My friend/sister (long story!) Crystal, along with the help of Rusty’s Photoshop skills, designed these “I Heart Obama” T-shirts. She had 12 protoype shirts made in Augusta a few weeks ago and gave me one:
Now she has a CafePress store where you can buy them yourself. I told her she needs to make business cards w/ the URL on them, because when I wore the shirt last weekend somebody at Lowe’s asked me where I got it. He asked if I had gotten from the campaign… ha.
This post has been in draft mode for some time now, as a placeholder with just the title, “Capitalism.” I was thinking I might eventually write a long screed about how I don’t think capitalism sucks, and I get annoyed when it’s assumed that because I’m a liberal/progressive/feminist/whatever else, I’m supposed to be anti-capitalist. I think most of the problems we see in this country that people attribute to capitalism are really just a case of Doing It Wrong.
I don’t feel like writing a screed, though, so I’ll just say: Capitalism. I don’t think it sucks.
I do, however, love this Married to the Sea cartoon, the file name of which is capitalism.gif:
Here’s a list of What I Think about some recent and not-so-recent happenings, designed to illustrate the fact that very few issues are cut and dry, and context matters. To some I might look like a big ol’ contradiction with all this. I’m okay with that.
White progressive bloggers Photoshopping blackface on politicians and claiming it’s satire or “ironic” - Not cool. Totally agree w/ Liza Sabater and many other bloggers who pointed out that, hey, white dude, you don’t get to be the arbiter of what is and isn’t racist. And the more you try to defend your shit with “It’s satire!” the more of an ass you sound like - especially when you go on to tell a woman of color not to “assail [her] betters.” I remember how shocked I was with T-Rex’s behavior when all this went down. Big ol’ FAIL stamp, except, sadly, I didn’t have one of those two years ago.
New Yorker cover - I feel the opposite of above, although I do understand and appreciate the same sentiment at work. I think it is a good example of actual satire; and after all, this is the New Yorker, not the New York Post. Overall, I lean toward Jon Stewart’s “It’s just a fucking cartoon!” but I want to be very very careful about that, because I don’t think “It’s just _____” is or should be a justification for anything. Just look at this, for a particularly timely and unfortunate example. Also, it’s the same kind of rhetoric assholes of various Republicanish-leaning stripes use against progressives, especially feminists: the old “no sense of humor” trope. Hi, here’s a thought: maybe it’s not that we don’t have a sense of humor, maybe it’s that your jokes aren’t funny.
The stripper cartoon referenced in the above graf - I don’t think it’s racist. I’m trying to just chill out and appreciate where/how some other folks whom I respect do think that, but I admit to feeling a little exasperated with it. But, I don’t think I have to say there’s about a million things wrong with that cartoon anyway. I just wonder why the focus has to shift away from the obvious central message, which is that strippers are too stupid and deluded to make their own decisions and it doesn’t matter what they think anyway.
Toby Keith lyrics (not satire) - This hadn’t even been on my radar; let’s just say I’ve had more pressing things to deal with. Then I saw Griftdrift had a post about it. I didn’t read the Huffington Post article because I didn’t care enough; I did go read the lyrics to the song out of curiosity, though. At Manuel’s I was telling Griftdrift that I can see how you could interpret the lyrics as being about racist lynching, and he started to get all up in my face about it (right after I’d told that story about the guy on the plane who could’ve been in first class but ended up in jail, with his name on the no-fly list!) but I kept talking so I could finish my sentence, which was something like, “But it’s pretty flimsy.” I definitely agree about self-identified progressives having preconceived notions about the South, and being big fat fucking hypocrites. Anyway, about the song, mostly I don’t care. It’s Toby Keith for fuck’s sake.
Cliff Bostock’s column about political correctness and a 1967 essay that uses the N-word - I agree with Cliff’s main point that flying off the handle about any usage of the N-word without considering context is a bit much. I think there are some good points to be made here, but he weakens his entire argument by resorting to the “lack a sense of humor” thing. Come on, Cliff, you can do better than that. Why go for the low-hanging (not to mention totally irrelevant) fruit?
John Kerry says “tar baby” (and Tony Snow said it a while back, too; also not satire) - Not racist. Sorry, sticking to that one (oh, ha!). I get that the term “tar baby” has also been used as a racial slur. But that’s not the case here. Here’s what it actually means. And I hate that saying this lumps me in with people like Daily Kos denizens (or Firedoglake!), but there you go.
