A haven for elderly sex workers in Mexico City
January 9, 2018 2:36 PM   Subscribe

Casa Xochiquetzal opened in 2006 by former sex worker Carmen Munoz as a haven for her aging colleagues. More in a brief interview from the founder here. A bit more on the house and its rules from a 2014 interview and photoseries here. And a link to that photographer's full gallery (and other work) is here. And the house's Twitter feed is here and their website is here (in Spanish).
posted by stillmoving (4 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite
 
I love the article overall, and the photography. However, as a sex worker, I'd like to weigh in for a moment on language ...

"SEX WORKER" vs. "PROSTITUTE": There is a push within the sex industry to do away with the highly stigmatized term "prostitute" in favor of the still-stigmatized-but-a-bit-less-stigmatized term "sex worker." The latter is slowly making its way into more mainstream usage, especially among feminists. We're not there yet but we're making progress.

Interestingly, the main linked New York Times article includes both terms. The word "prostitute" is used four times in the article and once in a photo caption. But you'll notice that in quotes, the shelter's director and one of the women use the term "sex worker." (You can see in the URL that the original headline was something like "Mexico Prostitutes Shelter"; now, it reads "... Sex Workers Find a Haven.") In contrast, a BBC article about the shelter never uses the term "prostitute" — only "sex worker."

I suppose I can imagine a journalist and/or editor hesitant to use only the term "sex worker," as it encompasses a broad range of legal and illegal jobs — everything from street walking to escorting to stripping to camming to porn performances. "Prostitute" sort of specifies the type of work faster than "sex worker." But that's not a good enough excuse for me. The specific type of sex work is abundantly clear from the rest of the article. I wish the NYT would get on board with the appropriate, stigma-minimizing terminology.

Terminology is a signal. In my experience, people who use "sex worker" as their default terminology are not only more likely to be informed about sex work, but more likely to want to be increasingly informed about sex work. (Hi, lots of members of MetaFilter!) They tend to listen better, even if they're not always completely informed from the outset.

It is also in the best interest of news organizations to use terminology that doesn't stigmatize sex workers, because you know who has a LOT of click-y information that news organizations would like to know? SEX WORKERS! We're in the loop on everything from economic trends to lifestyle trends to celebrities to corruption to crime. Never mind that we've got a whole lot of thought-provoking op-eds. We can help news organizations ... if we believe that they aren't part of the problem.

(Of course, news organizations probably aren't inclined to believe this. They get juuust enough stories from the sex industry — such as this one — to believe that they're getting a lot of the stories. In reality, they have no idea how much they're missing.)

I will concede that the stigma follows the job more than it does the terminology. Maybe in a couple decades, we'll have to switch to a different term. But for now, most everyone who knows anything about sex workers and cares at all about them is using the term "sex worker," not "prostitute."

Side note: I assume that some or all of these interviews were translated from Spanish. Maybe someone fluent in Spanish can weigh in on comparable terminology for "sex worker" and "prostitute" in Spanish? I'm curious.

“It is a recurrent fact that family members, even their children, abandon them, even hurt them, when they find out they are sex workers,” said Jesica Vargas González, the shelter’s director. “It is still a very stigmatized occupation.”

I can't tell you how many of my friends engage in sex work in order to provide for their children, while simultaneously harboring a fear that their children will hate them for it.
posted by Peppermint Snowflake at 4:11 PM on January 9, 2018 [16 favorites]


I wish the NYT would get on board with the appropriate, stigma-minimizing terminology.

This. So much this. I loved the photos but winced at some of the language.

comparable terminology for "sex worker" and "prostitute" in Spanish?

They were likely saying "trabajador(a) sexual," but there are other words, including both pejorative terms and reclaiming of those terms. I wish they included the original language as well as the translations, since the linguistic choices people make on this are so illuminating (such as the NYT's poor choices).
posted by Dip Flash at 5:56 PM on January 9, 2018 [1 favorite]


Interesting stuff. I guess most people don't stop to think what happens when that life is retired from.
posted by Samizdata at 1:35 AM on January 10, 2018


Peppermint Snowflake, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts and experience. Yes, I was shocked by the casual (and crass) interchangeability of the NYT's language, too! The Casa Xochiquetzal website does only use the term "sex worker," so I would guess that (giving the Times the benefit of the doubt), some interviewees may have used "prostitute," or a similar colloquial term ("prostituta," "puta," "guila," etc) that was then translated into prostitute rather than sex worker. But more likely, they're just not providing stigma-reducing language, which is a massive editorial oversight.
posted by stillmoving at 12:52 PM on January 11, 2018


« Older Your regular dose of What The Fuck !   |   The Science of Loneliness Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments