Being Amber Rhea

Well, Creative Loafing finally ran my letter to the editor. Ken Edelstein has a snarky response, which is easy material for those who enjoy fisking and playing “Spot the Logical Fallacy.” I typically don’t enjoy these pastimes, but in this case I can make quick work of a few of the most glaring eye-rollers.

1. “Organizers also asked Nouraee not to expose names and identities of those attending the meeting.”

Well, since I was one of the organizers, I’ll tell you what we actually said. Before the program began, we asked that members of the press not reveal anyone’s name or personal information without their explicit permission. We said that any individual should definitely feel free to agree to an interview; we simply asked that they step away from the program to do it, so as not to disturb others. (E.g., Caitlin was interviewed that night and included in another piece.) So this line about “Wah, he wasn’t allowed to expose anything!” is really stupid and easy to see through.

2. “Later, Nouraee tracked down a woman who was involved directly in an incident with Gower, and he quoted that woman, Cheryl Courtney-Evans, extensively in the article.”

Extensively? Go back and check the article again, Ken. I wouldn’t call a few lines, preceded by several paragraphs devoted to Gower on his nasty soapbox, “extensive.” Give me a break.

Edelstein closes with this, which I guess he intends to be a real zinger:

3. “Another point worth considering: Gower, whom Rhea describes as homophobic, is openly gay.”

You know, people make dumbass arguments like this one all the time, and yet every time I see it, I’m still amazed. (Several commenters on the original CL story trotted it out like a beacon of truth, and were properly taken to task by other commenters.) Gower is openly gay. And?

Just because you’re gay, doesn’t mean you can’t be homophobic. Arguments like this one show a profound lack of understanding of the way privilege and prejudice operate in our society. If you grow up in this society, no matter what your race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, class, etc., you internalize a degree of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and classism because these things operate on a structural level. (Which is why we can’t successfully fight against and dismantle them until we acknowledge them within ourselves.) Sure, Gower probably doesn’t sit up nights entertaining a bunch of consciously homophobic thoughts like, “Hey, I really hate faggots!” Because that’s not how it works. Whatever thoughts he may or may not have are irrelevant. His actions speak for themselves.

This is the same stupid shit as when people say, “I can’t be racist, some of my best friends are black!” Are you fucking kidding me?

And, anyway, let’s just allow for a minute that maybe Gower isn’t homophobic. Maybe he’s done all kinds of examining of societal conditioning and is totally not affected at all by it anymore. Again… so what?? He’s still an asshole, and an extremely dangerous one at that. So I don’t know what this triumphant “He’s gay!” declaration is supposed to prove.

Overall, CL’s continued defense of Gower is puzzling… -well, okay, not really. I don’t think many of us still buy into their self-proclaimed “alternative” status.

Update: Christ on a cracker. I just noticed the letters to the editor page has comments. The good news? A few of the comments there are sensible. The bad/annoying/hilarious (depending on my mood) news? Check out this comment:

Sex Worker Article Comment - It seems that Rhea has a uninformed image of prostitution. A life of a prostitute is nothing like what is portrayed in the movie Pretty Woman. Most prostitution is tragic and the people selling their bodies would probably rather be doing something better with their lives. Tragically, Rhea romanticizes the world of prostition. Internet images and radical ideologies due more harm than good for our public health. She needs to step away from the internet to see the world. She obviously hasnot seen families torn apart due to prostitution. It is very tragic.

Oh, this person knows me so well!

Also, ten points for using the loathsome, worn out, and wholly inaccurate term “selling their bodies.” NEXT!

There has been talk lately about “semantics” and “picking [news stories] apart word by word.” These things are said in a fairly derisive way, as if “arguing semantics” is bad or pointless.*

But you know what?

WORDS MATTER.
Because words carry implications.

Anyone who makes their living as a writer should know that words are important, and should be mindful of the words they choose, with everything they write. They should know better than anyone that words can be loaded, and the implications can go way beyond the dictionary definition, and that in the end it’s not just the dictionary definition that matters.

For example, “running a high-class call girl ring” is not factually inaccurate. But it’s sloppy reporting, and sex workers were rightly pissed. Because each of those words is pretty loaded. They carry with them assumptions that are embedded in the societal consciousness, which most people don’t even think about.

