Sweden's policies around sex work took a turn for the even more nonsensical recently with government funding of a series of experimental feminist porn DVDs and a website by filmmaker Mia Engberg. Story here, here, and here, via Swedish English-language website The Local.
Keep in mind that this is the same country that bans government employees from staying in hotels where porn is available, and actively prosecutes the purchase of sex. Which makes me wonder about these films – were the performers paid out of this government funding? If so, congratulations, Kingdom of Sweden, you're now a purchaser of sexual services. So will you be remanding any of your officials to custody? Or is that only for regular punters.
A sanctuary for supporters of sexual free expression and the adult sexual media.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Monday, September 7, 2009
Friday, April 18, 2008
Radical feminism or radically bad faith? APRF's attempt to silence RenEv
Its likely that most of the readers of this blog are also readers of Renegade Evolution's blog and already know about this latest dustup. Nonetheless, I do want to post about it here, both as an expression of solidarity with Ren, and to point to how this fits in with the larger context of the "porn wars".
Basically, a student group at William and Mary College, in the wake of the controversy there over the Sex Worker's Art Show, set up a debate on porn and sex work between, on the anti-side, Samantha Berg (probably somebody who needs no introduction by now) and John Foubert, a "pro-feminist" professor of psychology at W&M, who basically comes across as an even more clueless version of Robert Jensen. (He wanted the Sex Worker Art Show banned from campus holding that the slight nudity in the show would directly cause men to go out and rape – I shit you not that this fool actually claimed this.) On the other is Jill Brenneman (who spoke at W&M earlier this month) and Renegade Evolution.
When Sam heard that she would be facing Ren in the debate, she had a hissy fit and demanded that the student group drop Ren as a speaker. The reason – Ren's infamous offhand comment from about a year ago that radical feminists who were hassling other sex-positive and WOC bloggers should "Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood." Sam, in true drama queen fashion, claims this proves that big bad Ren is a clear threat to her physical safety. At present, the student who organized the debate is trying to talk some sense into Sam Berg, but there is some danger that Ren will be uninvited, as Sam was apparently invited earlier than Ren, hence Sam's threats to pull out apparently have some leverage.
To say that this is utter bullshit is to state the obvious. First, the "fall under a truck" comment is clearly just an angry statement rather than a direct threat, and one that Ren actually apologized for. (Unnecessarily, IMO, but that's Ren's prerogative.) Second, for anybody who's followed the radfem side of the blogosphere porn wars, Sam Berg's reputation as a loose cannon precedes her. She's well-known for her off-the-wall, creepy, and, surprisingly for someone who's supposed to be all about being 110% pro-woman, often rather misogynistic statements about those she's opposed to. Notably, describing sex workers like Ren as “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money”. Or strippers as "women smiling while hanging upside down from a pole like a painted negro in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts". (OK, slowly backing away....)
The thing is, this is not a new pattern with the anti-porn feminist crowd. In the 1980s, Dworkin and MacKinnon would debate men like Alan Dershowitz, but would routinely refuse to debate sex workers and sex-positive feminists. The reasons for this were entirely propagandistic, a way of conveying the impression that they represented women, and only men opposed their politics. Later, when the issue of opposition by sex workers and other feminists became unavoidable, MacKinnon and other radical feminists would come to use the kind of tactics we being used by Sam Berg, claiming that the presence of such activists presented a physical danger to themselves and other women.
In 1993, students affiliated with Catherine MacKinnon forcibly removed Carol Jacobsen's video and photo exhibit "Porn'Im'Age'Ry: Picturing Prostitutes" (along with works by Veronica Vera and several other artists) from a conference on prostitution at University of Michigan Law School (MacKinnon's haunt) with the rather dubious claim that the exhibit was pornographic and presented a direct danger to the women at the conference. (That many of the same issues are still being played out 15 years later with the Sex Worker's Art Show is rather telling.) The films were shown at UM only after a lawsuit against the University by the ACLU.
In 2001, Janice Raymond of CATW successfully pressured NYU to have Jo Weldon, at that time an active sex worker, removed from a panel discussion on trafficking. The reason? Because Weldon was a sex worker and not on the same page as CATW, and that since CATW didn't have a sex worker or ex-sex worker from their camp on the panel, Weldon's presence "experiential advantage" biased the discussion against CATW. Note that CATW's tactics involving a last-minute demand for a change in speakers is very similar to what is happening to Ren here.
