Yes, that'll work.

Maggie Gallagher of NOM! sez conservatives should have Moar Babeez in order to stave off gay marriage.

Which will totally work, because if there's one thing that never happens, it's the children of right wing conservative homophobes growing up to be Teh Gay. Trufax.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with any -other- right wing Population Anxiety...

Oh.

See what The Nation had to say about this, two years ago:

“The real root of racial tensions in the Netherlands and France, America’s culture warriors tell anxious Europeans, isn’t ineffective methods of assimilating new citizens but, rather, decades of “antifamily” permissiveness–contraception, abortion, divorce, population control, women’s liberation and careers, “selfish” secularism and gay rights–enabling “decadent” white couples to neglect their reproductive duties. Defying the biblical command to “be fruitful and multiply,” Europeans have failed to produce the magic number of 2.1 children per couple, the estimated “replacement-level fertility” for developed nations (and a figure repeated so frequently it becomes a near incantation). The white Christian West, in this telling, is in danger of forfeiting itself through sheer lack of numbers to an onslaught of Muslim immigrants and their purportedly numerous offspring.”

And yet: Why Satire Is Dead Part #blazoon.

THESE people are, apparently, completely serious. No, really. "The Young Cons." From Dartmouth*. Word to your, uh, alma mater, yo. -clap- ...pause... -clap.-



From their blog:

http://www.theyoungcons.com/

Stirring up much debate is the verse in the Young Con Anthem:

“Three thing taught me conservative love,
Jesus, Ronald Reagan plus Atlas Shrugged”

This comment is similar to other responses we've received from the video. Yes, we know that Ayn Rand was an atheist, however, she preached the power of the individual and personal responsibility just as Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr.

...I understand why you believe Jesus' values to be liberal.. "he was weak on defense (turn the other cheek), big on social programs (give to the poor), harsh on the wealthy (nearly impossible for the rich man to enter heaven), soft on punishment (he who is without sin, cast the first stone), and pro-taxes (render unto Caesar what is his)" 1

However, Jesus does not ask government to make these commitments. Rather, he requests each individual... to choose out of their free will, from their heart, and because they want to... give up the possessions which they have and "follow Him." The message we receive from Jesus is that people should “give up” their possessions. He did not urge the government to make this commitment.

Supply Side Jesus approves of this message:



The ceiling cats, however, are merely confused. As are the Great Old Ones, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Moses -and- his Burning Bush, baby Jesus, pre-teen Jesus, Jesus H. Christ (third listed in the phone book), Joseph the Carpenter from Brooklyn Heights, nine out of ten dentists, and, well, just a bunch of other people.

*am I the only one who now automatically thinks "Slytherin" every time she sees "Dartmouth?" For several reasons?


pre-emptive ETA: no, I didn't actually make it to the end, either. Shiny nickel to anyone who can. Maybe something awesome happens. Maybe.

Shorter James Dobson: "The prospect of not being able to legally discriminate against queer people anymore plunges me into a dark night of the soul."

What a whiner:

Focus on the Family’s James Dobson yesterday used his daily broadcast to complain about the hate crimes legislation that recently passed the House. Dobson called it “utter evil” and said it will “undermine the rule of law and seriously damage morality and decency in the culture.” Dobson frequently rails against various cultural issues. But as Dan Gilgoff at U.S. News notes, what was different in this broadcast was Dobson’s utter hopelessness:

I want to tell you up front that we’re not going to ask you to do anything, to make a phone call or to write a letter or anything.

There is nothing you can do at this time about what is taking place because there is simply no limit to what the left can do at this time. Anything they want, they get and so we can’t stop them.

We tried with [Health and Human Services Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius and sent thousands of phone calls and emails to the Senate and they didn’t pay any attention to it because they don’t have to. And so what you can do is pray, pray for this great nation… As I see it, there is no other answer. There’s no other answer, short term.

We'll pray for you too, Jim.

Speaking of schadenfreude: I was amused by this story on Scalia.

