Money or morals? Analyzing the AKP's assault on legal sex work in Turkey.

For recent story I did for the New York Times magazine, You Are Here -- Dimming the Red Lights in Turkey, I reported from just outside one of Istanbul's last remaining red light districts on the effect of the Islamist AKP government's campaign to slowly but surely rid the country of its long tradition of legal sex work.

The AKP government has presided over phenomenal economic growth in Turkey.  Earlier this year, while the rest of the world economy was spinning down the toilet, Turkey's GDP grew 11% in the first quarter.  Unfortunately, this economic growth has yet to empower women in a meaningful way.  Employment among women stands at 24 to 26%, depending on who you ask, but either way, it's the lowest among OECD countries.  Unlike in other developing countries, where women have flocked to work in factories and other low-wage employment, strong -- I mean, really strong -- patriarchal social norms discourage the hiring of women.  Unsurprisingly, women may find it easier enter other informal sectors such as sex work, which have a low barrier to entry and offer the chance of earning more than the minimum wage (currently approximately 630 TL after taxes, or around $350 per month).  However, they do so under extremely precarious conditions: they are vulnerable to violence, harassment, fines and extortion.

It's in this context that I will further explore what is motivating the AKP to clamp down on sex work, for a forthcoming story that will go into these issues in more depth.  Do they know that women find it extremely difficult to find work in the formal sector?   Do they care?  Do they disapprove of sex work, or are they merely angling to close down the brothels so they can gentrify those prime, centrally located patches of real estate?

These are some of the questions I hope to begin to answer in the upcoming story.  As with politics anywhere, it's very difficult to locate truth, or even truthiness (hat tip Stephen Colbert.)  But the reporting process was fascinating, and I was lucky to work with two of the most wonderful translators/reporting partners I can possibly imagine.  Looking forward to sharing the story with you in the near future.

The Laughing Monster

Despite the fact that I have a blog, and broadcast my thoughts to the internet every now and then, I’m actually a pretty private person.  My first instinct wouldn’t be to blow someone up or shout her or him out for doing something lame, if said person was a private citizen (public figures, by contrast, are fair game).  But on Sunday night I encountered one of the biggest assclowns I’ve ever met.  He is so assclown-y, in fact, that I would like the whole world to know. I was enjoying a convivial farewell dinner in London with a group of five vivacious, accomplished women writers and journalists at St. John’s Bread and Wine.  The entire night was wonderful, and I laughed the whole time.  At one point, talk turned to pregnancy, and the two pregnant women in the group had one of the more honest and hilarious conversations I’ve ever heard, prompting more uproarious laughter from my end.  Around twenty minutes later, a business card slid near my elbow.  I looked up to see the messenger, a tall man in his 50s sporting a bushy take on the Hitler ‘stache.

He neither winked, smiled, nor licked his lips like LL Cool J, so it didn’t feel much like a come on (note to men: slipping women your cards generally fails, anyway).   In fact, he rather glared at me.  I turned over the card to find this charming, charming message:

Note: this reads "Madame, You are a MONSTER, a laughing monster, very primitive!  I fear my ears are destroyed. W. W."

Now, here is a lesson for anyone who thinks they can silence a laughing woman such as myself with a hyperbolic 18^th-century putdown scribbled on a card: YOU MUST BE STUPID.  THIS IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE ME LAUGH HARDER.  ONLY NOW AT YOU.  So, laugh we did, and all six of us were laughing directly at him.

Happy ending: I ignored his glares till he left the restaurant, and the waiter, who was horrified at his behavior, gave me a compensation bag filled with baked goods.

Suggested pro-loud-woman activism:  Tweet a link or a joke of something funny today (and every day – why not?), with the hashtag #laughingmonster.  Make yourself laugh, make your friends laugh, make me laugh.  Or, send this guy an mp3 or .wav file of your laugh!  Remind him that women are not just to be seen, but heard, too.

