Not with FDR's bright red atomic strapon, Squealer.

Limbaugh is having sadly Freudian fantasies about what he (fondly, secretly) imagines Obama and/or other Democrats would like to do to him.

And I say again: Not with Rosie the Riveter's brass-knuckled fist wrapped in ten tons of latex and rolled in a kegger of anti-fascist Icy-Hot flavored Crisco. Not if you -begged- on bended trotters. Not for every penny you've made from your noisome effusions lo these past 800 years or so you've been fouling up the zeitgeist. I may be a pervert, I may be a sadist, but goddam, there are STANDARDS.

and now, i must rinse. ick ack ugh.

And while we're on the subject of vajayjay problems you didn't know you had to worry about:

(see here for earlier reference)

"YOU HAVE TO GET OUT OF HERE. YOUR VAGINA IS HAUNTED."

Best. Review. Evar. Especially since I don't even have to read the original to get the lulz. Be sure to read the comments, too.

h/t thedilettante

clearly, i have missed out on many Classic Films

The upcoming roster at the Castro Theatre has a number of promising offerings. Among the most promising, however, is this last entry during the April 19 "Midnite Madness" presentation:

8:00 LADY TERMINATOR (1988) - Directed by Jalil Jackson
Be ready for the walls of the Castro Theatre to fall during this jaw-dropping, late-80s TERMINATOR knock-off. A female scuba-diving anthropologist is violated by an ancient snake (stolen from an evil sex-witch’s vagina) causing our heroine to go on a gratuitously nude and violent rampage, culminating in the ultimate climax... a hearty chomp from her carnivorous vagina! You will never forget this night, I promise! Preceded by more robust robot trailers. 35mm print. 82min.

The best part? Just a few nights beforehand, they are screening "The Vagina Monologues." Perhaps this was one of the missing monologues.

"I have HAD IT with these motherfucking snakes in my motherfucking vagina!!"

Also see. Or, not.

Note to self: do not ever hire Choe, Jackson and Weitz.

should I ever happen to be in L.A. and in need of anti-sexual harassment/workplace discrimination legal representation.
See here for why. And then here, here, and especially here.

Klassy.

ETA: more details, and a guide to reporting to the California Bar Assoc. if you feel so inclined.

ETA again: okay, the skinny if you haven't clicked the links.

Basically, there's this guy called Luke Jackson. See links above. Creepy-as-fuck douche who works as an anti-sexual harassment/work discrimination lawyer by day, appallingly racist/misogynistic/hateful troll calling himself "Igor Sanchez" by...well, day, too, now apparently, as Kynn called him out and he's now posted K's ex-wife's personal information on his blog and engaged in gross transphobia under his own name in retaliation. and posted the contact info of people who wrote letters to his law firm as well. Which, thus far, I was just noting the general WTF?

Looking back now, though, there's increasing layers of creepy, and this was the bit I wanted to note here:

(via Kynn)

At one point, he posted as Luke on the MySpace of Sunny Leone, a desi- Canadian porn star living in Los Angeles, to dedicate one of “Igor’s” racist graphical rape/murder fantasies to her:

This was inspired by YOU:

http://igorsanchezDOTlivejournalDOTcom/552.html [NSFW, possibly triggering]

***

Besides the kind of shit he writes being fucking hateful as hell, if he's writing that kind of mash note to actual porn stars + he's shown himself willing to cross the line wrt peoples' personal info AND he (for FUCK'S SAKE) works as an -anti-discrimination lawyer-, I am thinking: seriously, this guy reads like Kyle Payne on steroids (now with more racism!!) except that he hasn't actually gotten caught committing sexual abuse. "Just" incitement to harassment/outing of personal information. So far.

And now for something completely depressing.

"Freeper Madness," going boldly into the depths where even dedicated rubberneckers like myself (usually) dare not go. hint: do not read during lunch. -runs off-

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a "wild wood elf."

TRUFAX (via, once again, the excellent palinpumawatch):

I don’t know. I think [HRC] could get a lot of work done as SOS, should she accept the position. I wouldn’t like her being under his thumb, but she’s a wild wood elf. No one can control her, only the winds and the rains.

All though I worry that it’s just a way for him to have her in his cabinet a couple of years so he can dump her and then ruin her political career.

It’s funny, because the other night I was thinking about Palin’s interview and how if she runs in 2012 and wins, Hillary could be her SOS. I would like THAT.

...It suddenly hits me that I have no words right now: I am rendered momentarily speechless by this...uhmmm...

...

O.K.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that this is by way of a sincere apology to Hillary Clinton for any frustrated venting I had made in your general direction during the primaries (and was I think largely colored by the early stirrings of these people, although at that stage I truly had no idea of the depth of...this). I think you'd make a fine Secretary of State--although it'd be really nice if you , along with the entire new administration could drop any residual hawkish-on-Iraq (to say nothing of Iran) posturing and get us the hell out of there, k?

..Or any other position of power, really, much as you, like indeed Obama with whom you shared very similar positions on many issues, are not my idea of the perfect candidate. Because, you know, a) who is, really b) consider some of the alternatives. At least you're smart. And y'know, lucid. Unlike, ummmm, some people.

Please try not to choke laughing at the idea of yourself serving under (gasp, wheeze) President Palin, and, well, as for your new fanclub here...dude, I -am- sorry. Even my worst enemy, I would not wish this kind of following. Probably. Anyway, you were never that, whatever else.

