I can laugh at a puppet show, at the same time I know there is nothing in it worth my attention or regard. – Lady Mary Wortley Montagu
By the end of the nineties, neofeminist leaders knew their movement was in trouble; though they had become extremely powerful in the Scandinavian countries, their power and influence had begun to wither nearly everywhere else. The reasonable goals of second-wave feminism had been met, and feminist ideas had become so normal that mainstream feminism no longer had a monopoly on them; the neofeminists had lost the crowbar by which they had pried and beat so many young women into their ugly, twisted gender war, and the internet had made it more difficult for them to sell their anti-sex snake oil to the impressionable. But fanatics are driven by their psychoses, and are thus unable to admit defeat; instead, the neofeminists formed an alliance with another large group of anti-sex authoritarians, namely fundamentalist Christianity, and together they repackaged their old ideas so as to sell them all over again. Instead of being merely “sinful” or “misogynistic” porn became “addictive”, and mercenary “researchers” with questionable credentials were hired to supplement the fabrications of the True Believers on any aspect of sex work one might name.
The keystone of this whole strategy was the myth of “sex trafficking”; as the “Nation Strategy” of Swanee Hunt’s Demand Abolition organization clearly states, “Framing the Campaign’s key target as sexual slavery might garner more support and less resistance, while framing the Campaign as combating prostitution may be less likely to mobilize similar levels of support and to stimulate stronger opposition.” In other words, the anti-sex coalition recognized it had already lost the war on sex work, so it was necessary to use its favorite tactic, re-framing (i.e. calculated lying), to paint prostitutes (and to a lesser extent strippers and porn actresses) as “sex slaves” controlled by evil “pimps” straight out of 1970s blaxploitation films. There was, however, a problem with this scheme; as I explained in “The Odor of Socks”,
…they present the “reframed experiences” of “survivors” to support their claims, but since these are a small minority the usual approach …is to present the same stories over and over again with slightly-altered details so as to “pack the collection” of available narratives. This can only go so far against the huge number of vocal whores, however; even the most credulous of prohibitionist marks will eventually notice that while we regularly post new material and interact with our readers, the supposed plethora of “human trafficking victims” are represented only in third person. And so a new weapon has become necessary: the sock puppet…while the anonymity of the internet makes it possible for whores to speak out without fear of arrest or other persecution, it also allows trolls to set up multiple accounts so as to create phantom “supporters” of their views…
Right now in Ireland, the nuns who enslaved many thousands in the Magdalene laundries are trying to once again suppress whores, this time via the odious Swedish model. Like other modern prohibitionists they use sock puppets, but because Ireland really isn’t a very big country they don’t have a large number to choose from…and it shows. Irish activists called these three videos to my attention; even with shaded faces, it’s pretty obvious that this is the same woman under three different names. Let’s start with “Mary”; you needn’t watch this whole thing, just enough so that you can be pretty sure you’ll recognize her voice, accent and characteristic syntax when you hear it again.
And now here’s “Sandy” who is supposedly a different woman:
And then “Marian”:
And just for good measure, let’s look at “Lisa’s” word choices and syntax:
…I got tired of being used and to being sold like a tissue; – used, then throw away. I believed Ruhama was for foreign girls but I wanted out and I was willing to try anything…so I rang straight away and was greeted with kindness, understanding and offered so much help…I wandered in like a stray dog, I felt so low, only then to see I have a future there…Ruhama have it all, its up to you to ask…no money is worth what prostitution takes, every thing in life has a cost, sell your body and your soul goes.