Believe us, no one wants to be around your spawn either, you great lump

.

Wherein Joe I'm So Stupid And Pointless I Can't Even Count To Fifteen Minutes T. Plumber says something offensive and stupid as shit.
I know, right?

While we're on the subject of hateful morons who are the political equivalent of headless chickens (and who would probably cease to exist at all if it weren't for bored and pissy rubberneckers like *ahem* *twist foot* some people who can't help going "say, has that headless chicken stopped running around yet? -No?- Damn): um, no, we already talked about this viz you are not "the new Jew;" apparently this is a really difficult concept, but PUMAs are not "the new gay," either.

But perhaps the most outrageous (read: stupid) thing about that 300-plus comment donnybrook is the largely ignored theme of the post that kicks it off, in which Murphy contends that the whiny, petulent PUMA movement is similar to the gay rights movement led by Harvey Milk in San Francisco:

“…That’s what Puma is. We ARE San Francisco — the place where Americans who are politically homeless, party-less, and DONE with the manipulations, lies, empty promises, and utter lack of integrity of the powers that be find themselves at home. The Puma writers and commenters who have been building Puma for almost a year now have touched MILLIONS of formerly isolated and despondent people who were ready to give up…

We don’t need to worry or panic or move mountains overnight. All we have to do is stay HERE — on the internet, connected to each other via this incredibly powerful, FREE, 24-hour a day, 365 days a year network of people just like us…
We ARE the Castro. Only bigger. And faster. And slightly less obsessed with leather."

Jesus H. Christ on a cable car. Yeah, the PUMAs are exactly like Harvey Milk’s gay rights movement. Only instead of having a leader possessing genuine moral courage, political savvy and organizational skills like Milk, PUMA has a woman who runs a crappy blog and solicits donations. And instead of representing a constituency of millions of people who are routinely beaten, jailed, ostracized from their families and communities and discriminated against for no good reason like gay Americans, PUMA has a few dozen whiny sore losers.

Nice little smarmy aside wrt "obsessed with leather," though; nothing sez "friend of Teh Gay" like a tired homophobic snark.

One other thing: while it wasn't explicitly covered in the movie, I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have taken Milk et al over an hour to figure out how to order pizza.

A conundrum.

How is it that it is invariably the most backward, least evolved people--mentally, spiritually, socially, emotionally--who are the most fervent advocates of some form of Social Darwinism?

They look at the world, they see a fallen creation that's nasty, brutish and short (not unlike themselves), and they decide that the best way forward--o, for the good of the -species-, mind you--is to get rid of all those -other- people who really aren't contributing anything to the greater good, or at least their capacity to reproduce. You know, THEM. The BAD people. The DEFECTIVE people. The OTHER people.

They will tell you this, with much passion and spittle, using "logic" and often syntax that can be most generously described as "twisted," but more accurately is in fact "sprained." Sometimes--most often, no doubt-- they're the equivalent (virtual or not) of the town drunk. Sometimes they clean up decently and actually sound sort of plausible. Even publish books, occasionally. Sometimes, God help us, find their way to actual power.

But you get right down to it, and -none- of these people manage to make a terrifically good case for why -they- should be exempt from the chop. Oh, sure, they might recognize that no one can actually stand their ass; but -that- is not about their own inherent moral or existential deficiency, no; -that- is about society's failure to -understand- them properly. See.

Which means, clearly, that society is -wrong-; and therefore it's -society-, more or less, that should be up against the wall.

Ah, solipsism. You gotta love it.

Oh, Sarah Palin. Stay gold, you know?

...you wacky l'il dumbass maverick, you. -bites lip- oh, bless.



You almost feel bad for disappointing her: she just seems so, so, so, well, -flattered-, doesn't she?

And yet, it probably won't cost her much: one gathers her fanbase does not perhaps have the most ummm uhh errm exacting powers of discernment, let's say.

“John McCain! Not Hussein!”

