Fetch me my axe: unfuckingbelievable

Saturday, June 09, 2007

unfuckingbelievable

this

Way to go, Nurse Ratchet. *spits*

52 comments:

Anonymous said...: She is merely being true to her beliefs. It follows immediately from her principles.; June 09, 2007 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: She might be being true to her beliefs, but this also seems to stem from a personal vendetta. In other words, this was about way more than sticking to her principles. If she's so offended by Ren's occupation, she shouldn't be reading her blog.; June 09, 2007 1:22 PM
Anonymous said...: It’s one thing to criticize a dogma because its internal logic tends to lead to this kind of thing. It’s another thing altogether to imagine that the dogma is a perfectly logically consistent & complete system, so that whatever the dogmatist says is like a theorem in Euclidean geometry, that there’s no choice or discretion involved. Things don't work that way. And it’s still another thing to imagine that malice isn’t a motive here, without which everything would be different.; June 09, 2007 1:41 PM
J. Goff said...: She is merely being true to her beliefs.

From which we can glean that her principles are unethical, and based on a bigoted view of certain women.

And she has the gall to say "pseudo-feminist"?! Well, guess what witchy? Taking away a vital volunteer from women who need as many good volunteers as possible? Yeah, that's anti-feminist. Good job there! But the march of progress rolls on, now doesn't it? Ai yai yai!; June 09, 2007 1:41 PM
Sassywho said...: it reeks of "nice-guy" syndrome. the guy who tells you that you are such a delicate flower... and you must have been damaged by all of the other men you dated before him... because they didn't do things like bring you breakfast in bed with floating lillies in a vase... the guy who's going to show you what it's like to be treated like a lady... open your car doors, write you a poem.... and buy a relationship plant.... so the 2 of you can nurture it like your relationship...

then of course if you decide that you don't like his smothering/delicate flower treatment... you are bitch who doesn't like nice guys.; June 09, 2007 1:48 PM
belledame222 said...: yes, yes, yes. she's -furious.-

earlier on, before (or maybe during) the big Stormy blowout but when things where deteriorating rather sharply, she prances onto Ren's blog and announces that she and Ren have a cordial relationship, y'all will be surprised to know. "Because she's a woman and I'm a woman." And therefore, there -must- be common ground.

Some of us explain carefully that actually, right now, Renegade's feeling hurt by -you, personally-, in case you didn't notice (this was after some nasty vent she'd made on her own blog, and when Renegade protested, something like "surely you know me well enough by now that..." not trying to hurt her personally, was the gist of it. and when Ren was still hurt personally, an even nastier diatribe followed).

but christ jesus forbid she y'know apologize.

so then this that and the other; and eventually it came to pass that Renegade promised to leave that bunch alone, and delinked witchy-woo.

And here we are.

I'm sure she has some cosmic rationale for -why- she's still lurking around, and -why- she feels compelled to try to grab that pound of flesh.

She's a nasty piece of work, she really is. The ideology suits her needs, but it by no means justifies her behavior, however much she'd like it to be so.; June 09, 2007 1:57 PM
belledame222 said...: on a completely different note: kh, did you ever see pictures of my wee beastie? i got a camera, finally!; June 09, 2007 2:26 PM
Alon Levy said...: I'm not sure I understand that post... is Witchy-Woo trying to out Ren, or what?; June 09, 2007 3:20 PM
belledame222 said...: No. Renegade was working in a DV shelter. Asshole manager found out she was a dirty sex worker and told her her services were no longer required, so sorry. Renegade vents to her regulars on her blog. Regulars express sympathy and outrage. Whereupon Witchy swoops in and goes, serves you right, you anti-feminist slu--tool of the patriarchy, I would've done the same thing, -have- done, abused women don't need your "help" and neither does feminism, BOO YAH.

picture a handful of coarse salt and a raw wound, iow.; June 09, 2007 3:38 PM
belledame222 said...: was VOLUNTEERING in a DV shelter, i should say.; June 09, 2007 3:40 PM
Octogalore said...: Mandos, it actually does NOT follow immediately from her principles. If anything, it's at a significant distance. Her stated principles are anti-porn and feminist, not anti-women. Removing a source of aid from women, who did not know about Ren's connection to porn and may not have cared, is not a feminist act, no matter how you cut it. The end result, if you are measuring in units of "benefit to women," of Ren not being at that shelter any more, are indisputably negative. How, pray tell, does that follow from feminist principles? I read your post as somewhat manipulatively controversial, and I think you are aware of the above counterargument.; June 09, 2007 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, if you make the assumption that removing Ren's assistance is worse than permitting it, your criticism is perfectly accurate.

