Tuesday, September 19, 2006
"I see no color." Yeah, that's kind of, you know, the whole problem...
Over at Pandagon, Pam Spaulding sums up the real problem with that Clinton luncheon, as others have been doing: it was whiter than Whitey Whiterton. and the luncheon was held in Harlem, no less. Predictable responses and defenses have been coming up, oh, well, we DID invite people of color, well, one guy (out of twenty), but, well, he couldn't make it; what are we supposed to do? I don't see the problem! It's not like we were excluding POC bloggers on purpose; it's just, well, we don't really KNOW that many, which, that, is purely a coincidence on account of there mumble must not be that many good ones then, or, well, we meant well. God! Is no one ever satisfied? We INVITED a black guy! Truthfully we just "see no color" and don't understand why anyone else insists on dredging up these petty complaints. You're just upset because YOU weren't invited to the party, aren't you. Well, run along.
*sigh*
As I said over there, in response to one of the other comments:
Sep 19th, 2006 at 10:31 am
>I can’t help but think the “blizzard” is a result of willfully having blinders on—and not just about including bloggers of color. I think it’s a deliberate attempt to appeal to/work with certain demographics while ignoring others. Not ignoring out of a sense of disrespect, but ignoring because of an assumption that it is too hard to appeal to or work towards reaching those “others”; a “let’s stick to preaching to the choir” move—the “choir” in this instance being white, college-educated, middle-class bloggers within a certain age range.>
***
Yup. It’s actually deeper than unconscious garden-variety racism and sexism and so on, although that, too; or maybe that’s what this is based on: it’s a profound lack of curiousity about one’s fellow critters. Not really wanting to learn anything you don’t already know. Which, if you don’t have that, then how are you going to get to genuine empathy? You’re not, is what, so everything becomes about rules and shibboleths. “Well, racism is bad, I don’t want to be a bad person, one defines ‘racist’ via xyz, I won’t do xyz, okay, got it, we’re good.”
…and then kick and scream when someone politely points out that no, actually, “we” aren’t good, because in fact it isn’t about -you- and how good or bad you are, it’s about the OTHER people. Who weren’t invited and don’t have a place at the table and have their OWN concerns which STILL aren’t being addressed; it doesn’t MATTER how guilty you do or don’t feel about it; what are you gonna DO about it, hm?
And no, “I see no color” cuts no ice. Of course it’s much easier to see no color when you -see no color.- That tends to happen when your circles are blindingly white. “Oh, I never even thought about it.” YES. That kind of would be, you know, the point?
***
Meanwhile, Jessica makes T-shirts of the lemon-mouthed Ann Althouse's offerings:
"These BOOBS are made for blogging."
Get 'em while they're hot!
*sigh*
As I said over there, in response to one of the other comments:
Sep 19th, 2006 at 10:31 am
>I can’t help but think the “blizzard” is a result of willfully having blinders on—and not just about including bloggers of color. I think it’s a deliberate attempt to appeal to/work with certain demographics while ignoring others. Not ignoring out of a sense of disrespect, but ignoring because of an assumption that it is too hard to appeal to or work towards reaching those “others”; a “let’s stick to preaching to the choir” move—the “choir” in this instance being white, college-educated, middle-class bloggers within a certain age range.>
***
Yup. It’s actually deeper than unconscious garden-variety racism and sexism and so on, although that, too; or maybe that’s what this is based on: it’s a profound lack of curiousity about one’s fellow critters. Not really wanting to learn anything you don’t already know. Which, if you don’t have that, then how are you going to get to genuine empathy? You’re not, is what, so everything becomes about rules and shibboleths. “Well, racism is bad, I don’t want to be a bad person, one defines ‘racist’ via xyz, I won’t do xyz, okay, got it, we’re good.”
…and then kick and scream when someone politely points out that no, actually, “we” aren’t good, because in fact it isn’t about -you- and how good or bad you are, it’s about the OTHER people. Who weren’t invited and don’t have a place at the table and have their OWN concerns which STILL aren’t being addressed; it doesn’t MATTER how guilty you do or don’t feel about it; what are you gonna DO about it, hm?
And no, “I see no color” cuts no ice. Of course it’s much easier to see no color when you -see no color.- That tends to happen when your circles are blindingly white. “Oh, I never even thought about it.” YES. That kind of would be, you know, the point?
***
Meanwhile, Jessica makes T-shirts of the lemon-mouthed Ann Althouse's offerings:
"These BOOBS are made for blogging."
Get 'em while they're hot!
"Football? No, no simmering homoerotic tension here. Move along, nothing to see here..."
Another good point by fastlad.
What lies beneath? It's something I've wondered about since I first arrived here in the United States: those cropped camera angles on American football players that are ploys to prevent you from seeing their magnificent behinds.
No matter how firm or shapely those same buttocks are, they are rarely to be seen in the nations living rooms, pool halls or sports bars. Why?
...actually i don't even watch televised sports enough to notice that particular discrepancy. but um, yeah: speaking of objectification/exaggerated attention to naughty bits and secondary sex features: helLO, football uniforms! baseball, too, as fastlad notes.
what does MY head in is how playing football and other sports is precisely what's still widely recommended as a good solid antidote to creeping male homosexuality. Fastlad says this plays out differently in Ireland, this uhhh whatever it is, this (male) homophobic, homoerotic, AND homosocial all at once thing we have going on here. (i.e. unlike in some other macho cultures, perhaps, it's at least vaguely suspect for manly men to spend too much time with WOMEN). any other thoughts on this?
What lies beneath? It's something I've wondered about since I first arrived here in the United States: those cropped camera angles on American football players that are ploys to prevent you from seeing their magnificent behinds.
No matter how firm or shapely those same buttocks are, they are rarely to be seen in the nations living rooms, pool halls or sports bars. Why?
...actually i don't even watch televised sports enough to notice that particular discrepancy. but um, yeah: speaking of objectification/exaggerated attention to naughty bits and secondary sex features: helLO, football uniforms! baseball, too, as fastlad notes.
what does MY head in is how playing football and other sports is precisely what's still widely recommended as a good solid antidote to creeping male homosexuality. Fastlad says this plays out differently in Ireland, this uhhh whatever it is, this (male) homophobic, homoerotic, AND homosocial all at once thing we have going on here. (i.e. unlike in some other macho cultures, perhaps, it's at least vaguely suspect for manly men to spend too much time with WOMEN). any other thoughts on this?
Monday, September 18, 2006
Out of curiousity: do you remember your dreams?
Do you write them down? How much attention do you pay to them? Ever have a lucid dream? A "nested" dream? A (gulp) pre-recognitive dream?
