tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59781412024-03-13T00:10:24.606+00:00Dr Brooke Magnanti | Belle de JourUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-20018480526613611672014-02-27T10:14:00.002+00:002014-02-27T10:15:08.465+00:00In Defence of AnonymityLast month, I was invited to speak at TEDx East End. The theme was 'Society Beyond Borders,' so I opted to talk about the history of anonymity, and why it is so important to preserve it for marginalised activists and writers.<br />
<br />
Very often when you see the word 'anonymous' these days, it's followed almost immediately by the word 'troll'. But the rich history of anonymity and pseudonymity is far more than that, and has been a refuge for artists and others almost since the beginning of recorded history. In this talk I explore some of the leading lights of anonymity, and why they chose not to use their real names.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1ZnXPVyWP8w?list=PLsRNoUx8w3rNXcBCmETUz-uICayZayaSo" width="560"></iframe><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-32103856527306322052013-11-27T12:19:00.000+00:002015-01-03T20:53:12.081+00:00An Open Letter to New Port RicheyDear <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Port_Richey%2C_Florida">New Port Richey, Florida</a>,<br />
<br />
Hey
there, it's been a while since we touched base. Soz about that. I've
been away writing books and getting up to no good in the UK; you've been
busy increasing your suburban sprawl to the point where there is now no
clear boundary between you and the rest of the West Central Florida
region (a.k.a. "the bit too far west of Disney").<br />
<br />
Anyway, I thought we should probably catch up after you recently announced <a href="http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/344316/8/New-Port-Richey-hopes-new-law-will-curb-prostitution">a new plan to arrest sex workers in the city limits</a>.
As I am arguably the city's best-known export, and certainly its
best-known prostitute export, I'm surprised you didn't run this by me
first. Because this plan of yours? I'm telling you this now, it ain't
gonna work. <br />
<br />
Just to catch up the rest of the folks reading this -
the grandees of New Port Richey got tired of rigging elaborate stings
to entrap sex wokers, so are giving cops free rein to arrest people who
tick any three of eight "behaviours" off a list. These behaviours
include asking if someone is a cop, getting into and out of cars at the
same place by the road, trying to attract attention of drivers, and
more.<br />
<br />
You know who else asks if you're a cop? People who are
trying to get help in an emergency. You know who else gets into and out
of cars by the road every day? Students and workers waiting for their
carpool. You know who tries to attract the attention of people driving
by on US 19? Anti-abortion protestors. Last time I checked, New Port
Richey had all of these in abundance.<br />
<br />
That's the problem with
these kinds of laws, you see. Profiling has a false positive rate
greater than zero, and some of those false positives will no doubt
lawyer up. Also, picking up people because you think they might possibly
commit a crime in the future is not the same as detecting people who
are actually breaking the law. It is - hm, how you say? - oh yeah, now I
remember the word. "Unconstitutional." (My time in Florida's schools
did not go to waste, as you can see.)<br />
<br />
And while we're on the
topic of what's legal and what's not, please explain to me what the
point of criminalising sex workers is again? Because harassing people
over a victimless crime seems like a pretty poor use of resources. <br />
<br />
Back
when I lived in Florida I knew a few women who were out there selling
sex on the streets. Not one of them ever said, "you know what would
change my life in a positive way? A mandatory minimum jail sentence and a
thousand dollar fine." For the most part they were just trying to get
by day to day, put food on the table, hoping maybe for something better
someday. Jail is not that something better.<br />
<br />
Remember how that
Prohibition thing worked out with booze? The War on Drugs with drugs?
Yeah, this is bound to backfire, too. The people you're trying to target
- some of whom really are vulnerable - will be getting criminal records
instead of a helping hand. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the indoor sex workers
like me who can easily dodge these ham-fisted vice moves will continue
making money, because the truth is you can't stop the world's oldest
profession. <br />
<br />
Florida's an odd place, I'll grant you that, and it
can be tough to set yourself apart when virtually every other town and
city in the state has attracted international attention for doing
strange stuff. Why, just down the road we have Clearwater, a place
that's both the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Land_Base">spiritual HQ of Scientology</a> and the <a href="http://www.originalhooters.com/saga/the-beginning/">world HQ of Hooters restaurants</a>. It's hard to compete with that kind of weird.<br />
<br />
But
this approach is not the way forward. Becoming well-known for something
you didn't exactly plan on is kind of a bummer. I feel your pain. You
know what? Sometimes you have to roll with the hand you're dealt. Like,
maybe offering the sex workers passing through the Pasco County law
enforcement system options other than going to jail? Or - if you're
feeling like pushing the boat out a bit - letting adults mind their own
business.<br />
<br />
New Port Richey, you and me parted ways a while ago.
But that doesn't mean there isn't still a part of you with me, and a
part of me with you. I'd really appreciate it if you could do me a solid
and reconsider this ill-thought idea. Otherwise I'm going to have to
keep telling people I'm from this town, and from what I gather, that
would probably rub you up the wrong way. <br />
<br />
Sunshine and kisses,<br />
<br />
BrookeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-65439093076898359872013-08-11T12:21:00.002+00:002015-04-16T14:43:07.764+00:00BREAKING NEWS: I was a sex worker.This morning I awoke to find a<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2388986/Belle-Jour-lover--I-dont-believe-prostitute-Boyfriend-seven-years-claims-author-invented-notorious-best-selling-sexploits.html"> claim <!--from an ex of mine, Mr George O H "Owen" Morris,--> published in the Mail that I was not a sex worker. </a><br />
<br />
<!--I have known Owen Morris was going to go to the papers (well, the <i>Mail on Sunday</i>) for some time, as this assertion by him turned up in the claims he is making in Scottish court.</p>
<p>
--><br />
It is a direct attack on my integrity as a writer, to claim that I lied. And I have been prepared. <br />
<br />
When the case goes to trial, I will have to present evidence that I was a sex worker. Starting with this - <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20040811160219/http://www.geosex.nl/home_pages/html/a/d/f/adfde.html">an Archive.org snap of my first escorting ad from October 2003 (link NSFW). </a><br />
<br />
(Readers
of the first book may recall this was the session with the grumpy
photographer I wrote about. As I have often said, it was that experience
- being made to wear terrible lingerie, awkward poses, all the rest -
that first made me think, 'hey, I should be blogging this.'<!--Mr Morris
was in fact there that day when the photographer turned up, and left
before the photos started.--><br />
<br />
And if you read the third
book, I made a reference to a restaurant on Old Compton Street that has
the same name as my working name - that is, of course, Taro.)<br />
<br />
I
will also be presenting my bank records from 2003-04, showing the cash
deposits from the money I earned as an escort, and tax records from the
same years showing that this income was declared to HMRC and tax paid. Here is a sample:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OKZyAJGJVFs/UgiUhQMrs0I/AAAAAAAAAd0/jiWUacLDQLQ/s1600/Untitled1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OKZyAJGJVFs/UgiUhQMrs0I/AAAAAAAAAd0/jiWUacLDQLQ/s320/Untitled1.jpg" height="185" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I
also have the notebook in which I recorded details of appointments,
etc. In several instances I have been able to piece together entries
from the notebook, deposits to my accounts, and the corresponding
entries in the book. If pressed, I will name a client, but only as a last resort.<br />
<!--<br></p>
<p>
Mr Morris says he would "never knowingly" sleep
with a prostitute. I will be presenting a diary Mr Morris wrote in
2003-04 that he gave to me in 2005; in it he records several references
to his knowledge of my sex work. The diary details his thoughts, as early as 2003, about how he was going to reveal me to the press "not if but when". <a href="http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/diary-of-a-sad-man/">Maggie McNeill later obtained, and published, the entire diary on her site.</a></p>
<p>
<br></p>
<p>
There is of course also Mr Morris's <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1228136/BELLE-DE-JOUR-UNMASKED-The-high-class-escort-girl-diary-sensation-research-student-PhD-Shocked-Not-boyfriend-deceived.html">earlier kiss-and-tell with the Mail.</a>
Back then, you'll note, his story was significantly different. Circa
2009 he was saying he did know I was an escort, but claimed he <i>thought I never slept with clients</i>. Yeah? Pull the other one sunshine.</p>
<p>
<br></p>
<p>
There
will also be the full police report I made in 2009 when Mr Morris
threatened my husband online, which includes the frankly bizarre letters
he sent after I cut off contact with him. <b>The Avon & Somerset constabulary reference is 148901/09. </b>Excerpts from his letters acknowledging his awareness of my sex work are below, the letters were signed by him and in handwritten, postmarked envelopes also on file with the police:</p>
<p>
<br></p>
<p class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yBghZ8BKVA0/U5sI3-TdV9I/AAAAAAAAAl4/FVlYPl5Xe1g/s1600/Untitled.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-orig-src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yBghZ8BKVA0/U5sI3-TdV9I/AAAAAAAAAl4/FVlYPl5Xe1g/s1600/Untitled.jpg" src="//images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-yBghZ8BKVA0%2FU5sI3-TdV9I%2FAAAAAAAAAl4%2FFVlYPl5Xe1g%2Fs1600%2FUntitled.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" border="0" width="640" height="51"> </a></p>
<p class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fXM9IXCuUGM/U5sI__-hEmI/AAAAAAAAAmA/Zt49OZb0hFg/s1600/Untitled+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-orig-src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fXM9IXCuUGM/U5sI__-hEmI/AAAAAAAAAmA/Zt49OZb0hFg/s1600/Untitled+2.jpg" src="//images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-fXM9IXCuUGM%2FU5sI__-hEmI%2FAAAAAAAAAmA%2FZt49OZb0hFg%2Fs1600%2FUntitled%2B2.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" border="0" width="640" height="42"></a></p>
<p>
--><br />
The <i>Mail</i> also claims I didn't own nice enough clothes so couldn't have been an escort! <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-br4Uicur7ao/UgiXUzKl8hI/AAAAAAAAAeg/PdSern_qOzs/s1600/Untitled1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-br4Uicur7ao/UgiXUzKl8hI/AAAAAAAAAeg/PdSern_qOzs/s320/Untitled1.jpg" height="320" width="186" /></a></div>
<br />
That's
from December 2003, and is the same red silk top I wore to meet the
manager for the first time (as written about in the first book). The
next is at Henley Regatta in July 2004, suit is from Austin Reed, the
bracelet was a gift from a client.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LSjHG4e4UD0/UgiW6ENqiqI/AAAAAAAAAeY/NH4W7rhMOZY/s1600/DSC00076.JPG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LSjHG4e4UD0/UgiW6ENqiqI/AAAAAAAAAeY/NH4W7rhMOZY/s320/DSC00076.JPG" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<!--Maybe what he means is he didn't <i>know</i> I had nice clothes? Ah,
unlikely. Here's a photo from the Sheffield sports ball in 2003. I'm in
the front row sporting a red and gold dress and ill-advised bob. He's
third from the left in the middle row.</p>
<p>
<br></p>
<p class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DkV3Mz9FjM4/U5sM467yoZI/AAAAAAAAAmM/BBmMjTMjaCw/s1600/sports_ball_02-03.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-orig-src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DkV3Mz9FjM4/U5sM467yoZI/AAAAAAAAAmM/BBmMjTMjaCw/s1600/sports_ball_02-03.jpg" src="//images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-DkV3Mz9FjM4%2FU5sM467yoZI%2FAAAAAAAAAmM%2FBBmMjTMjaCw%2Fs1600%2Fsports_ball_02-03.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" border="0" width="400" height="268"></a></p>
<p>
--><br />
The <i>Mail</i> claims I was in Sheffield when writing the
blog, but I moved to London in September 2003 and started escorting in
October, starting blogging a few weeks later. All of which is easy -
trivial, even - to prove.<br />
<br />
Oh, and the "former landlady
in Sheffield, who did not wish to be named", where I supposedly lived
for three years? Who apparently saw me in 'Oxfam jumpers'? Hmm... I
lived one year in university accommodation (St George's Flats), one
year in a shared flat with an absentee landlord I never met (Hawthorne
Road), and one year on my own in a house let through an agency (Loxley
New Road). All well before moving to London. So either the landlady is lying about the timing of my tenancy and having met me, or (shock, horror) they made it up.<br />
<br />
There's
much more but it would be boring to put it all here. It's amazing to me the <i>MoS</i> made no
effort at all to match anything they printed against things that are easy to
find and in the public domain.<!-- Or his solicitors for that matter.--> But that's by the by, and will come out
in due course. <!--The amount of fantasist nonsense from Mr Morris boggles
the mind. You can read <a href="http://belledejoursboy.blogspot.co.uk/">his own blog</a> for more unfiltered blather. The people who are encouraging and enabling him to do this - it's a bit sad really.--><br />
<br />
It
matters because this is a concerted and direct attack on my work as a
writer. When I was anonymous, being real was my main - my only -
advantage. <!--Mr Morris and -->The <i>Mail on Sunday</i> have made some frankly nonsense claims, and I will be going to town on this.<br />
<br />
Because I know people do not trust the word of a sex worker, that is why I saved everything.<br />
<br />
I look forward to the opportunity to rebut all claims in court. (The <i>MoS</i> claim the trial is expected "within weeks." In fact it is scheduled for June 2015.)<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-88330094821626304472013-04-27T14:52:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.408+00:00Fan Mail!<i>TW for violent language </i><br />
<br />
Many sex workers, at
some point in their careers, have dealt with the abusive masturbator.
That's someone who apprehends you, is not a paying client, and spews
obscenities at you whilst masturbating furiously (clearly audible when
they phone). <br />
<br />
Obviously, on Twitter it's impossible to
keep track of where everyone's hands are. But I couldn't help but be
reminded of the abusive masturbators when yesterday I had this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2b5d2rDi5W8/UXvvKIs3hjI/AAAAAAAAAdI/_1X8vuF-c4c/s1600/hadtosay1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2b5d2rDi5W8/UXvvKIs3hjI/AAAAAAAAAdI/_1X8vuF-c4c/s400/hadtosay1.jpg" height="217" width="400" /></a></div>
Of
course, as it was an account created specifically to abuse me (it has
since disappeared, more's the pity), it's difficult to say what exactly
the motivation was. Weirdo who gets off on abusing people? Angry critic
thwarted by the blog's lack of comment box? Misguided attempt to <a href="http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/should-mia-freedman-apologise.html">defend MamaMia</a>? Does it matter?<br />
<br />
By
the way, where are the nice lady bloggers who claim to "care" so much
when this happens? Nowhere to be seen. They seem to think their
systematic shaming and casual dehumanisation doesn't matter or is,
somehow, beneficial. That it doesn't implicitly endorse a system putting
people in danger. Tell that to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Ridgway">Green River Killer</a>, who used the widespread revulsion and rejection of sex workers to get away with so many murders for so long.<br />
<br />
<b>So
on the one side, you have the Nice Ladies saying, 'it's okay to
disrespect sex workers, because they get abused' and on the other you
have the Creepy Fuckwits saying 'it's okay to abuse sex workers,
because they are disrespected'. See how that works?</b><br />
<br />
But
I don't believe in censoring either of them, or making it a crime to
say whatever hateful, ignorant, damn-fool thing comes into your empty
head. I believe sunshine is the best disinfectant. I believe if those
who have these thoughts don't feel free to speak them, we can never
effectively challenge them. I know this is not a popular stand but it's
one I've come through after a lot of thought and a lot of dickheads like
ol' Hadtosay1 up there. <br />
<br />
In any case, I'll be giving a talk on trolls - <a href="http://howthelightgetsin.org/2013-programme/event-tickets/debates-and-talks/#product-id-365">the history of anonymous criticism, and why freedom of speech is important</a> (even for airheads and dickheads) - at the How the Light Gets In Festival in Hay-on-Wye in June. <b>@Hadtosay1</b>, there'll be a ticket on the door especially for you. Don't miss this valuable opportunity to say anything you fancy to my <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10019150/I-went-under-the-knife-like-Louise-Mensch-and-the-haters-can-go-hate.html">very noticeably scarred</a> face. I look forward to seeing you there!<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-5819119930206315162013-04-26T09:25:00.000+00:002014-08-11T08:37:44.636+00:00Should Mia Freedman Apologise?I went to Australia last month as a guest of the Opera House for the <a href="http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/about/program_AAW.aspx">All About Women</a> symposium. As part of the event, I agreed to do some media appearances on ABC, including the Drum and Q&A.<br />
<br />
All About Women was a fantastic day and I feel privileged to have met so many <a href="http://taramoss.com/">interesting</a> and <a href="http://www.nikkigemmell.com/">talented</a> people there, including people I would put in the category of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali">genuine</a> modern <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leymah_Gbowee">heroes</a>. <br />
<br />
As for Q&A… this is the Australian equivalent of Question Time, so I went anticipating a <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/janet-albrechtsen">varied panel</a> with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Cheetham">wide variety of opinions</a> jostling <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germaine_Greer">to be heard</a>.
I was told Tony Jones was a strong moderator, so I went expecting him
to rein in the conversation if things went off-piste. This was to be Q
& A's first all-woman panel and expectations were high. The
topics they circulated beforehand indicated I was in for a grilling
while everyone else got softball. I went, not to put too fine a point on
it, <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/loaded_for_bear">loaded for bear</a>. <br />
<br />
I
thought it went pretty well. Opinions differed. Points of view were
exchanged. Margaret Thatcher died. All in all, a good night. The
producers seemed very pleased with the outcome.<br />
<br />
So
imagine my surprise, weeks later, that fellow guest Mia Freedman is
still flogging her commentary about the appearance as content on her
site MamaMia. The topic: <a href="http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/mia-freedman-sex-worker-comments-q-and-a/">should she apologise for continually insulting sex workers?</a><br />
<br />
During
the show Mia kept falling back on sloppy, ill-thought, and pat little
lines that were easily countered. I found to my surprise a lot of common
ground with Germaine Greer, hardly known as a fan of sexual
entertainment, on the fact that conditions of labour and not sex per se
are the most pressing issue for sex workers worldwide right now. Then in
comes Mia with her assumptions about the people who do sex work (men
AND women) and the people who hire them (men AND women). With Tony
backing her up. So much for the disinterested moderator, eh? Maybe he
felt bad for her. I don't know.<br />
<br />
Here's the thing. I agree with Mia on this: I don't think she should apologise. <br />
<br />
Why
not? Because if she did it would be insincere. My first impression when
we met backstage was that she was insincere, and damn it, a successful
lady editor like her should have the guts to be true to herself and
stand by her opinions no matter what they are.<br />
<br />
Because
the general public needs to see what kinds of uninformed nonsense that
sex workers who stick their heads above the parapet get every single
day.<br />
<br />
Because for every 100 people who visit her site,
there is one who is both a parent AND a sex worker, who knows what she
is saying is nonsense. Yes, that's right Mia: sex workers raise families
too. It's almost as if we're people.<br />
<br />
Because she is a magazine editor who cares deeply about hits and attention, and clearly this is delivering on every level.<br />
<br />
Because
the sort of people who think sex workers should be topics of discussion
rather than active participants are fighting a losing battle. <br />
<br />
Keep
digging, Mia. I ain't gonna stop you. Keep writing off other people
simply because they didn't have the privileges you did or didn't make
the same choices you did, and you can't accept that. Get it off your
chest, lock up your children, whatever you think you need to do. Perhaps
you have some issues about sex you want to work out in public, or this
wouldn't be the biggest issue on your agenda weeks after the show went
to air? <br />
<br />
Mia, you have my express permission not to apologise. No, don't thank me… I insist.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-65722914535855102542013-02-02T14:50:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:16:14.358+00:00Radfems, Racists, and the problem with "pimps"I was re-reading Iceberg Slim recently (as you do), and wondering
what exactly it is the anti-sex brigade mean when they go around calling
people "pimps".<br />
<br />
I've been called a pimp before. By
Julie Bindel, to my face, and I laughed because it is so ridiculous: I
have never profited off of anyone's erotic capital but my own… and
arguably Billie Piper's, though that makes me no more and perhaps
significantly less pimp-like than (say) her agent and the show's
producers.<br />
<br />
I don't get particularly offended by such
obviously over the top labels. But the word itself has started to crop
up more and more in the arguments surrounding sex work and the proposed
laws regarding prostitution. Take for example in Ireland, where the
widespread assumption is that all sex workers are a) women and b)
"pimped". Both of these are demonstrably and flagrantly not true, and
yet are found in virtually any media coverage of the topic which is
heavily influenced by an unholy coalition of extreme religious groups
and extreme radfem ideologues.<br />
<br />
The side issue dogging
the proposed changes, that is, the discourse about what exactly
constitutes trafficking and who exactly is trafficked, is of course
pretty openly racist - both the words and the imagery. This has been
covered in some detail and extremely well by eg. <a href="http://www.lauraagustin.com/?s=racism">Laura Agustin, whose work on the topic I highly recommend.</a><br />
<br />
<img src="http://www.lauraagustin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ProtectingChildrenfromSexTrafficking.jpg" /><br />
<i>Typical "trafficking" propaganda: shades of White Slavery all over the place.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
Anyway, back to the concept of "pimp". Now we all know, or think
we know, what a pimp is, and much of this archetype comes from highly
fictionalised misrepresentations of Mr Slim's own work.
<br />
Go on, you know exactly what people mean by the word. What "pimp"
implies. A man who runs women, lures them with money and romance, then
turns them out to whoring, often beaten, always drug-addicted.<br />
<br />
And he is black.
<br />
<br />
Starting to sound like casual use of "pimp" is dog-whistle racism, isn't it?
<br />
<br />
For the life of me I have never met a person even
remotely like the stereotypical pimp, and yet I "know" they exist,
largely because I have been told so over and over again. I've met
streetwalkers, both drug-addicted and not; escorts and call girls, same;
not one ever had what popular imagination would classify as a "pimp,"
but then I keep getting told I'm not representative, so maybe the
literally hundreds of men and women, cis and trans sex workers I've met
are just "not representative" too?
<br />
<br />
Occasionally you also hear talk of the "Eastern
European gangmaster", but for some reason the class- and
racially-evocative term "pimp" comes up far, far more often. Could that
be because plain xenophobia just doesn't inspire the troops in quite the
same way bald racism does?