Another example: Violet Blue’s column entitled Kink.com and Porn Hysteria: The Lie of Unbiased Reporting, wherein she writes,

Steve Rubenstein and Jesse McKinley are reporters, and so we require that they report and not serve us with opinion, instead. In both articles, slanted phrases such as “dirty movies” were slipped in like a hostess silently sliding a coaster under your drink — blink and you don’t even notice it’s part of the judgmental scenery — when a more accurate term like “adult” could serve better. Rubenstein’s piece went the distance, making Kink’s employees into “manacled performers.”

But the most interesting example was the presentation of unchallenged material in the form of quotes from people on the street as anti-porn pundits — with no weigh-in from pro-porn pundits. Protesters were quoted as saying, “This neighborhood is already plagued with enough violence and prostitution as it is” and “Kink degrades the neighborhood, degrades women and offers ‘dead end’ jobs that no decent person would want.” Such statements bracket the piece — with no counter-opinions about pornography — and are presented in such a way that readers could interpret opinions as fact. Kink.com was indeed quoted — but only about their use of the space.

If the only yardstick we had for media were “Is is factually inaccurate?”, then no one would have grounds to complain about anything. Errors of omission and the connotations of specific words would be unimportant. The public would be effectively silenced.

We should hold our media accountable; we should hold them to a high standard. (One would think they would want to be held to a high standard by their readers.) Criticism of media is healthy and important, and should be constant. Or are we supposed to operate from a lowest common denominator perspective?

Speaking dismissively about “semantics” undermines the media/editorial process criticism so many of us in this conversation profess to stand for. So which is it? Is criticizing media and exposing biases a good thing, or a bad thing? Should we hold them accountable to tell our stories fairly and accurately, or just accept whatever we’re handed?

Part of the solution is to use new media to tell our own stories, without the filters of mainstream media; but that does not mean we should accept anything less than the highest quality reporting from mainstream media. After all, not everyone has access to new media tools yet (though access is improving on a daily basis).

So yes, I will gladly pick news stories apart word by word. Because those words are everything.

* I can’t link to the one conversation that is really sticking out in my mind, because Rusty removed the post where it took place. Similar conversations have gone down in other places, though. In fact, it’s becoming a bit of a blur at this point.

The new issue of Creative Loafing is out, and they didn’t run my letter to the editor. (I had gotten an email from someone on their staff saying they might run it, which is why I waited before posting anything here.) So here it is. Later I might do a follow-up post where I expand on some of the points and include some other points that I had to cut out in order to keep it around 500 words.

—

I’m writing to express my disappointment with the 1.16.08 feature, “One man’s battle against Midtown prostitutes and their johns,” by Andisheh Nouraee.

There are two separate matters here. The first, and most obvious, is that Gower and Denby are dangerous vigilantes. I am glad that their deplorable tactics are being exposed.

It should go without saying that posting videos of sex workers on YouTube is a horrible idea. What is the goal? Sex workers - especially street prostitutes - are disproportionately the targets of violent crime. Violent criminals target sex workers because they know they can get away with it. (In fact, this was the exact justification given by Gary Ridgway, who was convicted of the murders of over 40 prostitutes.) Gower’s dehumanization of sex workers through his behavior and language perpetuates the cultural mores that make such violence acceptable.

But I am also disappointed with Nouraee’s treatment of the issue. Nouraee learned about Gower’s harassment of street workers at an event I helped organize at Charis Books, commemorating the 5th annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. After the program, he spoke with the other two organizers and me and expressed interest in learning more and possibly doing a story.

Nouraee sat through our program that night and listened as people recounted individual encounters with Gower, citing Gower’s blatant homophobia and transphobia. He listened as we discussed the glaring absence of sex workers’ voices in the media, as well as the fact that when sex workers are mentioned in the media, they are either troublemakers or victims - in other words, they’re not people; they’re useful objects in making a point and reinforcing a stereotype.

He spoke with several sex workers that night and a few weeks later, while doing research for this story. He expressed concern about making sure to include sex workers’ voices.

If Nouraee tried to speak with street prostitutes in Midtown and they did not want to speak to him, he could have mentioned it in the article. Reporters do this all the time (”so-and-so declined to comment”). If that were the case, he could also reflect on why sex workers might be wary of talking to a reporter. Could it be because they’re tired of having their words (and existence) twisted to fit whatever agenda is at hand?