So goes the latest popular chant on the campaign trail with Gov. Sarah Palin, demonstrated at a morning rally in central Florida.

...After the rally in Florida ended, two of the people leading the chant explained why they did so.

“Because it rhymes,” said Shirley Mitten, 64, a volunteer at a pregnancy center and a resident of Brooksville, Fla.

...Mr. Mitten said he could not trust Mr. Obama because of his past association with William Ayers, the 1960’s radical, and because of his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. He also pointed out that Mr. Obama’s father was a Muslim.

The middle name Hussein, he said, added to the suspicion. “I guess Obama was named after Saddam Hussein,” he said.

poor little kittens.

Btw, y'all have seen this, right?

ETA: right, right, sorry, my mistake, Palin's a Brainiac. No, rilly. I apologize for ever thinking that just because a woman running for VP can't accurately explain to a third grader what the Vice President's job actually is, can't answer really tough on-the-spot questions like "what magazines do you read," and consistently provides glittering generalities, mugging and winking as a substitute for actual content, -any- content, when asked -look, how exactly are you going to do your job, can you demonstrate that you take this remotely seriously-, that she might not be the brightest bagel in the box. It must just be internalized sexism: clearly, a Palin presidency would be in -my best interests.-

And anti-Real Americanism: I care -deeply- that she shoots moose, you know, christ knows I've talked about nothing but her huntin' shootin' fishin' credentials and how much that offends my elitist organic latte-sipping sensibilities. Of which latter, expecting someone who's apparently -still- under the impression that she's a viable candidate for the most powerful position on the planet even assuming Tuesday goes down the way the reality-based community expects it to, well, that's part of it too, isn't it.

I mean, damn, look at Dubya! we weren't too hard on -him- just because he gave a -terrific- impression of a deeply incurious, completely incapable of nuanced thinking, smugly, terrifyingly ignorant Yahoo who made terrible decisions with devastating consequences for lo these past eight years, and he's a MAN. Shouldn't we give a woman, yes, -this- woman, a fair chance to fuck up the country at least as thoroughly as he has? I mean, be fair.

And yes, by cracky, this commenter is RIGHT: a vote against Palin is -a vote against feminism-, because!

AndreainNY
I'm in my fifties. Feminism, to me, has always meant having the freedom to reach one's full potential. Contrary to the popular notion, it does not require one to be liberal.

A litmus test of liberalism was never part of feminism. If anything, it's time to liberate feminism from the liberals.

Excellent: the only thing that makes it "feminism" is that it puts a female type person in a position of power, so that that individual, at least, if no one else, can reach her -full potential-, whatever that potential may be, and whatever effect it has on, well, everyone else. I agree completely.

signed,

Beverly LaHaye Judith Reisman Savitri Devi Countess Erzabet of Bathory Marie of Romania, FEMINIST.

and don't you forget it, bub.

Brie? Cheddar? Limburger? Perhaps some nice "Wiz du Fromage"

Just trying to think what might best go with this pungent little whine. lordies.

John McCain campaign senior strategist Nicole Wallace conceded Wednesday that the campaign “lost the spin war” by allowing Barack Obama’s campaign to brand the Arizona senator as a dirty campaigner.
“The truth is they play dirty politics, and maybe we haven't been quick enough. Maybe we don't have enough friends in the media to carry the message,” Wallace said on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" show. “

...Well, look, it's like running against God,” Wallace said. “You know, the media has anointed [Obama]. Many, many places in the media, present company excluded, and he's got more money. He opted out of public funds. No one cares about that.”

or about the sexism leveled against Palin, whereas the racism has gotten -so much more attention- and it's NOT FAIR because

“The truth is we've had a lot of thoughtful discussions about race in this campaign"

Okay. I mean, I didn't realize "I AM NOT A RACIST LIKE GEORGE WALLACE!! IT'S NOT MY FAULT! YOU MAKE HIM TAKE THAT BACK RIGHT NOW! p.s. stop insulting Obama by calling him an 'Arab,' though; he's scary but he's not THAT scary, plus also I don't actually want to be considered responsible if anyone actually goes as far as shooting him" constituted "thoughtful," but clearly in many ways we exist on different planets, there.

