Archive

Archive for the ‘Gender Politics’ Category

Lower the VAT rate on all sanitary products to the zero rate (0%)

February 22, 2012 2 comments

Sign the petition

From January 2001, the rate of VAT for eligible sanitary protection products was lowered from the full rate of 17.5% to the “reduced rate” of 5%. Now we must pick up the campaign to see all sanitary products (including sanitary towels; sanitary pads; panty liners; tampons; keepers and maternity pads) be reduced to the zero rate (0%) alongside most food items, books, newspapers, magazines and children’s clothes.

They are very necessary items and rates on them disproportionately hit women the most. Some common sense on behalf of the government is needed.

Sign it

Time to demand no platform for women

November 23, 2011 15 comments

Emma Burnell, who puts together conferences and events, is understandably angry that men dominate conference platforms.  She offers a challenge:

Find me an all male panel – in fact, find me any topic on which you could reasonably hold an informed public debate – and I’ll give you the names of five women who could hold their own on the panel.

I think it’s the wrong challenge.

The problem is not primarily that men dominate platforms.  The primary problem is that there are platforms for them to dominate. Platforms are reflections of patriarchal domination in the first place, and simply reinforce patriarchal power structures.

 The real challenge is not to change the gender of who gets to dominate the rest of us from the platform, but to get rid of the platform entirely, and in so doing create the ‘informed public debate’ which is actually so lacking from the usual event format.

I don’t go to many conferences or events.  Partly this is because I live miles away from most of them, but mostly it’s because they’re generally shite.

When I do go I quickly get sick of the high-profile types – mostly men - who swan from conference to conference on conference-type fees.  Generally, they tell me what I already know and/or agree with, and expect me to sit and listen to their advice on what I/the movement/the party should do next.  I might get to ask a polite question which they then answer with varying levels of condescension (or flannel about if they don’t know).  Then I get to  go home again, none the wiser, but a bit more deflated. 

The more radical, power-reversing approach, is not to ask the important people what they think the less important people in the room should think and/or do, but to develop ‘bottom-up’ formats (more here), whereby the less important people can make demands of the more important people, with these demands focused on how the latter can take action themselves in support of the grassroots.  Of course the important people should have the freedom to express their opinion based on their expertise in the subject area – that’s why they’re there –  but in the end the focus should be on how they can help take the ’cause’ forward.

The Left should therefore seek to alter the structure of political conferences, making the high-profile (remunerated) participants work for their money, by briefing them pre-conference on their obligation to agree actions in support of whatever cause the conference is about.  If they fail to deliver on the commitments agreed at the conference (and if they are too onerous they shouldn’t agree to them), they won’t get invited back the next year;  the message will soon spread that they are just windbags, who need to be replaced on the circuit.

Then, I suspect, you’ll start to get gender equality amongst paid participants, no longer ‘platform speakers’ in the traditional sense, but something like ‘expert facilitators’.  The male windbags (and a few female) will fall off the conference gravy train, to be replaced by women committed not just to the display of their supposed expertise, but to using it for the common good.

Categories: Gender Politics

Examining the government’s “smoke and mirrors” announcement on childcare

October 8, 2011 4 comments

Apparently in panic about falling polls amongst women voters, the government has ‘found’ £300 million for childcare support.  According to the Department for Work and Pensions press release:

Currently, childcare support is only available if you work 16 hours or more, but the Government is removing the minimum hours rule so that all families receiving Universal Credit will be eligible for financial help. This means that families on low incomes will receive more support to keep them in work.

As now families will be able to recover childcare costs at 70 per cent – up to £175 for one child or £300 for two or more children per week. The money will be paid through Universal Credit from 2013 and will mean that around 80,000 more families with children will be able to work the hours they choose.

Let’s set aside quickly two more obvious matters already widely commented upon -  first, that this support doesn’t start for another 18 months, and second, that this move does nothing for those working/wanting to work 16 hours or more per week, who suffered big cuts in April 2011 when 500,000 people, mostly women, lost an average £436 a year, and up to £1,300 a year”.

What other commenters don’t appear to have noticed is that for the most women who work or want to work for less than 16 hours per week, all of that childcare is already free, and has been for some time now.

Yes, that’s right. The government is offering to pay up to 70% of childcare costs on hours of childcare which, for most parents, are 100% free anyway.

This 100% free care comes under the longstanding Nursery Education Grant programme, under which all children 3 years and over get 15 hours per week free provision. The programme is also already being extended,  plans, to provide the same free care for children 2 years and over.

So in fact the only group who will benefit properly under the new scheme are parents of 0-2 year old children.  This would be fine, except that we already know that the number of parents seeking care for this younger age group is proportionately much smaller than  for the 2-4 year age group. (For example, the most recent Lancashire Childcare Sufficiency Assessment (p.40) found only 4,344 childcare places for 0-2 year olds, compared with 24, 206 places for 2-4 year olds.)

