Embedded Files
Women's Equality Party, Zero-Option, One Billion Rising and Not Buying It are working together to ensure the closure of all licensed stripclubs, and eventually the stripping industry itself. While their aims are commendable: (we all want to end sexual exploitation!), their tactics are an extension of widespread violence and stigma against strippers and all workers in the sex-industry.
Having been previously unsuccessful using logic and argument, an unnamed objector(or objectors) resorted to paying multiple men in Sheffield, London and Manchester to receive several lapdances and film women in their place of work, which they believed to be a safe, private environment, partially and fully nude, without their knowledge or consent, to expose alleged license breaches.
These groups objectify us, degrade and dehumanise us and refuse to work with us, respect our humanity or listen to our voices.
"We are working with women from the industry to raise awareness and devise exit plans"
"We are working with women from the industry to raise awareness and devise exit plans"
Revenge Porn
Revenge Porn
United Voices of the World Union, amongst others, argue that these actions may amount to 'Revenge Porn' and 'Voyeurism' under UK Law.
United Voices of the World Union, amongst others, argue that these actions may amount to 'Revenge Porn' and 'Voyeurism' under UK Law.
In a twitter thread, Not Buying It quoted "Revenge Porn: sharing private sexual materials with intent to cause distress." The group claimed video footage had not been shared and sarcastically asked a Sheffield Lap Dancer how the footage constituted revenge porn since it hadn't been shared.
This dancer responded by asking the group how they could not see that the footage had been shared between multiple groups and people (it has not been disclosed how many people have access to or are in possession of the footage) has caused considerable distress to the female performers at the club.
The tweet thread was then deleted.
"According to the legal definition, revenge porn is “the act of sharing private sexual materials with the intention of causing distress”. There can only be two outcomes of the sting operation: either the dancers caught on camera lose their jobs, or the club closes in which case all the dancers lose their jobs. There can be no question that sharing this material with the council is intended to cause distress." (Stacey Clare, 2019)
The footage has been shared with an undisclosed number of people. It was created by two men using hidden cameras, then disseminated to whomever commissioned the footage, at least four feminist groups being involved in disseminating the contents of the accompanying written report: WEP Sheffield, Not Buying It Sheffield, One Billion Rising and Zero Option Sheffield. Instead of sharing their findings with local authorities or the venue itself, it appears that these feminist group's first response was to share the report with newspapers and on social media. News stories were then published (see below), neglecting to include the voices of the people most affected: the workers. You can see news coverage which includes our voices here.
The contents of the footage (in the form of a written report) was shared with Sheffield City Council four days after The Times published an article referencing the report. At this hearing, councillors urged Charlotte Meade and her colleague to share their evidence with the relevant authorities, including the licensing committee. Subsequently Not Buying It published the written representation from the council meeting on their website.
WEP denies involvement, despite the fact that WEP Sheffield leader Charlotte Meade speaking to the BBC in her WEP capacity – called the men “our investigators”. (Novara Media, 2019) Not Buying It also denies involvement in commissioning the footage.
Whilst many/all of these groups deny involvement in commissioning the video footage, they all condone the actions undertaken, sharing the contents of the report on social media and may have access to or are in possession of the footage. Charlotte Meade stated to Sheffield City Council on 03/04/19 that "I am here representing the Women's Equality Party Sheffield Branch, but also Zero Option, One Billion Women Rising and Not Buying It." and subsequently said “We are also in possession of film footage of their investigations.”.
The report of allegations can be found here.
The report of allegations can be found here.
Instead of closing the only legal and licensed venue for lap dancing in Sheffield, local supporters and dancers argue the club, which has over 15 years of compliant operation, should be given a chance to remedy any alleged breaches.
