Apparently, Feminism is dead!!!

[cesare]

Well yeah that's what I was thinking how would practically work against it?
The thing people outside could practically do would be to try and make contact with the women in those zones to offer something else instead.

More money, not to do it? A better paid job? A different lifestyle? Are you thinking along the lines of incentives?

 

[equationgirl]

Fuck knows what some of these men would feel like if presented with some proper radfem politics

Edit: talking of which, this caused a shitstorm this year: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/radfem-2012-first-speakers-announced/

I see what you mean, there's some really nasty anti-women stuff coming out

 

[sihhi]

More money, not to do it? A better paid job? A different lifestyle? Are you thinking along the lines of incentives?

Support services for women, advice on setting up a joint brothel, money - a pooled effort from others.
In terms of jobs obviously the struggle must be for jobs in the economy first, so the government is condemning thousands to sex work, by cutting benefits and jobs and the same time. They must be held to account.

 

[cesare]

http://www.soca.gov.uk/about-soca/library/doc_download/402-nrm-statistics-april-to-june-2012

Human Trafficking stats April to June. Most confirmed cases not in sex industry.

 

[equationgirl]

There was a debate on the issue at an SSP conference back in 2006, I think, nigel irritable, random, where to, cesare and butchers, may remember it prompted a thread over the road. It sorta came a few years an 'experiment' in Leith where there was a toleration zone and a study based on what came out of that evidence wise. One thing that was shown was A total of 111 incidents were recorded last year (2003) by support group Scotpep, compared with just 11 in 2001, the last year of the old "non-harassment" zone. That statistic alone was worth looking at and seeing if enhanced access to support/outreach workers, better approaches by law enforcement agencies and charities working with the women could reduce it even less?
Sadly the SSP position was 'eradication' of prostitution which according to many in the party, meant that we had to oppose 'tolerance zones' even if they were shown to have reduced violence against the women and enabled more women access to the services that may, if they wish, give them a road out.
One of the things that annoyed me about the SSP position was the opposition of 'unionisation' 'self organisation' of the women, as if that would be a tag of legitimacy. We would somehow be accepting their position. Imho it effectively meant we demanded poeple be too horrified and that these people were being too abused to help in that way. Some, I repeat some, of the most abused, vulnerable men & women in our society, were effectively labelled as too 'abused' to be helped in a manner that might well have given them the very choices they had hitherto been denied. One thing that irked me then and still does now was the claim that tolerance zones, do not contradict the goal of eradication. No one has offered any evidence to why that was the case. And frankly the debate at that conference descended into confusion at the end anyway. Afaic, there's no contradiction between the two. If anyone can show me how reducing the risk to women in a tolerance zone and allowing her to access the very measures needed alongside being fought for a generalised political campaign around the issues that affect our class make our aim of eradication invalid then i'd love to have heard it, even these years later it's not been proffered.

I lived in Edinburgh at the time, the zone itself was in the most unsuitable place possible - a deserted industrial estate, only in use 9-6pm. The surrounding area was mostly industrial with a few residences nearby, whose occupants complained when the women would work near their residences.
The original area where the girls worked had been (and I believe still is) a 'red light area', for want of a better phrase, for as long as anybody knew, being conveniently close to Leith docks. The thing is, Edinburgh doesn't have a large street girl population compared to some cities. Since a horrific murder of a working girl in the 1980s, a lot has been done to reduce violence against working girls. Most of the girls work out of licensed saunas and are off the streets. I'm not saying their lives are perfect or easy but at least they're not at the mercy of some random on the street in the freezing cold and driving rain, in some godforsaken deserted industrial estate.

I lived two doors down from a sauna, nicest neighbours I ever had. I would have gladly replaced the pub across the road with another one.

 

[equationgirl]

I had a fight with an arsehole at work today because he said that women can't do the same jobs as men. I told him my cousin in bomb disposal would love to discuss that with him, and he just said 'yes but the infantry have to go and protect her, if she gets shot they're biologically determined to look after her first before a male soldier.' Cock.

