Being Amber Rhea

melissa:

rkb:

You lose a lot by not being anonymous, and maybe the only thing you gain is the freedom from worrying about being outed. I’m with Melissa in that I’m not sure what Emily wrote is something I necessarily want to avoid. I’m still figuring all this out, and probably always will be. I don’t know that you can ever fully manage your online persona (or offline), because at the end of the day, whether you say everything or nothing or opt for somewhere in between, there will always be haters, there will always be misinterpretations, there will always be someone who’s uncomfortable with what you’ve said.

Also with Rachel here: I want to talk less about “oversharing” and more about the gutter. “Oversharing” has jumped the theoretical shark. In academia, we’d say the term and the way its deployed is overdetermined, but this is the Internet, and so, sharks it is. Chomp. We need better tools to take this thing apart. Using “oversharing” as our analytic lens is like using Gawker commenters to issue a Human Rights Declaration. And what I mean by the “gutter” is what Scott McCloud nailed in Understanding Comics — that we have been trained as readers to fill in the gaps between images (read also: blog posts, Twitter updates, News Feed items). This is where we as readers/users engage a text as authors (little “a,” Barthes bear with me). This is where the people formerly known as the audience get a front seat in our own lives, as writers, producers, creatives, insert overplayed word you’re too scared to apply to yourself and your work here. Plus all the connotations of the gutter are perfect for what we’re really pointing at here: body/bawdy talk, cum and tears, love and loss. Look at the examples Susan and Viviane pulled for their talk: girl, sex, blog.

If you haven’t read Amanda’s series of posts chronicling her now-completed stint at Bella’s, you are really missing out on some of the best, most insightful writing in a long time. So get on over there and read it. I’ll wait.

Tonight as I was trying to catch up on my almost 300 unread posts in Bloglines (I’ve been on a self-mandated break from reading many blogs other than a select few; this crap really made me feel down in the dumps about blogging for a while), I noticed that someone else, heretofore unknown-to-me blogger Mariko Passion, has now started a journal of her experiences at Bella’s. Cool! Maybe Amanda has started a trend.

Recently I had dinner w/ Lia of Star Light Ministries. And, no surprise, she is awesome. At one point during our extended dinner conversation, we were talking about all the assumptions that are made about women in sex work, and the problem of assuming that the goal of a ministry for sex workers is for the workers to “get out” of sex work. Because as Lia said, that’s judging the work they do and therefore judging them. Plus it’s just the same old stereotypes - obviously no woman would want to be in sex work, obviously they would all do something else if only they had the chance, etc. ad nauseum. I said that even though I feel like it’s not a popular thing to say in activist communities, because I feel like it makes me look like I’m being selfish (ah, that old meme in my head) or shifting the focus, the truth is that beyond just being irritated w/ these assumptions on general principles, I also take them personally. Sex work is something I’ve been drawn to for a long time - at least 10 years - and although as of now I haven’t actually done anything about it, I do take offense to the notion that there must be some pathological explanation for my interest in sex work. I know myself, I know how I feel, and I know that I feel that sex work is something that is interesting/appealing to me. You don’t have to understand it, but hey, I don’t understand why some people want to become lawyers or sales reps or flight attendants, so there you go. I’m smart, responsible, self-aware, capable - and I shouldn’t have to go into this defensive mode of justifying myself, but that’s how it always happens.

Lia asked why I hadn’t tried sex work. With stripping, my answer used to be* that I couldn’t walk in heels, much less dance (with or without heels). That’s obviously no longer a problem, but my issues with it now are:

• I don’t know of any non-smoking strip clubs in Atlanta. Being around cigarette smoke for extended periods of time, especially in poorly-ventilated areas, gives me a pounding headache and makes me feel generally like shit.
• I hate approaching strangers. I really just can’t do it; I get panicky about it. So obviously a job where I have to hustle for lap dances isn’t a good fit for me.
• The bullshit. We’ll come back to this in a minute.

As for escorting or even stuff like FBSM, when Lia asked why I’d never done it, my answer was much shorter: “I’m afraid of getting arrested.” That’s it, plain and simple. And more specifically, I’m afraid of getting arrested and being victimized by the cops. Insert here yet another diatribe about the importance of decriminalization of prostitution.

(To be fair, there are other issues w/ escorting in particular, like the fact that it seems like you have to pretend to give a shit about what the clients are talking about, really really enjoy their company and hang on their every fascinating word… and as Dacia has said about herself, I, too, have no poker face. I have tons of respect for people who can do it, but I just can’t. But that’s not really relevant, because there are many other kinds of sex work that are vaguely escort-like but not as focused on being a companion.)

