Friday, May 11, 2007

Just a quick love note, to brownfemipower

I'm sorry you've hit that wall. I just want you to know that it isn't all for nothing; you have made a difference. Do what you need to do to take care of yourself, just:

nolite bastardes carborundurum.

or however that goes.

and yeah, she's right, there are some real fuckers out there. some of 'em might even be in the mirror, who knows?

Oh yeah, and then there's this:

I, just like all the other women of color out there, know who has been stealing our posts and our ideas.

* And no, it wasn’t “the patriarchy”.


Hello everyone in feminist/progressive blogville. This is a message from your friendly white bougie queer blogger:

If you find inspiration for your ever-so-popular posts, you know, the 30,000,000,000 readers per day that are keeping you -too busy- to address the needs and concerns of your purported sisters, in the posts of lesser-read bloggers.

You may or may not give a shit about the actual people here, so let me put it in terms that might come across:

Unless you wish to give the impression that you were raised in a barn by inbred wolverines, link and give credit where it's fucking due.

Because, you are, in fact, being watched.

'K?

love,

biggles

29 comments:

Alon Levy said...

Which post(s) are you talking about?

Sorry, I stopped reading the big feminist blogs back when I quit blogging (okay, except Majikthise, which is very multi-issue).

Trinity said...

Same here... I can't even look at the biggies any more.

Not that I was ever huge on 'em anyway. But still.

belledame222 said...

yeah, i don't even bother most of the time, and am much happier for it.

as per which posts: i understand bfp (and some others) to be referring to a pattern which has been going on for a while. as per which blogs are being accused of doing this most often...i'm leaving it to the people who feel most affected by it to name names, if and when they feel like it, although i have my suspicions.

belledame222 said...

if you mean, which post by bfp, it's in the hyperlink in this post.

Renegade Evolution said...

sigh, another good one who has had enough.

belledame222 said...

i'm hoping it's temporary. she's hit the wall before, worse than this, i think, even. and is self-aware of that even in the course of the despair there. we'll see.

Trinity said...

No I don't mean which post by BFP, I mean what BS are the biggies up to today.

I keep seeing references to "clavicles" on BlackAmazon's place but I've no context for it since I don't read the biggies so I have no idea what the biggies found so fascinating about 'em.

kactus said...

the only big feminist site i go to is feministe. Gave up on feministing many, many months ago. And pandagon...well, sometimes it's worth it. Usually for Pam.

belledame222 said...

I like Chris, but i usually read him at his own place. ditto Ilyka.

belledame222 said...

trin: i was responding to AL's "which posts are you talking about?" with that one.

yeah, i'm not totally clear on "clavicles," i assumed she meant the bare midriff on the cover of FFF but i could be way off there. i've missed a few things apparently.

kactus said...

dunno, there's a big discussion going on at feministe about clavicles of allthings. But really in a context of fetishing women's bodies, especially body parts. And then the whole thin-fetishizing of the culture and how damaging it is to women's bodies. But I haven't seen BA's post; I'll go check that out now.

oh, and majikthise? Never read it much, but really refused to read it ever again after the whole "kidnap the muslim women to save them from their men" post lindsay put up last year. I'm still mad about that one.

belledame222 said...

yeah, among other things. the way she talked to and about BA and bfp...

Trinity said...

""kidnap the muslim women to save them from their men" post lindsay put up last year."

what in the name of fuck?

ew.

Blackamazon said...

Kactus got it but it was more in a sense of the riots happened most places nada but pandagon feministe and feministing all got the clavicles debate going

BFp gets threatened nothing

but JEssicas books gets how many reviews by peopel who obviously havent read it?

belledame222 said...

um, what is there to "debate" over a clavicle? i could go check myself i suppose, but i'm too lazy.

kactus said...

trinity, for real. Here's the link if you want to gag:
http://tinyurl.com/27lyp4

Yeah, I've kept it for posterity. I believe in keeping track of stupidity.

arrogantworm said...

I skimmed the one at Feministe day before, the original post (if I'm not mistaken) was how people are idolizing clavicles in models now, and to have a visual one usually means someone is dangerously thin health-wise.

Prolly said other things in depth, I'd be interested to know what it was.

Can't do much more than skim, though, it involves a lot of cut and paste because my browser doesn't like the font and colors over there, and the size sucks when it's enlarged cuz the bar moves at the bottom. Just no good all around easy-to-read wise.

belledame222 said...

oh yeah.

"we'll take all your women and children."

great.

"what d'you mean 'we', white girl?"

belledame222 said...

oh okay, so we're actually talking--well.

if it's about eating disorders, i'd rather just read Kim, say.

Alon Levy said...

Ah, okay... now if only I'd kept up with Pandagon, I'd be able to blame Amanda for crowding out yet another blogger who failed to parrot the correct platitudes.

Anyway, I tried looking up the correct Latin of "Don't let the bastards grind you down," but I don't know how to decline the noun "bastard" in the feminine.

