Iceland bans strip clubs: "The most feminist country in the world"

[Invincible Summer]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...minist-country

Iceland is fast becoming a world-leader in feminism. A country with a tiny population of 320,000, it is on the brink of achieving what many considered to be impossible: closing down its sex industry.
While activists in Britain battle on in an attempt to regulate lapdance clubs – the number of which has been growing at an alarming rate during the last decade – Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down. And forget hiring a topless waitress in an attempt to get around the bar: the law, which was passed with no votes against and only two abstentions, will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees.

I think this is pretty cool. I can imagine some people frowning and going "but what if women want to be strippers and get paid for being nude? The state is oppressing women!" though.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...minist-country

I can imagine some people frowning and going "but what if women want to be strippers and get paid for being nude? The state is oppressing women!" though.

I'd be one of those people. Stripping suffers from unfortunate social stigma. If it didn't, and perhaps even if it did, I'd jump at the opportunity to work in the industry to help pay for school. Unfortunately, I'm a male without the attractiveness criteria.

The problem with stripping is that society demeans it and that clientele are aloud to get away with more than they should be. Aside from that, it's an excellent profession for exhibitionists or anyone trying to make decent money for good pay.

Even if stripping should be eliminated, which is questionable in my view, this type of ban is typical of capitalist democracies. We don't want to solve the social and economic problems that drive people to work as strippers. So because the profession offends us, we'll ban it under the guise of benefiting women.

Every stripper who has now lost their job is, more than likely, going to end up with a lower quality of life. That hardly seems like a victory to me.

[RED DAVE]

Iceland is in the midst of the worst economic crisis in its history. This is probably a conscious attempt on the part of the ruling class to derail protest. If the government wanted to really help strippers, prostitutes, etc., it would ban itself.

RED DAVE

[anticap]

Human sexuality is not "bad" or harmful; there's nothing inherent to the act of stripping that is degrading to anyone (consider lovers in private). However, doing it for money arguably is, the same as any other "cash nexus" relationship between humans arguably degrades them, so banning such things is arguably progressive. In a properly democratic society, people might have come together and agreed on this anyway; and according to the poll mentioned, Icelanders do appear to lean that way.

I support unilateral acts by the ruling class (with criticism as to their undemocratic nature) that achieve things that the working class might likely have done for themselves if they were so empowered. (Another example is media regulation: e.g., were television broadcasts under the control of the workers and the community, it's reasonable to assume that they'd agree not to broadcast certain material at dinnertime when kids were watching; undemocratic laws achieving this are therefore tolerable.)

I'm not familiar with the political climate in Iceland, but in the US this would elicit the usual anti-government howling, and everyone would nod, because, as we all know, the state is an autonomous agent, an outside force, like a dragon that must be slain, rather than an instrument to be manipulated in the interests of one class or another. Nobody would stop to think that in a properly democratic society they might agree to do the same thing. No, no, even speed limits and traffic lights are legitimate source for grumbling, because the dragon did it.

[The Red Next Door]

Instead of baning strip clubs, how about we ban the reasons, why women do this kind of stuff? you know, like poverty. Women choose to strip and sell their bodies for money to provide for their family. Now i know, there women who do this stuff because they lazy. Most women do this stuff to support themselves and their family, and have no other choice to do so.

[Invincible Summer]

I'd be one of those people. Stripping suffers from unfortunate social stigma. If it didn't, and perhaps even if it did, I'd jump at the opportunity to work in the industry to help pay for school. Unfortunately, I'm a male without the attractiveness criteria.

The problem with stripping is that society demeans it and that clientele are aloud to get away with more than they should be. Aside from that, it's an excellent profession for exhibitionists or anyone trying to make decent money for good pay.

I think the problem is that stripping makes sexual power normative. It promotes the idea that women (I know there are male strippers, but I'm sure they're a minority and the problems aren't quite the same) can and should use their sexuality to get what they want, as opposed to other ways that portray themselves as multi-faceted beings.

