The original post has some good things to say, but Pony’s critiques at the end are vitally important and make all the difference to the narrative. Particularly I am totally sick of the choice dichotomy, as though it’s simply no choice/choice… it’s way more complex than that.
Glossary:
SSW = Survival Sex Workers
BCSW/SWBC = By Choice Sex Workers/Sex Workers By Choice
takemetoponyisland:
sexworkerproblems:
Religous, spiritual, and other people of faith call a soul a person’s mind, will, and emotions. On the assumption that is correct, then I suppose it is entirely possible to “lose” one’s “soul” doing work one hates and/ cannot seem to find a way out of - especially after many attempts and failures.
Many by-choice sex workers hate the idea (or the reality) of the survival sex worker. This person is the sour apple of sorts. She’s always talking about how much she hates it. She only discusses the bad parts of the job. In fact, the survival sex worker, speaking in the sex worker hierarchy (and there is one), is the one non sex workers will /usually/ like. She’s the hooker with the heart of gold, the stripper trying to pay her way through med school, and the poor (but beautiful) single mother trying to feed her kids. She always wants something other than sex work - and that’s why people like her.
Because, deep down, most non-sex workers believe sex work is bad or evil and we should all be trying to find a way out of it. Most SSWs internalize that hate because this was never their first choice in employment anyway.
Then we are left with BCSWs, who chose this life, like or love it, shine because of it, and are proud of their choice, craft (because it is one), and job description. They are left to balance the scales to say, “Hey! I’m here and I don’t feel bad! I’m proud of meself! I love my job!” and they become the proud Hester Prynne, who wears her artfully crafted letter on her breast for everyone to see. They revel in making people uncomfortable (because if you’re uncomfortable, maybe you’re thinking differently) with their views on sex and sex work. They don’t care if you don’t like it, and most of them (either by wit as a talent or as a by-product of working sex) are fully able to slice you up with their words in the blink of an eye.
So there is this murky pool where we all exist together, with one trying to ignore the other, one wishing the other would see it her way, those who pray and tithe trying to get out - continuing to hope even if it fails, and those trying to be seen, trying their hardest to show normalcy instead of fringe existence. Inside of all this, there are minds and emotions working overtime, with the will to survive (as most of us have it and will fight to stay alive no matter how bad things may be) pushing us to do more, to be more, and to achieve more.
Inside all of this are what people of faith call our soul. It is entirely possible to lose all or parts of our mind, will, and emotions while doing something we hate - and not just sex work. This is why SWP’s goal is to help SSWs transition (with training, links to SW-friendly counseling, assistance with how to succeed in “straight” employment, and even fashion and attire advice), while helping BCSWs with emergency, financial, and safety situations.
It is entirely possible to lose yourself ::shrugs:: and we don’t want to see that happen to /anyone/. SWP
Like, I agree with a lot of what this says, but it’s also not so good:
- Not all SSWs hate their jobs.
- Not all SWBC like/love sex work, sometimes it’s just a shitty job like any other.
- I think the choice/survival dichotamy is a bit false. We live under capitalism, most people need to work to survive, therfore, any kind of work is survival.
- Not all SWBC are out and proud.
- There are plenty of out and proud SSWs.
- Not all sex workers are “she”.
Reblogged from mareofsteel January 28, 2012
mareofsteel:
gailsimone:
clownyprincess:
Rule: flatter shoes can be as chic as towering torture chambers
ladythestripper:
clownyprincess:
The loathsome Maggie Alderson (Australian-based author of chic-lit, prior editor of several fashion magazines and a self-proclaimed feminist) has written a…
What a mean-spirited, baffling and bigoted piece of trash that article is. Everything from the shaming of women, to the drive-by insult to trans folk, to the blinkered and ignorant lecturing is wrong, wrong, wrong. And as a side point, it also happens to be a shitty piece of writing, fake ennui marinated in meandering and unearned snobbery without point, wit, or seemingly, talent. Repulsive.
It is very mean spirited, but thankfully she’s already apologized for it. A commenter on her blog named Starlet put forward pretty much all the points people are making in this note thead, and Maggie said she was sorry and even said “I wish I’d kept my trap shut.” I just want to point that out so that no one will send her any further hate mail or nasty comments, since it seems she’s already been enlightened and the issue resolved, so I’d hate to see it reignited just as it’s wrapped up.
But… it’s NOT all wrapped up. Perusal of the comments reveals this quite eloquently. Maggie HASN’T seen the error of her ways. She’s apologised for the hooker trannie sentence and that’s it - she even says she doesn’t understand why people think the column is misogynistic and cruel and keeps blathering on about how she never ‘intended’ offence.
