This so absolutely matches what Katha Pollitt was talking about in the post I did last week that I couldn't, in good conscience, not point it out.
On a blog of the "left" Moe Szyslak, a regular, WHO IS A WORKING JOURNALIST (HE IS CONGRATULATED ON WINING A JOURNALISM AWARD IN THE SAME THREAD!) can make a claim that denies the FACT that women are forced into prostitution and trafficked like commodities and, other than one mildly pointing out "there's quite a difference between an adult who chooses sex work, and a kid in Bangkok forced into it" none of the assorted liberals, including at least one feminist blogger challenged his absurd assertion. Perhaps he never saw the UN Office of Crime and Drugs Global Report on the Trafficking of Persons
Based on data gathered from 155 countries, it offers the first global assessment of the scope of human trafficking and what is being done to fight it. It includes: an overview of trafficking patterns; legal steps taken in response; and country-specific information on reported cases of trafficking in persons, victims, and prosecutions.
At the launch of the Report in New York, the Executive Director of UNODC, Antonio Maria Costa said that "many governments are still in denial. There is even neglect when it comes to either reporting on, or prosecuting cases of human trafficking". He pointed to the fact that while the number of convictions for human trafficking is increasing, two out of every five countries covered by the UNODC Report had not recorded a single conviction.
According to the Report, the most common form of human trafficking (79%) is sexual exploitation. The victims of sexual exploitation are predominantly women and girls. Surprisingly, in 30% of the countries which provided information on the gender of traffickers, women make up the largest proportion of traffickers. In some parts of the world, women trafficking women is the norm.
but it might have kept him from more than just implying that reporting about human trafficking by the sex industry is some kind of oppression of women, disrespecting their "agency". "Agency" is one of the most popular words used by pseudo-leftists in a way that is remarkably similar to assertions by the worst of market-worshiping econ types who claim that people who work under the worst possible conditions are free to not do it so it's their choice to work in conditions that degrade them and that often lead to their injury, illness and death.
Perhaps "Moe" in his real life as a journalist would like to do a Nellie Bly turn, putting his mouth (and anus) where his fingers are now, finding out what a prostitutes' "work" is really like. Only he probably wouldn't be under the control of a pimp who would beat him up or threaten to kill him and he would know that, after his stunt a la Melissa Gira Grant, he could leave. I would suspect he'd never have to worry about having sex with a man who refused to use a condom.
I wonder about the people who frequent these liberal blogs that promote the lies of the sex industry, if they have ever had a family member who was at risk for being controlled by a pimp of forced to prostitute themselves due to desperation, drug addiction or some other frequently given reason that women, men and children become prostitutes.
Obviously two of the participants in the thread understood that there was something wrong, Gromit and David Derbes, I wonder at the fact that they or Hecate didn't object to Moe's asinine rejection of the reality of trafficking in women by the sex industry. I think enough of those three to hope it wasn't because they knew that, as Katha Pollitt said, you're supposed to disdain Nicholas Kristoff or, worse, that they were afraid that they'd be unstylish. But there was no good reason to go silent on this issue in the face of what was said. If you can't express your objection to human trafficking by the sex industry, your convictions have no power. And that is why liberals are a flop in politics.
Houston is a major center of human trafficking; we hear a lot about it down here.
ReplyDeleteMuch of it, as you say, involves sex work.
But "Mo" knows more, because he's covered a local story in "BFE, Canada." A man with no children understands the concept of children, legal age, and legal consent, better than the law does. A man who has worked, tangentially, on one local story, is an expert on the lives of sex workers, as well as on the laws meant to protect children. Pardon me if I'm unimpressed with the depth of his knowledge.
Good thing he's only commenting on a blog. His opinions are too ignorant to be paraded in public.
I wonder if, in his vast experience as a reporter, he has ever noticed that one of the more common characteristics of a criminal enterprise is SECRECY. If that were not the case it would rather make his profession superfluous. The "no evidence" crap is crap. I wonder how much "evidence" there was that something was up in the story that got Moe his award. I don't know about Canada but in New England the scribblers are big on awarding each other for some pretty modest achievements.
ReplyDeleteI wondered if he had children or cared about any, personally. I have to say that, as with the host of that blog, there is something truly creepy about an adult man who is eager to assign "agency" to young teenagers when it comes to sex. Atrios doing that way back on his blog was one of the things that first alerted me to this kind of thing.
It seems as if we are going back to a de facto reduction of children to objects, the opposite of what happened when Christianity superseded Paganism. Objects of commerce. I have to wonder about feminists who are stupid enough to not realize that if people become objects, some will be more objects than others and the cultural habits of just about every society will result in women and children being the objects owned by men, another common aspect of Pagan culture.
I see this as all related to that originating evil, seeing people as objects available for commerce and I think it is the key to understanding the failure of liberalism after the 1960s.
Reading this makes me think that, considering how many hours I wasted at places like Baby Blue and how much of it embodies those things that ruined the left it would be irresponsible to not use it and similar blogs as a sort of sociological resource. It was reading atheists in large numbers online, uncensored and unfiltered, that opened my eyes to the problems of atheism. Oddly enough, what people believe actually does matter, not all ideas lead to equality and a decent life.
I've noticed the word "who" is almost never used anymore in relation to persons. Persons "which " do something, or "that" did something, but never "who" did/do something, is now the common usage.
ReplyDeleteIt's a tiny thing, but it's a reduction of personhood to object, to thing, to non-person. And it isn't that language shapes our perceptions or behaviors; it is that language reflects them.
I find it very disturbing, an indicia of how we are reifying personhood out of cognizance, and so out of existence.
Got your note. Simels is really desperate for something to complain about, isn't he?
ReplyDelete