I'm not saying we need to be all puritan, but there's a level at which sexual liberation can have a reversal of the positive effects. Okay, so women can be comfortable with being openly sexual... but by normalizing that image and conceptualization of the hyper-sexual woman, it limits the notions of what a woman is in society.

Even if stripping should be eliminating, which is questionable in my view, this type of ban is typical of capitalist democracies. We don't want to solve the social and economic problems that drive people to work as strippers. So because the profession offends us, we'll ban it under the guise of benefiting women.

Yeah, it's a reform carried out by a capitalist government.

I don't necessarily think that the profession offended the ruling class and thus they sought to ban it. The ban also affects all payment for sexual services, even topless bars and the like. The population was polled and a great majority of them supported it. The sex industry hurts women.

Even if it's not a radical measure that tackles the root of the problem, you can't say it's not progressive.

Every stripper who has now lost their job is, more than likely, going to end up with a lower quality of life. That hardly seems like a victory to me.

Freeing slaves was a terrible thing.

Iceland is in the midst of the worst economic crisis in its history. This is probably a conscious attempt on the part of the ruling class to derail protest. If the government wanted to really help strippers, prostitutes, etc., it would ban itself.

RED DAVE

Instead of baning strip clubs, how about we ban the reasons, why women do this kind of stuff? you know, like poverty. Women choose to strip and sell their bodies for money to prove for their family. Now i know, there women who do this stuff because they lazy. Most women do this stuff to support themselves and their family, and have no other choice to do so.

Okay, no one said this was a revolutionary moment. I think we all know that such reforms are limited, there's no need to say pointless shit like "the gov't should ban itself to really do anything" and the like.

Just because we're communists doesn't mean that we can't nod and say "That's a decent, progressive move" and acknowledge that sometimes bourgeois governments do things that are okay. We'll build a better system, of course, but basically negating reforms on a principle basis is immature and opportunistic. It reminds me of those people who basically advocate letting societies go to shit so that people can get in a more "revolutionary" mood.

[Dr Mindbender]

Instead of baning strip clubs, how about we ban the reasons, why women do this kind of stuff? you know, like poverty. Women choose to strip and sell their bodies for money to prove for their family. Now i know, there women who do this stuff because they lazy. Most women do this stuff to support themselves and their family, and have no other choice to do so.

...agreed, and while we're at it remove the same motives why men feel the need to visit these places in the first place ie. alienation from society and pressure to live up to unrealistic standards.

[9]

Yeah, the patronizing moralism is all well and good, but could someone explain to me what this offers the working class or oppressed? I mean, there is all this talk about reforms as if this ban actually does something to improve the conditions and lives of the working class, so maybe someone could enlighten me.
Of course, strip clubs are not the problem - they are symptomatic of a system which forces women into a position in which many of them have to either get married or resort to degrading themselves for a wage in order to survive; this system is the problem, not the legality of the particular form this degradation takes. This measure does nothing to address the problem; it simply makes life all the more difficult for those who are in such a situation. Communists have no business supporting “reforms” that make life worse for working class people.
I have two friends who work nights at strip clubs. Both are single mothers in their early twenties, both are fulltime wage slaves at “proper jobs” during the day; both are barely scraping by. They literally depend on the income they earn doing this in order to feed themselves and their kids; if it were made illegal, their situations would quickly become all the more desperate. I know that a lot of women who work in strip clubs are in similar situations. So I ask again; what the hell is this shit supposed to offer the working class? What aspect of this is in any way progressive? What is the content of this ban beyond patronizing and implicitly chauvinistic moralism? Because I sure as hell can’t see any.

[gorillafuck]

Now wealthier feminists won't have to tolerate that some women who already have trouble supporting themselves get extra money by stripping. Awesome.

[Le Libérer]

The new law does not address the issue of men stripping and even though there have been instances of men stripping to "test" the law, they have basically been ignored.

