So, it’s a hyper-vigilance day so far, (PTSR is niggling at me). Good to be aware that I am feeling in no mood for any obfuscating language. I can’t stand language like “sex worker” at the best of times, because the language bedrocks the argument and dictates where the truth goes. (It goes nowhere and disappears in to a false diversion about an individual’s human “rights”)
“Sex worker” starts from a place of agency that isn’t there. To go from that term implies a move away from choice, from liberation.Don’t mess with that! (We’re not, we don’t, you’ve been diverted again.) There is no starting point from that position because it has to really exist, not theoretically exist, in order for it to be moved away from. Relational autonomy is necessarily dismissed, given it would out the lie that is the premise of the sex industry. Anyway, now that I am breathing okay…
The article below is a place I do tolerate it.
I was wondering why but it’s pretty clear. The person who has come under attack is well-intentioned, but (to my knowledge) also believes prostitution is a problem because of “stigma”, which is the Scarlet Alliance mantra when anyone talks about prostitution and refuses to call it “sex work”. (If you recall, we were attacked at parliament house in Melbourne by the Scarlet Alliance for using the word “survivors” to define our own experiences. “Former sex workers” was what we were insisted upon to say. We didn’t.)
In any case, I imagine Peta Brady got a shock when they attacked her for speaking about violence against “sex workers”, and who does it to them. She named the perpetrators, acknowledged that johns hurt women. Perhaps she didn’t realize that only “stigma” is allowed to harm and kill in the “Sex Worker Union” lexicon? The “client” is never to be named as violent. The “who” becomes a “what”.
How could she have known that the union does not support it’s “workers”? Surely that’s what unions are for? How could she have known that when they say they are “run by sex workers, for sex workers”, it is with real and bitter irony, because they are usually treasurers and vice-presidents and sycophants, who haven’t touched a johns dick if ever, or for years.
It is a case of the “Emperor has No Clothes” and he knows it ; the public are the ones being hoodwinked.
My hope is that she will recover strongly, and take a look at what’s really going on with these organizations. That everybody will . She certainly has my support if she wants it.
It is in this spirit that I share this impeccable piece by Matt Holloway :