Lia said she thought I should (only if I wanted to, of course) do what Amanda was doing: try a brief stint at a legal brothel and just see how it goes. I told her there’s no way I would do that. Why? Because of the bullshit.

Just read Amanda’s posts and you’ll see what I’m talking about. The nickel-and-diming with all kinds of fees. The customers trying to lowball you all the time. The cabin fever. Having to do shifts on the damn CB radio.

And the stuff that’s not just annoying, but potentially dangerous: The lack of adequate security. The creepy (yet required by law - ’cause prostitution is legal and therefore the girls are safe, see!) doctor. The drunkenness of customers, and of people to whom you’re entrusting your safety. The lack of easy access to an exit in case of an emergency. The pressure to potentially put one’s health at risk for the sake of not letting “money” walk out the door.

Obviously all jobs have their annoyances. But these are above and beyond what I could put up with. The second set, the ones that are downright dangerous, are obviously conditions that no job should have, ever. The first set, the “annoyances,” all exemplify a huge pet peeve of mine, something that just drives me up a wall: micromanagement by people on little power trips.

It seems to me that that’s what’s behind a lot of this stuff. It’s the same at strip clubs, with the house fees and drink quotas and tipping every damn person on staff… on and on… to me it reeks of people trying to control things and make themselves feel like Oooh Big Important People in whatever tiny way possible. Insecurity. Bred out of a stigmatized industry, not surprisingly. It seems like a vicious cycle.

Major respect to Amanda for doing this and documenting it. What she’s doing is extremely important, and she is an amazing person to have the patience to deal with it at all. I really can’t convey how much respect I have for her w/ this series.

One thing’s sure, her posts have confirmed what I’d suspected for a long time: if I were to be an escort (or whatever), I’d be independent, no doubt about it. Of course I have plenty of issues w/ freelancing in general, but in this case it is definitely the way to go, no question.

* And just look at the comments on that thread for a perfect example of the “explanations on demand” thing. It’s crazy-making, I tell you.

So a few days ago Grayson was kicked off the front page of Peach Pundit. I don’t read Peach Pundit, because I find the place toxic and can’t bear to be there for even a few seconds without feeling ill (and no, I’m not exaggerating), so I wouldn’t have known if someone else hadn’t told me. Frankly I don’t understand why so many people seem to bow to Peach Pundit even though it’s blatantly obvious that the place is not trying to be some comprehensive resource for Georgia politics, and exists only as a place for the nastiest version of the old boys club, moved online, to jerk themselves off and feel better about themselves by hurling around schoolyard insults. Problem being, of course, that when you’re in a position of power and privilege relative to those who are on the receiving end of the hurling, it’s not something that can be written off with “just ignore it” or “they’re just idiots.” I mean, they are idiots, but they’re idiots whose words and actions can have real-world effects. This is why the “just ignore it” trope never worked for me. (Well, this and other, related reasons.) Not everyone has the luxury of “just ignoring it” - because if you do, something terrible and very real might happen.

That said, I do my best to “ignore it” by simply not visiting Peach Pundit. I’ve got enough on my plate at the moment without adding that heaping mound of BS. There isn’t room in my brain to deal with the drama of a bunch of disaffected white guys who totally aren’t sexist, so why don’t you shut up about it already… geez why are you so oversensitive, you humorless bitch? Also, you’re ugly, and probably a lesbian (because that would be the worst thing!), and I would never fuck you (such a loss!), etc. etc.

This is my lived experience. This is the lived experience of countless other women. No, you do not get to question it or invalidate it. THIS IS MY TRUTH. IT IS REAL.

So anyway, I didn’t know about Grayson being kicked off until Rusty told me about it. I thought, “Huh, that’s fucked up” but didn’t think more because like I said, there’s just not room in my brain right now for the PP bullshit - I have more important things I need to think about. I never understood why Grayson wrote there in the first place; the few times I would go over to PP (before I imposed a self-ban for the sake of my mental health) I would see her getting attacked and abused constantly, and no one did a damn thing about it. As for why she continued to write there, the only thing I could think was it was like Melissa’s reason for persevering at Valleywag (a place I find comparably hostile, if not as openly Republican):

My tactic has been to go ahead and take my stories where they dare not go, breaking with this whole “pink ghetto” nonsense as a game — I want to see what happens when I refuse to believe that there’s a certain way to be authentic and there’s a certain “right” audience for my work. Being a whore has made me very, very comfortable with letting people think I’m everything they want me to be for them, even as I’m doing (mostly) what I please.