<br />
<br />
Independent sex workers who organise their own affairs
and work solo. Roommates who share a flat and both happen to sell sex.
Managers running escorts agencies with a dozen or so girls they mostly
interact with by text. Massage parlour owners. Women whose house is used
by other sex workers, so technically I guess are madams. People who set
up message boards and internet forums where clients and sex workers
talk among themselves and with each other. All of these are people who
get called "pimps" by the anti-sex lobby.<br />
<br />
A guy in a
crushed velvet suit on a street corner, keeping his girls high and
working the neighbourhood? Not so many of those to the pound.<br />
<br />
But,
let's say he really is out there, because we all keep getting told he
is. This working-class black man in the loud clothes who is sexually and
physically aggressive and probably has a criminal record. This "pimp".<br />
<br />
Do
you think his choice of work isn't somehow constrained by society too?
That he wouldn't rather be earning money some other way? Because anyone
with any sense can surely suss out that a lot of activities, both legal
and illegal, would be far more profit and far less hassle than running
girls.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m29z0z2mW81qbq6beo1_500.jpg" /><br />
<i>Iceberg Slim: hustling because it's not as if you were going to save him and his mother from poverty, were you?</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
This is the reality of waged work, all waged work, whether sex is
involved or not. No one, but no one, has "free choice". If you think
otherwise, remind yourself what you wanted to be when you grew up, and
reflect on how exactly you ended up where you are now. Did you freely
select from all career choices in the world, ever? Or did you choose as
best you could from the options offered by your abilities and (more
crucially) your circumstances? You know, like Iceberg Slim did?
<br />
<br />
Some folks seem especially resistant to acknowledging
the truth about work, so I'll underline it some more. Entire towns in
the North weren't full of miners because everyone there just happened to
have the aptitude and preference for that sole job, but because it was
the only job going. NE Scotland isn't full of fishermen because they
have a particular concentration of people whose life's dream was to
catch fish, but because that's what the job market offers. Everyone's
outcome is the product of limited choices, from streetwalkers to the
Queen. And no one's suggesting she needs to be "rescued" from her lack
of career options.
<br />
<br />
<b>If you want to improve someone's options, you
address the things that constrain their choices in the first place.
Poverty, addiction, education, to name a few. Not take away the only
choices they have.</b>
<br />
<br />
The pimp as we perceive him is a low-end tough. He's
not exactly a criminal mastermind. And unlike a lot of the people who
talk about "pimps" and whatnot, I know criminals. I have seen that life
up close and fucking personal. I have lived in their neighbourhoods and
their houses, and even in their families. I know that anyone who runs a
business in the way the supposed pimp supposedly does is making little
money, if any. What's 50% of that £10 anal bareback the anti-sex lobby
claim is available in red lights everywhere? A fiver? Yeah, that sounds
logical. Now pull the other one.
<br />
<br />
I know that his power - again, if he exists, because
even when I was living in Cracktown, Pinellas County I saw shit that
would stop your heart but I never once saw a "pimp" - is a power of an
extremely limited kind. The power of someone with few and possibly no
other options.
<br />
<br />
The anti-sex lobby's fantasy use of the term "pimp" is
bogus and it is racist. Anyone who claims otherwise is being purposely
disingenuous for the sake of striking fear into white, English-speaking,
middle-class people.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-46614351030799363162013-01-31T14:49:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.368+00:00When Help is Anything But<i>TW for graphic description of violence against women inside.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
You may already be aware of the <a href="http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB12000187">recent prostitution consultation in Ireland</a>,
which closed at the end of August, and the Justice Committee hearings
which are going on now. At the forefront of campaigning was
'prostitution and trafficking NGO' Ruhama, which produced <a href="http://www.ruhama.ie/page.php?intPageID=245">their own submission</a>
to the process (a submission that was, incidentally, highly reliant on
numbers created by Melissa Farley, whose testimony on similar issues has
already been deemed <a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html#_Toc270411950">not good enough for Canadian court</a>).<br />
<br />
Data aside, however, it is worth asking the question of who Ruhama
actually are. It would seem they have form on wanting to "save" fallen
women, for according to the <i>Irish Times</i> <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0625/1224299584327.html">Ruhama is run by two of the orders</a> involved in running the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum#Public_scandal">infamous Magdalene Laundries</a>. (Here is their <a href="http://www.ruhama.ie/page.php?intPageID=138">list of trustees and directors.</a>)
The Magdalene Laundries were institutions where women and girls were
separated from their families, subjected to slave labour, mentally and
physically tortured. Many women died there.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://bocktherobber.com.cdn.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/014.jpg" />
<br />
<i>A mass grave in Limerick - victims of the Good Shepherd Sisters, one of the orders that co-founded Ruhama. <a href="http://bocktherobber.com/2010/07/the-magdalene-laundries/">Photo via and copyright Bocktherobber.com</a> </i><br />
<br />
Even decades after the worst of the Magdalene abuses, the scandal is
still ongoing: a recent submission to the committee investigating the
laundries includes some shocking facts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
JFM describes from testimony how the women suffered
abuse of various kinds — their hair was forcibly cut, they were beaten
with belts until they bled and once the door to the outside world was
shut on them, they were referred to by number not by name ...<br />
...the
State used the laundries as a way of dealing with births outside
marriage, poverty, homelessness, promiscuity, domestic and sexual abuse
as well as youth crime and infanticide. It chose to enslave women with
the nuns rather than develop a female borstal. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
"It repeatedly sought to funnel diverse populations of
women and girls to the Magdalene Laundries. In return, the religious
orders ensured a captive workforce for their commercial laundry
enterprises," they wrote. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Survivors and witnesses told JFM how the women washed,
ironed and sewed from dawn to dusk, were regularly beaten, not allowed
to talk to one another and punished if they laughed. There was no regard
whatsoever for their health or medical needs. If they stepped out of
line, they were "put down the hole". </blockquote>
<blockquote>
"This was a four by four room… There was nothing in it,
only a bench — no windows. You were put in there; your hair was cut,
more or less off completely. Your hair was cut, and you were there all
day without anything to eat," one woman recalled.<br />
<br /></blockquote>
Before you start imagining this is a tale from some sepia-tinted past,
know that the last Magdalene laundry did not close until 1996. I have
heard from people by email and Twitter about women being
institutionalised in the 1970s. It is also interesting to read the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magdalene_asylum#To_all_of_you_who_think_this_can_not_be_true">Wikipedia talk page on the subject</a>.
The fallout from the fates of the estimated 30,000 women in Ireland
subjected to this "help" is still a real wound. This all continued to
happen well into living memory.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://www.limerick.bocktherobber.com/worx/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/010.jpg" />
<br />
<i>Just one of the memorial stones commemorating the women from the mass grave in Limerick. <a href="http://bocktherobber.com/2010/07/the-magdalene-laundries/">Photo via and copyright Bocktherobber.com </a></i><br />
<br />
Now I do not doubt there will be people who say, well yes, but this was a
different generation and things have changed. Have they? Have they
really? Who has been held to account for the systematic abuse of
thousands of women and girls with the tacit approval of the Church and
the government?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jane-fae/hillsborough-the-real-lesson_b_1889472.html">Jane Fae over at Huffington Post</a>
makes an excellent point that in the Hillsborough tragedy, when we
consider the scale of denial and coverup, simply saying 'it was a
different generation' is not good enough.<br />
<br />
Well the Magdalene Laundries were scandal on a scale far greater than
the Hillsborough tragedy, for many more years. So I think the same
arguments hold. The people who did this should not be in any way
involved with women and young people, ever. Could you imagine if the
South Yorkshire police branched out and started a private security firm
specifically for football matches? They'd be laughed and shamed out of
town. Carry that thinking through: we should be laughing and shaming
Ruhama far, far away from anything to do with the welfare of vulnerable
women and children.<br />
<br />
<b>We still do not know the truth about what happened in the Laundries,
nor who exactly was responsible, how many families it affected. To even
consider letting Ruhama be involved with the prostitution consultation,
much less any policymaking or aid, should be scandalous.</b><br />
<br />
And yet it somehow is not. Anyone wish to explain exactly why?<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>(mega hat tip to Wendy Lyon and <a href="http://feministire.wordpress.com/tag/prostitution-consultation/">FeministIre</a> for bringing this to my attention in 2010.)</i><br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-20388977524368429412012-12-14T14:45:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.351+00:00My response to Rhoda Grant's prostitution consultationAs you may know, there is a <a href="http://www.scot-pep.org.uk/having-voice/scot-pep-campaigns/criminalisation-purchase-sex">consultation that closes today for a bill in Scotland that would criminalise the purchase of sex.</a><br />
<br />
The response to the consultation that I have submitted to MSP Rhoda Grant is included below. It's long.<br />
<br />
If you would like to make a last-minute submission, <a href="http://scot-pep.org.uk/having-voice/scot-pep-campaigns/rhoda-grant-response-templates">please consider the excellent template letters offered by SCOT-PEP.</a> Please be sure to request anonymity if you want to do it privately, or consider signing with a pseudonym.
You don't have to be in Scotland to reply.<br />
<br />
My response:<br />
<br />
<br />
First
off, I would like to address to comments Trish Godman MSP made at the
Conference Against Human Trafficking in October this year that “Belle”
does not exist and is not happy.
I am Belle de Jour, I do exist, and please thank Ms Godman for being so
concerned about my feelings – I am happy.<br />
<br />
<b>
QUESTIONS
Q1: Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate
“yes/no/undecided” and explain the reasons for your response. </b><br />
<br />
No, I do not support the general aim of the bill.<br />
<br />
If
the current laws are not working, as you claim, what makes you think
new, badly thought out laws would work better? Or is this another 'send a
message' law?
Passing laws is easy. Passing a law which actually works in the way
intended, is enforceable and has no harmful unforeseen consequences is
far more difficult.<br />
<br />
Such a law as proposed here will
not affect whether or not prostitution happens: it will simply affect
the conditions under which it takes place to the harm of sex workers.
The question is, do you care about those conditions? I do. My priority
is access for sex workers to the services they need to preserve or
improve their circumstances.<br />
<br />
The criminalisation of the
purchase of sex in other countries has been shown not to be a
successful approach in either helping sex workers or stopping the
phenomenon of paying for sex. The extensive evidence for this position
is outlined in the replies to the following questions.
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Q2: What do you believe would be the effects of legislating to criminalise
the purchase of sex (as outlined above)? Please provide evidence to
support your answer.</b><br />
<br />
The effects of criminalising
the purchase of sex would be increased danger for the people involved in
selling sex and no reduction in demand. It is neither the logical
response to sex work nor is it the compassionate one.<br />
<br />
It
has been reported that at a meeting in London at the House of Commons
in November, Rhoda Grant said that harm or attacks that might be
suffered by sex workers as the result of this bill was a “price worth
paying”. How easy to say when other people are the ones paying the
price! This shows me the bill is putting ideology above people’s lives.
That the desire to punish sex workers and their clients matters more to
her than women’s safety. It is horrifying. <b>[Alex Bryce, ” A Regressive Move Which Would Further Stigmatise and Endanger Sex Workers”. Huffington Post, 28 November 2012]</b><br />
<br />
Legislators
who care about lives should focus on the provision of essential support
services first and foremost. There is ample evidence to suggest that
introducing criminalisation as well as spending valuable time and police
resources would be to the detriment of the sex workers this Bill claims
to want to protect.<br />
<br />
My opposition is based upon the
fact that the Swedish model is flawed; on the negative impact of such
criminalisation on existing sex workers, particularly in their ability
to access health and criminal justice services; the fact such an
approach ignores and thus fails to address limitations within the
criminal justice system (and other agencies) to effectively address
abuses; the negative influence it has on the broader narrative of human
trafficking to the detriment of other kinds of trafficking and
exploitation.<br />
<br />
The law in Sweden criminalising buyers
has not been successful. It was brought in based on very little
evidence. According to Dr Laura Agustin, an expert on sex work and
migration, one of its data sources was a survey of only 14 people - just
7 of whom were sex workers.<br />
<br />
Statistics show Swedish
men are not deterred by the law. Many go to Denmark and Germany where
prostitution is legal. The demand has not dried up. The number of men in
Sweden who have paid for sex is actually rising.
The laws have proved unpopular. A recent newspaper survey found 63% of
the population favoured abolishing the sex purchase ban. When the
Justice Minister proposed increasing penalties, 88% of Swedes disagreed.<br />
<br />
There
are health and safety concerns about prohibition. Condom distribution
and HIV prevention, “ugly mugs” schemes identifying violent punters, and
exiting services show far lower uptake when prostitution is
criminalised.<br />
<br />
As Purchasing Sexual Services in Sweden
and the Netherlands found, the impact of the law on sex workers was to
make such work more dangerous; for example, by reducing the time
available to sex workers to assess clients. <b>[Purchasing Sexual
Services in Sweden and the Netherlands, A Report by a Working Group on
the legal regulation of the purchase of sexual services, 2004, p. 20]</b><br />
<br />
Much
is made in anti-trafficking discourse of the Swedish model based on the
assertion that, by making the purchase of sex an offence, human
trafficking declines. But as an example, a 2011 report found that:
<br />
<blockquote>
[W]hen reviewing the research and reports available,
it becomes clear that the Sex Purchase Act cannot be said to have
decreased prostitution, trafficking for sexual purposes, or had a
deterrent effect on clients to the extent claimed. Nor is it possible to
claim that public attitudes towards prostitution have changed
significantly in the desired radical feminist direction or that there
has been a similar increased support of the ban. We have also found
reports of serious adverse effects of the Sex Purchase Act – especially
concerning the health and well-being of sex workers – in spite of the
fact that the lawmakers stressed that the ban was not to have a
detrimental effect on people in prostitution.</blockquote>
<b>
[The Swedish Sex Purchase Act: Claimed Success and Documented Effects,
Susanne Dodillet and Petra Östergren, Conference paper presented at the
International Workshop: Decriminalising Prostitution and Beyond:
Practical Experiences and Challenges. The Hague, March 3 and 4, 2011,
p.3.]</b><br />
<br />
This year UNAIDS, the Joint United Nations
Programme on HIV/AIDS, stated unequivocally that decriminalisation is
the best strategy for both safety of sex workers and disease control.
Swedish statistics in the 2012 UNAIDS progress report show Sweden has no
data on whether HIV and safer sex programmes are reaching sex workers,
or if sex workers are getting tested. This is a worrying development
that could lead to an Aids timebomb. Such things are already happening
in countries like Cambodia, where abusive and violent police enforcement
of anti-sex work laws has led to decreased use of prophylactics, fewer
people coming forward for STI testing, etc.<br />
<br />
Close
reading of the Swedish publications on the topic make it clear that
UNAIDS is correct in their interpretation. For example, the report
claims “it is reasonable to assume that the reduction in street
prostitution in Sweden is a direct result of criminalisation” and “The
overall picture we have obtained is that, while there has been an
increase in prostitution in our neighbouring Nordic countries in the
last decade, as far as we can see, prostitution has at least not
increased in Sweden” <b>(p. 36)</b>.<br />
<br />
The language
reveals that Sweden has no data and is simply pulling numbers out of
thin air. As such, we argue that the Swedish model should be more
carefully considered, especially in relation to its alleged ‘success’,
and its applicability to Scotland.
Criminalising sex work makes prostitutes more vulnerable to violence.<br />
<br />
The
UNAIDS report notes “In Sweden, sex workers who were unable to work
indoors were left on the street with the most dangerous clients and
little choice but to accept them.” This has also been the case in
reports focusing on human rights in countries like Cambodia, where
efforts to reduce prostitution have had a significant harmful effect.<br />
<br />
By
contrast, decriminalisation has been beneficial in terms of welfare of
women. In 2003, New Zealand opted to overturn their laws that
criminalised prostitution in favour of regulation. The people most
visibly affected by the law were streetwalkers in larger cities like
Auckland, where in 2003 about 360 girls were estimated by police to be
working. Streetwalkers represent about 11% of the total number of
prostitutes in the country. <b>["Big Increase of Sex Workers a Myth: Latest Research". Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences. 2006-09-12]</b>
An evaluation of available data shows that the number of sex workers
changed very little – and in some places, the numbers of them on the
streets actually decreased – compared to before sex work was legal.<br />
<br />
In
Auckland, the estimated number of girls working the streets decreased
significantly, from 360 to 106. People working in massage parlours and
other establishments expressed a desire to stay in the work because of
the financial rewards. <b>[Report of the Prostitution Law Review
Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003.
Available online at:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy-and-consultation/legislation/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/report-of-the-prostitution-law-review-committee-on-the-operation-of-the-prostitution-reform-act-2003]</b>
In 2010, interviews with over 700 sex workers in New Zealand were published. <b>[G
Abel, L Fitzgerald, C Healy, (eds). Taking the crime out of sex work:
New Zealand sex workers' fight for decriminalisation. Policy Press 2010]</b>
The number of interviews represents almost 12% of the estimated 5932
prostitutes in the country, a far higher proportion than in virtually
any other qualitative study of sex workers ever conducted.<br />
<br />
It
concluded that the majority entered and stayed in the sex trade for
financial reasons, that they felt the new laws gave them more
protection, and that the result was positive changes overall for safety
and health. As a result of the legislation they had become more willing
(and able) to report crimes to the police - surely a victory for women’s
safety.<br />
<br />
We have a relevant and recent Scottish example
with Aberdeen. From 2001 onward, the city had an established tolerance
zone for sex workers around the harbour. That ended with passage of the
Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Act in 2007. In the following
months the city centre experienced an influx of streetwalkers and an
increase in petty crimes.
Quay Services, which operates a drop-in centre for streetwalkers,
reported that sex workers became more afraid to seek assistance and the
number of women coming to the centre dropped to “just a handful”. <b>[M Horne. “Safety tips texted to prostitutes after tolerance zone ends.” The Scotsman, 08 June 2008.]</b>
There was also evidence that displacing sex workers led to more
activity in the sex trade, not less – convictions for solicitation
tripled. <b>[K Keane, 18 November 2008. “Prostitution 'forced into city'.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7734480.stm]</b><br />
<br />
To
give a more specific example – when I lived in Sheffield in the early
2000s I saw firsthand the tragic effects of driving sex work away from
well-trafficked, well-watched areas.
At one point a de facto ‘tolerance’ area of streetwalkers had existed
around the St George’s area of the city. It was fairly central, well
lighted with CCTV, and police went through the area regularly. The
streetwalkers I saw there (for I lived in a flat nearby) all seemed
confident and in control. The interactions I saw with them and punters,
and them and police, did not appear strained or overtly dangerous.<br />
<br />
This
changed when the crackdown came. Bollards went up to prevent kerb
crawling. Women were pushed out to less populated, more industrial, less
policed areas.
It happened at that time I was a student, working in the city’s Medico
Legal Centre.<br />
<br />
One day I was called down to look at a
postmortem. The mortuary was a rectangular room, with parallel stations
set up for performing autopsies. That particular morning, there was one
case I remember in excruciating detail. A young woman had been stabbed
in a frenzied attack out past the dark underpasses of the Wicker, not
far from Corporation Street. She died in hospital. The victim was just
25 years old. I had turned 25 the night she died.<br />
<br />
[Name
Redacted] was picked up by someone unknown, stabbed 19 times, and
dumped in a lot. She lived long enough to give a partial description of
her attacker, but died in hospital. I remember the dark hair, the
pathologist methodically recording the position and appearance of each
place the knife entered. I remember the stuffed teddy bear with a little
red heart someone brought to the centre for her. Later I heard she had a
7-year-old son. Her killer has never been found.<br />
<br />
Such a
terrible, violent murder is only one tragedy. Many murders go unsolved
every year. But the connection between what happened to [Redacted] and
where she was working seemed clear to me. The more I learned, the more
the effects of “zero tolerance” policing seemed partly responsible for
her untimely death. This would not have happened if she had been on the
streets near St George’s, with loads of walk-by traffic and well-lit
corners. This crime could only have happened away from prying eyes,
where anyone alerted to [Redacted]’s distress would not have been able
to save her. Where there were no witnesses.<br />
<br />
There is
growing evidence that moving prostitutes into the darkened industrial
outskirts of cities makes their lives more dangerous. [Redacted] is just
one victim of a policy that is more concerned with exploiting
prostitution myths and preserving a façade of public order than it is
about benefitting women.<br />
<br />
Perhaps rather than assuming
these women are targeted because they are prostitutes, we should
consider that they may be targeted because of message society is sending
about their value as humans. Gary Ridgway, also known as the Green
River killer, murdered 48 women in America in the early 1980s. He later
talked about why most of his victims were streetwalkers: "I picked
prostitutes as victims because they were easy to pick up without being
noticed. I knew they would not be reported missing right away and might
never be reported missing. I thought I could kill as many of them as I
wanted without getting caught.” <b>[EW Hickey. Serial Murderers and Their Victims (5th edition). Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010. P. 25.]</b>
It wasn’t the commercial sex angle that was attractive to him, but the convenience.<br />
<br />
Many
such killers are opportunists; they not only target shamed outsiders
like prostitutes, but also hitchhikers and people travelling alone.
People whose whereabouts are not exactly known at any given time. And
yet no one would endorse a law criminalising solo travel under the
rubric of “protecting” holidaymakers – that would be ludicrous.
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Q3: Are you aware of any unintended consequences or loopholes caused
by the offence? Please provide evidence to support your answer. </b><br />
<br />
The
unintended consequences of such a law would be greater personal risk
for the people who sell sex, including both criminal danger, risk of
attack, and exposure to sexually transmitted infections as detailed in
the evidence for my answers given above.
Attacking sex workers or their clients is not successful in changing
behaviour. Prohibition in general tends to backfire.<br />
<br />
We
all know how badly alcohol prohibition in the US went and the
frightening criminal implications of the ongoing “War on Drugs”. Instead
of addressing the underlying social issues that might have been leading
to unwelcome behaviours, it simply gives criminals a far greater hold
on the industry than they would have otherwise. It does nothing to solve
any actual family or societal problems.
