« Race and the Whistle | Main | Benefits » Escort-Blogging02 May 2007 08:57 am Ben Smith has the posted job requirements to work for Pamela Martin's service:
Now how's that for out-of-control credentialism -- two years' college to be a hooker? Comments (44)
"Weight proportionate to height" is awfully vague, no? 
What, no "heart of gold" requirement? I guess this is DC, after all.
they resemble that remark...
I wonder if they accept degrees from Liberty University?
I realize it seemed like an opportunity for a good joke, and there is loyalty to the joke and all that, but this post, and the ensuing comments, are kind of thoughtless. Sex workers are workers -- often the most powerless kind, and, much as the images and thoughts associated with them can be titillating, which causes giggling, humor at their expense is mean. Ms. Martin wanted these credentials for a reason. Her clientelle wanted escorts who could at least fake an intellectual conversation at a dinner out with high powered folks in D.C. In addition, a higher ed degree and status as a student/employee are both proxies of a sort for "not an out of control substance abuser." And also probably an indicator that she is not working for another pimp.
I wonder why you have to be at least 23. Why not 21? It's not like they would have to hire everybody who meets all of the criteria. What would they do, sue them for discrimination?
Adam, thanks for ruining our fun. Did you kick in sand castles as a child because they evoked feudalism's subjugation of the working class?
Um, Adam, I don't think anyone here was trying to score a laugh at the expense of exploited sex workers, and I seriously doubt anyone fails to understand the socioeconomic realities of WHY a high-class escort service would want to screen potential hires to make sure they won't raise the ire of some local pimp. Just to provide a helpful explanation, the jokes on this thread refer to the Marilee Jones furor, the "hooker with a heart of gold" literary cliche, and George W. Bush's favorite Bible-thumping degree mill. Got it? Good.
Does Fallows understand that most people's problem with the MIT liar is that she LIED, not with the credential per se?
Are these requirements from 1989? Who has a car telephone anymore?
Now how's that for out-of-control credentialism -- two years' college to be a hooker? I think one could plausibly claim that requirement would violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 via a disparate impact analysis.
Minus the moralistic overtones, I'll second Adam: given the clientele involved, the requirement of two years of college is not 'out-of-control credentialism' in this case. Also, that Woody Allen story that Antid linked is kind of apposite, and funny.
Look, there are many things college doesn't teach one (how to get a job and how to do general administrative and organizing tasks that are vital to holding a job, to cite just two). But one thing it definitely teaches one is how to fake one's way through high-falutin' conversation. If there's any non-sex-based thing an escort / prostitute / whatever in DC would need to do, surely that's it. Come on, haven't you seen the first season of The West Wing?
Sex workers are workers -- often the most powerless kind, and, much as the images and thoughts associated with them can be titillating, which causes giggling, humor at their expense is mean. Yglesias is a misogynistic jerk!
I am genuinely curious, lots of our feminists friends claim to be pro-sex, and claim to be in favor of keeping government out of our sexual relations, but how many actually support legalizing prostitution? Or as George Carlin says: If prostitutes are workers too, how come pro-sex feminists are not actively working for making prostitution safe, legal (, and rare?)
I wonder how much time anon at 12:52 has spent investigating the positions of actual feminists on the legalization of prositution? I'm guessing it's somewhere between zero and none.
Gosh lemuel, maybe you should check your reading abilities, 'cause I never claimed to know, I said I was curious to find out what their position is! I never seen the top tier feminist blogs blogging about legalizing prostitution. I don't see the LA Times or NY Times or Salon or anyone talking about feminists activities towards legalization of prostitution. I do see some ex-sex workers in the feminist movement. Some are very much against prostitution. Some seem to favor legalization. I have seen lots of feminists talk about sex workers in terms of being unempowered, mostly poor, mostly victims of the patriarchy, mostly uneducated, mostly women of color. But I just haven't seen the main stream feminists or the ones on the blogosphere talking about the need to legalize prostitution. So Lemuel, as you drag your own stereotypes into it, maybe you could just answer the question I asked, instead of just masturbating on other people's faces. (To quote one infamous feminist blogger.)
I love the idea that women might need some college to be dinner partners in DC. I'm guessing a community college might do, given the quality of thought that's been coming out of DC lately. In fact, I'm guessing that the ability to converse in Braille under the table is more important than the actual topic of conversation. Probably the more college you have, the harder it is to keep a straight face when the big-spenders of DC start spouting off.
You want out of control credentialism? Bah. I think that prostitution should require a post-graduate professional degree. Prostitutes should have a strict, binding code of ethics and oath regarding confidentiality, safety, etc, and should have to do about 40% of their work pro bono.
Personally I know a lot of whores that have a bachelors, masters, mba, or even a Ph.D.
