Three days ago a law suit was filed in California against actor Steven Seagal. The woman who filed the civil suit, Kathryn Nguyen, 23, apparently found an ad on Craigslist for an executive assistant. She was taken to New Orleans after her third interview. When she got there she found two Russian “assistants” that Seagal was apparently keeping in his home, on call 24/7 for sex. According to Nguyen, Seagal attacked her several times and forced her to take “illegal pills.” According to Seagal, she is upset because he fired her for drug abuse. However, since Nguyen came forward several other women have come out saying that he assaulted them, as well, one of them being actress and comedian Jenny McCarthy.

My concern here is less for Nguyen who has felt empowered enough to employ all appropriate resources & and take action; she will inevitably be taken care of (despite the misogynistic assumption that she is doing this for money – note the condescending dollar signs in the linked post). My concern is even less for McCarthy who left the interaction physically unharmed and untouched. My concern is for the two nameless, faceless and presumably missing  Russian immigrant women. Where are these women and why haven’t they been taken either a) into custody or b) FROM SEAGAL!? In all of the news on this story there is no mention of of these women beyond Nguyen’s assertion that there were two Russian sex slaves in Seagal’s house.

It has been estimated that sex trafficking will be the number one crime worldwide by the end of this year. This link to the Polaris Project’s compiled statistics is unbelievable. Why don’t people know that there are more slaves right now than at any other point in history and that sex trafficking is the most prolific form? Why is no one talking about it in a meaningful and urgent way? I can only hope that it is not because the overwhelming majority are mostly sex slaves, and than that, by nature, is a “woman’s issue.” We have to use this unfortunate opportunity to ask these questions.

Our most mainstream point of reference of late was a mildly catty interaction between Demi Moore and Kim Kardashian a few weeks ago, but that played out more like an episode of “Desperate Housewives” than an intelligent conversation as far as I’m concerned. Even with Seagal’s story making headlines and our nightly news there is absolutely no discussion of the sex trade in the mass media. By contrast, working in predominantly activist and academic circles, we have the work of Ben Skinner who actively & purposefully threw himself into following the global human slave trade, and became the first person in history to view the sale of human being on 4 continents. His book A Crime So Monstrous: Face to Face with Modern Day Slavery is his account of what he has witnessed.

On a far smaller scale, I have also been witness to the difficulty that some of these young women have in getting out of these situations. I worked for Neighborhood Legal Services in their Domestic Violence Legal Self-help Clinic in Los Angeles. It is admittedly hard enough for American women who are victims of domestic violence to get out of these potentially life threatening situations, but immigrant women are often much more fettered. Whether it be the language barrier, confusion about the law, their immigration status, or literal bondange the odds against them are crushing.

Whatever outcome is in store for Seagal we have a much larger problem here that needs to become part of our social dialogue in way that will produce real local and global change for these women. Not just bad reality t.v.

Twitter is an excellent forum for disseminating and sharing information. It’s also a good place for constructive dialogue and debates to begin. Demi’s critique of Kim Kardashian’s causal reference to “big pimpin'” is evidence of that.

In the wake of the media coverage of this celebrity “feud,” Rachel Lloyd digs deeper. Her post (minus the original twitter exchange) follows below (originally posted at HufPo and crossposted at Ms. Magazine’s FB page and now crossposted here).

There’s been lots of coverage in the last 24 hours on the Twitter ‘feud’ between Demi Moore and Kim Kardashian. Yet the glaring omission from all the articles, blogs and commentary is any real analysis of Demi’s point – that we glamorize and glorify pimp culture, use terminology that seems to legitimize the practice, and in doing so ignore the fact that pimps are modern-day slave-owners.
(more…)

Bonnie Fuller posted an article at the Huffington Post yesterday called, “Cougars and MILFS rule! 40 Year-Old Women are WAY hotter than 20 Year-Olds.” While I appreciate the celebration of more mature women as desirable, intelligent and beautiful beings, I was put off by the title.  Maybe it’s just me but I don’t find the term”cougar” or “MILF” flattering. Second, the article mentions women such as Sandra Bullock, Valerie Bertinelli (giving her props for her latest People Magazine cover in which she dons a bikini and shows off her 48 year-old body), Cindy Crawford and her nude cover for Allure Magazine, Julia Riberts and Nicole Kidman to name a few.

Fuller states that this is evidence that age is no longer an issue:

Need more evidence that Age has gone the way of the dinosaur? It used to be that the standard Hollywood refrain for Hollywood actresses was that there were boohoo, no good roles, for them, moan moan, over the age of 40. As for magazines: cover models used to be doomed once they hit 30.

And if an actress became a mother, it was the kiss of death, instantly zapping their sex appeal. Society was like Elvis, who couldn’t get hot and bothered for Priscilla once she gave birth to Lisa Marie.

Now here’s the new evidence: Julia Roberts mom of three, 41, is the much admired star of the new crime thriller, Duplicity. Meryl Streep, 59, and Nicole Kidman, 41, still can’t keep up with the roles they’re offered. Michelle Pfeiffer, 50, stars as the ultimate cougar courtesan in the soon-to-be released film Cheri. Courtney Cox, 44, is also starring in a new sitcom, appropriately entitled, Cougartown. Salma Hayek, 42, and Sandra Bullock, 44, just rocked on the last two covers of In Style magazine. Oh, and Calista Flockhart, 44, is to be Hollywood’s latest blushing bride after finally bringing Harrison Ford to his knees.

Call them cougars or call them MILFS, just don’t call them over. Let’s discuss Demi Moore, 46, and Madonna, 50. The two Kabbalists are the envy of younger women everywhere. Demi, for her sexy, un-plastic-surgery-looking looks and devoted 15 years-younger, GORGEOUS husband, Ashton Kutcher, 31, who Twittered this shot of her over the weekend, and Madonna for her rock hard body and years younger lovers, A-Rod, 33, and Jesus Luz, 22.

Where do I start?

Well, first of all, Cindy Crawford’s sudsy nude centerfold graces Allure’s anti-aging issue in which Crawford shares her “secrets” on remaining in shape after children and reveals her anti-aging secrets as well.  Surprise! Surprise! Crawford has her own line of anti-aging product that I would imagine fetch quite a price. This reminds me of an ad campaign  Christie Brinkley did several years ago for an anti-aging moisturizer with the caption, “In don’t mind aging…as long as I don’t look like it.” Uh?  Contradiction?  Schizophrenic messages? Not to mention that fact that the caption next to her photograph says,” This is what 43 looks like.”

Uh, not really.  Um, not at all.

I don’t know a lot of 43 year-old women or for that matter 23 year-old women that look like Crawford.  I also don’t now a lot of women that have the time, money or energy to maintain her exercise regimen.  Let’s face it, Cindy Crawford is not like most of us.

Trainer.  Nutritionist. Chef. Nanny, Pilates instructor. Yoga instructor. Boot camp.  Stylist.  MONEY! Oh, and, lets add in photoshop, please.

The other women mentioned in the article don’t reflect the average woman either.  The culture has come to “accept” more mature women (if that’s what you want to call it) and, personally, I enjoy being a 30-something woman a lot more than I enjoyed being a 20-something woman.  But, I don’t feel this article focused on women that represent the average woman nor do I feel this article focused  on what truly makes a woman over 30 sexy: her intellect, her life experience, her charisma or the complexity of her character.  In keeping with the mainstream culture’s obsession with a narrow standard of physical beauty, the article spends too much time discussing the physical appearance of women that don’t actually look their age but appear much younger thanks to products and services their celebrity status can afford them

In the end, the reality is that the culture has come to “accept” women over 30 as long as they still look like they are in their 20s.