I'm sort of an agnostic on the latter, but...well, yeah, more thoughts on how that might or might not work at some point. But I mean: I pay attention to synchronicities and suchlike. Those of you who find this sort of talk hopelessly woo-woo, 'scool, but: let's just take it as a given that you find it woo-woo; I kind of want to hear from the folks who maybe don't so much.
Which, but, by all means: talk about dreams, regardless.
I'm sort of an agnostic on the latter, but...well, yeah, more thoughts on how that might or might not work at some point. But I mean: I pay attention to synchronicities and suchlike. Those of you who find this sort of talk hopelessly woo-woo, 'scool, but: let's just take it as a given that you find it woo-woo; I kind of want to hear from the folks who maybe don't so much.
Which, but, by all means: talk about dreams, regardless.
I...kind of got no dog here
O, not the whole "the West is doomed, we shall run rampant through your land whilst spilling blood and alcohol and cackling maniacally" bit, fun as that always is.
no, Pope R. vs. the Flying Fundamentalist Foamers, Moslem division.
I mean: how frigging hard is it to at least offer a proper apology? Papal duties can't be THAT taxing, can they?
Well, he -sounds- like a garden-variety bigoted asshole, but he's God's own asshole, I expect; hence, This Means War. cool! now the Catholics are in for it as well, not that a lot of them probably weren't already covered with the whole "death to the entire West deal;" but, oooohh, revenge! revenge for the Crusades at last! the original ones, that is. Yay! FREE FOR ALL
no, Pope R. vs. the Flying Fundamentalist Foamers, Moslem division.
I mean: how frigging hard is it to at least offer a proper apology? Papal duties can't be THAT taxing, can they?
Well, he -sounds- like a garden-variety bigoted asshole, but he's God's own asshole, I expect; hence, This Means War. cool! now the Catholics are in for it as well, not that a lot of them probably weren't already covered with the whole "death to the entire West deal;" but, oooohh, revenge! revenge for the Crusades at last! the original ones, that is. Yay! FREE FOR ALL
Sunday, September 17, 2006
In which the author is utterly weak and gives in to the dark, seductive, throaty cry of Schadenfreude once again
Just, heh, over at Nine Pearls, Veronica notes that Ann Thingie, you know, the feminist who is very concerned about the threat that a Feministing blogger's breasts poses to the entire movement, i.e., she R a Serious Thinker, this one,
anyway, Veronica notes in passing Ann Twerp's affection for the show Project Runway.
my, she’s…deep, isn’t she. I can totally understand why she’d be concerned that young airheads like Jessica might be giving Feminism a bad name, even if she had left her breasts at home (how gauche, really: no white shoes OR breasts after Labor Day…)
But in addition to the astonishing level of insightful feminist commentary on this pop culture phenomenon, interlaced as ‘twere with surprising yet astute quotations from various philosophers, poets, political theorists, and her parrot, this bit caught my eye:
It was surprising that Laura acted so weak. Her confidence was shattered, she’d been blindsided, she was so terribly tired. She cried. But it wasn’t all weakness. She had the strength to bully Angela, really to try to play a mind game on her, telling her she didn’t deserve another chance…
***
I think I see what she sees in it, now.
CRYING is a sign of WEAKNESS!!! FINISH H-..oh, good, she still had some bullying left in ‘er, that's the spirit.
chomp chomp chomp the popcorn
Lovely person, really; I think she ought to branch out, write childrens’ books, some shit like that.
anyway, Veronica notes in passing Ann Twerp's affection for the show Project Runway.
my, she’s…deep, isn’t she. I can totally understand why she’d be concerned that young airheads like Jessica might be giving Feminism a bad name, even if she had left her breasts at home (how gauche, really: no white shoes OR breasts after Labor Day…)
But in addition to the astonishing level of insightful feminist commentary on this pop culture phenomenon, interlaced as ‘twere with surprising yet astute quotations from various philosophers, poets, political theorists, and her parrot, this bit caught my eye:
It was surprising that Laura acted so weak. Her confidence was shattered, she’d been blindsided, she was so terribly tired. She cried. But it wasn’t all weakness. She had the strength to bully Angela, really to try to play a mind game on her, telling her she didn’t deserve another chance…
***
I think I see what she sees in it, now.
CRYING is a sign of WEAKNESS!!! FINISH H-..oh, good, she still had some bullying left in ‘er, that's the spirit.
chomp chomp chomp the popcorn
Lovely person, really; I think she ought to branch out, write childrens’ books, some shit like that.
Dream archive, one more
just a short one; this one from two years ago December:
almost lucid (dream), women brought me to a room where they were going to “roll the beads’ i.e. masturbate me, but also it was some sort of divination, like tarot, “read,” something. consisted of a number of tests. the room was red and carpeted. put me on a table/bed/something. almost pleasurable anticipation. and then. one was “choose one word, just one. that sums up your philosophy,” and among the many many choices were fury, Fury! fury and (something, i forget now), and a bunch of others, fear i think, fright. i chose “fight” or “flight,” even though technically that was two. they seemed to be urging me, no WERE, to hurry, just choose, clock was ticking, they were getting impatient, i was getting somewhat panicky. the one after that, right before i woke up, was something about making a word out of a bunch of other words, or rather making a phrase...anyway i woke up with “stimulation,” or trying to make something out of it...
so woke up making the connection “stimulation=fight or flight.” hm.
almost lucid (dream), women brought me to a room where they were going to “roll the beads’ i.e. masturbate me, but also it was some sort of divination, like tarot, “read,” something. consisted of a number of tests. the room was red and carpeted. put me on a table/bed/something. almost pleasurable anticipation. and then. one was “choose one word, just one. that sums up your philosophy,” and among the many many choices were fury, Fury! fury and (something, i forget now), and a bunch of others, fear i think, fright. i chose “fight” or “flight,” even though technically that was two. they seemed to be urging me, no WERE, to hurry, just choose, clock was ticking, they were getting impatient, i was getting somewhat panicky. the one after that, right before i woke up, was something about making a word out of a bunch of other words, or rather making a phrase...anyway i woke up with “stimulation,” or trying to make something out of it...
so woke up making the connection “stimulation=fight or flight.” hm.
