Harold Bloom IS my sister!

From everything I've read, from the anecdotes that I've heard, from the fanvids I've watched, from the dreams I've had, especially those that involve my going back to school and/or losing teeth, Harold Bloom is an intellectual who cares deeply about maintaining standards. He is one of the few people in academia that has the courage to say that JK Rowling is cliched, and that is a message that benefits all writers, including JK Rowling, because it gives her something to strive for. It does not surprise me that there are many so-called writers unable to respect the integrity of their Structure. It does not surprise me that there are many academics who are unable to hear what Harold has to say when being against the decay of everything good and pure about the Canon and Civilization is called ""pompous" and "reactionary" and "chode-esque." When people who read Harry Potter can only defend themselves by saying "well, at least it's better than 'Twilight.'" When four out of five absinthe-addled penguins can write better than Stephanie Meyer with one flipper tied behind their backs. As if there is any logic in that. As if Twilight is "literature." As if penguins would even drink absinthe if it weren't for the international cartels flooding Antarctica with the stuff. It is saddening but not surprising.

Anyway, I think we've all had our say here. I am not interested in continuing this conversation. In fact, I'm not even interested in starting a conversation. I don't care to be "deconstructed" by the posties, thank you VERY much. This conversation is over. Over! LALALALALALALALALALALA ---beeeeeeeeep--

Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom & Autonomy

is up over at Renegade's. check it out.

Okay, the "Black people cost gay people the right to marry in CA ZOMG" meme needs to stop, NOW.

Go read Pam Spaulding (yes, Virginia, some people are gay AND black AND women, TOO, AT THE SAME TIME) on just a whole shitload of reasons why.

I'm also reposting now, with permission, a letter sent to an email list I'm on.

Dear Friends,

I am writing because I am disturbed by the string of articles, blog entries, and list serve threads that have come out in the last few days suggesting that the high turnout of African American and Latino voters for the presidential election was responsible for the passage of California's proposition 8, which dealt a heavy blow to LGBT families by banning gay marriage.

These articles mistakenly imply that the struggles for civil rights for LGBT people and communities of color are separate or even at odds with each other. They deny the work that LGBT people of color do to combat homophobia and transphobia in their families and communities, often while facing racism within the queer community as well. These articles deny homophobia among white people, and they displace blame away from those who actually have the power to consistently deny others civil and human rights, and instead, charge that when communities that have long been disenfranchised and alienated from political processes begin to participate, that the results with be negative for LGBT people.

I believe all communities need to be held accountable for their homophobia and transphobia. I want to acknowledge the suffering and hardship that the passage of Proposition 8 has caused for LGBT couples and families. But, while the media casts blame on communities of color for the failure of civil rights for LGBT people, it is imperative that we struggle against the logic that tells us that struggles for LGBT civil rights and racial justice are separate, and that we examine our strategies for advancing LGBT civil rights and gay marriage and, in particular, look at places where LGBT communities have failed to align our struggles for civil rights with ongoing struggles for racial justice.

In the months leading up the election, I saw a massive mobilization within the queer spaces in which I spend time in San Francisco to get people to vote no on 8. We live in a state that has one of the highest incarceration rates in a nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world. Studies have estimated that at any time, 40 percent of black men in their 20's in California are under control of the correctional system. Criminalization affects many LGBT people, in particular, those that may be experiencing addiction or who, lacking familial support, move to expensive cities where they may have a hard time accessing affordable housing and living-wage work. Despite this, I saw little or no public discourse among LGBT people about very important state propositions: 5, 6, and 9, all of which potentially impacted things like funding for prisons, alterations to sentencing for drug crimes, or the trying of minors as adults in this state.

In the last months, we have seen raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) throughout the state and in San Francisco. Many people immigrate here as a result of the US foreign policy of destabilizing foreign economies. Additionally, San Francisco is home to many LGBT immigrants who have come to the country seeking safety and asylum. While my inbox was flooded with emails pertaining to Prop 8, I heard from very few queer people who were seeking to mobilize around the October 31st demonstration to protest ICE raids, or other work pertaining to ICE raids, and San Francisco's establishment as a sanctuary city.

The November ballot contained several important city initiatives that could have affected the livability of our city both for low-income people of color and for many queer people. Proposition K, an initiative to decriminalize prostitution would have helped sex workers in this city to make major strides in their ability to organize for their rights and safety, allowing them to better protect themselves against violence and police harassment. Despite the fact that many, many young LGBT people in this city earn their livings as sex workers and daily face risks to their safety, and that two trans women working as sex workers lost their lives while working in San Francisco in 2007, I saw shockingly little effort among LGBT people to educate themselves on the realities facing sex workers or the background on Proposition K, let alone to spread any word about it.

Similarly, proposition B, which would have mandated that the city set aside part of its budget for affordable housing was defeated by SF voters. In a city with a history of racist schemes of redevelopment and displacement (SOMA in the 60's, Justin Herman's redevelopment of the Fillmore, illegal evictions in the Mission in the 90s, contemporary cuts to county welfare, and most recently, the gentrification of Bayview—to name a few), San Francisco voters have failed to stand up for working families' ability to live affordably in this city—a city with where remaining working class communities of color face major threats of displacement. Despite the fact that white LGBT people often play complicated roles in the gentrification of the city and displacement of communities of color, I saw no media reports released on November 5th scrutinizing the voting trends of white LGBT San Franciscans on Propositions B, N, K, 5, 6, or 9, as juxtaposed to the numerous articles scrutinizing the voting habits of Black and Latino voters on Prop 8. And despite the overwhelmingly negative outcome of several important local and state propositions, outcry among the wider LGBT community seems to have been reserved only for Prop 8.