I -am- sorry about "not having enough friends in the media," though. Possibly the fact that your candidate is a total buttmunch who has a bad habit of calling people "you little jerk," cancelling appearances on late night shows at the last moment, and just generally being an ill-mannered troglodyte might have something to do with it. Oh, yes, and whining about how "the media is OUT TO GET MEEEE" is always a winner, there.

it -is- rather refreshing to hear what's essentially an admission of "I suck at my job" from a P.R. person, though.

Well...you just keep right on -not- spinning, there, it's what you're good at...

Reaping the whirlwind

John McCain is booed by his own rabidly anti-Obama crowds for telling them that maybe they ought to put down the pitchforks and torches after all.

The anger is getting raw at Republican rallies and John McCain is acting to tamp it down. McCain was booed by his own supporters Friday when, in an abrupt switch from raising questions about Barack Obama's character, he described the Democrat as a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

A sense of grievance spilling into rage has gripped some GOP events this week as McCain supporters see his presidential campaign lag against Obama. Some in the audience are making it personal, against the Democrat. Shouts of "traitor," "terrorist," "treason," "liar," and even "off with his head" have rung from the crowd at McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, and gone unchallenged by them.

...When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country," McCain stoked the sentiment. "I think I got the message," he said. "The gentleman is right." He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.

On Friday, McCain rejected the bait....

Um, yay? Still three and a half weeks to go, though, and that Ayers ad...and there's still your charming assistant running around doing her best Anita-Bryant-at-Nuremberg impression...

Well. And now for your moment of WTF?

"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:

"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

Arab: decent family man. Arab: decent family man.

"He ain't Arab, he's my colleague..."

'k then.

But no, there's no -racism- here or anything, so -stop saying that.- I mean, we totally almost don't even mind that he's -black.- What more do you want, for heaven's sake...?

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.

Seriously. Isn't it just a -little- embarrassing?

Or, I don't know, I'm reading both Jill's and RE's accounts of how it all went down and I'm just...I don't know...

Jill:

-snip-

Sam writes: “that wholesale changes were being made to the panel just five days before the event without informing me. I had agreed to do the panel with John and Amanda, and I hadn’t gotten any emails saying she couldn’t attend or that they were looking for a replacement.”

I have done many panel discussion/debates both while as a radical feminist activist and later as sex worker rights activist in which the other presenters were fluid and ultimately irrelevant. One agrees to speak on a panel discussion to represent their views and present them to an audience. They aren’t intended as personality contests. Who the other panelists are should have very little bearing on anyone that is well prepared and knows and believes in what they are representing. Even in the case of Sam being intimidated by Renegade Evolution, the conference organizers went above and beyond the call of duty as not only was security and police presence and awareness of her concerns offered but Karla Mantilla another radical feminist was offered and accepted a position on the panel in support of Sam to no objection of either Ren and I.

Sam writes: “If they had told me Amanda couldn’t make it I would have suggested that pornographers and strip club owners are very easy to find through legal channels so they could have been asked to appear on the panel.”

It is entirely out of the context of standard procedure of panel discussions for panelists to place demands o who they are debating. And why would a strip club owner come take time off work running his business to debate a feminist and a male feminist? That is an unrealistic expectation.

Sam writes: “ I would have also suggested that the number of porn-using men on campus should have been able to produce just one pornsturbator willing to defend his porn consumption.”