From the archives of the dream journal
Just for a change of pace, and because Alex of Train Mama has been inspiring me with his own dreamtelling. I haven't really kept up with the journal for a while; thought i'd pull an old one or two and see if i had any different take on it now. this one's from about a year and a half ago.
a group. a confusion between irl group therapy and supervision and (spiritual/pagan group I was attending at the time). anyway it was a newly starting group, some people were familiar and some were new. and some of the people who were “familiar” weren’t irl. but ___ from group was there, and she was seriously getting on my nerves. but first of all so this particular group was meeting on this island that was just off the coast of the island of manhattan, you know, some heretofore unknown like roosevelt, but this was more interesting. at one point we were driving, me and [group leader] (i think) and ____ and some other girl,
and it was this lush green island with trees and little...ponds or something...for part of it, and ____ was going on and on about how she’d moved there and how much better it was than the city, and i exchanged a glance with [group leader], you don’t like grass and water, do you? and he said he was more into rocks and hills. and i said i liked all the green, but if i moved i’d be glad that nyc was just across the way, and ____ kind of sniffed. oh, and i asked her what the rents were like and she said they were *very* expensive (she had some other deal going on i guess), $600 an hour. and i said, per HOUR? and she nodded, annoyed. and i said, i’ve never heard of rents being by the hour, that would come to, what, like $36,000 a week? more? i was calculating. and she or he said something about it being a very in-demand vacation spot, which made more sense for the by-the-hour rather than by-the-month bit, but i was still incredulous. there was a lot of that, with ____, the arguing.
later, at some other point in the dream, we were being shown to the “room” in which we were to meet, at least part of the time, and it was kind of cool and wonderful, if a bit daunting, here we were in this kind of deserty landscape with big spectacular (pink i think, “painted desert” colors) rock cliffs and little grottos or whatever carved in, caves, rooms, anyway that was where we were, and i think in this bit there were flashes of the madeline l’engle book i’d reread recently, set in some kind of mythical noah’s ark day, so semi-biblical but with mythological creatures and hints of magic,
anyway there was a bit about nephilim at one point, with the wings, although i think we were just mostly studying about them. so at this point we were gathered and waiting for the rest of the group, which turned out to be quite big, we (me and this other girl) counted to be at least nineteen, not counting the people who weren’t here that week. and we were talking about judeopaganism, which was apparently more or less the point of this group. but at one point ____ and i seemed to be seriously in competition for this other girl’s attention. like, the girl was asking us about tarot, and ____ was showing her her deck but she said, oh, don’t pay attention to the numbers, the important thing is (whatever it was) , some kind of kabbalistic thing. and i was all, well, the way *i* do it, there’s no way not to...
____'s implication was that she was doing it the jewish magic way which was of course the *better* way, and i was arguing that tarot was derived from european traditions, certainly not just kabbalah, you could have a kabbalic deck but in this case it made sense to use the more wiccan approach--but then i realized i didn’t recognize ____’s deck and i was sort of admiring it. but so there was serious competition there.
finally the girl asked ___ specifically if there was a gay and lesbian (wiccan? magic? plain old group?) group that she knew of and ____ nodded with a little smile, but didn’t say more than that before i jumped in with, oh, i go to one on wednesday. and i also volunteered that i belonged to a judeopagan mailing list, and was volunteering the url and talking about how scholarly it was, and at some point in this ___ got fed up and spun away, kind of pirouetting off by herself somewhere in the distance. and i was glad. and so then it was mostly me talking to this other girl, and i don’t know if it was a sexual attraction or not, at first it seemed so but then it was more like the girl was younger and eager/naive about all this new knowledge and i was getting to be the kind of “senior” person. but also i liked her a lot more than ___, she was a lot easier to take.
then we were talking about the study materials, there was a packet of some sort (some biblical i guess, some other? magical i guess) and i was trying to sort it all out, and at one point ___ was back and we were arguing (again) about the proper way to interpret some old testament passage, even though i was aware i was probably very much at a disadvantage here since ___ knew hebrew and had actually studied judaism.
and at some other point we were being shown the room, or climbing to get to it in a way, it was lovely but the climbing was tricky at a couple of points. there was also something about keeping it relatively secret, the whole thing, or at least that room--that is the intimation of oppressive forces and having to close and lock up the room before a certain point. the dream ended and i woke up as we were counting all the various participants (nineteen was a large group, i commented) and we were gathering in a circle, preparing for something or other, to get started i guess. intimations of sunset. pink. lots of *learning,* and connecting with groups, and new people as well as familiar ones, and magic, (coming into power? apprenticeship?) and the excitement of it all...
a group. a confusion between irl group therapy and supervision and (spiritual/pagan group I was attending at the time). anyway it was a newly starting group, some people were familiar and some were new. and some of the people who were “familiar” weren’t irl. but ___ from group was there, and she was seriously getting on my nerves. but first of all so this particular group was meeting on this island that was just off the coast of the island of manhattan, you know, some heretofore unknown like roosevelt, but this was more interesting. at one point we were driving, me and [group leader] (i think) and ____ and some other girl,
and it was this lush green island with trees and little...ponds or something...for part of it, and ____ was going on and on about how she’d moved there and how much better it was than the city, and i exchanged a glance with [group leader], you don’t like grass and water, do you? and he said he was more into rocks and hills. and i said i liked all the green, but if i moved i’d be glad that nyc was just across the way, and ____ kind of sniffed. oh, and i asked her what the rents were like and she said they were *very* expensive (she had some other deal going on i guess), $600 an hour. and i said, per HOUR? and she nodded, annoyed. and i said, i’ve never heard of rents being by the hour, that would come to, what, like $36,000 a week? more? i was calculating. and she or he said something about it being a very in-demand vacation spot, which made more sense for the by-the-hour rather than by-the-month bit, but i was still incredulous. there was a lot of that, with ____, the arguing.
later, at some other point in the dream, we were being shown to the “room” in which we were to meet, at least part of the time, and it was kind of cool and wonderful, if a bit daunting, here we were in this kind of deserty landscape with big spectacular (pink i think, “painted desert” colors) rock cliffs and little grottos or whatever carved in, caves, rooms, anyway that was where we were, and i think in this bit there were flashes of the madeline l’engle book i’d reread recently, set in some kind of mythical noah’s ark day, so semi-biblical but with mythological creatures and hints of magic,
anyway there was a bit about nephilim at one point, with the wings, although i think we were just mostly studying about them. so at this point we were gathered and waiting for the rest of the group, which turned out to be quite big, we (me and this other girl) counted to be at least nineteen, not counting the people who weren’t here that week. and we were talking about judeopaganism, which was apparently more or less the point of this group. but at one point ____ and i seemed to be seriously in competition for this other girl’s attention. like, the girl was asking us about tarot, and ____ was showing her her deck but she said, oh, don’t pay attention to the numbers, the important thing is (whatever it was) , some kind of kabbalistic thing. and i was all, well, the way *i* do it, there’s no way not to...
