Julie Bindel in the Critic - why women don't support feminism

Happy to discuss the first part of your last post (the bit that is responding to me).

But i want you to address the comment your made earlier. I've asked loads of times.

It's vv important that you address what you said. We can bicker about quotes and context etc afterwards for as long as you wish.

The's a response to Wreath, btw.

Given that we can actually see that kind of governance in action right now in places like San Francisco, I don't know that I'd make statements like that with quite so much confidence.

I don't think Julie would say the same now. Possibly she has forgotten she wrote them but unfortunately the internet hasn't.

Saying that the reasons some people opt for sex work are the same as the reasons some people opt for cleaning work is not insulting to either cleaners or sex workers. It's also worth noting that cleaners, like sex workers, often make more money when they are not being contracted out via agencies. In fact the PP who outlined the reasons why some people take on cleaning work was almost certainly talking about self-employed/casual/cash-in-hand cleaning, because if you work as a cleaner of business premises, for an agency, you're more likely to have little control over your working hours whatever your care responsibilities, and to be underpaid (the agency takes most of what is charged to the client).

And I am not at all convinced by the idea that decriminalisation of either drugs or sex work is the cause of greater social harms than the prohibition of these things. As with all moral panics, this is a matter of howling in the wrong direction: reduce economic inequality and you reduce crime and cruelty. Blame it all on some group of 'other' people and the whole mess gets worse.

That attitude to mothers and motherhood seems to unite feminists who agree on little else. Zoe Williams was another, until she had a baby herself and immediately started a column about it.

To be fair to Julie, we all change. That first article is 18 years old and the second almost 9. I've a feeling she wouldn't write something like that now. But she shouldn't try and sweep it under the carpet. She could have written, 'Feminism hasn't always been supportive towards mothers and I've been guilty of that myself'. Dishonesty is corrosive.

Oh wow... how disappointing. The first one in particular really hasn't aged well. Unusual for a feminist to dehumanise children like that too. Pretty appalling. I really thought she was better than that.

What's is interesting is that she doesn't connect that with her claim that she's never seen feminism look down on mothers. Talk about someone slenderly knowing herself.

Law enforcement is rarely the answer to complex social problems, though. Increased law enforcement is much more likely to make them worse, because it is so deeply rooted in punishment, control, and protecting the powerful against the powerless. Increasing law enforcement as a way to address the problems associated with sex work invariably makes those problems worse - you don't 'rescue' people from sex work by stealing their money and deporting them, which is what tends to happen every time more restrictive laws are introduced.

No one is suggesting it is the only answer.

But look at drug issues. We know that certain social problems contribute a lot to drug problems, homelessness being one, and also that drug addicts often need help rather than going to prison.

So you get these cities where there is a progressive tendency in governance and they try and solve all these things by decriminalizing, stop prosecuting people they see as vulnerable, reducing what the police can do or just reducing the police altogether.

But it doesn't work. What you get are cities where the areas poor people live are dangerous shit-holes controlled by gangs and drug dealers. And that has a significant effect on the people that live there, and their children - it does not result in an atmosphere that doesn't encourage addiction.

Simple decriminalization of prostitution, even if you offer help, still does not mean that the forces that lead to it will be erased. There will still people coming out of bad environments, there will still be addiction, there will still be people willing to pay for sex, and there will still be people looking to profit out of providing for that market. All you do with decriminalization or even legalization is legitimize the market and make it easier for the bad actors.

It's entirely possible to refrain from criminalizing prostituted women, and put things in place to help them, but to criminalize paying for sex on the side of the punters, and pimps madams and traffickers.

Wouldn't your time be better spent lobbying against the govt immigration laws in general?

With Patel in charge good luck to you.

More chance of that than getting universal income introduced.

You can work on challenging the immediate problems while also working towards the long term goals.

Re stigma. Who is the group in society who have vile ideas about women (and girls) that men pay for sexual access?

That's right. Men. Obviously.

What are you doing, out of interest, apart from insulting women in this feminism board?

Lobbying MP?
Real life activism?
Gathering decent data to put your case?
Marching?
Working with others to a strategy?

Using multiple channels that have a large/ majority male audience and raising the issue of stigma?