As a young, queer, person living in San Francisco, I feel very strongly that affordably in this city is vital to the creativity and well being of the LGBT community of San Francisco. As a white person living in the Mission, I have to think and act critically in regards to the complicated role I play in the gentrification of this neighborhood and the larger schemes of displacement within this city. I love my queer life and love living in this city. I get to witness the ways of living and congregating, making new families, new cultures, and envisioning new worlds that are possible living in a city with so many other brilliant and creative queer people. While I would like to lend my support and compassion to the people who lost the right to marry this week, I also question the logic that tells me that my only struggle as an LGBT person centers around my right to marry, rather than my ability to live and create in many other ways within a city I love. Affordable housing is central to the vitality of the LGBT community in San Francisco, to all communities, and while I sign petitions to support marriage as a right, I would like to see LGBT Californians take a serious look at the fact that housing, healthcare, and freedom from incarceration are also civil and human rights.

I would like to see LGBT Californians talk not only about their right to receive their partners' health benefits but about universal healthcare. I would like to hear us talk not just about how many LGBT people's partners cannot receive citizenship rights because of a lack of marriage rights, but connect this to struggles for immigrant rights in this state. I would like to hear LGBT people not only talk about how their families are discriminated against, but think about how many families in California are living in alternative family structures because of the mass incarceration of parents with children.

The passing of Proposition 8 is a sad day and indicative of the work that lies ahead, however, as we heal from these blows, I would like to challenge us to consider how our struggles are bound up with struggles for racial and economic justice, and how our fight for civil rights, and the health of our communities could be strengthened by taking these connections more seriously. Above all, I would like to challenge us to resist racist media schemes that, during our moment of need and a moment of possibility, are attempting to pit LGBT people and supporters against communities of color in California.

I apologize for the hasty construction of this, but time is of the essence. I welcome your thoughts.

In struggle,

Adele Carpenter

Carnival of Feminist Sexual Freedom and Autonomy

up at XXBN.

Next edition: right here! on October 27. See here for general information about the Carnival and how to submit entries. Guidelines/suggestions for this edition to follow; stay tuned.

tangentially:

I don't have time to get into it fully tonight, but wrt this from hexpletive, which you should read the whole damn thing?

I mean, there are only so many ways to say "omfg Heart you're a hateful pernicious idiot," but -really-:

I don’t care how many condoms get handed out in the Third World somewhere

You WHAT. You...no, I said I don't have time, and I don't. Not today.

But speaking of regressive policies that we really would rather AVOID voting their proponents into office if we can help it, that right there, you know, is a -great- place to begin for why Bush sucked and McCain/Palin will continue to suck, and why, once again, some "feminists" really need to stfu and go back to the waiting arms of the Religious Right from whence they sprang, thanks.

Also: what saorla said.

Well I care about condom distribution in the developing world (third world is pejorative now), I live in Cambodia. In Cambodia whether the sex work is through trafficking or voluntary the women call themselves sex workers. They feel that "prostitute" is pejorative. The major of sex workers in Cambodia turn to sex work through poverty, rape or trafficking and they are damned sure they want protection through condoms. People living with HIV are discriminated against and Cambodia has a high rate of HIV transmission.

http://saorla.blogspot.com/2008/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse.html

It's nice that you have the luxury not to care when you live in a country that withdraws billions of dollars in vital aid when condoms or abortions for sex workers are funded.

http://saorla.blogspot.com/2006/10/religious-right-and-development-aid.html

http://saorla.blogspot.com/2007/07/flicker-of-common-sense.html

You have a choice not to care. You could choose not to be callous about that choice. But your government makes sure to put these women in further danger.

Oh and by the way, there's virtually no porn in Cambodia and definitely no hardcore stuff but sex work is at every level of society.

ETA: oh, you've got to be fucking KIDDING me now. No, Heart, Saorla is not a "john" or a "sex tourist," or a man for that matter; and, no, no one owes you independent proof of their identity ffs (who the fuck do you think you ARE?")

Edited, again, again: so, she apologized, apparently.


ETA again: the original unedited thread is recapped at Renegade's, here, if you've an interest.

The Meanie Meanerton Post.

Just, first of all, read this, okay.

A teenager has been cleared of killing a transsexual woman found strangled in her south London home.

Shanniel Hyatt, 18, denied that he killed Kellie Telesford in a rage after discovering she was a pre-operative transgender female who was born a man.

Earlier in the trial, the defence barrister wanted us to believe that Kellie died while playing “kinky sex games” - so, what now? - on her own, after Hyatt had left, taking with him her cellphone and travelcard?

And did she strangle herself before or after she covered her body in the white blanket?...

