Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Morning all, How about a straw poll?

65 replies

ISNT · 30/07/2010 09:58

Strawpoll is about jobs and adverts for jobs and the job centre.

A judge ruled a few years back that job centres have to advertise any job which is legal. Thus they run ads for webcam roles, escorts, phone sex lines etc.

Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

OP posts:
Pogleswood · 30/07/2010 11:54

"I have visions of young naive unqualified girls going in and being presented with a list of jobs in the sex industry. According to my collegaues this is not a problem. it's just jobs, like any others"

This whole scenario appalls me...Would you colleagues really be happy to have their own children facing this as a choice at 16?(and if this relates to the other thread I'm not surprised it threw you...)This could be my daughter,now...

I don't think the exemption should be removed

Sex work isn't the same as other work IMO..but I don't know how you would define this,playing devils advocate here,because the objections are moral,aren't they? Either you disagree because it is "immoral",or because it is exploitative/dangerous.
But other dangerous jobs exist,are the risks people face acceptable in some situations but not others?

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 30/07/2010 11:51

Hang on, where did I say that existing exemption criteria should be removed?

I said that I didn't think that there was a serious compulsion to take work at the moment. Apparently I was wrong. Given that, I certainly didn't know that there were exemption criteria to the rules-I-didn't-know-about. And given that, I certainly wasn't saying that the exemption-criteria-I-didn't-know-about to the rules-I-didn't-know-about should be removed.

Given that I've said "I would disagree strongly if people wound up being pushed into applying for those jobs on the threat of having benefits cut" and that I'd like there not to be a compulsion to take work in general (i.e. that there shouldn't be a compulsion to take work and if there were there shouldn't be a compulsion to take sex industry work) I have no idea at all how you concluded "there are already exemption criteria in place. But you think these should be removed?"

I think perhaps you are confusing my position (I repeat what I said before, "I'm not opposed at all in principle (in fact would support it) if I thought that in practice there was a coherent and consistent framework that could be applied to exclude these legal jobs but not to exclude other legal jobs that I would be upset/annoyed to see excluded") with those of the other people you were arguing with in RL.

So how are these current exemption criteria defined, and is it in statute or statutory instrument or informal guidelines or what? If they have come up with a workable framework for excluding sex industry jobs then I would support its being used to exclude them from being advertised in job centres as well as from compulsion-to-work rules. But I think it needs to be centralised and formalised and clear, and not something that an individual centre could use to exclude other jobs that they happen not to approve of.

Original poster
ISNT · 30/07/2010 11:32

there is a compulsion to take work, or lose benefits, at the moment. Sex industry roles are currently exempt from that compulsion.

So it is the case that there are already exemption criteria in place. But you tihnk these should be removed? And the sex industry roles treated like all the other roles - anything goes as long as it's legal?

it occured to me that prostitution fits well with the needs of a mother with children at school. You can work from home, in school hours or after the children have gone to bed, you are your own boss, hours are flexible. it is legal. So should mothers on benefits be encouraged to start their own businesses in this area? If not, why not? It is legal, it is flexible, it pays, and if sex work is the same as any other work, then why not?

OP posts:
Prolesworth · 30/07/2010 11:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 30/07/2010 11:28

At the moment, as you say, there isn't a compulsion to take the work. And TBH quite apart from the sex industry stuff that's how I'd like to see it stay. So I don't need to worry about how to phrase an exemption to a compulsion-to-work rule.

You see, I think it's the fact that they have to advertise any legal job that stops (or should stop) their being seen as a stamp of "approval". The moment you start excluding some legal jobs, then you get the consequence that anything they do advertise is seen as "approved".

How are you going to decide what jobs to exclude, and who is going to do it? I'm not opposed at all in principle (in fact would support it) if I thought that in practice there was a coherent and consistent framework that could be applied to exclude these legal jobs but not to exclude other legal jobs that I would be upset/annoyed to see excluded.

Prolesworth · 30/07/2010 11:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster
ISNT · 30/07/2010 11:12

That should read that these jobs will usually come up for girls/women, not that girls/women are usually the ones who are unskilled.

I'm sure there is a demand for boys/men to do these roles, but not as much as for girls/women. I would have the same issues for boys/men being presented with webcam type opportunities. However I suspect that men would be more confident in turning down the position, rather than girls/women who have been groomed by society all their lives that a sex industry or porn role is a good career choice.

I have visions of young naive unqualified girls going in and being presented with a list of jobs in the sex industry. According to my collegaues this is not a problem. it's just jobs, like any others.

OP posts:
Original poster
ISNT · 30/07/2010 11:07

I think that these types of roles should not be advertised in the job centre.

The job centre is a govt institution and thus the jobs that they advertise are seen as "approved".

There are plenty of other avenues that if you want to work in teh sex industy, you can see job adverts.

It bothers me that young unskilled people (almost always girls/women) will have these roles come up as they (I assume) do not normally require formal qualifications. And many of them pay well (ie it's a "lure"). And they are in the jobcentre so they must be OK.

The counterarguments are that it's legal and some people work there by choice. That 16yo are perfectly well able to make decisions like this, they are adults and if they don't know what they're doing that's their problem. That these roles are "normal", no different to any other job. There is no reason for them to be treated differently. And that if you are on benefits you shouldn't be choosy. Also that while at the moment, there is no compulsion to take this work, in say 10 years time the rules might have changed, and then that's the way it will be. That this is how society is, and you can't change it. These are the arguments that upset me.

OP posts:
Pogleswood · 30/07/2010 10:59

I do think that if it is legal the Job Centre should advertise it
But personally I'm not happy with the idea,and I did wonder whether people can then be told they must apply for this type of work or lose benefits.Because in theory I feel you should be going for any work you can do....but I would rather my DD was unemployed forever than work as an escort...

But then if you are going to say people do not have to apply for particular types of work because they disagree with it,where do you stop?

Original poster
ISNT · 30/07/2010 10:58

proflayton you say that these roles should not be subject to the normal rules in the jobcentre re stopping benefits etc. using your own argument, how are you going to decide which of the jobs have this exemption?

OP posts:
Original poster
ISNT · 30/07/2010 10:54

Prostitution is legal. So is masturbating for a webcam. Should these roles be advertised as "govt approved" normal roles for eg school leavers?

OP posts:
ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 30/07/2010 10:38

But if "legality" isn't to be the arbiter of what jobs a job centre can advertise, then what is? What do you put in place instead? If you leave it up to the discretion of individual centre managers then you could get all sorts of hideous discrimination coming through. And it's not easy to frame a nice straightforward easy-to-apply rule (even "the sex industry" is a relatively nebulous term -- we all know what it is, but if you try defining it it gets trickier).

Original poster
ISNT · 30/07/2010 10:27

Interesting...

Keep em coming

I will weigh in with my POV in a bit (my stance on this is bound to be a huge shock to everyone )

OP posts:
Prolesworth · 30/07/2010 10:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave · 30/07/2010 10:02

Um.

I agree that they should advertise any job which is legal.

But I would disagree strongly if people wound up being pushed into applying for those jobs on the threat of having benefits cut.

Swipe left for the next trending thread