—
Consider this yet another attempt at writing as if no one is reading. I’m nervous about hitting Publish, but I might as well get some practice in. And besides, as Joseph reminded me via email today (thanks, Joseph!) it’s not like I haven’t dealt with a whole hell of a lot of shit on my blog already.
*sigh* Oh well.
Juliana asked:
I’ve riffed on this before, but feel compelled in the midst of so much political activity to challenge this group again - in what way are you inciting revolution, or “change” if you must?
And I answered:
I think the biggest way in which I’m “inciting revolution” is by constantly challenging people’s assumptions and stereotypes wrt sex work, sex workers, and sex workers’ rights. Believe me, this is damn near a full-time job, as the ignorance runs rampant and unabashed. Unless there’s a real impediment to me doing so, I call out bullshit on this issue whenever I see/hear it, no matter who its from. Friends, acquaintances, superiors, family members, allies - anyone. Somehow I am brazen and steadfast on calling out BS on this issue in a way that I’m not yet (but aspire to be) on others.
Tiny revolutions, on a one-on-one level. I can do those.
What about you? Post your answer on the BfD thread!
Seriously. What the hell, people.
On that increasingly headdesk-inducing thread - where the word “strawman” would be applicable, but I loathe that word, so I’m refraining from using it for now - I said (double blockquotes are me quoting someone else):
Feminism is about standing up for women, all women, I agree. I do struggle with standing up for a woman who as First Lady would be part of implementing anti-women policies, but gotta do it anyway. Pretty far down on my list though. Really far down. Somewhere below “check out Laura Bush’s chili recipe” and “what is Phyllis Schlafly up to these days?”
I think you’re still missing the point. I didn’t read this post as a defense of Cindy McCain, or really anything specific to her at all - she was an example, of which there are countless others. The point I got was, it’s not okay to vilify women based on some perceived stereotypical external traits that we really know jack shit about. If we talk shit about a woman for being blonde and thin, we’re no better than the assholes we call out for talking shit about a woman being the opposite.
and:
But even if we DID prove that her policies were not egalitarian, which to me is unclear at this point, it STILL doesn’t give us license to call her a Barbie or “stupid hair” or Stepford.
And this is REALLY Feminism 101. How many of us have lamented the seeming inability of men to argue with us based on our views, and not bring our looks into it? Surely we’ve all noticed that attacks on a woman’s looks are de rigeur when one disagrees with her. We need to lead by example. You can absolutely HATE a woman’s position on certain issues, hell, her entire philosophy on LIFE - but that does not give you license to attack her looks. I cannot stand Ann Coulter - I think she’s a hateful person. But you’ll never hear me making cracks about her looks. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for other self-identified progressives. (”Man Coulter,” anyone?)
and:
But what does that boil down to, dismissing? Is it dismissive to not write laudatory blog posts about CMcC? Is it ok if I simply ignore her?
Seems like you’re arguing against an argument Octo (nor anyone else on this thread) did not actually make. It’s not about whether or not you like Cindy McCain. It’s about using sexist language to refer to her (or any other woman). That’s NOT OKAY no matter who the woman is. You can hate her guts, but if you start taking jabs at her looks or calling her a cunt or what-have-you, you’ve crossed a line into unacceptable territory.
and lastly:
Calling someone a Stepford isn’t so much an insult as naming her oppression.
Nope, what it’s doing is taking away her agency, much in the same way as this bullshit.
I do not see why this is a difficult concept.
You can hate Cindy McCain, but you cannot substitute critiques of her *looks* for critiques of her *political views* and expect the argument that sexist language is unacceptable to hold a whole hell of a lot of water elsewhere.
As I mentioned on Twitter yesterday, I am totally feeling Kim’s sentiment in this post. I could barely read the whole thing without breaking down in tears.
I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary (I voted for Obama) but it wasn’t because I actively disliked her. No matter what kind of irrational vitriol people spewed about her, I’ve always had a fondness for her. And it isn’t “just because she’s a woman” (which pisses me off that that’s dismissed with a just so much of the time) - I mean take a look at the nice round-up Octo has of HRC’s (can’t type that without thinking Human Rights Campaign) policies and such - a lot of which is stuff she did FOR WOMEN, which yes, matters to me a whole hell of a lot and I will not allow that to be trivialized. (But we’re so used to putting our needs last, as women… why should this be any different?)