The 100% free care does currently cover only 38 weeks of the year (effectively a 50 week year because pretty well all childcare ceases for two weeks over Christmas).  It might be argued therefore that the new 70% support announced could help with holiday care costs, but surely if this had been the intention the government could simply have topped up funding specifically around holiday provision.

Similarly, there might be an argument that this move is in some way targeted at parents of school-age children so that they can work outside of school hours (for example, in a 8am to 11am job which means they need to use a breakfast club), but there would be much more effective ways of doing this (not least given the lack of breakfast clubs in most schools).

All in all, while there will be some benefit around the margins, it’s difficult to see this move by the government as anything other than a short-term panic measure, whether or not backed by some cunning plan to ‘unspend’ some of the £300 million once everything settles down. 

DWP officials MUST surely understand that the government is largely announcing 70% support for a group already being 100% supported, although there may be some confusion caused by the fact that DWP implements the former, while the Department for Education is responsible for the Nursery Education Grant system.

Whatever the case, it does look a little like Labour’s initial reaction – that this is nothing more than a ‘smoke and mirrors’ announcement – has some justification, and there must be some suspicion about whether this £300 million will be effectively spent or later sucked into existing budgets. 

And certainly, the Spectator’s view that the announcement “owes more to politics than policy” rings true, when the detail of the actual policy is examined in the context of existing arrangements.

Crash test babies

September 16, 2011 4 comments

The BBC reports:

Six-year-olds in England will face a new reading test next summer, after trials this year.

They will be tested on how they read using phonics, where children learn the sound of letters and groups of letters.

Currently, children face their first exam at the end of their third year in school (Reception, Year 1, Year 2).  These exams are called Standard Assessment Tests (SATs).   The new exams will be a year earlier, towards the end of Year 1, when in fact around a third of the children are still 5.

Let’s leave aside the issue of whether a sole focus on phonics as a method of teaching children to read is valid. I am not qualified to comment, though there are concerns at that it may lead to the exclusion of other teaching methods.

What I do know is that when SATs were introduced in the 1990s, sceptics were reassured that these really, really, weren’t exams for children, and that there was nothing to worry about.  

As time went on, SATs results became ever more important to the school’s reputation, as Ofsted reviews began to focus more and more heavily on the hard data they provided, to the expense of qualitative evaluation of whether children were happy, caring to others, communicative, and other increasingly unimportant issues. 

As a consequence, schools started to prep the children for these tests, and the pressure built both on children and staff. 

Lots of people my age will be able to tell you stories about the pressures put on children to perform – my own favourite is a friend in London being begged by a teacher to send her clever, but sick, daughter in for SATs as the school needed her scores to up the average.

Now the government, which we’re led to believe doesn’t believe in soul-destroying managerialism but in something called ‘free schools’,  is going through exactly the same process.  

But this time it will be imposed on children who, if they lived in other parts of Europe, would not yet have been anywhere near a school.  (Strangely, I don’t see mass illiteracy coming up as a problem in Sweden or Finland, where children only start school by the age of seven.)

But there’s no need to believe me.  Here’s Professor Greg Brooks, emeritus professor at Sheffield University, who knows a thing or two:

What they are proposing is horrendous. It is a vast waste of money. Even though I’m an advocate for synthetic phonics, I completely disagree with this test. It will inevitably cause teaching to the test, deflecting attention away from more valuable areas of the curriculum.

Never mind though, the government is planning to find extra curriculum time as part of its entirely thought-through plans to woo women voters.  

They’re planning to slash school holidays. 

You remember holidays, don’t you?  Those times when children used to get to be children, and do things like playing and growing up and stuff.  

But perhaps I’m just old-fashioned about what children are for.

Though Cowards Flinch’s Question to Polly Toynbee

September 1, 2011 3 comments

Polly Toynbee is doing a live Q&A on the Guardian on whether class still matters. Copied below is TCF’s question to Polly, based on an earlier blog post:

The wealth gap, as you will attest, is far too wide – in 2010 it was at a point unseen since the second world war, and with the incoming cuts it is of grave concern to all those who believe everyone in society should be allowed the best possible chances to achieve the most they are capable of.

My question is, since you recognise that contractors in the private sector, not bound by any pay rates (as you’ve written before here) haven’t always got the public sector’s best interest at heart (and therefore that of public sector workers, many of whom are from a working class background), why in 2009 did you write in ‘Ethos’, the in-house magazine of multi-national outsourcing firm, Serco:

‘There is no doubt that putting some services out to tender has vastly improved certain standards over the years, broken the power of vested interests and brought in competition that has sharpened up results.’