The real woman behind all these aliases is Justine Reilly, shown here in a photo from the 2003 prohibitionist book Sex in the City; if she didn’t want to be recognized she probably should have changed that rather distinctive hairstyle. Irish sex worker groups repeatedly petitioned the government to allow them a say in the hearings on imposing the Swedish model, but this kangaroo court never had any intention of allowing real testimony; the only ones allowed in were Justine and other Ruhama shills. They spouted the usual nonsense such as you can hear in the videos above, including the lie that there are literally NO independent sex workers in Ireland, because all of them are “controlled” by pimps. But perhaps that’s less a lie on Justine’s part and more a case of wishful thinking, since she herself was convicted of “pimping” twelve years ago yesterday:
A woman has been fined £11,500 and given a 12-month suspended sentence…for managing and running brothels in Dublin. Justine Reilly (33)…pleaded guilty…to four…counts of brothel-keeping and one of managing a brothel on dates from October 1999 to March 2000. She admitted full responsibility and told gardai she was earning about £3,000 a week.
My, my, what would Stella Marr say? With her brothels closed down, she apparently had trouble paying off that fine, because a year and a half later she applied for and was granted a taxi license in Dublin:
A convicted brothel keeper was yesterday granted a taxi licence after a court heard she needed to work as a cabbie to pay off a €14,600 fine. Justine Reilly (36) challenged a Garda decision to refuse her a public-service vehicle licence…She said since her conviction she had been ostracised by her family and…had done a number of jobs, including cleaning and working in bars and restaurants, but it was not enough to meet the fine…
Running a taxi in fiercely-competitive Dublin wouldn’t be enough to pay it, either; my sources tell me it would be extremely difficult for a cabbie there to clear €14,600 in a year, and that’s before living expenses. Somebody eventually paid that fine…perhaps in exchange for PR services rendered? Ruhama was certainly a good fit for Justine; take a look at how she was already reinventing herself by the time she got the license:
The brothel operation she had been involved in was a joint arrangement between herself and other women who had previously worked for “unsavoury characters…Myself and a few girls decided to get an apartment and when the police came I accepted responsibility because these other girls had husbands and children and I didn’t. I went forward and said I was responsible, although I did not realise the seriousness of the situation”…
You can see that she isn’t yet denying the independence of most whores, though her journey toward victimhood (by way of martyrdom) is clearly well underway. It’s clear that the Irish government fully intends to fund and assist evil religious fanatics in their persecution of whores, just as it has for almost a century. But its rather insulting that they have invested so little effort in disguising the puppeteers, and given Ruhama’s wealth one would think it could afford more than one makeshift puppet.
(I am indebted to several activists for providing the information contained in this column, but they prefer to remain anonymous due to the fact that the UK’s tyrannical libel laws make it very easy for the wealthy and well-connected to censor those who are less so.)
>…I got tired of being used and to being sold like a tissue; – used, then throw away.
Before I began sex work, I was a waitress. I’d serve up the pizza and beer, collect the money, and the customers would eat, drink, and leave. Was I used and thrown away like a tissue?
I know of few jobs where the relationship between provider and customer isn’t temporary, and goal directed. In fact, as a prostitute, I had regular customers, and I had more of a relationship with them than I had in any non-sex job.
These anti-whore women seem to think the choice for the whores is either a life of sexual slavery, or a life sitting eating bon bons. That’s insane. The vast majority of the whores will have to work at something, maybe a job with worse conditions.
And I’ve never seen my feminism, at least, as anti sex. All the wild sex scenes I’ve done, I’ve had the confidence because I was a woman, and strong, and I knew I could do that. I’m sorry for these women that they are so afraid of sex. It’s natural, and fun.
Before she got into the “biz” – my regular provider drove a taxi. Which – she thought that was a cool job even though she got robbed once. Cool or not – she’s not doing that anymore! 😉
As far as “relationships” between clients and providers – you are spot on here. I know providers who have clients who do their taxes … fix their plumbing … fix their cars for them … I know one provider who recently asked a client to build a “headboard” for her because her bed was on wheels and it tended to sail about the room during appointments! LOL.
I’m networked with most of the responsible and squared away providers in my area. In fact … I own a Harley Road King (I always have owned one even though I like sport bikes better). Harley’s get you plugged into the “Harley Lifestyle” and all the fellowship that entails. Buuut … I never had as much fun socializing with Harley riders as I have whores and other clients!! LMAO!!