Then read this, on how certain..."feminists"...are still adamant about keeping teh ev0l tranz out of their "safe spaces," in this instance, actual shelters, and the reality versus the myth:

One of the big problems that I’ve got with trans exclusion is that the kinds of things that you need in order to keep a shelter safe when you let trans people in and the implications that has for the so-called problem of “men masquerading as trans people in order to gain access to shelters and whatever” - not that that has ever happened once and people raise that anyway - that…should be no less terrifying than the idea of a lesbian batterer gaining access to a shelter by masquerading as a survivor, it should be. And, in fact, what it tells us is that we still don’t take seriously the idea that women are powerful! No one has …as a movement, we’ve not internalized that we are powerful; if we believed that we were powerful andthat we learned the lessons that lesbians can batter each other, we would be afraid of the power of a lesbian batterer gaining access to our shelter or our other programs, and we would take serious steps…

Both quotes are taken from interviews with women who worked in shelters at the time...

and Lisa's note here in the comments, particularly:

Tera, to many radical feminists, “woman” is defined as strictly oppression, and I think it’s threatening to find women who not only disagree (as many cis women do while still acknowledging the realities of the violence, sexism, and oppression that women face) but to find women who (to their eyes) chose to be women. Many have said this to me directly, one saying that the very idea that transsexualism could be real might be so triggering as to drive some cis women to suicide.

While I think she was exaggerating greatly, I also found this positioning of trans women as being so triggering just because we don’t find being female inherently oppressive as simply being another way to center trans concerns onto cis people (who we are and the bodies we have to live in are unimportant - all that matters is how we’re perceived by cis women).

And I believe that this positioning females as the most oppressed, as femininity as being nothing but oppression (as gender being oppression) is a simplistic view that not only ignores a large number of people and their relationships to gender and their own bodies (and I am not speaking strictly of trans women here), but also robs cis women of power and agency by positioning them as perpetual victims of the patriarchy.

And that, of course, absolves women of any responsibility for racism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, cissexism that they perpetuate, because they don’t really have the power to perpetuate those -isms. They just ignore intersections.

Then take a gander at all this, wherein, among other things, we learn in the comments that real lesbians worry excessively about being spied on in the shower by "male-born" people, and there are links to a number of ever so clever gambits like I'm eating blueberries, therefore I'm transphobic.

...oh, and lookie there, just noticed, a comment by "me," aren't you precious, Polly Styrene.

Then learn why a cisgendered sex worker finds more in common with said trans women than the "real" women like yourself, and has, once again, had enough of the bullshit from her own end.

So you go right on and demonize and whine and talk about how horrible "sex workers rights advocates" (teehee!) are. You go ahead and worship Saint Farley and call us the pro-pimp lobby or what the fuck else ever. You go ahead and chill in that fucking tower while the rest of us are actually working down here on the ground. You buy her books, write your own, whatever, you go ahead. How many of the whores that Farley interviewed did she actually help? What cut of the profits from her writings is she using to set up working programs to get them out? Answer? None. She's just profiting from it all and, woo, doing more research. So yeah, you are just as useful as she is, kid. I may masturbate to porn, but at least I then go out and actually do something. You wank your brain and pat yourself on the back and waggle those typing fingers…then do what? Nothing but fucking demonize the people doing the goddamn dirty work.

...Or does it work like this, Maggie? Are their good whores and bad whores? Good ones being those whose lives have been trashed and are barely making it but, gee, they have such great, touching, agenda feeding stories! And then those bad ones…well, they might as well be men! Those who do well and profit and don’t hate it…and those other women, what with their BDSM and watching porn and stuff…they aren’t women, right? They’re men with tits and cunts. They are out of the tribe that bleeds and part of the problem, right?

"Might as well be men"--yes, indeedy.

It's not like you can see that there's any connection between transphobia (oo, she said it again!) and sex worker bashing here, either,

Kudos are going to the organizers of this protest against transphobia and sex worker oppression.

Residents of a downtown Toronto neighbourhood have apparently bestowed themselves with the moral duty of “kicking out prostitutes” who they say have “disturbed the peace” in their otherwise magically perfect neighbourhood.

Instead of lobbying for anti-prostitution laws, worker safety, or advocating for the rights of sex trade workers so that we can all live more peacefully together, for the last three months these residents have been harassing sex workers, specifically transwomen, to the point of assault.

This Friday August 15th, supporters of human rights and dignity FOR ALL will be gathering at the corner of Homewood and Maitland at 11pm to demand an end to this injustice.

Check out the Facebook event and hopefully we’ll see you there!

...where you can also read charming comments like this:

Michael Says:

August 15, 2008 at 8:27 am
Shoving a person is assault.
Yelling at people is disturbing the peace.
Threats and stalking are criminal harassment

When I stand several feet away from a sex-worker with a sign that says “No Sex work on our street.” my actions are intended to discourage the John from stopping and to make her uncomfortable enough that she will take her business elsewhere. i’m sure it annoys her but no-one is harmed and no one’s rights have been violated.

If other street vendors are not allowed on Homewood why are prostitutes permitted to advertize and sell their wares? I’d rather buy a hot-dog than a BJ at 3:00AM.

And finally… I fail to believe that Trans-women can’t get jobs. MAC Cosmetics, to cite one example has LOTS of trans-women working their counters.

No, he's not a "radfem," that's right. I don't know where this one's "morality" comes from and don't much care. Sure is an asshole though, and... he's not the only one who sounds like that, see. Or is whining about "mob mentality;" poor little put-upon flower, HE'S not actually HURTING anyone, he refuses to believe it, see.

See.

Oh, and will all those trans people and sex workers and y'know other women stop being so meeeeeeeeeeeeeen, I mean, be fair! Hey, he's just being reasonable and expressing his opinion, amirite? Free speech! Help, help, he's being oppressed...!

So, yes, you know, I've got a cold and I've just moved and I barely have the energy to get into all the -multiple- fucked uppednessnesses here, and frankly I think others have the right idea in just writing about the actual issues and trying to ignore your irrelevant asses, by and large. Or at least keep from centering you, -again,-

But meanwhile, you've been epic fuckwits again, and I'm in a Mood and so Attention Must Be Paid, so let's just cut it short, don't tell me: -you- did not murder Kellie Telesford or Angie Zapata, with your own dear little hands, therefore, you are not in any way, shape or form "transphobic." O.K.

But you, you still just can't understand why all these meanie meanertons who aren't among the Elect (anymore, anyway) keep picking on you, right? I mean, your "theories" are at least as important as the actual people you keep insisting on "deconstructing," "questioning," and generally ignoring anything they actually have to say for themselves if it makes you uncomfortable.

We’re the least liked of any subset of women. We already get shit from the entire world. I don’t know why other feminists won’t leave us the fuck alone.

--bonobobabe

Well, damn, I'm awfully sorry. Allow me to present you with a fucking cookie, then, even though it's against my principles o NOT AT ALL HATEFUL OR BIGOTED NO PRECIOUS Supra Feminists What Are Uber Marginalized But Still Somehow Going To Save Us All Whether We Like It Or Not, All By Yourselves, Apparently.

Blueberry, even.

Quote of the day, 8/1/08

from the comments of this post:

"critics of porn and sex work often bring to the table their own notions of what sex is and take that as normative."

--Linnaeus

I think you may have a point there. This was initially my problem at least. Then I saw pie porn and I figured that if a banana cream pie actually aroused people, then I have no useful frame for other people's sexual desires.

--Kristen, responding

Fourth Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy

up at Waking Vixen

Belatedly: Third Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy

up at whatsername the Jaded Hippy.

Oh, right: THIS is why.

(in answer to the rhetorical question posted here, sort of)

Meanwhile, not very far away:

exhibit #2

I love Twisty, I really do. Nobody can rip apart the patriarchy like Twisty when she decides to give it a bigger rectal reaming then Goatse’s best efforts after a five-gallon enema. So I offer a humble apology for not letting her get away with upholding that which she claims to despise. Unless I am mistaken, she likes transgendered folk for the same reason that most feminists seem to like them — they prove gender is fluid. Unfortunately, feminists stop right at the edge of their brain, believing that there is no more to think through. Those kind of mental stop signs do not apply to me, though, because I’m evil. And so we arrive thusly at our next introductory paragraph.

When transgendered folks get through the final stage of transitioning and reach “the end”, all that gender fluidity goes right out the window and solidifies into the crusty crud on the bottom of my boots. They have merely succeeded in upholding the gender binary — the very same binary which has held women down for the last 10,000 years...

Yes, friends, it actually gets dumber and more offensive from there. And that's -without- the comments, which quel surprise has Lucky "tell the truth and shame the devil, human partheogenesis is a FACT and men will soon be extinct, no I do not have springs coming out my head, why do you ask?" Uncle making a cameo or six; and Satsuma, she of the clear-eyed lesbian gaze, solemnly informing us that

I believe they still have male voyeuristic minds, and they seem to fixate (or get their fix) on bringing up sex topics in these groups. The creeped out young lesbians then have to deal with the mental rapists coming right into their space, and this is of course allowed in LGBT places (read lesbian feminism not allowed, or lesbian only as some how excluding the poor transitioned MTFs).

The truth is, I rarely see MTFs being actually able to be like real woman I know. They are something else — a human being that is something beyond the life experiences of women.

All it ends up doing is giving that male porno mind access to women’s spaces.

You see? It IS all connected. Men are men and women are women; men have filthy exploitive minds and women do not; anyone who says otherwise OR is trying to cross from one to the other is either brainwashed or trying to fool you or both. Class Woman must remain pure. QED.

...Why even bother going through all this AGAIN, you ask? Other than sheer morbid fascination at the spectacle of it all, because in -some- ways, when you get to -this- level of WTF, it's like making fun of Time Cube Guy. And yet...

Well, for one thing, this whole "she likes transgendered folk" thing did sort of leap out at me, because it's not entirely unlike, well, sentiments I've been hearing all week over what you -might- think are entirely unrelated spectacles, i.e. the Racism? What Racism? ...oh, shit, right, okay, THAT racism, finally, uh, well, erm, maybe? ongoing saga, and/or Ew Icky Scary Mean Sex Worker Cooties No Um I Mean It's Just Totally Unfair, That's All, among others.

To wit:--oh well, look here, here's a perfect example, actually, right from that same thread wherein the brilliance wrt trans folk shines, in the comments:

I personally love it. I feel this is what “all feminists secretly think but are afraid to say our loud”.

...and there it is, kids. Of -course- you feel this; and you feel this because, well, it must be true; and it must be true because you feel this.

