Sunday, October 08, 2006

All right, then, worms away.

You know, I keep going back and forth between being exasperated, pissed off, and just sort of amused by this shit. But, okay. Amanda Marcotte tells it as she sees it:

One example that stuck in my craw recently was on a thread that Marc started because he was a bit shocked at how vile the advertising for rape porn is and belledame, straining to rearrange the pro-porn side to explain this shit away, went on a long rant about how it’s understandable that men have all this anger because of the oppressive patriarchal imperialism etc. etc. in their lives, all of which is true enough but not exactly unknown. She half-excused this stuff with this:

Me, I just keep flashing on this song title. it was a favorite of my best friend’s abusive asshole brother. “I Want You To Hurt Like I Hurt.”

These feelings of powerlessness and invasion are unbearable. Quick, pass them to someone else. -dump the load- Ah, that’s better.

And I retorted:

Nice theory, belledame. If the anger that leads to rape is caused by feeling powerless, then women should rape more than men since we feel that powerlessness more than men. But we don’t. Why?

Because it’s not about powerlessness. It’s about feeling entitled to have what you want on demand and then, when you don’t get it, throwing a temper tantrum like a spoiled brat.

This anger at not getting what isn’t yours will only disappear when we quit coddling and spoiling men and telling them they are entitled to have what isn’t actually theirs.

It seems so simple to me, and it’s also the middle ground between the two camps. It concedes to the pro-porn side that fantasies are a reflection of society, but it refuses to go along with the idea that fantasies themselves are somehow beyond analysis or criticism that makes the person clinging to the fantasy responsible for his own hatefulness...


***

There's more, a lot more, at the site, if you've an interest; it's all about AM's personal journey wrt the porn business and male sexual demands and the "patriarchy" and so on and so forth. I'm just there as an illustration, really. And there is stuff that I actually agree with, pretty much:

Thinking it all through, it doesn’t seem that hard to admit both that most porn is vile while also admitting that it doesn’t have to be that way, a solid middle ground between the pro and anti camps. So why is there this notion that common ground can’t be found? My theory is that it’s because the anti-porn feminists fled to legal recourse so quickly...

or, well, that's ONE thing, the legal business; but, well, Bitch Lab or someone (one of the actual radical feminists, I mean; well, maybe that is what delphyne was saying in the comments there, she's said it in so many words before; strangely enough, i couldn't really bear to look at that whole mess) could be along in a moment to explain why actually it's all rooted in the radical feminist theory, which she's been saying for months now but Amanda isn't gonna know on account of she delinked BL in a fit of pique during the last contretemps (in which we learn that treating a random near-anonymous blogger like a pinata and/or blank screen for all one's own mishegoses is not only fine and dandy but Serious Feminist Critique, O.K.) And Amanda, I am getting the strong impression lately, not the world's most curious person, at least when it comes to stuff that doesn't pretty much directly concern her.

But yes, there OUGHT to be "middle ground." That has in fact been sort of my project all along? or ONE of them. probably the incandescent rage doesn't help so much in this project, i admit, o.k. But I will say that there are now some radical feminists whom, while we disagree on a lot, I respect a lot more than, well...

Anyway. Since this is my site and this is all about me, I'm gonna just recenter this one a tad:

Numero uno
: For those just tuning in. I NEVER FRIGGING SAID NOT TO ANALYZE MOTHERFUCKING PORN. Or sex, or any goddam thing else. Hello. I asked for MORE (deeper! harder!) analysis of this shit.

what i have been SAYING is, "ain't this awful" is NOT CRITIQUE. Understandable, sure. But in itself? Not terribly interesting. To me. Maybe to you. If so, you know what: knock yourself out. I've been to that rodeo before, see. Misogyny: not news. Rape happens a lot, and it's hideous, no shit. The existence of rape porn: not a shock. (Yes, I know, not to you either, you're "not ladylike," here's your cookie/ladyfinger). Thank you.

Numero two-o
: I am not on a "pro-porn side." Not the way you and a lot of people (thanks again, if there's one thing i needed it was reinforcement of the widespread perception that I am Miz Flaming Porn Apologist And Male Enabling Patriarchy Fucker) seem to think, which leads to:

Numero the third and most important: And, while it may seem "so simple" to you, it isn't to some of the rest of us.

Here's why:

For some of us it isn't all about motherfucking men
. Or about RELATIONS between frigging MEN and WOMEN.

Get it now?

I talk about (straight) men and their sexuality in this way because I CAN. Because it simply isn't so weighted for me. Because I find it interesting, in an anthropological sort of way;

and also, as someone who ALSO has been repeatedly told that her sexuality was foul icky disgusting sinister and/or simply frivolous, must you be so SELFISH--hell, here's one more way I relate: desire for WOMEN in particular--I, weirdly, kind of sympathize.

And yet, not.

Because, and I know this may come as a shock to some people, but I, too, am a WOMAN and yes! Have been subject to the vagaries of institutionalized misogyny my VERY OWN SELF. Honest and for true: I really don't need you or your straight male pals to explain this experience to me. Dim, "intellectually dishonest" (you're awfully fond of that phrase lately, aren't you, Amanda?) though I or at least some of the people I love and respect obviously am. Are. Be. Whatthefuckever.

gah. You know, and there is also a reason why I feel as empathetic as I do to brownfemipower and Black Amazon and the rest of the bloggers of color who have their own frustrations right now.

Because, how many fucking ways are there to explain, hello, some people have OTHER EXPERIENCES OF MARGINALIZATION IN ADDITION TO YOURS? which is not to say "o, okay, you win in the Oppression Olympics," but means OUR EXPERIENCES ARE DIFFERENT?

and, further, are now feeling extremely marginalized, by, among other things and people...you. Yep, that's right. Which stings more, supposed ally, we-are-all-in-this-together. Well apparently no, we fucking aren't, after all.

Not because you don't mean well. Not because you're deep-down bone-racist/homophobic/EVOL/whatever.

Because you just don't pay close attention. Because you aren't CURIOUS enough to do so.

(and here broaden this to a general you; it's hardly as though you're unique in this)

And meaning well isn't enough.

And: it is EXASPERATING to be constantly misprepresented and misunderstood, because, in large part, not only do you not read very carefully before you go swanning off to use whatever/whoever it is as fodder for your very own blog, but you simply don't or i don't know, won't seem capable of grasping that there might be any other frame of reference in the entire fucking world besides yours.

I really don't know how else to put this. And please, please do start bringing the "radical lesbian feminists" into this. Some of my best friends/allies are. Please, PLEASE do.

Do you know why certain kinds of radical lesbian feminists resonate with you so well, Straight Woman?

That's right. Because even though they are LES-BE-ANS, they mostly talk about, well, men. Specifically, how awful and oppressive they are. Which, apparently, you can relate.

No disturbingly unfamiliar talk of issues specific to queer folk (not just women, either); no talk about our OWN sexuality, our OWN issues of internal abuse, sexual and otherwise; nothing so tricky and squirm-inducing as internalized homophobia and the deep anger that can sometimes well up not just at men, but at you, too, straight women,

...none of that, and thank God. Lesbians are just like...well, what? Your favorite cozy crotchetyspinster aunt. Yas'm.

Well, good on you for finding your mentor or whatever it is; lord knows i oughtn't to let my own grinding axe get in the way of such a tender nurturing relationship.

Just: you know. It irks a tad. Even people who know better: "well, of COURSE a lesbian is going to find blowjobs disgusting! She's a LESBIAN!"

Really...no. Just: no. But thank you, again, for spreading that comfortable belief.

It makes my life just so much easier.

Because I of course have no buttons at all about "gee, that sexuality of yours? kind of irrelevant, really. At best. So just hold it in, for, like, ever."

O yeah: apparently the closet doesn't factor at all either into this strange twilight world.

But I digress. We weren't really talking about the more curious detours of "political lesbianism" and so on.

What were we talking about?

Oh yeah.

I'm pissed off. And bored. Again.

And: I don't mind if you want to flame me; considering our last major interaction was me storming into your space and shrieking at you and your regulars to SUCK MY TAMPON, i am not surprised that i am not exactly high on your love list. And no, we don't really need to get more into why I did that again, I expect; if it isn't clear by now, I really don't know how much clearer to be; and anyway, the woman in question has long since sailed into the sunset, and more fucking power to her.

But for the love of fuck: what is that phrase? Intellectual honesty? Well, I'll settle for just plain honesty.

Stop painting me as someone I'm not. Stop suggesting I am saying things that I am not. Do not use me or what I symbolize to you as pivot babe for your circle jerk.

If you can't be arsed to come and find out there's more to "sex-positive" -or- feminism than the fun wacky world of hetero hijinks, that's fine. But, and I think someone else said this to you in a different context just recently, and no, you still don't seem to be tweaking this either:

You don't get it.

You are, it appears, only interested in your own POV.

Which is fine as far as it goes.

But.

As such, I for one would like it if you could kindly stick to your own shit and owning that it is, indeed, your shit, until such time as you can address the "other" people you are using with more respect.

Thank you.

190 comments:

Bitch | Lab said...

Shit. This just sucks.

<< Because, how many fucking ways are there to explain, hello, some people have OTHER EXPERIENCES OF MARGINALIZATION IN ADDITION TO YOURS? which is not to say "o, okay, you win in the Oppression Olympics," but means OUR EXPERIENCES ARE DIFFERENT? >>

Rachel S at Rachel's Tavern talked about "approximating expierneces" once. We come to have experiences that at least approximate and can then 'get it' WRT class, race, sexuality, disabilty, imperialism -- that is, see different forms of oppression operating in the world.

It's unfortunate too b/c long ago, Amanda pointed out why she couldn't be a radical, gender only feminist because of her own rape experience -- where men had been there for her more than women in her life. This meant that she saw herself as unable to only blame the patriarchy and want to draw on a more nuanced critique.

For me, my ability to understand men better is generally simply a recognition that they obviously didn't have all pervasive power in my world. they have privilege AS men, but not as working class/poor men. I can remove myself with the sociologist's hat -- which is infuriating to some people, of course. But it is just another form of being able to engage in therapy -- for that is all it is in therapy, learning to see yourself from another discursive position -- a heightened from of self-reflectiveness with an interpretive lingo that makes meaning of it all.

But what I always point out is that, of course, it is only a tool for understanding. It doesn't mean that, if you understand, you agree. It doesn't mean that, if you understand, you will fall into the patriarchy and never get out.

it only means that you have a better grasp on the problem -- I think -- and you will come up with better solutions -- will better be able to direct where you spend your energies.

---------------------------------

Finally? The other reason I reject much of what gets said in those spaces: it simply doesn't even comport with research on why men rape, etc. There are different kinds of rapists. The serial rapists? Whole other kettle of fish than the college dorm room rapists.

----------------------------------

Which, bty, as long as I'm reminded. OVer on that thread where Lindsay said that poor women might be more subjected to street rape b/c unable to afford themselves privacy....

i wanted to laugh my ass off.

I'm going to guess that poor women's vulnerability will be matched by upper middle class women's vulnerability precisely becasue they will go to college. Thus, middle classness is only a defense against certain kinds of rape and rapists.

and since when is it feminist to pretend that the bulk of rape attacks happen in central fucking park?

-------------------------
totally OT that lat bit, in a way. But it's just another example of not wanting to think a little harder. foo blah fuckitol eh?

AND MANY FUCKING HUGS! HUGS INFINITY!

Alon Levy said...

B | L, if you want, I can dig you the thread on Majikthise from about a year and 4 months ago about how the erroneous assumption that most rapes occur on the street reinforces sexism.

Belledame, judging solely by the parts you've excerpted, I think your theory of rape is wrong, though not for the reasons Amanda says it is. Venting frustration with violence is largely a male activity; women are socialized to be submissive, which among other things makes them less likely to murder or assault or rape.

That said, if rape were the result of frustration about inequality, you'd see the rape rate rise in times of increasing inequality. Remember that the two periods in recent American history when rape decreased out of sync with the general crime rate are 1980-85 and 2000-05. Every good theory of rape has to explain that. But the last six years have seen increasing inequality and poverty and a stronger culture of fear... while the rape rate fell 50%.

belledame222 said...

