Oh, give me a fucking BREAK.

Sam Berg, I'm sure you -are- crapping yourself, but at least be honest enough to say why, hm? It's not that you actually think Ren is going to push you in front of a truck. I mean, it's not like f'r instance these people had that particular excuse in similar circumstances. Or these, or these. Anything to avoid having to face down or even share space with the scary, dirty, cootie-infested "hot bisexee" sex worker "who will suck and fuck anything for money," not to mention a "disposable dick accessor[y]" who "hang[s] upside down from a pole like a painted negro in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts," mm? And really: you have nothing shameful you've said at all that William and Mary or anyone else who keeps hiring you for respectable speaking engagements might want to know about? Really.

I like these posts

"Allies Talking" and "Nothing Says Popularity Like..." at Angry Black Woman.

from the latter:

Being linked to from a White Supremacist website. Happy Monday!

ETA: Wow, if you all could see my moderation queue right now.

This is the kind of thing that makes people leave the Internet. It really is. I went through a good chunk of my early life never encountering any blatant racism. I’m sure there was some, but my young, naiveté, and probably my parents shielded me from most of it. No one ever called me a Nigger, or said I couldn’t do something because I was black, or anything like that.

I got to wait until I was all grown up for things like that to happen.

But even still, I don’t think I ever encountered the kind of raw, ignorant, stupid, dangerous, and hurtful hate due specifically to my heritage and skin color until I started this blog. I have been called a Nigger 47 times today. TODAY. And it’s not fucking over yet.

This is the kind of thing that turns people militant.

This is the kind of thing that makes people scared for their well being.

This is the kind of thing that silences voices, and I cannot lay any blame on anyone who chooses silence in the face of this.

This is the kind of thing that makes me a FUCKING ANGRY BLACK WOMAN.

I am not only angry because you have the gall to come here calling me names and telling racist lies yet saying I am the hateful, racist one. I am angry because you don’t want anything but to see me hurt and silenced and shamed, and I will not be. I am angry because it is people like your dumb asses that give white people a bad name. I am angry because it’s due to people like you that we can’t move forward as a culture and a country on race relations. Because for every rational, well-educated and well-informed person who wishes not only to understand, but to make things right, there are 20 of you throwbacks trying to drag the conversation down and everyone into the 1930’s.

Fuck you. And fuck that.

...and, but then:

Daughter of ETA:...

Second, thank you to everyone coming by posting messages of support and solidarity. I will have to revise my ratio of allies to assholes, because so far there are at least as many messages from you as from them, and that’s only because they had a head start. You are all awesome and I cannot state strongly enough how much I appreciate your words.

p.s. the thread is still open, you may want to say a little something.

and then, from the former:

I call a Carnival. The Carnival of Allies. Where self-identified allies write to other people like themselves about why this or that oppression and prejudice is wrong. Why they are allies. Why the usual excuses are not good enough. I figure allies probably know full well all the many and various arguments people throw up to make prejudice and oppression okay. Things that someone on the other side of the fence may not hear. Address those things and more besides.

And when I say allies, I’m talking about any and every type. PoC can be (and should be) allies to other PoC, or to LGBTQ people if they are straight, or any number of other combinations. If you feel like you’re an ally and have something to say about that, you should submit to this carnival.

Now for the nitty — this is how it’ll work. I’m not sure if this carnival will happen more than once, so I’ll keep it local for now. Submit links (with short descriptions) via this contact form: [see thread]

by May 5th. I’ll run the Carnival itself on the 2nd or 3rd week of May. Instead of doing it all in one post, I will make a week out of it. Every day for 5 days there will be links and discussions about allies, ally work, etc.

Spread the word!

***

also

"We Write Letters," at Shakesville

...we're going to take this opportunity to look forward and make a few resolutions.

We will write about, discuss, advocate, and recognize as integral to the central tenets of feminism/womanism issues our sisters of color bring to our attention.

We will link to our sisters of color—in the blogroll, in the blogarounds, and in posts—and will welcome them as commenters, guest posters, and contributors at Shakesville.

We will not appropriate their work, but amplify their work and integrate their ideas with attribution.

We will endeavor always to be aware of our privilege, and, in moments of failure, will remain open to criticisms and suggestions, resolve to think twice before responding defensively, and apologize when we fuck up.

We resolve to listen to you.

In her post, Holly said something that we feel is extremely important, something that we will all bear in mind with regard to our responsibility and making the best use of the platform Shakes gives us:

What I care about is that when white feminists undertake to write about the issues of women of color—such as immigration, which is clearly a massively race-infused issue—they should do so in solidarity with women of color. In ways that give political voice to women of color, to immigrants, to those whose voice is generally not heard as loudly.

When any of us have a soapbox, an opportunity to get up and talk, we must continue to stand by those who aren't called on. If you want to consider yourself an anti-racist or a white ally to people of color—if you want anyone else to consider you those things—then it behooves you to swim against the current. If everyone did, perhaps the tides would turn, even if it was just in our corner of the blogosphere. And sometimes all you have to do is simply call out the hard work of another woman who went before you, who has paved the path that you're walking down with research and ideas and words and strong feelings. All you have to do is cover your bases, pay your respects, and make sure you can't be read as trying to take sole credit.