The Mainstream Media: Still a Lamestream Place for Women, and other notes on media coverage

From April 8-10, I spent a marvelous three days in Boston for the National Conference on Media Reform, hosted by the non-profit Free Press.  Not only did I have the chance to see my best friend, who's studying for a PhD. at Harvard, and to sample some of Boston's famous ice cream offerings, I attended some fabulous panels at the conference, several of which I reported on for Ms. magazine.

More than a hundred years after the intrepid muckraker Nellie Bly pioneered the genre of undercover investigative journalism, American mainstream media has yet to embrace women as equal players in the industry: as editors, reporters, managers, sources or subjects. You’d think a century might be enough time for a profession that purports to speak truth to power to empower the voiceless in its midst. Not so much. Women hold only 27% of top management jobs, according to a new report [PDF] from the International Women’s Media Foundation. (click here to read about the panels on media policy, reality TV and the sexualization of young girls.)

Meanwhile, you have to wonder why the NYT keeps letting its reporters slime rape victims in its coverage time and again.  Is it a coincidence that the two most controversial articles were written by men?  Not clear.  But a magnificent piece by Washington Post reporter Emily Wax (inexplicably shunted into the "Lifestyle" section -- oh wait, there is an explanation for that, sexism) on female journalists and sexual assault and harassment highlights that in some cases, there *is* a clear difference between male and female reporters:

I think of the time I spent reporting in Congo, when male reporters cringed when I said I was working on a story about a hospital ward filled with women who had to have their vaginas reconstructed because the gang rapes by rebels were so brutal. “I won’t go near that story,” one male journalist said. I couldn’t allow myself to ignore it.

Readers agreed and sent the hospital huge donations.

I don't know if anyone else feels the same way but I am SHOCKED to hear a reporter say he (or she) "won't go near" a story.  I find that an appalling dereliction of duty.  Thoughts?

Totally uninformed sweeping generalization about gender: Women's NCAA basketball is superior to men's

The past two nights of NCAA championship basketball could not have contrasted more starkly.  A conservative estimate would put the women's game at 150 times better than the men's game; a more generous comparison, perhaps 200 times better. The men's game between Butler and UConn (UConn won) was sloppy, choppy and dull.  The women's game between Texas A&M and Notre Dame (Texas won) was graceful, soulful and exciting.  The women ran plays and cooperated.  The men showboated and couldn't convert.  The women boxed out, communicated, made their layups and their free throws.  In short, they played solid, fundamentally sound basketball and it was breathtaking to watch.

I wonder if the different styles of play can be traced to the fact that men have a lot more to prove because of the high economic stakes of professional male athletics.  Female basketball players have the WNBA to look forward to, but the money is nowhere near the same.  As a woman, there's less incentive to prove that you're a one-person franchise.

Without further ado -- a huge salute to the women of both teams for giving the NCAA championship a good name again after Butler and UConn did their best to smear it.  It was a spectacular game, played with so much heart and soul.  Bravo.

Living La Vita Bunga

I once met an Italian journalist living in Beirut, a wonderful, warm, successful woman with the world at her fingertips.  She was leaving Beirut, and thinking about other cities where she might pitch her tent.  Paris?  Istanbul?  Why not Rome?, I asked her.  She looked at me like I still had the crack pipe in my right hand.  As an Italian, she told me, she can't stand to live in Italy.  Life under Berlusconi is just too depressing. In The Berlusconi in Us All: Bunga Bunga's Real Meaning, a new piece that ran today in the Atlantic, I excavate the hidden meanings of the goofy-sounding term "bunga bunga."  After hearing it repeated uncritically across the international media, I thought it might be worth exploring where this term came from, and what it represents with respect to the sexism, racism and corruption that plague Italy and that are part and parcel of what Italians call "Berlusconismo."

In interviewing a dozen or so Italian professors, researchers, filmmakers, journalist and political analysts, that overwhelming sense of "WTF" came through loud and clear.  Every interview ran an hour long.  Several slowly morphed from interview to therapy session as the subjects unloaded one after another complaint about Berlusconi and everything he stands for onto me, the willing listener.  Thanks to their insights and observations, I was able to put together this article about what "bunga bunga" really means for Italy.

