Here’s an interesting tidbit.
The State Department's office combating human trafficking issued a directive Friday to US agencies urging them to avoid using terms "sex worker" or "child sex worker" and even advised governments not to use them."Of course, one can rationalize words such as 'sex worker' and "child sex worker" in an effort to avoid a demeaning label such as 'prostitute," said John Miller, the office's director.
"However, there are other substitutes such as 'women used in prostitution' or 'sexually exploited children' that are neither pejorative nor pretend that violence to women and children is 'work,'" said Miller, who retired Friday after campaigning extensively across the globe to stem the human trafficking problem. (Emphasis added)
Huh. Where to start.
First of all, I fail to see how “women used in prostitution� is somehow better than “sex worker.� Used? Thanks for the agency, guys! And since when are all sex workers women? But that’s not the point.
I’m all for accurately describing situations—if someone is being forced into prostitution, let’s call it that. If someone is being forcibly trafficked, let’s call it that as well. If a kid is being exploited, by all means, call that shit out.
But issuing a directive that the term “sex worker� not be used? Come on. Who the fuck is this guy to decide the preferred nomenclature? Because the thing is, he clearly has a definite view that most, if not all, of prostitution is forced.
"People called 'sex workers' did not choose prostitution the way most of us choose work occupations," Miller said.
Miller says that the majority of people in prostitution are “victims of slavery� and that 89 percent want to "escape." I don’t know the study he’s citing so I can’t speak to numbers. I agree that it seems ridiculous to call a minor a “child sex worker� because it implies that a child can consent to sex, but the rest of it is just too sketch for me.
There’s a lot of power in language, and the ability to name yourself is pretty damned important. I know of a few groups that use the term “sex worker,� if you know of any other organizations please list them in comments. You know, so women can speak for themselves.
Also, this is a great book.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sex worker: What’s in a name?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/4478
www.prostitutionresearch.com is top-notch website on prostitution, including some commentary on the politics of using "sex worker" to describe women in prostitution. Check out their mock classified ad.
"People called 'sex workers' did not choose prostitution the way most of us choose work occupations," Miller said.
Just who is this we of which you speak, Mr. Miller?
You and I may be lucky enough to have freely chosen our occupations, but for the majority of people, at least throughout history, there is little meaningful choice in occupation -- ya have to eat somehow, eh? And not everyone can be a state department official or an academic or in some other relatively plum position.
Unless you have a very strong global safety net so any person can always choose not to even work, the labor market is gonna be fundamentally inelastic (which employers like, eh?) ... and if few choices in occupation are available, well, what does that mean, Mr. Miller?
Anyone? Miller? Bueller? Anyone?
I think Miller suffers from the delusion that any of us get to "choose".
That's the interesting thing about capitalism - this illusion of freedom of choice. Yet, when you go to the grocery store, you have set options. If you have three dollars instead of five, you can't buy Lucky Charms.
I know that's a really shitty analogy, but come on, prostitution has existed for so many years because for so many years, there was no other way for women TO make money. Today, yes, it's a bit different, but there are still those that have no other feasible way in our economy to make such a living.
I'm not sure I understand.
As it relates to his job and the jobs of those he was in charge of- which is combating human trafficking- these people didn't choose their employment in any way, shape, or form. If they had, they wouldn't be victims of human trafficking. While it may be the case that other people don't have any choice about their employment, that's not really the case to most people in the United States. Granted, many people have limited employment options, but that's not the same as no options. I have a job. Right now, I could go out and apply to a dozen or so different retail, food service, or unskilled labor positions, and, most likely, get at least a few job offers. Do I have free pick of every single job on the market? Of course not. But, my situation as it relates to picking a job is certainly better than someone who has been kidnapped and sold into prostitution. Plus, I think that talking about whether other people have choices in regards to their job kind of misses his point.
Jessica, regarding "Who the fuck is this guy to decide the preferred nomenclature? Because the thing is, he clearly has a definite view that most, if not all, of prostitution is forced."
