"Well, it's certainly uncontaminated by customers."

Dear used bookstore proprietor person:

Yes, you did remember me correctly as the same person who had sat down with a handful of books for roughly half an hour, and then left without buying any the other day. Yes, I was about to sit down with a handful of books again when you told me that unless I were going to buy something, browsing was not okay.

Speaking as someone who owns roughly a metric fuckton of books, I feel obliged to point out (again: yes, I did say something to this effect and I realize you were resolutely unmoved): generally speaking, most bookstores cheerfully allow for, even encourage unlimited browsing. This is not because they are kind generous people; this is because they understand that in bookstores, generally speaking, the people who sit there and browse are repeat customers; and yes, most of them do buy something, if not this time, then next time, or the one after that. For example, today I went and browsed in a different used bookstore, and they left me the hell alone, as they always do, and I ended up buying two books. See how this works?

Well, no, I can see that you don't. Okay. What I didn't say: you may also want to consider that maybe the reason you remembered me was because I was, that time, like this time, pretty much the only person in the store.

I mean, I'm not suggesting your attitude is the only reason for business being slow: the economy's bad, used bookstores aren't necessarily always exactly booming, and also your selection is kind of crap. But yeah, there was one book of food lit/crit I'd never seen elsewhere and I was seriously thinking about buying it. Even with the plastic on the cover and the relatively high price. Still, I'm sure it was worth it not to have to deal with the annoyance of watching someone look at books, in a bookstore, that you run.

You know what would really solve the problem? If you just got rid of all the books. You could have, like, those dummy copies they have in furniture stores, you know? It'd be great. And the customer could come in and be like, "Do you have anything in red?" and you could lead them silently to the back and glower at them until they found the right one to match their drapes, and paid for it.

Addendum: if you were even half this entertaining in your churlishness, I would have gladly let it pass. Sadly, you are not.

"Nothing interferes with a man’s ability to score like a woman who doesn’t think his ego trumps her safety."

Via guerrillamamamedicine, over at Shapely Prose hits all the points that -should- be obvious, but apparently still aren't, to any number of dudes like o f'r instance this one.

We’ve recently had a number of dudes dropping in to complain that asking them to be sensitive to women’s boundaries is essentially cock-blocking them. Sure, they say, if they don’t talk to us when we clearly don’t want them to, they’ll be making us feel less threatened in a world where one in six women is the victim of sexual assault — but on the other hand, they won’t get to talk to us, and how is that fair? Nothing interferes with a man’s ability to score like a woman who doesn’t think his ego trumps her safety. Underlying this argument, along with a host of other scuzzy notions, is the same idea Saletan spikes and the Navy wives catch: that taking a “womanly body” out in public is an a priori invitation for male attention...

Then there were the guys who were clutching their pearls (if you know what I mean) in the epic thread, horrified that women might think they were a danger. After all, it’s not their fault that women feel threatened — they’re decent, humane guys. Maybe some men are dangerous, but not them, and aren’t we really creating the problem by not letting them prove how decent they are all over us?

Those guys are right, sort of. There are lots of great men out there — you can tell who they are because when they read that thread, or Saletan’s piece, they go “WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?” And it really isn’t fair that sometimes their wives also think they can’t be trusted in a sub with 138 other guys and a lady. That’s not their fault. But it’s also not their wives’ fault, or the ladies’ fault. It’s the fault of a culture that tells all of us, over and over, that men just don’t have the ability to resist. A culture that assumes it’s women’s responsibility to keep themselves armored and invisible, because sexual violence is a direct result of temptation.

In other words, the same cultural bullshit that asserts men’s right to invade women’s personal space and/or fuck 13-year-olds also perpetuates the notion that men are more dick than brain. That’s why they just have to talk to women, when they can see the women don’t want to! That’s why they get addled by a womanly body when they know it comes with a pubescent mind! They don’t have the willpower or intelligence to not act like cavemen, at least not when faced with feminine wiles.

Fuck that noise! The real decent guys sure don’t deserve that. And the pearl-clutchers, the ones who were horrified by our insistence that rape doesn’t occur in the passive voice… well, who says they deserve it either?

...But what if that’s not good enough for you? What if you’re the kind of self-styled decent guy who still doesn’t feel like it’s fundamentally worthwhile to contribute to a culture where women don’t feel threatened because they aren’t threatened? What reason do you have to forego the rape-joke T-shirts, notice body language signals, object to misogyny, back off when asked to, maintain a comfortable distance, or any of the other little things you can do to bring rape culture down by degrees?

If the well-being of women isn’t enough for you, consider this: patriarchy thinks you’re fucking stupid. It thinks you’re a penis without a brain that’s worthwhile and powerful only because women are vaginas without brains and that’s somehow worse. It thinks you’re untrustworthy, that you can’t be left alone with a woman, that you can’t be left alone with a child. Feminists didn’t make that shit up — they’re just noting it and passing it on.

Anyone who wants to lump this in with "victim feminism" or whatever the current moniker is isn't paying attention. Yes, women have agency. And responsibility. Same as any other human. But what's conveniently left out of the equation a lot of the time, or at least underemphasized, is not only that men have responsibility (also! too!), but what that responsibility consists of. It's not about being "good." It's not about not overpowering delicate wimmins with your brute masculinity or however that incredibly tedious and ubiquitous cultural fetish/trope goes.

It's about have some fucking empathy. It's about, there -is- such a thing as community, no matter what Maggie Thatcher said. And while you're trumpeting about your rights, your individual autonomy, your -free speech-, all those terrific American concepts that are the very same ones we invoke with such handy catchphrases as "my body belongs to me" (nifty little one, there, applies to a lot more than reproductive rights), you might consider that other cliche wherein "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

And, further:

When a whole bunch of swinging dickheads are swinging like all get out and getting into womens' space, at minimum, your responsibility is to not -unsee it-, because it makes you uncomfortable. At -minimum-, you don't go: "Well, yes, he's a jerk, but hey, freedom of expression!" even as someone's standing there clutching her nose. At minimum, you don't go, "yes, okay, there's a lot of fist-swinging going on, (although not as much as you say there is, because -I- don't experience it), but it doesn't add up to anything; it doesn't signify; one and one and one and one do not add up to four, because I will it so."

A side note about the latter phenomenon:

How often do people-the "male pearl clutchers" alluded to above, for instance- not believe that things aren't as shitty as someone else says they are, not just because they wish to perpetuate said shittiness themselves or at least passively profit off it, but because they don't -want- to believe that shittiness exists? Because, that might fuck with their entire worldview as well as their self-image?

(part two to follow)

"Stop being so full of ressentiment, you ugly pathological lefties of subnormal intelligence. Shouting is viceful."

I found another fuckwit, y'all. Yes! On the Internets!! Inorite? I'm too lazy for a recap, I've been busy slapfighting with her, because I am out of chocolate and booze and it seemed like the thing to do, but here, enjoy.

"When I say I want to talk about you, I don't mean I'm actually INTERESTED in what YOU have to say for yourself," part infinity-four

This edition, a slight twist on other versions of this wank, at least for this blog: a feminist who has decided that not only is sex a -positive- thing, it's positively -mandatory.- Whether you actually want it or not.

Clarissa explains it all for us:

Asexuality

A recent post at Feministing illustrates the point I was trying to make about tolerance that sometimes turns into a parody of itself.

The post responds to a message from somebody who feels asexual and finds anybody's touch "absolutely repulsive. The thought of sex makes me gag a bit." The response that the author of the message gets to her post takes the idea of political correctnes to the extreme that is even a little scary. The main idea of the response is "Asexual people of the world, unite!" Don't worry about beinng asexual, it says. You can always get together with other asexual people, date them, and form yet another neat identity group.

This attitude does not come exclusively out of the desire to show the world how tolerant and accepting one is. It is also the result of a deeply Puritanical view of sex, which refuses to see human sexuality on terms of a physiological process. If anybody found the idea of eating or sleeping (also physiological processes) "absolutely repulsive", we wouldn't be as likely to dismiss this problem with a lot of well-meaning but ultimately empty words. Nobody would (at least for now, I think) suggest to form an identity group around this problem.