Oh, you can't possibly MEAN what you're saying. You're not really interested in -this-, are you? You're just putting it on. You're acting out of -guilt.- You're not one of THEM. You're one of US. You're just trying to be trendy, aren't you? Cool. More Radical Than Thou. Looking for "cookies" from, uhhhh, whoever's giving them out this week. Anything and everything but YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING. And, further, you can't possibly LIKE -those people-, not -really.- They aren't actually -people-...no, sorry! I mean THEY are in fact -really people-, which is a -really- radical idea and I still can't quite get my head entirely 'round it but I'm -really- trying; it helps if I maintain that THEY are just like me (only not quite as Advanced).

As opposed to, garsh, I don't know, I like -some- of "these people" as PEOPLE, and therefore, by listening to them and getting to know them, I give a fuck when they say "ouch, this hurts," even if it doesn't seem to directly affect me (at first). Because

a) actually, as it turns out, most of the time if I look a step or a half-step ahead, why yes in fact I AM quite possibly next for the chop, say hello Pastor Niemuller,

b) besides, HELLO, how on earth do you expect people to be interested in YOUR righteous cause if you never return the fucking favor? Because you're Universal and they're a sideline and they should just wait patiently for you to get your rightful piece of the pie and THEN they might get a crumb? Because you think you're the only game in town? Wrong on both counts, and it's high time you got a clue.

c) those are my FRIENDS and LOVED ones you're talking about, you fucking zits. And/or at minimum, people I respect and like and want to hear what they have to say for -themselves-. PEOPLE.

Is it really that hard to understand? Really? Really.

But BESIDES that.

Just, for those tuning in from AmandaEtcGate, you should know, if you didn't already, that in fact there have been other reasons for feminist (or at minimum, sub-denominations thereof) and/or the feminist blogosphere expatriate-hood, and other women, leaving in frustration and anger, or at least feeling profoundly alienated from what should be and/or used to be for some, y'know, The Feminist Movement; all this shit would be the reason(s). Loosely, transphobia and the so-called "sex wars," the latter including, but not limited to, the ubiquitous "pornstitution" business (i.e. you're either fer it or agin it, according to some people anyway), Kink Is Bad, femme-bashing, heteronormativity up the wazoo, and just good ol' fashioned sex panic and/or "stone the sluts." Mostly, though, well, personally? Once more, with feeling: I Blame The Assholes.

That may not be all that helpful here, though, of itself.

Because actually, there -is- another connection here, and it is this: that IN fact, an awful lot of early Anglo-American feminism IS all tangled up with the Victorian (and yeah, Christian by default, a particular branch of Protestantism to be precise) idea of woman as moralizing agent, for better or for worse, depending on your perspective. The Temperance and then Prohibition movements, for instance. And yes, early on, Abolition.

Trouble is, though, even then, and echoing right on through today, there are -reasons- why "feminism" is considered a movement for "nice white ladies." And yeah, while obviously it's more complicated than this, there are, in fact, direct parallels between "oh of course we'd have -included- you if you'd only -behaved-, you rude, scary, vulgar ingrates! We know what's best for you and everyone!" genteel racism and "hold still while we SAVE you, dammit, you rude, scary, vulgar ingrates! We know what's best for you and everyone!" in other contexts.

The common denominator in all this, and something raggedly approaching a point, thank you, Patient Readers:

There IS, in fact, power in being the Nice White Lady. Has been for quite a while. Not as -much- as in being the Good White Guy, all other things being equal, no. But, power nonetheless. The missionary, the one who's pitted against the jungle, all full of bestial sexuality and savage aggression, which are of course dark and/or male; and, incidentally, might do okay for herself along the way.

And with power, of course, comes responsibility.

Starting with: you have to -admit- you have any power here; and way too many Nice White Lady Feminists, of both radical and liberal vintages, do not.

And/or, I suppose: okay, we -may- have -some- power, but it doesn't really -count-, the buck doesn't stop with us; and garsh, we certainly don't LIKE the feeling of power or anything: we're the good guys. Um, gals. Really, we're only doing this for your own good. No, really! Trust us!

All of which effectively boils down to, basically, we're not responsible.

I've talked about some of this before.

And...at the end of all this: still circling the airport, isn't it.

But getting closer, maybe.

Ech.

It's...all this is, I want to say, also, maybe the feminist iteration of a larger let's say struggle going on. You could call it Jihad vs. McWorld, I suppose. Less confusingly and more apropos: fundamentalism versus hyper-individualism in an advanced corporate context. In the feminist context, roughly, that would be:

On your more erm -radical- side, you gotcher regressive/reactionary cultfems (that's "cultural feminist"), with the increasingly insular and, dare I say, tinfoilesque purview, the romanticization of a time when Things Were Better For Wimmin And So Shall It Be Again, whether that Golden Age is some unspecified pre-hyrstorical Goddess-oriented Matriarchy, about fifteen minutes during the early 1970's, or both. And, by a complete coincidence no doubt, all too often sounds like the Garden of Eden stood on its head, with many of the original tropes that go along with it firmly intact.