The government policy of the last several decades against sex workers
has failed. No matter what deterrents are applied it always continues.<br />
<br />
Even
the Swedish government admits sex work advertising has increased on the
internet – in other words, the trade has disappeared from public spaces
but it has not gone away at all. What has happened is that sex workers
have gone underground. This makes them more vulnerable, not less, to
attack and abuse. It makes them more vulnerable to criminal gangs.<br />
<br />
It
is worth noting that Sweden’s largest trafficking prosecutions have all
happened since the criminalisation law came into being –
criminalisation makes trafficking worse, not better.
If was as a society are serious about protecting women then we should
rethink the current approach. The only country in the world that has put
safety of women and men in sex work above subjective moral ideals is
New Zealand. Their decriminalisation of sex work over ten years ago has
been a great success.
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Q4: What are the advantages or disadvantages in using the definitions
outlined above? </b>
<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>“80. I want to ensure that the proposed legislation avoids any potential loopholes
where a purchaser could avoid prosecution by means of non-cash payment.” </i><br />
<br />
<i>“82. I intend to pursue this approach as it would mean that the offence would not
be limited to sexual intercourse or oral sex but could potentially include a
wider variety of sexual activity.”</i><br />
<br />
So that’ll be
everything from marriage to dating websites to flirting made illegal,
then.
The section relevant to this question makes clear that the intent of the
bill is not simply the question of sex work, but policing any gendered
or sexual interactions and behaviour with ill-defined parameters that
make virtually all human relationships susceptible to prosecution. This
is relevant to Q3 as the unintended consequences of such a law are
potentially limitless.<br />
<br />
<b>Q5: What do you think the appropriate penalty should be for the offence?
Please provide reasons for your answer. </b><br />
<br />
I do not
believe the consensual sexual activities of adults, monetised or not,
should be in any way criminalised or subject to penalty. There are
already laws in place to rightly prosecute those who engage in forced
labour practices, abuse of children, rape and sexual assault and these
should continue to be enforced robustly.<br />
<br />
The
consultation is low on information about what sex workers’ lives are
really like, and seems informed mainly by skewed sources and dodgy
assumptions. Since no space in the questions has been allocated to
dispute these dangerous stereotypes, I’d like to use this opportunity to
provide some data.
When researchers allow sex workers to tell their experiences in a way
that does not prejudge the outcome, the results reveal things that are
well-known to those in the work, but still news to people on the
outside.<br />
<br />
A 2009 study polling sex workers is an excellent case in point. <b>Beyond Gender: An examination of exploitation in sex work by Suzanne Jenkins of Keele University (2009)</b>
revealed the results of detailed interviews with 440 sex workers. Not
simply street-based women, either, but women, men, and transgendered sex
workers in all areas of the business. Over half were from the UK; the
rest were based in western Europe, North America, Australia and New
Zealand.<br />
<br />
The results turn almost everything we think we
know about sex work on its head.
Is paid sex all about clients dominating sex workers? No. Less than 7%
of the women interviewed thought that paying for sex gives the client
power over the escort. 26.2% thought paying makes clients vulnerable,
while the majority, 54.5%, said that 'commercial sexual transactions are
relationships of equality'.<br />
<br />
People generally think
that clients get whatever they want from sex workers, abusing and taking
advantage of them. But when asked 'in your escort interactions who
normally takes overall control of the encounter?' 78.7% said they always
or they usually did. 22.3% said it varies, and only 0.7% said the
client decides.<br />
<br />
Sex work is often characterised as
brutal, with abuse a commonplace and even usual outcome. But when asked
if they have ever felt physically threatened, only 25% of women and
18.7% of men said yes. 77% of women said they felt clients treated them
respectfully; the same percentage said they respected their clients.
When asked "how much longer do you plan to do escort work for?” " I have
no plans to stop escort work‟ was joint first choice of answer for
women along with "one-five more years" (both receiving 35.3%). Only 3.2%
said they planned to stop in less than three months.<br />
<br />
In
many ways, this reflects a pragmatism and familiar to anyone with a
more ‘traditional’ career.
Sex workers are often stereotyped as very young and naive, unaware of
the dangers of the choices they are making. But the age data do not
suggest the field is populated with teenage runaways and naive
youngsters: Almost 85% of the women were aged 26 or older, and 19% of
them were over 40.<br />
<br />
Sex work is frequently assumed to be
a choice suitable only for the uneducated. But 35.3 % of the men held
degrees, whereas for women, it was 32.9%. More than a third of the total
were degree-educated, and over 18% held post-graduate qualifications.
Only 6.5% had no formal educational qualifications.
When asked what things they like about the work, 2 in 3 respondents in
the Keele study reported 'like meeting people'. 75% of women and 50% of
men reported 'flexibility of working hours' as an aspect they enjoy. 72%
of women cited 'independence'.<br />
<br />
Jenkins noted: “an
appreciation of flexible working hours and independence were factors
that were valuable to women generally, not only mothers. The benefits of
greater independence and flexible working hours were not just about the
demands of parenting - they were often about time provided for other,
non parenting-related pursuits.”
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Q6: How should a new offence provision be enforced? Are there any
techniques which might be used or obstacles which might need to be
overcome? </b><br />
<br />
<b> </b>
I do not believe this should become an offence and therefore my opinion
on how it should be enforced is irrelevant, except to say: not at all.<br />
<br />
We
can see that Denmark have recently rejected a similar bill that would
have criminalized the purchase of sex and their reasons for doing so are
worth considering carefully. The Justice Minister was of the opinion
that such a law would be both illegal and unfeasible.
Manu Sareen, the Danish gender equality minister, said during last
year's election he wanted to ban the sex trade because it exploited
women, but last month said he was not sure a ban was the best solution.
The government is expected to offer counselling and other support
programs to prostitutes. This is a far better use of human and financial
resources.<br />
<br />
Without engaging in the debate as to
whether women (and indeed men and transgender individuals) willingly
sell sex or are victims forced by circumstance to undertake this
activity due to a lack of other income generating opportunities, there
is nothing within this Bill or the accompanying consultation document as
to the services and ‘help’ that will be provided to this group.<br />
<br />
If
the Scotland decides to criminalise the purchase of sex, and thereby
seriously undermine the livelihood of sex workers, then they must
acknowledge the need to provide alternative employment options and that
this will require organisation and funding - both of which have been
notably underfunded to date.
Spend the money on services and support, not on policing victimless
crimes.
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Q7: What is your assessment of the likely financial implications of the
proposed Bill to you or your organisation; if possible please provide
evidence to support your view? What (if any) other significant financial
implications are likely to arise? </b><br />
<br />
As a former sex
worker and advocate of sex workers’ interests I know firsthand from
friends and family in countries where sex work is illegal what the
financial implications of this bill would be to the people involved.
Imagine for a moment a downward spiral where someone who turns to sex
work as a quick financial fix finds themselves in increased danger.
There is also the question of how much money the government are going to
waste on endless consultations for a law that will not work.<br />
<br />
In
times of financial austerity, throwing more money at unsuccessful
policies is against the public interest and out of step with public
opinion. Many opinion polls clearly show people support protecting the
safety of sex workers and support decriminalisation. Criminalising
consensual sexual activity between adults is expensive and dangerous.
<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Q8: Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative
implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative
implication, how might this be minimised or avoided? </b><br />
<br />
This
bill will have a substantial negative implication for equality.
What the people who believe in such numbers fail to acknowledge is that
the continued attitude towards sex workers of being “damaged” or
“fallen” women who must be saved by white knights only serves to
exacerbate many of their problems.<br />
<br />
Consider, as an
analogy, that in the past society used to think of homosexuality as a
disease rather than a sexual preference. Reams of supposedly
“scientific” evidence were produced in order to “prove” that homosexuals
suffered from mental health problems. These issues faced by gay,
lesbian, and bisexual people (including stress, depression, and
addictive behavior) are now understood to be the result not of their
sexual preferences, but of the stigma associated with them and the
pervasively negative social messages about them.<br />
<br />
The
mental health problems associated with outsider status are well known.
Social isolation increases the risk of violence, blackmail, and
coercion. Stigma and fear of humiliation and prosecution exacerbates any
existing mental health issues. The current policy therefore is
responsible for many of the mental health issues associated with sex
work.<br />
<br />
The consultation document cites among its
evidence studies conducted by Melissa Farley, whose opinions have been
found to be of insufficiently high quality to be admitted as evidence in
Canadian court <b>[Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Bedford v Canada,
2010. “Conclusion: Expert Evidence”
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html#_Toc270411950]</b>, who has been the subject of serious ethical allegations to the APA from her colleagues <b>[http://maggiemcneill.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/complaint-to-apa-re-melissa-farley.pdf]</b>, and who makes rape jokes about sex workers on her own website. <b>[http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/WhyIMade.html]</b>
Her work is a prime example of the persistent, institutionalised hatred
against sex workers and it has no place in any serious discussion of
sex work and public policy.<br />
<br />
There are some hopeful and
encouraging things going on that actually could benefit sex workers and
reduce their exposure to harm. In Liverpool, police adopted a policy
that recognises violence against sex workers as a hate crime. The result
is that they can approach the police and know that violence against
them will be taken seriously. This has led to a dramatic increase in
prosecutions and a decline in assaults. But it’s a model that has yet to
be picked up anywhere else. In Aberdeen, police are working to build
links with outreach workers and streetwalkers to identify and assist
women who want to transition out of sex work.<br />
<br />
To give a
personal example, while my own experience of sex work is long in the
past, as someone who is “out” as a former sex worker I am subjected to
high levels of verbal abuse, harassment, and threats, be they over the
internet, through the post, and even in person. This has ranged from
written threats posted to my workplace, to harassing phone calls, to
being harassed and accused of supporting paedophilia by members of the
SSP during a public event, to a PCC complaint I filed against the
Guardian in which they defended a comment on the site that stated I
“should be dead in a ditch”. The PCC, by the way, sided with the
newspaper. Imagine if anyone ever wrote about you on a national
newspaper’s website that way. It is unpleasant to say the least.<br />
<br />
The
help of police in various areas when I report these things has been,
shall we say, variable. Some are very helpful, some are not.
This has affected things like where I have my post sent and whether to
be listed in the phone directory. I have undertaken substantial legal
efforts to keep the exact location of my home from being printed in the
newspapers.<br />
<br />
As a result of the amount of abuse and the
threatening flavour of some of it I sadly have had to make the decision
not to start a family. This is because I feel the risk of subjecting
anyone else to the unfiltered hatred and threats I receive would be
unacceptable.
I feel lucky to have the strong support of family and friends which I do
not take for granted. Even in my privileged position it is a constant
struggle to “not let the bastards get me down”. It is easy to see how
others without such support would fall into depression from constant
abuse encouraged by our society. If you are okay with the fact this
happens not only to me but to thousands of others every day, then by all
means support this bill and keep the hatred going.<br />
<br />
I
do not believe however that people with empathy and compassion would
want that to continue.
There are many people who claim to support women’s rights yet deny the
rights of large numbers of women whose lives they don’t approve of.
Evidence shows that places where prostitution is tolerated or
decriminalised produce better outcomes for the people involved.<br />
<br />
Attacking
visible signs of prostitution results in more criminality, not less.
There is no such thing as “ending demand”. This is documented by
research, by statistics.
Anyone who supports criminalisation is basically saying to me and people
like me, ‘women’s rights are important, except of course for women like
you.’ They are endorsing the kind of attitudes that allow a national
newspaper to defend the statement that I “should be dead in a ditch”. I
reject such a stand as hypocritical and anti-women.<br />
<br />
This substantial negative implication can only be avoided by rejecting the bill altogether.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
<br />
Dr Brooke MagnantiUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-31513642747419231012012-09-26T13:37:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.356+00:00When Help is Anything ButYou may already be aware of the <a href="http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB12000187">recent prostitution consultation in Ireland</a>, which closed at the end of August. At the forefront of campaigning was 'prostitution and trafficking NGO' Ruhama, which produced <a href="http://www.ruhama.ie/page.php?intPageID=245">their own submission</a> to the process (a submission that was, incidentally, highly reliant on numbers created by Melissa Farley, whose testimony on similar issues has already been deemed <a href="http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc4264/2010onsc4264.html#_Toc270411950">not good enough for Canadian court</a>).<br />
<p>Data aside, however, it is worth asking the question of who Ruhama actually are. It would seem they have form on wanting to "save" fallen women, for according to the Irish Times <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0625/1224299584327.html">Ruhama is run by two of the orders</a> involved in running the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum#Public_scandal">infamous Magdalene Laundries</a>. (Here is their <a href="http://www.ruhama.ie/page.php?intPageID=138">list of trustees and directors.</a>) The Magdalene Laundries were institutions where women and girls were separated from their families, subjected to slave labour, mentally and physically tortured. Some even died unrecorded in their care.<br />
<p>Even decades after the worst of the Magdalene abuses, the scandal is still ongoing: a recent submission to the committee investigating the laundries includes some shocking facts.<br />
<blockquote>JFM describes from testimony how the women suffered abuse of various kinds — their hair was forcibly cut, they were beaten with belts until they bled and once the door to the outside world was shut on them, they were referred to by number not by name ...<br />
<p>...the State used the laundries as a way of dealing with births outside marriage, poverty, homelessness, promiscuity, domestic and sexual abuse as well as youth crime and infanticide. It chose to enslave women with the nuns rather than develop a female borstal. <br />
<p>"It repeatedly sought to funnel diverse populations of women and girls to the Magdalene Laundries and in return, the religious orders obtained an entirely unpaid and literally captive workforce for their commercial laundry enterprises," they wrote. <br />
<p>Survivors and witnesses told JFM how the women washed, ironed and sewed from dawn to dusk, were regularly beaten, not allowed to talk to one another and punished if they laughed. There was no regard whatsoever for their health or medical needs. If they stepped out of line, they were "put down the hole". <br />
<p>"This was a four by four room… There was nothing in it, only a bench — no windows. You were put in there; your hair was cut, more or less off completely. Your hair was cut, and you were there all day without anything to eat," one woman recalled.<br />
</blockquote>
Before you start imagining this is a tale from some sepia-tinted past, know that the last Magdalene laundry did not close until 1996. I have heard from people by email and Twitter about women being institutionalised in the 1970s. It is also interesting to read the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magdalene_asylum#To_all_of_you_who_think_this_can_not_be_true">Wikipedia talk page on the subject</a>. The fallout from the fates of the estimated 30,000 women in Ireland subjected to this "help" is still a real wound. This all continued to happen well into living memory.<br />
<p>Now I do not doubt there will be people who say, well yes, but this was a different generation and things have changed. Have they? Have they really? Who has been held to account for the systematic abuse of thousands of women and girls with the tacit approval of the Church and the government?<br />
<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jane-fae/hillsborough-the-real-lesson_b_1889472.html">Jane Fae over at Huffington Post</a> makes an excellent point that in the Hillsborough tragedy, when we consider the scale of denial and coverup, simply saying 'it was a different generation' is not good enough.<br />
<p>Well the Magdalene Laundries were scandal on a scale far greater than the HIllsborough tragedy, for many more years. So I think the same arguments hold. The people who did this should not be in any way involved with women and young people, ever. Could you imagine if the South Yorkshire police branched out and started a private security firm specifically for football matches? They'd be laughed and shamed out of town. Carry that thinking through: we should be laughing and shaming Ruhama far, far away from anything to do with the welfare of vulnerable women and children.<br />
<p>We still do not know the truth about what happened in the Laundries, nor who exactly was responsible, how many families it affected. To even consider letting Ruhama be involved with the prostitution consultation, much less any policymaking or aid, should be scandalous.<br />
<p>And yet it somehow is not. Anyone wish to explain exactly why?<br />
<p> <p><i>(mega hat tip to Wendy Lyon and <a href="http://feministire.wordpress.com/tag/prostitution-consultation/">FeministIre</a> for bringing this to my attention in 2010.)</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-27042838689656445532012-06-24T14:43:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.353+00:00The Economics of Hooker BooksOne of the more persistent criticisms I get these days is that by
being public about my really rather normal experience of sex work, I am
"silencing" people who label themselves a victims.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to rehash the particular arguments regarding Happy Hookers vs. Abused Victims here, in part because <a href="http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/a-false-dichotomy/">Maggie McNeill has already done it</a>.
Suffice it to say that people who have read my writing know my
experience of sex work, while useful, positive, and not abusive, was not
quite the shopping-and-shoe-buying fantasy critics paint it as. But
then most people who think that about me have never encountered my
writing firsthand and are instead basing their impressions off a
half-remembered advert featuring Billie Piper's tits. I understand. It's
easy to get confused.<br />
<br />
But it did give me a moment of pause: is my writing crowding out other voices in the market? I decided to examine this further.<br />
<br />
Since
many people purport to tell the story of sex workers for them, I
excluded books that were either not written by or not straight
biographies of a particular sex worker. I also excluded all that were
fiction (such as my own <i>Playing the Game</i>) or deal with post-sex work life (such as Lily Burana's <i>I Love a Man in Uniform</i>).<br />
<br />
Anyway, here are the results:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2QWRPU4tm6I/T-SaBahWMjI/AAAAAAAAAcQ/-OsVz3w-Mxs/s1600/Slide1.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2QWRPU4tm6I/T-SaBahWMjI/AAAAAAAAAcQ/-OsVz3w-Mxs/s640/Slide1.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a><br />
As
you can see, my books are outnumbered by hooker memoirs that predate
mine (Tracy Quan and Xaviera Hollander in particular). Outspoken
strippers also chalk up plenty of contributions to the genre.<br />
<br />
But
outnumbering all of us by far are the 'misery memoirs' about
prostitution. (Don't get angry at me for the sweeping generalisation.
That is what the genre actually is called.) There are, to use the
technical term, <b>fucking shedloads</b> of these books. You'll notice
more than a few bestsellers in that stack as well. These were just the
ones I could fit into the graphic; there are dozens upon dozens more.
Many if not most of which were published after my books first came out.<br />
<br />
It's
probably fair to conclude that not only has my writing not stopped
others from contributing their experience to the general debate on sex
work, but that you're actually <i>more likely</i> to get noticed if you're unhappy with prostitution than generally satisfied with it.<br />
<br />
With
the swirling vortex of Kristof/trafficking/concern porn making the
rounds, in fact, now might just be the right time to do it. If you were
of a mind to write a book like that. <br />
<br />
I encourage people with real firsthand views on the topic, whatever they are, to write. <b>In fact moreso if you are not white, or not a cis woman, or not from the US or Western Europe.</b> Women
who look and sound approximately like me are already pretty well
represented in the hallowed halls of sex worker lit. Let's diversify it
all over the damn place until the orientalists and
anti-migration-disguised-as-anti-trafficking types have to eat every
last one of their words.<br />
<br />
Just so long as we all
understand that there is no such thing as one story of sex work - they
are as diverse as the people in it. My story is my story. Your story is
your story. None of us speak for all sex workers. And be honest. As Bob
Dylan <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeL8WKjnXC4">memorably put it</a>
“If you live outside the law you must be honest.” So long as we are all
on the level, then getting as many true voices out there as possible is
no bad thing.<br />
<br />
Now back to the critics...<br />
<br />
For
pity's sake don't come crying to me if you're not as popular as you
like. As the objective evidence shows, it categorically is not down to
me whether or not people want to read your writing.<br />
<br />
As
regards writing as a career, it is dangerous to assume I or anyone else
is getting "vastly rich" off of writing (as one bitter soul recently
accused). Many people seem to think that writing a book, even a
bestselling one, is a ticket to financial freedom and nets far beyond
what even your common-or-garden escort can potentially make. I hate to
break it to the dreamers, but that is not so.<br />
<br />
If it
was, do you think I'd still be writing? Hell, no. I'd be kicking back
with J.K. Rowling and E.L. James in our secret volcano fortress warming
my toes on a fire built by our minions entirely out of £50 notes and
cackling madly. As opposed to the reality - sitting in my home office in
a very average house in one of the poorest areas of the country. I'm
not bankrolled by any grant-grabbing NGOs, my personal appearances
usually only cover expenses, and nuisance legal threats from people with
a lot of time on their hands cost more than all my living expenses
combined. I've done better than most by writing and am still a long way
off being a millionaire.<br />
<br />
As it turns out, I hear <a href="http://www.policeprostitutionandpolitics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103:stella-marr-her-blog-and-bs&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50">the person who made that accusation</a>
supposedly comes from family money herself and spends her time as a
dilettante poetess. If that's true, well, good luck with that. Whatever
works amirite?<br />
<br />
Best of luck, former fellow hos. This is not exactly the road less traveled but is no less bumpy for it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-10132128702239824062012-06-23T14:42:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.339+00:00Science. Probably a girl thing.Like most people I saw the <i>Science: It's a Girl Thing!</i> teaser on Friday. My first reaction was "meh". Watch, ignore, move on. <br />
<br />
But
apparently it has ignited all sorts of controversy. Within hours my
twitter feed was filling up with people - mostly not girls, not
scientists, or both - who were slamming the advert for being too pink,
to feminine... in short, too stereotypically girly.<br />
<br />
Disclaimer: my science heroes as a kid were Mr Wizard, Carl Sagan, and
Jack Klugman in <i>Quincy M.E.</i> Not overly feminine, I'll admit.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oDrFtZo2D_M/T-WMl5zBNzI/AAAAAAAAAcs/KrHK8imNHiI/s1600/Jack-Klugman-in-Quincy-M-E--244076.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oDrFtZo2D_M/T-WMl5zBNzI/AAAAAAAAAcs/KrHK8imNHiI/s320/Jack-Klugman-in-Quincy-M-E--244076.jpeg" height="320" width="256" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Awesome role model for chicks</i></span></div>
<br />
While I found the original advert a bit like <i>Cosmo</i> on acid and really not to my taste, it's fair to say the UK media Twitterati were not its intended consumers.<br />
<br />
I wouldn't have been impressed with the trailer even as a teenager,
but then, I already knew I wanted to be a scientist and had already stopped
caring what the mean girls thought. Not everyone who could be interested
in science gets there by age 13.<br />
<br />
So, about <i>Science: It's a Girl Thing!</i> does it hit its target, or does it fail?<br />
<br />
What
a lot of the negative comments focused on was that this was funded by
the EU. For those who don't know, the EU funds a lot of projects under
its Framework Programmes to not only conduct research, but also to
promote science and technology in general.<br />
<br />
A few years ago I worked on an EU project, for instance, that was interested not in research <i>per se</i>,
but in managing a consultation about existing knowledge in the area
(the contribution of particular pesticides to child neurological
development). We organised conferences on these themes, and produced
guidance documents for the EU on various related subjects.<br />
<br />
Being
able to present well was a vital part of the job. It wasn't the
coal-face of research that most of us came from, but if you think things
like that aren't important to science in general, you're much mistaken.
