Monday, July 21, 2008

Kickass, I didn't realize getting a root canal was a feminist act

Someone of whom I've never before heard posting at somewhere I've heard entirely too much of, but you can go there via here or here or here, here, or here, anyway:

ashley Jul 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm


the defining characteristic of feminism is that it's not fun and it
costs dearly in social acceptance.


when guys approve, it's a great guage of whether or not something is
feminist at all.


who doesn't like to dance around naked? we should all be able to do it
without any rules or judgment or without having invited physical
assault on ourselves.


...you know, fuck it, fisking much less serious attention would be redundant in more ways than one, so very briefly:


1) I dunno who's supposed to "having invited physical assault on ourselves," but

2) did you know that being kicked or stepped on with spike heels hurts -a lot-? It's true.

3) y'know, Harlan Ellison and Woody Allen ceased to be amusing long since, too, for similar reasons (same old spiel gets boring, misogynist dickhead actually not all that charming at the end of the day, angry rebel schtick somehow less convincing when coming from an obviously really comfortable person, oh yeah, and the misogyny really does kind of get old)

4) indeed, dancing around naked (or however) without judgment or rules would be nice. here's an idea: be the change you seek.

5) so! how 'bout that Project Runway?


I'll blog about something substantial when y'know I have the mental energy to write about something that takes more effort than a good fart.

ETA: Jesus fucking Christ. Seriously? Seriously?

ginmar Jul 21st, 2008 at 7:55 am
Oh, christ, she’s got a picture of her ass on her blog? And she’s got Ren Ev commenting? Yeah, that’s empowerfulizing. RE’s had her nose broken four times in this emperfullizing career of hers as a stripper, but it’s the feminazis that are mean and awful to her. Jeezus.


and, currently, in moderation, this:

RenEv Jul 21st, 2008 at 8:18 am
Ginmar-
Let’s not do this again. Yes, my nose has been broken 4 times: Once in a car accident, once in a sports accident, and yep, by an abusive partner, who happened to be female. Never as part of my job, never due to stripping, or anything like that. My ex partner wasn’t a dancer or a patron of strippers, she was just a violent person. Also, once again dragging out my personal life to prove an argument, and distorting the actual facts of what happened, well, yes, I’m sick of it. My broken noses did not occur in the course of my job, and anyone saying so is not only lying, but very, very unethical...

ginmar Jul 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Drakyn, why are you here? I can easily show those here how you treat feminists.
And frankly I wouldn’t trust anything RE said at all. She appears to have a miserable time as a stripper and porn actress, but she gets really infuriated at feminists who point that out. And she just plain makes shit up about radfems.


***

[RE again]...And yeah, seeing the truth of the history of my nose mutilated, distorted and used like that was triggering in a way for me. In that enraged crying sort of way. Getting the shit kicked out of you by a single abusive female asshole being used to fuel Gin’s little personal hate on for me and stripping when, gee, guess what, stripping and the money it provides and whatnot helped me get OUT of that situation, that fucking sucks. It’s wrong, it’s abusive, it’s oppressive, and it’s silencing...


Ginmar, if you're "not going to trust anything RE says," maybe at minimum you should stop trying to speak FOR her, especially when it's about her own damn experiences, hm? Particularly experiences of broken bones? Seriously, don't bother: just fuck off. Your shit is not wanted here, or pretty much anywhere.

.

26 comments:

danaelaurm said...

I'd really love to see the epic backtrack involved in defending the "inviting abuse" line somehow.

Then again, I'm probably being a dreamer :p

offourpedestals said...

When I saw who left the first comment--hell, when I read the post--I knew. I knew I should click the hell off and never look back.

But I'm stupid, so, sadly I know what you're talking about, and honestly I'm tired of it.

The way everyone glossed right over "half our fans are women" was special, too.

I dunno. I give up on that one, I think. If, with all the death and abuse and rape and some or all three in combination, if with everything going on what you choose to do is carp about burlesque, I got nothin'.

belledame222 said...

fuck me, most of the burlesque I know and love is queer queer queer, but Miz Spinster Aunt sez it's all about teh Menz, so it must be so.

honestly, I wonder: does Twisty actually -like- women? Like, at all. If so, I've seen no sign of it.

whatevs, that sure was a nice long quiet stretch when no one was talking about her, I miss it already. and no, haven't read anything but the highlights and QB'ing, and not gonna.

Caroline Shepherd said...

"when guys approve, it's a great guage of whether or not something is
feminist at all. "

Cos it's all about the menz.

offourpedestals said...

fuck me, most of the burlesque I know and love is queer queer queer, but Miz Spinster Aunt sez it's all about teh Menz, so it must be so.

I imagine the counter-argument there would be that it's ALL patriarchy and there's nothing new under the scrotum, or something. See, whether you realize it or not, even the queerest relationship is still modeled after teh hetz and is thus awash in degradation and misogyny because it's impossible for it to be otherwise, because patriarchy is the Palmolive of the world, and if that's not evident to you then I guess MOAR EXAMINATION is the answer.