No, you are wrong; I do not have A theory of RAPE; I was attempting to bring -one- angle to the discussion of -rape porn.- quoting extensively from -other peoples' theories.-

>Venting frustration with violence is largely a male activity; women are socialized to be submissive, which among other things makes them less likely to murder or assault or rape.>

and yes, I ALSO said that back in the Punkass thread.

belledame222 said...

>But what I always point out is that, of course, it is only a tool for understanding. It doesn't mean that, if you understand, you agree. >

I simply don't tweak why this appears to be such a very difficult concept for some people.

Well, no, I do, I think: because they themselves are still in fact very very very angry at abuses at the hands of men, and are not particularly in the MOOD to be hearing anything that even SOUNDS like it smacks of sympathy for -them.-

Which, you know: same goddam thing as with all the (other?) radical feminists i've gotten embroiled with; and eventually just let go. Because, there are only so many times you can say, yesbut, and i mean, i want to hear youbut, there's a difference between "i hear you, that sucks, and yes that does happen to a lot a LOT of women, yes i get the need for a theoretical framework to put it in along with everything else;"

but, different from, "i accept that this the ONLY framework in which to understand the world." because i ALSO have shit on my plate, see; it is DIFFERENT, -maybe- "approximating;"

but see, -you- just aren't apparently even able to recognize that there is that difference between us -at all.-

Bitch | Lab said...

<< B | L, if you want, I can dig you the thread on Majikthise from about a year and 4 months ago about how the erroneous assumption that most rapes occur on the street reinforces sexism. >>

conveniently denied at my blog, of course -- which was the fucking point. that's why i asked,"what happened"?

belledame222 said...

>. But it's just another example of not wanting to think a little harder. foo blah fuckitol eh?

well, fucking exactly. compounded by, here is this woman with a rather popular blog blithely sticking me in there as someone who MYSELF doesn't want to think critically, what a fucking joke (how many fucking times do i have to hear that one, hm?) and people buying it, because, well, if you put it -that- way. pro-porn! pro-rape-porn! trying to explain it all away primarily because i am sympathetic to the makers and consumers of all porn any porn RAPE PORN! fuck off.

and thank you, **hugs** back.

Bitch | Lab said...

I simply don't tweak why this appears to be such a very difficult concept for some people.
------------------------------

in this case, with the specific case of A, it's about scoring points in a political debate for dominance of your ideas. it is, as KH repeatedly points out, inconsistent. Only every used as a prop to serve the greater interest of "winning".

in this case, to accept understanding men is to also accept understanding choice feminists.

it has to be disavowed, repreatedly in order to support an ideological agenda about "choices" and "consciousness raising" etc. That was what was so apalling, to me, about the BfP and Burqa thing. All of this has been an exercise in internecine wars with brown women as pivotbabe.

it's obscene.

belledame222 said...

hah, i used your "pivot babe for the circle jerk" elsewhere just now (wrt Random Bird).

well, just yet more proof that we are, yes! the SAME PERSON.

you know, speaking of armchair psych, but: i can't help but think her repeated use of "intellectually dishonest" is just one more form of projection.

Yeah, honest: I can't tell, you know, how conscious it is with her really. Obviously she wants to score points; but, well...yeah. not exactly the most -self-aware- person in the universe, there, is she?

eh, who gives a fuck, really.

i mean, believe it or not, i am trying to be sort of charitable (in Lindsey's term, ahahaha) here; presume that, well, she may MEAN well, on the whole;

but then again: well, EVERYONE means well;

means well for -whom,- is the question...

but yeah, i dunno. i mean, i'd meant it when i said i thought that at least her making the gesture of an apology was something; as with Marc;

it's like, no, especially with her; don't really understand WHY i'm apologizing, but okay; i can see that you're hurt and i'd like to make amends (maybe)

which, you know, if that's what that was, i respect that somewhat;

but, yeah. Just. Doesn't. Get it.

>in this case, to accept understanding men is to also accept understanding choice feminists.

well, if one took the time to actually make that connection; but for whatever reason, as we've seen, can't or won't: she doesn't.

Maybe "why" doesn't much matter then, at that.

just, you know: a bit fed up.

belledame222 said...

and ffs, for the last time: what IS a "choice feminist?" what does this even MEAN? i-feminist? I'm not one. Libertarian? I'm not one. Person who doesn't examine the greater context of What Does This All Mean, Dear? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (as i've said)

...or does it mean: person who has made choices other than mine? which therefore means i simply cannot understand them, which therefore means so and so hasn't EXAMINED her shit like I have?

i mean, one wouldn't like to think so; but really, if one is apparently THAT self-absorbed...

Blackamazon said...

*HUGS*

Then

THe heaping holy fuck? WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE

belledame222 said...

I dunno, but nothing a little senseless violence couldn't fix, i'll bet.

swap you a machete for yer cutlass

Bitch | Lab said...

belle --

any chance you can make some use of the straw, btw? :)

I'll need to bake you a virtual double rich chocolate pie with gran marnier whipped cream and strawberry topping.

bbl with pie in hand.

belledame222 said...

-swoon- now THAT is -my- kind of porn...

Bitch | Lab said...

i'll have to dig out the recipe because it's easier 'n' hell and ppl think you slaved all day. no flour, either. i make truffles for holidays, too. people swoon and think i slaved away. best kind of recipe, tho. :)

i really should have just been a cook. my dream is to have a decent sized home, lots of friends, dinner parties every weekend and a big garden and a floppy straw hat. oh! and when my friends aren't around, the neighborhood kids will stop by for lemonade and they'll make me cranky but i'll love 'em anyway.

that's my porn.

Bitch | Lab said...

this is something to pursue, belledame:

understanding as threat to the ego. yah?

belledame222 said...

Yah.

'skind of what i was getting at in the post a few doors down ("A riff...")

Blow to the ego; which in turns means something even deeper; it's profoundly -destabilizing.- or can be.

iow, people keep talking about this notion of "privilege" and/or "false consciousness" in terms of "giving up" something more or less concrete (with the connotation that you'd better do it, and pick up that hairshirt while you're at it).

what's less talked about is what one GAINS through this little adventure of "consciousness raising" (or however one wants to frame/term the journey).

or, back to your point, the subtler things that one gives up, or rather simply lets go of, on the way:

A certain existential security, if you like.

Well, that's motherfucking Plato and the cave allegory, really.

It's way too easy to use that sort of thing as "haha. i am so much more enlightened!" i realize as i'm typing.

but really: we've all got our caves. Caves are sort of snug and dry, after all; the tradeoff is that they're "oppressive" as well as stifling; but also, goddam, there's a whole frigging UNIVERSE out there!...

(she said, well aware that she hasn't left her apartment today)

(insert "There Is Life Outside Your Apartment" from Avenue Q")

mir said...

Just floating an idea here re: the quote from you, belledame, that the post in question seems to hinge on:

"Me, I just keep flashing on this song title. it was a favorite of my best friend’s abusive asshole brother. “I Want You To Hurt Like I Hurt.”

These feelings of powerlessness and invasion are unbearable. Quick, pass them to someone else. -dump the load- Ah, that’s better."

It's scary, that quote, because it A) implies that to understand abuse and rape we might need to understand the individual mind of the indivudal abuser/rapist - a case study, not just The Psychological Profile of Abusers and Rapists: Patriarchal Power, et al.

and B) it forces for a millisecond a thought that one abuser has thoughts and feelings that might be understood. Not empathized with, mind you, but a motivation that is emotion-based, personal. That an abuser/rapist is one man with feelings and drives.

B is abhorrent, right, I don't want to give two shits about what deep feeeelings a monster has but after my own millisecond I thought 'yeah, what *is* one abuser/rapist feeling and thinking?' and how/why/what/where/when did he come by those thoughts and how do we scour those motivations from our How-To-Be-A-Macho-Man-A-Manly-Man-A-Proper-Adult-Dude-In-This-Western-World-Of-Ours manual?

I want to know the monster and what makes or made him, and how to not make any more of him.

But then again I'm a mother to a teen boy and Not Raising An Abuser/Rapist is high on my list of things to do this decade, so my focus may be 3 clicks to the left of others'.

belledame222 said...

anyway i like your dream. that'd be my dream. except maybe for the hat. and the kids.

by the sea would be nice, too, as long as i'm wishin'.

belledame222 said...

mir: ding.

and as i was getting at: of course if one is stil nursing relatively fresh or at least still raw wounds at the hands of such people, one is gonna be in even less of a frame of mind to empathize with them than anyone else (who also have all the trepidations you name, probably).

Which, if someone were to actually SAY this rather than my just having to infer this based on what I know, I'd probably be a lot less pissed off;

OR, if someone did NOT want to say this in public (understandably) but were at least conscious enough to know that OTHER people have their OWN wounds and thus are a bit more careful about stomping all over the place and/or using said other people as strawpuppets to help make whatever fatuous point they were making;

...I'd be a lot less pissed off.

but again: I'm Every Woman; It's All In Meeeee...

Mandos said...

"B is abhorrent, right, I don't want to give two shits about what deep feeeelings a monster has but after my own millisecond I thought 'yeah, what *is* one abuser/rapist feeling and thinking?' and how/why/what/where/when did he come by those thoughts and how do we scour those motivations from our How-To-Be-A-Macho-Man-A-Manly-Man-A-Proper-Adult-Dude-In-This-Western-World-Of-Ours manual?"

B abhorrent? I kind of like B. With, we get words like "bake" and "broil" and "bolognese" and...yes, it's almost sundown and I've been fasting all day and so I'm thinking about food :)

But ...aside from that...

WATM alert! WATM alert! WATM alert!

;)

belledame222 said...

...and, too, of course, a lot of feminist coming-to-consciousness (at least of this sort) is all about: goddamit, I have spent WAY TOO MUCH TIME ALREADY trying to figure out what the fuck HE wants, trying to empathize with HIM, and WHEN THE FUCK IS IT EVER -MY- TURN, HUH???

...which, well: HELLO, YEAH.

but again: not owned. Put it on everyone -else- in the world.

"we" need to coddle them less, the men in "our" lives, the spoiled entitled brats;

and it's like: lemon drop: what is this "we" shit already? Who or what exactly are we talking about, really? I mean, what are YOU talking about? Because I know what -I- was talking about; it had fuckall to do with -that.- But, okay, I'm willing to listen...oh, right, you've just used me as a trampoline for your own heights o' hits. 'Bye.

belledame222 said...

WATM? I'm terrible with acronyms...

Mandos said...

What About The Mens.

belledame222 said...

oh, good for you. yeah, it is that time of year, isn't it. i never remember my supposedly own high holy days. last Monday was Yom Kippur and not only did i forget completely, I do that every year, i -also- forgot that my group was cancelled because the leader -is- observant.

so got all the way down to Gramercy and...woosp.

no worries; took the opportunity to finally get a library card. yes! New York Public Library, and all this time! not till now.

and sat in the park, and watched people ride the merry-go-round, till sunset.

and got into a very strange conversation with a very strange guy who worked at the non-check-out-able library, and was very VERY attached to his job, i guess;

and went to Burger King and had a cheeseburger (hold the bacon).

not necessarily in that order.

belledame222 said...

ah, gotcha.

well as i've said: for me it's sort of an anthropological excursion; which i realize is perhaps a tad hard to tweak for some straight women, who've spent a goodly chunk of time struggling with the tension between "i am attracted to/in love with this person" and "this person is not only a jerk in ways in which i am dimly beginning to recognize is socially codified, but is perhaps even representative of the group What Am Responsible for all the world's ills;

or at least mine.

Same thing, really; I Blame the...!--ehh, sorry"

Mandos said...

"i am attracted to/in love with this person" and "this person is not only a jerk in ways in which i am dimly beginning to recognize is socially codified, but is perhaps even representative of the group What Am Responsible for all the world's ills;"

Yes, how this is worked out is one of the most fascinating and difficult conundrums, no? I mean, unlike any other liberation struggle (race, class), you have a very, very large percentage of the liberatees living an intimate (I mean more than just sexual) life with the oppressors.

mir said...

belledame:
exactly. i feel the same frustration watching Pedophile Maniac of The Week stories-

Look at this precious child! [innocent children at play]
Raped! [somber grapic]
Killed! [advertiser-placement/scary music jingle] By a Pedophile!