Alon Levy said...

but JEssicas books gets how many reviews by peopel who obviously havent read it?

Hey, I'd love not to have read it... unfortunately I did.

"we'll take all your women and children."

Personally, I view that as spin. The actual idea of considering gender-based human rights violations as grounds for asylum is a pretty good one. It won't do what Lindsay's hoping it will, but it won't hurt, either. It's less incendiary than things like draft dodger protection, which never really hurt Canada.

belledame222 said...

gender-based (as well as sexual-orientation based) asylum isn't a bad idea, necessarily, but tone counts for a whole lot.

and, Alon? "We'll take your women and children" is a direct quote. follow the link. if you mean -she- was spinning for some reason, could be, but as you can see, it didn't go over real well.

belledame222 said...

here's the entire post, for context:



Increasing numbers of Afghan women are dying by setting themselves on fire, according to reports by NGOs. This year, thirty-six cases of self-immolation have been reported in Kabul alone. [BBC]

The answer is not military conflict in Afghanistan. The answer is taking gender-based oppression into account in refuge claims. We could "rescue" every oppressed Afghan woman who wants asylum by simply opening our doors to all female refugees from Afghanistan, and any other regime that doesn't afford full civil rights to women.

The message to patriarchal regimes: Keep this up, and we'll take all your women and children. Heck, if you don't knock off this tinpot dictator shit, we'll take all your scientists, all your engineers, all your doctors, and all your journalists--regardless of gender! Our gain, your loss.

That would be a far more radical (and humiliating) foreign policy than waging conventional warfare against religious and political extremists who deny basic human rights to women. Forget the bombing campaigns and the torture. Just tell women and their children that they're welcome to free lives of opportunity in a real democracy.

I bet the cost of integrating every would-be Afghan refugee and her dependent children into our society would be less than a single major military offensive against the Taliban.

If you don't like the veil, think about who the world's huddled masses really are.


o where to begin.

well, here's sly civilian's take:

Fuck? Have y’all spent time in refugee issues at all? Having seen some of the fallout as a Constituent Advocate, I can tell you that this “proposal” is nothing less than a humanitarian disaster. Nobody ever recommends wholesale movements of people. For a reason. It’s dangerous, people get killed, health care and sanitation becomes impossible to deliver, and the resources spent on mitigating the disaster are mostly wasted.

Also, let’s note the specificity of the reccomendation. The removal of 50% of a nation’s population would be pretty much a guarantee of economic, food, and political collapse into total anarchy. The gendered removal of population is genocidal.

This is a proposal to annihilate an entire nation.


so claim she's exaggerating to make a point, but again: what or who is this "we" shit? This isn't just a question of, provide asylum because of a specific practice (i.e. fleeing FGM, as in some cases, or forcible marriage): the whole situation is pretty much FUBAR, and blithely proposing a "solution" of let's just break what remains of the whole corrupt society apart, then, is just...well hello, how'd we get there in the first place? -crickets crickets crickets- i mean, suddenly, what--very Team America! there, that tone, if you don't care for the term "colonialist." It still boils down to "let's go in and SAVE the savage natives from themselves! we do things so much BETTER over here, really, we're totally equipped to do that, and they're all just basically sitting around and eating sand and waiting for Whitey to come in on a white steed. we just need to do it -better.-"

the idea that -there isn't an immediate solution- and that -we are implicated and culpable- and -we may not be able to make it all better- is really too awful to contemplate; but, well, contemplate it.

the idea that the poor wimminz might not necessarily fall all over themselves with gratitude at being deveiled is an idea that you'd think might be slightly easier to grasp. and yes, it's a lot worse in Afghanistan than just the veil, we KNOW. everyone knows. it's just, we only care when it suits our convenience, and -that's not good enough.-

belledame222 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
belledame222 said...

also? generally speaking? whatever else the root of the problem is, i really truly don't believe that it's that Those Men haven't been humiliated -enough,- as opposed to all the presumably less Patriarchal First World Menz.

Alon Levy said...

Yeah, I know it's a direct quote. As I said, it's not going to do what she thinks it will. What in practice this can amount to is, "We'll take in the refugees who managed to escape your country on their own and give them a couple of human rights."

As a human rights promotion policy, it's actual better than most, because it won't do anything, except give a few select refugees some rights. Most other policies sold on human rights grounds only make things worse, even when they really are intended in good faith (and they're usually not - see Iraq).

belledame222 said...

it's not really a policy proposal at all; it was a blog post that didn't really do anything except piss a lot of people off. and then, the response to the people being pissed off was...well. Point Missed. emphatically so.

sly civilian said...

as i said then...it's not a public policy proposal. it's a colonialist day dream/nightmare.

anyhow. i don't think i want to spend further breath discussing if lindsay was being appropriate.

it sounds racist, and the conversation afterwards left several of my friends hurt and drained. that's all i really need to know.

belledame222 said...

yep.