And no, need it be said, I don't think you're a frigging elf. I mean, I really -hope- not.

Although I WILL admit that I have always harbored a suspicion that McCain is, in fact, a particularly irascible species of garden gnome.

ETA: And the twee goes on. Via YesToDemocracy:

Hello mountainsong. I just really like your name. it sounds so fresh and revitalizing. it always reminds me of a cool clear stream flowing down the side of the mountain, spraying its crystal drops of nectar on every lucky blade of grass and all the plants within it’s emcompassing reach. Cool, refreshing, clear–washing away all the grime and dirtiness of this election year.

and

All is within…as the great Goddess always whispered in our hearts, reminding us that we are women of Earth Wind and Fire-light of the moon and fire of the sun! We are lovers of men, as well, caretakers of our children, our family ties, and beings of multifaceted gifts and talents. Everywhere we go “the Goddess” is…and Dame Hillary, through the travail of this election has carved a legacy of light and fire…indeed!

I...don't know. I just...don't. Look, I like fanfic as much as the next geek, don't get me wrong, but it's like...if you want to go to Ren Faire, then frigging just go to Ren Faire. Trying to go via electoral politics is just a -really- fucking circuitous route, you know? I nearly said "tortuous." I refrained. Just.

Because, okay, making real people into your personal Mary Sue? Particularly someone as blatantly -not- elfin or damsel-y as HRC? Especially in (I take it) the name of -feminism-? Kind of creepy and weird, I mean once past the general ZOMG -boggle- hilarity of it all. Just saying.

And yes, I think the Obama-as-backlit-Messiah shit is cringey and failtastic, also. They're politicians, people. They're SUPPOSED to be wily and tough and self-serving and full of doublespeak and ultimately disappointing ratbastards. That's their JOB. What one is looking for is the one who is going to be a) sufficiently less of an overall ratbastard than the other ratbastard b) -your- ratbastard, at least a majority of the time. Sorry.

"So, Dennis Miller and Bill O'Reilly walk into a bar..."

and someone locks the door after the worthless gobshites and drops the whole building down a wormhole and neither are ever heard from again, muhahahahaha!!

Ahem. No, just, via the ever watchful PPW, this charming little bit of dialogue:

O'REILLY: Now, the Sarah Palin hysteria. I mean, can you believe she's getting more ink now than the president-elect is getting? Didn't she lose? It looks like she won.

MILLER: Listen, she's a great dame. People are fascinated by her because the left hate her. I think the left hate her -- mostly women on the left hate her, because to me, from outside in, it appears that she has a great sex life. All right? I think she has non-neurotic sex with that Todd Palin guy. I think most of the women on the Upper East Side, their husbands haven't been aroused since Mailer signed copy of The Executioner's Song at Rizzoli's back in the early '70s.

So they look at her, and they hate her. I think that snowmobile looks like mechanized foreplay to me, and that's why people are fascinated by it.

O'REILLY: So you think that -- cutting through all of the metaphors that even I don't even understand. Rizzoli's used to be a bookstore.

You think that because she looks like a happy, wedded mom with --

MILLER: Yeah.

O'REILLY: -- not so much neurosis, that these people are going, "We have to hate her"? It's -- what, it's schadenfreude? Is that -- how do you say that? German?

MILLER: It's called schadenfreude.

O'REILLY: Schadenfreude. [unintelligible]

MILLER: The Germans concocted it. It's one's vague pleasure in another's discomfort. Leave it to the Germans, by the way, to concoct an intricate glossary of pain terminology.

But I think people have -- I think people have schadenfreude about her. It's like Tina Fey's movie Mean Girls. Women are mean to other women. They look at her, she looks happy, a lot of them aren't, and they're cranky about her.

Yes, Dennis and BillO, that's exactly it. The real reason women (or anyone) can't stand Sarah Palin is because we ENVY her relationship with Radical Fringe Separatist K-Fed. Certainly nothing to do with o we think her policies (insofar as they're coherent at all) are frighteningly reactionary & bad for women and other living things ( gay couples, the body politic, the planet...moose); or that she herself ranges from "vacuous twit" to "crypto-fascist rabble-rouser."

Oh, yeah, and we hate America. And women (i.e. pretty much anyone who isn't either Sarah Palin or a fangirl at this point).

You two, on the other hand, are AWESOME. Blessums ickle jowls. -pinch-

No, really, I was -just- saying the other day, you know, if there's one thing we as a nation and/or culture could really use right now, it's a couple of smug dessicated prick windbags making lumbering cracks on the tellyvision about What Women Want, and then, well:

O'REILLY: OK, and then arrest Barney Frank, correct?

MILLER: Barney might want to be arrested.

O'REILLY: Oh, jeez. Ugh. [shudders] OK, Dennis Miller, everybody. I told you to hide the kids.

Haw haw! No, wait, I geddit! Like, Frank's (lowers voice) gay, and so he probably -wants- to be arrested, because everybody knows prison rape is

a) What Teh Gay Really Want

b) Hiiii-LARious!

Yeah, "ugh, [shudders]." Thanks for sharing your important thinky thoughts there, Combover Central, really.