(Link for that article is here)

*

Bash the Left, from the Left, to save the Left

The real childcare obstacle

August 31, 2011 Leave a comment

The Guardian is usually pretty good at the detail of welfare policy, so it’s a bit disappointing to see this article on childcare, ‘Childcare costs stopping mothers going to work, says study’. 

The article focuses solely on the upfront costs of childcare as an obstacle to employment.  As such, it appears to be based on a single press release from insurance firm Aviva, and the author/editor don’t even seem to have bothered to read the report the press release is advertising. 

In that report, the Chief Executive of the Daycare Trust is quoted:

Parents in the UK contribute more towards childcare costs than any other country in Europe, and costs have risen every year for the last ten years.

At Daycare Trust we are particularly concerned about the recent cuts to the childcare element of working tax credits. Too many parents are already making the tough decision to give up their jobs because the extortionate costs of childcare do not make it worth their while. We fear that these tax credits cuts will mean that many more parents could also be priced out of the job market.

That is, while costs may be an issue (though I actually think this a simplistic argument which is bad for quality childcare in the long run), an expert in the field suggests that the government’s cutting of tax credits (from April 2011) is the bigger problem. (To be scrupulously fair, the press release focuses on data from the last year, before the main impact of the WTC changes, but it still seems odd for the Guardian to have left the new developments out, especially when the report highlights them.)

As a social enterprise childcare provider, I have plenty of evidence that Daycare Trust is correct in its assessment.  Based on my experience I commented on the Guardian piece as follows (slightly tidied here):

The main problem for many/most families is NOT the cost of childcare, but the changes in April 2011 to Working Tax Credit (both overall ‘withdrawal rate’ and reduction in proportion of childcare costs covered by childcare element of WTC from 80% to 70%). See here for a quick summary of changes and the TUC site etc. for examples of impacts.

As a social enterprise childcare provider I’m seeing a big change in families’ plans, as they come to terms with these cuts (many people have just received their tax credit settlement and have made decisions in the last month or so). 

This has led to significant loss of business for us. The tax credit changes are much more important to people’s decisions than our inflation-related fee increases, which we publicised some time ago.

I’m surprised this article misses out this important stuff, to be honest, as it means quite a false picture is presented. I guess it’s because the article is based on a press release only.

The Coalition counterproductive austerity measures, not childcare providers, are to blame for the lack of choice many women now face.  It’s a pity the Guardian has not said that.

What’s International Women’s Day all about then?

March 9, 2011 2 comments

So, another International Women’s Day has been and gone.

What a pile of shite that was.

 Let me explain this somewhat controversial assessment.

International Women’s has largely become a celebration/statment of what it is to be a woman in capitalist society – commodified sexuality and all -  as opposed to a celebration of what the solidarity of women might achieve. 

The day has largely turned drifted from its socialist roots, and is the worse for it.

Here are two quick examples.

First, there’s one of the main international website for International Women’s Day, run on what looks at first sight like a philanthropic basis by Aurora GCM Ltd.  In its historical overview of the day, it pays brief attention to its socialist roots in 1908:

15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights.

and then to what happened in 1917:

On the last Sunday of February, Russian women began a strike for “bread and peace” in response to the death over 2 million Russian soldiers in war. Opposed by political leaders the women continued to strike until four days later the Czar was forced to abdicate and the provisional Government granted women the right to vote.

But then the socialism is gone.  It’s done its job, and the link between ideals of solidarity and feminism is no longer needed:

Since its birth in the socialist movement, International Women’s Day has grown to become a global day of recognition and celebration across developed and developing countries alike.

Such a stance is hardly surprising, when you look a little more closely at what Aurora stands for:

Aurora is a niche marketing company founded in 2000 by Glenda Stone. Aurora is based in the City of London, serving over 100 corporate clients globally across sectors. The majority of Aurora’s clients are from the professional services, finance and technology sectors, however Aurora also has many clients in energy & utilities, pharmaceutical, FMCG, property, engineering, retail and travel sectors as well as many public sector clients in government and academia.

Nowhere on this whole publicity webpage is there any mention of women, never mind feminism.

 Within its own value system, Aurora is doing nothing wrong.  It’s seen a marketing opportunity in the sponsorship/hosting of a major website about International Women’s Day, and it’s gone for it;  Ms Stone’s and her colleagues’ may even have a real commitment to their understanding of feminism.  (Then again, maybe not.)

464 International Women’s Day events in the UK are advertised on the Aurora.  It does make you wonder what the day has become, when it is tied like this to the capitalist dream for its infrastructural support. 

As a second example, there’s last year’s Million Women Rise rally, perhaps THE major event in the UK marking International Women’s Day in 2010 (don’t think it’s happened this year).