This is almost jaw dropping. To expect Constance to find a “pornsturbator” defies the remotest level of professionalism. This would be entirely unproductive as just the term pornsturbator is so inflammatory that it would have lead to heated confrontation. It would also make Constance guilty of setting up this “pornsturbator” to be blasted with rhetoric of this nature, which would lead to him being angry, and an audience that gets cheated out of a debate and instead exposed to some kind of tag team on some guy that watches porn. To give into a demand of that nature would make Constance a very poor organizer. While personally I don’t watch porn and don’t give a lot of thought to the concerns of men that do as my focus is on sex worker human, civil and labor rights and don’t have the bandwidth or honestly the desire to defend mens porn usage, I can’t see any inherent value in placing him in what would be an obvious sham debate which ultimately would turn into a shame based free for all argument trying to convince him of his wrong doing. Again!!!! The audience is the reason for the debate. Not the other panelists...

...Sam Writes: Constance. Constance said she was excited to have me coming and offered to let me spend Monday night at her place, where she planned on cooking dinner for a group of people post-panel”

Which she did and does for every event………….. Wow, cooking dinner for you, what a terrible thing to do, offering you a place to stay so you don’t have to pay hotel costs because she couldn’t get funding. My grandmother would be making the sign of the cross over her chest and saying Ave Marias after hearing of such treachery and skulduggery

Sam Writes: How do you think it would feel if a pro-choice feminist were invited to a predominantly pro-life campus by a predominantly pro-life group and the pro-life organizer did everything Constance did without revealing her pro-life politics to her pro-choice panelist and house guest?

How about you invite me to a panel discussion that I had to pay the flight for because you couldn’t get the funding and you were concerned about my expenses and appreciated me flying to Portland on my own dime to present on your panel, so you invite me to your house for supper with other guests, audience, panelists, and let me stay the night without charge rather than having me eat supper alone and go to a hotel I had to pay for alone? I would assume you were being kind, being a human being concerned about me, my finances, my not being alone in a far away city and that you were kind enough to care about me regardless of whether you disagreed with my politics. That is how I would feel. I would appreciate your kindness and feminism that we could agree , disagree or in between but that you treated me with kindness. That would be how I would feel. It would exemplify feminism.

Sam Writes: I agreed to do the panel with John and Amanda three weeks ago. Though it was unethical to make major lineup changes at the last minute like that without telling me and things started feeling really fishy due to the lack of notification about the event anywhere besides pro-john blogs

Pro John blog,,,, I’m done with this,,, There is a difference between arguing factual misrepresentations and rhetoric. We’ve hit the rhetoric point.

Do you realize what you have done Sam? Do you even realize what you are doing?

***

You know, that is one of the questions for the ages, isn't it. Me, I'm just sitting here with the popcorn. I mean, seriously: How! Do you spell! DIVA!

Oh, I had my own answer to this bit, btw:

How do you think it would feel if a pro-choice feminist were invited to a predominantly pro-life campus by a predominantly pro-life group and the pro-life organizer did everything Constance did without revealing her pro-life politics to her pro-choice panelist and house guest?

Um, well, okay, going with the analogy just for the sake of it, I -guess-:

first of all, I'd think she was kind of a brickhead for either not figuring out that it was a predominantly pro-life campus in the first place, or knowing that it was a predominantly pro-life campus and not really considering the possibility that the person inviting her might share those beliefs.

and then I'd think she was -really- delusional if she thought that under such circumstances she'd be able to control who she did and didn't debate, given that that's not exactly a standard for debate invitees -anyway-

Then, well, what Jill said. And I'd wonder why the invitation of person X as opposed to person Y suddenly means the organizer is this Bad Person who was Clearly Trying To Set Our Heroine Up, because she, what, was supposed to know by osmosis that THIS person was unacceptable?

That she should have axed person X just because Our Heroine threw a shit fit, even when person X was being perfectly civil and reasonable and had no problem debating either Our Heroine or someone else?

That the organizer -owes- Our Heroine something after all this? That offering to put Our Heroine up for the night and make her dinner is, in the context of her not booting person X, clearly a sign of her Sinister Intent? What, like, once she got her in her house, she was going to force Our Heroine to watch pr0n sorry I mean pro-life propaganda? Drug the food? Or, just, it's not -enough-, any of this; clearly Our Heroine has been grossly mistreated, and is fully justified in her Cartmanesque denouement (tm I can't remember who coined the phrase, 'twasn't I).

"SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M STAYING HOME!"

Honestly, -even if- that analogy made sense, even if that hypothetical were true: um, bluntly, I'd be embarrassed that someone who was supposed to be representing my side was acting like such an asshole, and I'd be thankful as hell that someone -else- took it on and acted like an adult. And I'd wonder why the hell this person was acting this way, and who elected her Spokeswoman For The Cause anyway.

oh, yeah, and when I found out that there was another pro-choice person right there at the university, but instead of trying to talk sense into Our Heroine or at least taking on the other side like an adult as he'd agreed to do in the first place, stomped off because -the playing field wasn't level enough-, I'd think, "damn, what a fucking douchebag. Are we sure these people aren't actually plants for The Other Side? How embarrassing is this?"

Now: as to the analogy itself.

a) okay, so, once again, "choice" is invoked completely unironically when it comes to reproductive functions, but is BadWrongIrrelevant when it comes to what a woman does with her body -sexually.- Got it.

b) ime, generally in fact it's the pro-life side who acts the way Sam & co. did, handwaving about how TERRIBLE the industry is, never mind nuance, we TRIED talking to THEM one time but they, like, argued back, clearly that's out of the question, they're BAD PEOPLE, ABORTION IS MURDER! PORN IS RAPE! TO THE BATTLESTATIONS, THIS IS WAR!! Nuance? Vas is das "nuance?"

c) William and Mary is now apparently, what is it now? a pro-porn university? Wow, we -are- living in a Corrupt Age, aren't we. I can't wait till the Rapture I mean the Revolution comes to blast away all this Evil. Dark days ahead, the path of the righteous etc. etc. etc.

d) send us a postcard when you get to China, will you?

ETA: and it just keeps getting better!

Good grief.

This was also sort of telling, I thought:

Other women out there will come to our blogs and listen. They hate pornstitution (or do not feel comfortable about it) so they will follow their feelings and there will be other new Rad Fems in the future -- at least it is how I became a rad fem: by listening to what I believe was a group that had strong arguments backed up by thorough research and facts and refusing to listen to the other group that merely had money, corporate media, lobbyists, lawyers, managers, marketeers, industry analysts, paid writers of “opinion” and “journalism”, publicists, etc. to defend their fallacious arguments supporting misogynistic industries. Rad fem arguments are so real and based on experience. The "other side" is so fake: it is patriarchy, it is "the state of schizophrenia" (as I would call it).

specifically:

it is how I became a rad fem: by listening to what I believe was a group that had strong arguments...and refusing to listen to the other group

(because radical feminism, this person seems to think, was always primarily about hating "pornstitution.")

Not entirely unrelated, perhaps, to this:

and we will grow in numbers and get louder and louder, and stronger and more demanding until we drown out any 'what about the men' or 'but I like my porn' bullshit people throw at us. These things will happen regardless of what anybody outside of radical feminism thinks about it, these things will happen even if the patriarchy and the ridiculous patriarchy-pleasing "feminists" ignore us and belittle us, and speak about us as though we should be extinct. These things will happen, somehow, despite the world-changing presence of that MRA's wet dream the "sex-positive feminist", and despite the women-murdering men, and despite the 95% of rapists who get away with it. We are not going to shut up and go away. We are not going to be distracted into self-indulgent discussions of our 'privilege' and examining our navels. We are not going to be distracted by the stones thrown every time a woman says, "Yeah, I'm a feminist, but, like, prostitution is just a job like any other, you know?"

So.

So. Indeed.

Fisk Me, Baby, One More Time

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

And one should probably just leave it at that.

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

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

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

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

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

#

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

or

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

or

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

or, one of my favorites:

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

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

best of all:

Spreademism.com

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

Contact me at spreademism(at)yahoo.com

****

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

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

Hokey-dokey then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

also, wrt this, per your guest poster?

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

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

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

and the London Underground is not a political movement.

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

kisses!

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.