[they do it, we don't know or care WHY they just do so]:

Stay tuned- How to protect *your* child from them at 5:20. How to keep them from *your* neighborhood, coming up at 5:23.

I want a farking look inside The Pedophile's head. TELL US HOW AND WHY WE CREATE THEM SO WE KNOW HOW TO NOT.

mir said...

'We' meaning this society, this world, us parents, not 'We' women.

brownfemipower said...

you know belle, it's interesting how people hear what they want to hear--i mean, switch this post around a bit, tuck here, nip there, and you got a rant done by bfp on how I never SAID X, Y OR Z!!!!!!!

I think that people hear all these things that were never said because they are aware of the fallacies of their own arguements, so they are basically arguing with themselves. They know where they are wrong, in other words. but they can't admit it, so they are in a perpetual state of defensivness.

it's pretty exhausting tho, fighting with somebody who is really fighting with themselves...

belledame222 said...

oh yah.

someone in the linkroll actually had a really interesting series of posts on that, "why" (pedophiles). i had some thoughts myself.

but yea, even more so than the rapist business: We don't want to know! not -really.- yes, social pressures and inner moppet wounded, whatever, we KNOW already, but the point is, the point IS, FETCH US THE TORCHES AND THE POINTY STAKE!! KILL THE MONSTER!! KILL IT DEAD!!

which, well, sometimes you do need to, kill the external monster;

but y'know, way i see it, if it's at the level of "abstract discussion on Internet, focusing primarily not even on concrete examples of Bastard who Hurt Me and Mine, but on IMAGES that REMIND us of...bad stuff..."

well you know what, this just won't do, i'm afraid.

I mean it's like: fuck all right, if what you need to be doing is simply even getting to the point of "my God! that could be me in the victim spot! that HAS been! i...FUCK, i feel sick..."

then well of course yer not gonna want to move on to being in the place of the -perpetrator,- even for a second.

especially if the perp reminds you of Bastard Who Hurt Me.

and, that's it, isn't it. You can't -reason- with that. I mean, i could stand there and quote every scholar and study and theory till i was blue in the face, and i'd still be met with anger, i suspect, because -they are having a process, and i am getting in the way of that.-

Problem IS, they haven't IDENTIFIED it as such; instead it is being framed as a sociopolitical -discussion.-

which, it really isn't much of one; but when you start to go in that direction it becomes clear that that isn't really what was wanted either.

so. shrug.

but anyway i wonder if that isn't a big part of what -looks- like it simply can't be anything other than sheer deliberate disingenuousness, "intellectual dishonesty," excuse me. defense mechanisms: GO!

including projection; so now -I- (or whoever) get(s) to be the one who is not being serious; who wants to shut down; who doesn't want to -examine- on account of it's too -painful- (to give up privilege, to raise the consciousness, to unplug from the Matrix or Patrix i should say, whatnot)

mmm, mhm.

belledame222 said...

bfp: well, yah, exactly. i mean as i was saying, here or somewhere: y'know, i think there is a -reason- why i am relating as strongly to bfp and BA (and others) here as i am; and i don't think it's just cause i'm, you know, a rilly rilly nice or enlightened person...

belledame222 said...

>I mean, unlike any other liberation struggle (race, class), you have a very, very large percentage of the liberatees living an intimate (I mean more than just sexual) life with the oppressors.>

Ah. I think some people might quibble with that one. At any rate: you take yer old South (for an extreme example, by no means limited to): slaves and masters. That's pretty fucking intimate. Including sexually, yup. and other, more diffuse forms of eroticization as well.

and: lgbt: the "oppressors" or rather the "oppressing class" turns out to include your own parents, often enough.

That's pretty fucking intimate.

I will not get into here same-sex domestic abuse, including situations where the power differential is tilted by such things as class differentials, or race, or such things as "one partner is more 'passable' than the other."

Or transgendered; where the struggle becomes with your own -body.-

It's ALWAYS intimate, one way or the other, i think.

one way or the other, you always end up sleeping with the enemy.

even if it's just the one that took up permanent residence in your own head.

actually, that one may be the most dangerous as well as the most intimate one of all.

belledame222 said...

btw, i don't know if i said: welcome, mir!

i thought for a moment you were Renegade (who also goes by Miriam, sometimes)

mir said...

Thanks! I'm a creepy long-time lurker just recently brave enough to join the commenting ranks.

Fawning meta aside: I often read about X elsewhere then check compulsively for your take on same.

(mir from Miranda, not-a-blogger-just-a-half-assed-freelancer)

belledame222 said...

well, howdy!

there's an introductions thread over at the sidebar, p.s., if you've a mind.

Mandos said...

BD: well, yes...but there's an element of inseparability, I think that exists along the sex axis that doesn't exist along the slavery axis. I mean, women give birth to men, and can only do so (for now) by insemination by something from a male. It's question of degree, I guess, but you can much more easily have a society of blacks without whites than you can have one of women without men, lesbian separatism notwithstanding.

I mean, it's kind of telling that even the most strident of internet lesbian separatists seems to have at least one or two boy-cootie vectors they aren't willing to give up. But I bet that in parts of, say, Maryland, you could find black people without white friends.

And radical feminists have observed on more than one occasion that there isn't a population less overtly conscious of their oppression than women.

belledame222 said...

Depends how you end up policing your boundaries, is the thing, wrt "black separatism." Well, that's one thing. But if you've noticed: there's a lot of "realness" infighting over yonder, too.

>
And radical feminists have observed on more than one occasion that there isn't a population less overtly conscious of their oppression than women.>

Well they win the Armana fridge and a year's supply of Rice-a-Roni.

Seriously: what?

That...just doesn't actually mean anything, to my mind.

o well i think i can guess what it means: if women (as separate from every -other- population to which oh so many women -also- belong) would all rise up and throw off their chains in the same proportions as all those "other" oppressed groups already have done, then, why, the world REALLY WOULD SPLIT OPEN.

and you'd find the Cracker Jack prize inside, no doubt.

and the fucking Rice a Roni.

meh. you know, you can probably get a similar sort of analysis from the "radical" faction of just about any sociopolitical demographic, really. You may or may not personally find 'em all as persuasive as the radfems, but doesn't mean they aren't saying it. or believing it.

Mandos said...

"Depends how you end up policing your boundaries, is the thing, wrt "black separatism." Well, that's one thing. But if you've noticed: there's a lot of "realness" infighting over yonder, too."

I don't necessarily think it takes that much policing. I mean the thing is, "realness" aside, you can permanently separate designated black and white populations. You can't completely and entirely separate male and female populations. I mean, at the very least boy-cootie vectors will still pass through some women's nether regions, one way or another. Or both populations will die out. I think birth is important. Very important.

I remember reading an SF novel published by a lesbian press about a post-apocalyptic America where The Patriarchy was confined to a polluted sealed dome in Ohio or something---only permitted to exist as a foil for the plot---and the rest of the world lived in happy communes, mostly all-lesbian ones. The all-lesbian ones, however, traded sperm for male babies with a big gay male commune on the coast. (How they got the lesbian mothers to give up their male babies, well, I don't recall it being explained.)

"o well i think i can guess what it means: if women (as separate from every -other- population to which oh so many women -also- belong) would all rise up and throw off their chains in the same proportions as all those "other" oppressed groups already have done, then, why, the world REALLY WOULD SPLIT OPEN."

Precisely. They ask, when women's oppression is so bad, why don't we have ANC-type movements for women? South African blacks got the ANC and all American women got was NOW.

JackGoff said...

Yeah, BD. Amanda's criticisms against you were pretty harsh and not merited, since you were actually trying to make the discussion at PABlog more intellectual and actually informative beyond the XOSS aspect. And to create an entire post dedicated to taking your criticisms out of context was even worse.

Delphyne, well, I agree with her to a point. To say all porn is misogynistic, however is completely misguided and does nothing to make the debate intellectual. It's all tautology and "Disagree with this and you prove you hate women" type asshattery. Delphyne IS just a play on the fundies in that women's bodies are not meant for sexuality, even if the women who own those bodies want to be sexual. It's hating women's consent. That's all I get from her core argument. I'm sorry, I'm just feeling a bit hurt tonight. I need some sleep.

emily said...

>>>>Do you know why certain kinds of radical lesbian feminists resonate with you so well, Straight Woman?

That's right. Because even though they are LES-BE-ANS, they mostly talk about, well, men. Specifically, how awful and oppressive they are. Which, apparently, you can relate.

No disturbingly unfamiliar talk of issues specific to queer folk (not just women, either); no talk about our OWN sexuality, our OWN issues of internal abuse, sexual and otherwise; nothing so tricky and squirm-inducing as internalized homophobia and the deep anger that can sometimes well up not just at men, but at you, too, straight women.

Fuck yeah, well put. Not to mention the utter disdain that some (eg Sheila Jeffreys) level at queers--butches, femmes, gayboys, trannys etc. Damn those inconvenient Really Existing Queers fucking up your theories of the lesbian-feminist utopia and the universal patriarchy..

belledame222 said...

:-( Why hurt? Well, rest well.

as i wuz saying over at Veronica's: Delphyne, like Sister Mary Ignatius, actually explained it all; and actually BL's been saying this for months now, including at frigging Amanda's, which, if Amanda had the wit of a sparrow she'd have noticed was actually you know trying to be INFORMATIVE as opposed to, like, a THREAT (sound familiar?) and thus, not freaking delinked her, and thus would not -now- be in the position of trying to figure out why o why can't Some People see that there is a middle way? mebbe it has to do with the litigousness of the early anti-porn-sters or summat. well, in fact:

http://vociferate.wordpress.com/2006/08/20/mad/#comments

Radical feminist beliefs place male sexual violence and sexual exploitation of women at the centre of male oppression of women. As far as I know anti-princess does not agree with this view so she doesn’t agree with nearly 90% of our views. If she and you are supportive of the legalisation of pimps and johns and believe that pornography can sexually liberate or “empower” women then you are fighting against anti-pornstitution feminists. That’s just the way politics works...

***

and so you see: the theory is

1) Male domination over women is the original or primary oppression;

2) The physical act of rape is the first or primary way in which this domination took/takes place;

3) all other forms of domination extrapolate from this, Class Man over Class Woman, sexually

4) “Pornstitution,” in this worldview, either -is- rape or is enabling of rape; at any rate, cannot be separated out from rape; it re-enacts, even if only symbolically, that original domination, and thus reinforces it.

5) which means that eradicating “pornstitution” not only is non-negotiable but is top priority; as pornstitution goeth, so goeth rape (and yes, they tend to do more serious anti-rape activism as well, this lot); as rape/sexual domination goeth, so goeth the entire corrupt System.

6) therefore, if you're not with us, you're agin' us.

QED.

and Twisty, Amanda's apparent mentor-aunt in alla this, surely knows all this, and as a self-declared radical feminist (tm) i would -think- believes in it; only diff between her and delphyne is that delphyne i guess favors more concrete action to get rid of porn, and the Swedish model (i.e. penalize johns) wrt prostitution itself; whereas Twisty claims to be laissez-faire legally, and i guess her intention is to pretty much mock the entire industry to death, via mocking popcult phenomena, news items, and individual women who happen to cross her radar, pretty much.

which, lo! i can hear the patriarchal edifices crumbling even as we type!

anyway.

belledame222 said...

oh yah, Jeffreys, my favoritest favorite of them all, with the possible. at least Dworkin's a more interesting writer; and as far as i know didn't -especially- have a hate on for TG folk. i could be wrong, of course.

TF, you know, lurrrves Jeffreys. surprise.

anyhoo i have a lovely anti-porn anthology edited by Doreen whatserface and Janice Raymond, including pieces by Dworkin and Jeffreys and other luminaries, fresh from the library on my hot little new! NY Public! library card! (i'm so excited). i wasn't gonna break it out just yet, but...eh, we'll see. also got a big ol' anthology called "sexual revolution," and a few other things.

if i ever actually get off the computer i might actually open one of the funny little squarish things, too.

emily said...

oh Janice Raymond, *there's* another transphobic one.