The WEP say they want to ‘rescue’ us from sexual exploitation, but the tactics they used are similar to the gendered sexual violence I experienced as a teenager. I'm devastated to be facing these feelings of violation and vulnerability again, this time at the hands of so-called feminists. Our naked bodies are being used as political tools by the WEP, while our real hopes, desires and needs are treated as irrelevant. Heather, Dancer, Sheffield
I’ve had other jobs but returned to stripping as it gave me the flexibility and funds I needed to finish my degree. Without it, I would still be doing low paid jobs I hated and would have had no time to do the things I like and help others. Stripping enables my colleagues to care for children and elderly parents - do the WEP want to take this way from them? In my club all the workers and the managers are predominantly women, I feel listened to and respected. The fear of being filmed without my consent, to be used against me, is what’s degrading and violating! Steph, Dancer, Manchester
Contrary to the opinions of WEP, sexual liberation plays a huge role in empowering women. Stripping has taught me to love myself, to value my consent and to expect to be compensated when subjected to the male gaze. The power exchange in society is dictated by whether a woman chooses to utilize and profit from her body or whether she adheres to the conventional belief that she should only expose and express herself in private. To me, the latter is far more objectifying. This is why stripping is such a crucial drive in the feminist movement and should not be overlooked. Celia, Dancer, Sheffield
Not Buying It
Not Buying It
and/or their associates appear to have been buying an awful lot of lap dances recently...
and/or their associates appear to have been buying an awful lot of lap dances recently...
NBI are a feminist group which "challenges the sexual exploitation of porn, prostitution and lap dancing" which they describe as allowing men to "buy women sexually". We object to sexual exploitation too! Sheffield dancers and supporters respect the voices and experiences of all women who have been through the industry, whether they found it empowering, traumatic or just a job like any other. Everyone who wishes to leave the industry should be able to choose to do so.
Likewise, anybody who wishes to work in the industry should be able to choose to do so safely, free from criminalisation and violence. However, this campaign, and others like it, neglects to speak with women in the industry who choose, and enjoy their work. This propogates the old patriarchal norms of women only being able to make some 'acceptable' and 'respectable' choices: by keeping their sexuality and nude bodies private. We believe that all women deserve respect, not just those who abide by these norms.
Moreover, we fight with those in the industry that may not find their work empowering, and who seek better working conditions, through unionising to fight for workers rights across the board. These feminist campaigns detract from this important work. It's hard to fight for your rights at work when you have to fight for your right to work at all! All workers in the industry deserve a safe and respectful working environment, yet objectors abolitionist approach neglects to support unionising workers in the sex industry.
We are not 'bought' or sold sexually. We are human beings who provide a service in exchange for financial compensation (just like a therapist, or a manual labourer). This frequently involves conversational skills, emotional labour, empathy, compassion, patience and dancing and performance skills. Most importantly, people who provide sex, companionship or sexual entertainment are not 'objects' in the way we are described by such feminists, but people with widely varied experiences, backgrounds, identities and routes through the industry.
In claiming to "challenge the unacceptable excusing of abuse as ‘choice’ or ‘consent’" they patronise us as being unable to make certain choices freely (and that we are victims of abuse without even knowing it). We are adults, we have autonomy like everybody else, and we ask that we are respected as being able to make choices for ourselves. Even those choices that others find unpalatable.
Most importantly, we should be the people who decide whether we are being abused, as it is our real lives and experiences that are being described. For many of us, the tactics employed by these feminist groups feel more abusive, degrading and threatening to our privacy, security and mental health, than our customers which are described as so 'abusive'.
Home Office Guidance (2010) on licensing Sexual Entertainment Venues makes it clear that:
"Objections should not be based on moral grounds/values"
"Objections should not be based on moral grounds/values"
Despite this, "Shiri Shalmy, who organises for strippers’ rights with the UVW, said the sting operation “is transparently motivated by anti-sex work sentiment and elitist, moralising judgement under a false pretence of feminism.”"
The entire campaign against strip clubs and stripping is based on moral grounds and values dictating that sexual entertainment for money is always and inherently wrong, which manifests in a variety of strategies, underhand tactics and degrading language, but always excludes current sex workers and strippers from the conversation.
But strip clubs harm all women?
But strip clubs harm all women?
