Maclean’s does it again with insensitive hooker-versus-escorts story
Oh, dear. Maclean’s is at it again. By “it,” we mean courting pointless controversy with unnecessarily provocative headlines. This time, the weekly is attempting to kick up dust with an alarmingly ill-advised blog post comparing and contrasting hookers and escorts. Really, Maclean’s?
The listicle by the usually hilarious Scott Feschuk, titled “Escort v. Hooker: How do they compare?” was posted on the magazine’s Web site early Monday morning, only to be taken down hours later—presumably after the publication realized it was a grossly unfunny piece of yuck, and other publications came out against it. The comparisons are so patently stupid we won’t repeat them (but if you want to see for yourself, there’s a screen grab here).
To Feschuk’s credit, he quickly apologized for the piece on Twitter after he was roundly accused of being both a misogynist and simply “not cool.” Apparently, he intended the piece to be a satirical response to the ways in which the Canadian media characterize “hookers” and “escorts”; however, the words on the screen had an entirely different effect.
As Kate Carraway at Eye points out, Feschuk’s post isn’t really the problem. The much larger issue is the way sex workers are routinely described in the mainstream media. The last word from her story:
Slut-shaming like this, no matter the good intentions of Feschuk or whoever, is always sexist, and is usually classist and racist. It’s not cool, and it’s not—or shouldn’t be—something we do, over and over, as Canadians who think of themselves as tolerant, inclusive, sensible. And it’s getting worse, not better.
.
To Feschuk’s credit, he quickly apologized for the piece on Twitter after he was roundly accused of being both a misogynist and simply “not cool.” Apparently, he intended the piece to be a satirical response to the ways in which the Canadian media characterize “hookers” and “escorts”; however, the words on the screen had an entirely different effect.
As Kate Carraway at Eye points out, Feschuk’s post isn’t really the problem. The much larger issue is the way sex workers are routinely described in the mainstream media. The last word from her story:
Slut-shaming like this, no matter the good intentions of Feschuk or whoever, is always sexist, and is usually classist and racist. It's not cool, and it's not—or shouldn't be—something we do, over and over, as Canadians who think of themselves as tolerant, inclusive, sensible. And it's getting worse, not better.
• Canada’s sex (worker) problem [Eye Weekly]){kind=link}
I’m not sure I understand this intolerance? I mean we are talking about prostitution here? Potentially sexist as escorts do not have to be street workers but could be woman trying to make a living?…but do we want to encourage this type of work in Canada? I’m not sure I would.
Wow. political correctness rears its ugly head again.
Yes, it is a stupid topic to write an article about. However, I am not offended by it, nor do I believe that hookers, escorts, exotic dancers and dominatrices are sitting around in a rage because of it. I don’t believe that a prostitute or exotic dancer can take their jobs too too seriously or they would not be doing it. I don’t think they much less care what people think of them at the end of the day, just so long as they continue to please clients and make their money.
And yes, last I checked there are male prostitutes, escorts and exotic dancers so to make a presumption that a story like this is sexist towards women alone is in itself, sexist. Once again, I am sure that gigolos all around the world are crying and readying their pitchforks.
Fail, Macleans magazine and Torontolife.