Here’s what the blog said about the reason for the rally:

The women organising the march say that “enough is enough”.  Never has the rape of a woman’s right and dignity been so systematic and coordinated, the health and lives of women have never faced such peril.

The women’s march has been organised by ordinary women fed up with violence against women in all its forms.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I am in no way trying to suggest that challenging sexual violence, or any violence, against women is anything other than of huge importance, and it is great that so many women should come together to confront it in all its forms.

But in the end, is that what International Women’s Day is for?  Is it solely to remain a recognition of women’s position in an overwhelmingly patriarchal world?

Does it solely seek to define women’s position in relation to men and male violence, but stop short of confronting other issues that confront women?

Does it simply define women as they live under capitalism, or should it seek to celebrate and agitate for what they might achieve together – just as the Russian women of 1917 did?

Last year when Though Cowards Flinch did its best to mark International Women’s Day, Louise and Kat had their say on the relationship between socialism and feminsim in the 2010s.

Here’s Kat:

Every day there is another young person waking up, taking a look around and seeing the injustices the capitalist system perpetuates.

And even if they do not all become die-hard Trots, it’s good that there are young people who are conscious of injustice and will only become more so. Whether they choose to stand against capitalism as a whole, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or sexism, the future is looking fine for the left and the fight for women’s rights. Socialism hasn’t got old, and neither has feminism.

And here’s another socialist feminist, Laurie Penny, blogging about the stuff she’s really very good at blogging about:

‘I am asking for an analysis that is more rigorous, more grounded in an understanding of the gendered basis of capital, an analysis that is less focused on recalcitrant sexual morality……….Today’s young women are neither soulless slags nor tragic victims: we are real people with real desires and real agency, trying to negotiate our personal and sexual identities in a culture whose socio-economic misogyny runs far deeper than conservative commentators would have us believe.’

Women as active agents, struggling to determine a destiny in which they are equal partners.  That’s more like it.

Yes, there is hope for International Socialist Women’s Day.

Categories: Gender Politics

Roger Helmer: A special type of stupid

January 16, 2011 1 comment



Roger Helmer MEP for the East Midlands region asked on his twitter feed today:

Why is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex-change operation, but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to “turn” a consenting homosexual?

At first the question seems stupid – what’s the connection between homosexuality and gender reassignment? Isn’t this blatant homophobia? As David Allen Green has put it, has Helmer not confused “the distinct issues of gender identity and sexual preference”?

Then you read it again.

It’s still stupid.

For a longer discussion on the issue read Heresy Corner, I’m going to keep this brief. Gender reassignment is, as it is well known, the process of altering the sexual characteristics of an individual. That means a therapeutic measure of hormone replacement, replacement of organs, and other secondary sexual characteristics that aren’t reproductive organs (such as facial hair or breasts). As far as is physically possible an individual reflects the gender they have been reassinged to – nowhere in the surgery is there any attempt to mentally reassign a person, to make him/her feel like a man/woman (perhaps because there is no such feeling at all).

The notion that Helmer is comparing this with is the attempt to change, not a set of physical characteristics, but the complex psychosexual structure of an individual, which is far trickier in many ways to reassign, some would say impossible.

I’m of this latter opinion; you can’t try and “turn” a consenting homosexual, you can only try and make a person forget he or she is homosexual, or do things contrary to his or her sexuality (like be attracted to, or enjoy sexual practices with, a person from the opposite sex). And it ought not to be available by national health services like gender reassignment is. However if you want a homophobe to rub you with salts and tell you that you’re really attracted to people of the opposite sex, and that homosexuality is a myth or a lie one tells themselves, then what people get up to in their spare time is up to them – like with homeopathy it will be incumbent upon sane people to promote the truth of such ridiculous practices.,

Once again therefore, Helmer is way off the mark.We can add this to the list of other gaffes and witless opinions such as:

Green climate policies are probably unnecessary

Roger Helmer MEP for the East Midlands region asked on his twitter feed today:

Why is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex-change operation, but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to “turn” a consenting homosexual?

At first the question seems stupid – what’s the connection between homosexuality and gender reassignment? Isn’t this blatant homophobia? As David Allen Green has put it, has Helmer not confused “the distinct issues of gender identity and sexual preference”?

Then you read it again.

It’s still stupid.

For a longer discussion on the issue read Heresy Corner, I’m going to keep this brief. Gender reassignment is, as it is well known, the process of altering the sexual characteristics of an individual. That means a therapeutic measure of hormone replacement, replacement of organs, and other secondary sexual characteristics that aren’t reproductive organs (such as facial hair or breasts). As far as is physically possible an individual reflects the gender they have been reassinged to – nowhere in the surgery is there any attempt to mentally reassign a person, to make him/her feel like a man/woman (perhaps because there is no such feeling at all).