SO: I continue to encourage people to leave their eloquent, considered and measured comments on this column. Maggie doesn’t get it and she IS an influential voice to many Australian women. She genuinely believes her only misstep was the trannie hooker line - AND she continued to use the perjorative ‘trannie’ casually afterwards - eg: in explanation she said to a follower ‘I stupidly mentioned trannies in a thoughtless way’.
She is NOW hopelessly straw-manning by saying she’s not the real enemy, after all, consider Sarah Palin - hoping that such a monstrous comparison will distract from and minimise the actions she still has to take unstinting responsibility for.
I was also really put off by her attack on the burlesque revival. One of my favorite followers and one of the nicest people on Tumblr, iwishuponstars, privileged us some time back with some pictures of a burlesque show she was in. iwishuponstars is, as I said before, a very nice girl, very smart, shares her opinions regularly on her blog—she is not repressed or unintelligent, as Maggie’s views from the article would suggest. Another of my favorite Tumblr people, harlequinfairy, is a proud stripper, and again, she’s smart, independent, and full of class.
I am really put-off - as a sex worker/stripper/burlesque performer - by the way you talk about sex workers here. You think you’re being positive and supportive but actually you’re still being judgemental. You’re still supplying criteria erotic performers have to meet to be approved of by you. That’s not okay.
(And any reference to ‘class’ is just classist anyway. The hell with that)
Just for @maggiea - never mind my drag queen makeup, my platinum blonde, elaborately coiffed hair, my tight leopard print AND my ‘towering torture chambers’ - I chose all these clothes to wear out tonight to a queer strip club… where women enjoyed taking their clothes off for an adoring audience, had created stunning shows of diversity and interest, displayed immense talent and skill. We were even blessed enough to have a 65 year old stripping legend, Elizabeth Burton, perform for us, a gorgeous, joyous, open-hearted diva who has absolute ownership of her sexuality, sexual image and skills as a performer and loves to share the stage presence and sexual energy that made her a hit in the 60s and 70s.
Fancy that… women can choose to be “objectified”??
Reblogged from ladythestripper January 28, 2012
ladythestripper:
clownyprincess:
The loathsome Maggie Alderson (Australian-based author of chic-lit, prior editor of several fashion magazines and a self-proclaimed feminist) has written a misogynistic and grotesque column where she polices exaggerated-feminine fashion styles, is whorephobic and transphobic, and reduces Dita Von Teese’s worth as a human being to the type of shoes she occasionally wears.
Several of my friends and I posted comments critiquing her and in an act of prejudice, she is moderating them - while allowing comments that praise her and engage in similar woman-hating rhetoric - to go through.
SO.
I’m reposting mine and my friends’ comments here. I encourage you ALL to go and add your critiques, and reblog this post with them included. There’s a twitter hashtag going - #maggiealderson - where I urge everyone to expose her prejudice.
This kind of woman-hating crap being passed off as feminism is insulting to everyone.
(Starlet)
As a Stripper and Burlesque Performer and mother, I was so put off by your ‘proud old school feminist’ ideals. From the very first sentence in this article, you have insulted my life, my choices, my art, all I hold dear.
And you call yourself a Feminist?
Was this supposed to be a serious article? Do you actually get paid to do this? Gossip and Police what others wear?! And you think all strippers and burlesque performers have been somehow MK Ultra-ed into Sex Kitten Programming?…. (are you serious about the whole Fundamentalists ‘men’ and ‘mental’? do some research into etymology PLEASE!)
If you want to self identify as a Feminist, maybe you should search a little deeper into what that means.
We are meant to be sisters. We are meant to help each other up, not pull everyone down. We should be breaking the patriarchy and dispelling rape culture and legalising abortion and educating others and a million other things other than what your article does.
You are hurting people by doing this. Just think a little harder about what you are saying.
January 27, 2012
The loathsome Maggie Alderson (Australian-based author of chick-lit, prior editor of several fashion magazines and a self-proclaimed feminist) has written a misogynistic and grotesque column where she polices exaggerated-feminine fashion styles, is whorephobic and transphobic, and reduces Dita Von Teese’s worth as a human being to the type of shoes she occasionally wears.
Several of my friends and I posted comments critiquing her and in an act of prejudice, she is moderating them - while allowing comments that praise her and engage in similar woman-hating rhetoric - to go through.
SO.
I’m reposting mine and my friends’ comments here. I encourage you ALL to go and add your critiques, and reblog this post with them included. There’s a twitter hashtag going - #maggiealderson - where I urge everyone to expose her prejudice.
This kind of woman-hating crap being passed off as feminism is insulting to everyone.