I don't know this guy, so I can't say with any degree of certainty, but my impression upon reading the article is that he's only interested in talking about forced prostitution when he talks about "women used in prostitution" because that was his job- combating human trafficking. I'm not sure he's really interested in addressing people who are involved in the sex trades by choice. He definitely thinks that most women who are involved in prostitution aren't involved in it by choice- citing that 89% want to escape, and it seems to be those 89% that he's directing this at. Especially since he mentions, more than once, that he's talking about "modern-day slavery."
Whether changing the terminology used will have any real impact on the problem is certainly debatable, but I don't think that he's looking to define women and men who are involved in prostitution by choice. I really think he's just looking to change the terminology used to describe women, men, and children who end up involved in prostitution through force- the modern-day "victims of slavery." As it relates to them, I don't see a problem with refering to it in those kinds of terms- "women used in prostitution" "sexually exploited children" or "men forced into prostitution" etc.
I agree that it's a problem if he's trying to use terms like that for everyone, but if his focus is on the people forced into those positions (which I suspect it is), then I'm not sure I see a problem with that.
I have nothing against the use of sex worker (or whatever they want to be called) for people who choose to be sex workers. People (especially children, especially the poor, especially people in countries where the UN and other western forces exploit them) who do not choose to be sex workers should be called people used in prostitution (because they really are being treated as objects) or victims of prostitution/human trafficking because they are victims, or slaves, but not "workers". And everyone should lobby against forced or coerced prostitution, whether men or women are the forced prostitutes in question. Personally, I think that sex work should be legalized so that the distinction between sex workers and sex slaves is better realized.
Jessica, I find myself in strong agreement with most of what you write, but not on this piece. I think Miko and roymacIII hit the nail on the head.
ok...I submitted this for multiple reasons...I don't think there is a clear cut "answer" to this.
Personally, I think people can call it what they want...I also think that it many cases it is slavery.
I an a huge fan of this site and turned both my daughters on to and they both read it every day as well. Most of the time I sit here reading your pieces yelling "Hell yeah!" In this case I have to make an exception.
This guy is definitely on the right side. He wants to draw a distinction between those who do choose to make a living selling sex and those who are exploited and abused by being forced into a life of providing sex so that others can make money. Why pick a fight about his clearly good intentions to make people more sensitive to the plight of exploited, trafficked humans? I don't understand.
Of course Miller wants them to stop using the word sex worker. Three years into the war on prostitution and he's got little to show for his efforts but a few successful prosecutions in sex trafficking cases, where no slaves were found. These evil traffickers are doing time for illegal wire transfers into their "victims'" overseas bank accounts and putting "massage establishment" instead of "brothel" on their tax returns.
I refer to myself as a sex worker, escort, prostitute or hooker usually. Sometimes I use the term "provider" which is the term that most of the women in the business, who I know personally, use.
Here are a couple of sites I really like
Network of Sex Work Projects
All Women Count
The second link takes you directly to the sex workers page, but allwomencount.net covers many other groups of women as well, including rape survivors, rural women, wage earners, housewives, lesbian, immigrant women and too many others to list them all.
Hopefully someday we'll be able to undo the damage done by notorious truth-twisters and blatant liars like Melissa Farley, Donna Hughes John Miller and their ilk. It isn't easy when speaking up for yourself is incriminating and your opponents have the support of the media and government. I think even the Feds are starting to realize that these evangelicals are spreading a bunch of hooey.
21stCenturyMom,roymacIII, AndyS and others...I think you may be understanding what I'm saying.
You see, I don't think he wants to draw that distinction at all--this directive wasn't just for his office, which deals with forced prostitution. It was a directive to all U.S. agencies...
Like I said in the post, of course let's make that distinction and call forced prostituion what it is--but it seems to me what he's doing is calling all prostitution forced.
That could be the case- and if it is, I'd say he's way over-stepping. That was just my own reading of his comments. This bears further examination...
Got it - thanks for clearing that up and making me read what he said again.
I still think he means well - he was just not being articulate and possibly judgemental about legitimate sex workers.
I don't know... this seems to me to be, if not a step in the right direction, at least a step that's better-intentioned than most when it comes to our government's approach to global women's rights.
I mean no offense to women (or men) engaged in sex work when I say this, but I think that bearing in mind the misogynist backdrop against which sex work occurs, in the vast majority of cases it is a form of slavery. Even if not to the specific people who engage in it, then to the women who bear the fallout of the fact that it exists and is not governed in a way that makes it at all fair or just to the people who do the work.