I mean, O.K., and so meanwhile here we are being treated to Falafel Boy and Dubya-Daddy Complex here speculating about what does and doesn't constitute -neurotic- about -sex-, right:

I think that snowmobile looks like mechanized foreplay to me, and that's why people are fascinated by it.

There really isn't enough "speak for yourself" in the WORLD.

Oh yeah, they've teamed up before to share wisdoms on similar themes, apparently. Just be grateful yer scintillating sidekick there didn't decide to make something of your "always having Bush's back" this time. Know what I mean, know what I mean, nudge nudge?! You dreary arrested-development tossers.

But yeah, Dennis, do explain to us plebes again--along with all your other superior knowledgey knowledges--exactly what means schadenfreude.

...but there is always room for improvement.

Should've known the McCain WeirdAss Photo From hell would make it to political macro.





moar

By the way, for whom it may concern:

.

I'm admittedly a half-assed pagan at best these days, much less actually Hindu (holy appropriation, Batgirl!) but I do know this much:

"Kali is not your personal army."


source


The Dark Mother, Devourer of Time, Destroyer of Worlds, bloody goddess of Chaos who tears away all illusions? Pretty much not a good idea to invoke unless you really know what you're asking for. Because, if you're the sort of person who wilts when someone you've been flaming on the Internets returns fire? I don't think you're quite ready for that kind of blowback.

Just saying.

:facepalm: Okay. What's Wrong With This Picture?

-siiiiiiiiiiigh-

Renegade was addressing this post by Nine Deuce, and at first I was--lazily, I admit it--just sort of responding off of RE's response, briefly, because honestly, I just didn't want to get into it, and I didn't want to go over there and really engage. Mostly because I can hear the faint melancholy tinkle of "It's a Small World" playing in the back of my head again, and I--no. I mean--no. I'm obsessive compulsive, God knows, but even I have my limits for this particular argument, particularly--no, can't even be arsed to get into it that far. Okay, fine, porn is the root of all evil, people or at least men are like Pavlov's dogs and can be conditioned by orgasm, the idea that a career in sex work could ever be anything but dangerous and disgusting is merely an illusion and the people who are in such careers and argue otherwise are merely kidding themselves--you know what, I'm not one of those people, I'll stick up for my friends, but otherwise...what the fuck ever, I'm really tired. Whatevs.

But I did eventually click over because I -had- replied even tangentially to Ren's post there, and thought it'd be rum not to at least read the whole thing before commenting.

Unfortunately, I got stopped by this illustration. Which, I take it isn't of ND's drawing, but seems to have met with great approval from at least two other people who've since blogged it at their own spots. Um. Uh.

Okay. Not to be leading or anything, I'm just gonna go ahead and repost it and ask:

Why, exactly, might someone find this offensive? Even someone who -isn't- an Empowerful Stripper or Sparkly Fun Sexy Feminist? Three guesses, and the first two don't count, 'k?



I'll be over here.

ETA: right, okay, clearly I was wrong, Heart and Nine Deuce and witchy-woo have determined that the cartoon is not repeat NOT racist, (or sexist either, of course: we're not laughing AT the clueless blonde in the bikini, NO) and therefore it must not be. And obviously any cartoon by this cartoonist is probably okay, I mean: like, there's no racism here either, right?



ETA again: thanks, Sarah, for explaining -why- the former is erm -problematic- more coherently than I can at this point. I mean, obviously you are another one of those woman-hating meenie meenertons who Just Have It In For um whichever beleaguered personality it is this week and don't really mean what you're saying EITHER, because who would really; but, thanks for the effort: we who are about to crush the True Revolution salute you. Oh, and Ren, too, of course. And Bint, yes indeed.


ETA again, again: Yes, I am aware that the second cartoon is likely anti-W and anti-war. No, it wasn't actually -immediately- obvious to me on first seeing it, for a number of reasons, (for one, having seen a few too many unironic right wing odes to Dubya a la "My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys" back in the day, and just a shitload of really rank xenophobia) although I figured it out after a few more clicks. No, I don't think that the fact that it's not actually intended to be far-right propaganda means that it isn't using problematic, racially loaded imagery.

The artist in question--who's worked for both right wing and left wing media outlets and whose motto would appear to be that she is, in her words, "an equal opportunity skewer" (how...edgy) has a number of similarly erm ambiguous cartoons wherein mostly I think, as with the first one here: I really don't know -what- the fuck the point was here, exactly; I can -guess- what it's -supposed- to be saying more or less, but, ummmmm, it's not actually funny, see.

And, you know, I COULD go on explaining how actually, it doesn't -matter- that the audience in the first one may not have been -intended- to be -all- of color; it's -still drawing on loaded imagery and pushes reactionary buttons-, or the etiology of the "dumb blonde," but, well, mostly, at this point, I just want to know, from Certain Factions:

So, finally, is irony an all-purpose ass-cover, or isn't it?

Because, see, many of the people now going,

"Racism? What racism? I can't see any racism! The author didn't INTEND any racism (I know this to be true, I have osmosis)! Ergo, it isn't racist! Your perception of any racism therein, therefore, is INVALID. And it certainly isn't sexist! Just because it's drawing on sexist imagery to make its point doesn't make it sexist! It's, why, it's, it's...IRONIC."

i.e., the ones who thought this thing was a BRILLIANT illustration of something or other in the first place?

are the very same people who would -appear- to be insisting that when it comes to stripping, sex work, porn, burlesque, femme accoutrements, you know, pretty much anything that's OF the Patriarchy, BY the Patriarchy...no irony, no subversion, no nuance is possible. The POINT is, MEN will always see it a certain way; and that's all that matters. O.K.