 

[Fedayn]

I lived in Edinburgh at the time, the zone itself was in the most unsuitable place possible - a deserted industrial estate, only in use 9-6pm. The surrounding area was mostly industrial with a few residences nearby, whose occupants complained when the women would work near their residences.
The original area where the girls worked had been (and I believe still is) a 'red light area', for want of a better phrase, for as long as anybody knew, being conveniently close to Leith docks. The thing is, Edinburgh doesn't have a large street girl population compared to some cities. Since a horrific murder of a working girl in the 1980s, a lot has been done to reduce violence against working girls. Most of the girls work out of licensed saunas and are off the streets. I'm not saying their lives are perfect or easy but at least they're not at the mercy of some random on the street in the freezing cold and driving rain, in some godforsaken deserted industrial estate.

I lived two doors down from a sauna, nicest neighbours I ever had. I would have gladly replaced the pub across the road with another one.

The point about the ending of the 'toleration' was the immediate rise in attacks against women. Tolerance zones are not, imho, and end in and of themselves. But they allowed other work/interventions to happen, they kept violence against women down as compared to when it was ended. Thos realities alone made them worth lookig at in combuination with other agencies to give the women support, advice and if they requested/needed it help out.

 

[Edie]

Most cities have unofficial tolerance zones. Most of them are in isolated, very scary industrial estates. Holbeck in Leeds for example. Fuck me

 

[equationgirl]

The point about the ending of the 'toleration' was the immediate rise in attacks against women. Tolerance zones are not, imho, and end in and of themselves. But they allowed other work/interventions to happen, they kept violence against women down as compared to when it was ended. Thos realities alone made them worth lookig at in combuination with other agencies to give the women support, advice and if they requested/needed it help out.

I think they picked the wrong area to trial the idea in, to be honest. I think there should be better areas chosen to give these things much better results. I am all for making things better and reducing violence/attacks on working girls.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Not all sex work is prostitution, though.

Exactly. The term tends to elide the differences between prostitution and other forms of "sex work", many of which are significantly closer to other jobs in important social and strategic respects even if they share some of the problematic aspects of prostitution.

To put it another way, there are some rather fundamental problems inherent to a strategy based around "organising" prostitutes which don't really exist when it comes to phone sex operators.

 

[equationgirl]

Most cities have unofficial tolerance zones. Most of them are in isolated, very scary industrial estates. Holbeck in Leeds for example. Fuck me

Aye the one in Edinburgh was maybe a mile away from my flat at most. Like a different place. Just a long road of deserted carpet warehouses, car showrooms and panel beaters. It was dark and windswept being right next to the Forth. And not far from a sewage plant too.

 

[Edie]

Exactly. The term tends to elide the differences between prostitution and other forms of "sex work", many of which are significantly closer to other jobs in important social and strategic respects even if they share some of the problematic aspects of prostitution.

To put it another way, there are some rather fundamental problems inherent to a strategy based around "organising" prostitutes which don't really exist when it comes to phone sex operators.

We don't need bloody organising, we're not an untidy draw ffs!

 

[equationgirl]

We don't need bloody organising, we're not an untidy draw ffs!

I find a lot of these strategies all seem to run along the lines of 'telling the underprivileged/sex workers/single mothers what to do'.

 

[weepiper]

I find a lot of these strategies all seem to run along the lines of 'telling the underprivileged/sex workers/single mothers what to do'.

It can be a bit 'have you heard about a man called Trotsky?'

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I think they picked the wrong area to trial the idea in, to be honest. I think there should be better areas chosen to give these things much better results. I am all for making things better and reducing violence/attacks on working girls.

What sort of areas would be better?

Residential areas would obviously be safer, but having lived in a tiny "red light district", I think you'll have a lot of trouble getting residents of a proposed toleration zone not to flip their shit entirely. It was an odd experience: There were genuinely pretty unpleasant anti-social aspects to having a few prostitutes operating on the corner of the road, but there was also a disproportionate hostility from residents focused on the prostitutes.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

We don't need bloody organising, we're not an untidy draw ffs!

You are talking a bunch of communists here. Thinking that everybody needs organising comes with the territory.

It can be a bit problematic when it comes to prostitution because for lots of leftists their first impulse when they see people getting a raw deal is to start thinking about how they need a union. But prostitutes are notoriously difficult to unionise for a whole bunch of reasons.

 

[killer b]

It can be a bit 'have you heard about a man called Trotsky?'

The radical left are ready to save you, ladies. If only you'd let them.

 

[Fedayn]

I think they picked the wrong area to trial the idea in, to be honest. I think there should be better areas chosen to give these things much better results. I am all for making things better and reducing violence/attacks on working girls.