The notion that Helmer is comparing this with is the attempt to change, not a set of physical characteristics, but the complex psychosexual structure of an individual, which is far trickier in many ways to reassign, some would say impossible.

I’m of this latter opinion; you can’t try and “turn” a consenting homosexual, you can only try and make a person forget he or she is homosexual, or do things contrary to his or her sexuality (like be attracted to, or enjoy sexual practices with, a person from the opposite sex). And it ought not to be available by national health services like gender reassignment is. However if you want a homophobe to rub you with salts and tell you that you’re really attracted to people of the opposite sex, and that homosexuality is a myth or a lie one tells themselves, then what people get up to in their spare time is up to them – like with homeopathy it will be incumbent upon sane people to promote the truth of such ridiculous practices.,

Once again therefore, Helmer is way off the mark.We can add this to the list of other gaffes and witless opinions such as:

Categories: Gender Politics, Law

The meaning of Thatcher’s handbag

November 16, 2010 1 comment

Margaret Thatcher’s handbag took £61,000 at auction in 2004?

Fair enough. It did create a verb where there was none:

“She cannot see an institution without hitting it with her handbag,” Julian Critchley, a backbench Tory critic, once said.

And the term “to handbag” entered the political lexicon.

The only other Conservative politician to manage that is Michael Gove.

So there’s no wonder that her handbag still has a hold on the popular imagination.  But what does it actually mean?

For Laurie Penny, it’s a symbol of fradulent feminsism:

Thatcher was no more a feminist than Bradley from S Club 7 was ghetto, but she created a brand of female empowerment – all heels, warmongering and expensive handbags – striking enough to replace the erstwhile aspiration of real woman-power.

For Najlaa Zorgui, a 17 year old Thatcher admirer, it’s a symbol of her housewife-wisdoms and her “femininity”

Well, for one thing, she was definitely a woman, and she made sure people knew, particularly early on in her political career. She shared her housewife-wisdoms with the nation, and even used a handbag. Given the timing of these displays of femininity, however, it’s certainly not improbable that these gestures were more geared towards helping her shrug off the “Iron Lady” image and adopt a more human-looking form.

And for me, it’s a symbol of monetary flat-earthism:

When John McFall refers to Thatcher’s notion of household income as erroneous, the image that comes forth in my mind is of Thatcher herself, standing in front of a door – a door that may be in Downing Street or may be that of a 1950 grocery store – arm folded half defensively across her wait, and a handbag dangling from it. 

It is an image that takes us backwards to a time when money was easy to understand, when you couldn’t spend more than you earned because you simply didn’t have access to the cash, when household budgeting meant stocking up judiciously on tins of beans if you could afford it one week.  It is a pictorial representation of [Stuart] Hall’s articulation of the new monetarism to an older tradition, ultimately a pre-capitalist tradition in which money still represents goods and labour. 

Surely Thatcher’s handbag can’t mean all these things simultaneously.

The scary thing is that it can. That’s the power of the Thatcher inconography, and the Left needs a counter-image.

Any ideas?

Being a prostitute

October 6, 2010 17 comments

This is a guest article by Kate of the Hangbitch blog. 

A few people have asked for links to the article I published in the late 1990s about my time as a prostitute.

I don’t think the magazine (Auckland’s Metro) has an archive online, so have reproduced the article below.

A couple of thoughts first:

I thought the article might be useful, because it isn’t particularly dramatic. It’s prostitution from the perspective of someone who wasn’t forced into the work. I wasn’t trafficked, or there to finance a drug habit (although I was a very heavy drinker, which meant I was depressed and unwilling to focus on other earning options for any length of time). I was there for the money.

In much of the modern socialist narrative, all prostitutes are pressed into trade – by traffickers, by drug and alcohol addiction and/or by personal experiences of sexual abuse. In this narrative, all johns are brutes and all brothelkeepers are bloodsuckers.

There are many truths in this narrative, but it is my feeling that the negativity of it skews the point. It is unfair to sex workers as a result. Prostitution in itself is not synonymous with debasement.

Stories of trafficked, bullied and beaten women are stories of abuse, not of prostitution per se.

Away from the abuse – and prostitution does exist away from abuse – prostitution is retail. Describing it a trade would probably be overplaying the romance – you need looks and/or a gift for indifference, rather than genuine skill – but it is certainly enterprise.

More than that – it’s enterprise in which many women have an unusual – for us – advantage. It’s lucrative. It’s one of the few occupations where women can expect a good fiscal return. That doesn’t go for everyone in the field, but it certainly goes for some. Men shell out for sex. When I was working, girls got about NZ$80 to $100 an hour (the spending equivalent today of about £100), with more for extras if you were in those markets. Five or six clients a shift earned you a consultant’s wage.