Indeed, no authorial intent (what, you're saying the stripper can be an "author?" Get out!) matters. Some things cannot be reclaimed; cannot be "ironic;" queer burlesque is just more man pleasing by any other name; there IS no such thing as "feminist porn," high heels have one meaning, and one meaning only, one size fits all thanks, and so on, and so on, and so on. So sorry; whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, there--have a little orgasm, make art, trivial shit like that--you're going to have to just rip it all up and start from scratch.

But so now we learn that apparently when it comes to making fun of the people you want to make fun of? Employing stuff that, if it ISN'T the same ol' offensive reactionary racist-sexist-etc. shit, sure plays it on TV? Why, THAT'S just FINE. Of COURSE no one's going to interpret either of those cartoons as a straightforward celebration of sexual harassment or shoot-the-Indian! Don't be so stupid! C'mon! Where's your sense of humor? You're imagining things! Yer just so SENSITIVE...

And, finally, this? Sums it up.

The troll encapsulated.

Some people go to the Bible for their clever and profound illustrations of Universal Truths; others find Shakespeare more satisfying. Being of more vulgar stuff, I find this suits my current needs, once more, with feeling:

In which the author humbly requests that someone stage an intervention, or, um, something.

No, I mean for me, actually, though it might appear--stop me before I post this, I--

oh--

agh.

*sigh*

okay.

Dear Violet, and no doubt a bunch of other similarly inclined people that I don't "know" as well, by proxy more or less:

You know, I know it's been a hell of a long time since we've really been on speaking terms, and I realize we disagree on, well, a whole shitload of things.

It's just, well, I kind of had this idea that whatever else, you were always kind of ironically self-aware. Level headed. Wry. With a sense of humor, and proportion, and stuff.

So, well, I, I, I just don't really know what to make of, say, this entry:

I still don’t have regular internet access and I don’t watch TV, so
I’m out of the loop. But I hear things — weird, disturbing, almost
unbelievable things — and so I’m grabbing a few minutes here on my
Dad’s computer before a family birthday party for this brief announcement:

When I wrote this post on Democratic party history back in April, I was not calling for the assassination of Barack Obama. Just thought I’d get that out there now before the Gestapo shows up at here at the house.

Sorry to post and run, but I’ll leave you with something to think
about: if the collusion between the Obama campaign and the media
continues like this, will that pose the most severe threat to free
speech in this country since a) the Alien and Sedition Acts, b) the
1917 Espionage Act, c) the McCarthy era, or d) the Patriot Act of
2001? Discuss amongst yourselves.

Update: Over at the Mighty Corrente Building, FrenchDoc is facing a
fork in the road:

"There is no question that a line was crossed yesterday, by the
media and the so-called progressive blogosphere. Personally, it has
put me on the fence: if Senator Obama becomes the nominee, do I take a
break from politics until November or do I actively campaign against
him?"

I’ve been wrestling with the same issue, but I know now what my answer
is. Barack Obama has run the dirtiest, most dishonest campaign I’ve
ever seen from a Democrat on the national level. His mob-like
supporters terrify me. And his media enablers are catastrophically
dangerous. They must be stopped. Must be.

You know, and it's not as though the "media enablers" aren't also getting a tad, shall we say, melodramatic. Admittedly the only one I just really paid attention to is/was Keith Olbermann, who is also beginning to wear on my nerves, something I never thought I'd say--all RIGHT, we GET it, it was a stupid fucked up thing of her to say,** we're all vicariously cringing and were already beyond sick of the whole goddam thing, really, and yeah, I'm sure not exactly what either the Obamas or the Kennedy family really needed to hear, not to mention the rest of us; still, considering a) Obama himself just basically said 'let it go,' as did whichever the hell youngish Kennedy's still out there, I can't keep track b) she herself didn't actually KILL anybody, can we maybe stop with the Hercule Poirot GOTCHA routine?

...But, really. "They must be stopped?" THEY MUST BE STOPPED?

"...but how?" -bites knuckle-

I mean, fuck knows it's not like we had craptacular sensationalistic media before, EVER. Damn you, Barack Obama!

Okay, so at this point I realize that my little "y'know, there's this other dude McCain, and actually some of us think his presidency WOULD be more "dangerous" than that of Obama, even though I get that the latter seems suspiciously charismatic and that's automatically a Very Bad Thing and so on, well, I think basically at this point those who have ears to hear, you know. You'll live and die for Hillary (or Obama), for to save us from those other fanatics, yer fighting tooth and claw to the bitter bitter end; okay, I get it, wouldn't try to say you nay. Mostly because I'm on my very last pair of eyeballs, I don't get another prescription till next month.

But would it be too much to ask for people to, I don't know, consider getting a petit grip?

Just asking.

I mean, I understand, really. Well, sort of. God knows I've had plenty of rants, for far less than this, even, that probably led a number of people to the conclusion that I'm basically Time Cube guy at a John Birchers convention.