I also want to point to Witchy-Woo's recent rather off-the-wall broadside against Anthony Kennerson, over nothing in particular except that she wanted to bring up how much she hated him. (I've also been a similar target of abuse by this UK clique of radfems, with a long history of trying to bait Anthony and myself by calling us "cowards". I can't speak for Anthony, but my refusal to engage with them has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with the fact that there's really nothing to be gained by arguing with a pack of rabid, hostile ideologues.) Not that I think this has any direct connection with the W&M events, but it fits this larger pattern. Once again, in the context of a rare display of sort-of-unity between radfems and sex-positive feminists, a radfem takes it upon herself to call out a man who is rather peripheral to the whole discussion, who on this issue was more or less on the same side, just for the sake of, once again, creating a "radfems vs men" two-minute hate. I think its rather interesting to contrast a group of radfems going out of their way to pick a fight with a man versus another radfem avoiding debate with a woman who has proven she can effectively call their position into question. I think this has everything to do with the way radfems have been trying to frame this debate for the last 25 years. However, I think the time has long since passed since they can get away with trying to hide the fact that they have managed to piss off not just men and not just "johns", but an awful lot of feminists, women, and sex workers – in other words, many of the very people who they claim to be helping.
Basically, a student group at William and Mary College, in the wake of the controversy there over the Sex Worker's Art Show, set up a debate on porn and sex work between, on the anti-side, Samantha Berg (probably somebody who needs no introduction by now) and John Foubert, a "pro-feminist" professor of psychology at W&M, who basically comes across as an even more clueless version of Robert Jensen. (He wanted the Sex Worker Art Show banned from campus holding that the slight nudity in the show would directly cause men to go out and rape – I shit you not that this fool actually claimed this.) On the other is Jill Brenneman (who spoke at W&M earlier this month) and Renegade Evolution.
When Sam heard that she would be facing Ren in the debate, she had a hissy fit and demanded that the student group drop Ren as a speaker. The reason – Ren's infamous offhand comment from about a year ago that radical feminists who were hassling other sex-positive and WOC bloggers should "Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood." Sam, in true drama queen fashion, claims this proves that big bad Ren is a clear threat to her physical safety. At present, the student who organized the debate is trying to talk some sense into Sam Berg, but there is some danger that Ren will be uninvited, as Sam was apparently invited earlier than Ren, hence Sam's threats to pull out apparently have some leverage.
To say that this is utter bullshit is to state the obvious. First, the "fall under a truck" comment is clearly just an angry statement rather than a direct threat, and one that Ren actually apologized for. (Unnecessarily, IMO, but that's Ren's prerogative.) Second, for anybody who's followed the radfem side of the blogosphere porn wars, Sam Berg's reputation as a loose cannon precedes her. She's well-known for her off-the-wall, creepy, and, surprisingly for someone who's supposed to be all about being 110% pro-woman, often rather misogynistic statements about those she's opposed to. Notably, describing sex workers like Ren as “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money”. Or strippers as "women smiling while hanging upside down from a pole like a painted negro in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts". (OK, slowly backing away....)
The thing is, this is not a new pattern with the anti-porn feminist crowd. In the 1980s, Dworkin and MacKinnon would debate men like Alan Dershowitz, but would routinely refuse to debate sex workers and sex-positive feminists. The reasons for this were entirely propagandistic, a way of conveying the impression that they represented women, and only men opposed their politics. Later, when the issue of opposition by sex workers and other feminists became unavoidable, MacKinnon and other radical feminists would come to use the kind of tactics we being used by Sam Berg, claiming that the presence of such activists presented a physical danger to themselves and other women.
In 1993, students affiliated with Catherine MacKinnon forcibly removed Carol Jacobsen's video and photo exhibit "Porn'Im'Age'Ry: Picturing Prostitutes" (along with works by Veronica Vera and several other artists) from a conference on prostitution at University of Michigan Law School (MacKinnon's haunt) with the rather dubious claim that the exhibit was pornographic and presented a direct danger to the women at the conference. (That many of the same issues are still being played out 15 years later with the Sex Worker's Art Show is rather telling.) The films were shown at UM only after a lawsuit against the University by the ACLU.