Objectors consistently claim that strip clubs informs violence against all women. They use this argument to justify their actions despite the fact that there is no reliable evidence that strip clubs inform sexual violence against women. The single study used to defend this opinion, failed to exert even a rudimentary command over statistical analysis, clumsily mistaking correlation for causation and failing to take into account other variables such as change in population density and makeup. For more information please visit: http://strippingtheillusion.blogspot.com/2012/03/we-need-to-talk-about-lilith.html
More research must be done into this area before real women working in stripclubs experience real and material harm due to workplace closure over hypothetical and theoretical harms.
While feminist objectors to the industry are rightly concerned with sexual violence against non-stripper women, they seem to have no qualms with funding, being associated with or condoning consent violations and tactics of sexual violence being used against strippers if it furthers their political cause. We are women, feminists, human beings, we refuse to be collateral damage in the war for women’s liberation.
Moreover, there is no evidence that our venue increases crime or risk of sexual violence in the surrounding area. Our door staff and lighting may even actually provide a feeling of safety on an otherwise deserted street at the times when the venue is open.
While lap dancing is described as at fault for male sexual entitlement, male violence, harassment, sexual assault, sexual objectification and rape, we believe that men who commit these actions are the ones to blame and who should be held accountable: not women who work as strippers.
Patriarchal values that assign certain women as disposable or 'deserving' of violation and violence, cannot be overcome by using tactics of violence and violation against women.
Frequently, customers respect our humanity and personhood more than the feminist groups who seek to take away our livelihoods. Encounters in clubs involve verbal, explicit consent which is reinforced by security staff and colleagues. Moreover, women and people of other gender identities visit lap dancing clubs too, and male strippers are becoming increasingly popular.
Objectification
Objectification
“The language used by ‘feminists’ to talk about us amounts to nothing other than objectification” – Stacey Clare
“The language used by ‘feminists’ to talk about us amounts to nothing other than objectification” – Stacey Clare
Feminist campaigners against the sex industry frequently use dehumanising, degrading and objectifying language to discuss sex workers.
Martha Nussbaum (1995) defines a person as experiencing objectification through the following criteria:
Instrumentality – treating the person as a tool for another's purposes
Denial of autonomy – treating the person as lacking in autonomy or self-determination
Inertness – treating the person as lacking in agency or activity
Fungibility – treating the person as interchangeable with (other) objects
Violability – treating the person as lacking in boundary integrity and violable, "as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into."
Ownership – treating the person as though they can be owned, bought, or sold
Denial of subjectivity – treating the person as though there is no need for concern for their experiences or feelings
It is clear that the campaign against Sheffield's stripclub, and the sex industry more broadly objectifies sex workers, including strippers in a myriad of ways.
1. Sheffield (and Manchester) Lap Dancers's naked bodies are used as a tool for another person's (WEP, NBI, ZOS, OBR) purposes: the purpose of closing down our place of work to 'save' all women from sexual objectification. The real, material harm we are experiencing and will experience as a result is just collateral damage for achieving their broader theoretical 'feminist' aims.
2. We are described as being unable to make certain choices. We are not allowed the autonomy to make our own choices on the careers and lives we lead, even when those choices are ones that others disagree with. These campaigns seeks to remove our ability to choose a safe, regulated workplace.
3. Our agency is disrespected as a result of our autonomy being disrespected. We are treated as passive victims unable to control our own lives and futures. Those in the industry speaking out for decriminalisation, or defending their workplace are described as 'brainwashed by the pimp lobby'- women like us are evidently unable to form a single thought of our own without a man being behind it.
4. Our work has been described by Not Buying It as simply "wrapping [our] implants around the nearest available pole" .
6. We have (along with other sex workers who provide different services) been described by 'feminists' as sex objects, commodities to be bought and sold, 'receptacles for ejaculate'.
7. Clearly those who oppose Sheffield's only licensed strip club year on year have absolutely no regard for the experiences or feelings of the workers there. Even more blatantly, those involved in the non consensual filming and distribution of footage of workers there had no concern for the wellbeing, mental health, privacy or security of the dancers involved. Workers feel absolutely violated and objectors decline to accept the harm they have done by perpetuating a tactic of sexual violence against us with their 'revenge porn'-esque strategies.
Google Sites
Report abuse