Irrespective of our sex or race, we hear the message. We resolve to use our teaspoons to turn that tide.

Signed:

list of names follows, can include yours

Laugh, clown! LAUGH GODDAMIT

So, Renegade has this post explaining about some shitsmear clever young man what's designed this line of T-shirts with the witty tagline,

"Cuttin' Up Hookers"

with apropos graphics in various stylish designs.

(nah, not linking, follow the breadcrumb trail from RE's).

but so anyway, Genius Boy himself shows up to defend himself, thusly:

Please lighten up. My shirts are designed to entertain, not offend.

And I also forward proceeds to various charities. I actually support hookers, in all reality. ;)

...PS, hookers sure don't complain when they take my dolla dolla bills yall! So all's well that ends well, say I.

and then, when mutual status as One Of The Tribe is appealed to, Alex (for that is apparently his name) goes:

Oy vey.

Please don't ever compare jews to hookers or gays again. That is just plain insulting, and you should know better if you really are one.

A better analogy would be to "beat up bums," "Superman strippers" or "kill Republicans." You know, keeping with the whole "low-life" theme here. (no offense to anyone)

Look, I respect your right to dissent. But you should also respect my right to exercise free speech. Which I see absolutely nothing wrong with.

Apparently you guys are too uptight to get my shirts - but plenty do. It's no different than a comedian. Should he quit simply because a few find him offensive? Shit, if that were the case, half of Jewish comics would be flipping burgers right now!

Look, I have some advice. Have a coupla tequila shots and come back when your sphincters have relaxed a notch. Lighten up, life is fun!

...whereas some of us aren't funny, merely angry :(

Ok, fair enough then.

I and many young men and women find my shirts uproariously funny.

A few harpies on the internet don't.

We done yet?

Or would you like me to send you a complimentary Cuttin T-shirt?


And to 222 - you seem very very angry. I don't think I can help you. Ever consider applying for Dr Phil's show?

Well, I for one certainly do not wish to be thought of as an uptight un-fun "harpie." I wish to join the merry laughter of all the young men and women out there. In fact, I want to help Alex gain more merry laughter, because clearly he's just a jolly sort of guy.

So, if -you- are a merry young man or woman and would like to appraise Alex of what -else- you find uproariously funny, you can, he informs us, contact him at his website, or more specifically, I suppose, at the information helpfully provided right there on his website:

http://www.aktenterprises.com/tchekmeian.php

Alex Karekin Tchekmeian

AKT Enterprises
11929 E. Colonial Drive #166
Orlando, Florida 32826

(T) 888.429.0666
(F) 407.574.3012

Email
alex@aktenterprises.com

Company Web Site
www.aktenterprises.com

General Company Contact
info@aktenterprises.com

--oh, look, BusinessWeek did a profile on him, what a mensch he must be.

Oh, yeah. In the spirit of citing one's sources, which has been rather a theme this week, I will say here that the original inspiration for RE's post was here, at a site called Buried Alive. Thanks for the h/t, sincerely.

(There: see how easy that was?)

xoxoxoxox

****

ETA: -cocks head- mkay. So, before my and this link go up, someone at RE’s publically suggests that this might not, in fact, be the real Alex T, but in fact a well-known troll. I write, well it DOES seem odd that anyone could be THIS stupid, lemme take this down while I double check. I double check the site. There’s a direct link at the bottom of the Cuttin’ Up Hookers page to AKT Productions, this guy’s base of operations. So I figure, right then, on with the show, and put the post back up.

Shortly thereafter, there’s a (now unlinked) comment by “Alex” at RE’s saying:

alex said…

Ok, um, some assclown was impersonating me and I’m sorry if anyone was unduly offended.

I love all women, not the least of which hookers!

So as a token of goodwill, I’m willing to send anyone a free “Cuttin’ Up Hookers” T-shirt personally signed by my radboy designer, Jared. And if you send in some photos of you wearing them, I might even add them to my site.

Let’s just stop the hate and let the good times roll, people! ;)

***

shortly after THAT, there’s this exchange at Buried Alive:

mkay. now he, or someone, says this over at Buried Alive:

My name is Alex Tchekmeian. I am 21 year old entrepreneur who is absolutely taken back by what is occurring right now.

My company is a t-shirt manufacturing and distribution warehouse. I am a regular guy who started receiving many emails regarding “my clothing line called cuttin’ up hookers.” and how disappointed people were in me.

After doing some extensive research I found this web site that somebody went on and posted fake comments trying to mask themselves as me. I have no direct affiliation with this clothing brand and people are acting as if it was my idea…

I am so beside myself because I would never write the things that were written here. I hope that this message gets through to people so that this can come to an end.

