3 ms·

Beautifully written, even if I don’t necessarily agree with every single point made. Especially towards the end, I feel that she tries to emphasize the nobilit

Beautifully written, even if I don’t necessarily agree with every single point made. Especially towards the end, I feel that she tries to emphasize the nobility and radical nature of this work, taking umbrage at Eric Adam’s use of the word “low-skill” to describe some of these sorts of jobs. But it seems somewhat belied by the fact that, afaict, as soon as she had the means to escape, she did. And the romanticization of sex work as the only job where women get to call the shots and make profit off of men… I am curious the degree to which this is really true for these massage parlors, which are often managed or extorted by male-run organized crime. [0] But the central message, one that seems like a call for dignity, really resonates with me. It is one of the most beautiful vignettes I have read in a long time. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/us/massage-parlors-human-trafficking.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/02/us/massage-parlors-human-...

truculent 3y ago
> Especially towards the end, I feel that she tries to emphasize the nobility and radical nature of this work, taking umbrage at Eric Adam’s use of the word “low-skill” to describe some of these sorts of jobs. But it seems somewhat belied by the fact that, afaict, as soon as she had the means to escape, she did. Just because something is skilful doesn’t make it enjoyable or rewarding. Not to mention a person’s health and safety (both economic and physical) being considered.
ses1984 3y ago
The author didn’t assert that sex work is the only job where women get to call the shots. The author suggested that could be a reason why it’s marginalized. Because if it was legitimized, then women would call the shots.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  I did not read it that way and I think that she would have phrased it differently if so. “an industry where women get to call the shots” she would have said “would get” imo if your interpretation was correct, just as you use ‘would’ in your comment. I took her to be describing sex work in the present, not some hypothetical future sex work. Here is the excerpt for those who want to judge for themselves: ‘Unlike sex work, my “good” jobs didn’t threaten to overthrow traditional power structures. Many sex workers, including myself, have long hypothesized that the reason so many people in power work to keep the commercial sex trade marginalized is because they’re threatened by it—by the idea that it’s the only field where women outearn men, that it’s an industry where women get to call the shots, and that women profit off something that men have been told they’re entitled to for free: sex and attention in equal parts. In my experience of the corporate landscape, there was none of this radical power structure, only an upholding of the traditional: men talking and women listening, men in powerful positions getting both credit and profit for the labour of women beneath them’
  - ses1984 3y ago
    People in power work to marginalize it because they’re threatened by it. It’s pretty successfully marginalized if a woman can get arrested for it even while sacrificing economic profits to a pimp or massage parlor. Maybe the author could have been more explicit about it but to my reading sex workers can’t be both marginalized and calling the shots.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      > sex workers can’t be both marginalized and calling the shots Disagree. Calling the shots in the business, not in society. Just like a drug kingpin might be calling the shots in their organization.
      - ses1984 3y ago
        Comparing a drug kingpin to a prostitute is kind of ridiculous but if that makes sense in your mind then I doubt we would see eye to eye on pretty much anything.
        whimsicalism 3y ago
        It was a counter-example in the analytic/math sense, I was in no way suggesting that a sex worker is equivalent to a drug kingpin. Merely an example as to why your assertion that [calling the shots is incompatible with overall societal marginalization] is wrong. Happy to not continue though, I think you struggle with good faith discussion and/or reading comprehension (:
    - barrenko 3y ago
      It's marginalized because it's a shitty job, like every other shitty job (source: I've worked a lot of shitty jobs.)
  - zapataband1 3y ago
    Women can call more of the shots in places where it is legal like Nevada or other countries. Not saying it's a perfect system but the alterntive so far has been a trade that is controlled by criminals, bad customers, and law enforcement.
- throwaway22044 3y ago
  > Because if it was legitimized, then women would call the shots. If prostitution was legitimized, way fewer shots would have to be called in the first place. Apparently nobody wants that
flir 3y ago
She also doesn't know how many of those office drones also "paid their dues". But that's a nitpick on an excellent piece of first-person journalism.
iamnotsure 3y ago
It is easy to forget that central bank money is beads and trinkets with an average half-life of 30 years.
tsss 3y ago
She can write, I'll give her that, but contentwise it is exactly the unreflected pseudo-intellectual crap you'd expect from a "journalist". How can you be so naive to sign up to become a propaganda foot soldier for the culture industry and then expect anything else but soulless stab-in-the-back ass-kissing work? This sense of comradery she is missing is the glimmer of class consciousness. It's strangely real, it's people who know they are at the bottom and they're in it together. The corporate world on the other hand is fake. It consists of bosses who want to be treated like a friend or a royal when it suits them. It consists of colleagues who will throw you under the bus for that promotion and you will do the same, but you both act like you don't know it will happen. It is that subconscious shame of betrayal from people like the author, who romance about the precariat on their personal blog and then go back to work to beat down on their former friends with the proverbial cultural stick in service of the man.