Another problem that the response to this post brings to light, is the deep-seated fear that many Americans feel towards psychology as a field of knowledge. While several people suggested that the author of the post look for hormonal causes of her asexuality, nobody mentioned that it might be helpful for her to search for psychological causes.

a) "Political correctness"=pretty much automatic fail already. Sure enough:

b) "I'm all for 'tolerance,' but when it comes to something I'm too lazy to learn about and/or still want to make fun of/wax superior over, that's going -too far.-"

c) "For instance, the very idea that people might want to have meaningful relationships without sex, and that that might be about -their happiness- and have -nothing to do with me-, rather than about forcing poor put upon me to be "tolerant" of yet another "identity group."

d) "Blah blah blah one size fits all boilerplate which certainly has something to it but still doesn't have anything to do with this person whom I don't know -here- lecturecakes blah."

e) Glad you mentioned psychology. I happen to be training in psychology. And the first thing you learn in -my- school, at least, is you meet people where they're at. I.e., you don't try to "fix" them according to -your- standards of what would make -you- happy before even learning the first thing about -that other person who isn't you.- Those would be the second and third things as well, actually.

f) Also, armchair diagnosis over the Internets, while a fun party trick (I've done it myself): really not for the sake of the actual person being "helped," you know, so much as for the gratification of the person making the diagnosis and/or third party observers. Pretty much that would be always.

So, okay, so a bunch of people argue with her, many self-ID'd asexuals. And I was -going- to go over and throw in my tuppeny, but quickly realize I actually couldn't say the whole "you are not the center of the universe! no, really! p.s. this ain't feminism (or sex positive either, for that matter)" any more clearly than a number of other commenters already.

And then, to confirm my suspicion that anything I had to say over there would be both redundant and unheard, at the very bottom:

Clarissa said...
For those who feel the need to participate without reading what was said previously, I repeat: this discussion is closed.

I'm always ready to discuss anything with calm, reasonable, and polite people (such as pretzelboy, Allison, and more recently Erbs).

Those, however, who come to repeat things that have been discussed 100 times, or those who are so enraged with the fact that somebody somewhere dared to have an opinion do not interest me as interlocutors. Coming here to scream "batshit," "SILLY" and "LEARN" in capital letters is not, in my opinion, an acceptable way to engage in a discussion. I don't even want to imagine what would make people want to seek out blogs of those with differing opinions and to engage in such public fits of hysteria. Curiously, these are always the same people who scream "tolerance above all".

If there are still people who fail to understand that for me this is not about the asexual community, I can't help you.

Once again: the discussion is closed until the participants start behaving in a way I find more acceptable.

Oh, cupcake.

Putting everything else aside (woo, tone argument for the epic fail! "Cut his mike!" "I can spout ignorant offensive bullshit as though from the Papal office and then ignore any counterarguments that don't suit me if I want! IT'S JUST MY OPINION!" is that a universal BINGO card I see before me?):

Friend, if -you- can't understand how calling a post "asexuality" and then proclaiming, quite truthfully apparently, that "for me this is not about the asexual community" might just be a wee tiny bit fucked up...well, I can't help you either.

And aren't you glad you -asked- for my -help- and thinky thoughts?

--Especially wrt this, now I notice:

As to you parallel with homosexuality, I still fail to see how it applies. As I said, sexuality is a physiological process, like sleeping or eating. depriving yourself of sleep will be detrimental to your health. This is my firm belief and I have a right to it. Since gay and lesbian people do not deprive themselves of sex, there is no reason to believe that they might suffer detrimental effects of sexual deprivation.I find that trying to bring homosexuality into the discussion of sexless lives is nothing but a tactic aimed at diverting the conversation from the actual topic.

Oh where to begin.

Yes, sex is important to -most- people, and being "deprived" (i.e. "unable to obtain something you want and need, not something other people think you want and need) can seriously fuck up your emotional health and eat away the rest of your life. Been there, done that, got the scratchy hairshirt. Yes, I believe that sex-negative culture has had a lot of deleterious effects, individually and structurally. Yes, I even think Wilhelm Reich was onto something (at least some somethings).

And yet: no, actually, the individual -doesn't- need sex like sleeping or especially eating: if you don't eat, you're gonna die. As in, literally and physically, in a relatively short amount of time. This is not how sex works. That's not a "belief;" that's a fact. Unless you are some other species that I am not aware of.

And, I for one also really do not appreciate the implications of "deprive -themselves-" from what sure looks like a blandly oblivious heteronormative perspective; there's a lot to say about the ways in which internalized as well as externalized homophobia can cause "deprivation" and "detrimental effects"--see above re: unable to obtain something you want and need--but I for one sure wouldn't have found that sort of smug tone implying there was yet something -else- wrong with me remotely helpful, ever. One gets quite enough of that all around.

ETA: and yeah, as someone else noted, the whole "sex is a natural biological process" business is a wee tad 'normative itself. and annoying.

veyz. yeah, I can't actually get into all of the ways this irks right now. more later. maybe.

ETA: it crystallized a bit more:

Re the parallel with the queer umbrella sexualities and why it's a relevant parallel: most of us have direct experience with having been pathologized and disprespected for our sexuality (yes, "sexuality" includes "lack thereof," in fact) even when said sexuality is in fact none of anyone else's business, isn't harming anyone else, and in fact the people who say or imply they're lecturing us/attempting a "cure" "for our own good" clearly do -not- have our best interests in mind, but rather their own agenda.

Anyway, really, the definitive comment was made on an earlier (and equally headdesky) post at feministing some time back:

UnHingedHips said:

Dear Woman Doing Something: I am a feminist and want women to be able to make their own choices. However, YOU are too (young/old/poor/x/y/z)and I think your choice to (have babies/not have babies/sail around the world/a/b/c) while being so (young/old/poor/x/y/z) is reprehensible and you should be loudly condemned for daring to do something like *that*, even though it has no impact on my life.

I hope you see the error of your ways.

~Another Woman

ETA again: Just for the record's sake, here's one of those other commenters from over there.

Shain Neumeier said...
To both Clarissa and Anonymous 5:40 a.m.,

I think the main problem I have with all of this is that people who are not me are trying to tell me what I and people like me should be and disguising it as what we "are" and are refusing to accept, or what we should want by saying it's what any functional person would really like. It's unfair, and frankly condescending, to say about people that the puritanical patriarchy has brainwashed them into not wanting sex (I find this a bit antithetical to feminism anyways - isn't it the belief that women ARE smart and capable enough to make their own decisions about their bodies?), or that they're immature and will grow out of it. If someone happens to eventually want or at least like sex, or if the benefits of having it outweigh the costs for them at some point for whatever reason, then great. But at the point that someone is coming out as asexual, I can think of no way in which it helps anybody, you or them, to invalidate the conclusion they've come to about themselves.

As far as the argument that sex is good and even necessary for one - If I may, I'll accept, but revise, the food comparison. I would say that asexuality is a little like having an aversion to a food that most people like and/or that's very good for people. Would life be better for someone who couldn't stand the smell of bananas or the texture of salad if they could eat these foods without throwing up? Maybe. But if, as things are, they get sick if they try to eat these foods, the health benefits might not be worth the costs of trying to learn to like them. So let them use their multivitamins or whatever other compensatory measures to make up for any lost nutrients, or choose to do nothing at all. It's no one's business to tell them what they need or should want in case like this.

Likewise, maybe it's true that one gets headaches and irritability from not having sex. But you know what? I'd rather stock up on ibuprofen and get some hobbies that allow me to vent my anger in a productive way than let someone do things to my body that I'm uncomfortable with. I can imagine that someone will want to jump on me for that description of sex, but that's how I see it. I'm simply uncomfortable with invasive physical contact, as I am with a number of other sensory experiences, and sex falls under the category of invasive physical contact. I get emotional fulfillment from others through a lot of things, like watching movies, making up stories and having good debate, but sex just isn't conducive to trust or love in my mind. This is abnormal, but, as it does not interfere with my day-to-day or overall functioning, it's not by definition disordered. Such is the case with many asexuals, whether or not they're repulsed by sexual contact as I am. So who is anyone else to tell us that we should be otherwise?