Still, it -sounds- nice, with the whole back to nature, let's-purify-ourselves-and-then-the-world, deep sisterly bonds, gazing at each other with the Deep Clear Gaze Of Political Lesbian Goodness; even a, well? religious overtone to the whole thing, with or without the Goddessy bits. Until, well, you're excommunicated, and/or realize that you were never part of the Elect to begin with, for narrow is the way and strait is the gate to Wimmins' Country.

On your more -mainstream- side, you've got, well, umm, hate to say it, but what's already been dubbed as "Marcotteism," although frankly Hillaryism or even Thatcherism would work much better. This is the woman warrior, not so much the missionary; she's not really there to clutch her poor underprivileged (step)sisters to her bounteous nurturing (and certainly All Natural) bosom; she's there to kick ass and take names. She'll come home from the hunt carrying the golden fleece; and, once it's been thoroughly processed and sold for a nice profit, then everyone else who's been waiting around patiently can have a share, and it'll all work out splendidly, now hush. And, by a complete coincidence, "meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss" is playing on the radio; it's a kickass cover by this grrreat band with a female lead singer, and she's making a mint, and why can't you be happy for her, dammit? She's being subversive! She's gonna rock the system! In the meantime, you can live vicariously through her, living her dream! What else matters?

AND, by a COMPLETE and total coincidence, it just so happens that, well, the overwhelming majority of voices on both sides of this--not all, but I think the word dominant is fair--are, um, ermmm, uh...well? White. There, pant, I said it. And--say-hey! so am I, by cracky!

So, all things considered, I can't imagine why so many WoC, (not even to mention queer women who don't really -fit-, women with disabilities, women who don't feel feminism addressed class inequalities sufficiently, women who just plain think the whole thing sucks, and say! what ABOUT the men? and so on and so on and...) are fleeing from both the word and the movement(s) like something that really, really should be fled from as fast as possible.

Which kind of smarts.

Because, I know I said feminism was just a word, and that's not even really the point anyway? I still mostly mean it;

on the other hand, well, this is just the most recently read in a long string of posts that's making me think: dude, if it's becoming THAT poisonous to THAT many people I'd -so- rather be on the side of than so many of the people waving it around like a gorram flag, that it's become a badge of automatic distrust...

*

eh, fuck it, just call me Myrtle.

The Great Work Continues, or some goddam thing.

and, uh...

*

I'm goin' to bed. Maybe it'll make more sense in the morning.

ETA: and just to sort of wrap things up in one noxious little bow, some kind of award for this one:

stormcloud said...

They hate me because I have a habit of pointing out their lies. Like "I am a woman of tint". I would say, well, yeah, if alabaster-white is classed as a 'tint'. FFS. Those highly-bronzed pictures that RenEv used to pretend were her? Complete fantasy.

There is a lot of projection going on. I could not expose anything about RenEv that hadn't been put on the internet by her very own, supposedly manicured, fingers.

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.

The Second Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy

is up at Labyrinth Walk, and it's wonderful, rich in breadth and depth. Check it out.

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.

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.

To whom it may concern

Just a repost of a comment at Natalia's, because it got rather long and it seemed worth a post of its own. You can read over there for context, or glean from what follows. This is addressed to feminists who take the let's call it abolitionist position wrt sex work/prostitution:

Seriously, let me ask you this. I assume you’re “pro-choice” when it comes to reproduction? (If I’m wrong, ignore what follows). Okay. Putting aside the irony of “choice” being an acceptable feminist concept when it comes to reproductive rights but not when it comes to sexuality (for pay or otherwise) (or even personal adornment and modification, depending on who you ask, but that’s another argument, maybe)

…putting that aside, do you, you know, -like- abortion? I mean, are you like, “yay!abortion!” Are you gleefully advocating that women just go out and have abortions for shits and giggles? Do you claim that “choice” means the -correct- choice is always to get an abortion? Is the “abortion industry” a heartless sinister machine to which you’ve pledged your allegiance in exchange for a mess of pottage and your immortal soul?

Ridiculous, right? Well, funny thing, because this is pretty much how a lot of let’s say non-nuanced pro-lifers see the pro-choice folks.

And, I gotta say it, I’m sure this will go over like a lead balloon, but my hand to Maud: the non-nuanced anti-pornstitution position? Can sound an awful lot like this. The demonization, the “you’re with us or agin’ us,” the positioning of the women in question as either poor brainwashed victims in need of saving or else carpetbagging sellouts who are in cahoots with the Enemy…

yeah, I’m probably talking to the wind again, but hey, my fingers needed the exercise, I guess.

Just a few brief notes

or, The fifteen second version of the posts I would be making if I had the time, energy, and/or inclination:

1) A stranger on the Internets objecting on their own blog to what they perceive as your assery regarding one of their posts, even saying something to you along the lines of "sit your ignorant ass down and shut the fuck up till you know what the hell you're talking about," does not, in fact, amount to your "being silenced."

2) Transpeople are not actually out to steal your precious wimminly fluids, rare and desirable as those undoubtably are.

2a) They're not out to steal your precious Andrew Sullivan fluids either.

3) Yes, racism still is socially acceptable. Yes, so is sexism. No, you don't win anything. Yes, you are still being an asshole. No, you don't win anything for that either.

3a) Phyllis Chesler, oh, and Judy whosis, I'm looking at you. Also, Phyl, the whole mutation into a rabid Islamophobic Pajamas Media-blogging possible McCain supporter, neocon thing? David Cronenberg called, he wants to film it. The rest of us really don't enjoy the spectacle, though.