I am putting myself out there out of honesty so that this can be resolved. The truth of the matter is I have no affiliation with this organization and I do not support it. Somebody has posted falsified comments attempting to take a direct hit to my reputation and hard work.

My direct email is alex@aktenterprises.com.
Comment by Alex Tchekmeian - The REAL One April 14, 2008 @ 3:26 pm

(”Will the Real Alex Tchekmeian please stand up?”)

All right–welcome Alex. I am confused–does your company own District Lines?
Comment by pisaquaririse April 14, 2008 @ 3:38 pm

Yes, my company does in fact own District Lines.
Comment by Alex Tchekmeian - The REAL One April 14, 2008 @ 3:42 pm

Then you own “Cuttin’ Up Hookers” line of t-shirts, yes?
Comment by pisaquaririse April 14, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

While we do own clothing companies within AKT Enterprises (Messhead, Fuller and Skuzzy), Cuttin’ Up Hookers is not one of them. We are responsible for the printing and distribution of the Cuttin’ Up Hookers brand, however, we are not in any way the creators or promoters of the brand.

District Lines powers over 250 individual online stores, ranging from clothing companies, charities, activists and bands.
Comment by Alex Tchekmeian - The REAL One April 14, 2008

*****

I leave the interpretation of this latest development of events to you, gentle readers.

In either case it does seem that someone is doing Alex a public service, because as the REAL Alex is, by his own admission, "responsible for the printing and distribution of the Cuttin' Up Hookers" brand, he might want to take this opportunity to be apprised that many young men and women do not, in fact, approve of this particular fine line of merchandise, and he may wish to be disassociated with it henceforth.

I will also, without further comment, note this quote from his BusinessWeek profile:

Today, 20-employee AKT Enterprises consists of 15 businesses that revolve around the music industry and include merchandising, Web development, and online ticketing services. Most of AKT's clients are hardcore bands and record labels. Tchekmeian says the business had $1.3 million revenues in 2006 and estimates it will earn just over $3 million in 2007, with the bulk of the income coming from merchandising, all of which is produced in-house, because he doesn't "trust the quality of anyone else out there.”

***ETA 4/15: What she said.***

-waves merrily-

Taking credit for other womens' work isn't feminist. It's just tacky.

or, as Sudy puts it, "Stop Stealing."

on further edit: a clear summary of what went down, and who, is here. I am very sorry that the person who was being appropriated from has withdrawn, temporarily, I hope, from the blogosphere.


Look. It's not that difficult a concept. A woman who's under the radar, relative to you, posts important news stories that are, in turn, under the radar. Both her under-the-radarness and the stories' have to do with, surprise, marginalization in ways that go beyond simple sexism: y'know, racism AND sexism, for instance. She works hard at building community and getting the word out about important stories. You, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with self-aggrandizement.

For a year or two or more, you steadfastly ignore her, on the whole. Certainly you don't bother to link to the stories she's covering; that would be too much like giving someone else credit. No. You wait. Maybe you're even at the same conference as this other woman, not so long ago, wherein she speaks on these same issues. And then, you post the stories and the POV the woman has been eloquently -trying- to get you to listen to for all this time...without a hint that you know who this person is. Kudos rain in. For you. Applause, applause, there's nothing like applause.

Oh, yeah, and meanwhile, you're getting published by the same publishing house as the one that a bunch of WoC have just taken to task for not-so-benign neglect and a recent jaw-dropping display of arrogance and lalala-we're-not-racist-you're-just-unreasonable -and-mean. Which has pretty much been your tune all along, also, wrt these very same women.

No, okay, I'll even bite: let's say for one minute that it's not racism that's the root problem here, as in, You Are Not A Racist, (because that's all that really matters here, right?) Nu, so okay. Then, it's this:

Self-involvement to the point of solipsism. Superficiality. Vanity. Laziness. Greed. Spite, even. Really, just general all-round crappy-ass behavior and piss-poor ethics. Which, in this case, dovetails nicely into already existing structures meant to support such behavior as well as certain demographics who've codified power for themselves in various institutionalized manners.

To wit, and in short: ASSHOLERY.

Which can include, but is not limited to, institutionalized sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. etc. etc. This is where small-a assholery becomes Structural Assholery.

Ah, but, at the same time: the personal is political, neh?

So, whee, fight the power, we're all feminists here, making a better world blahblah yesyesyes; but whoops, immigration doesn't affect me I mean "us" -personally-; but! say look it's getting to be a hot topic, I know! It'd make a great article subject! --o, what is it NOW? First you're all mad at me because I don't talk about it, and now you're mad because I do? Oh, what, now, you want me to acknowledge my sources, too? GOD. Why must you all be so unreasonable? You see, this is why you're not as successful as I am, because you're always complaining. p.s. yr just JELLUS.

Which, yes, of course: because fuck knows that book deals and racking up the hits and winning the election are the bottom line here. I mean, you are every woman, it's all in you; therefore, we should all be HAPPY that you're such a SUCCESS, right? God: everyone else is so SELFISH, aren't they?