I will vote for Obama in the general election, of course; and I cannot comprehend the faulty logic of Democrats/progressives/non-Republicans/whatever who say they will vote for McCain as a protest against Hillary not getting the nomination.
BUT.
It will be hard - impossible, I’m sure - to forget all the bullshit that went down in this primary season. The blatant sexism on display with hardly anyone calling it out - and those who did dare to call it out getting ridiculed and shouted down.
Same as it ever was, right talking heads?
It will be very, very hard to ignore the way this all burned inside of me such that I didn’t even want to blog about it, because it felt, as so many things that never make their way to this blog do, too raw. Not coincidentally, that’s the same word Kim used.
And all this, coming from me, who typically feels disinterested in electoral politics! (Although I always vote, of course.) This whole brouhaha has reaffirmed for me why I don’t get heavily involved in political stuff or watch cable “news.”* It’s not just because I find it utterly boring to speculate on who will get what nomination and blah blah blah.
Side note re: cable “news:” To quote something Rusty said the other night as we watched Jon Stewart interview Scott McClellan… “Can you imagine what it would be like if the actual media asked the hard questions Jon Stewart asks?” To which I replied, “I think he can only get away with it because he can use the defense of being a comedy show, not real news. That’s how fucked up we’ve gotten with the media and our concept of news.”
Anyway.
Pre-emptive note, btw, to commenters… I don’t need anyone to lecture me about why BHO is a better candidate than HRC, why HRC sucks, or any of it. That’s not what this post is about, and such comments will be deleted. I think they both would have made great candidates - great Presidents, I should say - and I think they both have their pros and cons in terms of policies and politics.
But that’s never what it’s been about, of course. And accordingly that’s not what this post is about.
All I can end with is, well… the same thing I started with… *sigh*.
I don’t subscribe to Shakesville (or any other “big” blog, because I can’t handle the pressure of a constantly overflowing RSS reader), so I’m just now seeing this, even though it’s over a month old. It’s well worth reposting, though. Hence:
Feminism is an integral part of progressivism.
If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a progressive.
No matter how much you hate Bush.
No matter how much you hate the Iraq war.
No matter how much you hate our current torture policy.
No matter how much you want to restore habeas corpus.
No matter how much you’re totally going to vote for the Democrat in November.
If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a progressive.
You’re a fauxgressive.
End of story.
Hell yeah.
And I hate that this is even something that has to be said, but it does, and there it is. It’s part of why I have such disdain/disinterest/reluctance/irritability surrounding partisan-type politics… I just can’t get worked up about debates, or so-and-so’s campaign signs, or all the other gossip. Frankly I don’t understand how so many people can, but since a lot of ‘em are people I consider friends, I just have to shrug my shoulders and say “To each their own.” (And yet if there’s an election returns watching party in November, I’ll be there; because, I’ll be honest, to me it’s all an excuse to socialize. And it’s not that I don’t care on any level. I vote, after all.)
But if you dismiss feminism as a “special interest” (hello, Kos!), all bets are off, and it’s “fuck you” time. You are on notice, or perhaps even dead to me.
I mean believe it or not, Melissa even had to post an update, because apparently (and I wish I could say I was surprised) a lot of people had trouble getting this rather simple concept through their thick skulls. If she had a FAIL stamp, I bet the inkpad would be dry by now.
You see? This is why I just do not have the patience to be some kind of Bringer of the Progressive Message, unless it’s on a one-on-one or very small group basis.
Reposting this press release from Bound, Not Gagged until I have time to finish the other Palfrey post (not to mention the “why feminism needs to focus on women” post) that have been in draft mode for several days now.
—
New York, NY - The activists at Sex Workers Action New York (SWANK), Sex Workers Outreach Project New York (SWOP-NYC), Prostitutes of New York (PONY) and the nationally-based Desiree Alliance are saddened that Deborah Jeane Palfrey, also known as the D.C. Madam, passed away on May 1st in an apparent suicide. We - prostitutes, strippers, pro-dommes, porn stars, sex experts, and allies - extend our sympathies to all of those hurt by this most recent chapter of the “Pink Scare,” in which oppressive legislation and social stigma partner to generate hysteria around what, for us, can prove to be simply a decent way to make a living.
