Category Archives: Framing/ Public Relations

Introducing the Front Porch Research Strategy

We’ve been keeping it quiet, but it’s time:

We believe

We believe

Announcing our new project, Front Porch Research Strategy this weekend, April 30, 2016 at the Anna Julia Cooper Center for the ‪#‎KnowHerTruths‬ Conference.

‪Our ‎Front Porch Research Strategy‬ begins at the intersection of service, activism, and research. Our work unfolds at the intersection of race, gender and sexuality in the Deep South. Our approach honors the political actions of African American women that began in their collective resistance to capture, trafficking and enslavement. We use an integrated, multidisciplinary research approach that centers on collaboration to unveil indigenous analyses, organize data, and inspire new processes and theories of change.

We call this “Front Porch Strategy” in honor of the long legacy of southern women building community, speaking truths, and crafting analysis in the interstices between street and home, between public and private. I’m honored to begin this adventure with Laura McTighe, Shaquita Borden, Deon Haywood, Mary Frances Berry, and the wonderful activists of Women With A Vision in New Orleans.

For me, it’s kind of a magical homecoming announce to announce this project at a place honoring the legacy of Anna Julia Cooper. Long ago as an undergrad, I began my intersectional work reading A Voice From the South, by a Black Woman from the South, AJC’s 1892 collection of essays. Few had heard of it then, but I found a first edition tucked away in the Smith College library and was hooked. (If you don’t know why, read this.)

Later as a master’s student in Washington, DC, I was fortunate to discover AJC’s “Third Step.” In the late 1920s as a retired DC public school teacher, *Doctor* Cooper, having earned her doctorate from the Sorbonne for her dissertation on slavery and the Haitian Revolution, became the president of Freylinghusen University, a night school founded to educate African Americans shut out of the elite Howard University. My first peer-reviewed article documented the Dr Cooper’s struggles with the DC Board of Education to keep this school open. And that article was published in 1984 in Sage: A Scholarly Journal on Black Women, now sadly defunct.

Anna Julia Cooper’s house in Washington, DC has the most magnificent front porch, a wrap-around masterpiece that one can easily imagine the Doctor sitting in, talking about revolutions then and now.

IMG_0366.JPG

The Origins of that 12 to 13 Age of Entry into Prostitution Factoid

For years, we have all been dogged by the “factoid” that the “average” age of entry into prostitution for girls is 12 to 13 years of age. As researchers who work with sex workers, and as sex workers, too, we “know” this can’t possibly be right. Anti-prostitution activists love to throw the “fact” into debates, yet when challenged, they too have difficulty citing any reliable source for their statistic.

I finally traced this “fact” to its source. The original academic article, “Victimization of Street Prostitutes,” was published in the journal Victimology in 1982 (7 [1982]: 122-133). The data came from research conducted by Mimi Silbert of the San Francisco Delancey Street Foundation and Ayala Pines of UC Berkeley, who interviewed 200 women and girls in SF, all of whom were Delancey Street clients. The authors note that the number of juveniles arrested for prostitution had “doubled” from 38 to 86 from 1976 to 1977. Still, this was 86 minors among more than 2,300 adult women arrested for prostitution in 1977. (FWIW, I was one of the women arrested that year. The SFPD and was engaged in a major crackdown at the time, especially in Union Square and the Tenderloin areas as developers had begun eying those neighborhoods. There were arrests across the entire /hetero/ sex industry: clubs, parlors, bars, hotels, streets, etc.).

The methodology section of the Delancey Street study states:
“200 juveniles and adults, current and former women prostitutes in the SF Bay Area served as subjects of this study. The mean ages of the subjects was 22. The youngest one was 10, the oldest 46. 70% of the current prostitutes were under 21; about 60% were 16 and under; many were 10, 11, 12, and 13 years old.
“78% of all the women interviewed reported starting prostitution as juveniles. 69% of them were white, 18% were black, 11% were Hispanic, 2% American Indian, 1% Asian, … [insert heteronormative assumptive data on marital/relationship status here]
“Despite the fact that two-thirds of the sample came from families of middle or higher income, the average financial situation of all women interviewed was described a ‘just making it.’ 88% of the current prostitutes and 92% of the juveniles described themselves as either ‘very poor’ or ‘just making it.”