Prostitution buys you time. Even now that I’m past it, I sometimes think about making a glorious return to the field – when money is tight, and/or I get sick of having to sacrifice large chunks of the day to the day job. In the end, if you’re not among the abused, prostitution is no more or less dispiriting than the middle-tier jobs and lives we’re supposed to aspire to.

As I say, I drank very heavily in those days.

1998

The one question you ask yourself when you’re working as a hooker is

‘Do I care that I am doing this? Do I care?’

You never settle on an answer, but your mind seems to want to. You’re standing in a warm, dark (curtains drawn), fusty little room, listening to people outside trotting home from work, and listening to the dolt you’re with whispering that he wants you sitting on the bed with your legs parted so that he can see, and your mind is trying to pinpoint your response.  Do I care?

It’s not a question of feeling despondent about the work. It’s a question of feeling endlessly ambivalent about it – of being perpetually unable to tap into your own responses, but being doomed to keep trying. Some aged Benny Hill clone will be giggling like a twit, trying to smack the sides of his face with your tits, and you’ll be leaning back, watching him closely and trying to work out whether or not you mind. (The way men feel about it depends on the way they feel about women generally. Men who want to protect women want to protect prostitutes. Men who dislike women dislike prostitutes. I remember a group of privately-schooled male friends bragging to me once that they’d celebrated their inaugural visit to a Christchurch whorehouse by shitting on its floor).

The only time that you feel no uncertainty at all about becoming a prostitute is during the split second that you decided to become one. Your mind is very clear in that second. It is the second that you finally acknowledge the money that hookers earn. It was the second that I finally got sick of the hard bitches at Credit Union, the second that I could no longer live with the thought of the loan sharks I’d visited when I was a depressed drama queen in my early 20s and drinking two or three bottles of wine a day.

Anyway – it’s in this second that ambiguity takes its little flight.

Bugger it, you think. I am sick of this money shit.

Also, you believe that a spell as a prostitute will make you the neighbourhood champion of Truth or Dare. Seems a big prize at the time.

Joining up

The average middle-class, 20-something girl launches herself upon this career the same way she begins most  enterprises: she tells herself fibs about it. For some time.

She looks through the newspaper for about a fortnight and slowly begins to understand that she will shortly find herself at a local massage parlour applying for a receptionist’s job. The idea she has at this stage is that the money as a brothel receptionist will be better than it is as a perpetually pissed, partially-employed journalist, and that working as a brothel receptionist will take her close to the fire without actually lobbing her in it.

“The receptionist’s position is gone,” the large, dark, hard-eyed, 40-ish, ever-smiling madam told me, “but there is work in the rooms.” She smiled with teeth and skill. She ran her gaze up and down my body. I knew then that I would do it. So did she, I think. It was fairly obvious that I had drinking and money problems, and that I had run out of bailout options. I began, of course, to dream.  I suddenly saw my whore-self sitting in this very chair, in front of a queue of blokes fighting it out for first.

The parlour was warm and dark, flushed through in that heavy shade of breathy scarlet most of us find exciting. Outside, only feet from my seat, corporate Wellington was walking home. I could hear people’s conversations and shoes.

That clinched it. I have never been particularly rational about corporate New Zealand, or corporate anywhere. Corporate New Zealanders were the people I liked to think of as the real slaves of the time, the thousands of educated but unimaginative drudges who’d swapped their souls to follow the New Right all the way to the brink and then over it, and who were now irrevocably chained to Brierley’s or Telecom and the desperate office politicking and the endless fear of redundancy and all the other white-collar traps.

I loathed them. I was one of them in many ways, (I was writing part-time for the Herald at the time) but felt that I was uniquely unblinkered – creative where they were stagnant, and all that other crap. I’m not sure why I thought that. The truth was that I was isolated and estranged, a drinker down to her last few cents. On that day, though, I could hear those suits trudging past the brothel window, heading home having wrapped up another day of restructuring, or privatisation: eight or ten hours of office nothingness.

Erin was wise to all of this.

“I’ll get you to talk to Emma,” she said as she watched me. “Emma’s been working here for a while.”

—–

In came Emma.  She looked straight at me and smiled so warmly that I was her friends in seconds. I so much liked the happy, smiling self that her friendliness brought out in me that I wanted to stay round her and use it.

Emma was in her late 20s, with a strong Kiwi accent. She was smiling, rosy and prettily round in that milk-fed, provincial New Zealand way, like Waverley, or The Chicks. She was a rube with an excellent grasp of sales dynamics. Smiles, cuddles, a touch of fanaticism – Christian camp leader meets Moonie recruiter.

