Note -- I am not selecting a category for this post because, to my surprise, there is no category regarding sex worker's rights. Can anyone fill me in as to why this is? Anyway --
I am having a hard time believing that this article is running in the NY Times.
First of all, why is a wealthy male sociologist answering questions for readers about sex work? This is like readers writing in to ask a zoologist about his knowledge gleamed from field research with African elephants, who are clearly universally illiterate and unable to speak for themselves. But what really got me was the following Q & A --
Q.
In the book, Levitt and Dubner estimate the size of the "pimpact" -- the added value of pimp management -- using variation over time in working for a pimp and a prostitute's earnings. What typically is happening in a street prostitute's life that might cause her to leave employment with a pimp? Is she usually fired for some reason (and if so, what are typical violations that would get her fired), or does she leave for her own reasons? --Anonymous
A.Pimps provide their sex workers a steady client base and protection against the wanton abuse of a client. But, like any manager, they can extract concessions from their workforce that are viewed (by the worker) as unfair. Often, they ask the sex workers in their employ to give "freebies." They may ask sex workers to work longer hours, to work overtime, and so on without fair remuneration. A pimp is no different than a corporate manager in these respects. So it's not surprising that the worker gets frustrated and exits. Or she or he could become frustrated, not show up for work, and be fired.
I'm not even going to touch the loads of men who must be laughing between themselves about the humor of the catch-phrase "pimpact." Are they kidding? Who are they kidding? Are these authors kidding the New York Times? Because it has seemed to me in the past that the Times got this issue right. In an article the NY Times ran a while back about child runaways, the journalist writes:
If a 45-year-old man had sex with a 14-year-old girl and no money changed hands, she was likely to get counseling and he was likely to get jail time for statutory rape, Sergeant Fassett said. If the same man left $80 on the table after having sex with her, she would probably be locked up for prostitution and he would probably go home with a fine as a john.
This was an important, front-page, three-part series. And yet here they are, providing a forum for these (male) authors to tell us that really, a sex worker working with a pimp is no different than a corporate manager. And they are only willing to concede that the sex worker thinks some of the pimp's practices are unfair -- not that any unfair treatment at the hands of the pimps objectively happens, just that the sex worker feels that way. Read that again. They compared it to working under a corporate manager. "Hey guys, think about your jerky boss at the office, and what happened the last time he fired someone. That's exactly what happens whenever a sex worker 'gets fired.'" Because your corporate manager is just as likely to take all of your money, forcing you to work with no pay in indentured sexual labor that risks your life, and to set you up to be violently gang-raped or to beat you if you don't bring in enough money.
I am already well aware that the New York Times disproportionately emphasizes the "plights" of those in upper economic brackets. It's irritating, but I try to choose my battles, so I try not to think about it too much. However -- in a discussion of sex work, to talk about the situation in the United States as if the women and girls forced onto the streets have all but disappeared thanks to the internet -- and as if those who remain have conflicts with their pimps that resemble your disputes with your corporate manager -- is absolutely unconscionable. The problem with sex work has absolutely not been solved.
I want to emphasize, I have no problem believing that those sex workers exist who are participating in the industry of their own free will and in a relatively non-exploitative environment, although I think their ability to do so is probably complicated by the legal status of sex work today, which makes it all too easy for a sex worker to receive abuse at the hands of his or her pimp or client without having any legal recourse, because the act in which he or she was engaging was itself illegal. I think we have every reason to decriminalize sex work in this country, given the right protections for sex workers, and I do not believe that those women who choose to do sex work (or those who do so but do not choose it, obviously) are to be goaded or insulted as necessarily bad feminists. Honestly, even in the case of media icons like Playboy bunnies I see more of a pedagogical problem than an enemy.
But, as important as it is to defend willing sex workers and those women who work in the adult entertainment industry from moralizing judgments and exploitation -- such a discussion cannot responsibly happen while failing to mention the even worse situation facing those people who are being systematically edited out of discussion like this New York Times article. This is the kind of systematic silencing that allows johns and pimps of all stripes to believe that they have every reason to sleep easily at night, to believe that there is no chance that the woman whose body they have just rented could have possibly been doing her work for anything other than the most financially savvy and sex-positive of reasons. While such women exist, they are part of a relatively privileged minority.
If only I could sit the authors of this book down in front of a television, show them the following video, and videotape their own reactions to it. I think the video has been posted on Feministing before, but it's something we should all try to keep in our minds when we think about what we believe sex work is or is not -- because there is no simple answer to that question -- and there is no simple way to write off the experiences of people like the one depicted below.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Wealthy Male Sociologist Tells You What Sex Workers Think, Because Sex Workers Aren't Capable Of Telling You On Their Own.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17398
First of all, why is a wealthy male sociologist answering questions for readers about sex work?
Because he amalgamated the interviews and data from sex workers themselves so that we are hearing a single experience but a collection of them.
not that any unfair treatment at the hands of the pimps objectively happens
Many researchers go to great lengths to avoid making normative statements, even if those statements can be considered true by just about everyone it might make them seem uncaring, but it should not be considered their personal view of the situation.
Having seen the data collected and having read his study I don't think anyone can draw the conclusion that the conditions in Chicago are acceptable by any stretch of the imagination. His research actually details in painful detail the violence of customers and pimps. It also details the corruption of the chicago police force and shows why many prostitutes choose to use pimps. You should not misinterpret his work as a defense of anyone. It is only an explanation of what happens.
Huh. Interesting. If what you're saying is true, then, once again, my problem is with the NY Times systematically editing out the important information, more than with the sociologists themselves.
For background, I am a former 'sex worker' (I didn't actually have to have sex if I didn't want to, so if I counted at all I would be in the 'higher-end' version they talk about, which already makes me uncomfortable) who was violently raped by a criminal psychologist for the FBI while taking a trip with him. When I was interviewed by the NY Times about my experiences, they edited out the part where he hit me violently and raped me in order to avoid "embarassing" me.
Huh. Interesting. If what you're saying is true, then, once again, my problem is with the NY Times systematically editing out the important information, more than with the sociologists themselves.
Its a shorter edited version, certainly, that it was done with any malice thats beyond my scope. But the study itself shows many ugly sides of the situation.
One of the things the study case a plain light on is that the Chicago Police Department seems utterly crooked. around 1-3% (I can't remember the precise number, but in that range) of the prostitution in Chicago was in "free" services to the police. Further the police department was well aware of this having arrested the survey workers several times and temporarily confiscated the papers (which they considered quite humorous)
Ah. Probably better than, say, Sheila Jeffreys then. (The wealthy female feminist who tells you - and the Australian government - what sex workers think, because they can't tell you on their own. Oh, and attempts to silence and discredit any sex worker who does speak out. I've no idea if she's even spoken to any, but if so they're probably not all that representative...)
I haven't read the article yet but I would not discredit these sociologist just because they are white men. They obviously have done their research to be able to write a book about it. If these sociologist were female, I doubt you would have such a problem with this. Yes, the women who are prostitutes could easily tell us about their work. However, these men decided to do their research on prostitution, should they not be allowed to say what they found because they are men?
I am a sociology major and I'm not going to discredit the work of men on prostitution because they are men. I respect the men who are in my field and won't discredit what they write because they are men. I personally don't care which magazine, news paper, etc. these men publish their work in. They should be publishing their work and getting it recognized.
If you think that the only argument I have against them is that they are men, you have not read my essay very closely. I am saying that regardless of who you are, to depict this relatively happy state of affairs for sex workers without mentioning the horrors of commercial sexual exploitation (particularly of underage girls, but the violence and coercion happens to women of all ages), is irresponsible.
An additional point which I did not make in the essay was that they might not have great data about their subject matter simply because the only people who are going to be willing to talk openly with a 'field sociologist' about their lives are ones for whom talking about their atrocious working conditions to a stranger will not result in their receiving violence at the hands of their pimp.
I think that's definitely an interesting and important methodological question. The original study goes into more detail about how workers were recruited and compensated, but I can't remember and it's not on this computer as to whether the authors address that point. I do know they studied street workers with and without pimps and I'm pretty sure there was financial compensation.
You are not going to be able to get every side of the story from ONE study. It can not happen. There are too many voices to here from. From what I can tell, the author of the study did not come up with the crappy questions the interviewer asked. From the answers of his I had time to read, he was being as objective as possible. I wouldn't be angry at the sociologist answers, but at the idiot who asked the questions. He was making a joke out of this, but the sociologist was not.
