement itself. Gail Dines and Samantha Berg have flatly refused to publicly debate with those who don't share their views, even going so far as to demand that sex worker activists be disinvited from events where they were asked to present a non-abolitionist viewpoint. Julie Bindel, a British abolitionist and writer for "The Guardian," recently said that if she were faced with a choice between shooting a pimp and an academic working with sex workers (presumably an academic who doesn't share her personal position on prostitution,) she'd shoot the academic. With Nikki Craft, Melissa Farley penned the scornful, mocking "Why I Made The Choice To Become A Prostitute" which includes such lines as "I realized that gang rape would be a transcendental experience" and "I went to [a sex worker activist event] and found out just how glamorous prostitution could be."
This ugly display of disrespect is unwarranted and near inexplicable. Why would these women be so threatened by sex workers organizing for themselves, gaining national attention, and working to influence public perception? Is the abolitionist narrative or abolitionists' prominence as experts more important than the people they're purporting to help? The poor thinking and outright bigotry exhibited by some anti-prostitution figures can no longer go unchallenged. Sex workers of all ages and genders deserve better advocacy than this, and thankfully, as the recent VAMP example proves, their demands for more honest discussion may no longer go unheard.
Then they were surprised the workers' movement -- trade unions -- which didn't fall entirely in their hands. In the US and Western Europe, trade unionism and public concern about workers evolved with little or no input from Communists -- outrageous! They were 'instruments of oppression used to deny class consciousness'.)
The result? The situation of workers improved much faster in the so-called 'oppressive' Capitalist countries than in the Communist 'paradises' -- to the extent that Communists had to prevent citizens from escaping from their 'paradises'. Now, finally, they all acknowledge that the Western solution was better.
I see the same situation with the Sex Workers debate. Radfems with big theories about 'how patriarchy works' have a holier-than-thou attitude towards those who disagree with their One and True Interpretation of every social phenomenon (e.g. prostitution). If history is any guide... it is up to sex workers activists to improve the situation of sex workers and make it a success story of female empowerment. Later the radfems, like the communists, will give up and agree.
Thanks for the story, and naming the names.
I'm not the one who puts a misogynistic label on sex workers. The fact that they reduce their body to a monetary value does that for them.
If people would simply get the facts rather than believing moronic stereotypes like "all sex workers are streetwalkers" (the National Taskforce on Prostitution estimates only about 15% are) and "all prostitutes have pimps" (when in fact less than half of streetwalkers and only a tiny percentage of escorts do), we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Alas, that is not the case.
It's like night and day. Thank you for your good sense, Monica. :-)
There is exploitation in sex work as in business, social institutions and families. The stigmatized and clandestine nature of sexuality and prostitution can make vulnerable people more vulnerable. Fundamental decriminalisation of consensual sex between consenting adults was not legalised and thus tested yet. Fear of anarchy is surmounting. Partly based on traditional belief system or individual bad experiences and personal emotions many people deny us sex workers agency, self-expression, earning our livelihood and basic human rights.
Instead they want to save us via prohibition into mainstream life, since they do not know how we sex worker perform well. All based on some knowledge, that sex work is not an easy job for everyday or everyone leading to a sustainable career or lifestyle in the long run. Although this holds for other work too, there it has been shown that by institutionalizing workers rights, education, unions, self regulation bodies, security, health clinics, insurance, credit union, pension plan, elderly homes... can make things work well. All these is denied to sex work.
The power of sex mixed with money seems to be too archaic to have been civilized. No wonder that the outcome is often violent. But it is diabolic to blame sex work intrinsic qualities of love making for that and not taking structural violence of systematic exclusion and alienation into account. Give us sex workers a fair position in discourse and society.
The answer is because these women are lairs. In this month's ruling, Canadian Justice Himmel’s struke down the 'bawdy house law' (keeping us from working together), the 'communications for the purposes of' law, (bars our ability to negotiate for our labor and safe work conditions), and the living off the avails clause (the one that criminalizes all of our relationships-professional and domestic), sighting the following regarding the 'experts testimony;
[353] I found the evidence of Dr. Melissa Farley to be problematic..... she failed to qualify her opinion regarding the causal relationship between post-traumatic stress disorder and prostitution, namely that it could be caused by events unrelated to prostitution.
[354] Dr. Farley's choice of language is at times inflammatory and detracts from her conclusions. For example, comments such as, "prostitution is to the community what incest is to the family," .... make her opinions less persuasive.
[355] Dr. Farley stated during cross-examination that some of her opinions on prostitution were formed prior to her research, including, "that prostitution is a terrible harm to women, that prostitution is abusive in its very nature, and that prostitution amounts to men paying a woman for the right to rape her."
[356] Accordingly, for these reasons, I assign less weight to Dr. Farley's evidence.
Maxine Doogan
http://espu-ca.org
Those who support the abolitionists because they think the abolitionists are fighting for the rights of victims need to take a very close look at the scorn and dislike these "feminists" heap on women who don't follow their viewpoint (Monica gave plenty of examples). Someone wanting to help others does not loathe the entire class of people they are supposedly helping. Someone who is a "feminist" does not put down an entire group of women just because those women did not make the same life choices they did. One can argue that the abolitionists' attempts at wiping out all sex work compounds the very real problems sex workers have and contributes to abuse/stigma. That's not very helpful, is it?
Sex worker activists mainly fund their activism out of their own pockets -- with income derived from sex work. There is no such thing as a "pro-prostitution lobby." We are not a lobby. We ARE pro-choice, pro-human rights, pro-worker rights. We are worldwide because sex work exists everywhere. We are the ones best in place to not only clearly see the problems affecting us, but offering real solutions.