She certainly sold the life well. “Like, if you suddenly feel you just can’t stand your smelly customer touching you any more,” she laughed, plonking herself into Erin’s chair, “make an excuse, pop into the toilet and count your cash.” She laughed, giggled, and leaned forward to pat my knee. “You’ll be just fine,” she said. She giggled until I started to. She held both my hands. I wanted to start right away.

“Believe me,” she said, nodding, “I’ve been doing this for years. It’s perfect. I work six months and then I can have six months off.”  She made both lots of six months sound like first prize. At one point, she leaned back in her chair and parted her legs so widely that I could see the entire gusset of her white underwear.  She made a Victory sign out of two fingers and then she pressed them hard against her vulva, to show me how to keep a condom in place. I heard a tiny sticky sound, like a kiss.

—-

The realities of the job itself are exactly like any other job – office politics, office Hitlers, competition, fears of redundancy – it’s all there.

“Hello,” I say – far too tremulously – every day to the fair-haired woman sitting behind the till in the dark, much-polished, central front office.

There is nothing warm or amusing about the start of my shifts. Every single day, I am about as far from being able to present the assured whore-self Emma helped me envisage as I could be.

Brothel work is not for the deluded. You’re surrounded by people who, understandably, see life as a grouping of cold, hard facts – women who’ve had to decide that they need money more than people.  They act like it, too.  Dreamers don’t do well here. It’s not a good place to be if you can’t shake the chill.

The fair-haired woman before me is extremely pretty with large brown eyes set in a clear, smooth, face around which her blonde hair waves. Her name is Janine. She is not, as you assume when you see her pretty face, a prostitute. She’s a receptionist. She has the job we all applied for before we landed the ultimate employment prize.

She’s also a complete bitch to new and newish girls, which is oddly upsetting when you’re a new or newish girl. I discover later that her behaviour is about testing girls, making sure that they’re up to this way of life. She wants to know if girls are of a type that is likely to make emotional demands on customers as they might a new boyfriend, instead of keeping those customers firmly in their place.

Which isn’t much comfort at the time. Janine is sadistic.

“Hello,” I say. Janine looks up at stares at me through the beautiful eyes.

“I thought that you were going to be here at one,” she says eventually.

“I’m sorry,” I say, immediately far too rattled to deliver a single part of the Emma-self I’d spent the morning practising. “I’m sorry. I’m really sorry.”

“There was a guy here at one. I had to send him away because you weren’t here,” she says.  She stares at me. “I had to send him away,” she says.  I apologise again. There is a $60 penalty for girls who lose customers this way, which doesn’t leave a lot of change out of $80.  Janine turns back to her work.

I walk to the locker room to change, already snivelling a bit. I get changed and try to get it together. It’s the moment when a kind of desolation goes through me – ie, the start of a shift. I’ve felt the same in most jobs.

I go to sit with the other girls – Karen, Michelle, Selina, Cory and Rose – out the back for a smoke and a chat. Inevitably, I giggle too much and talk too loudly but we all do that: we all bring a slightly overbearing persona to work.

Most women here have been through a lot. They’re supporting kids alone and have a hardness of eye that does not encourage intimacy.

The variety of personalities is significant.

Michelle, for instance, is a very pretty, very young, smiling, confident blonde who has been supporting herself since she was about 14 and describes the work as “such easy money.” She has absolutely no problem with it.

“I was in Christchurch and I was down to my last $20. I just went into this parlour one night and I came out that night with about $600. It just totally set me up, just one night.” She genuinely can’t understand why all women don’t do it. “It’s such easy money,” she says.

Others have less confidence. Karen, 29, is pretty, short and very overweight. She talks nonstop about her weight and her partner’s dislike of her. He tells her she’s fat and useless. Occasionally, she says she’d like to run a cafe or a restaurant, but you know she won’t. She’s only ever worked as a prostitute.

She brings an enormous collection of clothes to work and changes her dress every time a client fails to choose her. If a girl in a red dress gets a client, Karen changes into a red dress. If a girl in a green dress gets a client, Karen changes into a green dress. If a girl in a pink dress gets a client, Karen changes into a pink dress. On and on it goes, every shift.

Rose is tall, dark, handsome and hairy in a clean, compelling, gender-neutral way. She has high, pale cheekbones, along which ringletted black sideburns curl. The beautiful pale skin on her arms shines pearl beneath the soft, coalblack hair. She is a mother and always wears red. She smirks a lot, knows a lot and has a good base of regulars. She’s been working for about five years.

So. We smoke and laugh hard, and then we smoke more and watch the smoke head towards the clean sheets that last night’s girls washed and left billowing on the line. We’re waiting for Janine to call us. We smoke more. I can hear homeward-bound Wellington buzzing off to the suburbs outside our walls.