***on further edit: and Sylvia spells it out v-e-r-y s-lo-w-l-y.***

...

and I gotta say, BA? I feel it too. In a different way, and a totally different and unrelated situation (not going into it, not blog-related. actually, a bunch of different things besides that as well), but you know what: yeah. Don't mean to hijack, you're dead on right, just noting, personally: Yeah.

I don't necessarily WANT TO TALK.

...when that conversation predicates on saying well hey even though I was in your space,felt unsafe , felt , unwelcome, was mistreated

just because you didn't intend to means you did nothing wrong. That requires I absolve guilt before we even talk

...I have a place to go, I have presses and conferences, and friends and interests and ways to work and build

Like any other human being so when some wants something a dialogue
They are ASKING me something
and yes you have to ask me in a way I want.

This burden I can lay down.

...I don't have to make you feel good about asking for something YOU want.

...I am willing when I am treated how I want to be treated to talk to ANYONE but no I no longer and should have never had to keep dealing with ANYONE just in the name of "solidarity"

when I have the choice of dealingw ith those I want and can see building actual change with

and that includes my very crazy foul mouthed

HUMAN love

Monday get-your-groove-on

Because sometimes you just can't wait till the weekend.

-nod smile back away slowly-, part ___

Uh, Renegade has the scoop. I'll just, um, be over here. Too. Um, wow.

"Can YOU say 'malignant paranoia,' gyns and soon-to-be-extinct-pyrsyns? I knew you could!! Can you say, 'armed compound?'..."

Seriously, it's a terrific example of the fascist/totalitarian narrative.

1) Our People are oppressed by The Enemy, who are demonic

2) We have no power, the Evil Empire rules over all

3) but Tomorrow Belongs To Us

4) meanwhile, we must root out the impure among us.

oh, p.s., lady: I'm a Jew, and you are emphatically on the -wrong end- of that little Godwinism there. please to shut the fuck up and go away now kthxbai

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Jill Brenneman explains where she's coming from.

I am the one in six childhood abuse survivors, I suffered violence in the sex industry, BUT, I advocate sex worker rights. I do it by choice, I am aware of the various other ideologies, I’m not brainwashed by some monolithic pro porn movement as critics charge, I’m not rich, I live paycheck to paycheck, worry about bills, am happy when I come home from work and the dog hasn’t gone potty on the floor, in other words I’m human. Just like 20/20’s viewers. I don’t want to be glamorized, pitied, studied, or rescued. I left the sex industry in 1995 because I chose to. Not because I was running from it, not to beat an addiction, but because I wanted to do something else. The same reason I have left many other jobs. The same reason others leave their jobs.

When I did need help, when I was facing violence and coercion in the sex industry, none of the current anti trafficking measures would have applied or helped, I couldn’t go the cops or the justice system because in the US being a prostitute is illegal, the clients getting arrested,,, so what??? Great so the whole thing which was underground in the first place just moves farther underground. Not to mention I went into the sex industry for a reason. To make money to survive. I didn’t need the clients arrested because they were clients, I was there to make money to eat, to live, there was a need for the clients. I needed the ones arrested that beat the shit out of me, or raped me, or forced me to do things without my consent. I needed them arrested for rape, for assault, not on some minor misdemeanor that they could wash away with a visit to “John School” in some lame ass plea bargain. I needed labor and human rights so that an abusive, sadistic pimp, didn’t have criminalization to use against me to keep under control.

As long as the whole thing is illegal the cops were more his allies than they ever could have been mine as I was more afraid of being arrested, or worse, being blown off because I was a prostitute and sent back to him to face a very angry pimp. I needed human rights. Not more than the rest of the world should get, but not less either. Perhaps what people don’t like about the sex worker rights movement is that we want to determine our own course. We don’t want to be rescued, or be research guinea pigs, or stereotyped. We are individuals and human beings.

read the rest

Renegade Evolution has more.

Forwarded: Call for papers for new anthology, "Feminism For Freaks"

at Sexual Ambiguities.

Feminism For Freaks

At its best, feminism offers an emancipatory potential from gendered oppression, inequality, and violence. At its worst, however, feminism can work to simply affirm the rights of middle-class, heterosexual, white women, and exclude the voices of already-marginalised groups such as women of colour, trans* women, sex workers and so on.

Like Derrida's democracy, a truly liberatory feminism is mostly a feminism to come. Not un-coincidentally, those marginalised groups of women are often demonised by the dominant culture, rendered as monstrous, simultaneously invisible and hyper-visible, compelling and threatening, desirable and disgusting--and forever denied a voice ofour own. The question of if and how monstrosity can be reclaimed or re-worked is a vexed one for feminists.