I did a *facepalm* when she expressed “surprise” that escorts are prostitutes. And her voice is very distinctive, especially since it sounds as though she’s trying to mask her natural tone and cadence. Furthermore, the way she tells the story under the different aliases doesn’t change at all.
Nor does that hairstyle. As for the claim of ignorance, her audience will interpret it as “innocence”, as in “innocent victim of evil pimps”.
Why did the innernets come along and steal the word “sock puppet”??
In my day – a “sock puppet” was something that every teenaged boy kept hidden under his bed for … uh … 😛
Well … you know!!
The problem is the press, man. These guys are just absolute … well to call them “whores” would be off the mark because I respect whores. But tell me – these asses want to keep talking about women “selling themselves” … and they’re the last to be talking since journalists routinely sell their souls to liberty stealing bogus “causes” like this.
I just can’t even watch them anymore and I hope I don’t meet a national news anchor in an airport when I’m travel – because he (or she) is going to get a piece of my mind. These shills are parroting a bunch of BS about Repubelicans being the ones responsible for the sequester – when we know it was OBAMA who proposed it and signed it INTO LAW!
I hope all these pretty boys and girls in the news media enjoy the highlife for as long as they have it – which won’t be much longer. When the system comes crashing down – I don’t think the villagers will spare them the pitchfork!
The sequester is one of the most bipartisan things to have happened in some time. Just because it failed doesn’t mean either party or any particular politician should be let off the hook. Obama? Yes. Boehner? Yes. Reid? Yes.
The problem with letting your loved ones be taken hostage so that you’ll have to work with your opponents (and your opponents doing the same thing for the same reason) is that both you and your opponents may hate each other more than you love the hostages.
Ordinarily I would not be in favor of asset forfeiture, but those “nuns” should be stripped of their assets, which should be given to their victims as payment for slave labor.
There is a bill moving in the UK parliament right now which would address its libel laws. It will probably stand or fall in the next ten days: those interested should visit libelreform.org.
Nicholas Kristof has his naive (if nice looking) Half the Sky game up! I didn’t get to see if there was anything about “rescuing” brothel workers in there because it crashed my computer after a few quests.
Minor correction: the Committee did (eventually) hear from two current escorts who oppose the Swedish model.
Well, that’s something, anyway. Do you know how they were picked?
SWAI got an invitation for two sex workers, passed it on to one, she picked the other.
The good news in all of this is that “because it’s icky” and it variants (God doesn’t like it; it damages the moral fiber of society, etc.) has become so unconvincing a reason to ban something that the prohibitionists have to find or invent other reasons. So even as injustice abounds, and it must be fought, there is reason to believe that the fight isn’t just a case of pissing into the wind.
I find it interesting that you can freely name-call “evil religious fanatics” while your “several activists” choose to hide behind UK libel laws. I’m sure you could have gotten your point across without libelling anyone. Are you really comfortable repeating libelous remarks?
The issue being discussed relates to Ireland and not the UK. Maybe you might make clear whether these activists are Irish or UK residents. Are they active in promoting the interests of the workers, or are they active in organising and profiting from others work?
On a separate issue.
Laws frequently ban the “exploitation of the prostitution of others”, which is a little nebulous. In the context of brothels it is common practice that the split between brothel/worker is 50/50. At what point would you, as a former Madam, say the worker is being exploited, 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, 80/20?
You’ve got it backward; it’s the people who use libel laws to shut down criticism who are “hiding” by pretending accusations against them are lies when they aren’t. Fortunately, in the US the burden of proof is on those who want to silence speech.
Re your question, I’d say the worker is being exploited when SHE decides she is, not before and not after. Any given ordinary non-sex business makes a tremendous amount of profit from each worker’s labor; I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s a 10 to 1 ratio (i.e. a company makes $100 from the work done by a $10 per hour employee). So unless you’re willing to call that all “exploitation”, pretending it’s different when it’s sex makes you nothing but a prude. And if you insist all paid work is exploitative, that makes you a Marxist. Either way, you’re an ideologue rather than a free thinker. No sale.