What I like is the inherent contradiction in the argument.. Binary gender is wrong wrong wrong and is the antagonism upon which all inequity is built BUT DON'T YOU DARE DO OTHERWISE!!

belledame222 said...

oh yah. ever read Heart on the subject? it's sort of fascinating, in roughly the same way as watching one a them double-jointed acrobats do their stuff at Cirque du Soleil or summat.

emily said...

lol, I like that. Or alternatively, car-accident feminism.

I always get the feeling I'm reading how straight women imagine lesbianism to be--like how my friend will say "oh, i'm going to become a lesbian" every time she breaks up with some jerky guy. Cos heaven forbid lesbian desire be about, you know, fucking women. So it's about renouncing the evilness of the mens more than anything else.

Any word on the sexual practice of "political" lesbians? Cos my queer nose always smells straighty-straights hidden by the rhetoric..

belledame222 said...

...anyway, they kinda sorta don't really acknowledge the "otherwise" faction among TG folk (or, well, otherwise, as far as that goes); sort of roughly in the same way that all porn is pretty much men roughly penetrating unwilling women, ain't it awful.

yeah. i think i will never be so perplexed as anything so much as the phenomenon of

Person A: This is what demographic blahblah is like.

Person B: I am a member of demographic blahblah, and i'm nothing like that, and neither are a lot of the people i know, and even wrt the ones you're closer to actually describing you're still not really getting it, have you talked to __? Have you read __?

Person A: (continues as though Person B hasn't spoken)

Person B: Um, hi. Standing right here?

Person A, or more likely sycophant of A: (wheels around and snaps): Stop trying to derail! You're (intellectually dishonest, really not who you say you are, trolling, missing A's point totally, totally offensive and way too sensitive and HELP HELP WE'RE BEING OPPRESSED hosts could you please ban).

Person B: (if sie hasn't already blown up and/or stalked off) Okay! Once more (deep breath) This is how it is -in my experience- --

Person A: (Argues with a point that Person B hasn't made at all)

Person B: Say wha?

Persons C, D, E, (perhaps just now tuning in, making up in enthusiasm what they lack in actual reading ability apparently), Well, A does have a point, because (something totally irrelevant)

Person B: No. NO. You're not HEARING me.

Person D: Well, I don't really agree with C about irrelevant thing, but say! i really like vanilla! Hey, what about that angle?

(enthusiastic murmurings)

Person B: AAAAARRRGHHH!!

A's Sycophant: See? SEE? Didn't I tell you all along?

Person B: Fuck OFF.

Person A: Well really: I bend over backward trying to be fair to you and this is how you respond? What're you mad at ME for? (rings down curtain on thread, continues, perhaps, in another):

Person A: And so we learn, dear readers, from the example of Person B, that (argument B didn't make) is incorrect because (something fatuous) and therefore, i was RIGHT about (demographic to which B belongs).

(enthusiastic approval from the peanut gallery)

(in the background, somewhere, Person B: :headdesk: :headdesk: :take the tablets, Tiger buddy:, more screaming, numbness, blackout).

belledame222 said...

o, i had a couple of posts on the subject; one of which, i fear, doing more or less what Amanda did; except in that case i at least -tried- (I thought; no doubt she doesn't see it that way) to engage what girlfriend was actually saying. and at her own site, too, even.

lessee:

http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/2006/08/so-lady-gotten-enough-converts-for.html

There was an earlier one as well, can't find it, blogger doesn't track back that far anymore i guess. Winter had something to say on the subject as well.

belledame222 said...

...which, i should be clear, as it turns out this particular poster is -not- a political lesbian; or at least was a lesbian, you know, before she got political about it. she just thinks that OTHER women should be political lesbians.

emily said...

yeah. That was a classic list you linked to though--"Be celibate if you can't be a lesbian"

Hahahaha, *such* useful advice. Still can't give up cock entirely? Try going on a patch first...

Mandos said...

BD that thread was incredibly entertaining. Yes, I enjoy Phemi's dinosaur cartoons but her drive-bys are extremely unsatisfying.

Mandos said...

Oh and your script applies to way more than radfemmery. It's like a standard Internet Argument form. And hilarious! I do recall consciously doing that to someone from time to time. I think they were well deserving people though. Or maybe I'm just a meanie.

belledame222 said...

You?! no!

heh.

o yah, dino girl. i have no idea what her trauma is. at first i was inclined to consider this a bit more seriously; after witnessing her interactions (if you can call them that) throughout the 'sphere, i'm leaning more toward "blow on the head with large blunt object and/or a little too much quality time with the paint thinner."

Lux Fiat said...

Hahahaha, *such* useful advice. Still can't give up cock entirely? Try going on a patch first...

"I musta been going 75, 80 miles-an-hour when I hit that patch of cock..."

lilcollegegirl said...

Yeah, I was rather pissed about that, cause it was so flippin' fucking dumb. Of course, I have my own reasons for thinking "well, way to be really shallow and not really discuss jack shit" Although, honestly a lot of the "political lesbian" tie-ins go right over my head (although I can certainly see it now) in part because I'm a bi girl...so the amount of sense that doesn't make to me is pretty amazing (and hence I pretty much ignore that part.) I'm really excellent at ignoring things that don't make sense to me...which usually isn't a good thing, but every once in a while...

Amber said...

"I musta been going 75, 80 miles-an-hour when I hit that patch of cock..."

LOL!!

Sounds like fun. (Typo: fin. Freudian slip?)

piny said...

I feel like I'm derailing when I even bring it up.

It was a problem on marc's thread, too: Like, dude, do you realize that it doesn't make sense to read porn involving two men as something consumed by or even marketed to straight men? 'Lo? Little lacuna there, might want to get out the grout.

Bitch | Lab said...

jackgoff

actually, Delphyne's coming at straight from MacKinnon's playbook, she's just not too articulate about getting her point across.

I think if more critics understood what Delphyne (and MacK) meant by misogyny in porn, then the debates would be a lot more productive -- or wouldn't be had at all for we'd realize that there is *no* talking or compromise on this issue. And there isn't for Delphyne. There is no middle ground.

When Amanda thinks she can create one, she completely insults every radical feminist follower of MacKinnon out there. That's because she doesn't understand their claims.

When they ride in to complain and call it up on it, she's surprised.

Belledame MADE me read that thread. I mean, grabbed me and forced my hand to type in the address and rad it, she's such a meanie! And I told her that it felt like being forced to watch St Elmo's Fire for the 20th time.

So yeah, BD's trying to say something different. Wouldn't it be nice if we all tried to understand each other better and have a truly productive conversation.

blah foo fuckadonut

Bitch | Lab said...

btw, jack, like the new icon

Bitch | Lab said...

LOL

I should have read whole thread. BD already said it all. me=ass.

and btw jackgoff, hadn't seen your last line, so sorry if i made things worse. hope you got rest.

Mandos said...

BD: You know, if you tell them that part of their analysis is a result of trauma, they get really angry? That's what eventually got BB to politely request I stop commenting.

piny said...

Mandos is right. It is really hard to convince someone that they're in denial.

I think that people just assumed that you were disputing the point of the OP rather than trying to...do something with it. I'm tired of easy discussions. I want to have the difficult ones.

piny said...

Would a "queer analyses of sexuality carnival" be a good idea? I could maybe host. Be nice to see some, y'know, lesbianism out there. Among other things.

belledame222 said...

>And I told her that it felt like being forced to watch St Elmo's Fire for the 20th time.>

oh. that's COLD. point taken, sorry. heh.

i was just sort of meenly amused by the multiple ironies going on, i guess.

per delphyne: dude, are you actually TRYING to drive people away from your ideology? honestly, you couldn't do a better job if you were, i don't think.

per Amanda: live by the radical feminist, die by the radical feminist.

per klewless middle-of-the-road porn-lovin' or at least toleratin' boy commentators who have -no- idea wtf this is all about, but are vaguely aware that they don't think they like it: LOL. as Veronica pointed out, it's gotten hi-larious.

pass the popcorn.

belledame222 said...

> BD: You know, if you tell them that part of their analysis is a result of trauma, they get really angry? >

Oh, I know. It's just hard to resist the temptation to, half angry, half compassionate, respond to the constant blind bleatings for "no, YOU, EXAMINE more! like i have!"

i have issues with people who project their crap on me. what can i tell you.

>I think that people just assumed that you were disputing the point of the OP rather than trying to...do something with it.>

O sure, and to an extent i actually think that's understandable; it's the Internets, after all. but you know, after about the twelfth time you explain, nooooo, i don't LIKE this stuff, i don't really -care- about THIS stuff -per se,- but...look! this angle! that one! am I speaking English, here? like, at all?

and silence-to-puzzlement from the sane people, and meanwhile have the usual suspects jumping up and down: concern troll! rape apologist! she turned me into a newt! (i got better)

and then the most popular feminist blogger (someone remind me how this came about, exactly, anyway?) basically takes a sort of watered-down version of the hateful radfem strawme and pastes it all over her front page,

...it gets just a -bit- tiresome, you know.

>I'm tired of easy discussions. I want to have the difficult ones.

Well, you come sit down next to me, honey.

>Would a "queer analyses of sexuality carnival" be a good idea? I could maybe host. Be nice to see some, y'know, lesbianism out there. Among other things.>

fuck YES! that would be kickass!

...i just wonder; have you checked in on the Carnival of Bent Attractions? would this be redundant? i haven't actually looked in on them for a while.

and then there's the new sex-pos/sex-rad; but i think that's substantially different from this (not necessarily analytical -or- queer, that; and this one doesn't necessarily have to be "sex radical/positive," although i think as far as i'm concerned it pretty much would be by default. anyway)

But I know a bunch of excellent folks who i bet'd be all over that; would love to have them join the general discourse more.

piny said...

But I know a bunch of excellent folks who i bet'd be all over that; would love to have them join the general discourse more.

Let's make a list, then. BFP, you, antiprincess, sly, vegan, angrybrownbutch if she's blogging again, nubian same deal, nick kiddle...? I know some people off livejournal, but I'm not sure they'd feel interested/comfortable. And I can provide some links to stuff like, "Memoirs of a Cranky Crip."

piny said...

I'm tired of easy discussions. I want to have the difficult ones.

Well, you come sit down next to me, honey.


Thanks. It's just--I get the feeling that all these calls for "nuance" and the "my life does not map into that taxonomy" sound like attempts to distract from these very important issues. They're not. They're an attempt to bring them home. Because I come from circles where we have supposedly dealt with all that shit, where heterosexuality is no longer compulsive. But we haven't solved these problems.

belledame222 said...

Well, maybe the bottom line here is: you can't do that all by yourself (i.e. bring those issues home, bring those other circles into these circles). But maybe a bunch of us can, together. or at least make some headway. and yah, it's important.

piny said...

Well, maybe the bottom line here is: you can't do that all by yourself (i.e. bring those issues home, bring those other circles into these circles). But maybe a bunch of us can, together. or at least make some headway. and yah, it's important.

And it would be a hell of a lot more productive than simply absenting myself from these discussions when they get too simplistic and boring. I've built up a lot of resentment, I realize, and that's not so good.

belledame222 said...

and i dunno as i'd frame what i think you're talking about as "nuance" exactly, although, yah, it sure would be nice to have more discussions that don't boil down to the Argument Clinic (see above).

what we're talking about, i think, at least right -here- (among other things, as part of this wider discussion/whatever that's bloomed since the Clinton lunch, POC progressive bloggers are another branch of this greater trend)

but right here, you and I and some others here, is -queering feminism.-

or, finding a (new?) queer feminism.

anyway, I'd be in.

belledame222 said...

...and i'd call that just one branch of the greater project that Kevin's dubbed "Transformative Politics," which is a keeper, to my mind.

btw, I said this over at BL's, but: can't load anything at Slant Truth except the front page. wondering what's going on.

piny said...

but right here, you and I and some others here, is -queering feminism.-

or, finding a (new?) queer feminism.


Yeah, but whenever you start talking about the new, people start wondering if you're a closet ekwilist.

belledame222 said...

and yah, resentment, i totally get it, believe me, but bottling it up: not so hot.

otherwise you find yourself losing sleep for two nights in a row writing obsessively-minutae-filled but strangely compelling fiskings of all this shit,

and/or storming into a widely-trafficked blog and screaming, FUCK YOU ALL, SUCK MY TAMPON.

not that that isn't fun, mind; just, y'know, i dunno as how it's exactly the most -productive- approach in the whole wide world..

belledame222 said...

