Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Eugene weekly. (Eugene, Oregon) 1993-current | View Entire Issue (July 15, 2004)
TO THE EDITOR vote for Baby Bush. Many of the elite who supported Bush’s oily adventures now real- ize that the Iraq war wasn’t able to deliver the desired cheap oil. Kerry will be better for selling a continued oil war, the resumption of the draft, and the seizure of Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, and will be more likely to get European money and troops to help with this. If you doubt this, ask why Bush is suddenly getting lousy media coverage, and if this is a giant clue that the financial interests who run the empire will be able to continue most of their scams under Kerry. The only way Bush will be re-selected is if Cheney perpetrates another 9/11 to disrupt the election. October Surprise? Mark Robinowitz Eugene IS PETE FOR PEACE? I participated in the Washington, D.C., lobbying day in early June for the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. I visited both the offices of Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio. In both places, the leg- islative aides emphatically asserted that the representatives supported a peaceful resolu- tion to the Israel-Palestine conflict. These comments notwithstanding, Oregon Democratic congressmen voted as a block on June 23 when they endorsed House Concurrent Resolution 460 in support of the Sharon-Bush agreement of this spring. This resolution gives de facto approval of Israel’s annexation of large areas of West Bank land and takes off the table the right of return, even though both measures run counter to in- ternational law, U.N. resolutions, and against decades of U.S. policy. I am not sure which districts our delega- tion think they are representing. With our large peace and justice activist communities and well-informed electorate, they cannot imagine that their grassroots supporters agree with these votes. It makes one wonder if they are more concerned about the Likkud Party than about Oregonians. DeFazio has been the most progressive member of the Oregon delegation on this issue, so it is especially unfortunate that he did not vote his conscience, but voted elec- tion campaign fear. As EW readers know, all this is happening in the context of the human rights tragedy of the massive house demolition project in Gaza and the Wall construction in the West Bank. Pete, how could you? Nancy Hedrick Portland BY MEGAN SCHMIDT Ask Yourselves Why is EW willing to subjugate women? F or all of the EW’s forward reporting on sexual misconduct and sexual violence against women, including the recent Magaña and Neil Goldschmidt cases, I am dismayed by your continued economic relationship with the sex industry. A look through your back-page ads on any given week yields head- lines such as, “Girls 18 and Over,” “Eugene’s Hottest Ladies,” and “Escorts Available,” ac- companied by silhouettes of women on their knees or all fours (a reference to both anal and oral penetration being available) and in other sexualized positions. While EW has touted itself as being ahead of major newspapers on progressive issues, EW has contin- ued to support itself with sex industry ads. Feminists and other researchers have demonstrated an undeniable link between the pervasiveness of pornography and prostitution with sexual violence against women. In my own research on attitudes toward prostitution and sexual violence in men, I found that men who held attitudes supportive of prostitution were more likely to have raped and sexually assaulted women than men who did not hold these views. It is also well known that parts of the industry considered “soft-core,” such as “escort services” and strip clubs, which you routinely advertise, are often fronts for prostitution and traffick- ing of women and children, many of whom are routinely beaten, coerced, and addicted to drugs and alcohol. Prostitution myths, like rape myths, direct attention away from the choices of men to rape, prostitute and purchase women’s bodies. Myths regarding pornography/prostitu- tion, such as: “Women choose to do it;” “Women like it;” “Women make lots of money in it;” and “It’s a job like any other;” are extremely misinformed and misogynistic attitudes that serve to normalize and thereby uphold the pornography and prostitution institu- tions. Let me supply readers with some actual statistics. The vast majority, upward of 70 percent, of women in prostitution/pornography have sexual abuse histories, usually by 6 JULY 15, 2004 men they know (i.e. fathers, brothers, partners). In a study of one le- galized prostitution setting, the Mustang Ranch, 100 percent of women turned over their entire earnings to a man on the outside, usually a husband or partner. In an international study on the inci- dence and prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder among pros- tituted women in five countries, the rate of PTSD was found to be nearly 80 percent as compared to 1 to 14 percent in the general public. Ninety percent of women in the latter study stated they wanted to leave prostitution but feared for their lives if they did. Studies have replicated findings numerous times that pornography use is strongly associated with recidivism among sexual perpetrators. Yet, EW actively supports the purchasing of women’s bodies with its advertisements. I f we were talking about any other class condition, such as poverty or race, the en- slavement and exploitation of these groups would be viewed as outrageous, akin to racial slavery and sweatshops. Gender is a class condition and yet the sexual slav- ery of women is overlooked and marginalized in dialogues even in our most progressive communities. I am sure EW would not accept money from and run ads for the white su- premacist groups or corporations hiring sweatshop workers. Yet, EW continuously prints advertisements from the sex industry — an industry that clearly decreases quality of life for women and girls, as well as boys. I challenge EW to see itself as part of the problem of violence against women by its continued choice to economically support the sex industry. Once again, if we were talk- ing about any other class condition, our progressive leadership would urge us not to economically support an industry that is harmful to others. Ask yourselves, is pornogra- phy or prostitution something you would choose willingly? EW’s actions reduce the cre- ation of meaningful jobs for women, and contribute to a climate of sexism where women are dehumanized, viewed as objects, as readily available for sex, and as enjoying sub- mission and male dominance. Megan Schmidt of Eugene has a doctorate in clinical psychology with a specialty in feminist and gender issues and sexual violence prevention programming.