In 2001, Janice Raymond of CATW successfully pressured NYU to have Jo Weldon, at that time an active sex worker, removed from a panel discussion on trafficking. The reason? Because Weldon was a sex worker and not on the same page as CATW, and that since CATW didn't have a sex worker or ex-sex worker from their camp on the panel, Weldon's presence "experiential advantage" biased the discussion against CATW. Note that CATW's tactics involving a last-minute demand for a change in speakers is very similar to what is happening to Ren here.
I also want to point to Witchy-Woo's recent rather off-the-wall broadside against Anthony Kennerson, over nothing in particular except that she wanted to bring up how much she hated him. (I've also been a similar target of abuse by this UK clique of radfems, with a long history of trying to bait Anthony and myself by calling us "cowards". I can't speak for Anthony, but my refusal to engage with them has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with the fact that there's really nothing to be gained by arguing with a pack of rabid, hostile ideologues.) Not that I think this has any direct connection with the W&M events, but it fits this larger pattern. Once again, in the context of a rare display of sort-of-unity between radfems and sex-positive feminists, a radfem takes it upon herself to call out a man who is rather peripheral to the whole discussion, who on this issue was more or less on the same side, just for the sake of, once again, creating a "radfems vs men" two-minute hate. I think its rather interesting to contrast a group of radfems going out of their way to pick a fight with a man versus another radfem avoiding debate with a woman who has proven she can effectively call their position into question. I think this has everything to do with the way radfems have been trying to frame this debate for the last 25 years. However, I think the time has long since passed since they can get away with trying to hide the fact that they have managed to piss off not just men and not just "johns", but an awful lot of feminists, women, and sex workers – in other words, many of the very people who they claim to be helping.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
And around the blogs today....
The big sex work news of the day was, of course, anti-vice New York Governor Elliot Spitzer being caught with his hand in the very same honey-pot he crusaded so publicly to keep a lid on. Of course, Bound, Not Gagged is all over it, and providing some excellent coverage and commentary. Also with spot-on commentary is this post from our own founding henchwoman Renegade Evolution, and this from Susie Bright.
Since this scandal hit the news, the media has been all over contacting high-profile sex workers for their perspective on the sex industry, especially the high-end call-girl/powerful client end of it. There was a very good interview with Audacia Ray on the New York City public radio Brian Lehrer Show. (I also have quite a bit to say in the commentary thread following the audio of the post – shameless self-plug.) However, much of the desired level of conversation by members of the mainstream media hasn't exactly been so high-minded, and in at least a few cases, the interviewers have essentially played the role of cheap johns, wanting simply some salacious statements to sell copy, and barring in advance any discussion of the bigger issues. (Readers of this and other porn and sex work blogs may recognize a pattern at work here when it comes to the relationship between sex workers and the larger media and entertainment industry.) In a rather exemplary display of principle over publicity, Audacia Ray writes that she turned down an interview with MSNBC for this very reason. Audacia, you rock!
On another topic, "Thomas", a guest blogger on Feministe has just posted on the death of Shannon Wilsey, aka Savannah. (No, its not an anniversary of any kind, just a subject he felt like talking about.) On one hand, he's pretty right on the money with his pointing out that a lot of the male celebs who she played around with couldn't be bothered with her when she was in need during her life, nor even bother to show up for her funeral after her death. (Exception: Pauly Shore, of all people – otherwise, a variation on the same pattern of behavior toward sex workers as I was talking about earlier.) The flip side of the piece is a certain moralistic tone the piece takes "These were young women with few prospects. The patriarchy dangled a wad of bills in front of them if they would put on sexual performances for men. Then it treated them like shit when they took it. Sex objects, objects of curiosity, objects of scorn. To which I would add, "objects of pity and condescension for feminists".
First, she was not completely alone toward the end of her life – she was actually pretty close to a number of other porn performers and people in the industry. (Albeit, quite a few others despised her as a prima donna.) The Feministe piece ignores this in favor of the "exploited by the porn industry she hated" angle. Second, for all of the very real demons Shannon Wilsey clearly had, the whole passive victim of The Patriarchy script we see at work here really doesn't do her story any justice. For better or worse, Shannon Wilsey played a very active role in remaking herself into Savannah, first as a celebrity groupie, then as a top porn star. Shannon/Savannah was someone with great sexual charisma, an exceptional "hottie", and like anybody with an exceptional ability or gift, had a lot of her self-image wrapped up in that. In the end, probably too much, but nonetheless, she was who she was, and those who dismiss her as a mere victim of male objectification or empty hedonism and little more do nothing to honor her memory.