I personally don't think there's anything demeaning about noting, through our language, that the people engaged in sex work are the victims, and not the bad guys, so to speak. Hell, I wish corporate America would admit to the fact that most of us are slaves to the working world, too. Using our language to signal the fact that people don't have the control they deserve, might lead us to question why others have that power, and push for greater self-determination on the part of people who do sex work.
Considering the numerous backwards steps we've taken with respect to global human rights, I have a hard time finding a major problem with this one. At worst it appears slightly misguided... but even then, I think it's up for legitimate debate whether people really "choose" sex work given the world we live in. And, no, I don't think many people get to "choose" their occupations... I just think it's important to acknowledge, particularly when someone is doing work that is maligned by others (for no good reason), that choice doesn't always enter into an occupation.
I totally agree TLF, that this is something that should be debated. My concern isn't that debate, but the idea that it's somehow appropriate for the government to be "naming" women, rather than the women themselves...
Hmmm...
I've been doing a little digging, and I still think he's making a distinction, even if he doesn't make it completely clear. He definitely thinks that all prostitution is bad, mind you, but almost everything I could find from his suggests to me that his focus is overwhelmingly on women and children who are forced into servitude.
He definitely does not support legalized prostitution, but doesn't really seem to have very much to say about women who willingly choose to engage in prostitution, outside of saying that all prostitution contributes to human trafficking.
I did, however, find the 2004 Trafficking in Persons Report pretty interesting, if heartbreaking.
So, yeah. I'll agree, if he's extending it to all sex-workers, that's a problem, and while I'm not sure that's what he intends, he's definitely got a problem with prostitution in general (calling it "inherently dehumanizing" at one point).
Personally, I'm against legalizing it, but I am for decriminalizing it.
I think if it were to be legalized it would be corrupted by corporations. Also, while it wouldn't be forced, there would be much coercion.
If you take into account the privitization of health care, it will be impossible for sex workers to get insurance and break even.
So there are my thoughts.
Prostitution is a lot like immigration. Criminalization doesn't make the difference between more and less of it but between having it acknolwedged and having it underground.
Me neither. I do, however, think that people who think redefining terms helps attack the problem understand politics and sociolinguistics to the same extent as people who think saying "Merry Christmas" helps promote Christianity.
FrenchKiss posted:
I refer to myself as a sex worker, escort, prostitute or hooker usually. Sometimes I use the term "provider" which is the term that most of the women in the business, who I know personally, use.
You haven't really said a lot about your views here, so I'm not sure where I would agree with you about what or whatever else, but I want to thank you for the links. I've been looking through the area of All Women Count that you linked to for the past hour or so.
I'm going to reproduce your link in hopes that more people will really give it a look.
All Women Count
Rilee Morgan, your link is broken.
:I what a pain in the ass here i will just reproduce the url as is
http://www.allwomencount.net/EWC%20Sex%20Workers/SexWorkIndex.htm
I attended Yale Law's conference entitled "Sex for Sale" last winter. It was fascinating. Legal theory was the most pronounced framework used, but sociological and feminist theory were used extensively as well. The conference examined (for the most part) pornography, prostition, and sex trafficking. In addition to the law professors we had, and other academics, they also had a female who advocated female-empowering porn (and who directs and produces it), as well as a gay porn actor, all speaking to the social ramifications of sex for sale. There was heated debate on both sides of prostitution and pornography regarding their effects on misogyny, patriarchy, its negative effect of women, etc. Amazing experience.
First, it's prostitute organizations themselves that coined and prefer the use of the term "sex worker," pointing out they are seeking the rights granted to workers of all kinds.
Second, the crusade against sex-trafficking has yielded tiny prosecutions for insignificant crimes, hardly an endorsement of their strategy and rhetoric.
Finally, don't forget these are the same jerks that have gone round the world strong-arming advocacy and health organizations in other countries not to distribute condoms, not to counsel women on reproductive choice and ban any outreach work with prostitutes, preferring instead to force their failed criminalization strategy on everyone else. Just see the results of their work in Uganda, where HIV rates, once low, have now doubled.