The closing of strip clubs does nothing for the progression of feminism. If anything, it now forces women into prostitution even more. I'm sure the club owners wont be too unhappy about this new law. He will be able to make more money off these women as sex workers anyway. Prostitution is legal in Iceland. Women can advertise as sex workers. Its the men who will be arrested when they are solicited to pay.

[al8]

And from what Dhul tells me, theres no ban on male strippers.

No, I just read the law amendment and the ban on nude shows/nude dancing/stripping pertains to both sexes. The language is such that it refers to them both.

This law ( nr. 85/2007 ) basically revokes the exceptionary permission given to certain restaurant and bar establishments to have stripping legally a part of their buissness. This law has the support of the International House, The Womens shelter, The Society of Womens Rights of Iceland and of The Red Cross in Iceland
But I can't see how this law includes a ban on hired strippers coming to home parties, male or female. There are also pole dancing classes one can take somewhere in Reykjavík - those kinds of things aren't targeted.
The main targets are 3 strip clubs; Goldfinger in Kópavogur. And Vegas and Óðal in Reykjavík.

The following segment I just translated (apologies for any errors) is from a document attached to the amendment which lists some of the reasons for the revocation;

The experience of the last couple of years in the supervision of restaurants which have provided nude dancing in a professional capacity, has been far from good. This regards thing such as police' experience with improper opening times, bad state of employees rights and the non-observance of the ban against private nude shows in closed chambers. [...]
There have been considerable instances in our land that establishments that provide nude dancing hire exclusively young foreign girls which come here to work. It has proven near impossible to determine their lot and circumstance and the their reasons for engaging in this line of work, if they are forced to do so by some means or another.
Research that various European states have conducted have shown that those girls that work in this kind of profession that involves stripping, have been shown to be quite often young, yet above legal age, and to suffer squalor of various kinds, by poverty, alcohol and drug addiction, and in many instances of being victims of human trafficking and/or other crimes.

By reference to the above it is found evident that the need for supervisory and law enforcement in places offering nude dances is in general quit great, seeing as the police have had to have exchanges repeatedly with such places because the laws on opening times have not been respected, as well as there being instances where the investigations of supervisors have been obstructed. Because of this info and in light of the fact that more often than not organized crime organizations provide girls for these professions, it is deemed correct in lieu of human right perspectives and as well as of the common good and law enforcement perspective; to deny completely the permit to authorize restaurants to run activities that provide nude dancing

[Chambered Word]

More like "the most puritanical country in the world". If they really cared about the rights of women, they'd disband the government and hand over the power to the working class.

[Le Libérer]

No, I just read the law amendment and the ban on nude shows/nude dancing/stripping pertains to both sexes. The language is such that it refers to them both.

Agreed, thats why I edited it before you quoted me. I asked about it further and how it related to men. Though from what I read, they really arent focusing on male strippers even tho men there have tried to challenge the law.

Another point, (I was informed of) When these clubs first opened, there werent many women in Iceland that wanted to strip. The club owners had to import the women from Quebec and Russia.

So now whats available for these women? Iceland is bankrupt, theres no real opportunities there.

[Jazzratt]

Oh fucking way to go. Iceland has closed down a load of workplaces, introducing even more unemployed people to their fucked economy. It's laughable to imagine that the people made joblesss because of this are going to find fulfilling or unexploitative work. If feminism means denying jobs for a working class hit hard by economic crisis then I am no feminist.

[Ravachol]

Great move, banning a profession in the working-class segment of society so that the position of said women on the labour market detoriates even further, driving them into the hands of either illegal sex-industry rings or in a position open to more exploitation in other segments of the labour market.

If one wants to help these working class females forced to sell their bodies, abolishing wage labour is the way to go. In a society free from the yoke of wage labour, perform sex-related labour is on a free and consensual base. Opposition to that would only come from religious reactionaries or liberal moralists, not true socialists.