It’s important to understand this data from a historical perspective. In 1977, the drinking age was 18. That meant that “juveniles” could work in strip clubs, serve liquor, and obtain a license from the city to work in a massage parlor or encounter parlor. (There were no educational requirements to receive a massage license at that time). A young person only had to show an ID stating she was 18. (And remember, this was when many states issued a driver’s license on paper, and did not necessarily include a photograph.)

Nowhere in the Delancey Street report is the term “juvenile” defined. There was (and remains) legal and social science obfuscation of this term, especially for females. An 18 year old woman is not necessarily viewed as an “adult.” Even at 21, rampant sexism meant that young, unmarried women were still considered “minors” who, though they could vote, could not sign a lease, get a credit card without a (male) co-signer.

The mean age in the survey group was 22 (n=200). If the researchers defined an “adult” as a woman over 21 years of age, then of course it would appear that “juvenile” prostitution is rampant, even though arrest statistics by the SFPD don’t support this assertion. Pines and Silbert claim that the ready availability of fake IDs meant that there were more juveniles arrested than the numbers suggest, but indoor parlor licenses were issued by SFPD, and were thus “verified” by the police, in those pre-internet times.

A second observation about the report and the academic article, and this is perhaps scarier from a social science perspective, the methodology in this study is the same one used in later studies, perpetuating the same biases. For example, Jody Raphael and Deborah L. Shapiro copied the methodology and even the survey instrument for their report on Chicago’s “prostituted women,” Sisters Speak Out (2002). This study also appeared later in the academic journal, Violence Against Women. (Raphael and Shapiro, “Sisters Speak Out: The Lives and Needs of Prostituted Women in Chicago; a research study,” [Center for Impact Research, Chicago, IL, August 2002]; Raphael and Shapiro, “Violence in Indoor and Outdoor Prostitution Venues,” Violence Against Women 10 (2004): 126-139.) Their work was challenged by the Young Women’s Empowerment Project (YWEP) which investigated “girls, including transgender girls in the sex trade and street economy” because they believed the numbers were skewed and the methodology flawed.

Third, the original report, issued in 1981, was conducted for and funded by Delancey Street mission, where Pines worked. It was conducted to justify the need for more funding from government and private donors. Pines and others would say that they were attempting to identify client “needs.” However, the recent investigations of “tragedy porn” stories circulated by Somaly Mam and other rescue missions should give us pause as the credibility of this research.

But finally, because I’m such a research-footnote-tracing nerd, it’s useful to know that the Pines & Silbert report didn’t actually have a lot of traction on its own. It is not the source most often cited in the 1980s when this “age of entry” entered the discussion. Unfortunately, it first appeared in public circulation in an essay by Priscilla Alexander, the co-director of COYOTE, in Sex Work, (Cleis Press, 1987, and 1998). Alexander was also the co-editor of the anthology with Frederique Delacoste. Indeed, in the first reviews of Sex Work published in the radical feminist newspaper off our backs, both reviewers cited that statistic.

The sad fact is that because the “factoid” appeared in a “pro-sex work” book, the antis seized on it, and began spreading it around. There’s another on our backs article, this one by Melissa Farley, “Prostitution: The Oldest Use and Abuse of Women,” (Vol. 24, No. 5 [May 1994], pp. 14-15, 22) that also uses Sex Work as its reference.

#NotYourRescueProject

Twitter hashtag #NotYourRescueProject began as a small convo on January 2nd to challenge anti-trafficking activists who see all sex workers as victims in need of moral rescue to the exclusion of all other forms of labor trafficking. For the next ten days, sex workers tweeted their own truths and drowned out prohibitionist myths and lies. A Thunderclap of tweets landed on January 11th “Human Trafficking Awareness Day” demanding that anti-trafficking activists focus on freedom for “the millions of people who are trafficked each year, the children sold into debt bondage, the agricultural labourers who are raped and exploited, the fisherman trapped into working.”