Since this scandal hit the news, the media has been all over contacting high-profile sex workers for their perspective on the sex industry, especially the high-end call-girl/powerful client end of it. There was a very good interview with Audacia Ray on the New York City public radio Brian Lehrer Show. (I also have quite a bit to say in the commentary thread following the audio of the post – shameless self-plug.) However, much of the desired level of conversation by members of the mainstream media hasn't exactly been so high-minded, and in at least a few cases, the interviewers have essentially played the role of cheap johns, wanting simply some salacious statements to sell copy, and barring in advance any discussion of the bigger issues. (Readers of this and other porn and sex work blogs may recognize a pattern at work here when it comes to the relationship between sex workers and the larger media and entertainment industry.) In a rather exemplary display of principle over publicity, Audacia Ray writes that she turned down an interview with MSNBC for this very reason. Audacia, you rock!
On another topic, "Thomas", a guest blogger on Feministe has just posted on the death of Shannon Wilsey, aka Savannah. (No, its not an anniversary of any kind, just a subject he felt like talking about.) On one hand, he's pretty right on the money with his pointing out that a lot of the male celebs who she played around with couldn't be bothered with her when she was in need during her life, nor even bother to show up for her funeral after her death. (Exception: Pauly Shore, of all people – otherwise, a variation on the same pattern of behavior toward sex workers as I was talking about earlier.) The flip side of the piece is a certain moralistic tone the piece takes "These were young women with few prospects. The patriarchy dangled a wad of bills in front of them if they would put on sexual performances for men. Then it treated them like shit when they took it. Sex objects, objects of curiosity, objects of scorn. To which I would add, "objects of pity and condescension for feminists".
First, she was not completely alone toward the end of her life – she was actually pretty close to a number of other porn performers and people in the industry. (Albeit, quite a few others despised her as a prima donna.) The Feministe piece ignores this in favor of the "exploited by the porn industry she hated" angle. Second, for all of the very real demons Shannon Wilsey clearly had, the whole passive victim of The Patriarchy script we see at work here really doesn't do her story any justice. For better or worse, Shannon Wilsey played a very active role in remaking herself into Savannah, first as a celebrity groupie, then as a top porn star. Shannon/Savannah was someone with great sexual charisma, an exceptional "hottie", and like anybody with an exceptional ability or gift, had a lot of her self-image wrapped up in that. In the end, probably too much, but nonetheless, she was who she was, and those who dismiss her as a mere victim of male objectification or empty hedonism and little more do nothing to honor her memory.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Right ON
I linked to Dacia’s latest post about “feminist porn” in my del.cio.us links yesterday, but I had such a “yes yes YES that’s IT!” reaction to it that I feel compelled to quote liberally here…
To me, making feminist porn is not about what is actually shown on screen and much more about what is happening on the production end of things. This is very clearly an expression of my years working in the sex industry and working for sex workers’ rights, but like Petra says in the beginning of this paragraph, “our tastes on what we find sexy in the bedroom or on film differ.” We can have a whole argument about the nurture and nature of “taste” - but I don’t think liking or not liking specific acts can make or break a feminist.
I don’t care if porn shows a woman masturbating by herself (like in many of the Abby Winters photo sets and videos), a woman fucking a guy with a strap-on (like in The Bi Apple, a woman enthusiastically sucking cock (like in Erika’s films), or a pregnant woman getting fucked up the ass with a baseball bat (like in Belladonna’s Fucking Girls Again). What I do care about is: does that performer want to be there? Is the director/producer respecting her needs and paying her appropriately? Did she get blindsided by requests for acts she doesn’t want to do?
The answers to those questions determine whether or not the porn is feminist, sex-positive, and ethical for me, not what is happening on screen.
Do you get it now, people? Do you? I still do not know why this is a difficult concept, but clearly it is. And so these things must continue to be said, emphatically.