[al8]

More like "the most puritanical country in the world". If they really cared about the rights of women, they'd disband the government and hand over the power to the working class.

Actually nudity isn't such a big deal in Iceland, at least not generally. I've never noticed the same amount skin fetish I find common among amongst North Americans. Basically all our domestically produced motion pictures and some of our TV shows, contain full nudity. And they are allowed for all age groups and some are shown on prime time on national TV. And there is never the kind of drama and silly outrage one saw in the states when Janet Jacksons nipple popped out.

However there is a tendency amongst Icelandic women, more so old social democratic ones and some stripes of feminist single issue enthusiasts, to have a gripe against other women of more sexual prowess. They also like to vilify and misinterpret the sexuality of males a lot. They oppose such things as the pornographisation of society and commercialization of fucking - but not commercialization in general.

A disallowal of untrustworthy and sleazy restaurants to be strip joints, is understandable and neither a bad thing or good thing unless its the only method used. If it had been in junction with providing the out of work strippers/prostitudes with other means of obtaining similar amount money -- that is if they weren't debt/sex slaves, in which case the should be freed and assisted -- that would have been appropriate.

[al8]

Another point, (I was informed of) When these clubs first opened, there werent many women in Iceland that wanted to strip. The club owners had to import the women from Quebec and Russia.

I've heard that too though I can't substantiate it. What I can say is there has been a general tendency of getting foreigners to do most of the, difficult, dangerous, dirty, low-paid, socially stigmatized jobs. It's very useful for employers, because language barriers usually isolate workers and effectively cut out any chance of a networking with or organizing on a class basis. It's usually Poles with good contacts and already existing network of Poles that do alright.

So now whats available for these women? Iceland is bankrupt, theres no real opportunities there.

I'm not certain. It would depend on the person and her devices. If they had formal jobs they might qualify for unemployment benefits. That system is in general more hostile to foreigners though. There are the usual relief orgs. There is possibly work abroad. I really can't say. It must be a headache for many of the strippers.

[Glenn Beck]

Some quotes from the article:

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold."

Of course anyone can say that, this one's more interesting:

According to Icelandic police, 100 foreign women travel to the country annually to work in strip clubs [in a tiny country of about 300,000 - G.B.]. It is unclear whether the women are trafficked, but feminists say it is telling that as the stripping industry has grown, the number of Icelandic women wishing to work in it has not.

Also note: in Iceland, like in Norway and Sweden, prostitution is also illegal. However, what is illegal is buying sex and not selling it: the prostitute commits no crime. Just because individuals that become involved in the sex trade "know what they are getting into" doesn't mean they aren't getting exploited. That's an absolutely miserable libertarian argument the logical conclusion of which supports capitalist wage slavery; after all, the worker knows what they are getting into and is actively consenting to the labor contract!

The fact of the matter is that this is a progressive measure: sexual services are not "just another job", they are more deeply connected to the inequalities and caste systems of our world than most other professions. Sex workers are not just workers but they are almost entirely women, children, homosexuals, or a combination of these. They are far more likely to come from marginalized and oppressed ethnic groups and from impoverished and oppressed nations. In so many wealthy European countries the majority of sex workers aren't the native women, raised in societies where worker's and women's rights movements have made bigger gains than anywhere else in the world. They are women from neoliberal hellholes in Asia and Eastern Europe.

Beneath it all, there is an inherent power relation in sex work far more powerful than most forms of traditional wage labor: it's not the purchase of labor power or even "service", it's more like rental slavery: the purchase of bodies without agency. It's a world where there are two kinds of people, the people whose bodies are property for trade and the people whose desires need to be carried out: generally a poor woman and a wealthy man. I'm sorry, it's not just another job. Everyone here knows their Marx, and what happens to human capacities that become commodified. Commodifying my ability to wash dishes -- and dishwashing is a pretty shitty job -- is not nearly as much an affront to my dignity as commodifying my sexuality, making me fake intimacy and interest until it becomes second nature to me. Let's not sensationalize and stereotype that all sex workers turn into basketcases, but let's not fucking sweep the very real damage caused by these practices under the rug. There are certain places a person can be in this world that are simply traumatic, and no degree of enlightened individual choice is going to stop that.

