Schweizer Politiker/innen behaupten ständig die Arbeitsbedingungen von Prostituierten verbessern zu wollen, dabei ist das Honorar nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichts nicht einmal einklagbar- wegen "Sittenwidrigkeit". Kein Wunder denken sich gewisse Kunden, sie könnten sich mit uns alles erlauben (Stichwort Fake-Buchungen und Zechprellerei) wenn sogar das Bundesgericht dahinter steht. Ich frage mich, wie die ausführliche Begründung dazu wohl aussieht? Um mal polemisch zu werden: Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass da gewisse Richter gerne Sexarbeiterinnen verarschen und gewisse Richterinnen insgeheim von Missgunst getrieben werden..
Die FDP-Frauen haben diesen stossenden Misstand erkannt und fordern die Rechtsprechung heraus Eine Frage, die Gegner nun einbringen werden (unter anderem mit der insgeheimen Absicht, Prostituierte weiterhin unten zu halten) ist vermutlich, ob auch die Dienstleistung nach Bezahlung einklagbar sei. Natürlich nicht- es könnte lediglich der Betrag zurückgefordert werden.
Die Juso hatte sich bereits im August in Zürich mit Plakaten für die Gleichstellung von Sexarbeiter/innen bekannt, tatsächliche Verbesserungsvorschläge scheiterten wohl an der Unkenntnis der Materie. So warb die Juso für die "Entkriminalisierung" der Prostitution, obwohl es überall in der Schweiz legal ist. Ich hoffe sie unterstützt nun diese wichtige, konkrete Verbesserung.
@Mädchenmannschaft: Vielen Dank für die Verlinkung. Ich habe auch die Kritik zur Kenntnis genommen, deshalb möchte ich erläutern weshalb ich auf die Idee komme dass eventuell Missgunst hinter der Sittenwidrigkeit steckt: Ich hatte bereits zahlreiche Diskussionen mit Frauen, welche gegen die Verbesserung der Arbeitsbedingungen von Prostituierten waren, und zwar begründeten diese es damit, dass es schlecht für die Prostituierten sei und zur "Bagatelliesierung" führen würde.
Im Laufe der Diskussionen stellte sich aber heraus, dass sich hinter der vermeintlichen Sorge um das Wohl der Prostituierten die Angst um sexuellen Machtverlust verbarg, in dem Sinne dass Männer mehr Optionen zum Fremdgehen haben falls sie dies wollen. Das klingt zwar zunächst nach einem schlechten Klischee, und ich möchte es selbst gar nicht glauben, aber leider hat es immer wieder bestätigt. Persönlichen Erlebnisse begründen natürlich keine allgemeingültigen Tatsachen, lassen aber erfahren was durchaus möglich ist. Ich schliesse nicht aus, dass selbst Richterinnen anderweitige Motive haben könnten, vielleicht auch unbewusst. Ich frage mich also, was denn sonst das Motiv sein könnte, Prostituierten den Rechtsweg zu verweigern. Ist es die Angst vor "Normalisierung"? Wenn ja, wie kann denn die Abwehr dagegen wichtiger sein als die Rechte von realen Menschen?
Nicht zu vergessen ist, dass ich auch Richtern (welche wohl die Mehrheit im Bundesgericht ausmachen?) mögliche Hintergedanken unterstellt habe. Empfindet ihr dies als weniger problematisch als wenn Frauen anderweiteige Motive angelastet werden?
Posts mit dem Label Sexworker werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Posts mit dem Label Sexworker werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen
Montag, 14. Februar 2011
Montag, 20. Dezember 2010
Violent language of anti-sex work groups
Am 17. Dezember war der internationale Tag zur Bekämpfung von Gewalt gegen Sexarbeiter/innen. Hier ein Artikel den ich bei Feministing zum Thema gefunden habe:
Written by Calum Bennachie & Jan Marie
When most people discuss violence against sex workers, they talk about the physical violence that they perceive sex workers are exposed to by clients, by authorities, and by others. However, violence takes many forms, and what is often omitted from discussions of violence against sex workers is the verbal violence of anti-sex work groups. The language they use reflects not merely a dislike of sex work, but a hatred of sex workers, especially those who act contrary to what Ronald Weitzer calls the ‘oppression paradigm’ these abolitionist groups have adopted. Their language has several severe consequences, one of which is that it actively encourages violence against sex workers.