The circumstances surrounding Ms. Palfrey’s death suggest that Americans reconsider the current state and federal policies that govern sex work, as well as the stigmatization and sensational treatment of those who participate in this industry. From New York to California, daily reports of Pink Scare-fueled police busts, e-stings and raids, even at legal venues like strip clubs and dungeons, have reached a fever pitch. These oppressive patterns regularly marginalize and terrorize our communities, with barely a headline to show for the mass arrests. In contrast, coverage of high-profile cases include yellow journalism exposés published at the expense of sex workers’ privacy, dignity and livelihood. In an interview with Lori Price, it was Ms. Palfrey who said, “Without question in my mind, escort and adult service businesses. . . are being used as the new weapon of choice in American politics.” The public figures implicated in this type of case often receive little more than a slap on the wrist and a second chance from a forgiving public. Ironically, among the exposed we regularly find the very same lawmakers and other insiders who claim to protect people from vice through moralizing legislation. Former State Department official Randall L. Tobias was a Palfrey patron, though he implemented the abstinence earmark in programs such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and, with it, the “Anti-Prostitution Pledge” that has resulted in diminished funding for sex worker-run organizations. Annually, our government spends millions in taxpayer money to apprehend and prosecute participants in the sex trade, while more effective policies like harm reduction-based approaches, including the multiplication of living wage alternatives, are dramatically under-utilized.
In both the highly-publicized scandals and under-documented daily struggles, many sex workers now face financial ruin, emotional hardship and social opprobrium at the hands of the Pink Scare simply because their work, though it takes place between consenting adults, may be illegal and, to some, may be offensive. In two instances associated with Palfrey’s case, Ms. Palfrey and her former employee, Ms. Britton, oppressive laws and stigma cost the implicated their very lives. Why did Ms. Palfrey die? In response to this question, an activist with the International Union of Sex Workers wrote, “Whether she died by her own hand or her suicide is a cover for murder, she has been killed by the state.” Given the highly political nature of these events, SWANK, SWOP-NYC, PONY and the Desiree Alliance call for an independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Palfrey’s untimely death. Furthermore, we, as activists and advocates, would like to stress in this instance that the criminalization of sex workers and our labor only drives us further underground, making us and our dependents more vulnerable to client and police violence, and even death, as we are further isolated. The unfortunate events of the D.C. scandal bring many of these broader issues into sharper focus. It is high time that we challenge the morals and laws that harm so many, so deeply, with so few gains and so many lives destroyed.
All I have time for today are blockquote posts, but here’s another one everyone should read, from Elizabeth at Sex in the Public Square:
I no longer think that the exposing of clients is going to be the source of any great reduction in the stigma attached to sex work. Why? Because they always apologize.
They apologize by admitting their “sins” a la David Vitter or they apologize and resign their posts, a la Eliot Spitzer, but they always apologize, and by doing so they reinforce the impression that consciously and explicitly exchanging sex for money is wrong, and they reinforce the stigma. In fact they often refer to that stigma when they include in their apologies their regret for bringing shame on their families.
Note that they do not apologize for any mistreatment of the workers. They apologize for being clients in the first place.
So my new call on Labor Day is a call to the clients and not a call to the workers. Clients of the sex workers of the world: stand up for the people whose work you are paying for. Treat those workers respectfully and protect their safety and don’t apologize for paying for their services.
Yes, you may have much to apologize for:
Apologize if you have actively worked to keep the services you pay for criminalized.
Apologize if you have said insulting, demeaning or paternalistic things about sex workers.
Apologize if you have contributed to the shaming of sex workers.
Apologize if you have jeopardized the health of a sex worker.
Apologize if you have committed violence against a sex worker.
And by all means apologize if you have lied to your partner about sex you are having with other people.
But for being a client of a sex worker?
Please, no more apologies. We can’t afford them.
Last night, after spending several hours watching TV (My Name Is Earl, The Office, and several Daily Shows from last week), Rusty and I got in bed and talked for a little while about Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s death, and the whole situation, and what to do when things make us lose faith in humanity. There were no answers to be found, but at least talking about it can do some personal good.
After Rusty went to sleep, I quietly cried myself to sleep.
Some of what I said last night was…
Read the full post »
This is just too bizarre not to share.
This morning on the way to work, I stopped to get gas. So I’m standing there pumping gas, and a Honda Element rolls up, stops, and a guy sticks his head out the window. I’m wondering, “Oh, geez, what stupid sexist thing is he going to yell?” and thinking how apt Jenny’s post was.