____'s implication was that she was doing it the jewish magic way which was of course the *better* way, and i was arguing that tarot was derived from european traditions, certainly not just kabbalah, you could have a kabbalic deck but in this case it made sense to use the more wiccan approach--but then i realized i didn’t recognize ____’s deck and i was sort of admiring it. but so there was serious competition there.
finally the girl asked ___ specifically if there was a gay and lesbian (wiccan? magic? plain old group?) group that she knew of and ____ nodded with a little smile, but didn’t say more than that before i jumped in with, oh, i go to one on wednesday. and i also volunteered that i belonged to a judeopagan mailing list, and was volunteering the url and talking about how scholarly it was, and at some point in this ___ got fed up and spun away, kind of pirouetting off by herself somewhere in the distance. and i was glad. and so then it was mostly me talking to this other girl, and i don’t know if it was a sexual attraction or not, at first it seemed so but then it was more like the girl was younger and eager/naive about all this new knowledge and i was getting to be the kind of “senior” person. but also i liked her a lot more than ___, she was a lot easier to take.
then we were talking about the study materials, there was a packet of some sort (some biblical i guess, some other? magical i guess) and i was trying to sort it all out, and at one point ___ was back and we were arguing (again) about the proper way to interpret some old testament passage, even though i was aware i was probably very much at a disadvantage here since ___ knew hebrew and had actually studied judaism.
and at some other point we were being shown the room, or climbing to get to it in a way, it was lovely but the climbing was tricky at a couple of points. there was also something about keeping it relatively secret, the whole thing, or at least that room--that is the intimation of oppressive forces and having to close and lock up the room before a certain point. the dream ended and i woke up as we were counting all the various participants (nineteen was a large group, i commented) and we were gathering in a circle, preparing for something or other, to get started i guess. intimations of sunset. pink. lots of *learning,* and connecting with groups, and new people as well as familiar ones, and magic, (coming into power? apprenticeship?) and the excitement of it all...
Just one last question, really:
this one more specifically related to this last particular kerfuffle and some of the, uhhhhh, people? that i have been exposed to--it's actually quite exciting, whole! new!
--well, not new, of course not new, but i had managed to nearly block it from my memory for a while there, i am now realizing with dawning wonder and not a little nausea
...whole! other! levels! vistas, dimensions! of SHEER HOPELESS FUCKWITTERY
...anyway, I just have this one question:
Three or four DECADES from now, where we're all back to bashing each other with sticks and rocks over who gets the last can of food in the fallout shelter, are some of these assclowns gonna, what, croak out of their second or third mouth,
"damn.....(horrible grinding sound)...you...(koff)...Bill...Clinton! (shudder, fall to ground)...i...blame..youuUUUUU!"
..?
...but, huh, huh, BLOWJOB, huh, huh, cough, expectorate vile blackish substance...huh, uhh, huh-huh...blooooooowjobbb...[hideous mewling sound]...blue...huh...dress...[snicker, barfs up the remains of what used to be a lung]...ci-garrrrrrrrr.....[death rattle, finally, MAYBE????...]
--well, not new, of course not new, but i had managed to nearly block it from my memory for a while there, i am now realizing with dawning wonder and not a little nausea
...whole! other! levels! vistas, dimensions! of SHEER HOPELESS FUCKWITTERY
...anyway, I just have this one question:
Three or four DECADES from now, where we're all back to bashing each other with sticks and rocks over who gets the last can of food in the fallout shelter, are some of these assclowns gonna, what, croak out of their second or third mouth,
"damn.....(horrible grinding sound)...you...(koff)...Bill...Clinton! (shudder, fall to ground)...i...blame..youuUUUUU!"
..?
...but, huh, huh, BLOWJOB, huh, huh, cough, expectorate vile blackish substance...huh, uhh, huh-huh...blooooooowjobbb...[hideous mewling sound]...blue...huh...dress...[snicker, barfs up the remains of what used to be a lung]...ci-garrrrrrrrr.....[death rattle, finally, MAYBE????...]
On a somewhat related note,
(to the Feminist War/Stoning crap, not the intro thread, I mean)
my friend fastlad has this great post on the gender/sexuality politics of American 60's B movies. Sex Panic! Mock the slut! Stone the slut! KILL the slut! for fun and prizes! how dare she express sexual autonomy! and now just look at what she's unleashed: you see what filthy BEASTS men are really, it's always been the same and can NEVER EVER CHANGE... uhhh, wait, no, that doesn't mean what you think it means; it's uh. different. very very totally COMPLETELY different. like, WAY. like RADICALLY, it's different, when we. um. do. hey, look, shiny thing--
60's B Movies. Titillating, cheap, via media's into the anxious cold war/erotic subconscious of the era? Well, yes, clearly. Certainly they share recurring motifs: skip the obvious nuclear threat and your left with the desire for (and rage toward) women, the begrudging acknowledgement of female sexuality and female eroticism, and the consistent and particular contempt for women who are conscious of their own sexual allure, resulting in punishment (usually made literal, through murder/death).
The men in these films have only just emerged from the caves. No one ever sees anything remarkable about this. Enslaved by their own desires and propelled by them, men fight each other for tribal dominance, and they take whatever it is they desire by force. (And any woman who dares to do likewise is automatically a monster).
Since coming to America I have been struck time and again by the frequency of the Sex/Death trope in what you might once have called the American B movie genre (but these horror/slasher/teen sexcapade films have all gone mainstream now and the motifs of late night shlock have become standard fare, recognizable in the cultural mainstream).
But what gets me - hence this rant - is the galling fraudulence. Everyone knows that the bestial male will slash all before him in pursuit of his reluctant prize, everyone knows that the alluring girl will be humiliated terrorized and then killed, yet here they are once again performing the same old bogus dance, quite literally dying on their feet if you will, with the audience anticipating the same old catharsis they have paid $10 bucks to see.
***
There are a number of embedded links to relevant and vastly entertaining YouTube links; go to the original post to click through to 'em.
Also check out the video at this post. WE'RE NOT GAY!!
my friend fastlad has this great post on the gender/sexuality politics of American 60's B movies. Sex Panic! Mock the slut! Stone the slut! KILL the slut! for fun and prizes! how dare she express sexual autonomy! and now just look at what she's unleashed: you see what filthy BEASTS men are really, it's always been the same and can NEVER EVER CHANGE... uhhh, wait, no, that doesn't mean what you think it means; it's uh. different. very very totally COMPLETELY different. like, WAY. like RADICALLY, it's different, when we. um. do. hey, look, shiny thing--
60's B Movies. Titillating, cheap, via media's into the anxious cold war/erotic subconscious of the era? Well, yes, clearly. Certainly they share recurring motifs: skip the obvious nuclear threat and your left with the desire for (and rage toward) women, the begrudging acknowledgement of female sexuality and female eroticism, and the consistent and particular contempt for women who are conscious of their own sexual allure, resulting in punishment (usually made literal, through murder/death).