--oh fuck "them" with a pointy fuckstick. like they're not? elitist, i mean.

but yah, okay, i'm not married to any name. What's in a name? The project, that's what's important.

so: we'll keep talking.

piny said...

--oh fuck "them" with a pointy fuckstick. like they're not? elitist, i mean.

ekwilist. From Nabokov's Bend Sinister, which is an incredibly elitist reference. As in, attempting to demolish history and thereby dooming oneself to repeat it. I don't want to come off like I reject either ideas like "rape porn is teh misogynist" or some of the theories behind them. I just...have some other things to say.

belledame222 said...

>Let's make a list, then. BFP, you, antiprincess, sly, vegan, angrybrownbutch if she's blogging again, nubian same deal, nick kiddle...? I know some people off livejournal, but I'm not sure they'd feel interested/comfortable. And I can provide some links to stuff like, "Memoirs of a Cranky Crip.">

On my blogroll: Jackadandy has very specifically talked about feeling alienated from mainstream (het) feminism, puts a lot of stock in femmes, may've even used the term "queer feminism," does a lot of activism (and I think is also in SF, p.s.)

Lady Aster, who I think is mostly busy running her own salons these days, but would no doubt be a terrific addition.

Jay, if he's not too busy? IrrationalPoint, perhaps? my pal midwesterntransport might be into it, i dunno. oh! Dan l-k, perhaps, if he's up for it. ("Otter ponderings.") ...kh? Dykotomy? prospheros? Emily (scenius). oh, and I bet Winter from Desperate Kingdoms might be interested. oh, and maybe Damion, the guy i sent you a link to not long ago, "Queering the Apparatus."

...heh, i've a feeling i'd love Cap'n Dyke's take, if only because it'd be kind of awesome to have an entire, like, feminist thesis in PIRATE SPEAK. hey, it can't be any harder to parse through than some of the academic queer writers i've read...

a few other people i haven't much talked to lately, yeah, as you say, on lj, but they might be up for this. my pal trin, for one. couple of other folks i really should be checking in on more often.

I wonder if Betty (as in, My Husband Betty) and/or Helen might be interested in such a project. They've got their own stuff going on, but i do seem to recall that Helen had recently posted something along the lines of, duh, you know, all this and i haven't really talked about feminism per se, have I? I should check in there, too.

belledame222 said...

>I don't want to come off like I reject either ideas like "rape porn is teh misogynist" or some of the theories behind them. I just...have some other things to say.>

As we've just learned: I think you spell it out as clearly as you possibly can, and then people who still don't or won't get it, well...there're only so many hours in the day, you know?

belledame222 said...

>As in, attempting to demolish history and thereby dooming oneself to repeat it.>

Again: and "they're" NOT??

yah, tu quoque not s'helpful, but.

well if there's one thing i've gotten from BL, it's a renewed commitment to academic rigor. i think we could probably find some way in which to make sure that that's a part of it as well: maybe higher standards of research, backing yer shit up, than we've been seeing lately. i think that does make a difference (in avoiding that sort of scenario). Those who ignore are doomed, etc. etc.

but as i said: wanna check out Carnival of Bent Attractions and anything else that might've tried something sort of similar before going ahead. that's learning, too.

belledame222 said...

(I presume we haven't named -waves at BL- just 'cause we know you've already got a lot on yer plate...)

word verification: "robby." Who's Robby? Do we know a Robby? is this a Message? hm.

belledame222 said...

(prospheros, I don't know if you're familiar; but has recently been talking about both being drawn to sites like Feministe and other big feminist blogs, certainly enough to read 'em, and at the same time feeling sort of frustrated/alienated by the binary-gender assumptions).

belledame222 said...

and now, i'm gonna post something that might or might not be the sort of thing we'd be looking for:

belledame222 said...

oh, and, which reminds me: mikarrhea. who had followed me back from Alas one day, when (I was) talking about similar subjects.

belledame222 said...

o yah: and: zan! Butterfly cauldron.

belledame222 said...

so, I guess who/what'd I'd be looking for, besides, yah, more lesbians and especially more lesbians talking about SEXUALITY would be nice: bifolk. transfolk, and maybe specifically queer-oriented transfolk, and genderqueer folk. And gay (and bi) men who have a strong interest in feminism. --am trying to remember: would that include eponymous? haven't spoken to him in ages. but he was one of the ones who got bogged down in the BDSM shitstorms at Twisty's. had some really good questions, too (which went unanswered, surprise).

yeah, among other things, one of the things that's irked me a tad is the apparent lack of connection between -queer- (not TG, i mean) MEN and feminist-land. because i know there are plenty of gay/bi/queer/bent men who are either feminists (it comes naturally, seems like, for some folks) or have strong sympathies/awareness. It'd be great to maybe recognize. Because, in the lgbt communities, mainstream, as you know, way too often the gay men in particular, even if politicized, can be all like, women? who? what? huh?

and in feminist land, at least online, the feminist or pro-feminist men, by and large, seem like they're either straight as a die and/or in it strictly for the self-flagellation. Mea, mea culpa. And -that- gets -really- tiresome sometimes, even with the well-meaning and enlightened ones;

because it's like, nooooo, actually penetration (for example) isn't necessarily all THAT degrading; you -could- give it a whirl yourself...

(also see: wearing high heels, lippy, etc.)

know what I mean?

JackGoff said...

BD and B|L,

Thanks. Mandos really spelled it out for me on the other thread, and I understand it a lot more. I still don't agree that a consensual practice between me and my girlfriend inherently entails misogyny as I understand it, but I definitely understand how it does to the outside world, specifically under rad feminism. As I always say, I'm learning.

And as to feeling hurt, part of it was the long weekend of homework and part of it was my own stupidity. Your understanding and help is certainly appreciated!

belledame222 said...

just to clarify, JG: was it something -I- said? 'cause, i'm glad you're feeling better, but for future reference, i'd want to know.

piny: one more idea: corrine, "midnight bridges."

belledame222 said...

...and actually Carrie from A White Bear might have something to say, perhaps.

JackGoff said...

Oh no, BD. It's just that delphyne was being a little hateful with her argument, at least as I was reading it. I guess I just had a bit too much invested in trying to understand her argument, and then once I was included under the misogynist, ignorant jerk heading because of what I feel is a completely private and consensual practice between my g/f and I. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

JackGoff said...

Oops.

once I was included under the misogynist, ignorant jerk heading because of what I feel is a completely private and consensual practice between my g/f and I, Ifelt kinda hurt.

Mandos said...

Delphyne was being delphyne. You just aren't used to it, is all.

belledame222 said...

oh yah. delphyne, well...yeah. let's just say i really, really wouldn't take it personally.

belledame222 said...

which is not, may i say, by way of excusing her; i have my own numerous axes to grind with the woman. but mandos is right. take with a generous helping of salt. she takes it to a level of...seriousness?...that even a lot of other radical feminists don't match.

i'll say this for her: unlike some of the other people who drive me batshit insane, she's nothing if not consistent. the fact that the ideology she's consistent about, i find has made for some rather hateful behavior, well, at the end of the day perhaps it's my problem. let sleeping dogs, etc.

except: well, yeah, just, again, me being sort of amused;

I COULD be proved wrong? but it seems to -me- that normally, if one is of a certain belief system, and one is aware that a person, particularly a relatively high-profile person, has recently been coming more and more around to the way -you- see things;

wouldn't you think that the -last- thing you'd want to do is come in all guns blazing and insist, nonono, you're with THEM. you're still with THEM. you are WRONG WRONG and you haven't changed AT ALL (or it doesn't matter, or something), and NO you cannot have even a guest membership in the clubhouse, go AWAY.

well as i've said it all depends on what your goal is.

i mean, -I- tend to think of politics as, you know, ideally -building- the base, bringing in -more- people, being -pleased- when someone's at least made -some- turnaround toward my way of thinking...

but then of course, delphyne has mentioned repeatedly that they, the anti-porn true blue-ers, are a tiny tiny tiny minority in the great vast sea of feminism; "we," as she keeps insisting, have already "won:" porn! everywhere you turn, porn!! CLEARLY you have gotten your way; what else in the world could you, could anyone possibly be interested in? MORE porn? well, forget it; the buck stops here. 'k delphyne, whatever you say.

...but so now i am wondering: is there, like, an INVESTMENT in making sure her movement whatever STAYS completely marginalized? for some reason? (i am trying to think what that reason could -be.-)

it is hard to explain her actions otherwise, i gotta say.

well, if that's the game then don't let -me- stop you...

piny said...

she takes it to a level of...seriousness?...that even a lot of other radical feminists don't match.

Consistency, to make an unfair comparison with pro-lifers.

belledame222 said...

yah, said consistency. and it's fair. she may not think so (nor the hypothetical pro-life hardliner either), but y'know what: tough. it's not the issue; it's the hardline.

oh, so, also: tekanji, hello. for the carnival.

which, btw, i went to look over Carnival of Bent Attractions, just to ascertain: so, okay, LBGTQ, plain and simple.--obviously, there's a lot of overlap here. Hell, you probably knew it better than i did. but yah: Winter, Jay Sennett, Helen Boyd. already in there. and a couple others who're probably more about gay qua gay (male) stuff, and some others.

I -was- starting to think: would it make sense to specifically make a carnival of queer -feminism(s)? Only reason i wonder about framing it that way is that i know you're specifically interested in getting more women, well, lesbians in there; and an analytical angle. otoh, that doesn't explicitly deal with sexuality, per se. But then there's also the new Sex Pos/Sex Rad carnival, which isn't specifically queer.

anyhoo winter had a post that was along the lines i was thinking could be -one- thing for the lines i was starting to go along with:

http://mindthegapcardiff.blogspot.com/2006/08/looking-back-thinking-forward-feminism.html

other stuff at the Bent Attractions carnival is more along the gay marriage and so forth; maybe that'd be, you know, outside our scope; but we'd want to be focusing more on, i don't know, the -attraction- part of the bent attractions.

anyway, let me know what you think. On the one hand i don't want to be redundant; on the other hand i don't want to be -so- specific (i.e. sex-pos critique from a feminist queer angle) that it maybe won't have enough material to sustain it regularly.

email, if you prefer.

piny said...

1) I worry that "feminist" only might turn off people like some transpeople, womanists, and our BitchLab, who is like postpostpostpostpostfeminist at this point. (Kidding! I'm kidding! But seriously, I want to include people who have broken up with feminism, so long as they can explain themselves.)

2) On a similar tack, I worry that "queer" might bother dykes, transpeople, and others who do not identify as queer or who have problems with what they see as the reasoning behind "queer."

Both of these terms are heavily class- and race-determined, so I'd like to see some acknowledgement of that.

I am looking for, well, words from alienated people. The ones who, like you, read these things from a distance. This is not to say that this carnival is an attack on ideas previously presented, but just a way of introducing other perspectives. I get the sense that a lot of us just tune this shit out, because we have nothing to contribute to the discussion as arranged. I'd like that to stop.

All of your suggestions are good. Maybe we could put up posts on our blogs announcing a carnival or whatever?

Except I'm not seeing this as a one-off thing, an Other Month. I want us all to come out, and I want us to keep coming out, and I want a well-established amen corner for when I start blogging about difficult stuff. (Is that selfish?)

belledame222 said...

Yep, yep totally with you on all of that. Especially who wanted and reasons for doing, and how (agreed, not just a one-off). And I see your point wrt that term. I'm just wondering what we -should- call it.

...what about something riffing off Kevin's term, Transformative Politics? yeah, broader than what we were originally getting at, but then i think that's what we're saying now: it IS broader;

and anyway personally i've always loved the word, "transform," and actually connect it to my eroticism, funnily enough, among other things, sometimes in admittedly obscure...well, no.

but: well, gender-fluidity, yes; also the sheer -act- of transformation (Circe was my first domme idol). Magic, iow. And later i think that's why i was attracted to the theatre as well.

...anyway, tangent, but...well, back to you.

belledame222 said...