But then the guy yells, “Hey! You know what happens if we elect Barack Obama?” I’m so stunned that I can’t resist yelling back, “What?”
“It’s an Obama-nation!” he says triumphantly, and drives off.
I rolled my eyes dramatically but then realized I was wearing sunglasses, and anyway he hadn’t bothered to stick around for my reaction.
But, WTF? I don’t have an Obama sticker on my car. I forgot to wear my “I Love Obama” 10-gallon hat today. So what made this dude stop and yell this joke (I use the word loosely) at me? And who yells jokes out of car windows, anyway? Was he just driving along, and suddenly thought of this great joke that blends timely political commentary with linguistic amusement, and just couldn’t keep it to himself?
What a weird way to start the day.
Feministe » Feministe Feedback: Being a Feminist Boyfriend
The discussion here has me thinking about some of the pretty damaging stuff that happened during my marriage, a lot of which I didn’t recognize for what it was until much later. I look back on the times he would “tease” me for, you know, not wanting to live in a filthy house like a damn slob, or accuse me of “nagging”… that stuff was really harmful to me. It makes me so angry, to this day, thinking about how it has affected me.
The “equal partnership” thing is important for the sanity, agency, and self-respect of both partners in a heterosexual relationship. It’s something that takes work, not just lip service. And yet so many guys still fall short, and as women thanks to our socialization, we don’t speak up because god forbid we be perceived as “nags.” Disempowering much?
The Barefoot Bum: Whining and complaining
On a similar note, here’s another word that’s often used to knock down legitimate arguments (especially from women): whining.
The portion I quoted in del.icio.us from the above post sums it up: “What’s the difference between a complaint and a whine? Why is objecting to ‘nappy-headed ho’s’ a legitimate complaint, but objecting to ‘Take out the garbage’ a loser’s whine?”
Boinkology: Sexploitation In Anti-Drug Ads Isn’t Normal… No Wait, It Is.
How fucked up is this ad? There are so many things wrong with it, I hardly know where to begin. I suppose “blaming the victim” would be a reasonable start, though.
Astarte’s Circus: I am a feminist
Octogalore explains why disavowing the label “feminist” is harmful. I agree, and I could ramble on this for days!
But, for now, back to bed with me. I need more Aleve Cold & Sinus. It seems to be helping. (Fingers crossed.) I want to be able to go back to work tomorrow, dammit!
I had those Mr. Men books as a kid. I noticed that in this video, Mr. Contrarian corresponds to the original Mr. Stingy.
STATEMENT For Immediate Release:
Contact: Sapna Patel, SWP, 646/602.5626, spatel@urbanjustice.org
Friday, March 14, 2008
Juhu Thukral, SWP, 646/602.5690, jthukral@urbanjustice.org
ELIOT SPITZER SCANDAL HIGHLIGHTS THAT CURRENT POLICIES AROUND SEX WORK AND TRAFFICKING ARE NOT EFFECTIVE
(New York City, March 14, 2008) - Eliot Spitzer resigned from his position as Governor of New York after being implicated in a prostitution scandal. The irony is that Mr. Spitzer’s office helped pass Anti-Trafficking Legislation in New York and specifically pushed through controversial provisions that we opposed, one enhancing penalties for clients of all prostitutes, and another that made trafficking into all sectors other than prostitution a lesser crime. As advocates for the protection, safety and human rights of sex workers and trafficked persons, we are not interested in Eliot Spitzer’s personal life. However, his resignation provides an opportunity to reflect on the counterproductive and moralistic policies that he supported as Governor.
To focus solely on the salacious scandal created by Mr. Spitzer’s alleged actions without attention to the realities and needs of sex workers does nothing to provide solutions for sex workers. Sex workers are individuals whose reasons for engaging in sex work - and leaving it - are personal, economic and social - as complex as anyone’s reasons for involvement in any type of work. The current scandal brings to light the variety of sex work people engage in and the reality that, although many may find themselves in the industry due to lack of economic opportunity, not all are forced or coerced.