The men in these films have only just emerged from the caves. No one ever sees anything remarkable about this. Enslaved by their own desires and propelled by them, men fight each other for tribal dominance, and they take whatever it is they desire by force. (And any woman who dares to do likewise is automatically a monster).
Since coming to America I have been struck time and again by the frequency of the Sex/Death trope in what you might once have called the American B movie genre (but these horror/slasher/teen sexcapade films have all gone mainstream now and the motifs of late night shlock have become standard fare, recognizable in the cultural mainstream).
But what gets me - hence this rant - is the galling fraudulence. Everyone knows that the bestial male will slash all before him in pursuit of his reluctant prize, everyone knows that the alluring girl will be humiliated terrorized and then killed, yet here they are once again performing the same old bogus dance, quite literally dying on their feet if you will, with the audience anticipating the same old catharsis they have paid $10 bucks to see.
***
There are a number of embedded links to relevant and vastly entertaining YouTube links; go to the original post to click through to 'em.
Also check out the video at this post. WE'RE NOT GAY!!
Reminder, and for those just tuning in:
If you look over at the sidebar, under "Favorites," there is a post entitled Introduce Yourself Here... Consider it still open. and welcome to all new readers and posters if I didn't already say howdy.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
And so call this my little axe-a-grinding
(quelle surprise),
but, back on the Ann Whatsis/Jessica of Feministing for a mo',
MAY i just say that when you have some of the bigger “real” feminist bloggers saying shit like “sexbot” and when you wear those heels and that skirt you’re making us all look bad, well, is this really all -that- different? No. It’s one step beyond, is all, and i’ve no doubt that a lot of the same people who were all nodnod wrt the Random Bird thing or Rachel Kramer Bussel thing or the "bad actual prostitutes for giving -real- sex-positive feminists (like us) a bad name! bad!" or the “pencil skirts, sexbot” crap that’s been going on for what seems like for damnever, here will be rallying to the support of Jessica, and rightly so;
(ON EDIT: wrote that before even checking, but: ha! and lo! 'twere e'en so!!)
but is it -really- because this situation is SO unfamiliar to us in the supposed “feminist blogosphere?”
or is it because Jessica is One Of Us and Ann is not only a Real Journalist (you know, kind of like Rachel Kramer Bussel, only a lot more so) but so -clearly- a vile reactionary misogynist braindead asshole that, well, it’s a bit uncomfortable-making to realize just how close *we’ve* been coming to this, point of fact?
and, well, we aren't ALL of us so very invested in blowjobs and we don't all wear "slutwear" and we certainly aren't most of us (shudder) (in a totally non-whorephobic/misogynistic, only-concerned-about-theabuse-and-exploitation-sort-of-way) prostitutes;
but, well, shit, we've all or many of us got tits, don't we? or at least know someone who does? and plus goddam, well, she...reminds us of us, more, does Jessica. Up the Establishment!
And you know what: you don't even have to answer that.
All we're (this is the Royal We here, please note) asking here is that you, oh what is the word, uhm, uhm, uhhhhhhhh
examine?
why, yes!
...your shit.
'Cause that is what this has been, what this ALL is, you do know that, right? Shit?
(EDIT THE SECOND: Vanessa at Plucky Punk has been thinking along similar lines)
EDIT THE THIRD: So, okay, Majikthise (among many others, thank God) has been fisking this briskly and, well, it, gobsmack.
I just want to single this bit out for consideration:
Jessica Feministing:
Wow, Ann. You certainly like talking about my breasts. You know, if you feature t-shirts for women, they tend of have breasts in them. And as for my "pose," I moved to the side because I figured that people would be more interested in seeing Clinton than me standing directly in front of him.
As for attacking the content of my site, that's just kind of low. I posted about this on feministing because I was trying to make a point about the insanity that is feminists attacking each other. This is just kind of sad.
2:50 PM, September 15, 2006
Ann Althouse:
Jessica: Why don't you attempt a substantive defense of your own blog instead of saying things here are "low" and "sad"? I'm really disgusted with women fawning over Clinton and playing up to him. Why not read the posts I've linked to here, like this one, and get to some serious reflection about feminism? You come across as a lightweight seeking attention on the web for pretty much nothing. You load up your blog with breasts, and then you're offended why someone points it out. That's low and sad if you want to just dribble out three letter words.
You do not impress me at all. I don't see how you have a damn thing to do with feminism. You seem like a self-promoter appropriating and debasing a word that's important.
Or better yet, why don't you try blogging without those crappy silhouettes and tight T-shirts? And start taking what Clinton did seriously. Then I might begin to have some respect for you. But I expect you'll just come back with another wow, Ann, you're really low and sad to talk about my breasts comment. And that will be totally lame, let me say in advance. It's obvious that you're bending over backwards -- figuratively and literally -- to keep the attention on your breasts. How about some actual intellectual substance instead?
***
And that right there, friends and neighbors, is a classic example of Bullying 101. Study it closely. Note the heavy use of projection, the "we've just suddenly changed the rules without even acknowledging it," the general strange sense of coming untethered.
But most of all, this is really rather extraordinary, in a banal sort of way:
You've got a lot of explaining to do. I can see why you prefer to go on the offensive and attack me. But all you're attacking me for is something I pointed out about you. Why don't you defend yourself?
Let's zoom in on that even further, shall we?
"Why don't you defend yourself?"
What a question, eh?
IOW:
"I AM ATTACKING YOU AND WOULD GREATLY PREFER THAT WE KEEP THE FOCUS ON YOU, BECAUSE ANY POINTING OUT OF -MY- PART IN THIS IS LIKE AN MORTAL ATTACK ON MY FRAGILE LITTLE EGO. I DON'T DESERVE SUCH TREATMENT! I'M NOT LIKE YOU! I DON'T LIKE PAIN! IT HURTS ME! C'MON, LET'S PLAY MORE!! GIVE ME SOMETHING ELSE TO WORK WITH SO I CAN -REALLY- GET MY TEETH INTO YOU! "DEFEND" YOURSELF! BECAUSE GODDAM DO I EVER LIKE BEING OFFENSIVE!"
