On Wed, January 7, 1998 at 21:43:21 (PST) James Michael Craven writes:
>...
>Then some self-professed "sex worker", who on the one hand professes
>"solidarity" with other sex workers, while on the other hand
>carefully differentiating herself as educated, articulate, free from
>puritanism and certainly not like one of those low class "lumpen"
>street hookers, purports to generalize from a rare and insulated
>experience, levels of "freedom of choice" and "mutually beneficial
>exchange" simply not found among the vast majority of women and
>young males involved in prostitution. Concern for very real, brutal
>and unconscionable forms and conditions of prostitution are summarily
>dismissed as "puritanism", "born again virginism", parochialism or
>whatever.
This is hysterics, plain and simple. She does express obvious and
sincere sympathy with degraded workers in her industry, just as I
express such for exploited Indian programmers, or any other worker.
That I express solidarity with them, while "carefully differentiating"
myself by saying I live in better conditions and have better
opportunities, in no way minimizes their sufferings.
And just what sources are you using for your claims here? How did she
"carefully differentiate herself as educated"? Please quote her.
[disgusting and gratuitous Nazi references snipped]
>So of course a few hookers who attempt to sanitize it all with the
>title sex worker as part of the entertainment "industry" can work
>under conditions and with protections that few if any prostitutes and
>sexual slaves will ever know; it is they who are the truly insulated
>and even arrogant ones.
I guess you missed the part where she wrote, "Of course there are
people being grieveously exploited, used as virtual slaves, disposable
humans."
> To the extent to which they attempt to
>generalize and rationalize from their very limited and privileged
>market niches, conditions and sentiments simply not found among the
>many involved in prostitution...[more peurile Nazi references snipped]
Just how, precisely, in her words (please quote her), did she
generalize her experience to others? She makes note of "disposable
humans" and says that "no one defends it".
I find these points totally irrelevant. Neither Bright nor Hartley
distance themselves from those who are abused in the sex industry. To
my eyes, they try to clarify what it is like to work in the sex
industry (and, from what I can tell, these women are not in fact
prostitutes as is so stupidly claimed) and to describe what it is like
to have what seems to be a reasonable amount of control over their
lives.
What I find amazing on a supposedly leftist list is that women who
have sexual power are such a threat and elicit such frantic squeals
from men who can only distort the opinions of these women and dredge
up utterly pointless Nazi horror stories to support their pathetic
attacks.
We should be learning from these women, not attacking them.
Bill