Are you involved in anything international including countries with massive problems around 'stigma'? Where the men women girls boys are at huge risk from multiple sources?

Where prostitution is illegal and punishable sometimes very severely?

This is your area so why don't you inform us. You never know even the hard of thinking might be interested.

'Increasing law enforcement as a way to address the problems associated with sex work invariably makes those problems worse - you don't 'rescue' people from sex work by stealing their money and deporting them, which is what tends to happen every time more restrictive laws are introduced.'

Which poster and in which post said they wanted more law enforcement? Can you quote what they said please.

And then explain how that poster's views will certainly lead to those working in prostitution in the England/Wales to be deported and any money they have (any assets?) removed.

You need to respond in a direct manner to this question, and the one I've asked about 3 times now including the if don't agree swiw then irrelevant to you.

You haven't explained your previous comment, which genuinly is one of the worst things I've seen on here.

You can't just casually dismiss (what I suspect is the majority of) those who make money from sexual contact with men, because they don't agree with your opinion that sex work is no different to cleaning work.

Having the affront to describe others as hard of thinking after that post says a lot tbh.

Julie Bindel's new book on feminism for girls is great

[quote KimikosNightmare]For those that have chosen to marry men and stay at home to look after the children, they may believe that feminists look down on them. This is usually a defence mechanism because I’ve never heard a genuine feminist speak about women in that way

I think JB might have a selective memory.

www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2004/feb/07/weekend7.weekend

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/05/niall-ferguson-wrong-child-free-care-less?INTCMP=SRCH[/quote]
Oh wow... how disappointing. The first one in particular really hasn't aged well. Unusual for a feminist to dehumanise children like that too. Pretty appalling. I really thought she was better than that.

Harm reduction is not an unreasonable approach, and there are a few areas where it's been really effective.

But the tendency to see it as the answer, alone, for every social problem, without also looking at things like law enforcement, has become a real blind-spot among progressives. We can see this doesn't work in all kinds of places that have tried it. Decriminalizing and social supports, alone, don't seem to make for a stable social fabric.

Sigh. Once again for the hard-of-thinking: the reason people sell sex is, in many cases, the reason why people sell their labour in many other job that are boring, distasteful, physically demanding and/or dangerous - they need money and resources and this is the most effective way for them to meet those needs.
So the way to help and support those who sell sex and want to stop doing so is to give them the resources they need. First and foremost, universal basic income and an overall strategy to reduce economic inequality. Secondly, a strategy to address the stigma which means that people who have engaged in sex work find it difficult to obtain another job because employers, on discovering past sex work, assume that the applicant is a drug-addled fuckup, a 'slut' or otherwise unemployable (let's not get into the grifters of the rescue industry who, if they offer alternative work at all, offer only low-level service work. OK, they offer grift opportunities, but only to a few and those are exploitative as well.)

All the strategies that would actually help sex workers are strategies that can and should be deployed to help everyone who is struggling and/or being exploited (UBI, safe migration routes, unionisation etc). All the strategies to tackle sex work that are rooted in puritanism and superstition do far, far more harm than good.

Your points are well made CheeseMmmm although possibly for another thread.

There's a strong push for the popular notion in the press and underlying social belief that when it comes to most things that are not good, women are the root cause

^ this however is pertinent to the Bindel article and to some posters on here.

Would you tell a men that being paid by another man to fuck you anally is worth just like any other work? No different to washing a car, working on till in shop, or indeed. Cleaning.

Be honest. Would you tell a heterosexual man that being paid by men to be anally penetrated, (sorry but let's be honest) to be fucked hard, until the buyer ejaculates as deep as he can.

Is a good choice of work if he's looking for flexible hours etc?

If you say yes. You would definitely tell men that. Men you don't know on chat sites, men you know irl etc. And really push your point that it's no different to any other work it if they said no it really isn't.

Will you say yes?

...

Oh and. If the man takes your advice and advertises, sees punters etc.
And he does not agree it's a job like any other. But he needs to keep doing it.
You would... Not count him as a 'sex worker'?

Really strange posts.

I find posters who take same line as wreath really interesting.