Abolitionists often use a language of war, and their hatred towards sex workers, which does not show remorse, can almost be tasted. For example, it could be argued that their descriptions of sex workers’ vaginas are more women-hating than those in any mainstream pornography. Statements such as these make a major contribution to both popular and theoretical academic representations of sex work. They receive much attention and wide acceptance, which impacts on the lives of sex workers in relation to stigma, stereotypes, media representation, funding and implementation of interventions, and the construction of government policy. If everything they say is true, then obviously the sex industry is bad and all people who try to close it down are good. Within this belief system, it makes sense that those who support the industry should be punished and sex workers should be rescued out or punished for staying in.
This Is What They Say
The sex industry:
* Is ‘an institution of male violence and racial and economic privilege’ that objectifies and keeps women in their place to fulfill male desires.
* Is a ‘symptom’ of all that is wrong with masculinities.
* Forces and traffics sex workers, especially migrant sex workers.
Commercial sex:
* Is ‘rape that’s paid for’.
Sex workers:
* Enjoy rape and domination and accept pain and humiliation to get rewards and avoid further abuse.
* Are predators who contribute to rape, battery, and violence against women and children.
* Are misled about the concept of having choice because they are victims of the system of male domination and individual males within that.
* Have permanent emotional scarring and other ongoing consequences such as changed appearance.
* Have vaginas that are receptacles to be masturbated into and are filthy with semen and lubricant.
Harmful Consequences
There are five main consequences of this discourse of hate. First, sex workers who are confronted with these opinions are likely to doubt their self-worth and their self-agency, and may put themselves in the position of victim, thus making it more likely they will become victims of violence. When subjected to violence, they are less likely to make complaints about it.
Secondly, the discourse encourages hatred of sex workers, clients and all who support sex workers in any way. All cultures have approved objects of hatred. Often this hatred takes aim at whole classes of people. Speech denigrating particular groups has been described as a ‘psychic tax on those least able to pay’. As an example, it has been shown that negative comments about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) communities contribute to increases in physical and verbal violence against homosexual and transgender people. This can be extended to sex workers as well.
Thirdly, conflating sex work with trafficking and violence against women has affected the funding of sex worker groups. For example, PEPFAR (the US government AIDS fund) will not fund organisations that support sex workers or promote the decriminalisation of sex work. As a result, this has led to groups that supply sex workers with condoms, or support the rights of sex workers, not receiving funds, thus endangering the lives of sex workers and putting them at risk of HIV infection. This policy also reinforces stereotypes, stigma, and discrimination against sex workers.
Fourthly, male, gay, transgender and gender-fluid sex workers are made invisible. The violence against these groups is ignored, and rarely appears in any of the papers they produce. In fact, male sex workers rarely appear in any of their publications, perhaps, because they assume male sex workers to be gay men. For example, Sheila Jeffreys calls gay men the cause of women’s subjugation, while male-to-female transgendered sex workers are referred to as ‘self-mutilating men’. Perhaps they count even less as human?
Finally, and cumulatively, the discourse actively encourages violence against sex workers. The way something is defined can make a huge difference in how it is perceived and how it is interacted with. When one understands a group of people as ‘other’, different, dirty, filthy, stupid or malevolently manipulative, then one can support or condone the violence that occurs. Whether this is forced rescue, forced health checks, taking children away from their parents, or rape and murder.
Paying the Psychic Tax
Although anti-sex work authors claim to condemn violence against sex workers, through their choice of words and phrases they actively promote and encourage acts, which, in some cases, may lead to the abuse and death of sex workers. On the one hand they say they support and care for women, on the other they depict these women in such a way that violence can be justified. Taken together, the consequences of this verbal violence by abolitionist groups makes a major contribution to the abuse of sex workers globally, who are paying the ‘psychic tax’. These people are no different from the client who does not want to pay, the corrupt police officer who rapes, or the members of the public who throw bottles and rotten eggs at street workers. In fact they are worse, because they justify their violence as an act of caring. (Anm. von Sina: Mit diesem Teil stimme ich nicht überein, ich denke es gibt durchaus Personen die aufrichtig um das Wohlergehen von Sexarbeiterinnen besorgt sind und gar nicht erkennen, wie sehr ihre Äusserungen schaden. Ihnen kann man nur vorwerfen, sich über dieses komplexe Thema nicht umfassend informiert zu haben.)
We must challenge them, their language, and their publications at every opportunity, reveal their language of hate for what it is, and counter them with evidence-based facts that prove their claims to be false.
Written by Calum Bennachie & Jan Marie
When most people discuss violence against sex workers, they talk about the physical violence that they perceive sex workers are exposed to by clients, by authorities, and by others. However, violence takes many forms, and what is often omitted from discussions of violence against sex workers is the verbal violence of anti-sex work groups. The language they use reflects not merely a dislike of sex work, but a hatred of sex workers, especially those who act contrary to what Ronald Weitzer calls the ‘oppression paradigm’ these abolitionist groups have adopted. Their language has several severe consequences, one of which is that it actively encourages violence against sex workers.