If I'm unhappy or unhealthy because I'm not having sex, I'll see an actual psychologist or doctor about it, and work something out that makes me better without making me uncomfortable. All I want - and, I think, what most "aces" want - from people who are not being paid for medical advice is acceptance and the belief that we are capable enough to define ourselves as makes sense to us.

"'Dear American Blacks': Join The Republicans, It's For Your Own Good"

And this hurts me more than it hurts--oh, wait.

How Not To Win Friends And Influence People, I mean, I'm -pretty- sure, over at Redstate as documented (and linked, so I don't have to) by Alicublog:

Dear American Blacks:

Sometimes the very best act of friendship I could do is tell you that the person you think is your best friend actually works against you behind your back, laughing at you, mocking your hardships, secure in the knowledge that you need him too much to ever leave him.

Sometimes — no, actually always — the true friend is the one who tells you what you don’t want to hear. The one who does not indulge you, the one who will neither promise you nor give you candy and other bennies. Instead he tells you to sit down and eat your green beans and spinach — and if you want that nice car, then quit whining, get an education, earn a good job, and earn that nice car.

The really ironic thing is that the slick, good-time “friend” will tell you what a jerk your true friend is. And you will believe him. You will believe him, that is, until you grow up, or until your good-time friend sells you up the river so far that your life is wrecked, and your future is ruined. Your wisdom will have been gained at a steep price.

But your true friend will still be there. And eating your green beans, securing an education, and working hard are still the path to success.

American Blacks, the Democratic Party is that good-time, lying, back-stabbing excuse for a “friend”. The DC Voucher story is an illustration — hardly a unique story — of how Democrats continually seek to set you up as a permanent underclass, so that you’ll depend on them to throw you scraps and believe their lies, in order to secure your votes to keep them in power...

...So while the Democrats toss your children’s hopes and dreams aside, secure in the knowledge that you’ll always vote for them, remember that your true friend is still here.

I ask you to consider, why is it that you hate Republicans so much?

Republicans do not know how to approach you. Democrats and the Democrat-dominated press have misled you and stoked up your wrath to the point that you will not listen to us.

So I propose this: how about listening? How about listening to what Republicans have to say, instead of what the Democrats say we say? How about listening to what we have to say before booing us out of the building?

...Want the opportunity to escape poverty, crime, and poor schools? Then quit voting for the Democrats that put you there.
Tired of 15% unemployment in your areas? Then quit supporting the Democrats who raise taxes and force increase regulations on employers. [oh yeah, the Democrats call them the 'rich', but when was the last time a poor man gave you a job?]

Eat your green beans! Do the thing that frees you!

It’s tough love, but I assure you, friend, it’s love. That’s why we fought like hell to restore the DC School Vouchers. That’s why we fought like hell to lower taxes on businesses, so employers could hire more people and create more success for everybody.

We received not one ounce of gratitude from you, but we did it anyway. And we will continue to do what is right for America, for whites, for blacks, for Latinos, for Republicans, for Democrats, for today, and for the future.

Join us. Consider it, anyway.

yes, it's really real. Really.

I was going to say something snarky about someone having watched too many episodes of "boot camp for recalcitrant minors" on the talk shows, but then something stirred in my heart, and or/bowels, and I was moved to respond in like spirit.


Dear Republican Whites,

As a true friend, your only REAL friend, really, I must tell you that the only cure for the shrinkage you're currently suffering is to slam all of your various bits and extremities very hard in a car door, followed by a roll in coarse salt and a bath in a tub full of live herring and miniature crabs. You should achieve immediate growth, or at least swelling.

Consider it, anyway.

I realize I will receive not one ounce of gratitude for this heartfelt (and free! let it never be said that there is no such thing as a free lunch. although you -will- have to pay for the herring yourselves, I'm afraid) advice. But, I'm giving it anyway. Such is the overflowing bounty of my care and compassion. My poor misunderstood bleeding heart, it even bleeds for you. ESPECIALLY for you.

See, I don't hate Republican Whites. Black Americans don't hate Republican Whites. Democratic Whites don't hate Republican Whites. -No one- *hates* Republican Whites. That's where you've gotten us all wrong. We LOVE you. Deeply. And sincerely. Everyone loves Whites! And especially Republicans!! Seriously, how could anyone hate -you?- What would anyone ever do without you? Can't you feel the love, tonight?

Bless you, Republican Whites. BLESS YOU. And, thank you. For...you know. Everything.

Yours in Supply-Side Jesus,

Marie of Romania.

Apparently I suck at hiatuses

Well, also, I do take requests, and fastlad, my dearest friend who I haven't talked to in way too long, has asked me to snark about this stupid article, which I will because I love him and also because it's a really stupid article and I feel like being bitchy on a topic that a) merits it b) but isn't important enough to make my brain explode.

It should be short. I mean, here's the title:

Brooklyn Virgin Discovers Naked Dancing"

Here's how it starts:

Somehow it happened that in all the years I’ve lived in New York City, I’d never been to Brooklyn. But when I heard that choreographer Noémie Lafrance had a new show opening in Williamsburg, I decided it was as good an occasion as any to venture beyond Manhattan for the first time. I loved the music video she choreographed for Feist’s “1234” in 2007, and “Rapture”—her piece for aerialists staged on the side of a Frank Gehry building at Bard College—was undeniably awesome. So on Tuesday night, I boarded the L train (heading away from the West Village) and made my way to hipsterville. I’d heard from my more global friends that Brooklyn is a charming borough inhabited by cool young families, gourmet cheese shops, and creative intellectuals. It has parks! And trees! And slow walkers aren’t mowed down on the sidewalk! But I’m what you might call a bona fide Manhattanite. Or, to be more precise, a bona fide Upper East Sider. I’ve traveled the world, I said to myself—how exotic could Brooklyn really be?

Perhaps my tweed J. Crew jacket and Tory Burch ballet flats weren’t the best wardrobe choice for that day, but I overcame the fact that I was a total Williamsburg misfit and hoped my foreigner status wouldn’t be glaringly obvious to the natives. (It was)..

It gets more annoying from there. Apparently girlfriend was shocked, shocked, at the realities of downtown* theatre, from lack of proper accomodations to nekkid performers to I can't even read all that shit to be honest. Short version:

"I'm a total pointless snob with nothing remotely interesting to say and particularly not about this show I'm supposed to cover, (I don't know much about Art, but I know what I -don't- like, even if I feel totally insecure about it); but if I write this piece in an archly kidding-on-the-square 'ironic' tone (see, I AM hip, I know 'irony' is what all the cool kids do these days...maybe) people will think I'm ever so charming and clever and amusing."

Not.

-plonk-

The first comment sums it up really:

good riddance and don't come back. we don't need you.

just sorry I never invited her up to my former digs in Queens, and don't I feel DARING for saying that. or, um, not? i did and do consider myself damn lucky to have a (nice, at that) place to live in the city (or anywhere for that matter, look around you you stupid toff) at all?

Oh yeah, and yes, it is depressing that this is a (presumably paid) piece for Vanity Fair and not someone's livejournal, as another commenter noted. Indeed.

(*Williamsburg is often considered an extension or 'new'(er) "downtown," i.e. the East Village moving East. Yes Virginia, that certainly DOES include, nay, is probably by now OVERWHELMED by, a fuckload of privileged gentrifiers and/or other annoying UES twits faux-"slumming" it for the length of the nearly-as-inflated-as-Manhattan-by-now-lease or the evening, respectively, so girlfriend there shouldn't have felt remotely out of place unless she's really so damn insecure that a couple of equally-pretentious hipsters glaring over their black-rimmed glasses gives her the vapors)

and still more icky douchebaggery, aka shining knights we can all do without

1) don't look now--seriously, don't (the following are old links for the unaware)--just, heads up: Kyle Payne is apparently out of jail and back to blogging like nothing happened. potential feminist and/or anti-abuse conference gatekeepers, employers, shelter volunteer overseers, newbies to feministland, etc: do not differentiate this "sincere pro-feminist ally" from any other known predator.