This is not a moralistic ban, meant to repress the problem out of existence. The Scandinavian policies for the abolition of the sex trade are a measure of empowerment and a corrective to the oppressive relationship between sex workers and those who employ them. Under these laws, a sex worker doesn't commit any crime, but their client or employer does. In effect a sex worker doesn't have anything to fear from the law because the law says that no matter what happens, the sex worker is always right. This policy is an ADVANCE on what most people here advocate under capitalism (including myself), which is the decriminalization of all sex work and the enforcement of public standards in favor of the rights of these workers. This policy encompasses decriminalization and then goes further by providing the legal basis to abolish this very particular form of exploitation.

And finally, this lovely little objection that everyone has raised, with such self-assured indignation. Abolishing the sex trade will hurt the livelihoods of sex workers. Sex workers are doing what they are doing to survive, to support their families!

And this is O.K...why, exactly? Every worker does what they do to survive. Does that mean we never advocate the abolition of certain kinds of particularly inhumane forms of work, or support workers when they fight for demands that might lead to, say, retaliatory layoffs?

While it's very appealing on a superficial level this argument is not only unconvincing but frankly, reactionary. This is an argument for child labor and sweatshops, an argument that is essentially neoliberal. You don't think the families that sent their children to work needed the money? Why else would they send their beloved children to work often dangerous jobs in miserable conditions? I'm sure when child labor was abolished in the west there were misguided leftists closing ranks with the Chambers of Commerce and condemning the abolitionists as moralists. Surely those kids know what they are getting into, they put themselves through this to feed their family. They don't need some nosy outsiders coming in telling them they should be in school, how condescending!

That's what everyone said: if you get rid of child labor families will starve. Of course that thinking was smalltime; if children were out of the workforce then owners had to expand employment and pay out better wages or face the wrath of the same workers that liberated their children. I don't need to find a source, I'm pretty confident there were hardships in the short term. I'm also pretty confident that nobody was sad to see the practice go (except for the capitalists, of course). Are we seriously clamoring for the preservation of some of the most oppressive and exploitative jobs because people just happen to be doing them? Are we to celebrate exploited migrant workers too, "at least they have jobs"? Don't give them the minimum wage, if you do the jobs will dry up and half of them will have to go back to Central America. Just let them wait for the revolution.

If you think this comparison is dramatic then take note of the context, in a country where most strippers are immigrants from Eastern Europe, one of the world capitals of sex slavery and human trafficking, and al8's translated excerpt from the law detailing the rationale. Nobody is benefiting from these social conditions except the empresarios and mafiosi behind the strip clubs and titty bars. Hopefully Iceland will come through in providing the necessary services to integrate these people, but if they don't then that is grounds for militant action to demand relief, not hand-wringing over the awful laws against the sex trade. The fact that the women's shelters seem to be backing this legislation gives me a glimmer of hope that they won't get away with leaving the job half finished.

[pastradamus]

Im not even going to look at this from the whole Womens Rights side of things. Instead, im going to look at it for what it really is - the government forcing people out of work - based on some condecending morality issue in order to create a smoke-screen over the real problems of the Icelandic government. The fact of the matter is that many people have just lost their jobs because of this Condecending decision.

We see moves like this all over the world when economies get turned upside down. One common tactic is to divide workers on the basis of public/private sector, another is to appeal to their morality, either religious or social. We've already seen it in Amsterdam where many of the cannabis café's and legalised prostitution area's have been closed down.

[Invincible Summer]

So what I get from this thread is that if abolishing slavery puts people out of work, then they should stay in slavery?