...so maybe ask Kevin what he thinks of this as well?

and then it'd be just hammering out a whatsit, description, what it is we want. which, i think Kevin could bring a lot to that, as that's what he's been talking about already.

and of course stuff sex-and-gender-related, i think, would be a big part of it; but now not -all-;

and i think also we could help find the focus (focii) once we carved out an opening set of themes/ideas and contacted the people we want to be a part of it. then let the ball roll from there. but as i learned in theatre: your first ten minutes (think equivalent here) is what really sets the tone for what it's gonna be, at least as much as the title.

piny said...

Heh. I should. To tell the truth, I've kind of been avoiding those posts because I don't have energy for anything deeper than The Beet Queen right now, but they seem like a good starting point.

piny said...

And you know, I kind of like Other Month.

belledame222 said...

...so "coming out" would be a part of it. "queering the apparatus" would be a part of it (as Damion calls his blog). border crossings, too. blurred lines. new outlines. -transforming-, of course, is part of it: personal, political. the narrative, the frame, the terms, the everything. and i really love love love the Gloria Anzaldua quote that Kevin posted in one of the Transformative politics posts:

""But it is not enough to stand on the opposite river bank, shouting questions, challenging patriarchal, white conventions. A counterstance locks one into a duel of oppressor and oppressed; locked in mortal combat, like the cop and the criminal, both are reduced to a common denominator of violence. The counterstance refutes the dominant culture’s views and beliefs, and, for this, it is proudly defiant. All reaction is limited by, and dependent on, what it is reacting against. Because the counterstance stems from a problem with authority–outer as well as inner–it’s a step towards liberation from cultural domination. But it is not a way of life. At some point, on our way to a new consciousness, we will have to leave the opposite bank, the split between the two mortal combatants somehow healed so that we are on both shores at once and, at once, see through serpent and eagle eyes. or perhaps we will decide to disengage from the dominant culture, write it off altogether as a lost cause, and cross the border into a wholly new and seperate territory. Or we might go another route. The possibilities are numerous once we decide to act and not react."

***

Action, not reaction. Many paths, not binary. Expansion, not narrowing down. Amplification, more than simple conflict. not just black/white/grey, but the whole fucking box of Crayolas and maybe some other artistic tools we didn't even think of before. Like that.

belledame222 said...

"Beet Queen?"

and i hear you; we can take our time over this. i know you have a lot on your plate.

belledame222 said...

...okay, did you mean you like Other Month as how often, or as a -title?-

anyway, i think that we need to have someone make us an icon/mascot of Judith Halberstram's Pet Weimeraner, and/or Jesus Christ in a Prom Dress.

piny said...

It's a Louise Erdrich book; I read it this morning at the gym. She's wonderful, but I read her as though she were nothing more or better than a pot-boiler.

I kinda like the Jayne Mansfield one. The dessicated beauty queen is another good one.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Diane+Arbus

piny said...

Well, maybe that could be as ironic as I'm sure much of the content will be. I forsee and hope for repeated, but not necessarily regular.

belledame222 said...

...so but, yeah, if we -are- broadening it beyond queer (non-het, okay) -or- sex-related, specifically, necessarily, which it sounds like we maybe are, i have some other names i'd want to be part of it, as well. Zuky, for one. (Zuky is Teh Awesome). maybe Temple3? Donna from "Silence of Our Friends"? petitpoussin? Black Amazon...and if Kevin wants in, i expect he'd have a number of ideas also.

belledame222 said...

...oh, you weren't thinking of Charlie Anders and Other Mag, there, were you, by any chance?

by the way, I really liked your Stephen King thread. I could actually talk about the shit going on in his stuff for an embarassingly long time.

piny said...

by the way, I really liked your Stephen King thread. I could actually talk about the shit going on in his stuff for an embarassingly long time.

Thanks. I've been doing a lot of reading, but I don't like posting about books because, well, no one else has read them.

belledame222 said...

dude, seriously? people read! i mean some people do. i mean i well USED to a lot, at least back before these-here exciting Internets pretty much replaced the funny little square things. i'm working on it, getting back, though, really.

anyway: so would you be cool with me just asking Kevin if he'd like to brainstorm with us about this possible carnival?

Amber said...

Holy fuck I can't believe that Pandagon thread has almost 500 comments now. That has got to be the longest thread I have EVER seen. Craziness!!

belledame222 said...

I haven't gone back in there since i last left; I prefer to just make up my own version, loosely based on what little i saw and the parts i am already starting to forget and reconstructing in my head. and make fun of -that-. hey, works for Amanda.

belledame222 said...

anyway it still hasn't approached the longest thread -i- have ever seen, which was the one where the dumb-as-a-truck-full-of-chickens
-going-to-town anti-abortion dude wrote this outraged piece about this evil, cruel, selfish woman writing about how much she was going to ENJOY her abortion, in some liberal heathen newspaper called the Onion. nearly 1000 and going strong before brain trust finally shut it down. oh, that was a glorious thread, 'twas.

piny said...

anyway: so would you be cool with me just asking Kevin if he'd like to brainstorm with us about this possible carnival?

Of course. And if he'd like to post a call for submissions, that'd be great too.

piny said...

dude, seriously? people read! i mean some people do. i mean i well USED to a lot, at least back before these-here exciting Internets pretty much replaced the funny little square things. i'm working on it, getting back, though, really.

But that doesn't mean they've read The Beet Queen. Stephen King, yeah, that's accessible. Same with Nabokov, or at least Lolita. But The Last King of Scotland? Waterland? Passage? Not so much. Even The Secret Life of Bees didn't get too many commenters, and that book was on the NYT bestseller list for weeks.

piny said...

And it'd be nice, too, if there could be multiple hosts. Does that make sense?

prosphoros said...

Yeah, I'd be in for the queer anaylsis of sexuality thing.

I should really consolodate an internet identity; I'm 'Adrien', 'A', and 'prosphoros', depending on the site/context.

belledame222 said...

good schtuff. goin' over right now.

yeah, i don't read nearly enough fiction anymore, i admit. obscure theory and psych and other non-fic books, yes. fiction...just started the new Neil Gaiman collection, which i am SO PLEASED to have. not exactly the world's least-known choice there, though.

oh! i had another thought. y'know how your favorite person calls her spot the Margins? 'cause, you'd said "alienated" and i did free-associate to "marginalized" when i was trying to think of a catchy title. and then almost immediately thought: ah, but: personally? at least. i don't WANT to -stay- "marginalized.- -or- alienated.

sometimes, you know, i wonder, with some of these people...the ones who've been driving me craziest (i mean, on the fringier end, not the win-at-all-costs Democrats), whether in fact they -do- have an investment in -staying- marginalized.

i mean, f'r instance, you saw delphyne's flame-out in there. and TF's business about well of course if she ever got -too- big it'd mean she'd sold out to the patriarchy, haha. (that was at nubian's, way way way back, i think).

and i thought, well fuck that. what's the bloody point, then? yah, as we see from the fdl example (among others) of course it's all too easy to "sell out." But if you decide (however consciously) that you're gonna respond to that by priding yourself on your being a -perpetual- "outsider," well, that's no good either; that means that you still bought into the dominant culture's set-up: either buy into our System, or suffer the consequences, i.e. huddle together over-protectively, be on constant defensive, alternately settle for and go at each others' throats for scraps.

which, again: fuck that.

As long as we're imagining, here. It's about -who- is speaking and -what- is being said (or isn't; or isn't being heard), sure. But it's also about -how.- That needs to transform, too. And new explorations of and new answers to "why," maybe first of all.

belledame222 said...

--hi! yay!

belledame222 said...

...but like, so, okay, assuming we are gonna expand this even further, which i want to do, maybe we could make one whole -edition-, probably not the first one, about "queering the apparatus" of feminism. And make sure in the description we also include talking about the very word "queer" as alienating to people who aren't of a certain demographic (if indeed it is, of course, this can be part of the question) as one possible topic. And if not "queer," but you still feel, well, not -straight-, what do you use and why?

and many other topics besides: personal-is-political stuff, sure. stuff like Winter's already completed and published post on the relations (the good bad and ugly) between LGBT and feminism. frustrations with the assumed heteronormativity in mainstream feminism -and- the binary-gender assumptions in mainstream LGB-oh-yeah-Tacked on politicking. gay/bi men and feminism. and so on.

but wait! there's more!

so yea, so later ones could focus on something totally else, but still connected, even obliquely, in the ways we're struggling to articulate here.

just, as i'm brainstorming, an idea for -one- other theme, also probably not the first one, but one i'd like to do eventually:

Keeping the Faith.

i.e. religion/spirituality and lib-progressive-radical leftie-etc. politics. Which could include many suggested topics:

Personal feelings and experiences from people who do not or no longer consider themselves at all spiritual or religious (I think there are at least a few big cans of worms to pry open here, actually). What does "faith" mean in a -non-spiritual, "secular humanist" context? And what about those who -are- religious/spiritual (because i think they get very underrepresented and un heard, on the whole, i mean on the -left- and -ish.-)? How does (or doesn't) this inform your politics? Want to hear from people across the spectrum here: mainstream, heterodox, splinter factions of the Big Mainstream religions; "alternative" practioners like Wicca, New Age, and so on. Tensions about maybe feeling caught between yer faith and yer politics, community-wise (whose practitioners are mutually antagonistic, even if -to you- the basic tenets make perfect sense together). Particularly alternate--hell, -any- sexuality and spirituality; there's another giant can of worms. Many angles for that. And so on and so on and so on.

belledame222 said...

..."border crossings," probably a theme explored in other carnivals, but one i think could take on new directions and fresh voices here.

belledame222 said...

...and you know, piny, you said "ironic;" i am having dark, wicked thoughts of an entire issue dedicated to sending up mainstream politicking, blogilicious and otherwise; and ourselves as well, of course. like, April Fool. make that one a surprise, not an open call. (she said, in public, but you know; just 'storming out loud here).

belledame222 said...

anyway, piny, just fired off a message to Kevin. I think I'd like for us, the two or three of us, to actually hammer out what this wants to be a bit more before making the announcement.

more ideas: "activism and action." What does this mean to you, first of all? What do you do that to you falls under "activism?" What do you consider most urgent? What's your "style," what tactics? whom do you network and make coalitions with? do you have a philosophy behind this? What do you consider a success? How do you deal with failure? What do you do when you get burnt out?

oh, and: textaisle, arbusto de mendacity. He hasn't been posting in quite a while; obviously it'd be great if he came back. But I'd also like to take his concept of "blogthropology" as a guiding principle. Curiousity for the sake of curiousity; education as a fun, consciousness-*expansion* thing, not a grim exercise in purging oneself of badness and assuaging various guilts. Who are these people anyway? What's their story?

and now leaping and thinking, Kevin's a poet; something like a storytelling one, using whatever artistic medium you prefer. tell your own story, whatever that means to you.

so, yeah, ultimately, multiple hosts. i figure maybe you and I and hopefully Kevin, like I said, could hammer out the basic principles and set-up, then call for submissions. also directly contact the people we've already named and whoever else we've thought of; that makes for a pretty wide pool already. after the first two or three rounds i think it'd be pretty smooth and easy to hand off the hosting to someone(s) else, same as with the carnival of the feminists and myriad other carnivals.

Mandos said...

Speaking of selling out, note the alas brouhaha.

belledame222 said...

i only just was apprised that there even was one. thread link?

piny said...

Speaking of selling out, note the alas brouhaha.

Yeeesh, yeah, that is not okay. At least understand that anti-porn feminists have every right to be disgusted when you sell their patronage to someone who's looking to advertise porn.

It pisses me off that people are trying to score points on Amanda for being all, "Playboy likes us?! Well, um, okay then!" and not, "HOW DARE YOU APPROVE OF ME?! Oh, I cover myself in SHAME!"

Mandos said...

Top post on VS blog.

belledame222 said...

