Sweden and prostitution

[Aradia]

Has anyone seen this article? It talks about how Sweden has decriminalised the selling of sex and criminalised the buying of sex, at the same time increasing funding for resources to support women to get out and re-educating law enforcement. This has led to a dramatic decrease in prostitution and virtually wiped out sex trafficking. The thing that stood out to me as well was that 50% of government at the time they legislated was women. How far away are we from achieving the same? Sadly I suspect we are likely to be waiting a long time before we see similar in this country.

I don't know about the ECP specifically, but some sex worker activist groups do have a murky history of being run by / affiliated with pimps:

secretlifeofamanhattancallgirl.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/pimps-will-be-pimps-whether-male-or-female-or-posing-as-sex-worker-activists-other-conflicts-of-interest/

secretlifeofamanhattancallgirl.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/how-the-sex-industry-threatens-survivors-speaking-out-while-pimps-pose-as-sexworker-activists/

Those are American but they reference at least one Irish organisation and at least one UK one.

There's also a link here to the IUSW being populated by pimps: toomuchtosayformyself.com/2009/01/09/the-great-iusw-con/

Thanks, KarmaViolet. The application form for IUSW indeed makes it clear that they accept "brothel managers" or indeed just about anyone in the industry. Not great.

I don't want to derail this but also I don't want to start a TAAT.

A few weeks ago there was a lot of fuss on here and AIBU about why so few women post on this board. The comments in AIBU were scathing about FWR.

In this thread someone posted an alternative POV and was told it is wrong to post alternative PsOV and was then accused of being a pimp supporter.

Sorry about that AICM. I left the thread because I know we're not allowed to disagree with anyone now. Will hide the thread now.

Not being allowed to comment about violence perpetrated against women and girls by men is going to severely limit what feminists are allowed to say though. It's a conundrum.

The pimp lobby is powerful and well funded - and hides behind a false veneer of women's "empowerment" - when really it is all about the wanting to commoditise women for profit. There is a lot of money at stake if punters are criminalised. Demand drops, profit drops.

Nobody was told it was wrong AICM.

They were called out on it. Just like they would have been in AIBU.

I'm not sorry. The article posted was written by someone from ECP which is an organisation that supports pimps and lobbies for legalisations of brothels (which involve pimps). It is part of the pimp lobby, plain and simple.

Prostitution is violence against women and girls. I'm not planning to roll out the red carpet for pimp lobbyists to post on FWR, AIBU or anywhere else for that matter.

Some proponents of the Nordic system have pretty dodgy connections too; Ruhama/Turn off the red light in Ireland are very closely associated with the order of nuns who ran the Magdalene Laundries. (Also aimed at "rescuing" women. Also profiting from said "rescue" work. As much as things change, they remain the same...)

Nothing compared with pimps though, is it? I'd say "profiting" (by which I assume you mean receiving government grants for assisting women exiting prostitution) is quite different from pimping i.e. making your income from women being fucked by men they don't want.

Really? Taking "fallen women" (often victims of incest/rape) and selling their babies, often abroad and without proper records (or indeed, checks on adoptive parents) while forcing the mothers into a lifetime of unpaid servitude is somehow better? What about the Tuam babies?

You do know that's not happening now. I have relatives who were in the Magdalen system. Don't use them to support the violence against women that is prostitution. That is horrific.

I know it's not happening now, but it's not that long ago it was happening, and not only happening, but fully socially supported, with stigma-shaming of the "fallen women". People are still alive now who were incarcerated, who had their babies stolen from them. People are still alive now who did the incarcerating. Those "babies" are still alive now.

Yes, that's horrific. And yet feminists are happy to get into a metaphorical bed with these people? These people who accompany police on brothel raids, shaming and humiliating women, dragging them into the streets in their underwear, with press photographers present? That's not violence against women?

I don't know what the right answer is here, but I think it is a statement of pure unadulterated fact that some people under the status quo suffer, and suffer badly. Therefore the way we have prostitution operating, in the UK at least cannot be right can it?

Whatever fancy academic dancing around the subject that goes on often seems to obsfucate this fact. Anyone arguing the status quo or who are simply shooting down suggestions on how to change things without submitting their own model for change are only contributing noise and precious little else to the discussion.

Just to reiterate I have no idea what the "right" answer is to make things better, but I have the utmost respect for anyone that is at least trying. Things have to change.