2) on a lighter or at least more hilarious note, Natalia has a Very Special commenter going into terminal Fail mode right now. A sample of the specialness:

whenever one listens to “me, my rights, my space, I, what I want” and a plethora of “it’s all about me and what I want” the lower down the social ladder of order and class one descends, as it tends to always be the lower classes which feel as though they’re entitled to something.

Whenever one hears about respecting others, putting propriety and sensibilities before selfish ambition, the higher up the social ladder one climbs.

You three ladies reminded me something in your comments, regarding your birth right and station in life - and this isn’t me insulting or “harassing” you, though I fully realize that anyone whom disagrees with any of you is obviously (rolling my eyes) harassing you… that is the problem with individuals who just think that for some reason the sun and moon should rise and set on their ass.

so now to the point: when i was very young, I remember my mother pointing out to me much of what I’d be experiencing, now that many folks were starting to immigrate:

“one can take a penny. And polish it and shine it, and oh how beautiful that penny will be! Everyone will notice it and say, ‘oh how shiny that penny is!’ however… it is still only a penny. It doesn’t have any more value because it is shiny and pretty.”

I should have known better than to try to express the merit of value, to pennies.

so, thank you. It is a waste of my time to bother trying to have an intelligent discussion with any or either of you, since the best that you have to offer is it being all about you. None of you has any interest in how other cultures, or individuals function and I actually am curious as to your agenda for traveling and marrying outside of your own culture.

The more I read of each of you the more I realize you’re each attempting to climb out of your station or class structure, while pretending to be something you’re not...

I just hope the men you’ve each managed to trick don’t get taken and fully fleeced once they’ve outlived their value to you.

...if walking home means someone is going to harass you… then guess what? Take a taxi… if you live in a low class neighbourhood, then move. really, it isn’t complicated to solve what one doesn’t like to deal with…

if i move to a ghetto, i am going to be treated according to how they live… they won’t come to my neighbourhood, so I don’t have to be subjected to how they choose to live.

it has nothing to do with power… it has everything to do with class and culture…

"So take THAT, you filthy little mudbloods! p.s. my Eastern European ladylike girlfriend who lives in Canada would -never- be so vulgar as to get herself harassed or assaulted, and neither would Mater, so NYERGH."

WHAT A GREAT TWIT!!

Seriously, do we need to tack a gorram Venn diagram onto every feminist blog, or what?

little light commenting at feministe:

THIS IS THE GODDAMN PROBLEM. To you, WOC and queer people are allies to feminism. They are adjunct groups, special interests, separate causes distract from women’s issues.
Let’s unpack that a little.

Women of color, in bringing up their concerns, are allies to (regular) women, who are just doing plain old feminism. Women of color are allies to feminism. Queer people are allies to feminism. Issues of racism, gender identity, and orientation, plus the accompanying oppressions and concerns, are “interesting” side dishes to feminism, which is for women.

Women of color and queer women are women. We are women. Our issues are women’s issues. They are inextricable from our womanhood. They are part of our feminism, and part of we want feminism to pay attention to, because these things are women’s issues. Your version posits that there’s regular women, who just do feminism, and then there’s those allies who drag those regular women in the trap of paying attention and giving energy to other causes–like the concerns of the women next to them who are brown, trans, and queer.

What does that make these regular women, the core of feminism, so gracious as to allow in the interesting sidebars on race and gender and orientation and ability and class, so vulnerable to falling into the trap of paying too much attention to those issues? White. Straight. Cissexual. Able-bodied. Not working-class. Those are “just plain women” in your frame. Their issues are “WOMEN’S issues.” Other women? Women who are different? Their issues aren’t “WOMEN’S issues,” except for the ones they share in common with white, straight, upper-class, cissexual, able-bodied women. Their issues are an occasionally-interesting distraction from real women’s issues.

Thanks but no thanks for your inclusion, pal.

It's official: pretty much anyone at all might invoke "feminism" in service of their ends

Really, I don't know why people keep saying the -word- is out of fashion and needs preservation; it seems to me the -word- is about as endangered as, well, the Traditional Nukular Family and Merry Christmas. As for the proper -spirit- of such things, well. I wouldn't know, being a degnerate heathen and all, but anyway: here are the thinky thoughts of one Father Joe, on "preserving purity:"

How should couples act prior to marriage? I would like to offer certain recommendations:

FIRST, the whole dating scene is a mess. We should opt for the older practices of courtship. Dating today is an excuse for “making out” and compromising virginity. Younger children should not go out on dates and older teens should be chaperoned. Young adults need the mindset that stepping out with the opposite sex is not simply for a good time, but part of the search for a future mate. Dating is transitory. Courtship plays for keeps!

SECOND, both men and women should prize their purity and do all they can to preserve it as a gift for their future spouse. There should be no double-standard for men. As for women, it is not true feminism or liberation to be as sleazy as certain men. Restraint in this area shows strength of character and a discipline that will keep them in good stead within marriage. Today, we must also contend with sexually transmitted diseases which infect millions, sometimes with lethal consequences. Sex kills! This is contrary to its very purpose. The only sure way to remain clean of infection is for a couple to remain pure and to enter upon the marriage bed undefiled.

THIRD, modesty in speech and dress should rule the day. Vulgar flirtation and immodest dress is in vogue starting with pre-teens and going into adulthood. Many complain that styles are so risqué that it is hard for true ladies to find decent clothing. Some women have resorted again to making their own dresses. Men and women are not the same. One pretty but flirtatious girl who had every boy’s eye remarked to me that she stopped short of getting the boys’ motors running. Poor thing, I explained, boys’ motors are always running! The best of young men can be quite weak in the flesh and they need good girls to keep them good. Young men should not lie or compel favors from women with their physical strength. Women should not tempt men with their clothes, or lack of clothes, and suggestive speech...

And so on, and so on, and so on. See, -true- feminism would be, uhhh, ummm, well...anyway, something better. See. Yeah. Isn't it always? Thanks, Father Whosit! We Value Your Opinion.

Oh, I like this bit, too:

FIFTH, while showing compassion to those who make mistakes, we need to retain a sense of shame for scandalous activity. I recall a teenage girl who had a child and everyone kissed and admired the beautiful baby. We were thankful that a prolife decision was made. However, I was troubled that she showed no remorse or embarrassment at having given away her virginity or having an illegitimate child. Most babies in the past born to such girls were given up for adoption. The stigma served a purpose and its eradication is no service to other girls who might make a similar mistake.

Clearly, the Magdalene Laundries were a hotbed of True Feminism. Not to mention True Christianity. Because if there was one thing the message of Jesus was all about, it was stigmatizing people, women especially, who flouted sexual convention and/or were already the untouchable caste in their respective societies. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key, the dirty sluts," sez Jesus. Also, hierarchy, "family values," and rigid adherence to ritual. That whole "whited sepulchre" thing? Or the railing about "scribes and Pharisees?" Don't worry about it, really.

"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.

THE POWER OF POSITIVE CLEAR-EYED LESBIAN GAZING! or, UNLEASH THE RADICAL FEMINIST WITHIN

Dammit, Ren, you had to make me look.

Speaking of trainwrecks in progress...the whole tl:dr thing, no doubt, chock full o' erm erraticness, but I was particularly drawn by the touching advice of dear Satsuma in these troubled times.

(oh, follow the link from there)

...I’m from the tough love school for women. It is not popular to say that we are 100% in charge of our own destiny, because this makes women who have fallen through the cracks feel bad. Feeling bad won’t get you anywhere in life.

Women on this blog get mad at success or any woman who thinks this is exciting and challenging. What I have to say, is that my life is a testiment that if you APPLY the wisdom of radical lesbian feminism, and you don’t fall into the trap of ever living with men as an adult, and you throw your mind as far as it will go, you’ll actually have a much better life than all the women who think they need men to prosper. I’m saying you will be healthier and wealthier if you DON’T marry men, live with them or have children.

I’m saying brilliance and cleverness and excitement and accomplishment are what await a true radical feminist.

What pains me here is that women don’t believe this. I think there are a lot of women in the world who are truly afraid of being different. They struggle to fit in everywhere, instead of choosing to live by an inner guidance system or even an inner true light.