THE COMMENTS:
There is so much in this article that I find incredibly offensive but I wanted to start by addressing a major fallacy that I constantly see perpetuated everywhere. Flat shoes are just as bad for your feet, and often WORSE than heels. About 6 years ago, I suffered from plantar fasciitus every couple of months. It’s an incredibly painful inflammation of the soft fleshy outer part of your foot which makes it very difficult to walk. Surprise, surprise, it was caused by wearing ballet flats on a daily basis, particularly wearing them on hard surfaces like concrete and bitumen (which comprises most walking surfaces!). After my 3rd visit to my Dr with it in as many months, he laid down the law to me and said absolutely no ballet flats, and advised me to wear nothing less than a 1.5 inch heel.
It’s an incredible struggle these days to find a cute pair of decently priced shoes that isn’t a ballet flat or a stiletto heel! I have no doubt that this is in part due to this stupid belief that flat shoes are more comfortable and better for you. I feel the same way about heels as I do about corsets; if they’re fitted well, they’re incredibly comfortable to wear on a daily basis. Two things that get an incredibly bad rap as being uncomfortable, but really aren’t. I have a small selection of cute heels, between 2 and 3 inches, which I have no trouble wearing on a daily basis (including dance classes!). The few times in the last couple years that I’ve tried wearing ballet flats (with the vain hope that perhaps their design has changed enough to be comfortable), I’ve barely managed an hour or two before my feet were in agony. Obviously, not everyone is going to have as bad a reaction to flats as I do, but there is definitely evidence out there that shows how damaging flat shoes are. If we just had access to shoes with small heels (that aren’t orthopaedic specialist shoes), perhaps this fallacy wouldn’t be so wide-spread.
Now that that’s out of the way, lets get to the more offensive parts of this article. I’m a proud feminist and devotee of vintage fashion. I feel the most comfortable and the best about myself when I’m wearing my winged eyeliner, my red lippie, a cute outfit with heels, and my hair curled in the manner of the 40’s and 50’s. I never leave the house without first applying sunscreen, blush and mascara, at an absolute minimum. How DARE you insult, belittle and demean MY choices, especially from behind the shield of ‘feminism’. Last time I checked, feminism was all about CHOICE. Giving women the space to be able to choose how they want to live their life, without limitations due to gender. How is dressing in a manner that makes you feel good about yourself ‘anti-feminist’? These looks are hardly deserving of your judgement of them as ‘repressive’. As someone who has been dressing in such a manner WAY before it was ‘in’, I copped plenty of abuse from the fashionista set for daring to step outside what was considered fashionable. I can’t tell you how absolutely freeing and EMPOWERING it was to be a very pale girl (flying against the tanned trend) wearing these beautiful girly dresses combined with my full face of make-up, and absolutely NOT give a damn about what other people thought of me or the judgments people like you were making about how I dressed. And for the record, my look is NOT high maintenance, nor does it take me especially long to look as perfectly put together as Dita. It is something I do FOR MYSELF, because it makes me feel good, not because I feel pressured by outside forces, or because I’m worried a picture will end up on Facebook, or because I’m trying to hook a man. So it’s certainly not repressive in that respect either.
Following that train of thought, burlesque is also incredibly empowering, and hardly anti-feminist; I think you’re confusing your own moral reservations and judgements with feminist ideals. To reduce this wonderful art form, one that celebrates femininity and the female form, to such simplistic terms as ‘objectification of women’ is disrespectful to the women of burlesque, past, present and future. I really think you should educate yourself about the history of burlesque, as it has such a rich past that is full of strong women making political statements, taking back the ownership of their bodies and their sexuality. Regardless of your own moral aversions to striptease (and yes, burlesque IS stripping and anyone who says otherwise is in denial), these women are an incredible inspiration, and embody feminist ideals. Dita Von Teese is an incredibly intelligent woman, who many look up to, for far more than her impeccable style. She’s a savvy business woman, an incredibly creative artist, a woman who promotes positive body image and self love, who dares women to be different, step outside the mould, reclaim their sexuality and do things that make them feel good. Hardly anti-feminist!
The very act of policing women’s bodies, passing your own judgement on other people’s choices of fashion, make-up and footwear, THAT is anti-feminist. It only serves to promote the very misogyny that we’ve been fighting against for so long. You have absolutely no right to put your own value judgements on other people, deciding why it is they’re choosing to dress in a certain manner. Unless, of course, you’ve specifically spoken to said people, and determined that they’re just mindless sheep, forced into these choices by those evil outside forces, conspiring against feminism! As a self proclaimed feminist, you really ought to know better.
(abimused)
Wow, Maggie. I hate those towering heels too. I’m in awe of anyone who can walk in them. I’m sure if I tried my hip and back would be out for days.
However, I think it’s actually possible to write an article praising flat shoes without transphobic and whorephobic comments slung in to hold the readers’ attention. Is your writing not good enough to hold our attention without those cheap shots? That’s just lazy and hateful writing.
You have a platform for speaking out provided to you via the media. How about trying to be a little smarter and cleverer with it. Now THAT would be Old School Feminism.