I'm surprised that a wire watching would be surprised at the advantages of hiring college educated women. If prostitution were legal, a good prostitution business probably should look for its hires, men and women, to have some college for the same reason that, say, high school counselors have some college education. Those who go to prostitutes are often ashamed, or sexually stressed in one way or another, and handling them successfully - which means safety for the prostitute as well as satisfaction for the client - is surely something that would be improved by psychology courses. The evidence is that prostitutes are often assaulted or mistreated by clients, so it isn't a joke. Furthermore, being a job that requires the ability to handle money independently, it might be good for a prostitute to have a few business management classes. Finally, it is easy for prostitutes to burn out - having sex with someone you might not like to make money can do things to you. That's why it isn't a good job. Again, handling that stress is addressed by a college education. On the whole, the DC madame, Palfrey, has handled herself wonderfully during this whole affair, and at the very least exposed the ridiculous gender asymmetry in her arrest. The scandal should be, why is the justice department concentrating on busting escort services?
Lemuel, Matthew, why haven't I seen the top tier feminist bloggers blogging about the DC Madam issue and coming to her support and the support of her workers? A google search of palfrey site:pandagon.net finds two posts by Pam Spaulding but neither supportive of the prostitutes themselves. Nothing from Amanda (though she comments in writing "masturbate into non-white woman". Nothing at feministing or feministe. dc madam turns up the same two posts at pandagon, nothing at feministe, and a one sentence blurb as part of a roundup at feministing. I am curious why these top tier feminist bloggers are not supporting the DC escorts. 'Cause we know how enlightened these bloggers are, how they always root for the undergal, how they are pro-sex, and how they see sex workers as workers too, and with no power in the system, and as victims of the patriarchy, and even as Amanda says, as just objects that men masturbate into. Can't a worker get any feminist support?
Gosh lemuel, maybe you should check your reading abilities, 'cause I never claimed to know, I said I was curious to find out what their position is! You didn't? It looked to me like you thought you already knew. If prostitutes are workers too, how come pro-sex feminists are not actively working for making prostitution safe, legal (, and rare?) That seems to presume pretty clearly that they are not, in fact, doing so.
Today though we can find Ilyka and Amanda and Mnemosyne still refusing to acknowledge any remorse, guilt, new thoughts on their parts for the role Pandagon played in victimizing the Duke Lacrosse team, and in fact, Mnemo is still sticking by claims the woman WAS raped in the house, just not by those three players, and all of them are still blaming it on Nifong, on white men, and saying the AG was just as bad as Nifong when the AG declared the men innocent and not just saying he had no evidence to support the charge. Tell me again, Mr. Fancy Schmancy Atlantic Blogger, the value of Pandagon in your thoughts and writing, and why Pandagon is blogrolled here?
Wow, there's no hater like a feminist-hater. In her darkest moments I doubt Amanda Marcotte could summon up as much bile as the average Rush Limbaugh devotee.
I think I was pretty clear Cyrus, I said I thought they were pro-sex but wanted to know how they felt about legalizing prostitution. I said that in reading the Times and the Times and Salon and the rest of the media I hear all sorts of activities about feminists including things like Take Back the Night, and support for Crystal Gail Mangum, but I never hear in the media about mainstream feminists that want to legalize prostitution. So I don't know how they actually feel about it. I read today a press release from California NOW saying that fathers' rights groups want to end women's suffrage. But I have yet to read anything that says that California NOW wants to legalize prostitution. A search as I did above shows almost no mention of the DC Madam case at the top tier feminist sites. When I visit TPMCafe, I see all sorts of stuff about pay gaps and mommy wars, but I see nothing from the feminist guest posters there about legalizing prostitution. I see no activity on their part discussing or moving to legalizing prostitution. I think YOU are the one jumping to conclusions that makes the leap from my not witnessing any activity to THEIR not actually supporting that activity. You appear to think they don't support legalization since I say I can't see them doing anything to do that, but I am leaving open the possibility that I just haven't witnessed the activities or read the right papers. So I am asking you, Cyrus, and Lemuel, to help enlighten me. Does mainstream feminism, do our top tier "pro-sex", "prostitutes are just workers and victims of the patriarchy", feminist bloggers support the legalization of prostitution? Do you Cyrus? Lemuel? You two snicker, but you don't want to commit. Very politically safe of you. I think it should be made legal. I think it should be made safe, legal, and kept as rare as possible. It should be regulated, taxed, and have underage women removed from it. Prostitutes should not have to be enslaved to pimps, or fear violence, and they should get medical benefits and all the benefits that labor has fought for. And if they want to leave the life of prostitution a legal status and benefits and lack of fear from violence and social stigma would make it easier to help get them jobs in other industries, or get them to school, or whatever else is needed.
I was expecting to see a Massage Therapist license somewhere on the list. Tobias' story is looking weaker and weaker, don't ya think?
I am a feminist myself Steve, so I am not sure who you are referring to. Can you enlighten us as to what your comment is about? What hate are you referring to? (Apart from Pandagon's continued smears about the Duke Students....)