I'd say, though, that in WW's world, someone with a voluntary connection to porn-generation is someone she cannot trust to keep the best interests of oppressed women at heart, because she's knowingly doing something that, in WW's world, is absolutely antithetical to the interests of abused women, which are diametrically opposed to porn.

It's about the divided loyalties here. Fox in henhouse and all that. In WW's world, ultimately you can't be both, I don't think.; June 09, 2007 5:13 PM
belledame222 said...: i'm really not that interested in the mad cow disease that passes for that woman's thought processes at this point, thanks. please stop.; June 09, 2007 5:23 PM
belledame222 said...: I read your post as somewhat manipulatively controversial

ya think?; June 09, 2007 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Me? Manipulatively controversial? *pout*

In other news, my version of firefox does not think that "manipulatively" is a word.

Oh, and it thinks I'm insulting it by not capitalizing its name.; June 09, 2007 5:57 PM
antiprincess said...: I'm sure she has some cosmic rationale

but here she is, with her faith and her peter-pan advice.

she has no scars on her face but she cannot handle PRESSURE!

Billy Joel, folks, he'll be here all week...; June 09, 2007 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Damn and Fuck, I get the internet back after moving house and it's filled with example after example of crap and meanness with nary a silver lining shown. It does look like a vendetta, don't it. Someone with more compassion than I possess needs to point Witchy in the direction of a competent therapist in her area to discuss unresolved issues, especially with the omnipotent ideas she possesses regarding the rest of the world. There's something dreadfully wrong when she claims to know what everyone else needs and doesn't listen to other input.

As for the rest of the hooplah, I'm puzzled that the lot of 'em haven't been floated out by their heads to the depths of space by their own egos yet that they've grown so hot, large and long winded. I s'pose I can still hold out hope for a black hole.; June 09, 2007 6:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Wait, which song by Billy Joel involves scars on a face?; June 09, 2007 6:11 PM
antiprincess said...: aw - "Pressure" from The Nylon Curtain.; June 09, 2007 6:16 PM
belledame222 said...: knew I could count on ya for the reference, AP

and yeah, "Pressure."

DOOdoodoodooDOOdooDOOdoo DOOdoodoodooDOOdooDOOdoo
DOOdooDOOdooDOOdooDOOdoo
DOOdoodoodooDEEEE!; June 09, 2007 6:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Well naturally, since dedicated and competent DV volunteers are numerous and grow on trees, we can afford to be very selective and root out the ones who have any hint of ickyness.

In fact, we should strive to hire only nuns to do this vital work. We could bring DV survivors to convents, where they would not even have to face public scrutiny as they rebuild their lives.

It would be such a big step forward for women's rights!; June 09, 2007 8:33 PM
andi said...: I have to be missing something here.

This woman actually thinks that a person who makes no mention of her career, should be barred from volunteering at a woman's shelter, even tho' no one complained about her work until AFTER they found out what she did and probably at the instigation of the person who told them?

what? *smack head on table*
Ok, you can go with the "porn oppresses women" line of thought, but from what I've read at Ren's blog she doesn't seem to feel oppressed. Quite the opposite. So where's the issue? In someone else's mind I guess.
Then there's the kid angle...I may be way off base here, bur I doubt Ren is talking up her profession to little girls trying to get them involved. or little boys for that matter. So where's the issue again? Right...someone else's mind.
I can't think of a single reason that anyone would object to a good, kind, dedicated worker because of how she supports herself.
I don't get it.

oh yeah, beliefs...I can't imagine living with a system of belief that allowed me to deny someone the right to be useful and give back, merely because I wanted to impose my morality on them.; June 09, 2007 10:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Handsome beastie, the very spitting image of my long gone very first one, except one of her ears drooped because of an incompetent vet named Dr. Antic. (Never pick a medical provider based on his name.) My long gone mother, who was always blessed vague on the difference between boys & girls, named her Tom.; June 10, 2007 12:27 AM
Octogalore said...: Mandos, please see here.

But nice try.; June 10, 2007 2:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Ok, you can go with the "porn oppresses women" line of thought, but from what I've read at Ren's blog she doesn't seem to feel oppressed. Quite the opposite. Andi

And that, so far as the rads are concerned, is the problem. If Ren were a reluctant stripper complaining in her blog how the patriarchy had left her no choice but to do degrading sex-work, then they would welcome her with open arms; and no doubt they would applaud her participation at a women's refuge as an example of solidarity amongst the oppressed. And if she were simply to get on with celebrating her own lifestyle, proclaiming the while her complete indifference to feminism and the well-being of other women, that wouldn't be a problem either.

