>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?
both? :)
Aside from which, I'm not so sure it's "bad theory" -- if theory is what is to describe it. At any rate, I don't think that the latter can be it alone. There was a dispute like this online, between me and another woman who tended to use psychological analyses *alone*. She chalked up the behavior to assholery and often dragged out psychologizing concepts to explain that it was just that some women were fucked up in the head.
Perhaps a better way to look at it is via the term, coined by sociologist Howard Becker, and nodded at by Augstin, "moral entrepreneurliasm." These are people who spend a life, if not also making a living, off positioning themselves as the moral knowers of the one, true way to live. I'm not going to explore the term further, except to say that the point of going here is to reveal something more systemic and structural than mere assholery.
Also, as Agustin shows, this isn't just a problem that reveals itself online where all the freaks hang out. It is, rather, a systemic problem since the people who hold these views (and by the way, I don't think I called anything victimization theory) hold positions of power: they decide who get research money, where resources are distributed, the rules by which "rescued" women may be rescued, the rules by which "rescued" women must live in order to get assistance (usually: learn a new trade).
As Agustin writes toward the end of her book, which I've quoted with some backstory here, http://cleandraws.com/2009/03/10/moral-entrepreneurialism-and-fundamentalist-feminism/
"problems can arise when individuals influenced by such an ideology (she's calling it fundamentalist feminism as opposed to radical feminism or abolitionism) occupy for many years posts dedicating to improving the situation of women. Such jobs can involve the funding of women's project, publications, conferences and events, and what those in charge do not like may not get funded. Money may only be given to projects that define 'prostitution' as sexual exploitation and gender violence. For a year or so, one prominent campaigner held meetings of all funded project related to 'prostitution' for the purpose of leaving no one in doubt about what positions, actions and services would be approved.
The attendees at these meetings always remained silent, because they felt safer not speaking than running the risk of saying the wrong thing and losing subsidies. One project was allegedly excluded because of its director's failure to denounce 'prostitution.' In this way, one campaigner has directly affected the history of a particular social movement." (p 163, Sex at the Margins, Laura Maria Agustin)
Now, there are many more examples of this problem in the book, I just can't quote all of them.
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws