Moran on Bazelon
Rachel Moran says there’s a lot wrong with Emily Bazelon’s NY Times Magazine piece about the decriminalization of prostitution.
Bazelon’s mischaracterization of the issue of prostitution, in my opinion, was confirmed and reaffirmed in her article in ways too numerous to document here. Her piece has had to be corrected three times (including her contention that Dutch prostitution is confined to Amsterdam, when it is, as any European could tell you, countrywide.) U.S. psychologist and academic Melissa Farley, who was quoted in Bazelon’s article, has filed a demand for correction of Bazelon’s misquote of Farley; as of this writing (June 1, 2016), the New York Times has refused to correct it.
Bazelon also stated that there had been no reported cases of trafficking in New Zealand, somehow managing to miss that on April 14, 2015, Naengnoi Sriphet was sentenced to 27 months in prison by Auckland District Court for recruiting women from Thailand to work in a “massage parlour” in Auckland.
Bazelon’s fact-checker contacted me to ask whether it would be fair to say that I believed Amnesty International had taken its pro-decriminalization stance from pimps and sex-traffickers. I responded that it would not be fair to say so without qualifying that statement, and I reminded her of what I’d told Bazelon several times already: that Amnesty International had taken their cues from the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, then co-chaired by Alejandra Gil, who has since been convicted and is serving a 15-year sentence in a Mexican prison for sex trafficking.
Bazelon ignored my conversation with her fact-checker and attributed to me a one-line fragment of what I’d said, making no mention of the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, Gil or her sex-trafficking conviction.
That’s crappy. Surely it’s an important piece of information, that Rachel Moran says Amnesty International had taken their cues from a group co-chaired by a convicted sex trafficker.
Then there’s the account by Sabrinna Valisce that Bazelon omitted entirely.
It is to be hoped, going forward, that institutions of influence will pay attention to voices of experience from within these regimes. Sabrinna Valisce fought long and hard for what she believed to be right when she campaigned to pass New Zealand’s Prostitution Reform Act. She was subsequently violated and abused within the same system she fought for. It took courage for her to publicly admit she was mistaken. Now that she is speaking out about it, we owe it to her—and to women around the world—to listen.
But that would be such a downer.
Ah yes but if you think that if prostitution were legalised then there wouldn’t be any more sex traffickers then you might think that the unfortunate fact that she was one was merely a consequence of prostitution not being legalised years ago.
Christ on a cracker. I suppose if one looked through the then-popular sermons or opinion pieces or the like, there were probably also boatloads of people in 1820 writing how good for everyone slavery was. If I remember right, that was one of the messages in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. All the “good” slaves couldn’t have been more pleased to be down on the farm and spent their time in singalongs.
What IS it with these choosy choicers? It’s like they can’t think beyond, “ZOMG, Victorians and religious nuts think sex of any kind is the source of all evil. Ergo, I will insist that anything to do with genitalia in any context whatsoever, is the source of all good. QED.”
How do you get that stupid?
@2: actually I think a big part of these backwards arguments is the sophistical thrill of reasoning yourself into a completely non-obvious position. Any fool can say: fucking someone under duress is wrong, and pimping is entirely about keeping women under duress for men to fuck them, ergo pimping is a bad thing. It takes some mental exertion – not wisdom or good sense, but cleverness of a kind – to work around to the opposite position and convince yourself that prostitution is the true feminism. Likewise, any fool can say that forcing women to live in a black sack is oppressive; it takes a lot of mental exertion to convince yourself that veiling and segregation are the true gender equality.
The people holding these positions are genuinely proud of being cleverer than us. It would be funny, were the real-world consequences not so tragic.