truculent 3y ago

> Especially towards the end, I feel that she tries to emphasize the nobility and radical nature of this work, taking umbrage at Eric Adam’s use of the word “low-skill” to describe some of these sorts of jobs. But it seems somewhat belied by the fact that, afaict, as soon as she had the means to escape, she did. Just because something is skilful doesn’t make it enjoyable or rewarding. Not to mention a person’s health and safety (both economic and physical) being considered.

ses1984 3y ago

The author didn’t assert that sex work is the only job where women get to call the shots. The author suggested that could be a reason why it’s marginalized. Because if it was legitimized, then women would call the shots.

whimsicalism 3y ago
I did not read it that way and I think that she would have phrased it differently if so. “an industry where women get to call the shots” she would have said “would get” imo if your interpretation was correct, just as you use ‘would’ in your comment. I took her to be describing sex work in the present, not some hypothetical future sex work. Here is the excerpt for those who want to judge for themselves: ‘Unlike sex work, my “good” jobs didn’t threaten to overthrow traditional power structures. Many sex workers, including myself, have long hypothesized that the reason so many people in power work to keep the commercial sex trade marginalized is because they’re threatened by it—by the idea that it’s the only field where women outearn men, that it’s an industry where women get to call the shots, and that women profit off something that men have been told they’re entitled to for free: sex and attention in equal parts. In my experience of the corporate landscape, there was none of this radical power structure, only an upholding of the traditional: men talking and women listening, men in powerful positions getting both credit and profit for the labour of women beneath them’
- ses1984 3y ago
  People in power work to marginalize it because they’re threatened by it. It’s pretty successfully marginalized if a woman can get arrested for it even while sacrificing economic profits to a pimp or massage parlor. Maybe the author could have been more explicit about it but to my reading sex workers can’t be both marginalized and calling the shots.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    > sex workers can’t be both marginalized and calling the shots Disagree. Calling the shots in the business, not in society. Just like a drug kingpin might be calling the shots in their organization.
    - ses1984 3y ago
      Comparing a drug kingpin to a prostitute is kind of ridiculous but if that makes sense in your mind then I doubt we would see eye to eye on pretty much anything.
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        It was a counter-example in the analytic/math sense, I was in no way suggesting that a sex worker is equivalent to a drug kingpin. Merely an example as to why your assertion that [calling the shots is incompatible with overall societal marginalization] is wrong. Happy to not continue though, I think you struggle with good faith discussion and/or reading comprehension (:
  - barrenko 3y ago
    It's marginalized because it's a shitty job, like every other shitty job (source: I've worked a lot of shitty jobs.)
- zapataband1 3y ago
  Women can call more of the shots in places where it is legal like Nevada or other countries. Not saying it's a perfect system but the alterntive so far has been a trade that is controlled by criminals, bad customers, and law enforcement.
throwaway22044 3y ago
> Because if it was legitimized, then women would call the shots. If prostitution was legitimized, way fewer shots would have to be called in the first place. Apparently nobody wants that

flir 3y ago

She also doesn't know how many of those office drones also "paid their dues". But that's a nitpick on an excellent piece of first-person journalism.

iamnotsure 3y ago

It is easy to forget that central bank money is beads and trinkets with an average half-life of 30 years.

tsss 3y ago

She can write, I'll give her that, but contentwise it is exactly the unreflected pseudo-intellectual crap you'd expect from a "journalist". How can you be so naive to sign up to become a propaganda foot soldier for the culture industry and then expect anything else but soulless stab-in-the-back ass-kissing work? This sense of comradery she is missing is the glimmer of class consciousness. It's strangely real, it's people who know they are at the bottom and they're in it together. The corporate world on the other hand is fake. It consists of bosses who want to be treated like a friend or a royal when it suits them. It consists of colleagues who will throw you under the bus for that promotion and you will do the same, but you both act like you don't know it will happen. It is that subconscious shame of betrayal from people like the author, who romance about the precariat on their personal blog and then go back to work to beat down on their former friends with the proverbial cultural stick in service of the man.