I am a sociology major and I know all to well that not everyones voice will be heard in one study. Also we do not have their whole study based on the interview. You would have to get their published findings, which will most likely be longer than the book that is published based on those studies. Even the full length study will not be able to give you everyones voice because of the limited number of people he would have been able to talk to. I have read multiple studies on prostitutions and drugs and you will never get the whole side of the story from just one study. You need multiple so you can have more research to build up on.
That's an interesting point about the methodology. However, if someone is unwilling to talk to a field sociologist who is likely to protect the anonymity of those who talk to them, then we are probably less likely to hear that person's experiences from them more directly.
Wealthy Male Sociologist Tells You What Sex Workers Think, Because Sex Workers Aren't Capable Of Telling You On Their Own
Or maybe because most people don't have the permission to leave our offices or grant money to interview large numbers of prostitutes to discover the variety of experiences that prostitutes have.
And "wealthy"? Venkatesh is a professor ... in sociology ... neither of which is well known for high salaries. Even if he does have personal wealth, so what? Does that invalidate his work? He is out on the streets talking to gang members and prostitutes about their experiences and sharing those with the rest of us so we can benefit from their stories. And you are ... complaining about that on a blog.
No, I am a former sex worker who was interviewed by the New York times and had her story egregiously misrepresented (they left out the part where I was raped in order to "avoid embarassing" me).
I just didn't think I would have to provide that kind of 'cred' in order to stand up for the millions of young girls who are forced into commercial sexual exploitation every year, and receive support for it -- on the Feministing community.
I should also note that most women for whom being a sex worker is a dangerous occupation are not in a position to go around telling people (field researchers or not) this, because they would be killed for disclosing such information.
Ah, that's what you meant by "Sex Workers Aren't Capable Of Telling You On Their Own". I thought you were being sarcastic.
I was, actually, being sarcastic. The NY Times has the means to try to speak with sex workers directly but when they do, they misrepresent them (based on my first-hand experience with one of their writers, who in turn blamed her editor when I complained.) But you're right -- there is a funny double entendre there.
It's true both
a) that it is potentially condescending for a privileged person to speak on behalf of an oppressed demographic, especially if the privileged person leaves out the serious violence and exploitation pervasive in an industry like sex work, and
b) that because of the violence against sex workers and the systematic erasure* of their condition sex workers are denied the right to speak on their own behalf.
*This erasure might be happening more by the media than by the sociologists in question -- I hadn't considered the possibility of the NYTimes editing out the more 'controversial' parts of the sociologists' responses, although I should have, because they did it to me.
I want to echo the other commenters. I do think there are issues with standpoint that aren't adequately dealt with in the article. I see that in all of Venkatesh's work. But I've also read the study on Chicago street economy workers. It is an economic piece. It's dry and "objective". But it uncovers some extremely important findings.
I think it's extremely important to critique the research and to critique the researcher's objectives, but critiquing a research for simply doing research isn't productive. And I really struggle with this because I'm involved in sex workers' rights activism. A lot of people have criticized this for similar points. So I think it's important to figure out what we can take from this work, and also encourage the NY Times to also publish work by actual sex workers.
Often, they ask the sex workers in their employ to give "freebies." They may ask sex workers to work longer hours, to work overtime, and so on without fair remuneration. A pimp is no different than a corporate manager in these respects. So it's not surprising that the worker gets frustrated and exits. Or she or he could become frustrated, not show up for work, and be fired.
I think the poster makes a fair point. This statement alone, regardless of the research, may trivialize the experience of certain sex workers. If someone who did not empathize with sex workers or have any knowledge about sex work would get the impression that even though sometimes sex work is unfair it is easy to quit if you don't show up for your shift just like any other job. The piece does not recognize or state that sex work may not be a choice (although sometimes it is), especially for underage prostitutes.
I haven't read the research done by this particular sociologist, and I don't doubt the other posters when they say he has done a good job with the research. But, research does get misinterpreted in journalism. Further, the general population that reads this article likely has not taken the time to read the research put out by Venkatesh. Finally, if the general population gets the impression that sex work is comparable to a crappy corporate job then we're failing a lot of women.