(MYS)
Dear Maggie,
Whorephobia and transphobia are neither chic, stylish nor clever.
Just ignorant, classist, and further marginalising to people who are already thought of by mainstream society as less-than human.
What makes you think that trans people and sex workers don’t read your blog?
(SA)
Maggie, I also prefer flats over heels. But there’s no need to go hating on every other demographic of woman who isn’t you. Next time, try writing an article that isn’t so steeped in discrimination and elitism. Geez.
(KellyMyDear)
How hopelessly retrograde to sneeringly slut-shame and deny agency to women in stripping under the guise of “feminism”. As a feminist, a sex worker and an occasional burlesque performer, I resent the implication I am nothing more than an object or that my work - whether in burlesque or sex work - encourages objectification- with no further complexity, narrative or dynamic.
As if it isn’t enough that sex workers have to deal with those in the burlesque industry denying that burlesque is strip tease with sneering whorephobic classism, now so-called “feminists” deride burlesque by calling it a “fancy name” for strip tease. With sneering whorephobic classism.
Both sides demonstrate hopeless ignorance of not only the history of burlesque - it was the FIRST form of striptease and stripping has always been inherent to it - but the agency, self-determination and awareness of strippers and other sex workers.
This is patently ANTI-feminist, as one of the guiding rules of feminism is the recognition of a woman’s autonomy and capacity to choose her path - even if you, Maggie, don’t like it.
Furthermore, you police women’s bodies and images with snide remarks about “too much makeup”, or big hair, or styles of dress - exactly who ARE you, if you believe in women’s rights, to deny womens’ ability and right to express themselves visually in whatever means they see fit? Why would you presume that women are so stupid they’re merely “taken in” and “manipulated” by advertising and marketing? Has it ever occurred to you some women LOVE looking like “drag queens”? That for some women the artifice of exaggerated femininity is fun - is enjoyable - is a very conscious and deliberate ownership of a constructed image? Or is your own insecurity in the face of such brazen self-determination so threatened you can only conceptualise it as helplessness? Not very feminist. At all.
Finally, you round it all off with a grotesque example of transphobia with your reference to “trannie hookers”. “Trannie” is a highly perjorative term, associated with violence and murder against trans women, and is not a term to use casually or flippantly - unless you want to imply you hate trans women and have no empathy or consideration for the particular discrimination they face - which is VERY closely connected to misogyny, is actually an aspect of misogyny.
And as someone whose worked the street - extremely high heels aren’t suitable. But way to perpetuate an ignorant stereotype!
This kind of misogyny, whorephobia, transphobia and prejudice dressed up as “feminism” doesn’t serve anyone, Maggie. And YOU should know better.
If you wanted to express YOUR personal preference for flat shoes, I’m sure you could’ve done it without insulting a whole bunch of other women (inculding trans women - who are also women, Maggie).
Seriously, Dita has “won you over” by wearing flat shoes and carrying the same bag? If only you could read any number of intelligent and insightful things this woman has said that go far beyond the regular wearing of flat shoes - surprise, surprise, Dita is an independent woman who has her own strong opinions, a variety of life experience that have informed her decisions, sexual, financial, business and social autonomy and - GASP - is able to choose her footwear - and openly admits to adoring towering stilettos, all by her own widdle self! But, no, instead all you need to do is reduce Dita to the clothes she wears and she becomes worthwhile to you? How strangely like the sexist standards you proclaim to be against!
Frankly, I’d rather be dressed by any one of Sydney’s esteemed drag queens than wear anything dubbed “stylish” by you.
(Starlet)
What’s the problem, Maggie? I know for a fact you’ve received more than one slamming critique for this woman-hating post, yet the only ones you’re approving are the bum-crawly ones? Afraid of criticism? Surely someone who’s been in the media biz as long as you have can cop a little dressing-down.
That you can approve Jasmine’s brown-nosing without regard for how incredibly classist and anti-feminist and woman-hating it is just indicative of what’s really motivating you here: hate and prejudice. To allow something as classist as “And don’t even get me started on the striptease and pole-dancing crazes – sorry, but if it were really about fitness/athleticism/art, you would be doing gymnastics, ballet or aerial” to go through just because that commenter is kissing your butt is gross. Because it’s not as if pole-dancing is perhaps made to seem more accessible than ballet, gymnastics and aerial (speaking as someone who has studied all four arts)? Or perhaps women just want to do something that makes them feel sexy? Oh but we should laugh and ridicule them right, cos women shouldn’t feel sexy – that just makes them hopeless victims of the patriarchy? And sexy woman are disgusting sluts, right?
Are you lot seriously so intimidated and threatened by this sort of woman that you would pass your little bitch-fest off as fashion critique?
That’s pathetic.
(Starlet)