Women think other women should fail and suffer. I’m not from that school of thought. I know that education and study advance you, and I know you need no handouts, welfare bureaus or social service agencies to do this. When you leave behind the production machine of patriarchy — which is not factory work, but childbearing, you really are free from personally contaminating patriarchy.

It’s what I find so frustrating here at times, this head in the sand, I don’t give a damn attitude. It’s this worship of poverty and downward mobility, or the belief that a radical lesbian life will not cause you to be better off in the end.

There is nothing worse than reading about women who can’t afford dentists here. Somehow that gets to me the most. I meet women everyday who are already setting themselves up for this. If they have the good fortune of working with me, they’ll do a lot better...

Every time a woman marries a man and has children and quits work in the state of California, puts her at a greater risk than buying a financial stock right now. The risk is that she is throwing about 10 years away from retirement planning, and stands to get divorced at a 50-60% rate. That means she will probably be the sole support of children and her standard of living will drop immediately. This happens every day of the year...

...I found poverty actually dull, and thought that I could do a whole lot better than a lot of straight women out there and have a better life. I think heterosexual women often feel they are superior to lesbians, and think our ideas are utopian.

But I believed in the male free life, and I believed that lesbian feminism led to incredible personal, political and spiritual insights.

It’s what causes me to greatly admire ambitious women. It’s what makes me love gritty women like Sarah Palin, when feminists out there think she is the devil....

...I love smart ambitious women. And there is nothing smarter and more ambitious than women who win high office in politics, and nothing more threatening to women who haven’t risen this far. The irony is the old guard feminists get mad at the Sarah Palins, just because they have personal beliefs that don’t tow a party line. I don’t tow a party line that says be poor, don’t achieve, don’t make a lot of money, don’t have the best in life… that doesn’t go over well. But feminism frees all women, and it comes out looking rather odd. Sarah Palin is a feminist in my book, and she is a fundamentalist christian. How shocking! Maybe a lot of women here simply don’t know how caring and loving fundamentalist christians actually are. Perhaps they haven’t met fundamentalist christians who are lesbian accepting.

You can’t be both right? Well in my opinion, how can you be a free woman if you are living with men and having sex with them. Yuck!! But I am sure feminists here who do this would still think of themselves as feminists, right?

Men don’t trash Palin the way so many women feminists do.

So this contradictory belief may seem mysterious; a love of both Palin and Clinton. Something about their personal struggles I deeply identify with. Something about seeing a woman on stage accepting a VP nomination while her husband holds the baby is so amazing to me...

...I am not a leftist or even a rightist, I am a woman who really goes for it, and never contaminate themselves with men kind of feminist. I’m not the hippie sex drugs and rock and roll type person. I hated all that nonsense, just wasn’t me. Perhaps a lot of that leftie stuff just annoyed me and still does. Weirdly enough, give me a proper fundamentalist christian any day over a vulgar swearing sexualized lesbian.

-clap clap-

Sorry to get carried away with the C&P--tl:dr, that's still only like a third of her latest saga, never mind the surrounding shitstorm--but I'm sort of riveted. If it's performance art, it's frigging AWESOME. It's like the bastard child of Tony Robbins, Sheila Jeffreys, and Dawn Eden.

oh, and almost forgot this bit:

No I don’t want failure and poverty, and no I am not swayed by everyone else going nuts over a stock market that is quite predictable. The fortunes are made quickly after events like this, while everyone else is still in panic.

ETA: also, too, also, I need to say this, once and for all:

Toe the line. Toe the line. Not -tow-. TOE. There's a line in the sand. You're not supposed to step over it; you're supposed to -toe-. You can't -tow- the line, unless you mean you're physically moving the drawn line someplace else altogether.

yes, THAT, dammit.

On who "Joe Sixpack" really is.

See, JSP isn't referring to our rock hard abs. JSP literally means "the blue collar guy who picks up a six pack of cheap beer every night after work and goes home to watch Nascar (and probably beat his wife/kids and light a cross on the black neighbor's lawn but we won't say anything about that wink wink nudge nudge)." That is the message that they are trying to get across to America.

when in fact, Joe Sixpack IS the black neighbor, and he's having a Nascar watching party with his boyfriend and his sister and her girlfriend, and yeah, sure, they're drinking beer, only Joe's not having too much because he has to get up early to finish writing his sermon. Then they all play Scrabble and talk about trends in science fiction and Japanese horror movies for a while before putting the kids to bed. Guess how they all vote? Go on, guess.

And this bit, I really liked this:

I wish I were only talking to one camp. But I'm talking to my own, too. We "liberal elitists." Because we say the same kind of things when talking about "the average American."

...And that's kind of dangerous, and it's also kind of not true. Like I said, there are those people out there, and we know what camp they are in. But how many of us assumed "the average American" would say that Palin won the debate, because she didn't fall down and start speaking in tongues? And what are the polls saying? And hasn't our side also been moaning about how "Joe Six-Pack" wouldn't vote for a black man? Assuming "the average American" is that special demographic? Do we really think he did so well in the primaries because there's such a vast quantity of "intellectual elites" out there to compensate for all of the average people who'd naturally vote right wing? Come on, people...

(read the rest. Srsly, do.)

This. This. This is the problem I've been having with the lovely nihilism punctuated with spasms of GO TEAM!! all over way too many of the hardcore politicos, from mainstream horserace watching a la Kos down to the more esoteric branches of feminism and beyond.

Because, you know something: it's all too easy for a "the rabble is so easily swayed by this cheap crap, if only they were all as enlightened as me/us" to tip over into the sort of kitschy reactionary bullshit we're looking at right now. (Gerard Van der Leun, here's looking at you). All it takes is a jolt of fear in the right place and we're off to the bunker.

The problem isn't "intellectual elitism." The problem is people on either side of the aisle who're so busy congratulating our clever selves for not letting anyone put anything over on -us- that we forgot what we stood for in the damn first place.

I think, last I checked, it supposedly had something to do with "other people." Democracy, don't you know. The antithesis of "elitism."

You know, Joe and Jane Sixpack. All those zillions of -people- out there. Salt of the earth for sure, maybe, possibly; just don't trust them to find their own ass with a map and a flashlight, the dumbasses

Unlike, say...us, who totally know what we're doing.

Quote of the day: 8/4/08

It’s not a radical, politically oriented decision to *not* rape somebody or *not* punch them in the face. Politics schmolitics. That’s basic human decency. That’s kindergarten.

--Purtek

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.

.

Kyle Payne: Why it was a Big Fucking Deal, a note for the perplexed

Re this:

ETA: this, too

Hi, witchy, stormcloud, delphyne, Heart, whichever other of the "radical feminists" who just can't understand why this is a particularly big deal for those of us who aren't among the Elect, or what the difference is between this guy and, what is it now? all the other porn "users" in the world? all the other male feminists in the world (except the ones you approve of, of course)? all the other men in the world? (except for the ones you're in relationships with and/or still married to, of course), this one's for ya:

Because he's a predator who sounds plausible, he's STILL FUCKING BLOGGING AND GOING TO FEMINIST AND PROGRESSIVE CONFERENCE THAT OTHERS OF US MIGHT BE AT? Because there's an open hearing for his sentencing and getting the word out might just -might- get him a harder sentence if enough people read and go to it?

which, once again for the peanut gallery, is:

via Eleanor's Trousers:

Darren Johnson
July 8, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Any one who lives in Storm Lake or close to Storm Lake should go to this sick S.O.B sentancing on 11-Aug-2008 at the Buena Vista County Courthouse. Payne has asked for open sentancing. This means the Judge will listen to all that want to talk then decide what the sentance should be. He needs to do time.