Beacon Broadside posted a fact sheet, drawn from Sex Workers Unite,  to counter anti-prostitution rhetoric on January 4. It is excerpted below.

In 1990, health researchers estimated that one in one hundred US women has done some form of sex work during her lifetime. And yet, despite sex work being legal in fifty nations including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Macau, the Netherlands, Austria, New Zealand, Israel, France, Germany, and England, the United States continues to be one of the few industrialized nations to criminalize prostitution. More than that, the US has actively worked to keep sex workers marginalized, and these discriminatory practices have placed them in harm’s way.

The dangers, unfortunately, are quite real. As gentrification pushed people in the sex trades and street economy out of city centers, zoning laws and “move along” ordinances have forced sex workers into isolated areas where they—and other marginalized people—are more susceptible to abuse by police and violent criminals. In the last four decades alone, more than 3,000 women who were or were perceived to be sex workers were killed by serial murderers. Criminologist Kenna Quinet identified 502 male serial murderers active in the United States between 1970 and 2009; she also identified 3,228 of their female victims. Nearly one-third (32 percent) had been engaged in sex work or street-based trades.

There are, however, signs that conditions might be improving… due to the sex workers themselves.

The first and most recognized sex workers’ advocacy group, COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics), was formed in May 1973 in San Francisco. COYOTE won several public policy victories in the 1970s to protect women and transgender people arrested on prostitution charges, such as the abolition of mandatory venereal disease tests, mandatory penicillin therapy, and multiday jail quarantines.

Now the fight has moved online, with sex workers around the world rallying around Twitter hashtags like #SexWorkIsWork and #NotYourRescueProject that advocate their struggle for legitimacy and safety while casting off the identity of victimhood that continues to plague them. ….

More facts about the struggle for sex workers’ rights:

  • As of 2010, half of all sex workers in the United States were employed, in one way or another, in the commercial sex industry, including: escorts, brothel workers, professional dominants, telephone sex operators, strippers, exotic dancers, sensual massage workers, webcam entertainers, porn models, adult film performers, and specialists of all types, genders, colors, shapes, sexualities, and fetishes.
  • In 1949, the United States voted against a United Nations convention calling for the decriminalization of prostitution when 48% of the UN endorsed it.
  • In 1967, in an effort to crack down on the drug market in Times Square and to force commercial sex businesses to tone down their advertising and merchandising practices, Governor Nelson Rockefeller issued that the maximum penalty for prostitution in New York State was fifteen days in jail for a two-year period. After loud protests from police and voters, prostitution became a Class B misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of ninety-one days.
  • In thirty-four states, prostitution is a felony if the sex worker is HIV-positive, regardless of the type of service performed or whether transmission to the client occurred.
  • The 1986 “Prostitute Study” was the first federally funded effort to focus specifically on AIDS among women.
  • Nevada was one of the first states to criminalize illegal sex workers with AIDS, and in March 1986, it was also the first state to adopt mandatory AIDS tests for brothel workers.
  • In 2005, President Lula da Silva rejected $40 million from the United States to fight AIDS because it came with the stipulation that Brazil’s government take a pledge against prostitution.
  • In 1999, the St. James Infirmary in San Francisco became the first occupational health clinic for sex workers.
  • In 2011, two billboard companies refused to accept public awareness ads for the St. James Infirmary created by Rachel Schreiber because by including the term “sex worker” St. James had failed to meet “community standards.”

Human Rights for Sex Workers: An Interview

This interview first appeared in The Beacon Broadside, December 17, 2013firstslutwalkTO

Melinda Chateauvert agreed recently to talk with us at Beacon Press about Human Rights Day and how important it is that the international campaign for human rights include sex workers, who have always been key activists in the struggles for gay liberation, women’s rights, reproductive justice, labor organizing, prison abolition, and other human rightsrelated issues.

Why is it important that human rights advocates include sex workers in their efforts and activism?