And I really respect that. Coincidentally, Melissa put up that post right around the time I quit Download Squad. Some people can stand up to that sort of abuse, and not let it get them down, and stay focused on what they’re trying to do, and hopefully reach even just 1 person out of 1,000. I can’t. I don’t think that makes me weak or not as good of a writer/blogger/idealist/whatever or not as dedicated… or whatever else people might be prone to say. Those accusations are the easy way out, the way to cast judgment without taking a deeper look at all the layers of a situation.

Going back to Melissa’s quote above, the part I’m not comfortable with is letting people think I’m a [x], when really I’m doing my own thing. I have my moments; in certain situations, I can handle that. But overall? I have this need for people to understand, and anything else feels out of whack in my system, and I can’t deal. I know that’s a hindrance to me, because there are some people who just won’t understand, plain and simple, because of their own shit, no matter how much I try to explain and be clear and find the point of communication breakdown. I wish I could get over that, though, because I know it’s pragmatism (which I am a huge fan of); that’s how you get what you need done. I guess for me, getting what I need done has to take other avenues, for now.

As for Grayson’s situation at Peach Pundit, let me be very clear(!) that this has fuck-all to do with the substance of her writing there: was it on topic, was it off topic, was it inflammatory, blah blah blah. I don’t know, because I didn’t read it; and I don’t care. It’s immaterial to my concerns. To try to drag that into the conversation is to divert attention from the larger issue and to move dangerously close to “blame the victim” territory. What I care about is the pattern of behavior. This is how women are treated online. This is the same old shit over and over again, regardless of the particulars of the situation of the moment. This is how male bloggers go around their ass to get to their elbow, anything, my god, to avoid admitting that yeah, there’s a gendered explanation for what they’re doing, and the problem is with them, and it’s not okay.

This exhausts me. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat the same basic shit. And it’s not about my personal feelings for one blogger or another. It’s about a pattern of behavior. I can hardly even bear to type this because it feels so ridiculously repetitive - and it just upsets me. A lot.

Here’s an IM conversation between Rusty and me, from a few days ago. Ideally, I would write a totally well-thought-out, well-written post based on this conversation, complete with links and citations and references; instead, I’m letting it stand alone.