I think that's how the argument goes, anyway. That's how it's gone every other time something like this has come up, and why fix what ain't broke?--Oh, what's that? You say it IS broken? Like a record? Well, I guess you need to examine more, young lady. It can't be that the argument reinforces heterosexual supremacy, it just can't be.

honestly, I wonder: does Twisty actually -like- women? Like, at all. If so, I've seen no sign of it.

Without speculating on that too much with regards to her personally, I will just say that I think it's difficult for me to "like women" because, which women? It's like saying "I like [group]." Well, no, some members I like and some I dislike.

And that's fine, but I think what happens in some strains of feminism is that women think any dislike of any woman is antifeminist or based in internalized misogyny, so they fight against their own internal impulses to mrowr mrowr mrowr--but human nature being what it is, they still don't like some women, damnit!

So they select an "acceptable" group of women to dislike--which is no better than trying to like all women en masse--and that's who gets the pent-up shit heaped on 'em. For Ginmar it's the "sex pozzes" (at least we seem to be done with "sex pox," dare I hope?), for some it's "anti choicers," etc.

What I think would be better would be to deal with women individually, as human beings? (crazy!), and just accept that not everyone's gonna like each other all of the time, and then you wouldn't have this misplaced venting against subcategories of women like "funfeminists" or "burlesque performers" who, for crying out loud, aren't bothering anyone.

Mandos said...

Well, so, the point is that if you think that your political ideology is one of uprising and "national" liberation, then it kind of makes sense. If you believe that you are a revolutionary warrior, or at least a revolutionary armchair quarterback, then the approval of the oppressor class is guilty until proven innocent, as it were.

Talking about pleasure and what you *like* is, by dint of this, a red herring also to be treated with great suspicion. It's not by talking about pleasure that you forment insurrection, right?

belledame222 said...

well, except for pleasure is just fine if it involves, like, riding your new horse, or eating lovely food prepared by someone else, or even -gasp- making fun of people, not that we get PLEASURE from this, NO.

Without speculating on that too much with regards to her personally, I will just say that I think it's difficult for me to "like women" because, which women? It's like saying "I like [group]." Well, no, some members I like and some I dislike.

And that's fine, but I think what happens in some strains of feminism is that women think any dislike of any woman is antifeminist or based in internalized misogyny, so they fight against their own internal impulses to mrowr mrowr mrowr--but human nature being what it is, they still don't like some women, damnit!

So they select an "acceptable" group of women to dislike--which is no better than trying to like all women en masse--and that's who gets the pent-up shit heaped on 'em. For Ginmar it's the "sex pozzes" (at least we seem to be done with "sex pox," dare I hope?), for some it's "anti choicers," etc.

What I think would be better would be to deal with women individually, as human beings? (crazy!), and just accept that not everyone's gonna like each other all of the time, and then you wouldn't have this misplaced venting against subcategories of women like "funfeminists" or "burlesque performers" who, for crying out loud, aren't bothering anyone


one would think.

but yeah, there's misogyny up the wazoo, there, that's all I know.

I mean, even a single note of praise or affection for any -individual- woman, I mean and particularly for some reason other than "hey, she slags off all these other women and/or my own weirdass conception of Teh Patriarchy just like I would."

"Chloe liked Olivia" or rather "Chloe liked Olivia and was able to say so without saying 'but must you wear THAT?' even once--still too radical a concept, I guess.

belledame222 said...

as for "we should all be able to do it without any rules or judgment"--you know, "be the change you seek." What's really great about that is, unlike such nebulous goals as "overthrow the Patriarchy" or even "make other women stop capitulating to Teh Oppressor," that -is something you can actually do for yourself-, really you can.

belledame222 said...

...and now apparently dear ginmar is trying to say that Renegade having had her nose broken (in ways that had nothing to do with her job) is somehow proof of...something? Nice boundaries, anyway, asshole. jesus.

http://un-cool.blogspot.com/2008/07/absolutely-magnificent-post.html

Mark said...

I mean, even a single note of praise or affection for any -individual- woman, I mean and particularly for some reason other than "hey, she slags off all these other women and/or my own weirdass conception of Teh Patriarchy just like I would."

Wasn't there lots of rah-rahhing and sis-boom-bahhing for Jessica Valenti, Most Excellent Gateway Drug for Embittered Women Who Will Eventually Grow into Political Lesbians Once They Finally Realize What Time it Is?

--but even there, that praise was based on how useful JV was perceived to be to The Revolution, which I guess we can't expect to come from El Rancho Deluxe, after all.

GOOD.

offourpedestals said...

Whoops! I am apparently logged into Google as my SO. Sorry 'bout that.

Mandos said...

Yes, but a lot of history's revolutionaries where only thus because they were liberated from drudgery at one point or another. Sure the horse may be gratuitous these days...but if she were slaving away at a minimum wage job, would she have the wherewithal to promulgate her revolutionary theories?

Natalia said...

I've had way too many root canala for your average human being.

I might as well be Our Lady of Perpetial Righteous Radfem Rage, or something.

Except no, not really.