As things stand, however, Ren is just grit in the ideological works: she isn't what she's supposed to be, and, worse, she won't shut up about it. Anomalies like her are natural targets for zealots. Fortunately (I think we all agree) she can look after herself.; June 10, 2007 6:48 AM
Anonymous said...: I'm aware that the word exists, it's just amusing that firefox's builtin dictionary doesn't agree.; June 10, 2007 11:14 AM
belledame222 said...: TN: yeah, she can, but you know, she'd probably appreciate a word of support. JADP.; June 10, 2007 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Anomalies like her are natural targets for zealots. Fortunately (I think we all agree) she can look after herself.

But if you have an analysis of oppression, and a clear understanding of who is on whose side, then it's not just a matter of being an anomaly who fails to conform to some preconceived categorization scheme, but a traitor.

Revolution, right?; June 10, 2007 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's have some soup.; June 10, 2007 11:57 AM
belledame222 said...: 'k.; June 10, 2007 12:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Mandos, I think I get your point, but I don’t believe you. These people aren’t guided by some large, reasonably logically coherent & consistent – much less empirically grounded, you know, veridical – theoretical apparatus. It’s true that you can sort of predict the transphobia from their attitudes about other things – you can also often guess what florid psychotics will say –, but that’s because they express a common animus, not because they’re logically drawing deductions from coherent theoretical premises.

They have an attitude, prejudices, some potted, shopworn rhetoric, a few half-remembered lines from some defunct book they once read, & above all they’ve identified an Enemy. But a deep-rooted in-group/out-group sense, knowing who to hate, doesn’t qualify as an analysis or a theory where I come from.

They don’t work from premises to conclusions. They work backwards from hatred to its rationalizations, & none too skillfully. If what you say were true, they wouldn’t regularly make brazenly mutually contradictory arguments to reach the same hateful conclusion. They would have given more conscientious thought to their arguments. I’ve tried several times to engage them, & what they say collapses on first contact with rational scrutiny. They’d be pleased to successfully defend their claims if they could, but they can’t, because there’s no coherent there there. Thus the fast recourse to personal invective. They’re fanatics, but only indifferent, incompetent ideologues.

Stop dignifying this demeaning malice by attributing it to an analysis. There are psychological causes at work, but not rational reasons.; June 10, 2007 2:11 PM
Anonymous said...: TN: yeah, she can, but you know, she'd probably appreciate a word of support. JADP.BD

I did give her a word of support - over on her blog (though I dare she didn't notice - I'm only one supportive commenter amongst many!). By the way, what does JADP stand for?

But if you have an analysis of oppression, and a clear understanding of who is on whose side, then it's not just a matter of being an anomaly who fails to conform to some preconceived categorization scheme, but a traitor.Mandos

If witchy's ideology were her main motivation, then she would have several million more deserving internet targets to take aim at than Ren. But she doesn't spend her time writing abusive messages to Larry Flint or George Bush, does she?

Instead she writes them to somebody who shares many of her own social and political priorities - but who strips for a living.

That's not a particular ideology so much as an ideological mentality at work: witchy is comfortable with sheep to champion and goats to denounce, but she cannot abide having her categories challenged - categories which stipulate that no woman would voluntarily do sex work, and that even if such a woman existed (oh Heaven forfend!) she would have to be without any sense of solidarity with other women.; June 10, 2007 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: They’d be pleased to successfully defend their claims if they could, but they can’t, because there’s no coherent there there. Thus the fast recourse to personal invective. They’re fanatics, but only indifferent, incompetent ideologues. KH

I don't normally cheer-lead, but I don't think I've ever seen that better said. Bravo/a.; June 10, 2007 3:27 PM
belledame222 said...: kh wins the internets. again.

I did see your post, TN, sorry about that. I'm sure she did too.