They didn't 'pick it' as such, it was 'already there', it already existed. Instead of someone, a council official/copper coming in and 'deciding' it clearly made sense, at that toime, to 'leave as is'. The tolerance zone was 'responsible' for a lower rate/number of attacks, that's evidentially provable, as is the immediate rise in attacks once it was ended. That it was ended as it was remains a mistake imho

 

[Fedayn]

The radical left are ready to save you, ladies. If only you'd let them.

That's entirely incorrect re the SSP, as their position was clearly that 'help' wasn't acceptable, simplistic, imho, eradication was.

 

[equationgirl]

What sort of areas would be better?

Residential areas would obviously be safer, but having lived in a tiny "red light district", I think you'll have a lot of trouble getting residents of a proposed toleration zone not to flip their shit entirely. It was an odd experience: There were genuinely pretty unpleasant anti-social aspects to having a few prostitutes operating on the corner of the road, but there was also a disproportionate hostility from residents focused on the prostitutes.

Well, in Edinburgh one of the reasons the area was moved was because an area close by was redeveloped and became fancy flats. The new owners of these flats then complained about the working girls nearby.

It's not their fault the yuppie owners didn't do their research properly before moving into the area - the area had been used for that purpose for years, decades even.

 

[weepiper]

They didn't 'pick it' as such, it was 'already there', it already existed. Instead of someone, a council official/copper coming in and 'deciding' it clearly made sense, at that toime, to 'leave as is'. The tolerance zone was 'responsible' for a lower rate/number of attacks, that's evidentially provable, as is the immediate rise in attacks once it was ended. That it was ended as it was remains a mistake imho

No, as eg's said it was moved when the area round the Shore got redeveloped and sold off for expensive penthouse flats.

 

[Fedayn]

I find a lot of these strategies all seem to run along the lines of 'telling the underprivileged/sex workers/single mothers what to do'.

The flip side is you can't even talk about it, you can't discuss the issue because to do so is de facto patronising and controlling. Which one is it to be?

 

[equationgirl]

They didn't 'pick it' as such, it was 'already there', it already existed. Instead of someone, a council official/copper coming in and 'deciding' it clearly made sense, at that toime, to 'leave as is'. The tolerance zone was 'responsible' for a lower rate/number of attacks, that's evidentially provable, as is the immediate rise in attacks once it was ended. That it was ended as it was remains a mistake imho

Complaints from the nearest residents if menory serves me correctly. There was an Edinburgh Evening News article on it. That stretch was never as big an area as the Coburg Street area though.

 

[Fedayn]

No, as eg's said it was moved when the area round the Shore got redeveloped and sold off for expensive penthouse flats.

It was moved a very short distance, deliberately because it remained in the same area. The women knew the 'geography' and the ways in and out, rightly that was seen as an element of safety that was important.
That the bank balances of the new flat buyers took precedence also tells it's own tale

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Well, in Edinburgh one of the reasons the area was moved was because an area close by was redeveloped and became fancy flats. The new owners of these flats then complained about the working girls nearby.

It's not their fault the yuppie owners didn't do their research properly before moving into the area - the area had been used for that purpose for years, decades even.

Where I was living wasn't notably yuppified and that didn't stop the neighbours from complaining (although it might possibly have made people in authority less likely to listen to their complaints). To be blunt about it, it's not unreasonable for people to have problems with used condoms and syringes on the little green around the corner, nor for women to seriously object to getting curb crawled on their way home.

 

[weepiper]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/newhomes/3298006/No-stopping-here-for-the-red-light-area.html

 

[Fedayn]

Complaints from the nearest residents if menory serves me correctly. There was an Edinburgh Evening News article on it. That stretch was never as big an area as the Coburg Street area though.

Aye, the complaints about their ability to sell their flats at a later date, their concern about wanting to be in a nice area, even though that area was already 'well known' as well as it can be if you get me, for that part of life.

 

[Fedayn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/newhomes/3298006/No-stopping-here-for-the-red-light-area.html

"The battle between tarts in stockings and developers in sharp suits "

 

[cesare]

We don't need bloody organising, we're not an untidy draw ffs!

 

[weepiper]

"The battle between tarts in stockings and developers in sharp suits "

well it is a Torygraph article