We therefore invite proposals that affirm the voices of socially excluded people, that seek to create new and exciting knowledge and address themselves to feminist theory and activism or the wider culture, on such topics including, but not limited to:
* Monstrous bodies and identities
* Social marginalisation and exclusions (for instance, borders, walls,and immigration laws, and the silencing of voices such as those of women of colour and transgendered people)
* Liberation/transformation/organisation
* sex work
* queer sexualities and genders
* BDSM
* Visible signs of difference (Muslim women wearing the veil, disabled bodies etc)
* religion and spirituality
* freaks in popular culture, body modification etc
* fat positivity

Academic, non-fiction and creative work will be considered--the call is broad, and we're willing to accommodate new and interesting work by freaks of all kinds. Please submit abstracts of up to 250 words and a short bio by May 31st to estrangedcognition@hotmail.com and suzanmanuel@gmail.com

*Note - Given that some contributors may not feel safe or comfortable telling their stories in the public sphere, submissions under pseudonyms will be accepted.

New Carnival! "Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy."

Huzzah! This carnival was Lina's (of Uncool) idea, and congrats for getting it into shape and up so quickly! The first edition, that is, is up today, go see.

Carnival of Feminists #56 is up

at Redemption Blues.

Reality check requested plz

I should probably leave it alone, now, especially considering the author of this particular piece of wisdom, but this was really pretty special:

Should [trans women] be able to access women’s services, I would say generally yes. They would however be better served by specialist TW advisors within the women’s services sector, in that way getting specialist needs addressed. However, it may be problematic within general housing for DV due the the majority of FABs already in residence and who may be so traumatised that a TW that does not ‘pass’ (again, this is the perception of the other women in residence) would further traumatise them. This would have to be on a case by case basis, taking into account ALL shelter residents, not just the TW. Witchy I am sure would verify this. Rape counselling for TW rape victims could well be dealt with by existing rape crisis helplines/centres, however, one would think that a TW would be better served by having a TW advisor.

The second part, that of TWs in a serving capacity in women’s services. This would be generally no. As an adjunct for supporting TWs, yes, as mentioned above. However, many TWs do not “pass” as well as they think they do, especially on the telephone. To the FAB ear, most TWs sound like very camp queens, and this is very off-putting to an FAB expecting to hear a female voice on the other end of the telephone. Before you go ballistic, specialist services like rape counselling can be further divided within the FAB group, between lesbian and heterosexual women. Many lesbians would appreciate more focused care for their unique experiences of rape. That isn’t to say that it is any more or less traumatic for any victim of rape, just different, from the victim’s perspective. That is victim-centred thinking, not ‘phobic’ to any particular group.

Source link: follow the trail of breadcrumbs, I'm not in the mood.

So as I'm reading it, according to this person:

1) trans women must be able to physically "pass" in order to be admitted to an abused womens' shelter, lest they risk retraumatizing the other women

2) trans women tend to sound like "very camp queens" over the phone, which is also traumatizing for women who've just been raped or are otherwise in crisis

3) This is not, repeat, not "phobic" to any particular group; rather, we are concerned that every victim get as focused care for her particular experience as possible. We are fine with trans women counseling other trans women; in fact we feel that this would be best. Which is why we also tell lesbian staffers not to counsel straight women over the phone, lest -they- be traumatized by the experience. Oh, wait. * Well, anyway.


Am I missing something? I just want to be sure. I mean, I've staffed hotlines and walk-in counseling centers, but only under the auspices of the dreaded LGBTQ. Generally, ime, the M.O. has been, callers and/or clients can request a male or female or any other specification for the person they talk to; and if such a person happens to be staffing that day/night, why, we'll accomodate the client. Otherwise, the client has the option of either talking or -not- talking to whoever -is- on staff; and suggestions for other places to try may be given, such as they are.

That, and: we tend to be down with the "camp queens;" in fact, being rejected or abused for sounding like a "camp queen" tends to be among the experiences that might have led a client to come see us in the first place. Generally, we tend to chalk up such monikers/rejections up to "homophobia," not just "transphobia." I'm just that is just my hopelessly selfish anti-feminism showing again, though. Anyway, I'm sure that coming from a woman--excuse me, "born and raised female" woman, such things don't cause any harm at all, because women have no power. At all.

Also, lest we forget, it's not a -right- to volunteer for a womens' crisis center, that is correct. And presumably, the decision to be so exacting about who one does and doesn't allow to speak to or help victimized women is the right one. After all, the women are our first concern; and I'm sure it's true that the constant lack of funding and understaffing for any such organization -at all- takes a backseat when it comes to this sort of thing.

No; it's far likelier that an abused/raped woman will be traumatized by the mere presence of a trans woman or, I don't know, an unrepentant stripper (who doesn't actually talk about her job to the clients) on the staff than that the loss of a willing, caring, hardworking volunteer whose only flaw was having the wrong sort of physical presentation or career, might actually be more of a problem.

Because, silly me, personally I had kind of the opposite impression, but, well, I've been wrong before, so. Just checking.

Dear Jay Leno: This is my gayest look, from me to you:

Yes! That's right! It's the CLEAR-EYED LESBIAN GAZE OF DOOM. Tremble before its power, Jay Leno (you douchebag). Tremble, I say!

Shakesville has moar.