Abolitionists often use a language of war, and their hatred towards sex workers, which does not show remorse, can almost be tasted. For example, it could be argued that their descriptions of sex workers’ vaginas are more women-hating than those in any mainstream pornography. Statements such as these make a major contribution to both popular and theoretical academic representations of sex work. They receive much attention and wide acceptance, which impacts on the lives of sex workers in relation to stigma, stereotypes, media representation, funding and implementation of interventions, and the construction of government policy. If everything they say is true, then obviously the sex industry is bad and all people who try to close it down are good. Within this belief system, it makes sense that those who support the industry should be punished and sex workers should be rescued out or punished for staying in.
This Is What They Say
The sex industry:
* Is ‘an institution of male violence and racial and economic privilege’ that objectifies and keeps women in their place to fulfill male desires.
* Is a ‘symptom’ of all that is wrong with masculinities.
* Forces and traffics sex workers, especially migrant sex workers.
Commercial sex:
* Is ‘rape that’s paid for’.
Sex workers:
* Enjoy rape and domination and accept pain and humiliation to get rewards and avoid further abuse.
* Are predators who contribute to rape, battery, and violence against women and children.
* Are misled about the concept of having choice because they are victims of the system of male domination and individual males within that.
* Have permanent emotional scarring and other ongoing consequences such as changed appearance.
* Have vaginas that are receptacles to be masturbated into and are filthy with semen and lubricant.
Harmful Consequences
There are five main consequences of this discourse of hate. First, sex workers who are confronted with these opinions are likely to doubt their self-worth and their self-agency, and may put themselves in the position of victim, thus making it more likely they will become victims of violence. When subjected to violence, they are less likely to make complaints about it.
Secondly, the discourse encourages hatred of sex workers, clients and all who support sex workers in any way. All cultures have approved objects of hatred. Often this hatred takes aim at whole classes of people. Speech denigrating particular groups has been described as a ‘psychic tax on those least able to pay’. As an example, it has been shown that negative comments about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) communities contribute to increases in physical and verbal violence against homosexual and transgender people. This can be extended to sex workers as well.
Thirdly, conflating sex work with trafficking and violence against women has affected the funding of sex worker groups. For example, PEPFAR (the US government AIDS fund) will not fund organisations that support sex workers or promote the decriminalisation of sex work. As a result, this has led to groups that supply sex workers with condoms, or support the rights of sex workers, not receiving funds, thus endangering the lives of sex workers and putting them at risk of HIV infection. This policy also reinforces stereotypes, stigma, and discrimination against sex workers.
Fourthly, male, gay, transgender and gender-fluid sex workers are made invisible. The violence against these groups is ignored, and rarely appears in any of the papers they produce. In fact, male sex workers rarely appear in any of their publications, perhaps, because they assume male sex workers to be gay men. For example, Sheila Jeffreys calls gay men the cause of women’s subjugation, while male-to-female transgendered sex workers are referred to as ‘self-mutilating men’. Perhaps they count even less as human?
Finally, and cumulatively, the discourse actively encourages violence against sex workers. The way something is defined can make a huge difference in how it is perceived and how it is interacted with. When one understands a group of people as ‘other’, different, dirty, filthy, stupid or malevolently manipulative, then one can support or condone the violence that occurs. Whether this is forced rescue, forced health checks, taking children away from their parents, or rape and murder.
Paying the Psychic Tax
Although anti-sex work authors claim to condemn violence against sex workers, through their choice of words and phrases they actively promote and encourage acts, which, in some cases, may lead to the abuse and death of sex workers. On the one hand they say they support and care for women, on the other they depict these women in such a way that violence can be justified. Taken together, the consequences of this verbal violence by abolitionist groups makes a major contribution to the abuse of sex workers globally, who are paying the ‘psychic tax’. These people are no different from the client who does not want to pay, the corrupt police officer who rapes, or the members of the public who throw bottles and rotten eggs at street workers. In fact they are worse, because they justify their violence as an act of caring. (Anm. von Sina: Mit diesem Teil stimme ich nicht überein, ich denke es gibt durchaus Personen die aufrichtig um das Wohlergehen von Sexarbeiterinnen besorgt sind und gar nicht erkennen, wie sehr ihre Äusserungen schaden. Ihnen kann man nur vorwerfen, sich über dieses komplexe Thema nicht umfassend informiert zu haben.)
We must challenge them, their language, and their publications at every opportunity, reveal their language of hate for what it is, and counter them with evidence-based facts that prove their claims to be false.
Sonntag, 17. Oktober 2010
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)