And having said that (I am large, I contain platitudes), I hereby request of all concerned friends and loved ones, that if I ever end up getting quite this um well apocalyptic about an electoral campaign, particularly a bleeding primary in which it's blatantly obvious to most of the non poliwonk-as-football-fan world that there's really not all that much difference between the candidates in question? that they beat me about the head and shoulders with a wet halibut until I damn well come to my senses.

Thank you.

**ETA and then, too, there is also this (thanks, Kevin):

I was not alive when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968. Yet, when I hear the words “1968″ and “assassination” in the same sentence, I cannot help but to think of Martin Luther King, Jr. I cannot help but to think of the racial unrest of the period. I cannot help but to think of the struggles that my people have had to undergo in order for a black person to be seriously considered for the Presidency of the United States of America. I cannot help but to think of the numerous civil Rights leaders slain.

This is my history.

And let it be known that this is not solely the history of black folks. People of Color across the board share this history in the United States. We may be invited to the dinner table now and again, but don’t even think we will get anything until the establishment has had their fill.

I don’t think that Sen. Clinton’s statements can be divorced from several events that occurred in 1968:

The assassination of Robert Kennedy.

The Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The riots at the Democratic National Convention.

Maybe it’s just me, but when I learned of her remarks (which she has made before, but I was unaware of), that’s what came to mind. It was offensive to the Kennedy family, especially given Ted Kennedy’s illness (Sen. Clinton did apologize for that, however). It unnecessarily brought up the specter of black folks getting killed for being black and standing up for their humanity; and it also, for me at least, brought up the 1968 Democratic Convention riots, given all the talk these days about a “civil war” at the Convention, talk that I’m sure she is aware of.

Ummm, yeah, about those "racism" charges...

So, okay, wrt the whole Amanda Marcotte/brownfemipower left the blogosphere/appropriation/head explodes business, on top of everything else it now transpires that the book that she and Seal Press have just released has these, well, ummmm, illustrations, okay.

You can see them here.

I'll just wait here while you check them out.

-hums a bit-

Back? Right, so:

Also, I was in the local B&N today, checked out the book, and saw ‘em with my own three eyes. amazing. I particularly like the one (not pictured at DWF there) where there’s this brutelike looking dark-skinned man slouching out of his hut, glaring scarily at Our Heroine as she saunters past.

And, like, they don’t even make any -sense-. They have precisely -nothing- to do with the content, which at a glance seems relatively innocuous, even mildly entertaining, of itself. She didn’t -need- -any- illustrations. And–who thinks that shit is funny? let alone doesn’t get that some people might have a problem?…especially after the cover?…like, what, people complain about the Symbolism of an ape but will be totally fine with -actual stereotyped “natives”?- or, what, won’t notice, or…?

Yeah.

Ah.

...and after that, one just doesn't know quite what to say, at the moment.

*

ETA: Seal Press has apologized.

We are taking action immediately to remove the offensive images from It's A Jungle Out There. We are currently reprinting, and we will make these changes now. We apologize for any pain or concern these images have caused.

We do not believe it is appropriate for a book about feminism, albeit a book of humor, to have any images or illustrations that are offensive to anyone.

Some have asked the valid question, "What were you thinking?"

Please know that neither the cover, nor the interior images, were meant to make any serious statement. We were hoping for a campy, retro package to complement the author's humor. That is all. We were not thinking.

Um. Yeah.

ETAA: and so has Amanda.

ETAYA: back to Seal for a moment, speaking of things one misses because one probably just doesn't even want to see it on account of it's depressing enough already, Sly Civilian pointed this bit out from their "apology:"

“This 1950s Marvel comic is not an accurate reflection of our beauty standards, our beliefs regarding one’s right to bear arms, nor our perspectives on race relations, foreign policy, or environmental policy.”

Aren't we cute. Not at all defensive or snide or dismissive there, no precious.

But o hay, they're going to "anti-racist training," so everything should be better from now on, right?

"Sorry I ran you over with my car during my last drunken bender. I know I didn't hear you the -first- 12,000 times you told me I might have a problem with alcohol? But now after the arrest and everything, I'm thinking maybe you might have a point after all. Not just the one on top of your head, either, you big party pooper! Ha ha! Just lightening the tension a little, if you will. Anyway, I'm going to rehab, so we're all square now, right?

--What do you -mean- they'll have to take away my driver's license? But I worked -really hard- for that license! I studied and took the test and everything! I just got that car! I barely dented the bumper when I hit you, it's in beautiful condition! Why o why is everyone out to get me! It ISN'T FAIR DAMMIT. And stop trying to make me feel guilty, I need a SAFE SPACE. --Oh, you're already stuck in the hospital room, and I have the entire outside? Well, I still don't FEEL safe. I can still feel you glaring at me through your window. Stop it! Stop ruining my happy day! you mean bully, you."

And yeah, considering that these are the same two geniuses referred to here and here, and then alluded to further here, here (speaking of "safe spaces" ffs, read the whole damn post, tell you what, and then come back and argue about how hard it is for the poor white women whose careers might be at stake, okay) and here, I am thinking: sure, go to the anti-racist training? but, um, also:

You're fired. For sheer, utter fucking incompetence, and no, that doesn't get fixed with a "see, this is why pictures of blonde women with white male backups kicking black spear-carrying "savages" in the face are offensive, mkay" written out dutifully 100 times, I am afraid.