Nope, no global warming here

Vast Antarctic Ice Shelf On Verge of Collapse

Scientists are shocked by the rapid change of events.

Glaciologist Ted Scambos of the University of Colorado was monitoring satellite images of the Wilkins Ice Shelf and spotted a huge iceberg measuring 25 miles by 1.5 miles (41 kilometers by 2.5 kilometers - about 10 times the area of Manhattan) that appeared to have broken away from the shelf.

Scambos alerted colleagues at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) that it looked like the entire ice shelf - about 6,180 square miles (16,000 square kilometers - about the size of Northern Ireland)- was at risk of collapsing.

David Vaughan of the BAS had predicted in 1993 that the northern part of the Wilkins Ice Shelf was likely to be lost within 30 years if warming on the Peninsula continued at the same rate.

"Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula yet to be threatened," he said. "I didn't expect to see things happen this quickly. The ice shelf is hanging by a thread - we'll know in the next few days and weeks what its fate will be."..

This is making me unreasonably happy, today

"Women suck. Call your mother."

Natalia has a post up fisking some Russian Orthodox Christian writer/misogynist ass-stain. Thanks for sharing, Natalia.

I was just saying: it is true that we don't grow 'em quite like that over here; or at least such voices don't take quite that tone on the public stage.

The 8th of March is, in these present times, referred to as a “women’s day…”

So, we celebrate the woman, because she is woman. This has nothing to do with some sort of feminine goodness, which is, in any case, impossible, since there is no such thing. If a woman is capable of having any good qualities they are the same as the good qualities of a man, but weaker and less developed, because a woman’s nature is more severely compromised by sin.

Generally, these days, ime, even our most noisome fundamentalist fuckwits don't take quite this line, at least on that public a platform; it tends to be more, "nonono, the difference between the sexes as well as between masculinity and femininity (which is totally the same thing) is beautiful and natural, no one is saying women are INFERIOR, woman was made to be man's helpmeet but also vice versa, it's totally romantic to be half a person so that your 'other half' can complement you in such profound ways as wearing a different hairstyle, doing the laundry or fixing the engine, going to work or staying home, penetrating or receiving, etc. Oh, and those roles can never, ever change, even when they do."

For one thing, they can't really afford to go on too much about the inferiority of womens' nature; besides the fact that a lot of their (female) base would eat them alive, it tends to sort of put a crimp in the whole "gay marriage is the biggest threat to our civilization ev0r." Why? Well, you take that attitude too far and the next thing you know, some men might start to get ideas. Who wants to remain joined in matrimony to an inferior being when he could be with his fellow man? --ooh, unless the U.S. Religious Right decides that Teh Gay is the lesser of two ev0ls and starts encouraging gay marriage as a way to crush feminism! Totally possible! Likely, even. Maybe some putative leftist and/or feminist should make a timely, satiric movie about it, that'll help matters.

actually, I've no idea, but I was delighted to stumble across this evidence that I was correct: teh Gay Marriage IS directly threatening to straight marriage precisely because people who otherwise would have stayed in their hetero partnerships might, without the threat of stigmatization and loss of legal rights and privileges, actually leave to go be with a member of the same sex:

It may come as a surprise to many people, but homosexual unions often have a more direct impact on heterosexual marriages than one would think. For example, the Boston Globe reported June 29, 2003, that "nearly 40 percent" of the 5,700 homosexual couples who have entered into "civil unions" in Vermont "have had a previous heterosexual marriage."

Of course, it could be argued that many of those marriages may have ended long before a spouse found their current homosexual partner. And some may assume that no opposite-sex spouse would want to remain married to someone with same-sex attractions. Nevertheless, the popular myth that a homosexual orientation is fixed at birth and unchangeable may have blinded us to the fact that many supposed "homosexuals" have, in fact, had perfectly functional heterosexual marriages. And as Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby points out, "In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable."

...you see.

But, anyway. So meanwhile, over in what remains of the Ev0l Empire, I guess, there's this other doofus who's spouting delightful insights like this:

I have to admit: the natural qualities of woman - for example, the ability to give birth, or, even more so, the ability to be a mother, raise children, and so on - may, perhaps, deserve respect and even admiration, though not in the form of a holiday. But this isn’t what we are talking about anyway; we would then celebrate Mother’s Day, or something along the same lines. Oh no, we are talking about the feminine in its most basic form. We are, factually, admiring the qualities of the feminine soul and body of the lowest, most sinful caliber. Female breasts, genitals, the womb - this is what we worship when we worship “woman.”

...and we certainly can't have THAT.

and then:

Women are given flowers, and the givers know well that a flower is a plant’s genital organ, opening up to be fertilized. A flower is a symbol of tempting lust. This is actually why having little flowers on your balconies is a sin, an innocent-seeming bouquet is an honest symbol of orgiastic sin, of group sex, and any interest or delight one might take in flowers is therefore sinful.

...If you can smell a rose, this means you won’t be too disgusted to smell the unmentionable body parts of a woman - because this, at its essence, is the same thing.