I hope you enjoy.  Read it here.

To the victim-blaming, let's add a lawsuit. Rape victim Eman al-Obaidy is now a defendant.

The NYT reports today that the accused militia members have filed a lawsuit against Ms. al-Obaidy.  Here is the glorious victim-blaming Libyan government spokesman Mr. Musa Ibrahim again:

“Oh, yeah, they have filed a case,” the spokesman, Musa Ibrahim, said. “The boys who she accused of rape are bringing a case because it is a very grave offense to accuse someone of a sexual crime.”

....

Mr. Ibrahim initially described her as drunk and potentially delusional. Then, later on Saturday, he called her sober and sane. And on Sunday he termed her a prostitute and a thief.

In addition to the creepy, high-school-era sneer ("Oh, yeaaahh..."), there's something frightfully reminiscent about the heavily-criticized, victim-blaming attitude captured by the NYT's reporting on a gang-rape in Texas, where many of the local residents expressed less concern for the victim than for their "boys."

The case has rocked this East Texas community to its core and left many residents in the working-class neighborhood where the attack took place with unanswered questions. Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?

“It’s just destroyed our community,” said Sheila Harrison, 48, a hospital worker who says she knows several of the defendants. “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.”

This is absolutely not to suggest that false rape allegations are anything but serious, but it is wildly anachronistic to counter-sue an alleged rape victim before you have been proven innocent.  If these are false allegations, then the militia members should await trial and rest assured they will be proven innocent.  Charges for slander can follow.  Otherwise, sit tight, "boys," and let the victim have her day in court.  Which reminds me -- where the eff is she?

Journalists have been unable to learn Ms. al-Obeidy’s whereabouts since she was removed by force from the Rixos Hotel here after scuffles between security personnel, hotel staff and foreign journalists she had been trying to approach on Saturday.

Assclown of the Day: victim-blaming Libyan Gov't Spokesman Musa Ibrahim

In response to the plight of Eman al-Obaidy, a Libyan woman who rushed into a hotel full of journalists to tell of the brutal rape and mistreatment she had suffered at the hands of Gaddafi soldiers, the Libyan government spokesman Musa Ibrahim denied her story with the following:

After the episode, Musa Ibrahim, a government spokesman, said she appeared to be drunk and mentally ill. He said that the authorities were investigating the case, including the possibility that her reports of abuse were “fantasies.”

Drunk?  Right, in Libya, sometimes mistaken for Ireland or Russia, with its heavy drinking culture.  Good call.

Mentally ill?  Possibly -- it's called "post-traumatic stress disorder."  It sometimes happens after, say, things like this:

She said she had been raped by 15 men. “I was tied up, and they defecated and urinated on me,” she said. “They violated my honor.”

Fantasies?  Now that, sir, is bold.  Try this:

She displayed a broad bruise on her face, a large scar on her upper thigh, several narrow and deep scratch marks lower on her leg, and marks from binding around her hands and feet.

While her allegations of sexual assault have not yet been proven, those bruises and scratch marks sound a lot like reality.  Not, I'm sorry to say, "fantasies," Mister Ibrahim.  It is a reality that I sincerely, sincerely hope you, your scummy boss-man Gaddafi and the people who hurt Ms. al-Obaidy are held accountable for.

What else?  Was she wearing a short skirt?  Makeup?  Did she bat her eyelashes seductively at the guards while they handcuffed her?  Please do not disrespect or injure her further in the "investigation" that you have promised.

Libyan woman tells story of her rape. How unimaginably brave.

Reading the news that Eman al-Obeidy, a Libyan woman who claims to have been raped by 15 of Gaddafi's men while in their custody, made me cry. As I'm sure it did others, it also got me wondering -- how many other women and men is this happening to?  How many more times will it happen to her?

Once you're done reading the story and watching the video -- the video was really what made me cry -- please join me in getting angry that, no matter what country or what amount of warfare is currently raging, victim-blaming in rape cases never goes out of style.