Face it, criminalization of prostitutes or johns is criminalization, a failure, and a state strategy of moral policing that will never work. Shifting the focus on the criminalization of johns is a hype and a fraud. The working girls are still going to jail and dying young. And jive-ass "feminists" are buying it. What chumps.
See: >
www.streetwomen.org
Rilee Morgan~ I'm glad to hear you've been reading through the AWC link. They've got some really great articles and papers.
Another paper well worth the read can be found here:
WHY FEMINISTS SHOULD RETHINK ON SEX WORKERS’ RIGHTS
Another disturbing aspect of anti-trafficking discourse is the persistence of belief in its most horrific manifestations, even when there is no evidence to support such beliefs.
As for my own thoughts on sex work...
Personally, I've found it to be an overall gratifying experience. The hardest part by far is the stress cause by the legal ramifications; not by having sex (on occasion) with men I don't find attractive.
I acknowledge that it isn't for everyone, and I am totally opposed to any form of sexual slavery. But honestly, I just don't see much evidence of that happening.
What I do see is a group of die-hard abolitionists distorting the facts and making up stories to support their agenda. Whether they honestly think that's what's going on or they'll just stoop to any level to wipe out the sex industry, I don't know.
I've spent literally hundreds of hours researching the subject over the past year or two, and I've been astonished by what I've found... an ugly union between abolitionist feminists, the christian right and the federal government, with unfortunate consequences.
AIDS prevention and awareness groups are losing their funding for working with prostitutes. UN workers are being accused of teaching kids how to be prostitutes because they distributed condoms to underage prostitutes working in impoverished African and Asian communities. Anti-trafficking charities have been blacklisted for not sharing the opinion that sex work should be fought at any cost.
We keep hearing outrageous sob stories through various news sources and reports, with a small handful of references and no substantial evidence. We hear of police raids in dens of sexual slavery, but no corrections made when the alligations turn out to be false
The feds are using their position as a world superpower to blackmail other countries into cracking down on prostitution. We threaten to impose economic sanctions if they don't prove they share our views, yet we apply these punishments in a politically motivated manner... The granting of a full waiver of sanctions against Saudi Arabia is in the national interest because it will allow us to continue democracy programs in Saudi Arabia in support of the President's Freedom Agenda through the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), will permit continued security cooperation to effectively prosecute the Global War on Terror, and will allow U.S. businesses to continue to trade in the Kingdom
Anyway, I've got to run now, but I'd be happy to share more links to show how these anti-trafficking policies are harming the very women they claim they are helping. It is truly outrageous and saddening.
I started to respond to this post in a comment, which (as per usual) became too unwieldy for a comment, and thus grew (or metastasized, if you prefer) into a blog post of my own, titled Why the arguments around defining prostitution are so offensively contrived.
For whatever it's worth.
Oh yeah, you asked for org links. Here's a good one (based in Chicago):
youarepriceless.org.
Teh blogs taught me many sex workers choose their work and enjoy it. It's hard to tell from feminist blogs how prevalent this is. I like stats and wonder what percentage of sex workers in the US or the world choose sex work and/or find it fulfilling. Anyway, they prefer the nomenclature "sex worker." Trafficked women haven't written on blogs, though, as far as I know.
That is true, we haven't heard much from the trafficked women, on blogs or even in the news. We have heard about plenty of deportations of women who were assumed to be sex slaves, many of whom faced unfair lending practices and outrageously inflated cost of living expenses. Unfortunately that is what happens to illegal immigrants working in a criminalized industry. Living outside the protection of the law can be quite difficult and unfair at times, trust me.
Here are more links related to the sex work/sex trafficking debate
Sex Workers In Asia
Voice of Women in Sex Trade? 'Voice'!
How can this kind of atrocity, this kind of black or white logic be possible among feminists? This case, in which women in sex trade are directly voicing out, is a one that is in complete contradiction to the feminists' logic arguing for elimination of sex trade, based on their perspective that the women are victims.