That’s just disgustingly exploitative of them (ironically) – and considering the events of the film ‘philomena,’ I shudder at the thought of the Swedish model repeating history.
Roll on legalised prostitution!
An interesting video’s just been put on line about Ruhama – how they spread their ideas through the Irish parliament’s commission on sexual violence with virtually no opposition at all. The pro-decriminalisation people who attend have to be very persistent to make their voices heard. Quite scary stuff, but worth viewing and sharing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlIhMc8tb1M
[QUOTE]It’s clear that the Irish government fully intends to fund and assist evil religious fanatics in their persecution of whores[/QUOTE]
I don’t think this Irish government is going to pass Swedish style legislation criminalizing the purchase of sex. The most socially regressive legislation in the history of the Republic of Ireland had always been passed by Fianna Fail or Fianna Fail led governments. We now have a Fine Gael led government. Fine Gael tends to be more secular than Fianna Fail, less in the pocket of the Catholic church.
[quote] But its rather insulting that they have invested so little effort in disguising the puppeteers[/quote]
Oh, it would appear that an effort was made by somebody.
I discovered what looks like a dodgy edit of the Irish Independent website on November 24th 2012 in which the extent of Justine Reilly’s fine is apparently reduced from 11500 pounds to 1150 pounds. Also, the date of Justice Reilly’s conviction has apparently been removed. The timing appears very suspicious too given that Justine Reilly was to appear before the Joint Oireachtas Justice Committee on Prostitution on February 6th 2013.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/brothel-keeper-fined-1150-26093404.html
I just tweeted about this to the Irish Independent.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s1ejim
The Irish Independent is basically the second daily newspaper in the Republic of Ireland. The Irish Times is the first but it is behind a paywall for older articles including the one you linked to.
In response to the quote where Justine Reilly said she was just renting an apartment with some girls for safety, reports I’ve read said that she was convicted of running three brothels. They also mentioned that she reported starting her own business in the sex industry. All this implies that she was management and did not just simply work with other sex workers –even if she had worked as a prostitute herself.
Even if she did run the business, I’m not holding that against her in and of itself. I don’t agree with conflating everybody in management with abusive pimps. If she treated the sex workers well, enacted safety precautions for them, and did not cheat them out of money or knowingly put them in dangerous conditions, then I am not holding this against her. Though I’ve never been management and have no desire to be, I have worked for management in brothels, agencies, and strip clubs. Nonetheless, I’m not going to totally defend management because some folks in management nasty to sex workers.
My main problem is how anti-sex work proponents continue attempting to discredit the sex workers’ rights movement on the grounds that some people in the movement have been in sex industry management, without providing evidence that all or most of us have–while at the same time they are aligned with this woman who was convicted of running three brothels. If Justine Reilly had been advocating for the decriminalization of prostitution, no doubt these same anti’s she is aligned with would be discrediting her as a pimp.
In fact, sex worker advocates need not even be convicted of running brothels like Justine Reilly was in order for anti’s to label them as pimps. For example, they have called Norma Jean Almadovar a pimp without providing any evidence she ever profited off anybody else working as a prostitute. Norma Jean is open about having been an independent escort, though. Thus, who was she pimping, herself?
Also, I read that Justine Reilly was convicted on three sample counts of brothel keeping and one sample count of brothel management-which is also mentioned in articles linked to in this thread. Does anybody know what the difference is between brothel keeping and brothel management?
Correction: I re-read the articles and they say Justine Reilly was convicted on four sample counts of brothel keeping–not three. She pled guilty to these according to the articles.
[…] di donne nelle orribili lavanderie di Magdalene. Appena un anno fa pubblicai il post “Puppet show“, nel quale ho condiviso informazioni di attiviste britanniche ed Irlandesi che descrivevano […]
[…] Maggie Mcneill wrote about the relationship between neo-feminists and christian fundamentalists here… […]