The inaccurate conflation of prostitution and trafficking encourage policy makers to create laws that in reality provide no real solutions for safety and protection for sex workers or that comprehensively address the issue of human trafficking. Mr. Spitzer’s alleged involvement in this scandal further evidences that “end demand” policies that emphasize criminal punishment of the clients and shaming simply do not work. As seen in this situation, seemingly no efforts have been made to address the needs of the sex worker involved in this scandal. A narrow focus on demand in the context of sex work represents a dangerous move toward policies which, under the guise of protecting sex workers, is another way of undermining sex workers’ independence and causing more harm to them. Enhancing penalties for clients of sex workers will not “eliminate the demand” and end trafficking but instead makes sex workers more afraid, more stigmatized and less safe. The fact that someone with as much to lose as Eliot Spitzer would still visit sex workers speaks volumes about the efficacy of such strategies.
Sex workers’ voices are largely absent from discussions of the policies that affect them. Laws and regulations on sex workers’ health and safety are generally made without their input and often overlook or even deny their human rights. It is ironic that sex workers’ human rights are often jeopardized by the very policies intended to help them. Policies based on the assumption that sex work is inherently dehumanizing can never recognize or improve the reality of sex workers’ lives.
Policymakers must revisit perceptions and policies towards sex work in the U.S. and instead of narrowly focusing on ineffective criminal justice strategies to protect sex workers and eliminate trafficking, they must redirect resources to social services that provide real solutions, realistic economic opportunities, and protections against violence and exploitation. Addressing basic human needs for education, equal opportunity and a realistic array of economic options would help to ensure that no one who enters sex work does so because of trickery or coercion.
The Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center provides legal services, legal training, documentation, and policy advocacy for sex workers in New York City. For more information, please visit our website at: http://www.sexworkersproject.org
###
Via Bound, Not Gagged. Please feel free to repost.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts
Shakti Ziller, Sex Workers Action New York (SWANK), swank@riseup.net 877-776-2004 x 2
Audacia Ray, 718.554.1714
Sarah Bleviss, Sex Workers Outreach Project NYC (SWOP-NYC), swop.nyc@gmail.com
Prostitutes of New York (PONY), pony@panix.com
Desiree Alliance, http://www.desireealliance.org/
WHAT ABOUT KRISTEN? New York Sex Worker Organizations Respond to Spitzer Scandal
New York, NY - In the last few days, Governor Eliot Spitzer has publicly admitted to being associated with an escort agency and is considering resignation. As sex worker advocates, we are concerned about the representation and fate of “Kristen” and sex workers who are being thrust into the spotlight because of the investigation into the Governor. We also share the widespread concern for Governor Spitzer’s family.
Sex worker organizations urge the press and the public to focus on the violation of sex workers rights and the need to change these laws and policies, rather than simply on the story of one individual who has purchased sexual services.
“Nobody is talking about the impact of this story on ‘Kristen’ and other women, men and trans people who are currently working in the sex industry,” Shakti Ziller of SWANK in NYC added, “Prostitutes disproportionately face punitive action after arrest as compared to clients. Whether or not she will face prison time, “Kristen” has been dragged into the spotlight and will be subjected to public humiliation. Shouldn’t the police emphasis be on catching perpetrators of violent crime and protecting sex workers - not exposing adults who are consenting to a transaction? All she did was try to make a living.”
“Governor Spitzer ran on a platform of being a different kind of politician and then portrayed an inaccurate image of himself. Being involved with the services of sex workers is a very common thing, if all forms of consensual sex work were decriminalized for adults involved in a consensual transaction, sex workers could access the services they need,” says Dylan Wolfe of SWANK (Sex Workers Action New York).
Governor Spitzer took a lead role in developing the NY State Anti-Trafficking Law. Over the objections of advocates who worked directly with victims of human trafficking and with sex workers, Governor Spitzer pushed through penalty enhancements against clients of all sex workers. Sex worker advocates fought against such provisions because these policies drive people who need help further underground.
“Spitzer has stood up for workers’ rights in certain capacities, but has not followed through with meeting the real needs of sex workers,” Audacia Ray, author of Naked on the Internet, noted, “It would be great if the government could use money towards services, not punitive measures.”
The press has picked up on the relationship that inter-state trafficking laws (under the Mann Act) have to this case. This connection illustrates a point that sex worker advocates have been making for a long time: Laws against inter-state transportation for the purposes of commercial sex are too often used for punishing people working as sex workers and those who work with and patronize them.
The exposure of Randall Tobias last year as a customer of an escort agency, Senator Vitter’s rumored association with sex workers and now this recent news of Governor Spitzer, the corruption and hypocrisy inherently associated with prohibiting consensual prostitution are again being brought to light. Shaming these men will do nothing to improve the nature of the sex industry and the deeply-rooted corruption that is associated with the prohibition of prostitution.