CYA at the courthouse on 11-Aug-2008.DRD

***

Okay? If nothing else, does that register? At all? I know this is really fucking difficult to understand, but...

p.s. and no, in fact, "our" "male allies" (yes, I know the two or three, maybe four or five, people you mean. No, I'm not naming names. Deal with it. and a couple of others I suspect you -may- mean are not allies or friends of mine, in one case not anyone's at all; the mere fact that Renegade tolerates their existence on her blog doesn't mean jack shit other than that's her comments policy) being rude/mean Internets assholes to you, fanboying mainstream porn actresses and/or yeah, sometimes saying wince-inducing garden variety sexist crap and/or shit I just plain don't agree with, still really not equivalent to SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A PASSED OUT WOMAN. And hey, guess what, any of 'em ever does? I'll be first in line with the pitchforks and torches. I'll just have to have my puppet strings pulled by someone else, I -guess-.

But the fact that you apparently can't tell the difference between a predator like Kyle and someone who just happens to read Playboy or whatever and is mean to you and/or your precious ideology? Or, more likely I suspect, are pretending you don't see it for your own grudgetastic reasons? What's that old joke again?

"What's the difference between chicken stew and chicken shit?"

"I don't know, what?"

"Remind me never to go over to lunch at your house."

Not that that was ever on the menu. But, -really.- How fucking petty can you -be-?

p.s. no, dear Heart,

I really shouldn't bother, but since we're all about lies and the lying liars and all.

She fisks:

Examples of what I’m talking about from the pro-porn/prostitution side about anti-porn/anti-prostitution men:

I find what appears to me at first to be yet another garden variety (as these things go, there aren’t actually THAT many of them I don’t think) male radical feminist blog… Since I’m in the mood to snark, I read and roll my eyes a bit: yeah, your classic: all of 22 years old and teddibly teddibly earnest,

Male radical feminists (note, I don’t think a man can be a feminist or a radical feminist, but I think they can be allies, and the good ones don’t identify as feminists in any event, but whatever) are steretoyped as young (hence naive) and then the diminutive and effeminate “teddibly teddibly earnest”. Mr. Magoo comes to mind, or maybe Stewie on Family Guy.

hetboy dweeb fan[boying]** …creepy and risible in a milquetoast way at best

I mean, how much more unmasculine is it possible to be than to be a hetboy dweeb milquetoast, especially with the “que” spelling?

squeaky clean,

A man cannot be ”squeaky clean” and still be a man. It violates Section 34(b)(9) of the Codes of Manhood. Real men (not the anti-porn/anti-prostitution kind) are sweaty, dirty, stinky and hairy (thus they cannot be “squeaky”, too much hair). Squeaky-clean is for :::shudder::: GIRLS.

“articulate,”

Real men, not the anti-porn/prostitution kind, are not articulate. They are strong silent types who brood in their caves, their steely masculine silences interrupted only by the occasional grunt, belch, spit or blowing their noses onto the ground.

nice trimmed fingernails and suchlike,

Everybody knows the hands of any self-respecting man are dirty and rough with filthy fingernails from working under the hoods of 4×4s.

In other words, a man who opposes pornography and prostitution is less than a man and therefore deserves to be treated as women are treated by misogynists, be the misogynists male or female.

**I made ze error when I first wrote that as "fangirling."

This is my quote she's fisking. Without attribution, of course.

I mean, yes, I am DEEPLY invested in preserving REAL MANHOOD, the strong, silent, hairy, truck drivin' kind; isn't that completely obvious from everything I've ever written? And of course, I am all about upholding the gender binary; unlike, oh, say...Heart.

Kevin Aviance salutes the Patriarchy, as indeed do we all

Does it actually -hurt-, all those contortions?

And yes, being nice and cleancut and self-abnegating and -tearfully repentant-: you know, maybe, just maybe, the point -here- being that while it -might- earn you disparagement among the MRA's or even Hell's Angels (oddly enough, none of those are -here-), it -does- tend to make a man more plausible -when posing as a Friend To Abused Women-, don't you think, hm?

"Let's see; who should we pick for RA/earnest anti-porn lecturer/rape crisis counselor, hm? Should it be that degenerate looking man with the battered leather jacket, Harley, and vulgar, coarse language? (Or, for that matter, even the seven foot tall, flamboyantly sexual & clearly male drag queen?) Oh, no no no: he's SCARY, he's -not safe.- Let's go with Kyle here! He seems like such a nice young man; he's polite, soft-spoken, never gets angry, the compleat Boy Scout; why, he wouldn't even hurt a fly."

See?


Kyle Payne, radically unmasculine and Friend To Women, three days after the guilty plea


Ah yes, and while we're at it: let's make sure transgendered people aren't allowed to counsel women, or that trans women be allowed in womens' spaces, ever. Right, some people? They sound like "camp queens," after all; they're -weird- and SCARY, unless they can pass, -maybe-, and -real- women find that traumatizing. For that matter, non-trans women who strip and voluntarily perform in porn and say nasty, angry things, well, they're probably dangerous too, right?

christ.


p.s. oh, and yes, absolutely, I am only outraged about Kyle Payne as a roundabout way to make the world safer for ze pr0nz and my patriarchal puppet masters; it couldn't just be that I or Renegade or any of the other nasty, scary, pornified perverts think he's an abusive, still-dangerous piece of shit who needs to be taken down because, you know, he IS?

*

Yes, technically that was a rhetorical question. Obviously.

And now, off to ask my wall why it's peeling in such an unpleasant manner.

ETA: Thanks for this, from the SAFER blog: Kyle Payne and Screening for Sexual Assault Advocates.

Fuck you, Kyle Payne.

ETA again: Also, Renegade has a continually updated list of all the other people covering this, here.

So, I'm surfing around, procrastinating, you know how it goes, and I find what appears to me at first to be yet another garden variety (as these things go, there aren't actually THAT many of them I don't think) male radical feminist blog, one Kyle Payne. Since I'm in the mood to snark, I read and roll my eyes a bit: yeah, your classic: all of 22 years old and teddibly teddibly earnest, doesn't seem totally rabid or nothin' but your basic pompous, sanctimonious hetboy dweeb fangirling Andrea Dworkin and other Famous Not The Fun Kind Feminists for whatever reason. Yeah, there are a few of these around, mostly kind of, well, um, creepy and risible in a milquetoast way at best, foamingly horrid at worst. Ime, imnsho, etc.

But this one, thus far, well, I am thinking, trying to be relatively charitable, not really sure why--basically he just seems like this character, albeit with politics I find particularly teeth grinding. Oh, whee, yet more hairshirting and lecturing about the horrible awful pr0nz and such small portions.

More on this in a bit.

But okay, self-examining to the point of actual rectal-cranial inversion AND hara-kiri, squeaky clean, "articulate," nice trimmed fingernails and suchlike, he kind of reminds me of ummm certain more prominent "mainstream" male feminist bloggers whogo shall(koff) be nameless, mostly on account of I'm feeling passive aggressive. But mostly making me roll my eyes -really- hard overall, this one, and okay, shit like this kind of puts me on red alert:

For as long as I can remember, I have been told that I do not get
angry - as an activist, a friend, a lover, and as a colleague. I
assure you now that this perception is simply not true. I experience
anger much the same as anyone else. Events and circumstances pose
threats to me and my view of the world, causing me to want to lash out
and reassert a personal feeling of control. Yet the way I engage this
conflict, and ultimately, resolve it, may be somewhat unfamiliar...

...Despite how horrifying mainstream pornography is, absolutely none of the
information I provided was new or shocking to me. I had spoken about
pornography countless times before, addressing a variety of audiences.
And my research had revealed that the “woman-hating” in pornography
was not merely a fringe issue, relegated to a particular genre or
subgenre. Instead, the entire industry, along with its intimate
connections with prostitution and sex trafficking, is rooted in an
ideology of hatred toward women (and a system that enforces such
hatred). Yet, no matter how familiar I am with patriarchy’s firm grip
on sexualities in our society, I can’t help but break down emotionally
when speaking of such an atrocity.

Stifling sobs and brushing tears from my cheeks again and again as my
presentation went on, I was embarrassed and worried that my audience
had missed important messages in the speech. Perhaps they didn’t even
take me seriously, given my uninvited display of emotion during a
formal presentation. Regardless of reactions from audience members, I
felt strangely fulfilled having expressed myself so openly. For the
first time in my academic career, I felt I had allowed myself to be
human as a presenter. I regret that, at least for some, my tears may
have been distracting or confusing. Yet I see no reason to apologize
for them, given the subject matter.