After the episode, Musa Ibrahim, a government spokesman, said she appeared to be drunk and mentally ill. He said that the authorities were investigating the case, including the possibility that her reports of abuse were “fantasies.”

And....I think we've just hit on our Assclown for the day.

NYT ignores top female political bloggers; top female political blogger responds

It didn't take long for this story in the NYT about a group of young, successful (all white, all male) political bloggers to piss off a lot of women. "Brat Pack" stories are always popular.  People like to read about young, successful people, especially when they travel in hordes.  What an exclusive club!  What intelligent fun they must have!  Would you look at that, some of them even have some neat-sounding female accessories! Luckily Ann Friedman was quick on the draw with her wonderful send-up that shouts out the many talented female journalists in DC who have, as she notes, been there all along.

One sweltering DC evening many months ago, Ann Friedman, 29, then an editor for The American Prospect, sat with her friends Annie Lowrey, a reporter for Slate; Suzy Khimm and Kate Sheppard, reporters for Mother Jones; Marin Cogan, a reporter for Politico; Phoebe Connelly, a freelance writer and former web editor for The American Prospect; Britt Peterson, an editor at Foreign Policy; Dayo Olopade, a writer for The Daily Beast, Kay Steiger and Shani Hilton, editors at Campus Progress; Kat Aaron, a reporter for the Investigative Reporting Workshop; Monica Potts, a blogger for The American Prospect; Amanda Terkel, a reporter for The Huffington Post; and Laura McGann and Sara Libby, editors for Politico, at a bar on U Street. Ms. Friedman spoke about her younger — well, relatively younger — days in the city.

“Everyone’s gotten a little bit older and a little more tired of being constantly rendered invisible,” Ms. Friedman said, speaking of a wave of Washington women journalists who have come of age together. “Four years ago, we were fact-checking and editing these male pundits, along with creating award-winning work of our own. None of that has changed.” [my emphasis].

Go Ann!

The New York Times finally covers the abortion $@&#!storm in South Dakota

The New York Times finally did its bit on the anti-abortion legislative madness happening in South Dakota.  According to the article:

A law signed by Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Tuesday makes the state the first to require women who are seeking abortions to first attend a consultation at such “pregnancy help centers,” to learn what assistance is available “to help the mother keep and care for her child.”

The story is very "balanced," which is to say, both sides get equal airtime.  The reporter also tastefully ended with a quote from the pro-choice camp.  However, I would have liked to see more of a description of what the actual places are like -- what goes on in a pregnancy crisis center?  What kind of (mis)information are they peddling?  How does this contrast with the medically sound information that is offered by trained physicians at clinics such as Planned Parenthood?

Information like this would help the reader decide if it is a good or bad thing that women be sent to these centers before being allowed to execute her own, difficult decision to go through with an abortion.  I watched an excellent documentary last year at the IFC called "12th and Delaware," about a pregnancy crisis center and an abortion clinic that are across the street from one another in Florida.  The filmmakers spent a year with the staff of the crisis center; their footage shows a tremendous amount of inaccurate information being dispensed to young -- often very, very young -- women who in some excruciating cases do not have enough of their own information to evaluate whether or not this information is valid.  Pamphlets scattered around the centers tout a (totally bogus) link between abortion and breast cancer.  Employees coax women away from the abortion clinic by literally promising them "anything they need," as in, money, food, clothes (Are they going to pay for that child's college education?).  They drag one poor mother in and before the door shuts, you hear them saying "why don't you pick out a toy for your child?"  It's incredibly coercive and flat-out deceptive.

The article also curiously failed to mention a previous bill introduced in South Dakota that would have permitted homicide in order to save a fetus.  Thankfully, this bill failed, but it would have been worth mentioning in the story, in order to indicate how viciously hostile the legislature is towards women's reproductive autonomy: lawmakers would sooner sanction murder than let a woman choose.

So much other anti-choice nastiness is cooking in the Midwest; I look forward to more reporting on it in the paper of record.