“The criminalization of prostitution breeds this type of hypocrisy and makes our politicians (and other public figures) vulnerable,” says Carol Leigh of Sex Workers Outreach Project-USA. “This vulnerability exists until our society recognizes that consensual sexual behavior is private and these private acts should no longer be criminalized.”
“Many of our clients are politicians, judges, lawyers and even police,” Monica S., 26 of Brooklyn said. “It’s odd that they spend so much effort putting us into jail, but then turn around and give us their money in exchange for sex. Why do they think they won’t get caught breaking the laws that they make?”
The commentary on Dealbreaker.com, a Wall-Street news site, says about Wall-street’s anti-Spitzer reaction to the ‘Client 9′ story: “‘There is a God’ was the first thought on Wall Street. The next thought is, ‘Please don’t let it be revealed that I’m Lucky Number 7.’”
# # # #
From the perennially awesome folks at SPARK! Reproductive Justice Now (formerly Georgians for Choice) comes a video about stupid HB526:
So far there’s only one comment on the YouTube page (let’s fix that) and it’s from some fool who says the following:
What is wrong with the state giving back parental rights to parents? It is not up to a clinic to decide how to raise and protect our children.
Right, because it’s up to the government to decide how to raise and protect our children.
Every once in awhile I do go out and actually spend time with normal people…so I can remember why I do it so fucking rarely.
It’s because you suck and I hate you.
Ha!
On a totally unrelated note, happy Super Tuesday and Mardi Gras, whichever one’s your poison.
Back to work for me, now. See some of y’alll tonight at Amsterdam… yes, I’m coming out to the primary-watching-party, mainly to socialize rather than actually watch the primary returns. Coincidentally enough, I always have mixed feelings about going to these kinds of events, because I know there will be a lot of “normal people” there; but I’m going tonight because I know several friends will be there. And I will even brave it without Rusty… he’s sick. :(
I know I said I’d respond to Griftdrift’s comment here - but I have yet to do it. I said, “I have a lot to say in response.” And I still do. But I don’t know if I have the emotional energy to try to type it all out in a way that makes sense, when I have this sneaking suspicion that I won’t be heard (whether from me not explaining well enough, or the reader just refusing to hear what I’m saying, or some combination, I don’t know; but it doesn’t matter in terms of energy expended on my part).
This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said I’m not a real activist. I don’t have the stomach for it, and I can’t bear having endless discussions about the same thing over and over again. I’m a delicate fucking flower, apparently, and it’s all about my delicate fee-fees. But I’ve never pretended anything else. That’s why I’ve never labeled this blog a “political blog,” even though I do write about things that are arguably political. It’s because I don’t want to have those kinds of discussions all the time, because I just get too emotionally involved and I end up in tears.
Sometimes these kinds of discussions are easy (or at least easier) for me in a one-on-one, in-person situation, where the person and I can look each other in the eyes and notice body language and tone of voice and grasping for words. Sometimes I can’t convey what I mean nearly as well in writing - but strangely, there are other times when the opposite is true.
As for this particular discussion, it might be easier for me to have in person, but I would have to be able to trust that the person listening really is listening, and not just waiting for their turn to speak. Oh, have I mentioned all my trust issues? Yeah that’s another reason hardcore activism and politics isn’t something I can stomach.
Most of the activism I am really passionate about is related to sexuality. That’s because I am simply unable to divorce sexuality from the rest of my being; it’s such a fundamental part of who I am, that I can’t imagine just taking it on and off like a jacket. I’m not good at compartmentalizing, and I don’t think it should be a requirement for social justice activism. “Yes, work for social justice - as long as you keep this part of you that kind of makes us uncomfortable out of it.”
I can’t do that. To be human is to be sexual; even people who identify as asexual are claiming an identity regarding their sexuality. One of the quotes in my header quote rotation is from Kochanie, and it sums up my feeling on the matter: “I am sex, I am my body, and my sex, my mind and my body have never been separate.”
There’s been a lot of talk here lately about sex work, and I know some people are wondering why I am so passionate about sex workers’ rights activism, in particular. I’ll list a few reasons:*
Read the full post »
Being Amber Rhea is somewhat incredulously powered by WordPress
READ ME: Disclaimer