As far as EU-funded projects go, making videos to try to get teens to
think about science is absolutely within their remit.<br />
<br />
The second thing is that the video everyone objected to was a trailer. As we all know, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmkVWuP_sO0">trailers are sometimes misleading</a>. In this case that's definitely true. <br />
<br />
If you look at <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/sciencegirlthing">the other videos associated with the project</a>
- something very few people seemed to do - it's clear the teaser is not
the meat of the campaign and was probably made by a different team. The
teaser had been removed presumably because of the negative reaction,
but the rest of the videos are still there. Those videos cover things
like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F6s_kCd4vI">a day in the life of a virology student</a>, a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NlV7WROiKs">nanotechnology engineer</a>, and a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnS-5r6ilWc">bioengineer from Helsinki</a>.
With nary a pink lab coat to be seen. I dare you to go and tell any of
these women their work is "fluffy" or "inconsequential".<br />
<br />
Rest
assured the project will come with a follow-up assessment of how well
it did reaching its target audience... an audience that, by definition,
is not you. At least for once we were not treated to the usual
monochrome 'woman with hair in a bun looks at petri dish' or 'woman at
lab bench peers into microscope' crap. Like it or not this was a
campaign that was trying something different and for that alone should
be commended.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UymeEP6TYUk/T-WLdztDU_I/AAAAAAAAAck/NOzmOMtjIoY/s1600/raccoon.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UymeEP6TYUk/T-WLdztDU_I/AAAAAAAAAck/NOzmOMtjIoY/s320/raccoon.jpg" height="219" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i> For all you know, she's got eye makeup like a drag queen back there.</i></span></div>
<br />
Someone tweeted at me that <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/06/overtly-feminine-scientists-al.html">there's research that "proves"</a> this sort of encouragement of girls doesn't work. <a href="http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/27/1948550612440735.abstract">So I went and had a look at it.</a><br />
<br />
To summarise, "Betz and Sekaquaptewa recruited 142 girls aged 11 to 13 and showed them
mocked-up magazine articles about three female university students who
were either described as doing well in science, engineering, technology
or mathematics (STEM), or as rising stars in unspecified fields. The
three also either displayed overtly feminine characteristics or
gender-neutral traits."<br />
<br />
Apparently the subjects reacted
negatively to the girly girls. Interesting stuff. But it's not clear
that the paper sought to define an approach to addressing attitudes
about women in science. Rather its results seem to confirm what surely
we already know: that these negative associations exist and that people
do not see femininity and science as complimentary. If you're going to
write off visible femininity being not-opposed to science ability based
on a 'personality science' study that serves to approximately tell
people what we already know, then why bother doing anything?<br />
<br />
Then there's the tone of the criticism in general which is, frankly, as condescending as it accuses to advert of being.<br />
<br />
Recently
I had a conversation with a friend who is making a career change into
science. I found myself getting somewhat irritated that she, unlike me,
did not appear to be willing to follow science to the <i>n</i>th degree
and put her nose to the unrewarding research grindstone. Rather she
wanted a degree in a subject she was interested in that could lead to a
solid job in a few years' time.<br />
<br />
She basically caught me out making the very assumption critics of the <i>Girl Thing</i>
campaign are making: that if you're not on track for a Nobel prize,
then you're not good enough for science. I realised how many of my
assumptions about what science is "for" were shaped by my
education-positive, science-positive upbringing... a background she did
not have. In other words, the luxury of wallowing around in academia?
Was not of any interest to her. She's the best judge of how to live her
life - not me.<br />
<br />
It felt pretty shit to realise what I was doing (sorry, S).<br />
<br />
This
points to what I feel is a greater malaise and one which seriously does
hamper achievement. When we already know what class and income barriers
there are for young people - not only girls - to get into white collar
career paths, why would we want to make that worse?<br />
<br />
<b>We have to acknowledge that something that offends your taste may not actually have a negative effect. </b>I hate <i>CSI</i> and <i>Silent Witness</i>.
I hate forensic fiction shows with the white hot heat of a thousand
suns. As someone with a PhD in forensic science, I feel it cheapens the
real science and misrepresents what we do.<br />
<br />
However, I
can't deny the simultaneous explosion of students into forensic science
that accompanied Marg Helgenberger and Emilia Fox swishing their
luscious locks over murder victims. An explosion of students, by the
way, that is predominantly female. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IoPatptFHOY/T-WLNV3t48I/AAAAAAAAAcc/Sn-N7eI2_iM/s1600/marg+h.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IoPatptFHOY/T-WLNV3t48I/AAAAAAAAAcc/Sn-N7eI2_iM/s320/marg+h.jpg" height="257" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>In yr crime scene, soiling yr DNA evidence</i></span></div>
<br />
I would probably raise an eyebrow at any colleague who told me that they got into forensic science because of <i>CSI</i>, but to be honest, is that really any worse than my love of <i>Quincy</i>? And does being dismissive of eye-candy actresses pretending to be like me make me a better scientist than my <i>CSI</i>-loving
colleague? No, it doesn't. The difference in our influences is not a
matter of ability, it's a matter of personal taste, and that is
something which is in no way correlated to being good at the job.<br />
<br />
It's
an effect that is not uncommon, in fact. Loads of people looked at
Indiana Jones and fancied a go at archaeology. I'd wager Ally Beal had
some impact on the law profession. Maybe the key to getting more young
people interested in science isn't having a snarky blog only people
exactly like you read (controversial, I know), but having relatable
images in wider media for others to observe. Even if those images happen
to be model-pretty and a bit daft. <br />
<br />
(Insert your own paragraph about the impact Brian Cox will surely have here.)<br />
<br />
Whether the rapid post-<i>CSI</i>
expansion will have been a good thing for forensic
science is another conversation. But it's interesting to see this
happening largely at the former-poly universities. I would hold that
these girly girl
characters have made the field relevant to young women who had
the innate ability to go into any science, but perhaps lacked the self
confidence and support to
see which field might be most relatable to them. Things which some of us
take for granted. Having the confidence to strike out and do something
different is not a given for everyone. And yes, this is
absolutely a class thing... and a girl thing. It is all kinds of a
privilege thing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yw9gbGdWDig/T-W3d-ZGKOI/AAAAAAAAAc4/jzkvU21Ab08/s1600/281109-019.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yw9gbGdWDig/T-W3d-ZGKOI/AAAAAAAAAc4/jzkvU21Ab08/s320/281109-019.jpg" height="320" width="214" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Admit it, you don't know that she didn't do that herself.</span></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">(via <a href="http://blackboardsinporn.blogspot.co.uk/">Blackboards in Porn</a>)</span></i></div>
<br />
If
you work in a lab with lots of other women, you'll see girly girls,
tomboy girls, and plenty of others in between. It literally takes all
kinds. Ability to do well in STEM subjects is not a function of
appearance or sexiness.<br />
<br />
But at the same time looking good and being sexy aren't barriers to being capable at science, either. <br />
With
so many people concerned about the crisis in young women wanting to be
Kim Kardasian instead of Madame Curie, maybe it's time to acknowledge
that we need to cast the net a little wider. Your experiences as a woman
are not limited to these extremes.<br />
<br />
While the original
splashy video has been removed, I'm not sure this is a victory of any
sort. I'm a little disappointed they turned tail at the first sign of
criticism. Frankly the tone of the backlash provided a level of coverage
the rest of the campaign would not otherwise have had. And if it turns
out to have been misguided as so many believe, then what better way to
learn how to improve the campaign? <br />
<br />
But my guess is
that regardless of whether or not you like pink and whether or not the
advert offended you personally, the outcome will not have been all
negative. The assumption that someone who aspires to look like a
Kardashian can't or shouldn't become interested in science is frankly
bollocks. And the assumption that young girls should be influenced by
whatever the chattering classes deem appropriate is also bollocks. If
that offends the po-faced middle class - for whom access to science
careers is not in question anyway - then so be it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-80097684518751515982012-06-20T14:39:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:24:07.603+00:00Stay classy, Rescue Industry<span style="font-size: small;">In the cutthroat world of filmmaking it must be hard
to get noticed. Some make their names by honing their craft over years
or even decades, learning the business from the ground up, and keeping
their egos in check. Others sleep their way to the top. But that's kind
of lame. Why make good films or suck off a decent producer when you can
hop on the concern-porn cause of the week and gain tasty, tasty
attention that way?<br /><br />Enter '<a href="http://www.balkansthemovie.com/">Balkans the Movie</a>',
a yet-to-be-made film that aims to expose the seedy underside of human
trafficking by, er, cobbling together a lot of ethnic stereotypes and
asking NGOs for funding. Nice work if you can get it. Certainly seems to
have worked out for <a href="http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/06/20/film-exposing-women-trafficking-opens-in-london/">Nefarious: Merchant of Souls</a> (which, incidentally, is <i>so</i> my next character if I ever take up RPGs again. Or alternatively my thrash metal band's debut album).</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6PUho2e3jUw/T-IJdCkxveI/AAAAAAAAAbs/Jq_LEtcfpPY/s1600/woman_bed.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6PUho2e3jUw/T-IJdCkxveI/AAAAAAAAAbs/Jq_LEtcfpPY/s1600/woman_bed.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The Balkans site <a href="http://www.balkansthemovie.com/cast.php">is looking to cast</a>
such no-doubt sensitively and intelligently written characters as "Big
Mama" (a large cockney lady married to a Jamaican) and "Fats" (a Kosovan
by way of New Orleans). Cast extras include "10 Prostitutes," whose
roles are not entirely clear apart from the fact there will be a "porn
scene" and an "auction". Don't worry about the lack of scripts, though,
ladies: the director assures you "I shall ask you to improvise on the
day." Is your asshole-ometer up in the red yet? No, nor mine. Not. At.
All.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The site also makes clear that not only is the film <i>gritty</i> with potentially <i>crude</i> sex portrayed, it's also <i>unpaid</i>.
Yes that's right, if you're lucky enough to get this gig you'll be
pulling down not union rates or even minimum wage, but you will score a
complimentary DVD. With profits to go to "anti-trafficking charities".
The film will however be sent to "top industry contacts" who no doubt
will dispatch it directly to the circular file. So basically you get to
re-enact "harrowing scenes of torture" for free! </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /><b>Executive Summary:</b> We're going to stick it to those horrible people exploiting young women by, er, exploiting young women.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">There isn't a mainstream porn studio in the world that could get away with this shit.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />If the concept of the film hasn't made you roll off your chair yet then <a href="http://www.balkansthemovie.com/resources/Audition%20Scripts%20for%20Actors%20%20-%20Balkans%20Productions%201.3.pdf">get a load of the script.</a>
What there is of it, anyway, since most of the film will go all Mike
Leigh on our asses and depend on the actors' improvisation skills. We
experience the story through the eyes of Joe, who is <i>"Unstoppable,
determined, curious, witty, vulnerable and a good liar ... educated at
Cambridge ... Joe's heritage enables him to infiltrate this group as his
father is from Eastern Europe."</i> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">So far, so Misha Glenny. Minus the credibility.<i><br /></i></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>"Joe
is one of the remaining few journalists committed to the ethos of
investigative journalism – to uncover the truth using all methods in
spite of the risks."</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">As long as "all methods" means "getting handjobs," yeah? Has someone alerted Leveson yet?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Our Joe may be green, but by gum, he knows a good story when he sees it.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">"I'm onto a new story with the break-in thing--absolute page one stuff-- ... It's gonna be bigger than Watergate!"</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>All the President's Men</i> this ain't but please, tell me more, maybe I've missed what's so exciting here...</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">"Guys get into arguments over nothing and before you know it, one of them is dead. They're shooting each other all the time."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">Oh. Never mind then.<br /><br />More dialogue WTF: </span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">"Fats had killed a made man, elite Mafioso."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">Now,
I may be no expert - I'm only half-Eastern European and half-Sicilian,
so what the hell do I know? I'm pretty sure - not 100% certain, but
pretty sure - that Eastern European gangsters are not, kind of by
definition, "mafiosi". </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Enter
Natasha. Nats here is our hooker with a heart of gold. You can tell
because she's giving Joe a rubdown and guided tour of her singing
ability by page 2. She sounds all sorts of awesome:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">"Natasha
left her country in Eastern Europe to find a rich man in the West.
Unfortunately she was conned and is now serving as a prostitute."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Serving</i> as a prostitute? Bitch, I'm a sergeant in the Hooker Corps!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">On
a more serious note, though, sounds to me she found exactly what she
was looking for and needs to reframe this new arrangement not as a
problem but as a solution. A rich man in the West. Only, you know, an
hour at a time. Why put up with a guy full-time when you can get cash in
hand and have the odd evening to yourself? Hell to the yes.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
The best part about Natasha is she speaks like a minor character from Isaac Bashevis Singer: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">"When I was 15, my parents married me, against my will, to a man aged 35, whom I did not love. So started my miseries."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">Feel free to imagine the sad violin here. Or alternatively some jaunty squeezebox </span><span class="st"><i>à la</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"> Gypsy Weddings. Your call.<br /><br />But wait! There's more. So much more:</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">"Smart Nick is Downtown Joey's son and a possible successor to him but first he must learn the business. "</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">Unlike the writer, this may entail more work for Smart Nick than merely watching <i>The Wire</i> with the sound turned off. I like this Nick fellow, not least because</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">"He has developed an upper class Oxford accent..."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">I
didn't know the university had its own accent! Learn something new
every day. Smart Nick deploys his hard-won knowledge of Received Oxford
Pronunciation on such gems as: "Next to him dancing with sexy girl is
Jim Whip, number 2 top porno star in UK."<br /><br />If</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="" dir="ltr" id="eow-title" title="Made In Chelsea: The Best Of Mark-Francis Vandelli"> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWN8OohlU_I">Mark-Francis Vandelli</a></span> doesn't get this role it will be a crime against Thespis.<br /><br />Oh
wait, there is an Italian in the film! His name is 'Sammy Cigar'. We
Italians are all called things like that, you know. We're also orange
puppets made of sponge who sit around eating Dolmio every Saturday night
with Mamma. He owns a nightclub too? You could have knocked me over
with a feather.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The there's Leo, the Obligatory American.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">"Leo
was born into music, although his family were not in the industry he
managed to make the right connections, is in his early forties and is
American. His break came when he graduated from Harvard in Art History
and dated the daughter of the Chairman of Warner Music. He has managed
huge acts, is a millionaire, loves young women (18+) and sometimes
dabbles in cocaine."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">The actual Chairman of Warner Music, Lyor Cohen, has a daughter all right. She turns 10 this year. Way to score, Leo!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The film's website helpfully informs us that </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;">This story is fictional and is not
intended to be racist or to offend anyone. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">It's
not intended to be racist. Like, I didn't intend to steal that cupcake,
it just ended up stuffed in my gob unpaid for, officer. (For what it's
worth I'm not offended. I'm more bemused and slightly mystified but not
actually offended. Kosovan gangsters from Louisiana may feel
differently.) Also:</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">All characters are fictional
and any resemblance to any person/event or situation whether present or
in the past is coincidental.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;">Don't worry, hon. There is <i>absolutely no danger</i> anyone is going to mistake these characters for real people.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Do you know what the script reminds me of? This date I had years ago. I met up with a guy from <i>Guardian Soulmates</i>
who told me he was an aspiring novelist who eschewed a career as a
postdoc chemist for two (yes! two!) masters' courses in writing. He then
proceeded to tell me in much detail about this amazing book of his that
was mysteriously unpublished. It involved a super-secret society at
Oxford whose bitch-queen was a virginal descendant of the <i>real</i>
Royal Family (whoever they are) and gets deflowered by her super-secret
fraternity at the end. He saw Emily Blunt in the lead role for the film
adaptation. There wasn't a second date.<br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">I
could go on. But I won't. Because I'm not even past page 12 yet and you
probably have other things to do today. Suffice it to say that I
actually hope a rubbish trafficking hype film with characters like
"Detective Inkling" and "Chinese Man" gets made. If only so I can <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Science_Theater_3000">MST-3K</a> the shit out of it. And let's be honest, if I had no conscience and no qualms about <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE">not paying the talent</a> I would be kicking myself right now for not coming up with this lucrative wheeze first.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">In
fact I actually hope this is the product of some some hard-eyed cynic
grabbing what cash he can out of the system before the whole trafficking
panic collapses in a heap of invented moral scares and bullshit
statistics. In which case, mate, I owe you an apology and a drink.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-77445443965213714352012-06-18T09:14:00.004+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.399+00:00Why Scotland should not make sex work illegal<i><b>UPDATE:</b> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18498858">MSPs have voted that Grant's bill will have to go to consultation</a>
and will not be fast-tracked. Which is good news. But the fight is not
over, and expect more to come when the consultation hits.</i><br />
<br />
At the same time that the <a href="http://www.moratorium2012.org/">Moratorium 2012 campaign</a> kicks off in London, spearheading a common-sense approach to sex work, there appears a bid in Scotland <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/bid-to-fast-track-ban-on-all-prostitution-in-scotland-1-2359455">to try to make prostitution illegal</a>.
Just to recap: soliciting, running a brothel, and kerb crawling are
already illegal (as too are trafficking and sexual exploitation of
children). Exchanging sex for money at this point is not. Not yet.<br />
<br />
Labour
MSP Rhoda Grant claims "Scotland should become an unattractive market
for prostitution and therefore other associated serious criminal
activities, such as people trafficking for sexual exploitation, would be
disrupted."
Grant is, unfortunately, badly informed and wrong. I'm going to keep
this one short and sweet because the points are pretty
straightforward...<br />
<br />
<b>Scotland does not have a sex trafficking epidemic</b><br />
<br />
Sex
trafficking is the excuse frequently given these days to harass and
criminalise sex workers. Problem is, it's not remotely the "epidemic"
they would have you believe. If you're not already up to speed on the
whys and wherefores, I highly recommend reading <a href="http://www.lauraagustin.com/category/trafficking">Laura Agustin's work</a> on this. Or if I may be so cheeky to suggest you could also <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sex-Myth-Everything-Wrong/dp/0297866397/">buy my book</a>.<b> </b><br />
<br />
Specifically, it is <i>not happening in Scotland</i>. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8660003.stm">“In
Scotland, to the best of my knowledge, we don't have a conviction for
human trafficking,” said police constable Gordon Meldrum.</a> Meldrum
had previously claimed research “proved” the existence of 10 human
trafficking groups north of the border, and 367 organised crime groups
with over 4000 members. “We had one case which was brought to court
previously but was abandoned. My understanding is it was abandoned due
to a lack of evidence, essentially.” Strange how the evidence seemed to
disappear precisely when someone was asked to produce all these fantasy
baddies, isn't it? <br />
<br />
It's not only Scotland where the trafficking hype falls flat though: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated">investigation throughout the UK</a> has comprehensively <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails">failed to find any supposed sex trafficking epidemic</a>.<br />
<br />
Not convinced by the evidence? Then consider this: criminalising sex workers and their
clients removes the most reliable information sources police have for
investigating abuses. Police don't have a great track record on this: <a href="http://www.sexworkersproject.org/downloads/swp-2009-raids-and-trafficking-exec-summary.pdf">In interviews by the Sex Workers Project with 15 trafficking survivors</a>
who experienced police raids, only one had been asked
by law enforcement if she was coerced, and only <i>after</i> she was arrested. <a href="http://swop-nyc.org/wpress/2012/06/15/not-just-collateral-damage-three-anti-trafficking-recommendations-from-sex-workers/">SWOP-NYC make this case clearly.</a><br />
<br />
<b>Criminalising sex work has been shown in Scotland to make criminal activity worse </b><br />
<br />
Criminalisation
has all kinds of effects on the behaviour of sex workers, but
unfortunately, none of those effects are good. Fear of police forces sex
workers to get into clients’ cars quickly, and possibly be unable to
avoid dangerous attackers posing as clients. When vigilantes and police
roam the pavements, sex workers wait until the wee hours to come out,
making them more isolated and vulnerable to harm.<br />
<br />
Such
an approach can also result in a transfer of activity from streetwalking
to other ways of getting money. High-profile crackdown results in
repeated arrests of prostitutes, which translate to fines that sex
workers, now burdened with criminal records, are unable to pay except by
more prostitution or by fraud, shoplifting, and dealing drugs.<br />
<br />
Take
Aberdeen, for instance. From 2001 onward, the city had an established
tolerance zone for sex workers around the harbour. That ended with
passage of the Prostitution (Public Places) (Scotland) Act in 2007. <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/safety-tips-texted-to-prostitutes-after-tolerance-zone-ends-1-1433650">In the following months the city centre experienced an influx of streetwalkers and an increase in petty crimes.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.quayservices.co.uk/">Quay Services</a>,
which operates a drop-in centre for streetwalkers, reported that sex
workers became more afraid to seek assistance, and the number of women
coming to the centre dropped to “just a handful”. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7734480.stm">There
was also evidence that displacing sex workers led to more activity in
the sex trade, not less – convictions for solicitation tripled.</a><br />
<br />
This
kind of ‘crime shuffling’ takes prostitution out of one area and dumps
it on another. It only resembles an improvement if you fail to look at
the full picture.<br />
<br />
<b>Prohibition never works</b><br />
<br />
There
is a lot of talk in the political sphere about the need for “evidence
based policy”. This means rejecting approaches that are moralistic and
manipulative. Sex workers have suffered the tragic consequences of
prejudicial social attitudes that lead to bad policy. The prohibition
approach has not worked. It will never work. The people who endorse this
view are putting people in danger and should not be guiding public
opinion any longer.
