> [clip]
> Without fail, every single one is ignored or, worse, silenced. They are
> said to be unique, privileged exceptions to the rule if anyone pays
> attention to them. Or, they are completely ignored. *crickets* Worse, they
> are often told they are dupes of the patriarchy and/or willingly colluding
> to maintain male privilege -- and will often be called men -- as in, male
> identified OR as sock puppets pretending to be prostitutes since their
> stories couldn't possibly be the stories told be a real woman.
I take your point. But are those calling sex workers dupes (a) misled by bad theory (e.g., the concept of victimization) or are they (b) fucking moralistic shitheads that it's not worthwhile arguing with?
I would argue that the bulk of such idiocy (not just with sex workers but by food-freaks, etc etc etc) cannot be opposed by ideological analysis and debate. I think the authors you are quoting are falling into the trap of debating with the enemy. It resembles to some extent the endless posts on the marxism list reporting new evidence of economic collapse, as if each such report was an actual blow against the enemy. Under the slogan that even communists have a right to have some fun I don't object to a reasonable amount of exulting in I told you so - but it isn't politics. It's self-indulgence.
The source of what you attack is not "Victimization Theory" - that's just one more mode of expression of what (in a phrase I don't think I've ever used before seriously) petty-bourgeois moralism, and you can't do anything about it except organize serious political movement, for when that happens this shit gets washed to the sidelines.
Carrol