—-

“Introduction!” Janine shouts down the hall whenever a man comes through the front door.

We girls file into to the guest lounge to meet him. He’ll shakes hands with us all and choose whichever one of us he likes. It can be highly competitive stuff. You don’t get paid if you don’t get chosen, which is difficult when you start out and you’re shy.

Erin says that the truly motivated whore charges into the guest lounge, grabs the customer’s hand and says “choose me, sweetheart. I’m the best fuck in the house,” but I have yet to visualise myself delivering this line. I sometimes wonder whether anyone other than Erin has tried it (as it happens, I did as my confidence improved).

The bloke in the guest lounge is short, overweight, sweaty-skinned and in his mid-50s, with small, brown, clever little eyes. He wears a suit – he probably worked late and came straight from the office. There isn’t a rush to grab his hand. He’s a regular whom nobody likes, because of the mean glint in his tiny eyes.

Everyone is also aware that the older ones who come in after a long day are sweaty, foul-smelling and sticky. Later at night, they’re often very drunk as well, but I don’t mind that so much. I like the smell of alcohol. It overpowers a lot of other smells and reminds me of my dad.

I give him the eye anyway. The revolting ones generally like an overture – they want to play the flirting game. I tend to like them better than the smart-assed, good-looking, med-student types who stand with their arms crossed and want to see you crawl around, or shit.

We leave the room. Erin joins us after a few minutes. “Becky,” she says, pointing at me. I stand quickly and walk to the small office. Janine silently hands me a couple of towels.

The little fat man waits for me at the bottom of the stairs. His bald head gleams with the day’s grease. He’s grinning at me with his little piggy eyes.

“Now, how about I follow you, Becky?” he says in the jokey voice he always uses. I already want to hit him. Behind his back, I roll my eyes.

He knows what to do. He heads straight upstairs to the guest bathroom, and strips off and goes to stand in the shower. All clients must shower first. It’s supposed to be about helping them relax, but it’s for us. It’s about getting rid of the smell.

When he’s washed, I lean forward to wrap a towel around him. He takes this opportunity to put his arm around my waist. We walk, like a couple, to our room. Then he sits on the bed and watches me winch my tight dress over my head. Someone is playing Bic Runga outside.

“Ah,” he says, as I am revealed.  “A suspender girl.” I nod at him and bend down to unfasten the snaps. “No, leave them on,” he says.  This means I have to get my knickers off while leaving the belt on, which is quite a trial. As time goes on, and I get more experienced, I dispense with the knickers from the start.

Now he’s lying in front of me, resting his head on his round, rather hairless arms. I sit on his back, as he asks. I stroke his neck, up and down, with the balls of my thumbs.

And so it is that I begin again to try to decide whether or not I care about this work. I look at my hands on his sticky skin and try to gauge my reaction to the stickiness. I look at him. He’s terribly short. His hairless little feet come nowhere near the end of the bed.

His suit pants, when he had them on, looked as though they’d been cut off at the knees.

But it is a lovely suit – beautifully sleek and expensive-looking, much in the Winston Peters style. It is only a pity that this attention to appearance doesn’t extend to the far reaches of his physical person. He stinks. In the shower, he ran the soap down his barrel chest once. He stood under the water for a bit and then he got out.

I notice that between his buttock runs a deep, yellow-brown line which seems to be set under his skin. He has the same odd colouring between his toes and in the corners of his mouth. It’s odd – it’s set under his skin, like a tattoo. It’s mould, shit, or hereditary – I can’t work it out.

“Touch my bum,” he says suddenly. The pillow muffles his voice, so he speaks again. “Please touch it.” I watch my hands as they move towards his backside. I touch him. Straightaway, he moans and starts jerking his backside around. He strikes me as rather theatrical. I try to remain seated on his legs. He’ll roll over onto his back soon.

Then suddenly, he asks me a ridiculous question – ridiculous because it’s utterly unnatural, theatrical. He’s been rehearsing it. He’s lifted it from some movie or other that he’s seen about relationships, or women, or whores.

“How does it feel having all the power?” he asks.

“Sorry?” I say. I’m surprised and disgusted. I hate the ones who think they’re in a movie. I’m almost in a trance, watching my hands on his behind.

“How does it feel having all the power?”

“Say again?” I say.

He lifts his head from the pillow. “How does it feel having the power?” he yells. He stops writhing, rolls over and stares at me. I am at the height of my indifference. He watches me but eventually rolls over and buries his face in his pillow again. I’m glad he does that. I know now that he’s impotent.

“Forget it,” he says.  “Who cares?”

Categories: Gender Politics
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,220 other followers