I'm not getting that second reference, wrt Amanda and Playboy and whatnot.

well i just sent Amp a note of support; yeah, okay, i get why people might be pissed, but um.

aren't these pretty much mostly the same people who like INSISTED that Amp do this thing and that thing and the other? and nearly got separate threads for themselves? even though they already had spaces of their very very own? and, gotta say it, but so far most of 'em who're being the most...were making the place bloody unreasonable. i mean, who the fuck is this saltyC character anyway?

well, obviously i am an evil patriarchal capitalist swine, but we already knew that. also: meen.

anyway i kind of just generally love how some people are all like, "I shall no longer grace you with My presence!" (regal sweep); and it's like, half the room (that wasn't already in their amen corner) are all like, "don't let the door hit ya, Mary" and the other half is all like, "who are you again?"

and AND he has been writing about things that AREN'T EVEN ABOUT WOMEN lately. and who needs THAT? i ask you.

and so, they leave in a huff. and if they don't leave in a huff they can leave in a minute and a huff; and if they don't leave in a minute in a huff they can leave in a taxi.

...you KNOW. it occurs to me, evil that i am, that y'know if these-there wimmin were THAT invested in maintaining his space in a way that suits 'em, maybe they might've some of 'em offered to, you know, pitch in, financially? and then maybe this wouldn't have had to happen? just putting that out there.

(out of curiousity: roughly how much would it cost to run a space that size anyway? i know zip about the world outside blogger).

belledame222 said...

--thanks, i just found the Margins thread. i, no, it's NOT FUNNY, really it's not. no, i feel their pain, really i do.

really.

no,

i do.

i mean.

not funny.

at all.

no.

belledame222 said...

anyway it looks like he's had that news posted right in public (he sold the space) for over a month; where've they been?

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/09/13/i-sold-amptoonscom/

yeah, i know, Heart, this isn't the same thing as blogger -at all,- this is like an anti-racist site selling out to Stormfront or something. i know. yess.

Mandos said...

So as for the help business, Heart did mention that *she* thought that a simple appeal would have generated enough support to save the site without Amp doing what he did.

I know very little about the Amp ecology, though.

piny said...

So as for the help business, Heart did mention that *she* thought that a simple appeal would have generated enough support to save the site without Amp doing what he did.

I think it might have been beyond saving the site, and might have had more to do with Amp's financial situation in general. Not sure, though.

I am also extremely skeptical, given the amount of time Heart has spent _not_ supporting Amp.

belledame222 said...

well, yah, that's exactly my point. it's like, lemon drop: you know, given how much uh -input- you've had into his site, (how much has he had into yours? o right of course it's NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL, HOW ARE I EVEN SUGGEST SUCH A THING, silly me, i know) really, he shouldn't have even had to ask. I mean it might have at least OCCURRED to someone. like, ever.

it's, just, well, yeah:

Say, someone's hosting an open party. lively salons full of interesting, voluble people.

some people come in, start demanding that the host curb the behavior of some of the guests, even throw them out--which -may- be understandable if in fact those guests are being abusive of the other guests; but it starts to become a tad unclear after a while about who's abusing whom, in some cases. Okay.

and then, it becomes clear that in fact this isn't just about -behavior;- this is about, certain guests have determined that this is -supposed- to be a certain -kind- of party, anyway the host made allusions to that at some point, and well, -clearly- he has no right to call it that unless he makes a few changes around here.

so, okay. some rooms are cordoned off for those who insist on smoking, or on talking about certain subjects. or rather; those guests who would smoke or talk about certain things are barred from certain rooms at certain times. okay.

some of the complaing guests now also would like rooms to -themselves.- This possibility is seriously discussed for a while.

oh, and somewhere in there there is an uproar because some of the guests think the host needs to change his name, or at least his nametag, and maybe the welcome mat and the address.

and they start rearranging the furniture, of course.

and they can be quite quite nasty and unpleasant to some of the -other- guests, some of whom stage protests themselves; more simply either learn to ignore them or leave quietly.

and no one says much of anything about any of this.

eventually though it transpires that the host is beginning to run out of money to pay the lease (this is a VERY long party). he decides, after some thought, to turn the lease over to someone else. The agreement is: the party will continue absolutely undisturbed, no one in the house will have to deal with any unwelcome intruders or (other) demanded changes from outside; but the adjoining gazebo may now be rented out as a way station for other parties. some of which may sell booze from time to time.

now this has been a strictly dry party, although of course the guests are free to TALK about booze. some are against it mildly; some partake but don't talk about it there; some are pro-booze but respect house rules. and of course our favorite guests here are staunch teetotalers. Prohibitionists, as a matter of fact; and actually it becomes hard to even so much as bring up anything related to the subject without being subject to a tirade on the evils of Demon Rum.

In good faith, the host makes an annoucement about this change of situation in one of the main rooms. No one says much of anything, as they are probably all too busy smashing vases over each others' heads and hurling dishes at the wall.

A month goes by (this IS a very long party), and then one day one of the more...particular guests happens to step outside for a breath of fresh air and sees...something nasty in the woodshed (i mean gazebo). goes over to inspect and SCREEEEEEEE

DEMON RUM!!! we feel SO BETRAYED!!!

and, with a grand fanfare, a number of these most particular guests DEPART, ADIEU.* -doorslam- that would do Ibsen's Nora proud.

Pop quiz: the response of the other guests is...?

The response of the host should be...?

I wonder what Miss Manners would say about this situation...

* oh yah. it's getting funny in there. Jimmy Ho first sweeps into the linkfest list and goes, dripping with sarcasm, hey, here's one, the FLESHLIGHT. you you you PIMP. you traitor to the pro-feminist cause! you are DEAD TO ME.

no, seriously, dudes, he -actually said that.- "Alas a Blog is dead to me."

glory, glory, praise the Lord and pass the popcorn

piny said...

Yeeeaah, it's not like anyone was paying very much attention. And if Amp had to know, they had to know. At the same time, I understand why people are offended. Porn is to the internets as water is to the human body; Amp had to have some idea of the result. If he sees nothing wrong with that, that's his business.

The Amanda thing is over at Reclusive Leftist, btw. And if, say, James Dobson approvingly linked me, perhaps even said something nice about how transsexuality fits so well into this one-man-one-woman thing they're pushing? I'd think it was fucking hysterical, too. Might even make some pointed comments about how close Dobson's beliefs about me are to the radfem ones. Amanda's apparently taking a higher road.

belledame222 said...

Don't take this personally, but i kinda don't really want to go over there right now.

dunno if this is related, but: um yah, speaking of "hate," considering all the transphobic CRAP Heart has approvingly linked to, it's a bit fucking rich for her to bitch about "hate." yeahyeahyeah, porn is DIFFERENT, OHMIGOD, how CAN you even, blah blah bliddy blah, piss off really.

you know, it's one thing to paint gross (and sometimes degrading, sure) stereotypes of one possible representation of "you," sure; it's another to basically say that so-and-so by rights -shouldn't even exist.-

but then i am biased i expect, for my own reasons, in that regard.

Bitch | Lab said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bitch | Lab said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bitch | Lab said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bitch | Lab said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
belledame222 said...

huh. was it something i said? wonder who that was. o well.

piny said...

I'm gonna go ahead and suspect that it has to do with the comment on Alas.

JackGoff said...

It was Bitch|Lab...

belledame222 said...

Yeah, i got that afterwards. we talked, it's o.k.

yeah, when i saw scribbled, my first thought was, crazy dino woman, izzat you?

but then i don't think she's ever actually cleaned up after herself.

goddam, that thread over at Margins is...quite something.

anyway.

Thin Black Duke said...

There's a lot to digest here. I vanish for a few days and all of the sudden every blog I read has 217,423 comments and everyone is calling Amp a sellout and Amanda is now taking heat for some Playboy thing?

WTF is going on in Bloglandia?

Anyway, I'm confused about the Amp thing. I can't get my head around it. As much as I want to support Amp and as much as I don't trust those who have been waiting for the opportunity to contribute to his fall, I'm having a hard time supporting this particular decision of his. And it's not because of the porn. It's because of the type of porn. I don't watch any porn that my girlfriend won't watch with me (yes, my girlfriend and I watch teh pron--we are also teh evil. heh heh), and the stuff that is being reviewed over there is not the type of shit that we would ever support.

I don't know the whole story though. I haven't had the time to read everything that has been said.

So yeah, I'm just confused.

As for Amanda. One of the reasons I admire her is because she is able to see the absurdity of so many situations and poke fun at it. This is why I was so disappointed in the whole Burqa thing. She's better than that. I think she knows it too, and that's why she's having such a hard time accepting full responsibilty for her actions. Those of us on the more confident side of the fence have a hard time admitting when we're wrong. Let's be honest here. How many of us would have (or have) reacted the same way when someone has called us on our shit? Doesn't excuse that she fucked up. No. I'm just saying.

Back to the topic at hand. I think the shit she's taking regarding this Playboy thing is bullshit.

But ahh...fuck it...I came here to talk about the carnival thing.

Here's what I said to Belledame over at my place:

Belledame, I think this is a great idea. One thing that I would be concerned about is bitting off more than we can chew. Or worse, the risk that some topics might get lost in the rabble. I wonder if this sort of thing wouldn’t work better as a recurring carnival with different themes related to the general goals of the carnival. So for instance the first carnival would be solely devoted to a queer analysis of sexuality/feminism, the next to something else.

Or is that too much like a blog version of Bad Subjects?

Anthony Kennerson said...

Mmmmm....a queer carnival...sounds good to me.

Of course, I could add that to my own Sex-Pos/Sex Rad Carnival, too...*ahem, ah, haha, ahem*

Just a friendly reminder:

http://redgarterclubwebsite.com/SmackChron_Blog/2006/09/28/meet-me-in-the-trailits-going-down/

Deadline for subs: October 18th

[/shameless plug]

As to the main subjects at hand, though...

But of course, the radfems are going to pile on to Amp for his decision to sell his domain to porn sites; to them, it just proves their belief that he is an agent of the patriarchy using feminism for his own pleasure and a double agent for the enemy.

And, just of course, they are going to jump all over Amanda's case for not dropping the hammer on Playboy...just when it seemed that she was turning their way, too.

On Kev's note: I wonder if Amp really knew the kinds of sites that the purchasers of his former domain would produce when he sold it off...I'm not so sure that I can blame him for the ultimate suitors. After all, you have to survive somehow.

On the other hand, I find quite fascinating all the hooting and hollering from the usual crowd about how Amp could have saved his site by going more their direction....especially since these were the very same group that was busting Amp's chops for...well, being a man and allowing evil perverse MRA's to pollute his blog and "destroy" feminism.

I guess that he'll just join the (s)hit list of evil male traitors for the likes of Delphyne and Witc.....oops, sorry, didn't want to go there again.

But that's their problem. I wish Amp all the best.


Anthony

belledame222 said...

KAE: you know, i should really be more conversant with what Bad Subjects's all about.

but if you scroll up a few comments, you'll see that yeh, that was sort of where i was starting to go, per themes: one carnival centered around lgbtqiruqt alphabet soup, you know...readings of, oh, well pick a number of sub-themes. another could be religion & spirituality and the (loosely-defined) left (one of my own pet themes). another could be "border crossings." another could be "activism..." they're all up there. so yeah.

and yeah i hear you wrt making it too broad. i guess, i really like "transformative politics" as a kind of...guiding principle. i feel like a bunch of us are starting to just kind of grope our way toward not just a new community/approach/subjects but a new...frame? paradigm? (that term has always irked me: brother, can you paradigm?...sorry)...anyway.

so, it's big. but yeah, at the same time, don't want it to get -too- amorphous. or so ambitious that we all whoever end up running it feel like we've bitten off more than we can chew. so maybe that's something to talk about first. hammer out the -goal,- you know, or goal(s).

belledame222 said...

AK: you know, i just sent you an email today, replying to the mailing list, and it bounced back. have you been getting that from anyone else?

anyway what i said was: yes, and sorry i haven't responded sooner; all these Dwamas seem to keep distracting me...

i will definitely have at least one something in to you by the deadline. i wanted to write a new piece, hopefully i'll get to it. but i also have some older pieces that could go in there, i expect.

belledame222 said...