Disliking sex work is not a good enough argument to justify
criminalising it. Is there any public interest served by preventing
adults from engaging in a consensual transaction for sexual services?
No, there is not.<br />
<br />
Bit like the war on drugs: making the
business profitable only to criminals, awaiting the inevitably grim
results, then claiming that it’s the drugs themselves, not the laws, wot
caused it. Few reasonable people believe that line of argument when it
comes to drugs. Why does anyone believe it when it comes to sex?<br />
<br />
Moral
disapproval is a bad basis for policymaking. I don't find the idea of
taking drugs at all appealing, but I don't assume my own preferences
should be the basis for law.<br />
<br />
The condescension heaped
on people who do sex work is embarrassingly transparent. All this
mealy-mouthed, 'oh but we want to help them, really’. How’s that again?
By saddling people with criminal records and taking away their children?
Do me a favour.<br />
<br />
As well as the happy prostitutes there
are unhappy sex workers in need of support. Society should protect the
unwilling and underage from sexual exploitation and provide outreach for
those who need and want it. We already have laws and services for that.
Maybe the laws should be more intelligently enforced and the services
better supported. But prosecuting the victimless crimes does neither of
these. It helps no one.<br />
<br />
The potential existence of
abuses does not mean such work should be automatically criminalised if
for no other reason than doing so makes the lives of people in sex work
worse, not better. Criminalisation is the very opposite of compassion.
Rhoda Grant is hiding behind an "end demand" approach that will not
achieve what she claims it will, but will punish sex workers and send
those with already chaotic lives further into a downward spiral. If that
isn't punishing them with no hope for change then I don't know what is.<br />
<br />
It's time we started acting like grownups and stopped pretending that making something illegal makes it cease to exist.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-1578097699576414762012-06-18T09:13:00.002+00:002012-06-18T09:13:52.654+00:00Right to a family life 'not absolute'?Theresa May, as per her now-weekly ritual, manages to make herself
look ridiculous again. This time it's over Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, or as Ms May likes to refer to it, "Human"
rights. That's okay, Theresa - I use scare quotes when referring to you
as a "human" too.<br />
<br />
Article 8 is the right to a family
life which, if you read the right-wing papers, is somehow responsible
for everything wrong in Britain today. How exactly something intended to
keep families together is in direct opposition to the aims of a
government that claims its priority is to... err... <a href="http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/15th-december-2006/2/catholic-charity-welcomes-tory-promise-to-put-the-">keep families together</a> is some question indeed.<br />
<br />
This is the law that, according to May last year, let someone brown and gay stay in the UK because <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15160326">he had a cat</a>.
Only, that isn't what happened. Because as people who have interacted
with the law know, it's wasn't the immigrant's rights that were being
upheld. Nor even the cat's. It was the human rights of his UK-born,
British partner. A right which May does not consider "absolute".<br />
<br />
The changes are set to come in July 9th. If your wedding is scheduled for the day after, too bad, according to May. It's being <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-seeks-changes-to-use-of-human-rights-law-7834518.html">couched with stories of criminals for now</a>. Andrew Marr i<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jz5fh/The_Andrew_Marr_Show_10_06_2012/">nterviewing May this morning</a>
tried to focus on that aspect. But in the interview May clearly spoke
of targeting all family settlement visas. As those of use who have been
following the proposed changes know, the government would like very much
for this policy to apply to everyone. Unless of course they're rich.<br />
<br />
Chew
on that a while if you please. Because for every story of some migrant
who, according to the rabid anti-immigration types, is packing the
country full and sheltering behind their "supposed" "human" "right" to
"a" "family life" (have I got enough quotes in there for you, Theresa?)
there is actually a British person whose family is being threatened. <br />
<br />
You
might not like the idea of British people falling in love with
foreigners and wanting to settle here, you know, the place where they
live. But there it is.<br />
<br />
Add to that the fact that people from elsewhere in the EU can bring
their non-EU spouses here, claim treaty rights, and settle with almost
no need to navigate the byzantine UK Border Agency applications. <b>The government is endorsing a policy that actively discriminates against the families of British people. </b>Surely even people who oppose all immigration must be wondering what the hell is going on there.<br />
<br />
And while we're here, let's bust a few myths:<br />
<ul>
<li><b>The criminal myth.</b> This route lets in criminals? Um, no.
Applying under the family route already means you can't enter if you
have unspent convictions (even traffic violations) in the UK or your
country of origin. </li>
<li><b>The benefits myth.</b> This route leads to foreigners eating up
UK benefits without paying in? Wrong again. Applying under the family
route already means you have no recourse to public funds, i.e. benefits.
It's stamped on your visa so there's no mistaking.</li>
<li><b>The job-poaching myth.</b> Non-EU migrants are stealing jobs from
British people? Go on, pull the other one. By EU law it is illegal to
hire a non-EU/EEC person unless the employer can show there were <u>no</u>
minimally qualified European applicants. This is one I've run up
against before. It's deeply depressing to be told you were by far the
best applicant, but someone whose qualifications barely scraped the job
description is hired instead. If someone like me gets a job, say,
scrubbing toilets for minimum wage - which I have done - it's not
because I was willing to work for less. It's because British people
didn't want that job enough to even apply for it. Not my fault.</li>
</ul>
No one disputes the right – indeed, the responsibility – of a
government to oversee migration and restrict it where necessary. Most of
us who come here do not object to playing by the rules. But the reasons
May gave for the changes are misleading. The consultation she
references was heavily influenced by suggestions from the pressure group
MigrationWatch and concerned mainly with forced marriage and money. And
crucially, they will do nothing to stop people who flout the rules,
only punish people who do try to do things by the book.<br />
<br />
May
claims changing the settlement rules will "differentiate between
genuine and non-genuine relationships". Only the government's already <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/08/forced-marriage-criminal-offence-david-cameron?newsfeed=true">making forced marriage illegal</a>.
Detailed spouse interviews might be a sensible policy to put off sham
weddings but May has no plans to introduce these, as presumably that
would mean hiring and training more Border Agency staff. May is
concerned about migrants not fitting in, as well. But there are no
suggestions the Life In the UK test will be changed to become more
relevant... and in fact, May wants more people to take it. The laughably
unfit-for-purpose LIUK tests out-of-date information that is not
remotely useful for living here. I memorised the percentage of
single-parent families in Wales circa five years ago for why, exactly?
It's as good a tool for integration as a spork is for digging the
Channel Tunnel. A <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ship-Stewards-Handbook-Trayner-Plumb/dp/1844860566/">1950s ship steward's handbook</a> is better prep for living here. A copy of <i>Heat</i> better still.<br />
<br />
Let's
look at a couple of suggestions for reforming immigration that are
often suggested by the public, who probably have a better understanding
of the needs of the British economy than most politicians do:<br />
<ul>
<li>Many people say they would like to see an <b>immigration points system</b>
across the board, like the one used for the now-discontinued Tier 1
General visas. This system took into account a balance of age,
qualifications, employment, history in the UK, as well as income. It
wasn't perfect but at least it acknowledged that people who are young
and qualified or employed as key workers are unlikely to have high
incomes (yet). </li>
<li>People also say they would like <b>a system "like Australia's". </b>Australia
is sometimes assumed to be the last word in hardline immigration
policy. But as far as I know - this from friends of mine who have moved -
the British people who qualify for skills-based residency are allowed
to bring their partners and families regardless of income. Short term
access to cash isn't the main factor; the longer-term needs of the local
economy are. An electrician's wife gets to stay because she is a family
member and he is vital to their growth. It seems reasonable.</li>
</ul>
So why is Theresa still harping on if forced marriage, sham
unions, integration, and net benefit to long-term economic health are
not actually being addressed by the change?<br />
<br />
The key to
what these proposals really mean is in the election pledge: Cameron
promised to reduce net migration. That's not the number of migrants
total, that's the difference between migrants arriving and British
citizens leaving. Sorry to break it to those who think the country is
"packed full" or "under siege": the government is not interested in
decreasing migration <i>per se</i>. <b>They'd be as happy if immigration increased, as long as loads of Britons left.</b> Put that in your pipe and smoke it, <i>Mail</i> readers.<br />
<br />
While
the majority of incomers to the UK come from Europe, EU inward
migration is something that can not be changed legally without leaving
the EU. As well, fewer Brits are moving to Spain and France than used to
since the bottom fell out of the new build market there. So attacking
the family route, non-EU migrant is the easiest way to lower the
numbers. If a married couple cannot settle, not only has a migrant left,
so has a UK citizen. This gets net migration down twice as fast as
controlling other visas. The approach is crafted to appear successful to
the rightwing without producing meaningful change for anyone.<br />
<br />
Getting
extra British people to leave must be part of the consideration,
otherwise why attack family route visas at all? It's not the largest
category by a long shot. Last year 564,005 non-visitor visas were issued
outside the UK. Of those, 57% were student visas, 26% were work visas
and a scant 8% were family settlement. They've already taken steps to
ensure coming in as a student is not a route to settlement, and work
visas are being tightened as well. Even with those changes it's going to
be next to impossible to get net migration in line with the party's
promise without a lot of people leaving. The potential to double the
result is what makes raising the bar for family settlement so attractive
to the likes of May. <br />
<br />
Even so, the numbers are not
going to go down that easily - even someone whose stand on immigration
is very conservative should be able to see that May's plan will not
deliver the promised numbers. EU migration in particular can not be
addressed in the current system. Well, helpfully, the stalling economy
affects net migration too. Plenty of folks say they would leave if they
could, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/9197367/Hardest-working-father-in-Britain-moves-to-Australia.html">many are</a>.
Hey presto, population control achieved at the cost of making people
into the very economic migrants they say they hate. Way to go Dave and
Co.!<br />
<br />
If I sound cynical about the government juking the
stats that's because I am. In 2010 I changed from highly skilled
migrant to a marriage visa out of attachment to my husband and as a
statement of our intent to live in the UK. Little did I think that it
might have been better to stay with the visa I was on, or even remain
single. Those aren't the kinds of jaded assessments you want to make
when planning a life together.<br />
<br />
Our situation is better
than many because I was already working here, so my income counts on our
applications. For those who meet abroad the picture is very different.
Overseas income doesn't count unless you have huge savings to bring here
- over £16k under the new rules. Third party support (aka getting cash
from family) will no longer count towards income. And there will no
doubt be people who fall in love and get married before they realise
there's no way they can bring their new husband or wife to live with
them. Not legally, anyway.<br />
<br />
May proposes upping the
minimum income level to £18600, goes up to £22000 if you have a child,
then adds £2400 for each additional dependent. <b>In other words: means-tested love. </b>It
doesn't consider a
family's real expenses, wealth such as house equity, or where they live.
Apart from London and the Southwest, average gross earnings for
families of any size everywhere are close to or below this amount. Huge
numbers of UK households would not meet the new requirement. The
applications care about income only - not the type of work you do or
whether it's in demand - so key workers like teachers and nurses would
be unable to sponsor a partner. <a href="http://organisethefun.tumblr.com/tagged/BAME">Here is a template to write your MP about these changes.</a><br />
<br />
In
spite of the vast differential in living expenses between various parts
of the country, there is no suggestion a family's actual expenses will
be taken into account. For example: we live in the Scottish Highlands
and own our house outright, so basic monthly outgoings are minimal
compared to someone who is carrying a mortgage in London. We all know
people who are barely making ends meet on professional incomes and
others who are living their dream on a shoestring budget. Applying an
arbitrary income level to all applicants makes no sense.<br />
<br />
Under
the old rules, family-visa applicants must already show they have
enough income to cover essential bills. Most submit a budget to reflect
their individual circumstances. This is to prevent migrants from relying
on the state; what critics of family immigration don't realise is that
most of us can't receive benefits anyway. My biometric ID (remember
those? You may not have them, but we do) clearly states "No public
funds". Family migrants can – and do – go to work and pay into the
system like anyone else. If you have the right to work but no right to
public funds of course that's what you do. And we are not exempt from UK
taxes just because we weren't born here.<br />
<br />
There is a pervasive
myth that migrants do not contribute, which is in stark contrast not
only to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/11/immigrants-uk-theresa-may">most people's real-life understanding of the immigrant work ethic</a>,
but also just about any stats you care to present (see below for the
numbers on benefits). Look at the representation of visible first- and
second-generation migrants in food service, in the NHS... these are not
people who came over with established careers and huge bank balances,
because if you already had those, why would you move halfway round the
world? They're people who came with skills, desire, and elbow grease to
spare. If you think migration started with New Labour and is a net loss to
Britishness, then maybe it's you who should be taking the Life in the UK
test. <br />
<br />
DWP statistics [<a href="http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/mb1.pdf">pdf</a>]
show foreign-born residents – at 13% of the population – represent only
6.4% of benefits claimants; 7% of foreign-born residents receive them,
compared with 17% of UK-born residents. (In these stats, 'foreign born'
can mean EU, who are entitled to benefits here unlike most non-EU; it
can also mean born abroad but British passport holding as well. So for
foreign-born, non-EU, non-UK passport, the percentage is probably rather
lower.)<br />
<br />
Consider same-sex partnerships, for whom
moving elsewhere as a couple may not be an option whatever their income.
I hope the LGBT community starts to make more noise about this, because
my guess is it will be a same-sex union that is the first to test May's
changes in court. Many same-sex couples do not have the option to
"just" settle elsewhere as a family. <a href="http://kraion.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/im-poor-so-deport-my-wife/">Here's a couple already facing potential problems</a>
from those changes, whose wedding date was set ages ago for what now
turns out to be three weeks after the new rules come in. The media
fallout should things like this hit the court system? Will not be
pretty.<br />
<br />
Since when was income correlated with how real
love is, or how well anyone fits in? Being able to afford jumping
through the hoops does not make my marriage more genuine than anyone
else's. It just means I have the money and time to negotiate the new
rules. Most overseas partners will not be as lucky.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/03/11/vince-cable-conference-speech-in-full">Vince Cable had it right</a>
when he criticised "the timewasting bureaucracy which stops foreigners
working, studying in – or even visiting – Britain legitimately". The
changes May suggests don't do much to worry the people who are staying
illegally and cause a lot of stress for those who are on the level.<br />
<br />
May's
weasel words about the right to a family life not being "absolute" -
her talk about "balancing" this right against other rights - doesn't
hold water. How does a family settling here affect someone else's human
rights? I've scratched my head on this a while and can't come up with a
single sensible example. <br />
<br />
The spouses and family
members, and British people who love them, are paying the price for
political expediency and pandering. These are British families plain and
simple and the current government wants them out. Make no mistake,
natives: this government wishes you would all just go away.<br />
<br />
This
year I finally became a permanent resident of the UK after two years of
marriage and a whole lot more of living and working here. As we left
the Border Agency appointment my husband seemed a bit put out. "All they
wanted were my bank statements and your fingerprints," he mused. "They
didn't even ask me what colour your toothbrush was."Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-45197213175126245752012-06-08T08:39:00.002+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.365+00:00London 2012: Will the Olympics bring more prostitutes?It's a well-known rule in journalism that if the headline asks a
question, the answer is invariably "no". So to see the question above on
this blog will probably not surprise you.<br />
<br />
What might surprise you is to learn it was also the headline of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18174387">a prominently-featured article on the BBC website</a> yesterday. Of course, as is the current fad, when they say "prostitutes" they mean "trafficking", and vice-versa.<br />
<br />
It's
been long known that there is no connection between major international
sporting events such as the Olympics, the World Cup, and sex
trafficking. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the <a href="http://blogs.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2012/01/27/uncovering-the-myths-and-evidence-around-olympics-and-trafficking/">London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine</a>, who hosted a meeting on this very topic earlier this year. Take the word of the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women, who <a href="http://www.gaatw.org/publications/WhatstheCostofaRumour.11.15.2011.pdf">produced a must-read report (pdf)</a> on the actual effects of sports events on human trafficking. Go check out <a href="http://www.lauraagustin.com/european-womens-lobby-lies-about-sex-trafficking-prostitution-and-sporting-events">Laura Agustin's excellent summary</a> too.<br />
<br />
The facts:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• 2010 World Cup, South Africa: the Department of Justice
and Constitutional Development did not find a
single case of trafficking over the Olympics time period.<br />
<br />
• 2010 Olympics, Canada: no evidence of trafficking and sex workers reported a fall in business.<br />
<br />
• 2006 World Cup, Germany: 33 cases were
referred to the police for further investigation, out of which 5 cases
were confirmed to be trafficking (4 women and 1 man). No other cases
were found, despite the fact that the police conducted 71 brothel raids
(these raids did not identify the 5 confirmed trafficking cases, but did
lead to 10 deportations).<br />
<br />
• 2004 Olympics, Greece: When trafficking statistics were compared
for all of 2004 with all of 2003, there was an increase of 181
trafficking cases (which is a 90% increase). <b>According to both
the police and the International Organization for Migration, none of
these cases were linked to the Olympics.</b><br />
<br />
• Super Bowls in the USA in 2008-2011: Although law
enforcement increased, they made no additional arrests for sex
work-related offences during this time.</blockquote>
You might be wondering, and it is a good question, why there isn't sex
trafficking during these events. The answer is simple. Criminals
may be criminals, but organised crime does not exist for the purpose of
being evil. It exists to make loads of tax-free dosh. Does it make financial sense for
sex trafficking to occur at these events? With <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17987648">London rents skyrocketing</a>
around the venues, with the Home Office plans to <a href="http://www.metro.co.uk/news/899866-london-2012-olympics-four-hour-airport-queues-cant-be-ruled-out">tighten border security</a>, with the police already <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/19/met-police-sex-trafficking-investigations-criticised">well misinformed</a> about the magnitude
of the trafficking problem, you'd have to be mad to pursue this as a
business plan.<br />
<br />
There was perhaps a time, back in the 90s, when sex
trafficking in some parts of Eastern Europe might have netted you some
cash if you already had the distribution network, but it's <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2022987,00.html">not the case now</a>. Add to that a large native
population willing and legally able to exchange money for sex and you'd
be laughed out of <i>Dragon's Den</i> for even suggesting it as a goer. I've met a lot of dodgy characters in my day - drug dealers and worse besides -
and to a person they were not in it to lose money.
In many cases the black marketeers I know were actually better
businesspeople than anyone in legit trading. <br />
<br />
In spite
of all this, we are still treated - almost daily now in the run-up to
London 2012 - with the same old guff such as stories that sex
trafficking 'almost doubled' during the Athens Olympics.<br />
<br />
In
this particular case, 'almost doubled' means that the number of
reported incidents was 181, a 90% increase over the previous year. So
yes, they did 'almost double'.<br />
<br />
However if you too are
underwhelmed by that number, it's with good reason. Applying all the
usual disclaimers - any instance of forced sex
trafficking is abhorrent and should be prosecuted vigorously, this is an
argument about best use of police time, tax money and other resources -
what does the reported change from just-shy-of-100 people to 181
actually represent?<br />
<br />
Prostitution is legal and regulated in
Greece, however, not everyone works legally and not everyone registers,
because hello, do you want your name on the Greek government's hooker
list? Probably not. Anyway, estimates put the number at about 1,000
legal prostitutes and 20,000 illegal ones. Given that these numbers are
the ones put about by the US State Department which does not have a
great track record on accuracy, it's a little suspect. But let's say for
the sake of saying that represents some kind of starting ballpark
figure and probably even an overestimate. The 21,000 total gives us
about 1 in every 250 women in Greece working as a prostitute - actually a
realistic enough proportion for Europe.<br />
<br />
In the year
before the Athens Olympics, the reports of sex trafficking at 95
represented 0.45% of all prostitution in Greece. And after the Olympics?