*

My African violets keep dying on me. I thought all this meant was that they're kind of not the hardiest of flowers, and/or that I don't have much of a green thumb. It would now appear, however, that I am in deep shit. (makes mental note to call ob/gyn and/or botanist at earliest convenience)

It also rather delicious that this...person, who is virulently opposed to the former Soviet regime under which he grew up, understandably, no doubt, has the same morbid suspicion of roses as did the militant CP hardliners who told Orwell that growing roses was 'bourgeois' and thus suspect.

...oh, please read Natalia's fisk of the whole thing, I can't possibly do it justice. Hell, I can't even read the original (alas).

Just, one more bit, possibly my favorite:

If you want to spend this day as a human being, and not as a lustful animal, call your elderly mother, or, better yet, grandmother. If you believe, if only a little bit, remind them of how short life is and of that eternity that awaits for us beyond the threshold, of the terrible God’s Judgment, and of how what we must do and how we should live, to have hope in His mercy to us.

I have to confess, I was relieved at the follow-up part about how the reason you're calling is to remind Mom/Grandma that she's probably going to hell, and this is why you didn't buy her any flowers, so as to avoid leading her into further perdition.

Because, this sentence, by itself alone?

If you want to spend this day as a human being, and not as a lustful animal, call your elderly mother, or, better yet, grandmother.

...you know, there are some places you just don't even want to go.

"Sweetie. Your Freudian slip is showing. Actually, it's puddled around your ankles. Bless."

In honor of the vernal equinox

a couple of tender budding ballads, to make you feel all dewy and hopeful and put a spring in your step.

llude sing cucu!

-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.

A moment of clarity

The following comment, found in the ongoing discussion here, just threw a switch for me. And yes, this is still the argument over whether radical feminists should accept trans women as women, much less let them into the clubhouse, so I'm going to leave the reply worded as it is. Nonetheless, I think, you know, you could substitute a number of other specifics here wrt the community in question as well as the thing/population that is being adamantly rejected here. (For example: I think the "War On Christmas" works according to similar principles. You may have your own examples)

The quote:

“I want the ability to be with like-minded individuals and only like-minded individuals.”

Sure, we all have affinity groups. Sociology talks a lot about such things. There's always a point of friction where the boundary comes up -sometime-, at -some point.- Ruptures happen. Lines are drawn. Connections are broken. It happens everywhere. Not trying to say it doesn't.

But here...well, it interests me, because it's coming up at the same time that the argument is supposedly y'know that they're going for this expansive sisterly communion, radical feminism (by the lights of people like this) is all about Class Woman, all 3+ billion of us, you know, we are strong, we are powerful...which is why the stakes are so high, because it's a -universal- movement, not just another little political faction or clique.

AND at the same time, there is an insistence that the -real- danger that transfolk pose to the women-only space is that they threaten the "safe space."

Safety.

This is, in fact, what's on the table; this is what's being so passionately defended when the author (and others) start talking about "radfemphobia" as a counter to the term "transphobia" (which is simultaneously being rejected and mocked as invalid).

“I want the ability to be with like-minded individuals and only like-minded individuals.”

The response:

Here’s a question: why? And, what do you mean by that exactly?

Because that’s very telling, to me. You’re not even really interested in mystical sisterly communion, much less political effectiveness, so much as being around people who you don’t have to argue with. Like, at all.

“Birds in their little nests agree…”

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but: even if you do manage to purge your community of all dissenters on transpeople (much less the transpeople themselves), sex work/prostitution, femme accoutrements, BDSM, and so on and so forth, there’s -still- going to be something that’ll tear you apart. Does. Hell, I can see it happening from here. Yeah, it happens to everyone, we all have fights, often over stupid shit, but y’all…I gotta tell you, from where I'm sitting? you really put the “fun” back in “dysfunctional.” This goes a good way toward explaining why.

It’s, like, a -betrayal,- isn’t it, when your “sister” suddenly turns out to be, -not- an extension of yourself, but -a completely whole other person-. -Different.- This isn’t what you signed up for! You came for the merge! This was supposed to fix everything! Why, it makes you feel so, so…*alone*. Again. And terrified.

Welcome to life.

Welcome to adulthood.

There -is- no “safe space” in this world that’s gonna be safe enough, if that’s your criteria.

You know what really makes a space safe, relatively speaking, ime? Trust. Acceptance. Compassion. Even, dare I say, tolerance.

And sure, everyone -asks- for those things. Even you. Hell, sometimes -demand- it.

But, if you really want a -community-, and not just a clique or some other c-word? You have to give a little to get a little.

o KICKASS, i'm an EXPORT! Who wants a share of me?! WHO WANTS--

ooh, this is truly special:

Discussing his opposition to the Uniting American Families Act — “which would allow gay Americans the same right straight Americans have to sponsor a foreign partner for citizenship” — Family Research Council Vice President Peter Sprigg recently offered rhetorical support for exporting gay men and women from America. “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society,” said Sprigg.

