Hollywood celebrities have been making themselves look foolish in the press again this week. That’s not really an unusual state of affairs, although this time the subject matter is a bit more serious than a badly chosen dress or getting drunk and punching a photographer.
Amnesty International just voted to support the decriminalization of sex work. They did this despite a number of celebrities kicking up a fuss in the press. Famous names such as Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet, Emma Thompson, Lena Dunham and Anne Hathaway were all opposed. So on one side we have a global organization that has spent years studying the issue and helping people affected by it. On the other we have a bunch of actors whose qualifications include looking good and delivering scripted lines in a believable manner. Those are handy attributes to have, but I’m not sure they really qualify you to lead the debate on this issue.
I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised. After all, I’ve vented on celebrity idiocy in the past. I just wished they’d stick to selling silly diet books or crazy religions, rather than sticking their nose into policies than can have life or death implications.
While Ms Hathaway may be abusing the power of her celebrity, I will admit she does look good as catwoman. The movie may have sucked, but she was one of the (rare) highlights
Of course sex work needs to be decriminalized. However, no matter the outcome of the debate, society has to make sure there are alternatives for women who consider prostitution their only option to provide for themselves and their loved ones, especially children.
I distinguish between two types of sex workers. The ones who want a 50 inch TV, rather than a 46 inch model and those who see no other way to make a living. But like any topic it is being high-jacked and people, politicians and celebrities exploit other people’s misery to further their own agenda.
In Sweden being a prostitute is legal, but paying one isn’t. According to a 2014 Independent article: “most sex workers interviewed in Finland, Norway and Sweden said the new laws made their working conditions more dangerous.” I’ve read similar comments elsewhere.
Rather than combating prostitution at large, I’d rather see the entire budget spent on ferociously fighting sex trafficking and making sure there are options for everyone to make a decent living without the need to turn to prostitution. Being a sex worker has to be a choice, unburdened by a desperate scramble for survival or being unable to take care of your loved ones. Regrettably those are hard choices politicians don’t like, cause they know they are very hard to deliver on, nor do they match the views of a broad coalition of interest groups that want to control what women can and cannot do.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/view-from-the-streets-new-nordic-sex-laws-are-making-prostitutes-feel-less-safe-9294458.html
I think everyone would agree more options are better. Increasing education and opportunities is always good. And nobody should be trafficked or forced into sex work.
But I’m also troubled when I see people drawing up categories of sex worker. If those categories are between those that have agency and those that don’t then fair enough. But if they’re between the perceived high end and the low end then I think it’s more problematic. If someone makes a personal choice to do sex work rather than work in a sweatshop sewing Nike trainers then I think that choice sucks, but it’s not down to me (or the law) to take away that choice. I think we should work as a society to provide better choices, but not to remove someones ability to make that choice.
The ‘rescue’ industry often plays this game. They have a personal moral objection to sex work, but they know that’s a tough and complex argument to sell. So they simplify it to ‘This poor women is forced to do sex work to support her family – she has no choice’. Everybody responds to that message. And they next thing they do is force her to do some shitty other job that she’d already rejected. By all means work to give her other choices she might like, but making decisions about her life for her is obnoxious patronizing bullshit.
Not having to scramble to survive or support a family is a worthy goal, but we don’t have to single out sex work to have it.
-paltego
Thanks for the link, 11dutch.
Another piece of lazy journalism. Again not even a token reference to the way the people of New Zealand tackled and solved “the problem” … *deep sigh*
I’m definitely not a fan of the so called Nordic model. It’s indirect criminalization, and another to control what people choose to do with their lives.
It’s amazing how infrequently the example of New Zealand comes up. They’ve gone in a very different direction, and yet journalists always trot out comments about the Nordic model and never mention want the Kiwi’s did. Very frustrating.
-paltego