0.86%. Less than 1% of prostitutes in Greece were trafficked both
before and after the Olympics. <br />
<br />
There is no particular
evidence, statistical or otherwise, to suggest that the fluctuation in
this rather small number was due to the Olympics <i>per se</i>. In fact
it is certainly within the bounds of what we call the 'law of small
numbers' which dictates that they can and do fluctuate in a way that
represents a high percentage of the values themselves, but given the
rarity of the events involved, this is expected and not necessarily
significant.<br />
<br />
Here's an example. Let's say in the year
2008, there was 1 death in all of Scotland from a vending machine
falling on someone. Then let's say a year later, in 2009, there were 2
such deaths. While it would be technically true to say that the number
of vending machine accidental deaths 'doubled', is this a fair
representation of the data? Is this a significant trend that is likely
to continue? (Which would mean that by 2032, there would be 8.38 million
such deaths in Scotland, or approximately... er, 150% of the
population). No, obviously not. The change from 1 to 2 in a given year
seems clearly attributable to chance. You'd be silly to conclude the
change from one small number to another "means" very much without a lot
of additional evidence.<br />
<br />
If you've read my paper on <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/47185652/Green-Paper-Camden-Lilith-rape-stats">the effects of lap dancing on sexual violence in London</a>, you'll already be aware of how over time these small numbers fluctuate wildly. For context, the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USDOS,,GRC,,4680d88c49,0.html">UNHCR</a>
gives the number of trafficked persons for Greece as 137 in 2005, 83 in
2006, 100 in 2007, 162 in 2008, 125 in 2009, 92 in 2010. <br />
<br />
Now
if these things had no knock-on effect, and if police resources and tax
money were infinite, then sure, why not go after human trafficking even
if it's only a very tiny proportion of all sex work in Greece - or in
the more immediate case, London? But alas, it is not a matter of
infinite police time and tax money. And it is definitely not a matter of
no knock-on effects.<br />
<br />
According to the London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, "Police crackdowns and brothel closures
tend to displace sex workers from
flats and saunas to less safe work venues, including the street, and
make them wary of all authorities so they are less likely to access
services or to report episodes of violence or crime to the police."<br />
<br />
Given
that the anti-sex lobby are so dead keen to keep claiming that all sex
workers are inevitably the victims of violent and sex crimes, that seems
like it's going to affect a hell of a lot more than a couple hundred
people, no? Why does a small number of people matter to them more than a
potentially far larger pool of people? Is it because that's where the
grant money and column inches are at?<br />
<br />
Not only is this
increased danger the outcome in previous incidents of trafficking panic,
it's happening right now in London. The <a href="http://www.moratorium2012.org/the-case-for-a-moratorium/">Moratorium 2012 campaign, organised by x:talk, confirms</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
Stop the Arrests Campaign is aware of ‘clean up efforts’ already
underway in London, particularly east London, in the run-up to the
Olympics ... Last December in Barking and Dagenham a violent gang carried out a
series of robberies on brothels at knife point. Sex workers were
deterred from pursuing the attacks after police threatened them with
prosecution. Thus many more were attacked and one woman was raped. </blockquote>
Got
that? Send the police after non-existent sex trafficking, and they end
up cracking down on non-trafficked sex workers. When that happens, <i>people in sex work are put in more danger.</i> No one is made safer by doing this. No one is saved. <a href="http://www.moratorium2012.org/the-case-for-a-moratorium/">Moratorium 2012 is calling on an end to the pointless and dangerous harassment. Please, sign the petition.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-40632035629648191182012-05-29T10:37:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.362+00:00Newquay Lap Dance Claims WrongVia <a href="http://www.lori-smith.co.uk/">Lori Smith</a>, I was alerted to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-18199223">this claim last week</a> by police in Cornwall that a lap dance venue license application should be rejected because such clubs 'might' cause sexual violence. As Lori <a href="http://news.bitchbuzz.com/strip-clubs-do-not-cause-sexual-violence.html">points out over on BitchBuzz</a>, this is territory I've covered before: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/47185652/Green-Paper-Camden-Lilith-rape-stats">the widely-publicised claims that lap dance clubs in Camden caused more rape turned out to be false.</a><br />
<br />
Of course the statistics for a specific area of London over a certain number of years are only that: specific to London and those years. It's dangerous to take a trend for one area, at one point in time, and generalise it to all places at all times. In order to claim that "Factor X causes Outcome Y" you need a lot more data. In the book I set out some comparisons, then, with London and other locations summarising what we know from the scientific literature, national statistics, and so on.<br />
<br />
<b>So what's interesting is that <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sex-Myth-Everything-Wrong/dp/0297866397/"><i>The Sex Myth</i></a> discusses not only the situation in cities like London but also specifically, as coincidence would have it, Newquay. </b><br />
<br />
Guess what? The link between lap dance and sexual violence that the police claim 'might' exist? Not only does it not exist, local media in the Southwest have already reported on this.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.newquayvoice.co.uk/news/5/article/2950/">In 2010, the <i>Newquay Voice</i> obtained Devon and Cornwall Constabulary’s figures of sexual assaults. </a>They found that the total number of recorded sexual assaults (including rapes) in and around Newquay peaked at 71 in 2005, the year <u>before</u> Newquay's first lap dance club opened. In 2006 however, following its opening, the number fell to 51.<br />
<br />
In 2007, when the town’s second lap dancing venue opened, the total number of recorded sexual assaults fell again to 41, then dropped to 27 in 2008 when a third lap dancing club opened. In 2009 the number rose slightly, but with a total of 33 offences, it is still less than half the total than before the clubs appeared.<br />
<br />
Using publically available population data, I took these figures and calculated the incidence rate (since population varies from year to year as crime stats do, if you don't calculate a rate, the numbers are not very informative). Here are the incidence rate calculations using midyear population levels for the council of Restormel where Newquay is located:
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gvzl6YnLJvI/TZXIXjcmCSI/AAAAAAAAAFg/yRV8uEwX64g/s1600/Untitled4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gvzl6YnLJvI/TZXIXjcmCSI/AAAAAAAAAFg/yRV8uEwX64g/s320/Untitled4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>Looking at these numbers, you'd be tempted to think that lap dancing actually <i>reduces</i> sexual assault. In other words the opposite of what the BBC article claims.</b><br />
<br />
This like the Camden data is only a single example. Making such a broad conclusion would be rash – to conclusively demonstrate that an increase in lap dancing corresponds with a decrease in rape and sexual assault, there would have to <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326926CLP0602_4">many more such results</a>, over longer time periods, <a href="http://jpl.sagepub.com/content/20/2/116.abstract">from many places</a>. What it does do is reinforce the same thing the statistics from Camden show: <b>lap dancing does not correlate with higher occurrence of rape.</b> And if there is no rise in rape, then it is impossible to claim that lap dancing “causes” rape.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the myth that sex work causes violence has become so deeply embedded in media and criminology storytelling that one only needs to raise that dread spectre for the city council to take such claims seriously. In spite of the fact that the real data are easy to find and analyse, and the local papers in Cornwall have already suggested the opposite to what the police claim is true, the BBC and other media outlets don't seem to notice or care.<br />
<br />
In the end it looks as if the council rejected the application. St Austell and Cornwall MP Stephen Gilbert <a href="https://twitter.com/stephen_gilbert/status/206038725136879619">tweeted</a> that this was "a victory for people power". And indeed if the rejection was made because the majority of residents decided they did not want it, then so be it. Nothing wrong with not liking things for the simple reason that you don't like them.<br />
<br />
But consider that the information put about by police and reported by the BBC is misleading and poorly researched. What if, instead of the council's main criterion being what residents preferred, the decision was made because of police and media scaring people with potential crimes that turn out <i>not to be true at all?</i> I don't know about the good folks of Cornwall, but where I come from, that's called lying.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-105274695043746022012-05-10T08:00:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.342+00:00How To Blog Anonymously (and how not to)Further to <a href="http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/on-anonymity-and-outing.html">yesterday's post</a>, this is a list of thoughts prompted by a request from <a href="http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/2009/11/16/me-and-belle-de-jour-could-it-be-brooke/">Linkmachinego</a> on the topic of being an anonymous writer and blogger. Maybe not exactly a how-to (since the outcome is not guaranteed) as a post on things I did, things I should have done, and things I learned.<br /><br />It's not up to me to decide if you "deserve" to be anonymous. My feeling is, if you're starting out as a writer and do not yet feel comfortable writing under your own name, that is your business and not mine. I also think sex workers should consider starting from a position of anonymity and decide later if they want to be out, please don't be naive. Statistics I made up right now show 99 out of 100 people who claim 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' are talking out of their arses.<br /><br />The items in the list fall into three general categories: internet-based, legal and real-world tips, and interpersonal. Many straddle more than one of these categories. All three are important.<br /><br />This is written for a general audience because most people who blog now do not have extensive technical knowledge, they just want to write and be read. That's a good thing by the way. If you already know all of this, then great, but many people won't. Don't be sneery about their lack of prior knowledge. Bringing everyone up to speed on the technology is not the goal: clear steps you can use to help protect your identity from being discovered are.<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>Disclaimer:</b></u> I'm no longer anonymous so these steps are clearly not airtight. Also there are other sources of information on the Web, some of which are more comprehensive and more current than my advice. I accept no responsibility for any outcome of following this advice. Please don't use it to do illegal or highly sensitive things. Also please don't use pseudonyms to be a dick. </span></blockquote>This is also a work in progress. As I remember things or particular details, I'll amend this post. If you have suggestions of things that should be added, <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/bmagnanti">let me know</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>1. Don't use Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail et al. for your mail.</u></span><br /><br />You will need an email address to do things like register for blog accounts, Facebook, Twitter, and more. This email will have to be something entirely separate from your "real" email addresses. There are a lot of free options out there, but be aware that sending an email from many of them also sends information in the headers that could help identify you.<br /><br />When I started blogging, I set up an email address for the blog with Hotmail. Don't do this. Someone quickly pointed out the headers revealed where I worked (a very large place with lots of people and even more computers, but still more information than I was comfortable with). They suggested I use <a href="https://www.hushmail.com/">Hushmail</a> instead, which I still use. Hushmail has a free option (though the inbox allocation is modest), strips out headers, and worked for me.<br /><br />A caveat with this: if you are, say, a sex worker working in a place where that is not legal and using Hushmail, you could be vulnerable to them handing over your details to a third party investigating crimes. If you're handling information some governments might consider embarrassing or sensitive, same. Google some alternatives: you're looking for something <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=secure+encrypted+email">secure and encrypted</a>.<br /><br />There are a few common-sense tips you can follow to make it even safer. If you have to bring people you know in real life in on the secret, don't use this email address for communicating with them even if only about matters related to your secret (and don't use your existing addresses for that either). Example: I have one address for press and general interactions, one for things related to my accountant and money, and one for communicating with my agent, publisher, and solicitor. I've also closed and opened new accounts over the years when it seems "too many" people are getting hold of a particular address. Use different passwords for each, don't make these passwords related to your personal information, and so on.<br /><br />I unwisely left the Hotmail address going, and while I did not use it to send mail, I continued to read things that arrived there. That led to <a href="http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/and-now-for-something-completely.html">this failed attempt by the <i>Sunday Times</i> to out me</a>. It was an easily dodged attempt but something I would have preferred to avoid.<br /><br />People can and do register internet domains while staying anonymous but I never did. Some people registered domains for me (people I didn't know in person). This led to a couple of instances of them receiving harassment when the press suspected they were me. In particular <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ian-Shircore/e/B005DL2DME">Ian Shircore</a> got a bit of unwanted attention this way. <br /><br />Because all I was ever doing was a straight-up blog, not having a registered domain that I had control over was fine. Your needs may be different. I am not a good source for advice on how to do that. But just in case you might be thinking "who would bother looking there?" read about <a href="http://exposeabro-alexa.blogspot.co.uk/">how faux escort Alexa DiCarlo</a> was unmasked. This is what happens when you don't cover your tracks.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>2. Don't use a home internet connection, work internet connection, etc.</u></span><br /><br />Email won't be the only way you might want to communicate with people. You may also want to leave comments on other blogs and so forth. Doing this and other ways of using the Web potentially exposes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address">your IP address</a>, which could be unique and be used to locate you.<br /><br />Even if you don't leave comments just visiting a site can leave traces behind. <a href="http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2012/04/dennis-rice-tabloid-troll/">Tim Ireland recently used a simple method</a> to confirm his suspicion of who the "Tabloid Troll" twitter account belonged to. By comparing the IP address of someone who clicked on to a link going to the Bloggerheads site with the IP address of an email Dennis Rice sent, a link was made. If you go to the trouble of not using your own connection, also make sure you're not using the same connection for different identities just minutes apart. Don't mix the streams.<br /><br />The timing of everything as it happened was key to why the papers did not immediately find out who I was. The <a href="http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.co.uk/">old blog</a> started in 2003, when most press still had to explain to their audience what a blog actually was. It took a while for people to notice the writing, so the mistakes I made early on (blogging from home and work, using Hotmail) had long been corrected by the time the press became interested.<br /><br />Today, no writer who aims to stay anonymous should ever assume a grace period like that. It also helped that once the press did become interested, they were so convinced not only that Belle was not really a hooker but also that she was one of their own - a previously published author or even journalist - that they never looked in the right place. If they'd just gone to a London blogmeet and asked a few questions about who had pissed off a lot of people and was fairly promiscuous, they'd have had a plausible shortlist in minutes.<br /><br />After I moved from Kilburn to Putney, I was no longer using a home internet connection - something I should have done right from the beginning. I started to use internet cafes for posting and other activities as Belle. This offers some security... but be wary of using these places too often if there is a reason to think someone is actively looking for you. It's not perfect.<br /><br />Also be wary if you are using a laptop or other machine provided by your workplace, or use your own laptop to log in to work servers ("work remotely"). I've not been in that situation and am not in any way an expert on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network">VPNs</a>, but you may want to <a href="http://ask.metafilter.com/103175/VPN-and-Privacy-Help-me-understand">start reading about it here</a> and <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vpn+privacy">do some googling</a> for starters. As a general principle, it's probably wise not to do anything on a work laptop that could get you fired, and don't do anything that could get you fired while also connected to work remotely on your own machine.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>3. There is software available that can mask your IP address. There are helpful add-ons that can block tracking software.</u></span><br /><br />I didn't use this when I was anonymous, but if I was starting as an anonymous blogger now, I would <a href="https://www.torproject.org/">download Tor</a> and browse the Web and check email through their tools.<br /><br />If you do use Tor or other software to mask your IP address, don't then go on tweeting about where your IP address is coming from today! I've seen people do this. Discretion fail.<br /><br />I also <a href="http://www.ghostery.com/">use Ghostery</a> now to block certain tracking scripts from web pages. You will want to look into something similar. Also useful are <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/">Adblocker</a>, pop-up blockers, things like that. They are simple to download and use and you might like to use them anyway even if you're not an anonymous blogger. A lot of sites track your movements and you clearly don't want that.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>4. Take the usual at-home precautions.</u></span><br /><br />Is your computer password-protected with a password only you know? Do you clear your browser history regularly? Use different passwords for different accounts? Threats to anonymity can come from people close to you. Log out of your blog and email accounts when you're finished using them, every time. Have a secure and remote backup of your writing. Buy a shredder and use it. Standard stuff.<br /><br />Another thing I would do is install a<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystroke_logging"> keystroke logger</a> on your own machine. By doing this I found out in 2004 that someone close to me was spying on me when they were left alone with my computer. In retrospect what I did about it was not the right approach. See also item 7.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>5. Be careful what you post. </u></span><br /><br />Are you posting photos? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exif">Exif data</a> can tell people, among other things, where and when a picture was taken, what it was taken with, and more. I never had call to use it because I never posted photos or sound, but am told there are loads of tools that can wipe this Exif data from your pictures (<a href="http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/%7Ephil/exiftool/">here's one</a>).<br /><br />The content of what you post can be a giveaway as well. Are you linking to people you know in real life? Are you making in-jokes or references to things only a small group of people will know about? Don't do that.<br /><br />If possible, cover your tracks. Do you have a previous blog under a known name? Are you a contributor to forums where your preferred content and writing style are well-known? Can you edit or delete these things? Good, do that.<br /><br />Personally, I did not delete everything. Partly this was because the world of British weblogging was so small at the time - a few hundred popular users, maybe a couple thousand people blogging tops? - that I thought the sudden disappearance of my old blog coinciding with the appearance of an unrelated new one might be too much of a coincidence. But I did let the old site go quiet for a bit before deleting it, and edited archived entries.<br /><br />Keep in mind however that <a href="http://archive.org/web/web.php">The Wayback Machine</a> means everything you have written on the web that has been indexed still exists. And it's searchable. Someone who already has half an idea where to start looking for you won't have too much trouble finding your writing history. (<u>UPDATE</u>: someone alerted me that it's possible to <a href="http://faq.web.archive.org/how-can-i-have-my-site-removed-from-the-wayback-machine/">get your own sites off Wayback by altering the robots.txt file</a> - and even prevent them appearing there in the first place - and to <a href="http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/aps/removal-policy.html">make a formal request for removal using reasons listed here</a>. This does not seem to apply to sites you personally have no control over unless copyright issues are involved.) If you can put one more step between them and you... do it.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>6. Resist temptation to let too many people in.</u></span><br /><br />If your writing goes well, people may want to meet you. They could want to buy you drinks, give you free tickets to an opening. Don't say yes. While most people are honest in their intentions, some are not. And even the ones who are may not have taken the security you have to keep your details safe. Remember, no one is as interested in protecting your anonymity as you will be.<br /><br />Friends and family were almost all unaware of my secret - both the sex work and the writing. Even my best friend (A4 from the books) didn't know. <br /><br />I met very few people "as" Belle. There were some who had to meet me: agent, accountant, editor. I never went to the Orion offices until after my identity became known. I met Billie Piper, Lucy Prebble, and a couple of writers during the pre-production of <i>Secret Diary</i> at someone's house, but met almost no one else involved with the show. <a href="http://www.screenworks.ie/">Paul Duane</a> and <a href="http://www.womensirishnetwork.com/about-us/founder-members/avril-mcrory/">Avril MacRory</a> met me and were absolutely discreet. I went to the agent's office a few times but never made an appointment as Belle or in my real name. Most of the staff there had no idea who I was. Of these people who did meet me almost none knew my real name, where I lived, where I was from, my occupation. Only one (the accountant) knew all of that - explained below under point 9. And if I could have gotten away with him never seeing a copy of my passport, I damn well would have done.<br /><br />The idea was that if people don't know anything they can't inadvertently give it away. I know that all of the people listed above were absolutely trustworthy. I still didn't tell them anything a journalist would have considered useful.<br /><br />When I started blogging someone once commented that my blog was a "missed opportunity" because it didn't link to an agency website or any way of booking my services. Well, duh. I didn't want clients to meet me through the blog! If you are a sex worker who wants to preserve a level of pseudonymity <u>and</u> link your public profile to your work, <a href="http://www.theinternetescortshandbook.com/">Amanda Brooks</a> has the advice you need. Not me.<br /><br />Other sources like <a href="http://blog.invisible-privacy.com/">JJ Luna</a> write about how to do things like get and use credit cards not tied to your name and address. I've heard <a href="https://www.entropay.com/">Entropay</a> offer 'virtual' credit cards that are not tied to your credit history, although they can't be used with any system that requires address verification. This could be useful even for people who are not involved in sex work.<br /><br />Resisting temptation sometimes means turning down something you'd really like to do. The short-term gain of giving up details for a writing prize or some immediate work may not be worth the long-term loss of privacy. I heard about one formerly anonymous blogger who was outed after giving their full name and address to a journalist who asked for it when they entered a competition. File under: how not to stay anonymous.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>7. Trust your intuition.</u></span><br /><br />I have to be careful what I say here. In short, my identity became known to a tabloid paper and someone whom I had good reason not to trust (see item 4) gave them a lot of information about me. <br /><br />When your intuition tells you not to trust someone, LISTEN TO IT. The best security in the world fails if someone props open a door, leaves a letter on the table, or mentally overrides the concern that someone who betrayed you before could do so again. People you don't trust should be ejected from your life firmly and without compromise. A "let them down easy" approach only prolongs any revenge they might carry out and probably makes it worse. The irony is that as a call girl I relied on intuition and having strong personal boundaries all the time... but failed to carry that ability over into my private life. If there is one thing in my life I regret, the failure to act on my intuition is it. <br /><br />As an aside if you have not read <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Gift-Fear-Survival-Violence/dp/0747538352/">The Gift of Fear</a> already, get it and read it.<br /><br />See also point 9: if and when you need people to help you keep the secret don't make it people already involved in your private life. Relationships can cloud good judgement in business decisions.<br /><br />There is a very droll saying "Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead." It's not wrong. I know, I know. Paranoid. Hard not to be when journos a few years later are digging through the rubbish of folks who met you exactly once when you were sixteen. Them's the breaks.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>8. Consider the consequences of success.</u></span><br /><br />If you find yourself being offered book deals or similar, think it through. Simply by publishing anonymously you will become a target. Some people assume all anonymous writers "want" to be found, and the media in particular will jump through some very interesting hurdles to "prove" anything they write about you is in the public interest.<br /><br />In particular, if you are a sex worker, and especially if you are a sex worker who is visible/bookable through your site, please give careful consideration to moving out of that sphere. Even where sex for money is legal it is still a very stigmatised activity. There are a number of people who do not seem to have realised this, and the loss of a career when they left the "sex-pos" bubble was probably something of a shock. I'm not saying don't do it - but please think long and hard about the potential this has to change your life and whether you are fully prepared to be identified this way forever. For every <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Cody">Diablo Cody</a> there are probably dozens of <a href="http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/02/melissa_petro_g.php">Melissa Petros</a>. For every Melissa Petro there are probably hundreds more people with a sex industry past who get quietly fired and we don't ever hear from them.