Right, so, putting aside (for now) the pr0nz business, what I hear him saying, Kyle, (-nod- -nod- -nod-) is that he DOES TOO get angry, just like a non-saintly human being, he's just moved to piteous tears instead of your more masculine way of being...angry. And, he's not sorry. Well, okay then, I...tend to find people of any gender who disown anger as such (no, really, tears of sorrow aren't anger) kind of creepy, but...whatevs, get down with your sensitive self, I guess. And hay, I mean, presumably he's totally fine with the idea of women farting, whether or not he expresses flatulence in a traditionally masculine way himself. In fact--well, no, let's not actually go there.

Just...okay, charitable, schmaritable, fact is, I'm pretty skeeved out, on account of I always think, with guys like this, they really protesteth way the fuck too much. That the flip side of all that earnest--well, NOT chivalry, clearly, whatever you want to call the left-wing equivalent: 'ray the strong feminists, down with Patriarchy, down with masculinity, goes to anti-porn conferences and Sheila Jeffreys speeches for fun, lectures his fellow menz on being less patriarchal, and wears his shame with pride...

That the flip side of all this is, well, something a lot darker and uglier. That I just don't trust someone who goes on and on and ON about how TERRIBLE and ALL PERVASIVE all the misogyny in the world is, specifically the -sexualized- misogyny, of course; and only a handful of feminist celebrities and their adoring male acolytes can put things to right. But this is all very general thus far.

But so anyway, I'm skipping about, and I come across this rather cryptic entry:

I want to be very careful how I share these words with you. Given the
numerous accusations and attacks I have received lately, I am finding
it very easy to respond in ways that are defensive, confrontational,
and antagonistic. While those behaviors might be appropriate if I was
enlisting in a battle for my place in the hierarchy of our dominator
culture, they are neither relevant or productive in this context.
Furthermore, I worry that these actions would be interpreted as yet
another reason not to listen to a word I have to say.

I am upset that there is gradually developing a bizarre and twisted
understanding of who I am and what I am about. And I am angry that
individuals, who I presume are otherwise capable of critical thought,
are jumping to the most outrageous conclusions. I am also deeply
disturbed at the joy others have taken in painting such a disturbing
picture of me....

So, not really knowing what the fuck he's rabbiting about there, never having heard of this particular dude before, but thinking it's probably some potentially marginally amusing Internets wankfest. And I'm really trying for any excuse not to get on with the move and other shit I need to do, so I dust off the ol' binoculars and google his name.

o.O.

A few days ago I stumbled through tag surfer into this blog, ostensibly written by a male feminist named Kyle Payne. I thought his branch of radical feminism was a little extreme for my taste, but nonetheless, I left a comment and got one back. Today, I received the following comment (news story) from a reader (ryan) and thought I’d post it here, rather than in my comments:

Here is your feminist Kyle Payne:

Storm Lake Privacy Invasion

Thursday, 14 February, 2008 12:00 AM

(Storm Lake, IA)–An arrest is made by Storm Lake Police in relation to a ten month long investigation into an assault and invasion of privacy of a Buena Vista University Student.

A search warrant was executed at Pierce Hall room #B10 on April 26th of last year. Authorities seized a computer and a digital camera from 22-year-old Kyle Payne’s room. A search of the Ida Grove man’s car turned up photographs described as personal in nature that also showed the woman may have been assaulted physically without knowing it.

A search of Payne’s Ida Grove home turned up more evidence including another computer. All items were sent to the DCI Crime Lab for forensic analysis.

Through investigation it was found that Payne, on January 3rd of 2007, was serving as RA for Buena Vista University when he attended to an intoxicated 18-year-old female student in her dorm room. He allegedly physically assaulted her while she was unconscious and video taped the act and downloaded the images onto his laptop.

Payne was arrested at his Ida Grove home Wednesday and charged with 2nd degree burglary, a class C felony, invasion of privacy, and assault. He was taken to Buena Vista County Jail and booked on an $11,300 cash bond..

The comments at that link at Eleanor's Trousers (thanks), many purporting, credibly, to be aquaintances of Kyle Payne's, are...illuminating. And, well, it doesn't sound good. Nonetheless, I'm a bit hesitant to blog this on account of the whole "innocent till proven guilty" thing, okay, sure.

Well, as it transpires, as of just one week ago there has been an update:

Iowa Blogger Pleads Guilty to Secretly Photographing Woman's Breasts

An Iowa blogger who claimed to use activism and education to promote “a more just and life-affirming culture of sexuality” for women, especially those women who have been victims of sexual violence, has pleaded guilty to photographing and filming a college student's breasts without her consent.

Kyle D. Payne, 22 of Ida Grove, presented his guilty plea Monday in Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County. He agreed he was guilty of felony attempted burglary in the second degree and two counts of invasion of privacy, a serious misdemeanor.
Lynda Waddington :: Iowa Blogger Pleads Guilty to Secretly Photographing Woman's Breasts

In documents filed with the court, Payne agrees that "with an intent to arouse my sexual desire, I photographed and filmed Jane Doe and her breast without her consent." A portion of the plea agreement stating that Payne was of sound mind when the incident took place in early 2007 was stricken from the document, leaving only the portion where Payne agrees that he is currently of sound mind.

At the time of the incident, Payne had been employed by Buena Vista University as a dormitory resident adviser. Police reports indicate that while attending to an intoxicated and unconscious female student, Payne reportedly assaulted and photographed her. The guilty plea entered Monday did not include assault charges. Tips received by police and campus security following the incident led to a 10-month investigation that resulted in Payne's arrest in February....

Payne, who identified with radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin, attended a training for feminist anti-pornography activists in January at the University of Texas in Austin. An article in the Ida County Courier stated that Payne had "written papers and given several public presentations on feminist critiques of pornography, prostitution, and the 'rape culture,' in addition to serving as an advocate for survivors of sexual violence." According to a resume previously posted on his blog, he has attended many such conferences since 2004.

Payne faces a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of up to $7,500. As a condition of the plea deal, the state has agreed that no other charges will be filed as a result of this incident. Sentencing has been set for Aug. 11.

Oh, yeah, wrt "other charges:" according to several of the commenters at Eleanor's Trousers, he'd been previously accused of other assaults and/or allegedly having child pornography on his computer, last year.

So, okay, well, I mean, it's not as though we've never heard of, o I don't know, anti-gay legislators who get caught cottaging, televangelists who're winged by sex scandals, all that jazz.

Of course, -sexual assault,- as opposed to just fucking around like the rest of us mortals, ceases to make anything like schadenfreude even remotely amusing.

The best part for me, though, is that throughout this all, the dude is -still blogging- as though nothing had happened. Charges brought in February; guilty plea on July 1. This is an entry from early May:

If we are serious about rape prevention – in other words, not rape
avoidance, defense, or something along those lines – we need to begin
with where rape begins, in men’s decisions to assert dominance over
women through sexuality. Ultimately we are talking about subverting
patriarchy as a system, but of course, it is largely men’s choices
that maintain that system. We are talking about taking rape away from
men, along with their unearned advantages in this society, and of
course, their unjust (as if there were any other kind) dominance over
women...

Tell us about it, Kyle.

And then, this post, as included in the May edition of the Carnival Against Pornography and Prostitution:

Bob Jensen made an important point to the group as our time together drew to a close: “Not everyone gets better.” This is certainly true of survivors of sexual violence, who are far too often met with frustration, even blame, from loved ones who simply cannot understand why they haven’t “put the pieces back together.” And I think it might be a fair statement regarding anyone doing anti-rape or anti-pornography work. It is the most heartbreaking experience for me as an advocate not to be able to tell a survivor that everything will be fine, that with the right amount of support and determination, she will be able to move on with her life, and in some sort of meaningful way, feel okay. The reality is that not everyone gets better, and whether we call it the “rape culture” or “porn culture,” we are living in a society that actively prevents healing from taking place.

Yeah. You might say that, Kyle. You might, at that.

And I...suddenly realize that all the commentary I was going to make from here on out just feels...completely redundant.