Wreath

-Please expand on your comment saying anyone paid for sex who does NOT agree that it's a job like any other, no different to cleaning etc. Is by your definition not a prostitute.
What your definition of prostitute (sex workers who provide a service that includes sex acts up to and including oral, vaginal, anal penetrative sex with a man, if you prefer)?

• Assuming you're a woman who has a reasonable amount of experience of sex with men.

How it's even possible to say being paid by men for sex, sex acts etc is no different to any other work.

I can't see how it's possible to think that when you know only too well what men can be like. To women, and girls from as soon as their boobs are making even tiny bumps in their school jumpers.

*extract from twitter thread

Since the recent comparison has centred on cashiers who get arthritis, it's helpful to know that women in the sex trade are at significant risk of chronic joint, back, jaw and wrist pain. The cause of which we don't want to talk about: Sex buyers heavy bodies & aggressive motions

Sex buyers know about this physical damage, btw and talk about it - or rather "complain". "She couldn't do xy cause she's got x pain, so annoying." Trigger warning: Rape and dehumanization. t.co/qiompPc4am

Disproportionate risk of bruises contusions, wounds, head & facial injuries, pulled muscles, fractures, internal injuries, miscarriages. According to the German family ministry 1 in 5 prostituted women sustains intermediate to heavy physical injury in connection with prostitution

Not so well known may be the reality of oral problems for women in the sex trade: Negative effects on teeth, mouth and jawbone. Some women self-anaesthetize, e.g. using dental numbing sprays to endure painful oral sex. Delayed care for oral health issues can lead to abscesses.

The sex trade is the only "work environment" that can give you vaginal inuries, harm your vaginal ph level and fluid, increasing the risk for inflammation and infection, esp chronic bladder infections. As well as vaginal tears, fissures and an increased risk for cervical cancer.

What is done to women in #prostitution increases their risk for kidney and bladder problems, as well as urine and stool incontinence. Add to that pelvic floor weakness, heavy period pain, irregular menstruation and infertility. The entire abdominal area is at significant risk.

The sex trade is the only industry where you're at risk of injury to your anus and rectum. Add gastrointestinal issues, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, eating disorders, inflamed digestive tracks and destroyed bowel environments. Caused by violent anal sex and frequent enemas.

The gastrointestinal issues and other factors women in the sex trade often suffer affect the effectiveness of contraception. So not only can they suffer side-effects of hormonal contraceptives, including thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, the "job" can cause unwanted pregnancies.

twitter.com/EllyArrow/status/1431531246283329544?t=_jEMVTL2RfjSiOsiOEOkvQ&s=19

Sex-buyers are not paying for some gentle lovemaking, or to wait until the woman is miraculously fully aroused by the presence of a sex-buyer.

Sex women don't want to have hurts women.

Maybe the dodgy men only go to the wrong sort of prostitutes?

And the... reduce the stigma it's same as cleaning... sex workers, who only do the part of that term that means men paying for sex.

Get good looking, kind, trustworthy, interesting, often only want a chat, generous, respectful men. That they may enjoy having sex with.

Well easy then.

Just tell all those (men women boys girls) who are paid for sexual contact. All over the world. To say sex work is work 10 times a day.

And all prostitutes (and prostituted) people everywhere will be at zero risk from punters!

Fucking hell you're a genius!!

Wreath you really need to explain your comment just now.

I'm surprised you missed the main obvious difference between cleaning, and men paying a woman for various sex acts including (variously) fucking their cock into someone's mouth vagina arsehole.

I mean I see that as a pretty key difference.

And I've heard some shit in my time.

Unless the quote you pasted of her posts has missed out info..?

So your 'gotcha' is that she might know, or have experience of being, the wrong sort of prostitute?

Anyone who makes money being paid for sex. Who doesn't follow the mantra sex work is work (same as any other job eg cleaning).

Then they don't 'count' as far as you're concerned, as having any relevance in these conversations?

That's genuinely really really appalling.

• It is better paid than other jobs they could get in line with their qualifications/age/local market
• It is a genuine way to improve their economic position
• It allows them to mantain financial independance
• They like it^

All these reasons can apply to sex work as well. TBH when it comes to cleaning, doing it on a self-employed casual basis is probably the only way to earn more money than you would by being officially employed (agency cleaners, particularly those who clean business premises, tend to be very poorly paid).