<br /><br />If I knew going in to the first book deal what would happen, I probably would have said no. I'm glad I didn't by the way - but realistically, my life was stressful enough at that point and I did not fully understand what publishing would add to that. Not many bloggers had mainstream books at that point (arguably none in the UK) so I didn't have anyone else's experience to rely on. I really had no idea about what was going to happen. The things people wrote about me then were mainly untrue and usually horrendous. Not a lot has changed even now. I'd be lying if I said that didn't have an emotional effect.<br /><br />Writing anonymously and being outed has happened often enough that people going into it should consider the consequences. I'm not saying don't do it if you risk something, but be honest with yourself about the worst possible outcome and whether you would be okay with that.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>9. Enlist professional help to get paid and sign contracts.</u></span><br /><br />Having decided to write a book, I needed an agent. The irony of being anonymous was that while I let as few people in on it as possible, at some point I was going to have to take a leap of faith and let in more. <a href="http://www.mil-millington.com/">Mil Millington</a> emailed me to recommend <a href="http://www.convilleandwalsh.com/">Patrick Walsh</a>, saying he was one of the few people in London who can be trusted. Mil was right.<br /><br />Patrick put me on to <a href="http://www.brebners.com/staff-directory/michael-burton">my accountant</a> (who had experience of clients with, shall we say, unusual sources of income). From there we cooked up a plan so that contracts could be signed without my name ever gracing a piece of paper. Asking someone to keep a secret when there's a paper trail sounds like it should be possible but rarely is. Don't kid yourself, there is no such thing as a unbreakable confidentiality agreement. Asking journalists and reviewers to sign one about your book is like waving a red rag to a bull. What we needed was a few buffers between me and the press.<br /><br />With Patrick and Michael acting as directors, a company was set up - Bizrealm. I was not on the paperwork as a director so my name never went on file with Companies House. Rather, with the others acting as directors, signing necessary paperwork, etc., Patrick held a share in trust for me off of which dividends were drawn and this is how I got paid. I may have got some of these details wrong, by the way - keep in mind, I don't deal with Bizrealm's day-to-day at all.<br /><br />There are drawbacks to doing things this way: you pay for someone's time, in this case the accountant, to create and administer the company. You can not avoid tax and lots of it. (Granted, drawing dividends is more tax-efficient, but still.) <u>You have to trust a couple of people ABSOLUTELY.</u> I'd underline this a thousand times if I could. Michael for instance is the one person who always knew, and continues to know, everything about my financial and personal affairs. Even Patrick doesn't know everything.<br /><br />There are benefits though, as well. Because the money stays mainly in the company and is not paid to me, it gets eked out over time, making tax bills manageable, investment more constant, and keeping me from the temptation to go mad and spend it.<br /><br />I can't stress enough that you might trust your friends and family to the ends of the earth, but they should not be the people who do this for you. Firstly, because they can be traced to you (they know you in a non-professional way). Secondly, because this is a very stressful setup and you need the people handling it to be on the ball. As great as friends and family are that is probably not the kind of stress you want to add to your relationship. I have heard far too many stories of sex workers and others being betrayed by ex-partners who knew the details of their business dealings to ever think that's a good idea.<br /><br />So how do you know you can trust these people? We've all heard stories of musicians and other artists getting ripped off by management, right? All I can say is instinct. It would not have been in Patrick's interest to grass me, since as my agent he took a portion of my earnings anyway, and therefore had financial as well as personal interest in protecting that. If he betrayed me he would also have suffered a loss of reputation that potentially outweighed any gain. Also, as most people who know him will agree, he's a really nice and sane human being. Same with Michael.<br /><br />If this setup sounds weirdly paranoid, let me assure you that journalists absolutely did go to Michael's office and ask to see the Bizrealm paperwork, and Patrick absolutely did have people going through his bins, trying to infiltrate his office as interns, and so on. Without the protection of being a silent partner in the company those attempts to uncover me might have worked.<br /><br />I communicate with some writers and would-be writers who do not seem to have agents. If you are serious about writing, and if you are serious about staying anonymous, get an agent. Shop around, follow your instinct, and make sure it's someone you can trust. Don't be afraid to dump an agent, lawyer, or anyone else if you don't trust them utterly. They're professionals and shouldn't take it personally.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>10. Don't break the (tax) law.</u></span><br /><br />Journalists being interested in your identity is one thing. What you really don't want is the police or worse, the tax man, after you. Pay your taxes and try not to break the law if it can be helped. If you're a sex worker blogging about it, get an accountant who has worked with sex workers before - this is applicable even if you live somewhere sex work is not strictly legal. Remember, Al Capone went down for tax evasion. Don't be like Al. If you are a non-sex-work blogger who is earning money from clickthroughs and affiliates on your site, declare this income.<br /><br />In summer 2010 the HMRC started a serious fraud investigation of me. It has been almost two years and is only just wrapping up, with the Revenue finally satisfied that not only did I declare (and possibly overdeclare) my income as a call girl, but that there were no other sources of income hidden from them. They have turned my life and financial history upside down to discover next to nothing new about me. This has been an expensive and tedious process. I can't even imagine what it would have been like had I not filed the relevant forms, paid the appropriate taxes, and most of all had an accountant to deal with them!<br /><br />Bottom line, you may be smart - I'm pretty good with numbers myself - but people whose job it is to know about tax law, negotiating contracts, and so on will be better at that than you are. Let them do it. They are worth every penny.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>11. Do interviews with care.</u></span><br /><br />Early interviews were all conducted one of two ways: over email (encrypted) or over an IRC chatroom from an anonymising server (<a href="http://webchat.xs4all.nl/">I used xs4all</a>). This was not ideal from their point of view, and I had to coach a lot of people in IRC which most of them had never heard of. But again, it's worth it, since no one in the press will be as interested in protecting your identity as you are. I hope it goes without saying, don't give out your phone number.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u>12. Know when <i><span class="st">les jeux <i>sont faits</i></span></i>.</u></span><br /><br />In November 2009 - 6 years after I first started blogging anonymously - my identity was revealed. <br /><br />As has been documented elsewhere, I had <a href="http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/2009/11/16/me-and-belle-de-jour-could-it-be-brooke/">a few heads-ups that something was coming</a>, that it was not going to be nice, and that it was not going to go away. We did what we could to put off the inevitable but it became clear I only had one of two choices: let the <i>Mail on Sunday</i> have first crack at running their sordid little tales, or pre-empt them. <br /><br />While going to the <i>Sunday Times</i> - the same paper that had forcibly outed <a href="http://www.zoemargolis.co.uk/">Zoe Margolis</a> a few years earlier, tried to get my details through that old Hotmail address, and incorrectly fingered Sarah Champion as me - was perhaps not the most sensitive choice, it was for me the right move. Patrick recommended that we contact an interviewer who had not been a Belle-believer: if things were going to be hard, best get that out of the way up front.<br /><br /><br /><br />So that is that. It's a bit odd how quickly things have changed. When I started blogging I little imagined I would be writing books, much less something like this. Being a kind of elder statesman of blogging (or cantankerous old grump if you prefer) is not an entirely comfortable position and one that is still new to me. But it is also interesting to note how little has changed: things that worked in the early 2000s have value today. The field expanded rapidly but the technology has not yet changed all that much.<br /><br />As before, these ideas do not constitute a foolproof way to protect your identity. All writers - whether writing under their own names or not - should be aware of the risks they may incur by hitting 'publish'. I hope this post at least goes some way to making people think about how they might be identified, and starts them on a path of taking necessary (and in many cases straightforward) precautions, should they choose to be anonymous.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-90182349017584901912012-05-08T06:00:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:26:10.183+00:00The Truth About JulieA number of people have asked if I would respond to the piece Julie Bindel wrote about <i>The Sex Myth</i> in the Grauniad. Clearly as she took the opportunity to let rip, so too must I?<br />
<br />
Maybe, maybe not. Because the truth about Julie Bindel is that she is - shock, horror - actually decent company. You would totally have a drink with her as long as you stayed off the topics of sex work, trafficking, porn, trans issues, gay marriage and... well you get the idea. There are definitely people with whom my politics are more closely aligned whose company I have enjoyed a lot less.<br />
<br />
But in the interest of "setting the record straight" (as if such a thing exists) here are my notes on the encounter:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
- I approached Julie to ask if she wanted to interview me, in part because I figured she would write about the book anyway. Since I criticise her writing extensively in <i>The Sex Myth</i> it seemed fair to give her a face-to-face.<br />
<br />
- She's prettier in person than in her photos. Not that that's relevant, or important, but she is.<br />
<br />
- We met three times that week: once for lunch, once for the photos, and again on Sky news. The first words out of her mouth on the air at Sky were "As much as I hate to say this I agree with Brooke." I did a little mental air-punch at that one. (It was also approximately the first thing Claire Perry said when we were on <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9714000/9714780.stm">the Today programme</a>. File under: win.) <br />
<br />
- The "offal", by the way, was calf's liver and very good it was too. Though I did wish I'd ordered the lamb sweetbreads special instead.<br />
<br />
- The dessert was an Eccles cake with cheddar cheese ice cream. Hand on heart, I loved the ice cream. The Eccles cake was not nice. If you have occasion to go to The Gilbert Scott at St Pancras, ask them for a bowl of that ice cream.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- She thought my criticism of <a href="http://www.huntalternatives.org/">Swanee Hunt</a> mentioning her father's political background a bit out of line. My reply to that is if Hunt's still trading on his name and his connections, then she has to expect that. Her extreme privilege (yes, even in supposedly classless America; yes, even when your work is deemed charitable) is a huge hurdle to overcome. Eye of the needle and all that jazz.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
- Julie's a <a href="http://www.viz.co.uk/">big fan of <i>Viz</i></a>, especially Eight Ace and Sid the Sexist. Who knew? Also she liked Fat Slags better when it was shorter whereas I prefer the longer ones.<br />
<br />
- In principle we both agree that sex workers themselves should not be criminalised. After that our thoughts on sex work are mainly opposed. When I put it to her at lunch that the much-talked-about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden">"Swedish model"</a> and Icelandic approaches could never work in the UK, she agreed.<br />
<br />
- Julie's piece was filed after we met for lunch on the 17th April, I believe before we had photos on the 20th. The final edits to the book were made on the 25th and approved on the 27th. First edition came off the presses May 1st. (Yes, we cut it fine.) This unfortunately means some of the things from her piece may not be the book.* I'm not sure if it is the writer's or the editor's responsibility to check reviews against the published copy, but someone should have done.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
- We both think the <i>Grauniad</i> will cease to exist in printed form soon. Probably most people think that though, so no news there. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- She seemed concerned that I think feminists of her stripe/generation are against sex, and took pains to assure me plenty of sex was going down among the redfems in the 70s and 80s. I said "I bloody well hope so," because what would be the point of rejecting the model of virgin-to-wife-to-mother only to not get laid? However, in my experience, the lesbian-identified feminists when I was at uni in the very early 90s were not so free and easy with the sexual favours. Not that I'm bitter, mind. It wasn't a great place or time to be a woman who slept with both women and men.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
- She think my husband looks like a model. As far as independent assessments of attractiveness go, that's about as airtight as they come.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- Her claim that I was 'roundly criticised' by Catherine Hakim for my educational background is a misrepresentation of Hakim's review; <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/15/sex-myth-wrong-brooke-magnanti-review">you can read it here</a>. My education is in anthropology, maths, forensic science and epidemiology. I've also worked in chemoinformatics and child health research (mainly cancer). If anyone thinks that makes me unqualified to comment on academic research... with all due respect, check yo self. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
- The last thing I said to her, when we were leaving Sky news: "Civilised is the new uncivilised." </blockquote>
So there it is. No particular desire or need to fetch a hatchet, because who benefits? (It might also help that I have professional experience of finding common ground with just about anyone for two hours as long as they're buying.) The Grauniad is a known quantity and the "pity" angle of her article frankly unbelievable... you don't bother tearing down someone if you feel actual pity for them. You might even wonder why I bothered. To which I say: lunch? On their dime? Admit it, you so would. And so I did.<br />
<br />
It's a pity her piece was, in the end, so misleading. I was told it
would be presented as a conversation; it's a rant. She accuses me of
accusing her of taking money from the far right: evidence for this claim
is undisputed, and considering the libel threats that Eaves For Women
put on the book the day of its release, thus delaying its actual
release by weeks while lawyers hemmed and hawed, you would have thought
she'd feel free to take it to court if I was actually wrong.<br />
<br />
The nuisance suit was dropped very quickly, of course; its fantastical claims included that I had somehow "hacked" the Eaves mainframe... by reporting details of a paper they presented at an international conference, and posted online... well, I guess it got the job done, from their point of view. Ugly but effective.<br />
<br />
Helen
Lewis, as well, gave a very misleading review. She blasts me for
praising a study from Keele University, missing the entire point of why
it was praised: because even given the selective inclusion of only a
certain kind of sex worker, the results are still positive - which sets
it apart from other, negatively skewed, studies. Point well and truly
missed. She seems like a smart girl, so I can only imagine she went in
with a particular result in mind: namely, punishing me for not saying yes to
an interview with her. Hey, I'd already booked Juile... one in-person assassination is enough for my well-being, thanks! Usually reviewers are expected to rise
above such petty machinations. (That her review contained some exact wording found in the Eaves libel threat is, I am sure, a complete coincidence.)<br />
<br />
But
as I say, no hard feelings. They have a point of view that includes
taking no prisoners. Apt, I suppose, for a style of feminism that
considers the police to be adequate protectors of sex worker safety.
Obviously it's a view I disagree with. I'm sure they're both perfectly lovely if you don't disagree with anything they say, ever.
But the tenor of so-called debate in this country lately dictates that
all differences must be fought to the last. A shame for fact finding,
and missing the point of the book.<br />
Right now you're probably thinking I should go to the cinema with Tanya Gold and discover maybe she's not as bad as all that? Hey now, let's not get crazy. <br />
<br />
<u>tl;dr - I was expecting a snarling nemesis, what I got was a lesbian Michael Winner... hugely offensive, yet surprisingly charming, bon viveur.</u><br />
<br />
Believe it or not <i>The Sex Myth</i> is not only about columnists, or trafficking, or even feminism: those are only a small part. Most reviews have barely touched on any of the other chapters. It also discusses the medicalisation of female desire and the denial of women's appreciation for erotica, for example. It examines the criticisms of "sex addiction" as a disease. It champions under-reported sexualisation research that is more interested in representing real families than in reflecting a political agenda. It includes citations of all referenced material so you can read them and decide for yourself. My aim is not to force people and certainly not Julie Bindel to think the way I do: it's to open up the discussion in ways we simply <i>are not doing</i> around these topics. It's a call for less panic, not more.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sex-Myth-Everything-Wrong/dp/0297866397">Go get it. Read it.</a> Make up your own mind.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: small;">* [Update: Yes, I have checked this against the email record between me, my editor, and the Orion legal bods; and yes, I have run this blog past them and got the thumbs-up. Proceed to question it at your own risk.]</span></i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-24106796993867405652012-04-27T17:22:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:14:20.511+00:00The Numbers on the GamePerhaps one of the biggest "sex myths" making the rounds these days is to what extent experiences like mine are (or are not, as it is claimed) representative of sex workers in general. <P>(Of course, I personally make no claim to be an "average" sex worker and certainly not to speak for prostitution as a whole. I would love to see more and more voices claim the title of sex worker publically so we can demonstrate once and for all what a diverse group it is.) <P>But when it comes to studies and statistics, this is an issue that comes up a lot. Addressing the question of how representative a sample of people is of a population in general is one of the cornerstones of good study design. It's one of those things that, if wrong at the start of a research project, is a devil to try to correct in retrospect. In many cases it's impossible. <P><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sex-Myth-Everything-Wrong/dp/0297866397"><i>The Sex Myth</i> discusses at length</a> how this affects virtually all studies relating to prostitution. A large number of researchers assume street-based sex workers to be the majority of sex workers, which has the tendency to skew (and sometimes fully invalidate) their results. Because they often recruit research subjects via outreach or addiction programs, their sample is necessarily biased towards sex workers whose lives are chaotic. <P>Streetwalkers may often be the most visible face of sex work but it's far from the whole story. <P>So how representative is the cliche of the drug-addicted streetwalker leaning into a punter's car anyway? This is in some ways difficult to answer. But I highly suggest if you are interested in the topic to check out Maggie McNeill's excellent summary of what we do know. She makes the case far more succinctly that I ever could <a href="http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/streetwalkers/">here</a>, <a href="http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/numerology/">here</a> and <a href="http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/handy-figures/">here</a>. Go on and read those then come back when you're done. <P><blockquote><b>In general, the data seem to agree that in most Western countries the percentage of sex workers who are streetwalkers is about 15%.</b> </blockquote><P>That's an aggregate estimate from a number of studies in a number of countries, most of which put the streetwalker population at between 5% and 20% of prostitutes. Of the remaining percentage, the splits of incall/managed vs outcall/escort vary by location and factors unique to those places. To see an example of what this looks like, you can <a href="http://bit.ly/IjZG9E">check out the New Zealand sex worker breakdown here</a> (scroll down for tables). <P>What this tells us is that studies recruiting their subjects only from street-based sex workers, and in addition doing so through crisis centre referrals, can never claim to represent sex workers at large. That would be about as ridiculous as reading my previous books and using that "data" to conclude all sex workers love pies and pints. They can at best be said to be a study of <i>those people at that time</i> which makes the results non-generalisable. <P>Promising studies do exist which try to address the problem of imbalance of numbers in counting sex workers. While it's hard to generalise 'sex work' from what is necessarily a very diverse group, I found this study from Suzanne Jenkins at Keele [<a href="http://www.sexworker.at/phpBB2/download.php?id=479">pdf</a>] to be a useful example of how we can begin to build a better sex worker survey. Note for example that it includes male and trans sex workers: a lot of studies ignore these groups altogether. While the mainstream heterosexual female sex worker is still in the majority, writing gender and sex diversity out of the story only serves to promote a narrow ideological viewpoint that paints all sex work as abuse of women by men. A viewpoint which is not true. <P>As you may know a bugbear of mine is the tendency to present scare stats about sex workers in isolation and not to involve a control group. I go on about lack of controls in all kinds of studies, not just sex worker ones, in detail in <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sex-Myth-Everything-Wrong/dp/0297866397"><i>The Sex Myth</i> if you would like to read more.</a> So say, to take a non-prostitution example, you heard a statistic that claimed the majority of strippers got unwanted attention from clients. Presented without context it sounds impressive, but it is meaningless. <P>What would be a control group here? People with similar working hours in licensed establishments might be one - barmaids at non-strip clubs for example. Or people of a similar age in service industry professions involving tipping - like waitresses. Have a think: do you know any front-of-house people in food service who haven't had difficult and at times physically aggressive customers? I don't. Any study that doesn't even address the possibility that their results come from the service industry and alcohol rather than sex work <i>per se</i> has not fully examined the evidence in a way that should be taken seriously. <P>When it comes to population statistics like these getting control groups are hard. I get it. But that is, as we say where I come from, hard cheese. So there's no perfect control like a group of homeless, drug-addicted nuns somewhere we can use to see whether it's the sex that drives people to despair or not. But you still have to make an effort. And you recruit and match your controls up front, not after the fact. <P>Finally there is the matter of where data originates. As a scientist I know that it is damned difficult, if not impossible, to do work that is totally free of any external conflict of interest or internal hope for a particular outcome. But there are ways we can help sieve the believable from the unbelievable: if a study comes from a source with a strong ideology and a financial interest in promoting this stance it is right to question whether that affects both study design and interpretation of results. These generally fall into the category <a href="http://www.lauraagustin.com/tag/rescue-industry">Laura Agustin has dubbed "the Rescue Industry".</a><P>There are a large number of other common problems with these studies <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sex-Myth-Everything-Wrong/dp/0297866397">flagged up in <i>The Sex Myth</i>.</a> Bad estimation methods, lack of controls, lack of trends, avoiding peer review... and many more. <P>This is not to say that academic publishing is always right and self-publishing or internal reports always wrong. But there is a significant grain of salt we should take when the people who present themselves as experts on the topic of sex workers are from the same stable of folks better at generating press coverage than at <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/47185652/Green-Paper-Camden-Lilith-rape-stats">reporting their mistakes</a>. <P>Do I expect saying these things will please everyone? No, not at all. There are a lot of people with a big investment in keeping the myths about what sex work is supposedly "really" like alive. As well, there are people whose opposition to sex work isn't affected by the many well-adjusted people who do it anyway. It's also fair to say my particular bias is to prefer the quantitative over the qualitative: for as "Uncle Joe" Stalin so elegantly put it, quantity has a quality all its own. <P>But if you are the sort of person to whom the evidence is more important than the anecdote - and if you're a reader of this blog, I assume you are - then take the numbers seriously. The next time someone tries to sell you the poor-addicted-hooker myth, call it for the nonsense it so clearly is.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-84962121267242228272012-04-14T10:54:00.000+00:002014-08-11T08:38:22.669+00:00On ScarsIt was slightly surprising - but not altogether unexpected - that on the weekend when my book <i>The Sex Myth</i> has its first <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/9202283/Book-extract-Brooke-Magnanti-on-the-porn-wars.html">excerpt</a> and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/9202285/Brooke-Magnanti-Sex-for-money-why-not.html">interview</a> in the Telegraph that "feminists" would immediately take objection. Interestingly though the shape this appears to have followed, rather than an actual criticism of work I have done or books I have written, is a number of nasty "terrible skin" remarks about me from lady columnists who really ought to know better.<br />
<br />
It speaks volumes about the preoccupations of critics that when faced with a woman whose attitudes, thought processes, and life experience are almost orthogonal to their own their first response is to criticise her looks. I am not conventionally attractive, but to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWNLhptltBg">paraphrase Steve Martin</a>: when presented with all this, that's the <i>best</i> you can come up with?<br />
<br />
Last year I wrote a commentary on the ubiquitous blogging that was going on surrounding the bullying of feminist bloggers. As I <a href="http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/thing-about-bullying_05.html">pointed out then</a>, bullying does not only happen to feminists, and some of the people who were getting group hugs out of being the victims of trolling have themselves trolled other people. (Top tip: just because you write above the line doesn't make you not a troll. @'ing someone in to your insults of them on Twitter? Does.)<br />
<br />
So to make explicit in case it was not clear: I will never ridicule someone I disagree with because of their looks. If you can't craft a sensible argument against someone's thoughts and actions and have to go for the low-hanging fruit instead, you have failed at rational discourse. And arguably also failed at feminism.<br />
<br />
I wrote previously about the experience of having facial scars on my original blog but have since taken that content down. However <a href="http://ehornaday.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/scars-should-not-matter.html">Emily Hornaday</a> archived it and so I reprint it here. If you are someone who is going through a rough time confidence-wise, please know that while haters never, ever change, how you feel about yourself will. It really does get better. (Update: I have also written about this theme <a href="https://www.blogger.com/www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/2012/apr/20/brooke-magnanti-belle-jour-mirror">for Guardian Weekend magazine</a>.)<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<b>mercredi, janvier 13</b><br />