I might write more about this later. I need to crawl into bed now, though, because I got up at 6:00 a.m. on a Saturday.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Not anti-porn? You must be a man.
Most women can relate to how shitty it feels to have your thoughts and feelings completely discounted, just written off as being "too emotional" or the result of PMS. It sucks. It removes all agency and is a convenient way of not letting women's voices be heard.
So the "male-identified" accusation is different, how...?
Answer: it's not. It's dismissive and it reinforces gender stereotypes.
And, too, it's not acceptable to discount men as thinking with their dicks, or being "creepy" simply for having an interest in sex (see Dacia's post on that topic), or the other gendered stereotypes that are often attached to men.
Note, I am not talking about calling men out on male privilege. Women (and other men) should absolutely do that, especially as part of a feminist, progressive discourse. And men should listen, and learn. So before anyone goes there, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about stereotypes. And stereotypes aren't good for anybody.
I guess the only thing worse that being called a man because of your stance on porn, is actually being a man and holding that same stance on porn. (Or perhaps one is not worse than the other, but rather they're two sides of the same shit-covered coin.)
Marty Klein didn't get "you're just like a man" or "you must be a man" or "you sound like a man." Instead, he got, "I am not surprised that you arrogantly only see this from a man’s point of view."
Convenient, isn't it? If someone makes an argument about porn you don't like, they're either a man, or they're male-identified. Because certainly no real woman would have that kind of (reasoned, well-thought-out) opinion about porn. That is "a man's point of view." No woman could have that point of view. Nice girls don't.
Talk about removing women's agency. We're either victims, or we're male-identified. Riiiight.
Or, as Marty Klein put it:
So the "male-identified" accusation is different, how...?
Answer: it's not. It's dismissive and it reinforces gender stereotypes.
And, too, it's not acceptable to discount men as thinking with their dicks, or being "creepy" simply for having an interest in sex (see Dacia's post on that topic), or the other gendered stereotypes that are often attached to men.
Note, I am not talking about calling men out on male privilege. Women (and other men) should absolutely do that, especially as part of a feminist, progressive discourse. And men should listen, and learn. So before anyone goes there, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about stereotypes. And stereotypes aren't good for anybody.
I guess the only thing worse that being called a man because of your stance on porn, is actually being a man and holding that same stance on porn. (Or perhaps one is not worse than the other, but rather they're two sides of the same shit-covered coin.)
Marty Klein didn't get "you're just like a man" or "you must be a man" or "you sound like a man." Instead, he got, "I am not surprised that you arrogantly only see this from a man’s point of view."
Convenient, isn't it? If someone makes an argument about porn you don't like, they're either a man, or they're male-identified. Because certainly no real woman would have that kind of (reasoned, well-thought-out) opinion about porn. That is "a man's point of view." No woman could have that point of view. Nice girls don't.
Talk about removing women's agency. We're either victims, or we're male-identified. Riiiight.
Or, as Marty Klein put it:
What you’ve done is just as bad as dismissing a woman’s opinion as “just a woman being emotional,” or “women just don’t get it,” or “she’s just premenstrual.” If we want to get beyond “women only think with their hormones,” we have to get past “men only think with their penises.”
Sunday, July 22, 2007
"Protecting women"
Twenty years later, The Handmaid's Tale is just as relevant as ever, if not more so.
From an excellent online study guide:
There is nothing new, much less revolutionary, about infantilizing women in the name of "protecting" them. It's a tactic used by fundamentalist religions around the world, and one feminists should be able to spot a mile away.
From an excellent online study guide:
The sub-theme of this tangled debate which seems to have particularly interested and alarmed Atwood is the tendency of some feminist anti-porn groups to ally themselves with religious anti-porn zealots who oppose the feminists on almost every other issue. The language of "protection of women" could slip from a demand for more freedom into a retreat from freedom, to a kind of neo-Victorianism. After all, it was the need to protect "good" women from sex that justified all manner of repression in the 19th century, including confining them to the home, barring them from participating in the arts, and voting. Contemporary Islamic women sometimes argue that assuming the veil and traditional all-enveloping clothing is aimed at dealing with sexual harassment and sexual objectification. The language is feminist, but the result can be deeply patriarchal, as in this novel.