And I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh outside of clips played by Al Franken or aired at C&L, ThinkProgress, Media Matters or bloggers like Atrios, etc. Sucks to constantly find that lots of progressive liberals think Pandagon is an abusive site doesn't it Steve? Is that why you have to pretend to yourself that it must be Rush Limbaugh devotees? Do you have anything of value to actually add?
two years' college to be a hooker? These don't look like requirements to be a "hooker". These look like requirements to be a geisha. Or, given the clientele and the climate in D.C. during the time the operation was in business, a "beard-for-hire" for the single gentleman in the establishment party who might need to be seen in public with an attractive girlfriend to quell those rumors that he frequents the gay bars on the weekends...
This is just good business. This woman was upscale, servicing a sophisticated clientel. Some guys could care less about the intelligence of the girl they ordered, some guys care very much that they can carry on a conversation. You cover all basis by requiring all your girls to be able to satisfy the second camp. The point is that this maddam could afford to be discriminatory in her hiring, most outfits hire any warm body they can find.
"I am genuinely curious, lots of our feminists friends claim to be pro-sex, and claim to be in favor of keeping government out of our sexual relations, but how many actually support legalizing prostitution?" Curiosity+google=answers like those at http://www.feministissues.com/ , which details the many different attitudes feminists have toward legalised prostitution. Curiosity + disingenuousness = people taking potshots at you.
"I wonder why you have to be at least 23. Why not 21? It's not like they would have to hire everybody who meets all of the criteria. What would they do, sue them for discrimination?" She probably asked that they be 23 so that they would be at least 18.
I see no disingenuousness here. I see genuine curiousity. Is this what you feel about anyone that asks questions? I thank you for the link to the website. Can you tell me how widely supported that website is by feminists in general? I haven't heard of it before, and I haven't come across it on Pandagon/Feministing/Feministe/Yglesias/.... So while it seems reasonable, it still doesn't tell me what our mainstream feminists think of prostitution apart from what I've already said. It just delineates it by "form of feminism" If I understand this paragraph in the summary It is difficult to understand why some feminists feel the presence of prostitutes in society is so threatening. What they want, and what most of us want, is a better world and a society that is morally, socially, and intellectually viable. What it seems to be saying is that: Most important is this blame the victim statement d) Prostitutes don't understand that men are oppressing them, and until they do, and take some act on their own to understand feminism, they shouldn't bother waiting for feminists to come in and work with them So Njorl, all your crap aside, are you saying this is what modern mainstream feminists feel? Can you cite something to support that? It does seem to fit with the evidence (or lack thereof) that I have cited, ie., no apparent activities as reported in the big media outlets. I don't understand why that is. It would seem that pro-sex feminists like Marcotte, Valenti, and Filopovic should be reaching out to prostitutes, actively bringing them into the folds, and discussing or even marching for legalization. Again, I see no disingenuousness on my part. I think any impartial observer would look at the pot shots that you, Steve, and lemuel have tosses and conclude that I am the only one here that is in fact genuinely trying to discuss the issue of what the beliefs of modern feminism are wrt prostitution and why aren't they supporting the DC Madam in her claims that there is a big gender bias against her, and why they aren't trying to legalize prostitution.
Damn! only 5 out of 6! I fail the "weight proportionate to height" part. Of course, the fact that I'm a man might hurt me too (especially now that Mark Foley's gone)
Matt obviously went to the wrong college. The UofAZ grad can probably enlighten Matt on what many learn during the first two years of college.
I guess on the Internet, you can just claim to be a progressive liberal feminist, and no one can prove you wrong! That said, most of us aren't stupid.
Age of 23: minimum age to rent a hotel room Married men often don't want suspicious charges on their CC#, and "nice hotels" require a CC
Dude, hooker is not the preferred nomenclature. Escort, please.
The missing part of the job requirement list were the following. 1- No bubble gum chewers BIll
Try reading salon before November 2000, there's plenty of pro-hooker stuff. hell, they even ran a semi-autobiographical multi-part series by a hooker. Now knock off the retarded trolling.
"I see no disingenuousness here. I see genuine curiousity. Is this what you feel about anyone that asks questions?" When they take no steps whatsoever to satisfy that curiosity, yes. These feminist bloggers of whom you speak have (get ready for it) blogs! On those blogs, they solicit comments. In those comments, you can ask them their opinions. If your requests are lost in the rush, or if there are no appropriate threads to make such a request, you might have to decipher the arcane workings of "email" to find out what they think. If you are curious about the color of the sky, rise from your chair, open doors, pass through them and look up. Continue doing so until looking up reveals nothing within about 100 feet. Note color. Or, go on Matthew Yglesias blog and post that no one ever seems to state the color of the sky and that you are curious about it.
Comments closed May 16, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Were any escorts were fired when they were doing their job 'well' (even 'inspiringly') but were found to have faked their resumes when they were hired? Now that would be a scandal.
Posted by otto | May 2, 2007 11:15 AM