***
EDIT THE FOURTH AND HOPEFULLY LAST:
Nasty little perv that i am, it occurs to me, not for the first time, to wonder just what is going on with women like this; for I have encountered them, albeit perhaps not -quite- so egregiously assholish. You know: deeply conservative, very hot and bothered about the shameful, shameful way young women dress these days. Deep cleavage, no bra, everything hanging out, you can see the outline of the panties, jiggling everywhere, I didn't know which way to look; that sort of thing. Sure, to a certain extent this is a cultural/generational thing, or can be. But they do go on, sometimes, some women, is the thing, and the tone can sometimes turn rather...odd. Unpleasant, certainly. But...odd.
and of course people tend to immediately leap to, well, as here: jealous much? Vicariously embarassed because you're desperately trying to avoid being cast as the "bimbo" your own sweet climbing self, tag someone else gets to be it?
And all of that, sure; but, I gotta say it: yer average wingnut man who goes on and on about another man's attire and wanton attention to one of his more fetchingly seductive body parts, well, people are pretty goddam quick to call "oh, good morning! I smell deeply closeted repressed sex-u-AL-ity! mmMMMmm, internalized homophobia and thwarted lust..."
...even if said wingnut -doesn't- manage to throw in a homophobic slur (although it also occurs to me that given our particular mores, that scenario is pretty unlikely, isn't it? somehow managing to talk about another man's looks or fetching attire without at least insinuating that he's gay. could happen though, i guess).
But here, well, not so much. Women are "allowed" to say such things in ways that men are not. Focus on another woman's body in great detail, for good or for ill. Usually for ill, natch.
But even so. If no one else will, I'm gonna say it, just because I am that sort of person:
What else about this woman's breasts is vexating you so, Ann?
but, back on the Ann Whatsis/Jessica of Feministing for a mo',
MAY i just say that when you have some of the bigger “real” feminist bloggers saying shit like “sexbot” and when you wear those heels and that skirt you’re making us all look bad, well, is this really all -that- different? No. It’s one step beyond, is all, and i’ve no doubt that a lot of the same people who were all nodnod wrt the Random Bird thing or Rachel Kramer Bussel thing or the "bad actual prostitutes for giving -real- sex-positive feminists (like us) a bad name! bad!" or the “pencil skirts, sexbot” crap that’s been going on for what seems like for damnever, here will be rallying to the support of Jessica, and rightly so;
(ON EDIT: wrote that before even checking, but: ha! and lo! 'twere e'en so!!)
but is it -really- because this situation is SO unfamiliar to us in the supposed “feminist blogosphere?”
or is it because Jessica is One Of Us and Ann is not only a Real Journalist (you know, kind of like Rachel Kramer Bussel, only a lot more so) but so -clearly- a vile reactionary misogynist braindead asshole that, well, it’s a bit uncomfortable-making to realize just how close *we’ve* been coming to this, point of fact?
and, well, we aren't ALL of us so very invested in blowjobs and we don't all wear "slutwear" and we certainly aren't most of us (shudder) (in a totally non-whorephobic/misogynistic, only-concerned-about-theabuse-and-exploitation-sort-of-way) prostitutes;
but, well, shit, we've all or many of us got tits, don't we? or at least know someone who does? and plus goddam, well, she...reminds us of us, more, does Jessica. Up the Establishment!
And you know what: you don't even have to answer that.
All we're (this is the Royal We here, please note) asking here is that you, oh what is the word, uhm, uhm, uhhhhhhhh
examine?
why, yes!
...your shit.
'Cause that is what this has been, what this ALL is, you do know that, right? Shit?
(EDIT THE SECOND: Vanessa at Plucky Punk has been thinking along similar lines)
EDIT THE THIRD: So, okay, Majikthise (among many others, thank God) has been fisking this briskly and, well, it, gobsmack.
I just want to single this bit out for consideration:
Jessica Feministing:
Wow, Ann. You certainly like talking about my breasts. You know, if you feature t-shirts for women, they tend of have breasts in them. And as for my "pose," I moved to the side because I figured that people would be more interested in seeing Clinton than me standing directly in front of him.
As for attacking the content of my site, that's just kind of low. I posted about this on feministing because I was trying to make a point about the insanity that is feminists attacking each other. This is just kind of sad.
2:50 PM, September 15, 2006
Ann Althouse:
Jessica: Why don't you attempt a substantive defense of your own blog instead of saying things here are "low" and "sad"? I'm really disgusted with women fawning over Clinton and playing up to him. Why not read the posts I've linked to here, like this one, and get to some serious reflection about feminism? You come across as a lightweight seeking attention on the web for pretty much nothing. You load up your blog with breasts, and then you're offended why someone points it out. That's low and sad if you want to just dribble out three letter words.
You do not impress me at all. I don't see how you have a damn thing to do with feminism. You seem like a self-promoter appropriating and debasing a word that's important.
Or better yet, why don't you try blogging without those crappy silhouettes and tight T-shirts? And start taking what Clinton did seriously. Then I might begin to have some respect for you. But I expect you'll just come back with another wow, Ann, you're really low and sad to talk about my breasts comment. And that will be totally lame, let me say in advance. It's obvious that you're bending over backwards -- figuratively and literally -- to keep the attention on your breasts. How about some actual intellectual substance instead?
***
And that right there, friends and neighbors, is a classic example of Bullying 101. Study it closely. Note the heavy use of projection, the "we've just suddenly changed the rules without even acknowledging it," the general strange sense of coming untethered.
But most of all, this is really rather extraordinary, in a banal sort of way:
You've got a lot of explaining to do. I can see why you prefer to go on the offensive and attack me. But all you're attacking me for is something I pointed out about you. Why don't you defend yourself?
Let's zoom in on that even further, shall we?
"Why don't you defend yourself?"
What a question, eh?
IOW:
"I AM ATTACKING YOU AND WOULD GREATLY PREFER THAT WE KEEP THE FOCUS ON YOU, BECAUSE ANY POINTING OUT OF -MY- PART IN THIS IS LIKE AN MORTAL ATTACK ON MY FRAGILE LITTLE EGO. I DON'T DESERVE SUCH TREATMENT! I'M NOT LIKE YOU! I DON'T LIKE PAIN! IT HURTS ME! C'MON, LET'S PLAY MORE!! GIVE ME SOMETHING ELSE TO WORK WITH SO I CAN -REALLY- GET MY TEETH INTO YOU! "DEFEND" YOURSELF! BECAUSE GODDAM DO I EVER LIKE BEING OFFENSIVE!"