There is nothing new, much less revolutionary, about infantilizing women in the name of "protecting" them. It's a tactic used by fundamentalist religions around the world, and one feminists should be able to spot a mile away.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Caged Asylum
I'm going to be keeping an eye on UK activism, legislation and media coverage against pornography, porn workers, raunch culture, etc.
On that note, if you can cast your minds back to this revolutionary move by Charliegrrl, I did a bit of an investigation. I was appalled that the leafleter apparently punched, kicked and threatened her when I read her post, but given her little twisting of truths (my truths, on one occasion) in the past, I wondered if there was more to this than her account gave out. I know a little bit about the club, as plenty of my friends attend on a regular basis. I'm pretty sure, by their accounts, that the women who cage dance and lapdance are there by their own volition. They are not forced, they are not coerced.
So I wrote to the club owner, intending to blog:
Hi info,
I've never attended your club, but am intending to next time I'm up
north! I'm a feminist with an interest in strip clubs, pornography,
SM, etc (in that I'm pro-all these things).
However, there are a lot of anti-porn, anti-sex types out there,
and I couldn't help but notice that one of them blogged in celebration
about attacking someone who works for you, and your property:
http://charliegrrl.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/manchester-city-council-permit-lapda
nce-advertising/#comments
I am intending to blog about this incident myself, and was wondering whether her little write up about the worker attacking her physically was, well, a little exaggerated. Is there any chance you can tell me the other side of the story?
They responded with the following:
Sorry, I have not responded to this earlier, I have been away. Thankyou for contacting us.The otherside of the story is : Basically we had a worker who stands in Manchester Centre promoting our Rock club, and at this point the promotion that was displayed had No Reference what so ever to lap dancing, as we didnt want to upset anybody and obviously are mature enough not to be putting this infront of minors. On the day in question, it was the worker who was approached with some force. However he was not physically attacked himself, but the girl in question made a lurch for the advertising board he was holding, and they began to wrestle over it(tug of war). In his disbelief he let the board go out of his hands, and the girl ran into H&M and hid the board. She then came out of H&M and ran off down Market st. She was no way attacked or even pushed. Our worker infact was slightly shocked but more embarrassed about the situation that he'd been setupon, infront of the busy shopping area.He is a very peaceful young lad who was merely stood there minding is own business with his Ipod on. All our promotion that is conducted in public refers to our club as a Rock venue which it is primarily. The Lap dancing is available and it is really important to point out here that we have an even split of Males and females who attend. Within the Rock community 30% of the females who attend have lap dances from the girls, some of the customers attend are Bi sexual, some lesbians, how does this fit with our said friends views. Surely it is up to the girls who decide to work and also the girls who choose to have dances from the girls. Nobody is forced. I am all for a well reasoned lively debate and think peoples opinions are extremely important and should be respected, whether they be feminist activists, the lap dancers or female or male club owners. What I cant understand is the way she conducts herself, as I am a pacifist and would rather use my brain. I am fully aware that all feminists do not conduct themselves in this manner and understand she muddies the water somewhat. I could go on a real rant about her, but honestly dont feel she is worth the time as I wouldn't expect to get a well reasoned response for her behaviour. What I will say is, I feel she is slightly displaced within herself and is obviously craving some attention to be seen as some kind of martyr.
I am always available for a converstaion and to answer any questions or concerns you may have, I would also like to extend an invitation to come and visit our establishment and would welcome you to speak to the girls who work with us and see how they feel about the job they do.
I hope this answers your question and as I said please feel free to contact me anytime. We honestly have no ill feeling towards your friend and if she wanted to come and check out the club and see how many women attend to put her mind at rest, there would be no problem.
So, we have two very different accounts here. I don't want to disbelieve Charliegrrl. I don't want to think she's lying in order to make her story there seem more dramatic, more palatable. But alas, I don't believe her. I suspect what actually happened was probably somewhere in between their stories, but it is, frankly, embarrassing, that a 'high profile' UK feminist blogger is happy to bend the truth in order to get her point across.
I'm all the way with Ren on this issue. Sure, go out there, educate people about the sex industry, post your views on a blog, set up events, argue, debate. It's all good.
But I just don't see how this kind of action, attacking publicity for clubs you don't really know anything about, and then lying about the actions of people involved in that club, is ever going to wash as exciting, revolutionary action in the name of feminism. It's destructive. It's derogatory and threatening to the women who work at or attend the club, and bewildering to most everybody else.
