Moves to fight the oldest oppression

Under plans to change prostitution laws, those who pay for sex with women who have been forced into prostitution (by traffickers or drug dealers) might face prosecution and charges of rape. Although, in my opinion, this is a step in the right direction, it is also a very small one, and I am amazed that it has taken so long for such action to be taken! In my ignorance, I hadn't realised that paying to have sex with a woman being forced, against her will, to work as prostitute wasn't rape.

Also, since, according to police reports the majority (atleast 70%) of prostitutes in Britain are trafficked here, and therefore most men who go to prostitutes for sex are rapists, wouldn't it have been better to follow Sweden and ban it all together?

Out of those prostitutes who have "freely chosen" their line of work, I wonder what it was that helped them to make this choice. Poverty? Experience of sexual abuse as a child? Is it acceptable for men to exploit women who haven't been trafficked into prostitution but who have effectively been forced into it due to underpriviledged backgrounds?

And what effect does condoning some forms of prostitution have on the rest of us? Does it not add to a general climate of sexual aggression against and objectification of women?

Duncan's Views

Hey Jo, Kitsry (Mum) Hows things ? I realise this blog is designed to highlight women's issues but in a way I think that people feel the debate has moved on, beyond just 'women's rights' (I may be playing devil's advocate here) TV Programmes like Gok Wan's just show the level to which all people, not just women, are subjected to a dumbing down of culture and debate, in television and newspapers especially. BB1 aired a programme yesterday called 'How mad are you?' yesterday asking people to distinguish between 'normal' people and those suffering mentally illness. It seems nothing escapes the media's desire for shock and ratings. I personally think capitalism is at the heart of this not so gradual move towards popularism. As until about 2 months ago, it seemed that capitalism and deregulation would solve all the world's problems. The neo-liberal model of economics adopted by so many governments explains exactly why Bankers are paid inordinate sums of money, and consequently why childcare workers are paid so little. It explains why Gok Wan's show is aired and why women are encouraged to spend large sums of money on unnecessary amounts of clothes, make-up, surgery etc. It may be that we are still living in a patriarchal society, which has ingrained gender stereotypes. Yet the reason these programmes get shown, that women are encouraged to act, live, in a certain way, is down to the markets again. The obsession with economic growth is reliant on people buying more and more. Money must be spent, more useless products muse be purchased. Demand must be pushed up at all costs. News/Politics programmers will never be as popular Gok Wan, again market forces working through advertising mean that his programme's will be aired more frequently. Everything is now perceived in terms of it monetary value. I didn't agree with a lot of the article (below) in which Sheila Jefferys airs her views. However, She is right that it is capitalisation of humans that has prompted the rise of the global sex trade. Society is not becoming deliberately more sexist, it is just reacting to the almost virtually accepted model that everything can have a monetary value attached, and moreover, that this a good thing. Capitalism is what currently drives the sexualisation of women and of normative gender stereotypes. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/12/women-prostitution-marriage-sex-trade

Miss Naked Beauty

Miss Naked Beauty, channel 4’s new series presented by Gok Wan, styles itself as reintroducing feminism to a new audience “by stealth”. Wondering how a beauty contest could possibly be feminist, I decided to watch an episode last night.

The programme aimed to make women of all shapes and sizes feel beautiful without piles of make-up, fake tan, hair extensions and cosmetic surgery. Yet, the problem is, the message is still that women must be beautiful. The contestants continue to be judged on their appearance rather than their achievements or ideas, and are still encouraged to use make-up, (as long as it is mineral-based of course!). The role of the programmes’ judges (including James Brown, the founder of Loaded magazine – ahem feminist????) amounted to telling the contestants how photogenic and naturally beautiful they were, and criticizing their speeches on why they wanted to be “beauty ambassadors”. Oh, and next week the remaining contestants are performing in a “natural”, “revolutionary” naked glamour model shoot.

How can we encourage women to take on the baton for feminist causes and re-ignite the women’s movement? Not with programmes like this, I hope.