***
EDIT THE FOURTH AND HOPEFULLY LAST:
Nasty little perv that i am, it occurs to me, not for the first time, to wonder just what is going on with women like this; for I have encountered them, albeit perhaps not -quite- so egregiously assholish. You know: deeply conservative, very hot and bothered about the shameful, shameful way young women dress these days. Deep cleavage, no bra, everything hanging out, you can see the outline of the panties, jiggling everywhere, I didn't know which way to look; that sort of thing. Sure, to a certain extent this is a cultural/generational thing, or can be. But they do go on, sometimes, some women, is the thing, and the tone can sometimes turn rather...odd. Unpleasant, certainly. But...odd.
and of course people tend to immediately leap to, well, as here: jealous much? Vicariously embarassed because you're desperately trying to avoid being cast as the "bimbo" your own sweet climbing self, tag someone else gets to be it?
And all of that, sure; but, I gotta say it: yer average wingnut man who goes on and on about another man's attire and wanton attention to one of his more fetchingly seductive body parts, well, people are pretty goddam quick to call "oh, good morning! I smell deeply closeted repressed sex-u-AL-ity! mmMMMmm, internalized homophobia and thwarted lust..."
...even if said wingnut -doesn't- manage to throw in a homophobic slur (although it also occurs to me that given our particular mores, that scenario is pretty unlikely, isn't it? somehow managing to talk about another man's looks or fetching attire without at least insinuating that he's gay. could happen though, i guess).
But here, well, not so much. Women are "allowed" to say such things in ways that men are not. Focus on another woman's body in great detail, for good or for ill. Usually for ill, natch.
But even so. If no one else will, I'm gonna say it, just because I am that sort of person:
What else about this woman's breasts is vexating you so, Ann?
"Clowns to the left of me. Jokers to the right! Here I am..."
"stuck in the middle with...?"
Or is it even the middle? Probably not by most peoples' definitions; but then, perhaps, that's the point. I'm feeling a bit tired of most peoples' definitions, on the whole. ON EDIT: "Sociopolitically and otherwise."
(i am NOT TRIPPING. NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT. NO).
...and I don't know as I want to stay "stuck."
just on the whole i feel roughly like, it's not so much that I see "black!" "white!" and am all, "it's all shades of grey! possibly all even more or less the same shade of grey! soothe soothe! can't we all just...?"
more like, "dude, didn't this box of crayons come with like a whole bunch of OTHER colors? this shit is boring, and I can't even see the picture anymore."
Or is it even the middle? Probably not by most peoples' definitions; but then, perhaps, that's the point. I'm feeling a bit tired of most peoples' definitions, on the whole. ON EDIT: "Sociopolitically and otherwise."
(i am NOT TRIPPING. NOT ONE TEENY TINY BIT. NO).
...and I don't know as I want to stay "stuck."
just on the whole i feel roughly like, it's not so much that I see "black!" "white!" and am all, "it's all shades of grey! possibly all even more or less the same shade of grey! soothe soothe! can't we all just...?"
more like, "dude, didn't this box of crayons come with like a whole bunch of OTHER colors? this shit is boring, and I can't even see the picture anymore."
Friday, September 15, 2006
Can't argue with that logic
Just more wisdom from Fearless Leader. Via a comment at Kakistocrats, this observation was apparently made:
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?
THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.
Well, that explains certain ummmm conversations I've had recently, I expect. here i was thinking "nail polish remover fumes? large blunt objects making forceful impact with tender unprotected bits? alien transmission via fillings?"
But no; duh; I simply haven't been watching the "news" for quite a while. Quacking heads and all; from whence this comes; from whence this comes and comes and comes.
and NOW i remember why the intranet feminist flamewars seem so very compelling;
because it helps me forget that all this other shit is going on, God help us all.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?
THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.
Well, that explains certain ummmm conversations I've had recently, I expect. here i was thinking "nail polish remover fumes? large blunt objects making forceful impact with tender unprotected bits? alien transmission via fillings?"
But no; duh; I simply haven't been watching the "news" for quite a while. Quacking heads and all; from whence this comes; from whence this comes and comes and comes.
and NOW i remember why the intranet feminist flamewars seem so very compelling;
because it helps me forget that all this other shit is going on, God help us all.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
"I DEFY you, Miss Haversham!"
"Senate panel defies Bush on terror" (AP)
WASHINGTON - A rebellious Senate committee defied President Bush on Thursday and approved terror-detainee legislation he has vowed to block, deepening Republican conflict over terrorism and national security in the middle of the election season.
Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, normally a Bush supporter, pushed the measure through his Armed Services Committee by a 15-9 vote, with Warner and three other GOP lawmakers joining Democrats. The vote set the stage for a showdown on the Senate floor as early as next week.
In an embarrassment to the White House, Colin Powell — Bush's first secretary of state — announced his opposition to his old boss' plan, saying it would hurt the country. Powell's successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, jumped to the president's defense in a letter of her own.
All this played out after Bush started his day by journeying to the Capitol to try nailing down support for his own version of the legislation — and by issuing a threat to the maverick Republicans.
"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush said at the White House.
The president's measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting CIA and other U.S. interrogators against prosecution for using methods that may violate the Geneva Conventions.
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in his letter...
In other news, there may be something to this "climate change" thingie after all; Americans seem to be a tad overfocused on the sexual act they call "blowjob;" Britney Spears is looking a bit past her prime; and Soylent Green is probably not something you want for din-din even if it IS the next Iron Chef battle ingredient.
WASHINGTON - A rebellious Senate committee defied President Bush on Thursday and approved terror-detainee legislation he has vowed to block, deepening Republican conflict over terrorism and national security in the middle of the election season.
Republican Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, normally a Bush supporter, pushed the measure through his Armed Services Committee by a 15-9 vote, with Warner and three other GOP lawmakers joining Democrats. The vote set the stage for a showdown on the Senate floor as early as next week.
In an embarrassment to the White House, Colin Powell — Bush's first secretary of state — announced his opposition to his old boss' plan, saying it would hurt the country. Powell's successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, jumped to the president's defense in a letter of her own.
All this played out after Bush started his day by journeying to the Capitol to try nailing down support for his own version of the legislation — and by issuing a threat to the maverick Republicans.
"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush said at the White House.
The president's measure would go further than the Senate package in allowing classified evidence to be withheld from defendants in terror trials, using coerced testimony and protecting CIA and other U.S. interrogators against prosecution for using methods that may violate the Geneva Conventions.
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in his letter...
In other news, there may be something to this "climate change" thingie after all; Americans seem to be a tad overfocused on the sexual act they call "blowjob;" Britney Spears is looking a bit past her prime; and Soylent Green is probably not something you want for din-din even if it IS the next Iron Chef battle ingredient.
Well, O.K., if youse insist
Via Bitch | Lab, a number of links to articles where, in her words, conservatives implore us to "Fire our asses!"
On a more somber note: R.I.P., Ann Richards.
On a more somber note: R.I.P., Ann Richards.