“Prettying up,” “normalizing,” or “sanitizing” the poster children (or martyred adult victims) of any movement means that the policy solutions will never address the people who are most vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. It’s rather instructive, for example, how the mainstream of the immigrant rights’ movement places students, military veterans, and “hard-working” successful workers/business people at the forefront. (The same can be said about gay rights organizations too.) This makes them “worthy” and “deserving” of citizenship rights in the US. But what about immigrants who seek residency and asylum because they are transgender or gay or lesbian? Or who, once they arrive, find they cannot obtain “honest” work and turn to the sex industry to support themselves?

For the labor movement, organizing in the sex industry itself is certainly one focus for activism. But in truth, winning a living wage for workers everywhere would mean that a lot of workers could choose to leave the sex industry, especially those who moonlight to make ends meet while holding on to their “legitimate” day jobs.

How do sex workers rights relate to other global human rights issues?

1) Global democracy movements: Sex workers have the right to participate in government as voters, and as officials, elected or appointed.

2) HIV/AIDS: Sex workers are front line adult educators to prevent new HIV infections worldwide. They can only do so however, when government officials, health agencies and law enforcement recognize them as people who have these skills and bring them into the process, and, preferably, let sex workers determine the best harm reduction practices for themselves.

3) Immigration and migration in a globalized economy: People move from place to place looking for work and economic opportunity, for money to remit to their families back home. That women and men would move from place to place (from Lagos to Capetown to Amsterdam for example) to work in the sex industry should not surprise anyone. What should concern us however is that the criminalization of undocumented or un-permitted migration makes all migrants vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. Without a visa or a passport, public officials as well as criminal traffickers can make the life of undocumented migrants hell.

Over the last few decades, sex workers have sought to reframe sex workers rights as a human rights issue. What are some of the steps they have taken?

Sex worker activists and advocates have historically called on lawmakers and the courts to decriminalize prostitution, so that people could work without fear of arrest and persecution, including harassment, stalking, prohibitions against renting apartments, from holding certain types of jobs, or from obtaining professional licensing. The discrimination that sex workers face is similar to the policies and attitudes that once prevented gays and lesbians from finding jobs and housing, from patronizing public establishments, and that threaten their rights as parents. While securing civil rights for sex workers remains an issue, activists have come to realize that the effects of discrimination perpetuates a climate of hate. Whorephobia—and its cousin slut-shaming—are dehumanizing, reducing “hookers,” “prostitutes,” “whores,” and “hustlers” to people who aren’t worthy of concern, and indeed, people who should be chased out of neighborhoods or locked up in prison. More seriously, because the police regard sex workers as lawbreakers, they often ignore or sloppily investigate crimes of violence against sex workers. Rape, battery, assault, domestic violence, armed robbery, and the kidnapping and murders of sex workers is dismissed because their jobs (a.k.a., their “lifestyles”) are considered dangerous and they were “asking for it.”

Activists have been challenging dehumanization in multiple ways. Recently, Canadian journalist Joyce Arthur called on editors, opinion columnists, and reporters to revise the style guides for terms referring to the sex industry after a Toronto Globe and Mail columnist called prostitutes “lumps of meat.”

On Monday this week, a New York Times editorial, “France’s New Approach to Curbing Prostitution”, praised the French Parliament for approving a law that would punish the clients of sex workers. It also dehumanized sex workers. The proposed law would “treat prostitutes as exploited and abused victims,” but where are the complaints from sex workers themselves about abuse and exploitation by their customers? Indeed, neither the NYT nor the commercial press is reporting on the thousands of French sex workers who are marching and protesting against the proposed law. By failing to acknowledge that sex workers chose to do the work they do, we deny them agency and control over their lives. Even saying that “we” want to “help” them get out of sex work is a denial of their agency and self-determination. Sure, some sex workers hate their work, many would like to change the working conditions, and some would rather do something else entirely. But so do a lot of fast food workers and even some blog editors.

To say “sex workers rights are human rights” is to recognize that people have the right to make decisions about their lives and their work, to say that they have the right to be safe from violence and harassment, to say that they deserve human dignity and to have a voice in society.