They wouldn't say 'factory workers' 'postmen' etc if that was their job would they?
2006-12-18 06:28:36 · 22 answers · asked by jeanimus 7 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
Yes obviously I am aware that they were prostitutes. What Im talking about is the use of the word prostitute. Do you think that the use of the word is intrinsic to the level of the interest from the public. If the media were to say five women were killed, would public interest wane?
2006-12-18 09:49:11 · update #1
This is an amazing, excellent question. You are right on in asking it, too.
It seems that you and I both recognize that the media certainly would not constantly refer to a factory worker as a "factory worker" in every single article written on his murder. But they never fail to remind us that these girls are prostitutes in almost every article. The label begins to replace their names: they were not individual women with names. They were prostitutes. Prostitution erases the name and the identity. Factory work does not: it is stereotypically male work, it doesn't involve sex, it doesn't involve women having financial power over men to acquire the thing men usually get free from their wives.
Many respondents claimed the girls were murdered _because_ they were prostitutes. Prostitutes are represented as always already guilty by default; after all, they force men to pay them for sex, the thing that men (or any other person) would otherwise not have to pay for. They were not "asking" to be murdered. It is absurd to say so. Nobody "asks" to be murdered. This is like saying a woman wearing a miniskirt "asks" to be raped by the act of wearing a miniskirt. The victims are not at fault - but when the victims are prostitutes, they are always figured as such by society. There is an excellent early '90s article on this by Anne McClintock called "Screwing the System: Sexwork, Race, and the Law." I could send it to you if you e-mail me: zsju0601@stcloudstate.edu .
In response to a previous answerer, prostitution most certainly is a job. It would be ridiculous to say that "selling one's body" for sex is _any_ different at all from selling one's body to the office for 40 hours a week. That is, after all, what each person offers in exchange for hourly wages: his or her guaranteed bodily presence. His or her mind and time. Prostitution is no different.
2006-12-20 08:56:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
All I want to say is that is an excellent question which has been misunderstood by most people. If you see the word postmen in a headline you would hardly glance at it. Substitute the word postmen for prostitute and not only would you avidly read it you would have a crowd looking over your shoulder. Love you jeanimus.
2006-12-20 21:53:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think the use of the term has been beneficial, it has tried to imply those at risk, as well as those already murdered, at no time do I remember the police of ipswich saying all women in the area are at risk which by simply using the term women would imply.
Now I suppose they could have beaten about the bush and said working girls, of the variety that sell sex when walking the streets late at night are at risk... one word said it all.
They haven't said anything about drug addicts either, even though at least two of the girls were.
It's about time we stopped trying to be so correct
2006-12-18 16:22:20 · answer #3 · answered by Martin14th 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As they were probably only killed BECAUSE they were prostitutes it is obviously the case that what they did for a living is important. If five people had been murdered BECAUSE they were greengrocers would it have been 'sensationalism' to have mentioned their trade?
2006-12-19 07:37:39 · answer #4 · answered by david f 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
they would if the postmen were killed for being postmen, which seems the case here.
Pisses me off when they say three asian men, or two black women, when race has got eff all to do with the story
2006-12-18 06:32:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would think they would want the public to know that it seems to be the prostitutes this killer is targeting, so that anyone in this profession would be warned of the danger they are placing themselves in.
2006-12-18 06:42:59 · answer #6 · answered by Jooph20 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is what links them, how they came to know each other and possibly the reason they were killed. The fact that they were working girls means that they are easy targets. Also this fact links this crime with Jack the ripper, a kind of omen of things maybe never to be solved?
2006-12-18 08:39:15 · answer #7 · answered by JackLove 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because they sold their bodies for money. Thats prostitution.
What do you think we should call the men who use their services- Interesting!!!!.
These poor girls got into drugs and worked in the sex trade to
pay for them. I think the drug problem is the most frightening
thing around. When will the government and the Police realise that most of the crime commited is because of drugs, and do something serious about them.
2006-12-18 06:39:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
the BBC, this evening, refered to them as 'girls'
It is a legitimate label - they were probably killed _because_ they were prostitutes.
If 5 people were killed because they were postmen, the media would refer to that point.
2006-12-18 06:36:37 · answer #9 · answered by Vinni and beer 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They were prostitutes? Political correctness just serves to irritate right thinking people. A terrorist is a terrorist; a prostitute is a prostitute... Does it offend you? If it does you need a reality check I'm afraid.
2006-12-18 06:46:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