Thank you, brownfemipower
...for posting this:
Did you know that…
* women can be raped by other women?
* women can sexually assault other women?
* violence occurs in 1 out of 4 lesbian relationships?
* lesbian domestic violence often includes lesbian rape?
* lesbian rape is almost always unreported?
Why don’t we hear more about this?
Because many people define rape as penetration by a penis, woman to woman rape is not acknowledged or is not taken seriously. But in fact, it is estimated that 1 out of 3 lesbians have been sexually assaulted by another woman.
Lesbians and bisexual women are targeted for sexual violence. Most of these crimes go unreported. In addition to surviving sexual violence perpetrated by other lesbians, lesbian survivors are also raped by men. In the U.S., homophobia and heterosexism set the stage for many forms of violence, including sexual violence against lesbians. The majority of these crimes go unreported.
...
Rape is about power and control and not about roles. There is a myth that butches are never raped and femmes never rape. The fact is that regardless of how one identifies s/he can be raped. There is no way to tell by looking at two women who is the rapist and who is the survivor. While some butches rape, so do some femmes...
Barriers to confronting same-sex rape:
Women who survive same-sex rape go through a similar recovery process as people who survive opposite-sex rape. This can include feeling confused, angry, scared, etc. In addition to these feelings, we also experience barriers to recovery as a result of living in a heterosexist and homophobic society. Some of these barriers include:
DISBELIEF. Many people do not want to believe or are unaware that same-sex rape happens. If it is acknowledged, often it is thought to be “not as bad” as male-female rape.
DENIAL. Even lesbians and bisexual women do not want to believe that we could hurt each other. But rape and sexual assault happen in our communities: on dates, in relationships, between acquaintances, coworkers and strangers.
HOMOPHOBIA. Another reason for hesitating to talk about same sex rape is the fear of being accused of betraying the queer community. Because of denial and disbelief on one hand, and the homophobia and heterosexism of the society on the other hand, many lesbians and bisexual women do not want to hear that women can hurt each other. The survivor may be accused of betraying “the community” an be isolated from support.
Also includes some more general basics that we should all know by now, but...
Most of the me who sexually abuse children are heterosexual. Statistics show that unlike the popular opinion, most of the cases of child sexual abuse are committed by heterosexual men...
Most of the rapes in the U.S. are committed by white men. Many people in the U.S. wrongly believe that the majority of rapes are committed by men-of-color against white women. The fact is that 90% of rapes occur between people of the same race. However, men-of-Color are disproportionately incarcerated.
Differently-abled women are at higher risk of being sexually assaulted than other women. Women with disabilities are often targeted for sexual violence. This violence is often made invisible by society’s false assumptions that rape is about sex and that women with disabilities are asexual. Women with developmental disabilities are at 50% higher risk of being sexually assaulted/
Women-of Color are raped at a higher rate than white women. Women-of-Color have survived rapes by men of their own communities, in addition to rapes committed by white men. Myths such as “women of color are unrapable or oversexed” were intentionally created to erase the history of rape and brutalization of Women-of-Color by white men.
Women do not ask to be raped by dressing a certain way or being out late at night. A woman may be raped in any kind of clothing. Rape is a violence choice made solely by the rapist, and has nothing to do with what a woman wears. A woman should be able to choose what she wears, where she goes, who she has sex with, and NOT BE RAPED. Rape is used as a way to control women and their choices.
Did you know that…
* women can be raped by other women?
* women can sexually assault other women?
* violence occurs in 1 out of 4 lesbian relationships?
* lesbian domestic violence often includes lesbian rape?
* lesbian rape is almost always unreported?
Why don’t we hear more about this?
Because many people define rape as penetration by a penis, woman to woman rape is not acknowledged or is not taken seriously. But in fact, it is estimated that 1 out of 3 lesbians have been sexually assaulted by another woman.
Lesbians and bisexual women are targeted for sexual violence. Most of these crimes go unreported. In addition to surviving sexual violence perpetrated by other lesbians, lesbian survivors are also raped by men. In the U.S., homophobia and heterosexism set the stage for many forms of violence, including sexual violence against lesbians. The majority of these crimes go unreported.
...
Rape is about power and control and not about roles. There is a myth that butches are never raped and femmes never rape. The fact is that regardless of how one identifies s/he can be raped. There is no way to tell by looking at two women who is the rapist and who is the survivor. While some butches rape, so do some femmes...
Barriers to confronting same-sex rape:
Women who survive same-sex rape go through a similar recovery process as people who survive opposite-sex rape. This can include feeling confused, angry, scared, etc. In addition to these feelings, we also experience barriers to recovery as a result of living in a heterosexist and homophobic society. Some of these barriers include:
DISBELIEF. Many people do not want to believe or are unaware that same-sex rape happens. If it is acknowledged, often it is thought to be “not as bad” as male-female rape.
DENIAL. Even lesbians and bisexual women do not want to believe that we could hurt each other. But rape and sexual assault happen in our communities: on dates, in relationships, between acquaintances, coworkers and strangers.
HOMOPHOBIA. Another reason for hesitating to talk about same sex rape is the fear of being accused of betraying the queer community. Because of denial and disbelief on one hand, and the homophobia and heterosexism of the society on the other hand, many lesbians and bisexual women do not want to hear that women can hurt each other. The survivor may be accused of betraying “the community” an be isolated from support.
Also includes some more general basics that we should all know by now, but...
Most of the me who sexually abuse children are heterosexual. Statistics show that unlike the popular opinion, most of the cases of child sexual abuse are committed by heterosexual men...
Most of the rapes in the U.S. are committed by white men. Many people in the U.S. wrongly believe that the majority of rapes are committed by men-of-color against white women. The fact is that 90% of rapes occur between people of the same race. However, men-of-Color are disproportionately incarcerated.
Differently-abled women are at higher risk of being sexually assaulted than other women. Women with disabilities are often targeted for sexual violence. This violence is often made invisible by society’s false assumptions that rape is about sex and that women with disabilities are asexual. Women with developmental disabilities are at 50% higher risk of being sexually assaulted/
Women-of Color are raped at a higher rate than white women. Women-of-Color have survived rapes by men of their own communities, in addition to rapes committed by white men. Myths such as “women of color are unrapable or oversexed” were intentionally created to erase the history of rape and brutalization of Women-of-Color by white men.
Women do not ask to be raped by dressing a certain way or being out late at night. A woman may be raped in any kind of clothing. Rape is a violence choice made solely by the rapist, and has nothing to do with what a woman wears. A woman should be able to choose what she wears, where she goes, who she has sex with, and NOT BE RAPED. Rape is used as a way to control women and their choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