Puffins
That type of comment proves my point better than I ever could! Thanks!

Aicm does not like the feminist pov on fwr board.
Duly noted.

I think ACIM's point is that there is truth to accusations of unreasonable intolerance on this board. Yes, we do not have to conform to the stereotype of being nice, sweet and polite. However, calling somebody a "pimp" without any explanation simply for the fact of positing an article on a relevant topic but espousing an opposing view is a bit harsh, don't you think? The knowledge that many "sex worker" organisations are associated with pimps is pretty specialised. It is not easy to get this information unless you actually do some digging like I just did. It is not something that would occur out of the blue even to a very feminist-minded and critically thinking Guardian reader. A reputable left-leaning newspaper publishes a fairly well-researched and coherent article with a point of view by a union of sex workers. What's not kosher, from the perspective of a non-specialist?

What's happening is that at the start of this board people who were not privy to rather specialist information were accused of being pimps. With no explanation.

Yes, it is possible that the person who linked the Guardian article was part of the "pimp lobby", especially seeing that they did not provide much information about their point of view either. But I like giving people the benefit of the doubt in such complex cases.

Buffy, thank's for the explanation.

I know that FWR is not an outreach organisation, but neither it is a closed club where anybody who has not been initiated into finer points of feminism should be routinely accused of pimping. What's the point then? For people who agree with each other to agree with each other?

Totally agree buffy. I agree absolutely with puffins here too - and if people don't realise that the pimp lobby does both spend time and money writing articles/campaigning for legalisation of prostitution, and post on mumsnet, then it's time they did realise that.

Women's freedom from violence and exploitation isn't (well it shouldn't be) a "debate" with two sides putting forward their rational arguments.

Aye.

And yet feminists are happy to get into a metaphorical bed with these people?

Given that pro-pimp lobbyists are in a metaphorical bed with pimps, gangsters and traffickers, this accusation doesn't carry much weight.

These people who accompany police on brothel raids, shaming and humiliating women, dragging them into the streets in their underwear, with press photographers present?

I don't believe Ruhama did this.

The pimp lobby is not the same as being a pimp. No-one on this thread has been accused of being a pimp.

I don't think that it's feminists' job to be saintly. However, if we (can I include myself here? I am not sure.) accept that we are not saintly, then we should be prepared to accept some constructive criticism. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up as saints, just of a different kind. For this reason, however much I like Puffins and you and lots of other people on this board, I just can't easily go along with hanging people as "pimp lobby" without trial. Puffins could have just said "the Guardian article is backed by a pimp organisation". It would have taken just as many words as making a personal accusation.

I don't write on FWR or on MN in general too often as I physically have very little time. When I do though, more challenging threads on FWR are my favourite. I come here to learn. And I have learnt a lot and formed many new opinions. This is why I came onto this board. I don't expect to be taught. That's not anybody's job here. But I expect not to be abused. And I felt I was walking on eggshells when I wrote my first post on this thread. I feel I am walking on eggshells as I write this as I don't want to spoil my relationship with people I like but neither I want to be bullied by them.

However, I feel I am derailing the thread now. I'll shut up now.

I think Autumn has a point though. From the Guardian article:

"This came after a plea from sex workers that mobilised hundreds of individuals and organisations, including the Hampshire Women’s Institute, Women Against Rape, the Royal College of Nursing, church groups, trade unionists, academics, lawyers and anti-racist and anti-poverty campaigners, to write letters urging MPs to oppose the legislation."

These are respected groups in society -- why would a non-specialist assume that their stance is part of the pimp lobby? Obviously more digging would reveal things, but a casual reader wouldn't know. Accusing someone of promoting the pimp lobby view is pretty insulting, unless you have history with the poster I would give benefit of the doubt.

There is no debate around the suffering of women but clearly there is a debate about the best policy to ameliorate that suffering, as with any social ill. Some people will shoot down new approaches because they want the status quo and to keep oppressing women but some people will just think a different approach is needed. I don't think it's fair to lump them all in together.

For example, I am really curious to see that Women Against Rape opposed the bill. Can someone shed some light on that? Do you think they are a good organisation just badly aligning themselves on this issue, or is there something wrong with them altogether?

(I hope it's clear that by asking this question I am NOT condoning prostitution, I just think there is no magic policy to address it, and having a policy debate is not the same as wanting the status quo.)

Great post, dreamingbohemian.