<br />
Let me tell you about the best gift I ever received. And it's not a bit of sparkly jewellery, or a shiny car, or even a thoughtful trinket of affection.<br />
<br />
I'm talking about my scars.<br />
<br />
I had terrible acne as a teenager. By the age of 16 it was so bad a dermatologist said it was the worst she'd ever seen, which, ya know, is not super encouraging. At the hospital where I volunteered mothers pulled their children away from me, convinced I was plagued with something contagious. Strangers avoided making eye contact.<br />
<br />
It was so bad I could not wash my face without bleeding. Many mornings I woke up stuck to the pillowcase. And oh yeah, it was only on my face. Not one blemish anywhere else on my body. To this day, I still never have seen a photo of anything like it - apart from some daguerrotypes of smallpox patients.<br />
<br />
It was a very long, and very expensive, journey to improving my skin - remember, this all went down in America where having a disfiguring condition you have no control over is not covered by health insurance, and duh, there's no NHS.<br />
<br />
Long story short a lot of Roaccutane and Dianette did for the acne. And more importantly here's what I learned:<br />
<br />
<b>1. Beauty is fleeting. Thank fuck for that.</b><br />
<br />
I had a narrow escape from being just another boring blonde - not to mention an early release from the cycle of self-hatred and frantic desperation that plagues many women as they age. Corollary 1a: The larger part of how people perceive you is how you present yourself.<br />
<br />
<b>2. People can be hurtful to strangers. That's their problem.</b><br />
<br />
My best childhood mate had spina bifida. She walked on sticks and refused to use a wheelchair for reasons I only started to appreciate years later. Looking like a medical oddity gave me, for a very brief time, a very small taste of what she encounters every day of her life. It made me pity people who equate someone's appearance with their value as a person. This generalises magnificently to strangers judging you for, in fact, anything at all. Corollary 2a: The most vocal critics are often the most insecure.<br />
<br />
<b>3. Other people have things you don't. Big deal.</b><br />
<br />
There is no such thing as the Most Beautiful Woman in the World (sorry Buttercup). Who cares? What is considered desirable is not especially worth getting hung up on. You may not be a six-foot Amazon so will never have legs up to your neck - but for all you know, that same supermodel would give her left arm to have your hair. This concept generalises to wealth, success, talent, and intelligence as well. Corollary 3a: Envy of other women's looks is a zero-sum game, and uses far too much time and energy to be bothered with.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Quality of love is not a function of attractiveness.</b><br />
<br />
Elizabeth Taylor, for instance, has been married eight times. Beautiful people have dry spells and get their hearts broken like everyone else. The most worthwhile and loving relationships in my life all happened after my skin problems. And for what it's worth, I've been fortunate to date some pretty nice, smart (and attractive) men in my time. See Corollary 1a above.<br />
<br />
<b>5. Confidence doesn't come overnight.</b><br />
<br />
It also doesn't happen in a vacuum; it requires nurturing. As with anything else worth having it's work. But let me tell you, it is so worth the work. A mate recently told me about a magazine 'happiness quiz' in which one of the questions was, "are you comfortable with your body, and do you exercise regularly?" If you can see why this should not have been a single question, you're on the way. Corollary 5a: Confidence happens when you let it happen. No one gives it to you, which is great, because it also means they can't take it from you.<br />
<br />
<b>6. When someone says I am beautiful, they really, really mean it.</b><br />
<br />
There is something about knowing someone sees you, quirks and all, and likes what they see... something rare and kind of overwhelming (in a good way). 'Beautiful' is one of those words (a bit like 'awesome') that has lost meaning in being overused as a generic affirmative. We call all sorts of people beautiful in one sentence and tear them down in the next. I'm happy to be different enough that anyone who uses it to describe me sees more than just hair and makeup.</blockquote>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-53350214132709370692012-04-13T15:05:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.371+00:00The Sex Myth: extract and first interviewThe <i>Telegraph</i> have now printed <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/9202283/Book-extract-Brooke-Magnanti-on-the-porn-wars.html">an extract</a> and the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/9202285/Brooke-Magnanti-Sex-for-money-why-not.html">first interview</a> about <i>The Sex Myth</i>. Positively chuffed to see "be an ally" in print. (Especially on Friday the 13th, which is fast becoming the date when sex work allies are urged to <a href="http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/never-too-many/">speak out</a>.)<br /><br />If you'd like to find out more about the book, and would like your copy of <i>The Sex Myth</i> signed, why not <a href="http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayDetailEvent.do?searchType=1&author=Brooke|Magnanti">join me in London or Nottingham</a> next week?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-38296542294270659422011-12-08T11:09:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:14:20.514+00:00Is British public life dominated by men?Today in the <i>Guardian</i>, features writer Kira Cochrane has produced a story that is already being widely quoted on <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/04/why-british-public-life-dominated-men?newsfeed=true">the numbers (or lack thereof) of visible women in the media</a>. "In a typical month, 78% of newspaper articles are written by men, 72% of Question Time contributors are men and 84% of reporters and guests on Radio 4's Today show are men. Where are all the women?"<br /><br />On the one hand, this story is decently written and based on a sound idea. Not least because rather than write an article on lazy assumptions of representations, it goes to the bother of looking at whether the actual numbers match up with the perceptions of the author. This is a good place to start in any conversation about representation and is often overlooked in media or social commentary.<br /><br />That said, there is a huge difference between "counting numbers" and "producing statistics". Or, indeed, evidence. My problem is not with the article <i>per se</i>, which after all is simply a feature for the Life & Style section of the <i>Grauniad</i>, but rather with the reception it's had on Twitter and elsewhere as if it is <i>le dernier cri</i> in proof. The article is an improvement on most other articles of its kind. But it is also at best a beginning of something that could, and should, be examined further in a way which is compatible with well-designed research.<br /><br />But the widespread acclaim indicates there is a danger of not taking the piece any further, and adopting its conclusions wholesale as if it was a well-designed in-depth study. It's not (yet). It could be. For example, the article starts with "In a typical month" - to be unimpeachable, you must establish in what way the months selected were "typical".<br /><br />Because the numbers match so closely with the author's <i>a priori</i> assumptions, care should be taken to assure the reader that the shows selected do not comprise a skewed sample. (Actually, this should be done anyway.) We need to know what the spread of shows on television and radio are that are considered topical, political, or sufficiently serious. Why was <i>Question Time</i> included, and <i>Loose Women</i> excluded? I don't think one is especially more in-depth or topical than the other. Why is <i>Have I Got News For You</i> considered, which is a comedy show, and <i>Moral Maze</i> not, which is a serious radio programme featuring many regular women panellists and guests? Or the Radio 4 <i>News Quiz</i>, hosted by Sandi Toksvig and featuring many women as guests? What about <i>Women's Hour</i>?<br /><br />Size, as ever, matters. What are the audience sizes for the shows, since clearly that is important? So, too, does sampling. Since it's presumably not practical or useful to count all appearances on all media, there needs to be a way of assuring that the ones considered in such a study comprise a representative sample of media, audience types, and audience sizes. This is something almost no examination of media topics outside academia bother to do (and many inside don't do it either). But if the shows can not be shown to be representative, the stud's conclusions could be accused of being skewed, and the results not taken seriously.<br /><br />The title of the article, with its unexplored "why?" also presents the danger of interpreting an outcome as if it is the same as the opportunity. Why, indeed, should there be more women on <i>Question Time</i>, when the percentage of female MPs is only 22%? This surely this is a problem that needs to be addressed at root level (why are there not more women in government, considered for such positions, or running for them?) and not by whingeing about token women on politics shows. <br /><br />The reaction to women going on some of these shows can be extremely negative, which makes other women considering whether to appear think twice. Remember when Fern Britton appeared on <i>Question Time</i>, and the furore over her opening her mouth on topics other than what we thought she should talk about? I was asked to go on QT last year and turned it down because I expected much the same reaction. Would a similarly placed man in media have had the same dismissive reception as Britton, particularly from women like Amanda Platell perceiving them as "lightweight"?<br /><br />Similarly, the format of the <i>Today</i> programme on Radio 4 is extremely off-putting. Would you like to be shouted at for two minutes first thing in the morning on a show that prides itself on manufacturing controversy, or have a reasonable discussion over on <i>Women's Hour</i>? That, incidentally, is the question more-or-less as it has been put to me by the PR folks at Orion in the past. Come on, it's not even a contest which most women (and men) would choose given the option.<br /><br />Age is also part of the mix. As one twitter correspondent (@petehague) commented, "I think that the entire debate misses the point that experienced commentators represent past gender policies ... i.e. if you want to get a professor of economics on TV, your selection is influenced by undergraduate gender balance decades ago." And not only the undergrad balance, but especially the percentage making it through study to professorships. David Starkey and his ilk are still rocking up peddling their schtick because, well, the women with the best and most cogent arguments to counter him are not at his level of academic or media experience yet. This phenomenon is almost certainly at work outside the academia bubble as well. And given the continuation of the trend in which women for various reasons choose family or life balance over single-minded pursuit of their careers, it may well never happen.<br /><br />Finally, we must ask why it is women in media, even ones like say, Laurie Penny, who seem committed to an ideal of being a political writer, end up doing pieces about dating and handbags. Is it because when such assignments are offered, writers would rather take the job than turn it down? And does this, over time, contribute to an impression that anyone who has done so is destined to "lack gravitas"? There is a pink ghetto even - no, especially - at the <i>Guardian</i>. Isn't it ironic that Cochrane's piece is in the Life & Style section, rather than, say, Comment Is Free? On the same day when <a href="http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/stv5v5OIqPY4IwfDLPUK__g/view.m?id=15%26gid=commentisfree/2011/dec/04/want-to-be-more-manly%26cat=most-read">a man's thoughts on his Movember 'tache</a> does get a spot in CiF?<br /><br />So in short, while I broadly agree with Cochrane's thesis that it would be nice to see more women on shows like <i>Question Time</i> and <i>Have I Got News For You</i>, I'm not sure the critical applause is warranted. Yet. And I don't think it constitutes "proof" much at all apart from being about <i>those shows on those days</i>. Interesting? Yes. Generalisable to all media at all times? No. The difference between anecdotes and sampling is subtle (perhaps too much so for most media) but crucial. <br /><br />You may be wondering why this matters on an issue in which most people are in agreement. It matters because if an argument is seen to be slapdash or half-baked, it throws the conclusions into doubt regardless of how worthy they are. It matters because for there to be change it's important to know the real and not imagined extent of the problem. And it matters because if something is worth doing, it's worth doing <b>right</b>. There's a germ of an interesting idea in there. The real question is what is to be done with it?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-14489578111275967692011-10-03T14:46:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.345+00:00Something hoist something petard.It is with some interest that I have been following media reports of the
alleged conduct of Ashton Kutcher, a well-known campaigner against sex
trafficking. <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-29/news/real-men-get-their-facts-straight-sex-trafficking-ashton-kutcher-demi-moore/">As has been pointed out elsewhere,</a>
the "problem" his advocacy claims to address is certainly hugely
overstated and possibly being manipulated by people who are at least as
interested in money and credibility as they are in philanthropy. <br />
<br />
Interestingly, on Quora, which Kutcher has called "the smartest place on
the internet" (you know, because academic journals and research forums
are where the dumb kids hang out), there was a question not long ago
which asked, <a href="http://www.quora.com/Human-Trafficking/Why-is-it-so-common-to-include-voluntary-prostitution-in-the-category-of-sex-trafficking">"Why is it so common to include voluntary prostitution in the category of sex trafficking?"</a><br />
<br />
Kutcher stepped in, as did others, in defence of the idea that
foreign-born women voluntarily choosing to enter sex work - such as,
say, myself (and yes, one of them did mention me specifically) are
trafficked. Also people being transported over state and international
borders, or something.<br />
<br />
When you hear the word "trafficking", maybe you imagine a foreign child being kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery. <a href="http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-trafficking-is-counted.html">Not only is that not accurate,</a> it's also not what the lobbyists against sex work even seem to believe themselves. But it <i>is</i>
an assumption they appear happy to exploit. As the Quora discussion
shows, Kutcher and people like him claim that "trafficking" includes
people going into sex work willingly and migrating willingly. In other
words, equating consensual sex work with involuntary slavery. Actually a
lot of other <a href="http://www.lauraagustin.com/only-playing-stupid-about-sex-trafficking-pull-the-other-one-ashton">"rescue industry"</a> types buy that as well. It's a stand with a lot of errors of logic, but it's their platform, they defend it, they own it.<br />
<br />
Right. Now, let's check out an article from the Daily Mail dated 03 October 2011 (no link since Istyosty has gone now, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/03/ashton-kutcher-sara-leal-hot-tub-naked-affair-demi-moore_n_991995.html">HuffPo</a> covers it and so does <a href="http://www.thefrisky.com/2011-10-03/morning-quickies-ashton-kutchers-naked-hot-tub-follies/">The Frisky</a>,
also it's screensnapped below). It includes quotes from someone who not
only claims to know the person Kutcher allegedly cheated with, but who
also appears to indicate that the presence of girls like her at celeb
parties is, shall we say, not entirely without reimbursement.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20111112202849/http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NE56WeSExdQ/TonBpDGr82I/AAAAAAAAAKI/JL2M0KkNZuo/s1600/Untitled%2B2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="303" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20111112202849im_/http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NE56WeSExdQ/TonBpDGr82I/AAAAAAAAAKI/JL2M0KkNZuo/s320/Untitled%2B2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Here's the bit in the <i>Mail</i> that caught my eye:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Naumoff, who arranges for good looking girls to be shipped
to certain hotspots, also told the newspaper: 'Sara’s a great girl. My
job is to round up hot girls and bus them into clubs in San Diego or
Vegas. <br />
<br />
The girls get free booze, food, whatever, and they attract rich and
famous guys to the clubs. It’s a two-way street. The girls get to meet
rich men and the guys get what they want.’<br />
<br />
Which is? ‘Sex, obviously.’</blockquote>
<br />
Is Naumoff paid to do this? If so, by whom? The <i>Mail</i> doesn't say.<br />
<br />
You could be charitable and interpret this as kind of an introduction
service. But then again, some of the men in question are already
married. You could alternatively think this setup sounds an awful lot
like people being reimbursed for travel and sex. Which might not only
count as prostitution to some people, but trafficking as well. If you
were the sort of person who was inclined to see things that way.<br />
<br />
Me? I don't believe anyone who enters any kind of quid-pro-quo
relationship, be it sex for money or naked hot tubbing for a drinks tab,
and does so willingly, is trafficked. So far so sugar daddy. But read
the Quora opinions, and consider what's being quoted in the <i>Mail</i>,
and ask yourself whether you think this alleged situation would tick
the rescue industry's boxes for "prostitution: trafficking" or not.
Whatever would the missus think?
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-25591806908038580592011-07-11T19:45:00.000+00:002012-05-21T11:41:57.969+00:00...And Now For Something Completely DifferentThis is not about sex, and not about The Sex Myth. This is about the <a href="http://belledejour-uk.blles.%20it%20wasnf/">old blog</a>, and the growing scandal in News International's paper the rules they played by. And as Prince Humperdinck so eloquently put it, I always think everything could be a trap.<br /><br />Very early on in blogging as Belle de Jour, I had an email address associated with the blog. It was with one of those free email providers and not very secure. Later, I wised up a touch and moved to doing everything through Hushmail. But for some reason I kept the old email up and running, and checked it occasionally.<br /><br />So on the day of the book's release in the UK, I logged on to a public library computer in Clearwater, Florida, and had a look at that old account. There was a new message from someone I didn't recognise. I opened it.<br /><br />The message was from a journo at the <i>Sunday Times</i>. It was short, which struck me as unusual: <i>Come on Belle, not even a little hint?</i> There was an attachment. The attachment started downloading automatically (then if I remember correctly, came up with a "failed to download" message).<br /><br />My heart sank - my suspicion was that there had been a program attached to the message, some sort of trojan, presumably trying to get information from my computer.<br /><br />Now, I understood the papers regarded all of this as a game. There were accusations that the anonymity thing was a ruse to pump sales. It wasn't. I was really afraid of losing my job and my career if found out. But I knew the rules they played by. And as Prince Humperdinck so eloquently put it, I always think everything could be a trap.<br /><br />I did several things:<br /><br />1. Alerted library staff that I thought there had been a virus downloaded on to the computer, so they could deal with it.<br /><br />2. Phoned a friend who knew my secret. I explained what happened. He agreed to log in to that email account from where he lived, halfway around the world, open the email and send a reply, so they would have competing IP address information.<br /><br />3. Alerted the man who owned the .co.uk address pointing to my blog, someone called Ian (who to my knowledge I have never met). He confirmed he had been contacted by the Times and asked if I was indeed in Florida. He told them he didn't know (which was true).<br /><br /><b>Point 3 is the part that makes me think my suspicions were correct.</b> I hadn't replied to the message from the computer in Florida, so why would they have a Florida IP address? They did get a reply from "my" account, but it would have had an IP address from Australia.<br /><br /><i>(It's been suggested on Twitter that this could also have been because of a read receipt or embedded images. However, if my memory serves - and it usually does - the service I used did not send read receipts and I had images/HTML off as a matter of habit. There could of course be other explanations for what happened, but it is certainly true that the Times were trying hard to find me. Thanks for the comments, I hope this answers any concerns.)</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5978141.post-63279961343816691362011-07-06T08:37:00.000+00:002015-08-13T12:11:36.374+00:00When Celebrities AttackBy now, you may already be aware of Ashton Kutcher's campaign against the <i>Village Voice</i>, sparked by an article <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-29/news/real-men-get-their-facts-straight-sex-trafficking-ashton-kutcher-demi-moore/">critical of the substance and message of his anti-trafficking adverts</a>. The <i>Voice</i> has form on this one: their <a href="http://ht.ly/4kPkA">earlier article about dodgy stats that get bandied about in the trafficking discussion</a> is a must-read.<br />
<br />
The usual disclaimer... I am (as indeed all of Kutcher's critics are)
opposed to trafficking in any form, including child sex trafficking. But
we must not let emotion exclusively carry the day; it achieves nothing.
The <i>Voice</i> hits the nail on the head when they <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-07-06/news/stuck-in-trafficking/">sum up anti-trafficking efforts</a>: "an emotional reaction, based on good intentions, but grounded in bogus information." <br />
<br />
The problem of bogus information is this - campaigns such as Kutcher's
conflate all sex work with child sex trafficking, and child sex
trafficking with all trafficking. Approaches that do so not only
encourage criminalisation legislation that harms consenting adults, but
also obscures the real victims. How? By using <a href="http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com/2011/04/how-trafficking-is-counted.html">vastly inflated numbers</a>
for one kind of trafficking, and pretty much ignoring everything else.
Actual children being actually trafficked for actual sex are rarely, if
ever, found by the kind of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exaggerated">scatterhsot brothel raids and streetwalker crackdowns</a> so many seem to consider "succeses" in the anti-trafficking effort. <br />
<br />
Please, please stop kidding yourselves. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails">The raids you hear about are not successes. They are vast wastes of time, money, and manpower.</a> And many groups receiving funding meant to help victims of trafficking seem instead to be <a href="http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com/2011/04/rescue-industry.html">lining their own pockets</a>. <b>There is undoubtedly work to be done eliminating trafficking of men and women for <i>any</i> kind of labour. It almost certainly isn't the approach anti-traffickers think will work.</b><br />
<br />
Kutcher’s response against the Village Voice has included tweeting
advertisers on Backpage.com, accusing them of supporting slavery. So
far, so "concerned". And then this tweet:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20110827022004/http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NGejEoeWECg/ThQvaG9sokI/AAAAAAAAAIE/c2n9UV2M8p8/s1600/Untitled.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="158" src="https://web.archive.org/web/20110827022004im_/http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NGejEoeWECg/ThQvaG9sokI/AAAAAAAAAIE/c2n9UV2M8p8/s320/Untitled.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Like a lot of people, Ashton Kutcher seems to have some pretty confused
ideas about sex work. To be in a position of wanting to help people, yet
still falling back on ridicule and stereotype when talking about them,
is inexcusable. Someone who says, <br />
<blockquote>
"I’ve spent the last 2
years meeting with every expert on the issue of Human Trafficking that I
can find, reading countless books, meeting with victims and former
traffickers, and studying effective international models to combat
trafficking."</blockquote>
Maybe Ashton should have made time for a
little bit of victim sensitivity training in there somewhere? (Not that
he's known for politically correct tweeting, mind. He seems to <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/aplusk/status/46418601967759360">channel the spirit of Littlejohn</a> every now and again.)<br />
<br />
Kutcher's response has been <a href="http://www.frcblog.com/2011/07/ashton-kutcher%E2%80%99s-tweet-tirade-against-the-village-voice-on-child-prostitution/">strongly supported by the Family Research Council</a> who are regarded by many as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council#Statements_on_homosexuality">hate group</a>. The FRC is one of <a href="http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com/2011/05/whose-agenda-is-it-anyway.html">the main contributors</a> to the <a href="http://www.socialcostsofpornography.org/">Witherspoon Institute’s “research” on pornography that conflates the adult industry with trafficking</a>. That report contained significant input from Patrick Fagan of The Heritage Foundation – you know, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation">those people whose work inspired Reagan’s covert Cold War military actions</a>. <br />
<br />
The Witherspoon report encourages celebrities to “use the bully pulpit”
and abuses suspiciously similar dodgy statistics as Kutcher’s campaign.
And while it doesn't name particular celebrities to be promoted as faces
of such bullying, a similar document <a href="http://www.abtassociates.com/Page.cfm?PageID=12605&OWID=2109769069&CSB=1">from Abt Associates</a> does - it specifically names Kutcher's wife, Demi Moore. <br />
<br />
I know a little about what it's like to be asked to comment on issues
you don't necessarily have expertise in. Sometimes, journalists and
television shows approach people like me to provide commentary rather
than, say, academics in the relevant fields. It's unfortunate but it's a
fact of media life. And I do try, by following academic discussions and
talking with friends who are professionals in, say, sex education or
the porn industry, to at least not come off as too much of an ignorant
tit. I would shudder in horror, though, to ever be described as a <a href="http://www.starmometer.com/2011/06/23/demi-moore-will-host-the-cnn-documentary-nepals-stolen-children/">"leading player"</a>
in the debate around trafficking or related issues. Something that
Kutcher and his wife Moore seem to have no problem with. The strategy
clearly works, with significant numbers of Kutcher's followers joining
in his Twitter tirade, and the man himself being promoted as <a href="http://www.lauraagustin.com/only-playing-stupid-about-sex-trafficking-pull-the-other-one-ashton?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+nodo50/GpNc+%28Border+Thinking+on+Migration,+Culture,+Economy+and+Sex%29&utm_content=Google+Reader">somehow more of an expert on the issues</a> than, ya know, actual experts.<br />
<br />
Not bad for a guy whose credentials, according to his Twitter profile, are: <i>"I make stuff up."</i><br />
<br />
The <i>Voice</i> article pointed out that it's not known how many of the
millions, if any, raised by Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher's campaign
have actually gone to helping victims directly. With their charity
having only been launched 5 months ago, and apparently no financial
reports as yet available, it's hard to know when that pointed question
will be resolved. I'd like to add another dimension to that question: <b>how
many of the millions raised by Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher could be
coming from groups such as the Family Research Council?</b><br />
<br />
The well-meaning Twitter fans following Kutcher's lead probably don't
realise they're being taken for a ride on the facts front. It can
actually be very hard to sort the real from the fake when people keep
repeating made-up stuff as true. So I guess my question now is, why are
Kutcher’s millions of fans seemingly totally okay with this movement's
possible links to the far-right hawkish Christian lobbyists? And when
will the likes of Kutcher and Moore realise they're the ones being used,
not by evil evil sex traffickers, but by conservative groups with a
frightening agenda?
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com