[15:55] Rusty: saw the email re: grayson…on one hand feel sort of bad for piling on, but on the other can’t really help but be a little disappointed that she got pretty viciously personal about it
[15:56] Amber: yeah, but i don’t think it’s really an appropriate time to focus on that. it reminds me of ppl who try to pretend all things are equal when they’re not. it’s like, why focus on that (whcih sucked and was uncalled for, no one is denying that) and not the MOUNTAIN of SHIT they’ve heaped on her?
[15:57] Amber: it’s like, you do one little thing that’s “out of line” when you’re dealing with people shitting all over you, and THAT is what gets focused on/ called out. i’ve seen it a lot ’round my blogosphere travels, and it bothers me.
[15:59] Rusty: thing is, she has been writing tons of irrelevant posts on the site..and yeah, other people write some, but with her it was like more than half her posts were that way…erick has been kind of spineless about reigning that in, hence exposing her to a lot of abuse that could have been avoided
[16:00] Amber: well see, i think that’s erick’s fault
[16:00] Amber: it’s his responsibility, as editor, to tell ppl when they are writing off topic stuff and make sure they don’t continue
[16:00] Rusty: yeah, which is something I mentioned in my blog post
[16:01] Amber: i know, which further shows that the playing field isn’t even. it’s like, why focus on her remark, rather than his lack of holding up his responsibilities, and then just pulling the plug? that was a shitty and unprofessional (and he wants to be “professional” which is why i pull that out) thing to do
[16:04] Rusty: it was still an uncool remark that I can’t let slide without saying something, even all other things considered…how devastating would it be if someone started talking her and her kid? I don’t think that’s acceptable under any circumstance
[16:05] Amber: it’s not acceptable, and i don’t disagree w/ that. but why let all of the other bullshit abuse she’s taken slide, and not this?
[16:05] Rusty: I don’t think I’m letting it slide
[16:06] Amber: it’s been going on for months… so my thing is, when ppl do this, it’s like, ok, yeah, that one thing was shitty, but how about this mountaitn of shit that’s been going on for a long time and is much worse? why did that never warrant a calling-out? why pile on the person being shat on at this particular time?
[16:07] Rusty: well, take the thing with jefferson…lots of people have been letting a lot of shitty behavior slide for a long time and are just now talking about it publicly..you included…that doesn’t invalidate any of it
[16:08] Amber: i see this as a different situation, bc jefferson has a court case going on with real-world implications and is asking for money
[16:09] Amber: i think what pushed a lot of ppl over the edge w/ him is that he’s asking for $20,000
[16:10] Rusty: yeah, certainly that’s greater motivation than in this case…but sometimes it takes a big public display to draw those comments out
[16:11] Amber: i think in the case w/ grayson, it’s pretty lopsided
[16:11] Amber: i’ve just seen this happen far too often in some of the blog circles i frequent, esp. with women… it happened to me at download squad, for example
[16:12] Amber: ppl left some vile, misogynistic comments on my post - personal comments -and nobody said a word. but the minute i did something i maybe shouldn’t have - twittered that the commenters were assholes - everybody was all over my shit
[16:12] Amber: now you tell me that’s fair
[16:16] Rusty: nope, not fair at all…and I’m not at all arguing that grayson has been treated fairly there…she hasn’t…but while erick may be tangentially responsible for some vile things said to her through his editorial negligence, he never personally attacked her…and she brought his parenting into it…I still think that’s beyond the pale even given the history
[16:19] Amber: he never personally attacked her, but he never defended her, either. and in a way that’s worse. at download squad, grant never personally attacked me, but he never stepped in to say anything to the misogynistic commenters, either - and as editor that was his responsibility. and i think that’s worse. it stinks.
[16:21] Rusty: it’s definitely shitty. but again, I’m disappointed that she went there because it makes the job of defending her very difficult. it was a fucked up thing to say
[16:23] Amber: it totally was. and i thnk there’s a way to point that out w/o making it seem slanted like “let’s focus on this one thing she said while people were treating her like garbage”. there’s a way to say that personal attacks are uncalled for, and use that as one example - but point out that the MOUNTAIN of unprovoked, awful comments she endured for months with no defense are a million other examples, and the silence on the matter has been deafening
[16:25] Rusty: I think I tried to acknowledge that in my post
[16:25] Rusty: I think there are problems with Peach Pundit, and that Grayson has taken abuse there that is disproportionate to any wrongs she is alleged to have committed prior to today.
[16:26] Amber: i just don’t think that point has been made - by anyone, me included, and that’s my bad bc i’ve been meaning to write on it, and now this happens - strongly enough
[16:27] Amber: women take this kind of abuse online all the fuckin time and if we dare talk about it we’re told we’re whiners and we can’t take the heat and we need to grow a thick skin… i’m fucking sick to death of it

Erick never personally attacked her. Grant never personally attacked me. Oh great. Do they get a medal?

*sigh* I don’t know what else to say. I need to lie down. Would I handle this better if I weren’t in the middle of dealing w/ grief? Maybe. But if I’m totally honest… probably not. It would still twist itself up in my gut, sitting there and eating at me and making me feel awful.

I’m putting this up without proofreading. Just, there. Now, I’ll go rest for a while before we go to Home Depot to get something to hang the bird feeder on, so the squirrels won’t steal seed from the bird friends that visit our balcony. Like this one, from Flickr user stewickie:

I figured it would be good to end on a happy note, with a photo of a bird!

I figured it was as good a time as any to publicly state that I am not okay w/ the way Anthony and IACB handle themselves in a lot of these feminist blogosphere discussions. I’ve called them out and challenged them (as I would challenge anyone I disagree with or who is being inappropriate) many times, but ya know since a lot of folks seem to have a problem with differentiating individuals from the Bloggy Borg, I’m just putting it out there unequivocally.

Anthony and IACB, your comments are still welcome here if you choose to comment (not that you’re pining for my gracious extension of courtesy, but whatever) but in many, many cases I think you have come off as condescending, rude, patronizing, and engaging in a lot of verbal chest-thumping and lack of checking your privilege.

So there you go.

Ah nothing to get back into the swing of things like blog drama, right? Fuck, I was supposed to be writing about PERSONAL stuff. -On the other hand, it’s all personal. The personal is political is personal is sexual is ME.

Still not feeling up to writing a post of my own, and things are basically shit; but, here’s a repost from BlogHer:

If you can’t make it to BlogHer ‘08 in San Francisco this year, maybe you can join us in one of our SIX “Reach Out Tour” cities this fall? We’ll be condensing our annual event into one-day extravaganzas in Boston, DC, Nashville, Greensboro, Atlanta and New Orleans. And you can register now for any or all of them!