If it were up to me, anyway.

Just saying.

Fisk Me, Baby, One More Time

So, first of all, update on this situation: the upshot is, Renegade and Jill Brenneman are going to speak at William and Mary; Sam Berg, now that her attempt to get RE uninvited has been unsuccessful, has withdrawn. In, um, protest, or something. According to her supporters, this was the professional thing to do. I am sure that she did it in a most professional manner, too, to be sure.

And one should probably just leave it at that.

But, well, just, some peoples' performance excuse me -activism- is so remarkable that I had to, well, remark on it.

Liars. They lie. They negate the lives of those suffering for the choices they make and then have the audacity to promote themselves as the ‘one true voice’ in the well of silence centred in the poverty of those they argue they represent.

And then they get booked to speak at the last minute in discussions about how what they do impacts upon the rest of us (women). And they agree! And then they start posting about “laughing like a super villain” and their “wank worthy fantasy” of debating “some anti-porn sex work types”. To me, the language used is the same language that rapists use (I’m a rape crisis counsellor, I’ve heard it a million times)

Maggie Hays // April 20, 2008 at 12:05 am

...“laughing like a super villain”? “wank worthy fantasy”? I agree that these comments were totally inappropriate. This makes me think: this kind of language is awfully similar to the sort of language a porn-using abuvive ex-boyfriend of mine was often using when talking to me.

#

Laurelin // April 20, 2008 at 10:16 pm


It’s interesting to note how many of the male ’sex pozzes’ use this sort of language to ‘argue’ against radical feminist arguments against pornstitution. They speak of ‘fisking’ us, accuse us of ‘wanking’ over details etc (Witchy has certainly had this aggressive language used against her recently by cowardly fuckwits).- all of it is major projection, of course. They cannot see the world in any other way, they use sexualised language to try and win their pathetic little game. It speaks volumes about them, it really does, and it only proves our point about pornification. The more the shout to drown us out, the more they tell us just who they are.
#

Laurelin // April 20, 2008 at 10:17 pm

I think ‘fisking’ is a sexualised word- do tell me if I’m wrong. (Don’t have a dictionary to hand)

Well--perhaps that would be the problem then; we're really not speaking the same language.

Because, I don't know, just, the professional defender of all women and fearless crusader against porn, Sam Berg, the one you're defending against the abusive pornspeakers here, yes? The professional. She never uses gratuitous sexualized language, one would certainly assume.

So, therefore, there's nothing at all inappropriate or boundary violating or creepy when she says, for instance:

‘Model’ is so 1980’s and doesn’t capture the “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money” pornsick approval meme nearly as well as “sex worker”.

or

The vaunted "right" for women to be or simply act like cum-hungry bi-sexee hoes is affirmed all over these two liberal cities I have lived in the past few years.

or

There is no sensible feminist reason to ignore the 92% of prostitutes who do not consider it work but slavery in favor of the 8%minority, especially when doing so only affirms the rape culture that already says (often literally) men have a God-given right to wet their penises with women's holes any way they desire, any time they want it.

or

Amber, you can have all of Sonia's former customers now that she has been freed because her many male customers are still around and they have your blessing to continue renting women's insides to spill their fluids into like renting a port-a-potty.

or, one of my favorites:

Turn the male gaze around just once and take a long look at the men who pay to see women smiling while hanging upside down from a pole like a painted negro in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts and stripping looks entirely different.

I'm sorry your paper's allegiance to the money and faux hipsterism of strip club culture makes the truth about men's demands for women to act like disposable dick accessories a story that will never be told.

best of all:

Spreademism.com

spread'emism (spread-them-ism), n. 1. the misleading idea that women can fuck and get fucked into political, academic and social equality with men via prostitution and pornography

Contact me at spreademism(at)yahoo.com

****

So, just so we're clear: "laughing like a super villain," "cerebral wank," and "fisking"=abusive pornsick male language, clearly the mark of a Bad Person, no matter what the context.

"spread'emism," "disposable dick accessories," "hot, bi-sexee, willing to suck and fuck anything for money," "wet their penises with womens' holes," and "cum-hungry bi-sexee hoes" = perfectly reasonable language from someone who purports to loathe that sort of language and everything it represents. Certainly not at all offensive or misogynist or abusive, no matter what the context. And, good for all occasions! It's the professional way! It's the FEMINIST way.

Hokey-dokey then.

ETA: Dear Laurelin. You seem rather confused. Let me clear a bit more up for you, since we're talking:

"Silencing" is not, in fact, "making fun of people who are making utter asses of themselves without any help at all, to wit, throwing a tantrum and backing out of a planned debate at the last moment because she can't control the terms."

Silencing would be more, oh, say, threatening to post a porn performer's pictures "without the eye strips" (hi, Stormy!) or, I don't know, back to the case at hand for a moment, trying to strong-arm said conference organizers into disinviting the porn performer in question first.

You are, however, correct about this bit, to wit, that it is neither "silencing" nor "censorship":

when someone refuses to publish your comments on their blog, in their own personal space.

the same as having one’s actions critiqued by feminists. the critique itself presents no barrier to your continuing to act.

being asked to take responsibility for one’s own words.