"JADP"="just a data point."; June 10, 2007 5:03 PM
belledame222 said...: well, you know, w-w is also the same one who wrote that post about how just -anyone- could do good works (which was aimed at Ren, too, of course, but she ended up backpedaling when people like Kim and other social workers took offense), but REAL feminism is an in yer SOUL thing.; June 10, 2007 5:05 PM
belledame222 said...: and yeah, you know--it IS possible to have these general beliefs (about the pr0n and such, anyway) and not be a total bunghole. There are a couple of people on Ren's blogroll even now who genuinely engage and are friendly with her even as they agitate against pr0n. Likewise, Ren with them, even as she does her thing. If they can be adults, why can't the rest of them? instead of calling people like Laura "brainwashed" and attempting to throw her out of the treehouse? when she -actually hadn't changed her positions?-

and, too, there's absolutely no reason why one couldn't take an I Blame The Patriarchy position that's pro-sex work and pro-transfolk. I know a few people who do. There's a TG professional submissive (look! all three!) who considers herself a radical feminist; she buys the basic idea of "patriarchy"--not the "sex is oppressive" bit, but male monotheism and women as property and so on and so forth. She also buys the idea of goddess worship via temple prostitution; and gender fluidity, very -not- patriarchal. It's all perfectly cohesive as far as I'm concerned. But, she knows to stay the hell away from the Hearts and witchies and so on of this world. Because she's got quite enough on her plate without volunteering for abuse by so-called "feminists" on top of it. I don't blame her at all, but it pisses me off, I tell you.; June 10, 2007 5:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, I don't think T Faster herself cottons to the karotypic fundamentalism that's being promulgated in her house.; June 10, 2007 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...: karotypic = karyotypic, right? (I just looked that up in the dictionary, by the way.); June 10, 2007 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Both ways work.; June 10, 2007 7:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, so, I do think that it does follow from axioms better than do describe, probably a relatively small set of axioms.

I know that they collapsed into invective on IBTP, but that was either because some of them aren't very good at arguing, ultimately, and the rest because you rejected their axioms.

Their basic axioms (relevant to TG) are that

1. There is a Natural Woman (who isn't Céline Dion :) ).

2. The Natural Man conspired against Eve to trick her into eating the apple of femininity.

2b. The Natural Man has been stuffing it down her throat ever since.

3. A particular type of suffering creates a Community of Belonging.

4. A Community of Belonging is oppressed when it cannot determine the status of its members.

Heart just put it as,

I was mulling over the idea of transgendered persons as “immigrants” so far as gender goes. It’s an interesting exercise to think in those terms. One thought I had is, people recognize they can’t just immigrate because they decide to; they realize they are going to have to investigate the laws, seek the approval of the country they want to go to, and so on. When it comes to women, though, there are no comparable considerations. We are told what’s going to happen and if we raise any objections or even want to discuss it, that makes us “phobic.” There is *such* disrespect for female persons!; June 11, 2007 12:44 AM
belledame222 said...: oh. my. god.

how many different ways can this woman reveal herself to be jaw-droppingly ignorant and reactionary? i've lost count.; June 11, 2007 1:01 AM
Anonymous said...: I was so proud of myself for noticing the eerie resemblance to nativism, but here she is making it explicit. So matter of fact, like everybody knows it. The analogy goes way down deep. Beautiful quote.

Mandos, suppose you were able to conjure some cock-a-doodle-doo set of noncontradictory sentences, unknown to these people, that can reproduce their hate speech as entailments – if you think that’s a productive way to spend your time. Even if you were, your invention still wouldn’t explain why they say what they say. Any more than Nazi racial science was the source of German gutter antisemitism. That’s a general problem with allegedly rational reconstructions of irrational speech.

I doubt any nontrivial ideology forms a perfectly complete & consistent logical system, not open to conflicting conclusions. (I say “nontrivial.” Any idiocy can be dignified as a consistent theory if “I hate group X, they’re evil” counts as one.) Legal formalists were wrong to think the law is like that, & I doubt a handful of bumptious transphobes have erected a system better than law. They certainly don’t have a model for your axioms. They tie themselves in knots, contradict themselves & each other, over the interpretation of “woman,” among other concepts. And that's to say nothing about whether their ‘theory’ is true. Reason does impose some restraints on the way we respond to evidence.

I’m not even sure your axioms are consistent. For example, does No. 3 mean that membership in the group (“community of belonging” – as opposed to the other kind), i.e., the possession of rights & duties, is determined by the experience of a particular kind of suffering? That sounds like an objective criterion, not up for anyone’s vote. But No. 4 holds, in our case, that XX women are oppressed because they can’t stipulate that MTF transsexuals aren’t women. (I.e., because they can’t determine whether transsexuals have any rights that anyone is bound to respect.) The relation between No. 1 & Nos. 3 & 4 is also fraught.