Hey, can we choose where we get exported to? I always wanted to go to Rome. Maybe they could work out an exchange with some nice Italian marble, and--

Oh. Right. Sorry, dude. You were saying?



Oh. I see.

*

So, I take it the "exporting" probably won't be in the first-class section. Damn. I was really looking forward to the complimentary champagne.


More on Sprigg:

Of all the speakers that day, Sprigg worried me the most. He is a well-spoken man, articulate (at least when he's following a script), and his talk was sprinkled with references to other people's work -- I cannot bring myself to call it "research," but that is what he calls it. It sounds like he's quoting scientific research and stuff, but when you go look it up you discover that hardly any of it comes from respectable journals or authorities.

The theme of his talk that day was that he was going to dispel some "myths" about homosexuality. And it was the weirdest thing, every "myth" had a kind of rationale that followed it, which justified discrimination against gays...

But the thing that struck you, as he went on and on, was -- what motivates this guy? He spends his whole life thinking of ways to make gay people sound bad. I mean, really, he goes to work at the Family Research Council, and that's what he does. They must have meetings, where they take any tidbit of information and discuss how to spin it so that gay people look bad. They figure out how to twist arguments so their lobbyists can go into the halls of the Capitol Building and persuade our leaders to pass laws that make life harder for gay people. And why? Why not fight real bad guys, robbers and rapists and murderers and terrorists? Why gay people, of all things?...

also:

While Sprigg gave the usual compassionate-sounding phrases of the anti-gay movement—with statements like, "We desire the best for homosexuals, and desiring the best for someone and acting to bring that about is the essence of love…"— he "affirmed" the state of Florida for having the strongest prohibition against adoption by gay couples. He made the claim that "most children raised by homosexuals are the result of previous heterosexual relationships," and proceeded to pontificate about how this "undermines the notion that homosexuality is something fixed from birth and cannot change—there are very few homosexuals who have never had a heterosexual relationship."

Sprigg’s shining moment, I think, was when he chastised the "militant gay rights activists" for characterizing sexual orientation as tantamount to race. He stated that "homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality," and thus is not a civil rights issue like race.

We heard a lot about those "ex-gays" and then were addressed by "an ex-gay" in person: Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus International. Chambers worried about "the militant activist groups out to co-opt family life, our rights, and change America into an America that is only good for them." We were told that these “militant gay activists” were "trying to co-opt our very way of life."

[Jaunty musclemen from the 'Family Guy'] In fact, the phrase "militant gay activist" was bandied around so much, I felt silly for having left my weaponry at home … I was also ashamed not to fit Chambers' image of what a gay man is: a "jaunty mustached muscleman," apparently, in contrast to the "nice young people, old people, and attractive women" progressives are said to use in our commercials and media campaigns. Chambers also claimed that "the gay activist movement is wealthy. None of us in the pro-family movement are making money. I am in poverty compared to what the executives of the pro-gay movement are making."

Chambers concluded by saying, "We have to stand up against an evil agenda."

This all sounds...oddly familiar. The rhetoric, the techniques...I mean, like, something recent familiar. What could it be? -think think think- Huh. Well, it'll come to me.

Meanwhile, this is the bill in question, the one people like Sprigg are fighting so hard. The Uniting American Families Act.



I leave you with a rather heartwarming example of how at least one person dealt with this particular assclown.

More of that, please. And, send your Congresscritters a note (yeah, it's HRC, but they're right about this one, and the form is there).

"Why, she couldn't even hurt a fly."

Just to say how very, very tired I am of the trope used by yes, often genuinely marginalized in their own right people, in order to justify playing "kick the dog" with even more marginalized people. Besides the handwaving about how what they're doing isn't really so bad and -those people- are the ones with the power anyway, specifically, this tired old tune:

"Hey, -we're- not the ones with the power here. Don't look at -us-. Go talk to the Man/government/liberal media/Church/Illuminati/aliens."

In other words, they -can't- have hurt anyone else, because -they have no power to do so.- (insert long windy quasi-sociological "explanation" of why this must be so, heavily larded with maudlin self-pity alternating with shrieks and accusations of HELP HELP YER OPPRESSING ME RIGHT NOW)

Bullshit.

1) Everyone has power. -Some- power. -Relative- power. Which is why those with relatively less of it cling to what they -do- have so ferociously: can't really take down the System, but by Maud at least we can keep -those people- out of our backyard!

2) If you don't have any power, then how do you propose to effect this sweeping Revolution you keep saying you want? How -are- you going to take down the System, much less replace it with something effective? Whine it to death?

3) The fact that you're acting this horrible -now- does not encourage me to see what you'd be like with any real power, quite honestly, even if you did finally admit that you'd have to have such in order to see the changes you want and I thought you had any chance of achieving this.

4) Being a gratuitously horrible little ratfucker, creating misery and discrimination even on a small scale, is bad enough all by itself; you don't get a cookie because you haven't actually bombed another country or nothin'.

5) did I mention "shut the fuck up?"

6) no, that isn't "silencing," you're -still talking-.