Seriously, why the hell wasn't any of that sexist BS in the comments even called out?

belledame222 said...

yeah, but that's kind of what I mean: yay, she's politically with it, kinda sorta, let's encourage it. I mean: I dunno, obviously we have to sneer at Aimee Mullins because she, too, is pornulated; but never -anyone- one could just go, "wow, she's really cool, check out this woman, everyone?" or, you know, some blogger one might not agree with but thinks is a great stylist, or -something?-

I mean, Renegade the supposed patriarchal sellout does that all the time, with women. (as do many other bloggers, obviously). And she's never said a negative word about anyone's appearance as long as I've known her.

belledame222 said...

Mandos: sure; or, maybe not minimum, but minimal, as long as the job in question has access to a computer, a shielding cube, a mainframe that doesn't block Blogger or suchlike, and a lot of downtime.

offourpedestals said...

Seriously, why the hell wasn't any of that sexist BS in the comments even called out?

Speaking only for myself?--Because there's no point. Last time I objected to a TF sneer, I got for my trouble eleventy paragraphs of Pinko Punko explaining to me that if I didn't like TF's "tone," perhaps I should read another blog.

It makes total sense to let dudes chastise women on your patriarchy-blaming blog, right? Bonus points if they make it all about tone.

And then there was the line in a prior, but still recent I think, post about the younger, not-Lindsay Lohan girl (I don't remember her name) and some insufficiently blameous sentence she uttered that was described by TF as shooting out of her mouth "like Astroglide." You know, if I want that kind of noxiousness, I can find 4chan as well as the next nerd.

Alon said...

There are a lot of people who could plausibly say that their feminism has caused problems in their social milieus. However, people who are so into radical feminism they regularly comment on a radical feminist blog aren't in that set.

belledame222 said...

Ilyka: o dear. you know, I like PP, and we've more or less agreed to disagree about dear Twisty; but that's really over the line.

belledame222 said...

and yeah, she does have a way with the dyspeptically sexualized & sexist imagery, doesn't she.

Renegade Evolution said...

thanks belle.

UneFemmePlusCourageuse said...

Hmmm.
Kathleen Hanna was a burlesque dancer at one point, and she's pretty much my top feminist icon right now.

Feminist blogs like Alas and Pandagon are always praising Battlestar Galactica and the collected works of Joss Whedon as being feminist...men like those. (Sometimes without even seeing the feminist implications, sadly, but we can hope.)

Don't think that the "do men like it?" or "is it sexy" measures are at all good for determining whether something is feminist or not. New yardstick, bitte!

belledame222 said...

oh, both Joss and Alas are pretty much on the Twoo Feminist shitlist these days, I'm pretty sure, if they weren't always. Pandagon too, for that matter, but less arsed about that personally cause, well, I can't stand wossname but well nevermind that now...

offourpedestals said...

and yeah, she does have a way with the dyspeptically sexualized & sexist imagery, doesn't she.

Yeah, and the point of that was, what? To shame a 15-year-old girl for wanting to be as famous as her big sister? Well, that will certainly help the cause. Heh indeezy!

It's pretty radical, if you think about it. There's a real shortage of misogynist gossip blogs devoted to mocking the Lohans.

And I'm feeling pretty pissy over the updates to this post right now. I'm running out of ways to ask, "what the fuck?!?"

belledame222 said...

yeah, I know, huh. I'm often unclear on the difference between IBTP and "Go Fug Yourself."

and per updates: again, yeah, huh. well, what else is there to say, really. just really wish some people would fuck away off finally.

belledame222 said...

per JV--and ironically enough, of all the familiar logins that come into play here, i.e. the ones who come in for the Twisty commentariat ire (JV herself included with much of the commenters, admittedly), she is by far the closest to the stereotype of the "fun" feminist. Which admittedly still isn't all that close, but dude--I'm pretty sure she's even been CALLED "fun," or thanked for bringing "fun" back to feminism...and of course, conventionally pretty, het, writes about things like "enthusiastic yes" and "feminists do it better" and so on and so forth. Light reading, too, shall we say; hell, Twisty herself counts as "fun" in that regard, as far as that goes. Fairly sure I've even seen -reading her site- described as "fun" by the faithful, although of course not in a SEXUAL way, because that would be totally different.

whereas the actual specific women (as who most often come in for Twistafarian scrutiny tend to be--well, let's see. One time there was this black femme queer woman with a miniscule blog who got a small pileon, I forget what for, BDSM maybe.

There was Random Bird, who was sort of "fun" in certain senses, I guess, but also wasn't claiming to be spokeswoman for anything, and was rather quirky and had some personal stuff going on. Read Derrida, etc.

and then, well, there's Renegade, who as far as I know Twisty herself has never mentioned by name, but the rest of 'em make up for it. Is she supposed to be "fun?" I mean, I think she's "fun" as in a good laugh and a good 'un to have a beer with and so on, but I don't think that's what it's supposed to mean, so...

jacob neruda said...

Hello,
You are a Great while writing in the blogs it is awesome I liked it too much good and informative thanks for the sharing.
Viagra