...although, you know, I get the impression your and my ideas of what means "critique" are also not from the same page or possibly even the same library. Nonetheless. Saying ignorant-ass crap about other peoples' sexuality and lives and then refusing to engage them when they challenge your "critique," in your own space or even in o for example at a public debate? No, that's not "silencing." It is, however, disingenuous, and, frankly, kind of pathetic.

also, wrt this, per your guest poster?

"What to do when a woman who says she’s happy in prostitution says, “Take me, for example” when you know if you actually do take her as her own example by quoting her own words and deeds she will complain, “How dare you make an example of me?”

see, no; "please talk to me directly like a human being" is NOT the same thing as "please gank one of my quotes out of context and use it as your sigline," nor indeed "please raid my personal blog for bits that you find damning and indicative of my general ill character and/or unfitness to make my own decisions, statistical improbability, lack of trustworthiness, what you will, and drag it all over several of the most high profile feminist blogs, STILL without deigning to engage me like a person."

also also, "fisking" is, once again, not what lewd pronsick males fantasize about doing to hapless radical Victorian damsels feminists with an airport metal detector;

and the London Underground is not a political movement.

Please do let me know if there's anything else I can clear up for you.

kisses!

-points silently-

So, y'all may have noticed there's been a certain theme this past week or so. And, I was getting ready to post more about some other stuff, and I will, but I guess I feel more or less obligated to note that there's been this one other post, which is, apparently, truly special, along with much of the comments thread.

And I find that for whatever reason, I just can't do it this time. Not sure why, but "computer says no." Took one look at the topic title and others' comment highlights and the cast of characters and just...no. Cannot Do. Not tonight, Josephine.

But as a matter of public...service, or something, here you go, at "The Size Of A Cow," by one Polly Styrene* (which is not -at all- reminiscent of a drag queen's moniker, please note):

"The trans activist privilege checklist"

comments currently at 112 and counting.

So, if this sounds like the sort of thing you'd like to read and even engage with, and if you would like to tackle such scintillating insights** as, from someone complaining about the label "cisgendered"*** applied to her (straight, too, p.s., this one, and white) female self,

So referring to someone as 'coloured' (sorry) has no
bearing on how a person might interact with their reality and doesn't
contradict or cancel out how they define themselves? You're coming
from a terribly priviliged stance if you believe that how you refer to
me has no bearing on who I actually am.

you now know where to find it.

Alternately, you could go directly to the point by point rebuttal.


* dear Polly: yes, you've got me. I am only saying all this, all these words on behalf of transfolk, to appear "edgy and cool." Not because oh I don't know I might actually fucking mean what I'm saying; that, unlike some people, I'm actually capable of going "gee, as a queer woman, I don't like this sort of treatment; maybe I shouldn't turn around and do it to anyone else, particularly these people who are basically assigned by the Patriarchy to the same boat I'm in, only on an even lower level; maybe it'd be better to form alliances instead of playing 'kick the dog' and then wondering why o why no one else wants to support me and my Specialness." And certainly fuck knows it's not like we're talking about actual real people, you know, like people who might be my friends and loved ones. No. I wish to be "edgy and cool;"--look! here comes the Edgy And Cool Patriarchal Cookie-Giving Brigade right now. It just doesn't get better than this!!!

...you stupid hateful fuckstain.

**ETA In fact this is incorrect; the above quote is -not- to repeat -not- to be found at the above-linked thread ("Trans Activist Privilege Checklist") at Polly Styrene's, but rather here.
The management regrets the error.

*** right, right, I remember, Wiki is suspect too because the owner once looked at pr0n or something and it's much too hard to click on a link and fucking read something anyway, let me spell it out for you, moron:

"cis" is equivalent to "straight" or "white." Mkay? As in: white woman, straight woman, cis woman. It doesn't mean you're "no longer female." It means you're not transgendered. That's it. That's all.

I know that's terribly fucking insulting. And of course it's tantamount to (sweet baby Spaghetti Monster preserve us) the term "colored," white lady. Jesus fuck. Look, drop us all a postcard when you finally break on through to China, will you? Try not to say anything stupid and offensive as shit when you get there, at least not enough to make them throw you back through the hole at 500 miles an hour, at least not for the first five minutes, if you can manage it.

christ.

on further edit: this post by trinity is a much more thoughtful and in-depth examination of why this kind of feminist might object to the term "cisgendered" as applied to herself, and why it's still wrongheaded.

Nick Kiddle also has a more patient explanation of How Things Are.

This also makes me giggle, alas:

dammit, kactus.

Did y'all know lesbians have a special "clear-eyed gaze?" Neither did I. I must've missed that in the Official Coming Out Package. Well, it's my own fault. After having so many pencil-stab-related-injuries from reading, uh, Certain People and Places, I'm just grateful my eyeballs function at all. Damn, though. The things you learn.

"Fanny, you're looking a little bloodshot today. Have you been thinking about cock again? Tsk. Tsk."

Dear Person(s) in charge of deciding pop-up ads for (mumble) site:

Please do not emblazon "Do we eat spiders in our sleep?", complete with graphics of big crawly spiders, across the top of my screen.

I don't care that the answer is "no." I don't care that it (obviously) got me to click on it. That was dirty pool.

and no, before you ask, I don't want some disgusting ad with visuals of a dirty pool for whatever reason -either.-

i hate you a lot,

etc. etc.