4) Monday was International Sex Workers Rights Day.

5) I know this is a really difficult concept, but generally speaking, if you want other people to give a shit about you and your problems, it helps if you in turn give a shit about them, once in a while.

6) There is no point six.

7) Baby raccoons sound a lot like baby birds, and dogs get -really- excited about their presence in one's chimney.

8) Stephen King is a pretty good writer, except when he isn't.

9) sweet steaming baby Yog-Soggoth, you're more loathsome every day. p.s. shouldn't you be out campaigning, anyway?

10) This is not, in fact, an autonomous collective.

11) This is not your beautiful house.

12) This is not your beautiful blog.

13) And the London Underground is not a political movement.

14) And, oops, neither are you.

Yes, you're right, asshole, I'm Memorex. We all are. Now sit your ass down.

oh, three guesses. Specifically, the woman RE has linked to, there (follow the trail of breadcrumbs, not throwing the extra link her way).

'Spread'emism' (spread-them-ism), as radical feminist S.M. Berg (creator of Genderberg.com) so wonderfully put it, is "the misleading idea that women can fuck and get fucked into political, academic and social equality with men via prostitution and pornography".

'Spread'emism' is how all the pro-pornography and pro-prostitution so-called "feminism" should be named...

...Tell me, pro-pornstitution "feminists", do you seriously think this is feminism what you're doing? Real feminism?

Well, Renegade answers the woman's various points pretty damn thoroughly, as do a number of the commenters.

-snip-

RE:

...What is the plan, anyway? You know, a lot of us are taking hits for saying “The sex industry? It’s not going anywhere, so let’s work for harm reduction and getting those who want out the help they need, and leave those who want in alone…” So yeah…what is the Amazing, Super Secret Plan to Rid the World of the Sex Industry? We’re dying (figuratively and literally) to know. In the mean time, what with all the talk of not allowing it to be normalized, without ever accepting it as work, without ever giving sex workers any sort of legal status and voice…well, women are being abused, raped, killed, dehumanized, and marginalized...

And yep, I am biased. I am a woman whom has chosen, of my own free will, to make my living in the sex biz…without having been raped, sexually abused, beat up by a man or a junkie. Please, do not attempt to save me from myself! I freakin’ cheer every time I hear of some sort of normalization, the real deal, and not the Hollywood drama y’all seem to take as such, because then it means in some legal sense, well hell, we almost get to be treated like humans! And until I hear this grand plan, that’s what I’m concerned with. That’s where my loyalty, money, and voice go. I will stand with those working to help sexworkers, in the here and now, rather than pretend that the abolitionist plan will not have scores and scores of victims, won’t lead to more cases like this, won’t become Big Sister is ruling my body rather than Big Brother. I am all for making a difference, right now. Choice and right of Domain over ones body goes beyond abortion after all.

(tee fucking hee)

from commenter thene:

*raises hand* Pro-porny who hates porn and never watches it, right here.

...From the post you linked:

"The first failure of pro-pornstitution "feminism" is that it totally capitulates to patriarchy. [...] Many women are socially trained to conform to cultural instruments of sexual brainwashing"

-going along with the long-standing hate that our dear Christian patriarchs have for sex workers *is* capitulating to patriarchy and it is sexual brainwashing.

"Women are commonly trained to please men in this culture. Thus, it is no wonder that among women who are interested in feminism, some will choose a type of 'feminism' that doesn't bother men or does not look like a real threat to men, because these women want to be appreciated by men in what they do."

Yeah, just like that. The sex industry is liek 95% geared towards men and what they like to watch and do, so wasting this many black pixels on describing in detail how awful it is, while all the while there is no plan and the industry is expanding all the time, is hardly 'threatening to men'. It's more like putting them in the middle of your feminism and showing them that your life still revolves around them, really.

from dw3t-hthr:

So long as a whore is subhuman, abuseable, ignorable, discardable, women can be kept in line by the threat of converting them into whores. That's what I see as the essential dividing line, the essential -- if the feminists will forgive an outsider making the comment -- feminist issue here.

One can't fix that problem by abolishing whoredom, even if there were a magic wand that made it possible to do so. That still means that the category is forbidden, and anyone who crosses into it becomes an unperson, a nonentity.

The only thing that can touch that threat, that can unravel it and undo it and make it something without teeth, is normalisation, is treating sex work like work, making sure that its abuses are controllable (which cannot be done under a prohibition standpoint, to send a postcard from Obviousville here), to treat sex workers like people.

*******

What I have to add, myself, is nothing new for anyone who's been following along here; but apparently repetition is important, so here we go again.

1) if cutesy endearments like "spead-em'ism" and shit like this is real feminism, why does it sound so suspiciously similar to the toxic bilge that comes out of your average reactionary fucked-up misogynist?


2) if "pro-pornstitution feminism" is public enemy number one, then clearly this stuff is...well, it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about here, of course. And I mean, it's not like "real feminists" ever ally with the authoritarian, patriarchal State and/or the Religious Right in the pursuit of "pornstitution."

3) oh goodie, nothing i love more than hetnormativity.
It just never gets old.