>I find quite fascinating all the hooting and hollering from the usual crowd about how Amp could have saved his site by going more their direction....especially since these were the very same group that was busting Amp's chops for...well, being a man and allowing evil perverse MRA's to pollute his blog and "destroy" feminism. >

yah, as i was saying. also: um, hi, not-so-silent partners, i must've missed all the places where you'd offered to help pitch in financially before?...

i mean, you know what--well, i took a quick look at the reviewed sites. they struck me as potentially dubious in the way of most mainstream porn but at the same time; i was hardly shocked, shocked, you know. maybe i was missing something, or maybe i'm just horribly jaded. but as piny was saying: porn is to the Internets as water is to, like, Earth...

whatever. even if i'd ever been inclined to be sympathetic, the sheer level of high drama is terribly amusing. my favorite was Jimmy Ho at Amp's, the link farm: oh, here's a link you can WHORE: (link to --gasp!-- the human fleshlight which is apparently reviewed on his site as well). yes! a REAL FLESHLIGHT, as opposed to Samantha simply going around talking about it completely gratuitously nad disturbingly in reference to actual people. sex toys! the horror.

but ohmigod, praise the lard and pass the smelling salts: you cad! you fiend! you Pimp! you, you, you, traitor to the pro-feminist cause! Alas a Blog is DEAD TO ME*.

--yes, *he actually said that.*

in so many words.

no irony whatsoever.

there just isn't enough popcorn in the world...

belledame222 said...

...you know. i realize this is probably me projecting what i would -like- to be true; but i can't help wondering if in fact at some level Amp made that decision -hoping- that it might provoke this reaction, albeit perhaps not from everyone who's doing it or to this degree. i mean, there's no way he could've -not- known that the craziest of the crazy especially were gonna just see the -word- "porn" and freak the fuck out, take their marbles and go home. much simpler that going through the process of to-ban-or-not-to-ban with each individual incredibly annoying one.

like i say: i project, because i am the EVOL. Amp's much kinder than i am; i know he genuinely likes/d a lot of these, um. folks.

but i mean: god, SO ANNOYING. it'd be one thing if they were perfectly reasonable except when it came to pr0n, but, well, no. the transphobia, the rigidity, the bullying, the DEMANDS alternating with whining, the sheer -nastiness- from some of them...i mean, who the fuck -is- this saltyC character anyway? is there some reason on God's earth anyone WANTS her to stay? well, maybe. i shouldn't project, really...

i know my support of Amp doesn't exactly -help- wrt those folks, but, you know. evil. what can i say. may as well go with it, right?

i said, back in the Jimmy Ho thread, well, pretty much what i said here, and then,

VIVA the Patriarchy! YAY PR0N! our sinister agenda was a SUCCESS!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

now let's go kill some puppies and eat 'em!

Mandos said...

Speaking of Delphyne, I have just been informed by Delphyne and Pony, as part of a response to a comment on VS/RL, that they do not bother to read my comments.

*irony moment*

Furthermore, Pony has deemed me a troll, and she has begged me to "stop it. Just stop it."

Jay said...

@BD,

VIVA the Patriarchy! YAY PR0N! our sinister agenda was a SUCCESS!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

I'm in, if you are still doing the queer analyses of sexuality thing...

Jay<--off to go kill and chomp on some puppayyysss

Jay said...

Oh, and I have dedicated a cartoon to you today at www.jaysennett.com/blog

Kisses,
Jay

belledame222 said...

awesome! thanks, shouldn't have taken that to get me back over to your site goddamit, been meaning to today anyway.

mandos: what, pray tell, is it that you are supposed to "stop," exactly?

"looovve themm puppies,
puppies' what i love to eat.
chomp their little tailses,
nibble on their little feet."

Mandos said...

Being an "exquisite" example of a troll, I guess. This, though, from the woman who never met a disingenuous drive-by accusation she doesn't like.

belledame222 said...

*wiping away tears*

that's beautiful, man.

Hey, she called -me- a "john," though, last we encountered each other. and oh yeah, the radical feminists are "coming to get" me and mine. i can hardly wait. maybe i'd better vacuum first. no, wait, vacuuming is sterile and male-identified and patriarchy enabling, best to just let the good Mother Earthly dust collect. anyway, i'm so excited. i wonder where they'll take me?

belledame222 said...

(word identification: "wowes"!)

(and now: jwfuux. i couldn't agree more, really)

Renegade Evolution said...

ok, i am on vacation, I do not have time to get into all this now...but I did read her post, and yours (I am not slagging through comments) and all I have to say at the moment is ARGHHHHH. I will make the time soon enough, and I am sure, soon enough, have my own verbal meltdown.

Jay said...

@BD

i wonder where they'll take me?

to a campsite where they will make you eat tofu and sing "we are an angry gentle people singing for our lives" and Ode to a Gym Teacher.

Andrea said...

You can't vaccum, the tube is phallic and the process involves SUCKING. Need I say any more?!

As for that fucking dinosaur woman, did you see her 'comments' over at Volsunga a few weeks back?

My god, made what she said at mine (Vociferate) look like Oscar fucking Wilde.

Pardon my language.

belledame222 said...

ooh, no, missed that one. link?

but yeah; i think girlfriend has maybe spent a leetle too much quality time with the paint thinner.

RE: you know what though, the payoff has been rather splendid. new friends, new and renewed connections, and all the popcorn i can eat!

belledame222 said...

...actually the comments are kind of worth the slog. midway through delphyne shows up and, well, like i said:

*chomp chomp chomp*

Andrea said...

Here we are!

http://www.volsunga.co.uk/?p=23#comments

She makes her unforgettable entrance about 7 comments down.
I've ever seen someone so content to make themselves look like a total moron.

Andrea said...

Actually, there are a pile of comments by Delphyne which are interesting combined with the comments at Pandagon.

On the Laurelin thread that Sofie links to, Delphyne accuses Sofie and another commenter, Kit, or being bourgeois because of their 'upper-middle class names'. Oh yes.

Amber said...

On the Laurelin thread that Sofie links to, Delphyne accuses Sofie and another commenter, Kit, or being bourgeois because of their 'upper-middle class names'. Oh yes.

Wow. It just gets crazier and crazier.

But, you know, I shouldn't be surprised, I guess. I've long said that there are crazies and stupid people in all walks of life, across all ideological lines. THAT is the great unifier!! See, this could really be the starting point for building a movement. No matter what your race, gender, class, sexual orientation, profession, location, etc. - there are assholes among you!

Now let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya. And buy the world a Coke.

belledame222 said...

bwahahaha.

and i know i keep harping on this because i am pettier than all fuck, but: how much do i love the righteous anti-bougie/classist schtick coming from people who unreservedly worship TF?

belledame222 said...

> No matter what your race, gender, class, sexual orientation, profession, location, etc. - there are assholes among you!


o shit! thanks for reminding me! i had been meaning to write the

ANTI-ASSHOLE MANIFESTO

and it done just slipped my mind.

that must be done.

Dharma said...

Wow. I can't read all the comments, cause my head is spinning and I have papers to revise and to write. But. I wish I could say everything that rang true in your post. I do think analyzing porn can be useful, and also boring. I have sold porn, sex toys, had dinner with porn stars and well I really enjoy porn (in written and video form) a lot of it I have to turn away for a moment to get past some scene or another that rankles. Sometimes it rankles because of the enormous hatred and control it demonstrates toward women, but the rankle goes deeper when somewhere, for some reason (hello society) it *works* for me.

I love the "approximating of experiences" b|l quotes. It makes so much sense, it describes so well what people do all the time with result varying from empathy, to support, to suppression, to silence and back again.

Okay I really need to just catch up a little more on your blog and then I really really must revise that damn research proposal paper - AGAIN.

Renegade Evolution said...

okay, now that i have read most of it...i am soooo sorry I missed it.
Heh.

Anonymous said...

If the anger that leads to rape is caused by feeling powerless, then women should rape more than men since we feel that powerlessness more than men. But we don’t.

Well. We don't know that isn't true. Men commit more violent rape that results in penetration (including against other men).

But it isn't at all clear that if you go to the broader category of sexual assault (without penetration) and include emotional coercion and getting someone drunk to take advantage of them, women aren't committing more rape than men. Especially if you include statutory rape. Men may simply like it more; not report it as often; or our culture may simply laugh at men who air a greivance.

Not to mention the statistics are screwy. A girlfriend and her boyfriend who plot and plan a rape against another woman for revenge purposes are not charged the same, and the statistics are not recorded the same, either. (Nor does one of the acts fit into the men vs. women paradigm.) But they both "raped" the same woman, with the same event, for the same reason.

It also may be that women don't rape as often, but they do harmful things short of rape just as often to get out the urge. It may be that women have greater fear of the law, or are better at exacting revenge through legal means.

Escort London said...

A professional London Escorts agency booking service with more than 50 girls available 24/7 for high class elite girls for in call and out call availability. For professional dating of London Escort girls.

Girls Company said...

www.girlscompany.co.uk

London Escort Agency

As a respected and established London escort agency we provide companionship for all possible situations. From evening dates, travel or business companions to outright mind-blowing intimacy. We take pride in the service we provide and see to it that we match every customer with the best escort girl regarding his or hers requirement. Our escort agency works with only the best escort girls London houses. Our standards are above and beyond any other escort agency and customer satisfaction is the highest in the business.

Escort services

Our customers expect the best escort service and they have never been disappointed. Known for providing the best escort service in London our escort agency has a wide variety of escort girls to choose from. You name it we got it and .. you can get it ..

London Escorts said...

Finest London Escort agency with sexy and young girls available from around the world for incalls and outcalls. Call 078- 4680- 0306 for top London Escorts.

Laura said...

Intresting story you place here.
It will be great to read something more concerning this topic.
Thanks for giving that information.
With best regards!!!
Ukrainian Kiev escort

Escorts London said...

London escort agency which provides genuine female escort models in Central London area - Escorts London.

Asian escorts London said...

An exclusive Oriental - Asian escorts agency operating in Central London - Asian escorts London.

London Escorts said...

If you are looking for European escorts Bestescort4U is the best place in London - London escorts.

Elite London escorts said...

Bentley's International Models is a London escort agency providing elite top class.

Asian London escorts said...

Asian Classic is a highly rated London escorts service in Central London.

London escort agency said...

Your Mademoiselle escorts agency is select the most charming, friendly and the finest London escorts for our Escort gallery and provide the best escort services in London.

Elite escorts said...

Beautiful escorts can be found at Elite Club International. Elite Club International is an elite escort agency operating mostly in Dubai and London.

munich-girls said...

the best escort agency in Munich make your time perfekt call your escort in Munich"your sexy dream with nice end sexy escort girls in Munich"

Your Escort Agency said...

Your Escort Agency offers exclusive and most beautiful London escort girls of various nationalities.

Porn Star Escorts said...

Bunny Planet is an Exclusive Online Gentlemen's Club filled with Adult Stars, Adult Entertainers, Centerfolds and Erotic Models who want to meet you in person now!

London Escorts said...

You can go to a club and spend a lot of money trying to pick up women only to find out they are using you to get free drinks or you can use the Adoras models in London and find a hot woman that will do whatever you want to do.

London Elite Gallery said...

London Elite Gallery is a highly respected international escort agency providing the most beautiful elite london escorts.

Escort Models said...

Adoras Models is an escort agency in London where you can find the beautiful and exclusive London escorts. Adoras Models prides itself in running a honest and efficient London escort agency.

Japanese London Escorts said...

We are a Central London agency with many of girls exclusive to London Japanese Paradise.

London Asian Escorts said...

London Asian Escorts is an Asian and Oriental escort agency operating in Central London. The agency provides escort service for a true gentlemen.

Escorts of London said...

Escort of London agency a well-established and respected agency. We have a great selection of girls in London for your pleasure.

Only Pleasures Escorts said...

Only Pleasures is a well established and respected agency since 1999. We are pride of ourselves on having the most exquisite selection of girls in London for your pleasure…

Transsexual dating said...

Transsexual dating website for transsexuals and gays with videos, forum, webcams and announcements.

London Crumpet said...

London escorts directory London Crumpet is created to expose Independent escorts and escort agencies in London. Everybody can post their advert on this directory for FREE.

butty said...


The guy my girlfriend left me for dumped her for someone he works with after casting the win ex back spell which my friend introduce me to! the win ex back spell works fast! Of course she called me and pleaded for my forgiveness and now she always want to be with me,she is always attached to me now trusting everything i say to her. I love knowing I had everything to do with this winexbackspell@gmail.com for i will keep shearing the goodness until i am satisfy.