We’re still finalizing the various agendas, but you can expect each city’s sessions to feature fantastic speakers, relevant sessions, and a lot of local flair. Plus, we’ll have a track just for beginners (so if you know someone — your friend, sister, mother, grandmother, neighbor — who should be blogging if she just had the right tools and motivation, send her over!).

Read more about the Reach Out Tour on our official Conference Blog, or simply click on the city below to learn more about where, when, how much and how to register:

October 11 - BlogHer BOSTON

October 13 - BlogHer DC

October 16 - BlogHer NASHVILLE

October 18 - BlogHer GREENSBORO

October 21 - BlogHer ATLANTA

October 25 - BlogHer NEW ORLEANS

As of now, I’m on the fence about whether I’ll go. BlogHer ‘07 was a lot of fun, but I just haven’t decided about this Atlanta version. Not sure if I want to pay $100 to hang out with a lot of the same people I hang out with anyway. Fortunately, there’s plenty of time to decide.

There are few people inhabiting certain corners of the blogosphere in which I move who (whom?) I find to be bullies and/or “queen bee” types. To name names would certainly bring the Wrath of the Goddesses upon my head - so I’ll be willfully obtuse and arguably passive-aggressive instead. But eventually my annoyance might boil over; so consider this a forewarning.

Also, tag links aren’t working now that I’ve upgraded to WordPress 2.5.1. Boooo.

ETA: Bumped up from comments:

I realize this post was not very fair of me. *shrug* I’ve just been feeling annoyed, and I guess I felt some compulsion to put some evidence of my annoyance “out there” - even if in a way that raises questions (and eyebrows) and puts people on the defensive.

So yeah, like I said, not very fair of me. And yet I felt like I “needed” to do it. Sometimes I can be weird. :P

Seriously. What the hell, people.

On that increasingly headdesk-inducing thread - where the word “strawman” would be applicable, but I loathe that word, so I’m refraining from using it for now - I said (double blockquotes are me quoting someone else):

Feminism is about standing up for women, all women, I agree. I do struggle with standing up for a woman who as First Lady would be part of implementing anti-women policies, but gotta do it anyway. Pretty far down on my list though. Really far down. Somewhere below “check out Laura Bush’s chili recipe” and “what is Phyllis Schlafly up to these days?”

I think you’re still missing the point. I didn’t read this post as a defense of Cindy McCain, or really anything specific to her at all - she was an example, of which there are countless others. The point I got was, it’s not okay to vilify women based on some perceived stereotypical external traits that we really know jack shit about. If we talk shit about a woman for being blonde and thin, we’re no better than the assholes we call out for talking shit about a woman being the opposite.

and:

But even if we DID prove that her policies were not egalitarian, which to me is unclear at this point, it STILL doesn’t give us license to call her a Barbie or “stupid hair” or Stepford.

And this is REALLY Feminism 101. How many of us have lamented the seeming inability of men to argue with us based on our views, and not bring our looks into it? Surely we’ve all noticed that attacks on a woman’s looks are de rigeur when one disagrees with her. We need to lead by example. You can absolutely HATE a woman’s position on certain issues, hell, her entire philosophy on LIFE - but that does not give you license to attack her looks. I cannot stand Ann Coulter - I think she’s a hateful person. But you’ll never hear me making cracks about her looks. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for other self-identified progressives. (”Man Coulter,” anyone?)

and:

But what does that boil down to, dismissing? Is it dismissive to not write laudatory blog posts about CMcC? Is it ok if I simply ignore her?

Seems like you’re arguing against an argument Octo (nor anyone else on this thread) did not actually make. It’s not about whether or not you like Cindy McCain. It’s about using sexist language to refer to her (or any other woman). That’s NOT OKAY no matter who the woman is. You can hate her guts, but if you start taking jabs at her looks or calling her a cunt or what-have-you, you’ve crossed a line into unacceptable territory.

and lastly:

Calling someone a Stepford isn’t so much an insult as naming her oppression.

Nope, what it’s doing is taking away her agency, much in the same way as this bullshit.

I do not see why this is a difficult concept.

You can hate Cindy McCain, but you cannot substitute critiques of her *looks* for critiques of her *political views* and expect the argument that sexist language is unacceptable to hold a whole hell of a lot of water elsewhere.

