Agh. I have mixed feelings about this. On the face of it, sure, you're getting rid of an exploitative industry. This is good, right?
On the other hand, I don't think you really are. I'm not sure I can agree that this brand of feminism is really good for women, it seems that it can't be.
In Canada, there is a major, major court struggle involving prostitution. Here, prostitution is technically legal-- you can sell sex. You cannot, however, communicate about it beforehand, live off of the profits, etc.. It is only technically legal, in practice it is totally illegal. What is happening is that prostitutes don't like this very much (and neither, of course, do the clients). They are challenging the ban on all sex-trade related things as unconstitutional. And, you know, they're almost certainly going to win. In maybe 2012 or so, for at least a brief moment, it will be completely legal to buy and sell sex.
But the key here is that it's the prostitutes and supporting feminist groups that are challenging this ban. It does not protect women. If anything, it makes life worse for women involved in the sex trade-- they are pushed to the margins. This court challenge is the consequence of a string of serial murders of prostitutes working the streets. It is illegal for them to really market their trade, so they market it illegally, in as low-key a way as possible. This probably means walking the streets. Walking the streets is... not a good way to be a prostitute. You still run the risk of being arrested, and in addition lose much of the safety something like a brothel or indirect marketing would offer. There are a lot of prostitutes that are absolutely against its criminalization, because it makes the world so unsafe for them.
And that's the thing-- they don't go away because it's illegal. They get shoved into the dark corners of society, along with all the rest of the criminal elements. It's not good for women in any way, not really. Maybe you can claim some ephemeral benefit wrought by a society that looks at women in a different light, but as far as real, noticeable, observable effects go, the criminalization has done nothing but hurt women in Canada. And that's why they want it to change.
I don't see how it would be any different in Iceland. Sure, 57% of men say strip clubs should be illegal. That's not 100%, that's not even close. I'm sure many of the 43% opposing criminalization would in fact use such a facility. Maybe not too many, maybe a few. But now Iceland is pushing yet another group of women into an area of life run only by criminals. How is this good?
I largely agree with what you say. I don't want to see anyone exploited in the sex-industry, but nor do I believe that making it illegal is a solution.
Making it illegal increases the risks, creates opportunities for criminal concerns -- pimps and gangs -- and ultimately does _not_ stop women from entering into prostitution.
Prohibition is treating the symptoms, but it doesn't directly and pro-actively deal with the problems currently inherent in much of the sex-industry. The solution in my opinion is legalisation, transparency and regulation.
It's magical thinking to think that a simple law can suddenly quash the desire to buy sex and remove the impulse to sell it.
Really though, this law doesn't at all seem concerned with the practical issues of safety, instead this is a moral judgement of the trade and the people involved, something I am extremely suspicious of. The act of buying and selling sex is not immoral. There is no harm involved and assuming all participants are willing, it is not a government's place to judge.
What a terribly, prissy and judgemental point of view!
Agh. I have mixed feelings about this. On the face of it, sure, you're getting rid of an exploitative industry. This is good, right?
Yes, just as it is good to prevent companies from setting up shop in poor countries and employing people in what would be called sweatshop conditions in their own countries.
More broadly, if you feel that a choice that someone makes is harmful to them, you're saying you should be in charge of them; denying them agency. Apart from the opposite sides of the political spectrum the buttons push this is exactly like the War On Some Drugs.
But now Iceland is pushing yet another group of women into an area of life run only by criminals. How is this good?
The article implies that a large majority of the strippers are foreign. As such, the majority of the people whose choices will be constrained by this will be people the Icelanders in general and the feminists in particular do not give a rat's ass about. They're far more important as symbols of the Icelanders' moral purity than as people.
On the other hand, I don't think you really are. I'm not sure I can agree that this brand of feminism is really good for women, it seems that it can't be.
In Canada, there is a major, major court struggle involving prostitution. Here, prostitution is technically legal-- you can sell sex. You cannot, however, communicate about it beforehand, live off of the profits, etc.. It is only technically legal, in practice it is totally illegal. What is happening is that prostitutes don't like this very much (and neither, of course, do the clients). They are challenging the ban on all sex-trade related things as unconstitutional. And, you know, they're almost certainly going to win. In maybe 2012 or so, for at least a brief moment, it will be completely legal to buy and sell sex.
But the key here is that it's the prostitutes and supporting feminist groups that are challenging this ban. It does not protect women. If anything, it makes life worse for women involved in the sex trade-- they are pushed to the margins. This court challenge is the consequence of a string of serial murders of prostitutes working the streets. It is illegal for them to really market their trade, so they market it illegally, in as low-key a way as possible. This probably means walking the streets. Walking the streets is... not a good way to be a prostitute. You still run the risk of being arrested, and in addition lose much of the safety something like a brothel or indirect marketing would offer. There are a lot of prostitutes that are absolutely against its criminalization, because it makes the world so unsafe for them.
And that's the thing-- they don't go away because it's illegal. They get shoved into the dark corners of society, along with all the rest of the criminal elements. It's not good for women in any way, not really. Maybe you can claim some ephemeral benefit wrought by a society that looks at women in a different light, but as far as real, noticeable, observable effects go, the criminalization has done nothing but hurt women in Canada. And that's why they want it to change.
I don't see how it would be any different in Iceland. Sure, 57% of men say strip clubs should be illegal. That's not 100%, that's not even close. I'm sure many of the 43% opposing criminalization would in fact use such a facility. Maybe not too many, maybe a few. But now Iceland is pushing yet another group of women into an area of life run only by criminals. How is this good?