Nouraee fails as an investigative reporter with this piece, especially as one for a paper that claims to be alternative. Terms like “transvestitute” and “real female” go unchallenged and uncorrected. Nouraee does not probe Gower about why Gower is so fixated on harassing prostitutes. He does not examine how the criminalization of prostitution perpetuates the violence that many people associate with street prostitution. He does not discuss the societal and economic conditions that lead to many transpeople working on the streets.

For people who are interested in learning more about sex workers’ rights activism, some good sources of information are SWOP-USA, Desiree Alliance, COYOTE and $pread Magazine.

• Wrote a long email re: the CL article. May attempt to turn it into a blog post and/or letter to the editor. *Maybe*. #
• What is up w/ the loud people in the hall? That reminds me, I need to call the rental office again tomorrow. Fools need to answer VM. #
• holy fuck now steve gower himself is commenting on the CL article. Oh he’s here to SAVE the whole city! Thank the lord! #
• Seriously… I am reminded of this: http://urltea.com/1j3h #
• Hmm, I submitted Sex 2.0 to Confabb two days ago and it still isn’t listed. Hmmm… #
• @driveafastercar - Take care of yourself and here’s wishing you a fast recovery #
• I HATE when people who identify as "liberal" or "progressive" spout the same old bigoted anti-sexwork bullshit! Ugh!!! #
• Sent a letter to the editor to Creative Loafing. Now we wait to see if it’s printed in 1-2 weeks. #
• @film_girl - Well I sent it to CL, not the AJC. If CL doesn’t print it, I’ll attempt an AJC op-ed, but I think we know how that’ll go. #
• Comments on BFD are making me shake with anger and sadness. #
• *stabbing eyes re: people who DON’T LISTEN* http://urltea.com/2jhh #
• @graydancer - Don’t say that, it’s exactly that thought that makes me completely burnt out on activism of any kind. #
• @graydancer - I also want to publicly state that I am not referring to BFD as a whole… just the ignorant, asshole commenters. #
• Fucking fuck I had a tiny typo in my letter. Oh well, maybe they’ll cut that sentence (it’s the final one) or do the brackets thing. #
• Will be leaving soon to meet @grobertson at the Brickstore. Hopefully the yummy food will take my mind off the HATE HATE HATE. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

I can’t believe there are self-identified liberals, progressives, and Democrats basically taking the tack of, “Well, it’s illegal; so it must be bad!”

HELLO.

The fact that something is illegal does not mean it’s somehow inherently, morally wrong - and vice versa. Anyone who considers themselves to have any liberal/progressive/what-the-hell-ever leanings AT ALL should understand this.

I won’t go the route of talking about how it’s what this country was founded on but you can go there yourself if you’d like.

Examples:

Interracial marriage was illegal into the 1960s.

Spousal rape was legal - excuse me, there wasn’t even the concept of spousal rape! - in many jurisdictions well into the 1970s.

And some particular lightning rods for liberals etc.: Abortion. Same-sex marriage. ENDA.

I think that’s all I need to say about that, right?

• Been offline ever since I got home… had dinner, read (like in an actual book!), and just relaxed. #
• Yay, finished another Download Squad post! It probably won’t go up til Monday, but I’m glad to be prepared ahead of time. #
• @karsh - OMG. Is that job ad *serious*? (Wait, don’t answer that.) #
• @karsh - Don’t you mean "DO NOT WANT"? http://tinyurl.com/2bfgvo #
• Very tired this morning. #
• So sore… I feel so geriatric. #
• @tiffanybbrown - Do it do it! #
• Ok, the FB SuperPoke icon for the MLK-theme actions is weird. I know there’s only so much you can do w/ 16×16 pixels, but… still weird. #
• CL story on the MPSA is up. My hands are shaking, I am so angry. Looks like my hopes were for nothing. http://urltea.com/2j6r #
• Blog post and letter to the editor forthcoming, whenever I calm down enough to write clearly. I feel sick to my stomach. #
• This is why I feel overwhelmed & dragged down & feel like giving up on activism. Will things ever change? No one listens. No one questions. #
• Will be leaving work soon. Will try to answer all my emails tonight. Hopefully will feel emotionally equipped to respond. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

I am so angry I can barely see straight.

I’ve already Twittered about it. I will blog about it eventually. But I need to wait until my hands stop shaking, my heart stops pounding, and my stomach stops doing somersaults.

You want to know why I’m burned out on activism? Perfect fucking example.

Holy shit holy shit holy shit.

More to come, eventually. But right now, I need a DISTRACTION in a big way.