HOTT!! CREEPY BLOVIATING ANGRY STRAIGHT WHITE DUDE TALKSHOW HOST ON CREEPY BLOVIATING STRAIGHT WHITE DUDE TALKSHOW HOST!! FREE VID!! DON'T MISS!!1!

B'll'O'Rly and Howard Stern, take it to the CORN, w00t.



oh, wait, actually: ick.

cliff notes:

BOR: so, here's that prevert degenerate Howard Stern, who for some reason has a problem with (Me, George Bush, Me, nuclear proliferation, Me, people with higher ratings than he has, Me Me Me, baby-raping shit-eaters, and oh yeah, ME), but, strangely, has NO problem with...lezzzzbiannnssss. Isn't that so, Howard?

HS: Why, yes, that's true, Bill! I LOVE lesbians! (By which I totally mean I enjoy analyzing the writings of Audre Lorde and Monique Wittig over a nice hot cup of Earl Gray). YAY! for the SEX-AY, WRITHING, FULLY-TONGUE-EXTENDED, LONG-NAILED LESBIANS! (pant, pant) hotcha hotcha, AOOGA, Hubba Hubba, hot and cold running LEZZ-BEEE-ANNNNSSSSSS!! p.s. you're so tacky.

BOR: I am NOT TACKY. those mugs with my mug on it, *mumble* percentage of the proceeds go to CHARITY. Ever hear of CHARITY, Mr. Selfish? Huh? Huh? No, I didn't think so. You and your LESBIANS. Whyntcha go build HOUSES for poor lesbians, if you like LESBIANS so much, huh?

HS: oooo. now THAT is HOT. too bad YOU are NOT, Mr. Ego.

BOR: Me? Ego? Me? Ego? Me? Ego? You, YOU. ME? EGO???

HS: Wanna step outside?

...sadly, it ended before they, you know, took It outside.

maybe not corn. maybe they could wrestle in a tub of, like, Rogaine.

in an abandoned warehouse in the middle of an eerie grey plain, at midnight, with no electricity. and for the luvvaGod don't TELL anyone.

p.s. BillO, please do not attempt to utter Yiddish again. just...don't.

It will all make perfect sense shortly, part -5.frog, SQUAWK!

(a nod to this other post here, the title)

So, now, pluck'd from its context where i'm sure it makes a fuck of a lot more sense really (yes, same damn thread), we have this explanation of the sex/gender thing, from erm another perspective:

This again is why it’s important to distinguish between “male” and “man.” A man who is subordinated for being not manly enough is not a male woman and we should say so. He’s still a man and still male. He is actually participating in the deconstruction of manhood and masculinity, to the degree that he continues to acknowledge he is part of the category “male.” If he is recognized as a woman, then patriarchy has had its way. It has subordinated the unmasculine and made the unmasculine “women” just as it subordinates female persons and makes us women. For that to change, we have to *be* women/female and man/male and reject gender.

...


I'm going to just allow some space so that those of y'all who can and want to parse that out as is, can. Feel free to share your findings.

...

Okay. but, me, i read that three times and i'm still getting this awful feeling of vertigo. But, I want to engage it; so, I'm just gonna make it a little easier on my eyes.

Thees egeeen is vhy it’s impurtunt tu deestingooish betveee “mele-a” und “mun.” A mun vhu is sooburdeeneted fur beeeng nut munly inuoogh is nut a mele-a vumun und ve-a shuoold sey su. He-a’s steell a mun und steell mele-a. He-a is ectooelly perteecipeting in zee decunstroocshun ooff munhuud und mescooleenity, tu zee degree-a thet he-a cunteenooes tu ecknooledge-a he-a is pert ooff zee cetegury “mele-a.” Iff he-a is recugneezed es a vumun, zeen petreeerchy hes hed its vey. Bork bork bork! It hes sooburdeeneted zee unmescooleene-a und mede-a zee unmescooleene-a “vumee” joost es it sooburdeenetes femele-a persuns und mekes us vumee. Fur thet tu chunge-a, ve-a hefe-a tu *be-a* vumee/femele-a und mun/mele-a und reject gender. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!

Ah. That's much better. Still not totally sure I agree, but i can see her point, sort of, especially that last bit.

-exhale-

Follow the link from here, here, or here. Read the entire. fucking. comment thread, against your better judgment, hell, even your -worse- judgment. Curse friends who sent me and now you there, consider it like one of those fucking chain letters or something. Appreciate curiousgyrl, Virago, Moira, Mireille, and a few other valiant souls, as long as you're there. Also, while you're in there, if anyone sees my eyeballs, could you pick 'em up, dust 'em off and send 'em to me? They'd be round, blue iris, bloodshot, multiple entry wounds from writing implements. Thanks, I'd appreciate it, they were expensive.

Note to "Lousia May Alcott:"

Yes, in point of fact, it does. And so do you. Along with a few other winners.

and by the way? Explaining to the peanut gallery about male and female reproductive organs and how they are Necessary for reproduction and that is what will never, ever change, unlike gender, which is whatever's convenient for you at the moment the source of All Oppression? Makes you sound like 1) the reactionary that you are, apart from the self-serving goalpost shifting of "gender" 2) a fucking moron, especially when you include "winkies" about--oh, no, I just can't anymore, NOT WITHOUT MY EYEBALLS