3,000 Sex Workers Protest Threat to Livelihood
Some 3,000 women involved in sex trade business are clamouring for their "rights to making a living" in a protest held in front of National Assembly building in Seoul on Oct. 7, 2004. The rare demonstrators in sunglasses and masks covering their face
Sex Workers to Form Nationwide Coalition
Sex workers in red-light districts plan to form a nationwide organization to claim their occupational rights. Some 5,000 sex workers from brothels across the nation will hold a massive meeting at Olympic Gymnastics Stadium in Chamsil, southeastern Seoul, on Wednesday, according to a committee preparing to launch a pan-national sex workers¡¯ coalition
Taipei Times
After Chen Shui-bian announced a curb on the industry, the licensed prostitutes carried out protests for 19 months with Wang Fang-ping at the vanguard, and held 110 street demonstrations until new Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou in January 1999 granted them a grace period of two years.
Anti-Trafficking Groups
Thailand's Brothel Busters
And then there's the sticky problem of whether some of the women even want to be rescued at all. One organization in India, known as STOP (Stop Trafficking, Oppression, and Prostitution), has been criticized for "saving" women against their will. And an NGO worker complained last year in the Kathmandu Post that a group of Nepalese women had to bribe rescuers to let them stay in their brothels. "I've never seen an issue where there is less interest in hearing from those who are most affected by it," notes Phil Marshall, manager of the United Nations' Project on Human Trafficking in Southeast Asia's Mekong region.
Of Human Bondage
On a more serious level, people who’ve met Miller and worked with his staff say he’s created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Some people have suffered recriminations, been “blacklisted,� or lost their funds.
U.S. Policy and Law
Oversexed
And "sex trafficking" has created another foreign and domestic policy knout. The government has lately begun to argue that legal sex work causes sex trafficking. It backs up this claim with dubious data--including from Rhode Island University women's studies professor Donna Hughes, an outspoken advocate of morally conservative policies on trafficking who is getting research money from the State Department.
Institute of Development Studies
The US Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the Bush administration’s Global AIDS Act of 2003, both forbid funding to any group which supports legalisation of prostitution or does not explicitly oppose prostitution and sex trafficking.
Okay, that's enough for now. I may return with some of the DOJ and FBI Press Releases on the Operations Gilded Cage & Bad Neighbor trials (which were totally ignored by the Press for some reason, despite the attention they gave to the raids and pre-trial accusations of sex slavery).
“But honestly, I just don't see much evidence of that happening.� Do you mean you don’t see any evidence of that happening in the US or in general? Because I know plenty of that is happening in Eastern Europe and East Asia. I have seen several reports on the subject. I can’t think of any I can direct you to off the top of my head but you can dig, they shouldn’t be hard to come by.
On another note, it seems to me that some women in the sex industry who are in a good place just assume that every body else is in a good place. Just like on the other end of the spectrum there are people who call all prostitution slavery. Yes, there are women out there who choose sex work, while having other options and maybe find fulfillment in it, or simply don’t mind doing it or whatever. Yes, of course their experiences are valid. But I also think that trafficked women, women beaten by their pimps or raped by their customers, heroin addicts, and women lying dead in ditches don’t get to write about their experiences on blogs.
Read: "The State Department's office combating human trafficking." The very definition of trafficking excludes all the free agent happy sex workers out there - being on the radical side of this issue, I think "agency" is hardly the issue -
trafficked women and children are, by definition, coerced. Thus the change in nomenclature.
See this site or the many other orgs devoted exclusively to the problem of trafficking (versus sex worker rights, et al).
This is about more than a group of carefree, happy go lucky sex workers trying to keep the party going. It would be to my benefit if the feds and groups like CATW and SAGE kept shutting down the Asian Massage Parlors in my community. These women are to me the equivalent of Mexican day laborers to my American born, blue collar counterpart. They work harder for less and combine beauty and service in a way that most US born sex workers can't compete with. I'd be far better off if ICE put them all on a boat back to Korea. But I am so outraged at what is being done to them that I HAVE to speak up, and I take a risk in doing so.
You may think that you are taking the moral highground here, but if you were to actually pay attention to what these women are saying you might realize that there's anything but charity and compassion behind the so called "anti-trafficking" groups whose only real purpose is the abolition of all forms of sex work.
The last post I spent hours on got caught up in moderator approval limbo- I presume because of all the links in it. So this time I will pick just a few.