And really, we all NEED sexual shaming; wasn't that a song or something? It's so FEMINIST. Especially those of us who're queer, not that this matters in the all-important Battle Against Men, which is of course defined by angry straight women. And it's not like there's any intersection between transhate and whore-bashing, not to mention good old fashioned sex panic, classism, racism, ableism, etc., etc., etc. etc.

4) Finally, in answer to the burning question of whether I call all this "feminism."

Supporting women regardless of whether or not I "approve" of their "choices." Not trying to police other peoples' most intimate selves. Not putting -my- ideas of how things -should- be over what actually -is.- Yes, I call that feminist. More important, however, I call it human. Because when it comes right down to it, the actual people are more important than the fucking label.

On edit, a coda:

That last goes, by the way, for everybody. I've heard people (mostly women) I respect on both sides of the aisle expressing a wish for people who haven't been there or done that to kindly step off. I can't really argue with that, actually, and no, I understand that this isn't just a fun academic exericise. People who are adamant that they're sex workers, that they'd rather be doing what they do than something else, I'll call them "sex workers." People who do not want any such term applied to themselves, who are clear that they found the experience degrading and abusive and harmful, I will use the term "prostituted woman" or whatever they prefer. Questions of policy aside, really, really trying not to define anyone else's experience here, wouldn't even if I did have a similar tale to tell.

I'm just tired of seeing that happen to other people I care about.

read it and weep.

scream, vomit, go numb...

megan_julca has the story.

Basically: Sanesha Stewart, a young trans woman of color, was stabbed to death on Saturday. An alleged sex worker, which, if true, would of course would mean she had it coming even more than she already did. And really, what else could she possibly be anyway? Either way: not human, certainly. As m_j puts it:

naturally it's her fault; after all, she was a "man who dressed like a woman" who "was known to wear stylish, provocative outfits with towering high heels," "was a ... flirty presence," and "had surgery to 'give him [sic] larger breasts and other female characteristics'" even though "it was clear Stewart was still a man." I mean she was just asking for it, amirite?

I mean "the suspect was apparently surprised by the victim's true sex" so it's perfectly acceptable to expect that he would respond the appropriate way and stab her to death in a fit of rage.

See, anyone who *wants* (frivolous, sexualized, appearance-oriented) female characteristics like artificially enhanced larger breasts for hirself, or *chooses* to "wear stylish, provocative outfits with towering high heels" is clearly catering to men, who in turn want nothing but sex, whether or not they are, in fact, entitled to it, that's all they WANT, this is axiomatic;

and even (or especially!) a man is entitled to at least not be -surprised- by finding unexpected body parts and/or Secret Pasts on a person he fancies or even shares any sort of public space with, certainly wimmin are so entitled to that much at least, even if they would never go so far as to physically hurt or -kill- a trans person because wimmin don't do such things, ever. As for denying transfolk access to such things as rape crisis centers: that's merely self-defense. Which is totally different from what we're talking about, here. Certainly no such excuse has been or will be employed when it comes to actual -murder- of a trans person, will it? Self defense. Oh, wait.

Because there's nothing worse than finding out you are sexually attracted to, hell, even had fond feelings about, is there? a person whose gender and/or sex is not the gender and/or sex you are SUPPOSED to be attracted to, according to God or your parents or the lads or the Sisterhood or the feverish little rabbit running your brain. Who doesn't understand -that-? the raw revulsion, the terror, the PANIC leading even unto VIOLENCE that such momentary existential cage-rattlings provides. It's only human.

and in fact, it is the very inherent or-might-as-well-be-it's-so-firmly-entrenched-by-now baseness of Man that creates such situations in the first place, is it not? Clearly only some debauched sick sexual desire would lead any -man- to take on the appearance or identity of a woman, much less sell his body to strange men, who in turn are only behaving in the way that is to be expected, animals that they are.

It is up to women to lead men to their better natures; any woman who doesn't do so but instead "chooses" to do sex work for a living, not just because she has to but actually -flaunting- her patent lack of victim status, or even wear towering high heels and stylish, provocative outfits and PLASTIC TITS is clearly a) falling down on the job b) a male-identified Enemy of Women c) a danger to herself, other women, other womens' husbands, and society, not necessarily in that order d) deserves whatever she gets. Not, you understand, that we would ever say such a thing in so many words. Except when we're forced to.

As for -men- who flaunt stylish plastic tits and towering lack-of-victim-status, even for a -second-, well, first of all, men are men and women are women and therefore a man who pretends he (never she; it is a terrible imposition to have to call a person what she wanted to be called, even in death) can be a woman -also- deserves whatever he gets, even more so, whether that's because he's betraying his Sacred Manhood or violating Sacred Wimminz Country or both at once.

Not that we would ever say such a thing. Unless we have to.

Oh, and the fact that Ms. Stewart was a woman of color? Totally irrelevant. Except when it's not. We will be the ones to decide when it is and when it's not, thank you very much. Why can't we all stick together? Why must you constantly derail from the important issues with your own trifling problems? Don't you know that ____ are ____ in ____? Fuck you anyway, you selfish [redacted], for trying to make me feel guilty when clearly I have it worse than ANYONE. There's only so much empathy to go around, you know, and I need all of it. I mean, "we." yes. "We." Whoever "we" is THIS time.

Did I leave anything out?

/rectal divination