(no subject)
I'm on my way to an appt with on my clients, but I wanted to quickly post this link. http://nymag.com/news/features/30018/
This is an article about one of my other girls. I haven't had the chance to read it, but I've been interacting with the writer for a few months and I think my co-workers have been interacting with her for a few years regarding this peice. By skimming it I already find it problematic "child hookers??" I know she's countering that idea, but seeing the term just makes my ass itch. And that pic is a bit too... clear for me. The girl has very identifiable characteristics. I was there for part of the photo shoot, but I missed the ones they took in the park. I dunno, I need to read the article. Anyhoo, Linda, you may remember Lucy (oh and I find that they used her real name problematic as well. even if they only used her first name, it's not exactly a common name) she's the one my supervisor underminded me over regarding that modelling silliness. =/ I need to make an entry about that.
Anyhoo, it's a long article, so if you have some time to set aside, read about one of my girls.
Oh! And I meant to post this article a while back. http://www.legislativegazette.com/read_more.php?story=2116
That one is much shorter and talks about the Safe Harbour for Exploited Children Act that GEMS has been actively involved with trying to get made into law. This would change how underaged girls are treated when they are arrested for prostitution. It's still problematic and the disparity between how they would be treated and how current international trafficked victims are treated would still be worlds apart, but it's a start, I guess. People are having a hard time accepting that young girls of color are victims of sexual exploitation as opposed to just waking up one morning at the age of 12 and deciding that the sex trade would be a great occupation. Anyway, Lucy is also mentioned in this one along with a few of my other girls (whatever happened to "names changed to protect the innocent"? wtf??)
This is an article about one of my other girls. I haven't had the chance to read it, but I've been interacting with the writer for a few months and I think my co-workers have been interacting with her for a few years regarding this peice. By skimming it I already find it problematic "child hookers??" I know she's countering that idea, but seeing the term just makes my ass itch. And that pic is a bit too... clear for me. The girl has very identifiable characteristics. I was there for part of the photo shoot, but I missed the ones they took in the park. I dunno, I need to read the article. Anyhoo, Linda, you may remember Lucy (oh and I find that they used her real name problematic as well. even if they only used her first name, it's not exactly a common name) she's the one my supervisor underminded me over regarding that modelling silliness. =/ I need to make an entry about that.
Anyhoo, it's a long article, so if you have some time to set aside, read about one of my girls.
Oh! And I meant to post this article a while back. http://www.legislativegazette.com/read_more.php?story=2116
That one is much shorter and talks about the Safe Harbour for Exploited Children Act that GEMS has been actively involved with trying to get made into law. This would change how underaged girls are treated when they are arrested for prostitution. It's still problematic and the disparity between how they would be treated and how current international trafficked victims are treated would still be worlds apart, but it's a start, I guess. People are having a hard time accepting that young girls of color are victims of sexual exploitation as opposed to just waking up one morning at the age of 12 and deciding that the sex trade would be a great occupation. Anyway, Lucy is also mentioned in this one along with a few of my other girls (whatever happened to "names changed to protect the innocent"? wtf??)