(In fact, Heart’s complaint isn’t so much that the group can’t choose its members as that its choices increasingly aren’t to her liking. The trend is for feminists to be embarrassed & revolted by attempts to exclude transsexuals. She & her ilk have better cause to worry that they’ll be voted off the island. Thus whozit’s disillusionment even with lesbians.); June 11, 2007 7:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Mandos, suppose you were able to conjure some cock-a-doodle-doo set of noncontradictory sentences, unknown to these people, that can reproduce their hate speech as entailments – if you think that’s a productive way to spend your time. Even if you were, your invention still wouldn’t explain why they say what they say. Any more than Nazi racial science was the source of German gutter antisemitism. That’s a general problem with allegedly rational reconstructions of irrational speech.

Well, so, the reason why I don't think this is quite the right characterization is that I've looked, from time to time, at the writings of some of the luminaries of Heartian feminism. If you take a look at, for instance, Mary Daly's few online articles and interviews, you don't see much about TG issues there, one way or another.

But you do see a take on things that at minimum seems indirectly to *suggest* the Heartian position on TG issues. As Daly herself puts it, she's worse than an essentialist, she's a "quintessentialist."

It's that particular kind of reinterpretation of women's patriarchally-corrupted "elemental" (her word) roles that I think leads to the belief that womanhood has an external reality whose experience remains, necessarily, a closed club. It's a very large philosophical rationalization of womb-connection/earth mother feminism---that has been designed, actually, quite specifically to integrate non-reproducing women as "spinsters"---the source of the Erinyes who will tear the wombless patriarchy apart on behalf of enwombed. After all, Jeffreys just wrote a book called "The Spinster and Her Enemies."

If you start from here, as many of the internet radical feminists do at least in part (Heart, quoting Daly: "Re-Member Our Selves"), then it becomes very, very hard to see how later you can integrate TG/TS issues when that comes up.; June 12, 2007 11:39 AM
belledame222 said...: mandos, Jeffreys as well as Janice Raymond and Germaine Greer have all had plenty to say about transfolk. it didn't start with Heart or the Internets.; June 12, 2007 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: I know that about all three. I was attempting to deal with the situation that we have before us. I do think that the roots of this *specific instance* of conflict tend to come from a certain kind of spiritual approach to feminism, ultimately.; June 12, 2007 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: I don’t doubt that these people are operating from some kind of Rube Goldberg conceptual scheme, in the sense that they’d assent to more than one sentence related to the subject. No one imagines their transphobia is completely unconnected to their wider views. But that doesn’t bear on what I said, which had to do with the coherence of & warrant for their views. If you can’t offer a plausible account of those views, show they form a consistent, complete system, you’re in no position to deny that transphobia is entailed by them. Re-read my prior comment.; June 12, 2007 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: I think I agree with Mandos, that if it is Witchy who has posted that comment (and I'm not 100% sure it is because it was an unlinked comment and she has said nothing about it), she may believe that Ren working for a woman's shelter may be a contradiction considering that there are links with porn use etc and sexual violence etc.

Incidentally, it wasn't a large group of people that pushed Laura out, it was a few individuals (a very small group). I really don't agree with what Stormy did and I'm not sticking behind her actions re. Laura.

There have been some 'fake' comments popping up recently - some people impersonating others so I wouldn't be surprised if it's not Witchy and is in fact, someone trying to stir things up.; June 13, 2007 11:46 AM
belledame222 said...: Well, octogalore emailed her politely to ask if that were the case; so far, no response. Which, in itself, would seem to be a response.

As I said elsewhere, the style and content were similar enough to other stuff she's posted that i didn't really have any doubts.

Sorry, Liz, I like you and I know it's probably distressing to see this much rancor directed at someone who I think you like and respect; but, I'm not cutting her any slack for this at all. Whatever her beliefs are, this was purely gratuitous and pure spite.; June 13, 2007 2:33 PM
Nock Code said...: Difference between Java and JavaScript; December 30, 2020 8:49 AM
Usman Awais said...: Best SEO Agency in Dubai
Best SEO Agency in Dubai
Best SEO Agency in Dubai
Best SEO Agency in Dubai
Best SEO Agency in Dubai; January 31, 2021 6:21 AM
buygold jewelery online said...: Buy Sakhi Complete Buy Sakhi Complete bridal jewellery Set & gold jewellery set from buymyJewel more than 100 designs with authentic jewellery certificate; February 20, 2021 9:18 AM
Home made product said...: worldtechnologyupdates
worldtechnologyupdates
worldtechnologyupdates
worldtechnologyupdates
worldtechnologyupdates
worldtechnologyupdates
worldtechnologyupdates; August 02, 2021 6:55 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)