Voice of Women in Sex Trade? 'Voice'!
How can this kind of atrocity, this kind of black or white logic be possible among feminists? This case, in which women in sex trade are directly voicing out, is a one that is in complete contradiction to the feminists' logic arguing for elimination of sex trade, based on their perspective that the women are victims. This situation also might perhaps be a manifestation of a 'truth' that feminists would like to avoid. Korean feminists have concentrated their energy into correcting a sexist culture that defends sex trade, and have accomplished some success in rescuing women from exploitation of the sex industry. However, in realizing the feminist ideal of 'eliminating sex trade', prostitutes have been isolated from the process. It is high time that we listen to the voices of the women themselves and to be concerned about their human rights.
Thailand's Brothel Busters
And then there's the sticky problem of whether some of the women even want to be rescued at all. One organization in India, known as STOP (Stop Trafficking, Oppression, and Prostitution), has been criticized for "saving" women against their will. And an NGO worker complained last year in the Kathmandu Post that a group of Nepalese women had to bribe rescuers to let them stay in their brothels. "I've never seen an issue where there is less interest in hearing from those who are most affected by it," notes Phil Marshall, manager of the United Nations' Project on Human Trafficking in Southeast Asia's Mekong region.
Although I'm no longer a very active activist, hence won't be providing links to statistics (which can sometimes call to mind the scene in the movie Network when Robert Duvall says, "You get your psychiatrist, I'll get mine"), it perturbs me that certain parts of this debate still, after decades, descend so HAPPILY and with SUCH RELISH into name-calling--some people just can't WAIT to get into it, making up cute derogatory terms for their "opponents." I don't see this happening as much in this particular discussion as I have in others, which is why I'm taking some time to post.
I have been debating in favor of the terminology of "sex worker" and "sex worker advocacy" for a long time. What's so weird about this is that my intention was to get it recognized as work so that johns and government officials would be less likely to espouse their prejudices as facts. However, the term has been taken as a gauntlet by some people, who view it as automatically pro-prostitution to validate the work in any way. To my mind, one of the primary advantages of delineating sex work as labor is that the workers are then entitled to at least one of the fruits of their labor (their money).
Interestingly, I have found that for some reason this term has become associated with "happy-hooker-ism" because those who prefer working in the sex industry like the term. However, the term DOESN'T MEAN "happy hooker;" it means "laborer who is entitled to the same rights and privileges as other workers, including access to their earnings, even though they work in the sex trade." It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the sex industry provides fabulous jobs. It just has to do with recognition of labor and rights.
I've even been accused of being the arm of some kind of corporate sex-industry marketing department, as if corporate marketing departments had suddenly taken on a pro-labor, pro-union stance. Okay...
I think it's a disservice to people, including women and children, who are forced into other kinds of labor when migrating, or defrauded of their income when they do migrate, including agricultural and factory work, when the term "trafficking" is taken to mean only prostitution. That isn't a pro-prostitution position, as some eager beavers make it out to be. It's a neutral position. I recognize that some people think that neutral might as well be pro. Sorry, I'm over arguing that.
Calling sex work labor also indicates that abuses might be more efficiently traced by following the money trail than the gender trail. We know who's got the genders (most of the time), but who ends up with the money?
I also think that criminalizing johns is not a powerful approach to combating abuses that are seen as particular to prostitution.
It serves the patriarchy well in their goal of "cleaning up the streets" to raise property values so people who are already rich can speculate on the areas they're "cleaning up," but the governments who go along with these plans aren't remotely interested in the welfare of women--governments like the results of the plan because it makes them look good, not because women are getting help getting out of prostitution, and criminalizing the clients is not remotely related to providing workable exit strategies for women who want out.
So I'm fussing here a little. Over the past several years I've tried to stay out of this stuff, but it's just scary that certain things (name-calling instead of meetings of the minds) get worse instead of better, and I wanted to have a little say. I'm not entirely innocent of the name-calling, and I remember the nasty little pleasures I took in it, and I regret it, and that's what I still see going on in many debates. It's so sad to me.
A U.S.-based group is spurring high-profile raids to free sex workers. But what happens when the women don't want to be saved?
God save us from the prohibitionists;
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/11/ma_570_01.html