On that note, if you can cast your minds back to this revolutionary move by Charliegrrl, I did a bit of an investigation. I was appalled that the leafleter apparently punched, kicked and threatened her when I read her post, but given her little twisting of truths (my truths, on one occasion) in the past, I wondered if there was more to this than her account gave out. I know a little bit about the club, as plenty of my friends attend on a regular basis. I'm pretty sure, by their accounts, that the women who cage dance and lapdance are there by their own volition. They are not forced, they are not coerced.
So I wrote to the club owner, intending to blog:
Hi info,
I've never attended your club, but am intending to next time I'm up
north! I'm a feminist with an interest in strip clubs, pornography,
SM, etc (in that I'm pro-all these things).
However, there are a lot of anti-porn, anti-sex types out there,
and I couldn't help but notice that one of them blogged in celebration
about attacking someone who works for you, and your property:
http://charliegrrl.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/manchester-city-council-permit-lapda
nce-advertising/#comments
I am intending to blog about this incident myself, and was wondering whether her little write up about the worker attacking her physically was, well, a little exaggerated. Is there any chance you can tell me the other side of the story?
They responded with the following:
Sorry, I have not responded to this earlier, I have been away. Thankyou for contacting us.The otherside of the story is : Basically we had a worker who stands in Manchester Centre promoting our Rock club, and at this point the promotion that was displayed had No Reference what so ever to lap dancing, as we didnt want to upset anybody and obviously are mature enough not to be putting this infront of minors. On the day in question, it was the worker who was approached with some force. However he was not physically attacked himself, but the girl in question made a lurch for the advertising board he was holding, and they began to wrestle over it(tug of war). In his disbelief he let the board go out of his hands, and the girl ran into H&M and hid the board. She then came out of H&M and ran off down Market st. She was no way attacked or even pushed. Our worker infact was slightly shocked but more embarrassed about the situation that he'd been setupon, infront of the busy shopping area.He is a very peaceful young lad who was merely stood there minding is own business with his Ipod on. All our promotion that is conducted in public refers to our club as a Rock venue which it is primarily. The Lap dancing is available and it is really important to point out here that we have an even split of Males and females who attend. Within the Rock community 30% of the females who attend have lap dances from the girls, some of the customers attend are Bi sexual, some lesbians, how does this fit with our said friends views. Surely it is up to the girls who decide to work and also the girls who choose to have dances from the girls. Nobody is forced. I am all for a well reasoned lively debate and think peoples opinions are extremely important and should be respected, whether they be feminist activists, the lap dancers or female or male club owners. What I cant understand is the way she conducts herself, as I am a pacifist and would rather use my brain. I am fully aware that all feminists do not conduct themselves in this manner and understand she muddies the water somewhat. I could go on a real rant about her, but honestly dont feel she is worth the time as I wouldn't expect to get a well reasoned response for her behaviour. What I will say is, I feel she is slightly displaced within herself and is obviously craving some attention to be seen as some kind of martyr.
I am always available for a converstaion and to answer any questions or concerns you may have, I would also like to extend an invitation to come and visit our establishment and would welcome you to speak to the girls who work with us and see how they feel about the job they do.
I hope this answers your question and as I said please feel free to contact me anytime. We honestly have no ill feeling towards your friend and if she wanted to come and check out the club and see how many women attend to put her mind at rest, there would be no problem.
So, we have two very different accounts here. I don't want to disbelieve Charliegrrl. I don't want to think she's lying in order to make her story there seem more dramatic, more palatable. But alas, I don't believe her. I suspect what actually happened was probably somewhere in between their stories, but it is, frankly, embarrassing, that a 'high profile' UK feminist blogger is happy to bend the truth in order to get her point across.
I'm all the way with Ren on this issue. Sure, go out there, educate people about the sex industry, post your views on a blog, set up events, argue, debate. It's all good.
But I just don't see how this kind of action, attacking publicity for clubs you don't really know anything about, and then lying about the actions of people involved in that club, is ever going to wash as exciting, revolutionary action in the name of feminism. It's destructive. It's derogatory and threatening to the women who work at or attend the club, and bewildering to most everybody else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)