Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
starman

27 top academics launch attack on "seriously flawed" government-funded research

12 posts in this topic

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/03/research.women

Top academics involved in sex research have launched an attack on "seriously flawed" government-funded research into British brothels

....

The group of 27 key figures in sex work research from prestigious universities across the UK and overseas claim the report was conducted with neither ethical approval nor acknowledgment of evidence and co-authored by a journalist known for producing anti-prostitution findings.

********************************************************

dubious research is also being done in Canada

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2008/10/03/6961991-sun.html

Never mind the drugs and booze that go hand-in-hand with the sex trade - prostitution itself is an addiction.

...there must be specialized rehab for people addicted to a lifestyle that's built around fast, easy money, living on the edge and the heady rush of power over others.

Her research found that, by far, most women go into it for the fast money, and it's that easy cash that becomes the most addictive part.

I assume it is it better that those women clean toilets at McDonald's for shitty money, and will have to work until they're 70 without having been able to save a penny?

and what about stock trading, isn't that a high stress occupation where the lure is fast, easy money, and some people use drugs to put up with working 80hours a week etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Links to critiques of "The Big Brothel" report.

The first is by Dr Petra Boynton (UCL)

http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/

This is a summary af the critique she links to, that has been sent to the Poppy Project, Harman & The Home Office

http://www.drpetra.co.uk/resources/B...onseSept08.pdf

& here's the full critique:

http://www.drpetra.co.uk/resources/A...Sept2008-1.pdf

link #2 and #3 don't work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this for the full report:

http://www.drpetra.co.uk/resources/AcademicResponseBigBrothelSept2008-1.pdf

& the summary

http://www.drpetra.co.uk/resources/BigBrothelAcademicSummResponseSept08.pdf

What I do find interesting about The Guardian piece is that they do not provide an opportunity for readers to assess the validity of the critique for themselves, by providing a link to either of the documents above, but do provide one to the Poppy Project's response to it. Sort of shows the editorial bias of a newspaper that would employ Julie Bindel (strange how she claims not to be an academic, in their response, yet presents herself as such to the publilc, Government & the judiciary).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/03/research.women

Top academics involved in sex research have launched an attack on "seriously flawed" government-funded research into British brothels

....

The group of 27 key figures in sex work research from prestigious universities across the UK and overseas claim the report was conducted with neither ethical approval nor acknowledgment of evidence and co-authored by a journalist known for producing anti-prostitution findings.

Has Julie Bindel accused them all of being pimps yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading the full report it seems even they have fallen for the trap of what the word trafficked actually means

'Migrant' is not the same as 'trafficked', however, and evidence shows that many migrants make rational choices to travel from home and work in the sex industry (e.g. Agustin, 2006).

Well actually trafficked simply means that someone else helped them come into the country so it pretty much does mean that. Trafficked does not equal coerced or enslaved and neither those words nor any similar words appear in any legislation on trafficked persons. They're helped, they work in a brothel, the person who helped them knew this was why they were coming, she's trafficked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I do find interesting about The Guardian piece is that they do not provide an opportunity for readers to assess the validity of the critique for themselves, by providing a link to either of the documents above, but do provide one to the Poppy Project's response to it. Sort of shows the editorial bias of a newspaper that would employ Julie Bindel (strange how she claims not to be an academic, in their response, yet presents herself as such to the publilc, Government & the judiciary).

I think that's a bit harsh on the Grauniad. This article by Diane Taylor, and her earlier one (there may have been more that I've missed) demonstrate a degree of even-handedness on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that's a bit harsh on the Grauniad. This article by Diane Taylor, and her earlier one (there may have been more that I've missed) demonstrate a degree of even-handedness on the issue.

Ah, but the thread you link to above was excluded from the most popular threads listings, even though it was well up there that week.

When the following thread came out, about 7 days later:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/17/women.gender?commentpage=1

there were 1007 comments in the debate, most of which supported the author's anti-criminalisation stance, yet the editors decided that a post questioning whether any woman could ever choose to be a sex worker was representative enough to be listed amongst the best of the comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the give away was in the title (ie that the research is flawed)

Big Brothel...Big Brother

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/03/research.women

Top academics involved in sex research have launched an attack on "seriously flawed" government-funded research into British brothels

....

The group of 27 key figures in sex work research from prestigious universities across the UK and overseas claim the report was conducted with neither ethical approval nor acknowledgment of evidence and co-authored by a journalist known for producing anti-prostitution findings.

********************************************************

,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
• This article was amended on Wednesday October 8 2008, to make clear that the research referred to here was not government-funded.

yeah, but nobody (except me) will read this

:):D... As I am about to re-read the article again...Please

do not test me on what was said though (as proof of reading)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0