Renegade Evolution has more.

ETA: This really interests me, though, from a commenter at Eleanor’s Trousers:

July 8, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Any one who lives in Storm Lake or close to Storm Lake should go to this sick S.O.B sentancing on 11-Aug-2008 at the Buena Vista County Courthouse. Payne has asked for open sentancing. This means the Judge will listen to all that want to talk then decide what the sentance should be. He needs to do time.

So, basically, if I’m reading this right, he’s throwing himself on the mercy of his peers. Hence the trying to keep a low profile (I take it), the acting like everything’s normal, the charm: he doesn’t want the pitchforks and torches, he wants to show up there and be all “aw shucks” and hope for a slap on the wrist. Is what I’m getting from that.

Seems like it’s probably worked for him in the past; apparently there are other charges pending from the university he’s at–child porn on the computer, alleged by the commenters at ET, although that’s not official yet apparently–and the same commenters were also pretty clear that this is an ongoing problem at the university, shit like this getting swept under the carpet.

If you look at his vlog (latest entry about Independence Day; the article about his guilty plea came out on July 2. He's...well, see for yourself, how he presents himself, would do for a court. Smooth. He's 22, and clearly an ambitious little thing, probably well-heeled and reasonably well connected as these things go.

I…would not let this one go.

Dr. Creepo, I presume

um, yeah, no comment:

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2008/06/when-woman-says-no-she-means-no.html

As soon as you start saying "when a woman says 'no' she does not always mean it" you are in hot water. I have been hung out to dry on various feminist sites recently for maintain that, whatever is going on her or in similar circumstances, it is not rape in the ordinary sense of the word. There has to be a sexual context and (assuming the doctor is not an extraordinary pervert) there is no sexual context. The feminists see this sort of thing as an "exercise of power" against an unwilling female and as far as I can judge feel therefore that it is a sexual assault.

...okay, not much of a comment.

"Hot water" and then "hung out to dry;" and then ironed, I guess. and the OP is, well, it all sounds very -scary.- I mean, if you're him. I guess I just didn't realize how -hard- things were for people like him. Just, you know, your -ordinary- sort of pervert, one presumes. Or, no...

Well, but really; how do we know he doesn't -want- to be flamed, much less hit with a malpractice suit? Besides, it'd be for his own good.

"Your lips say 'no,' but your eyes say 'I'm a big ol' troll'"

--the late blogwarbot, with whom I increasingly suspect engaging would be far more productive, even posthumously.

"First, do no harm," continued!!!

Yeah, boy, this Doctor Crippen is a PRIZEWINNER. I honestly didn't think I had any more to say. But, procrastinating on -shit I actually need to do-, I went to check in, idly curious to see if Internets monikering himself after an infamous case where the doctor in question murdered his wife is his idea of, y'know, Teh Funny; or if his name really IS Doctor Crippen--after all, the first names are different--and it's just, well, a rather brilliant coincidence that this one, at minimum, also happens to be a misogynistic fuck what has -something- seriously wrong with him. Doesn't matter hugely either way, understand, just...morbidly intrigued.

But so this is his current top entry--you know, I'm just going to repost it in its entire charming glory.

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/

We are currently running computer searches on all our patients with dementia and by this evening I will have more information as to our prescribing habits. As a prequel though, just a short mention of the sanctimonious hypocrisy exhibited by so many heart-on-sleeve relatives of demented patients. Take a look at the discussion forum on the Help the Aged website. In particular look at this letter from a “caring relative” who styles herself as "pinkslippers".

I hope someone can give me some reassurance about this drug. Mum lives in an emi home for the past 18months. The home has complained that she is difficult with the staff over her personal care. She has always been very anti- interference from strangers. She was prescribed quetiapine 25mg which I understand is quite a low dose but three weeks ago it was increased to 50mg because of increasing agitation and refusing to co-operate.

Now I have noticed she has become physically much weaker and is always slumped in an armchair asleep whereas before she was quite strong and fiesty.

It is very worrying when you read reports of these drugs on the internet but also you feel at the mercy of the doctors and the care home. They think I am always fussing about Mum’s medication but to my mind they want all the patients as quiet and comatose as possible as it saves on staffing .

Thanks for any comments


Pinkslippers

Help the Aged


Now some hard facts, pinkslippers. The reason you mother has been potted in an EMI unit is because you were not prepared to have her in your house and look after her yourself. Was it when she started caking excrement around the walls of the kitchen that you gave up? Or was it when she kept pissing in the fireplace? Or the way that she kept embarrassing you by farting all the time? God, it didn’t half smell, did it? And have you forgotten those times when you tried to change her underwear and she swore at you using language that you did not believe she knew? Well, Pinkslippers, it was bad enough for her when you tried to change her underwear. She had vague recollections as to your identity. Now it is strangers who try to change her underwear. She thinks they are molesting her, so she screams abuse and scratches them. It is very distressing for all, particularly her.

She was losing weight because she was not eating properly, do you remember? Probably not, because you only visit three times a week, and never at meal times. That sweet young auxiliary nurse, who used to sit with your mother for ages, and thought she had made friends with her, tried to feed her. You weren’t there, were you? Did they tell you what happened? Your mother threw a plateful of mince and mashed potatoes at the nurse. She missed. It hit another patient who started screaming.

And then she started wandering in the middle of the night, and tried to get into other patients' beds. You remember that, don't you? They did tell you on one of your flying visits.

Perhaps the doctors and nurses should have tied your mother down. A straitjacket and gag would have helped too. But they didn't do that. They battled on for several weeks but it was getting worse and worse. Finally, after much thought and discussion, they put her on quetiapine. They discussed it with you, do you remember? Probably not. You were just off on holiday to your house in France. A very small dose at first, then a slightly larger dose. She doesn’t scream any more. She doesn’t play with her shit any more. She doesn’t throw food any more. She is reasonably peaceful. They try to feed her but it is not easy. She is old. She is frail. She is dying. Slowly, too slowly, but she is dying.

Is quetiapine the perfect drug? Hell, no. It’s awful. And don't you hate the name? So close to Quiet-apine. What was the drug company thinking of? Is it better than the older drugs? Hell, no, it’s just new. And very expensive. In a few more years we will discover it has some horrible side effects and then we will all change to the latest anti-psychotic. Big Pharma is working on it now. It will be even more expensive.

Is this perfect medical management? God knows, but can you suggest anything better?

It’s distressing, isn’t it, Pinkslippers? I have an idea. Take a look round the EMI unit. How many elderly Indian and Pakistani patients are there in there? What's that you say? None? Heavens, I wonder why that is, Pinkslippers? I tell you what, why don’t you give up work and take your mother home and look after her yourself?

What’s that you say? Couldn’t manage? Too distressing? Too much of a strain? Ah! I see. In that case, maybe you should shut up.

*****

You know. For -some reason-, I don't feel compelled to bare my throat with all the gory details of -why- this post infuriated me quite as much as it did this merry morning. Let's just say that pinkslippers' story rings some bells, and if the relative currently responsible for the relative who has dementia were to hear "advice" like this?

--Well. I -was- going to say, it wouldn't do any fucking good at all. But actually, reconsidering, knowing her character, at least, it -might- lead the woman in question to justifiable homicide, and that, I am thinking, could only be a blessing.

-Yeah-, asshole, why doesn't she -give up work- and -look after her herself-?

And, what the rancid FUCK is the business about "Indian and Pakistani" patients? What -are- you trying to say, dear? I...no. Can't even fisk this today; cannot do.

Just: Seriously, who IS this festering cock?

All I can say is that I hope he really only plays a "doctor" on the Internets, because if he's for real? Is there a better advertisement for -avoiding- doctors, anywhere, particularly in the UK, where he's apparently based? Especially if that -isn't- his real name?

"Yes, hi, I really -want- to be 'treated' by an arrogant, hateful, sexist, racist, sadistic motherfucker who finds random people on the Internets trying to get help--two women for two so far--drags them into the spotlight of his -rather large and well trafficked- blog, and proceeds to mock and abuse the crap out of them for the delectation and/or delightfully outraged reactions of his commentators.

What. The FUCK.