Repost from the comments on this (excellent!) post by Octogalore…

—

Anyway. Looking at older, well-off women (”OWW”) as foreign creatures - moms, or well-off friends’ moms… sometimes, I want to say: how do you know that won’t be you? Why are you so sure these people have no relationship to you or your interests? You really never know. And you really don’t know if, in becoming… that… you’d lose your humanity, perspective, values.

THANK YOU!!!

That’s one of the things that bugs me the most about this whole theme. And it’s not just the age thing, but the “age-with-money” thing. Like, if you reach a certain age, and/or have a certain amount of money, suddenly some evil fairy touches you with their wand and you become “out of touch?”

The money thing in particular, I find quite offensive. As if it’s bad to have money. As if it’s bad to achieve monetary success. I’m sorry, but a whole lot of it reeks of jealousy and cluelessness. And I feel like I can’t say any of this very many places, because people will be like, “Oh yeah? Well, PRIVILEGE!!! You just say that because you must be rich, and you don’t know what it’s like to deal with blah blah blah…”

Oh really?

And those kinds of assumptions make me LIVID. How DARE you (general “you”) assume anything about my past, or my present for that matter, based on the fact that I don’t think having money is the worst sin ever? Having money allows one to do things to help others! Not that you can’t help others without a ton of money, but it sure doesn’t hurt! The economic leverage allows you to do some very concrete things to effect change.

I don’t come from money. AT ALL. I make a decent living in my job now, but I doubt I’ll ever shake the underlying fear/knowledge that the bottom could fall out at any time. That it’s all so tenuous. This is something that I don’t observe in my friends who grew up with a relatively more stable economic situation. They don’t get nervous dropping a few hundred dollars on, say, a new TV, if they have a few thousand in the bank and some savings to boot. Why should they?

Anyway, I’m rambling, and veering all over the place. I hope this makes sense. And aw hell, I might end up reposting it as a post on my own blog.

I’ve been pondering what it would be like - or if it’s desirable, or even possible - to take a “write as if nobody’s reading” approach to this blog. What if I actually did that? I wonder if it’s doable, because then I could potentially be compromising other people’s privacy where their lives intersect w/ mine. That’s always one of the biggest considerations w/ “life blogging” (or, “blogging,” as we old-schoolers call it) to any degree. But also, if I actually wrote some of the stuff I think, without a filter or an appropriately saccharine coating, about, say, certain happenings in certain portions of Ye Olde Blogosphere, would I be inviting exactly the drama I try to avoid in my life? Can I really expect to “talk smack” (that’s how it would look to readers, anyway) and not have people talk back?

So should I keep quiet, or at least reserve certain thoughts for my super-old-school paper journal (which I write in sporadically at best), out of a desire to minimize drama?

I really do not like drama.

From Violet Blue’s post that I’ve had pinned in Bloglines for a couple weeks. I don’t like the use of “fame whore” (as we’ve seen!) but she didn’t write that part; and the overall sentiment remains.

For every fame whore blogger — and there are those out there, we both know them — there are so many whose blogs and writing are quiet demonstrations of confidence. By being “out there” the way you are, fiercely without apologies, I’m hopeful that the generation of women after you, me, and Emily, won’t ever fall victim to that self-doubt, and will tell any guy who gets shitty with her for “oversharing” to go fuck themselves.

Now when will I be able to make the self-effacing voices in my head shut up?

I’ve had this pinned in Bloglines for a while now. I quoted from it on my Tumblr, too. I guess I kept thinking I’d come back and write more lengthy commentary, but I realize there isn’t much else I could say, other than just: I relate. So I submit now without comment, a rather lengthy excerpt from Miss Syl’s post Type cast.

One thing that’s interesting about this internet world–and the written word in general–is the perception aspect. That is, the perceptions one builds of the people one reads. Much like reading a book where you create a mental image of the character, people read a blogger’s words and filter them through their own imaginations and experience. And whether deliberately or no, a picture of what the person would be like to interact with in “real life” develops–you invent an imaginary voice for the person, an imaginary height, body type…you think you “get” how that person would move or respond or act in real life.

I suppose this response is only natural. But it’s good to remember that this imagined perception is all you, not them.

…

Assumption #3: Because I talk about sex it means I want to fuck you, or that I’m an emotion-free Fembot designed specifically for your pleasure.

This one I feel really deserves no explanation–it should be an obvious fact of life. But it is shocking to me how often men themselves are shocked by a woman who will talk about sex with frankness and openly say she enjoys it. And equally shocking to me are the assumptions some of them make based on that reality. I mean, come on fellas, is it really that rare these days? When a GUY talks to you about sex, do you assume he wants to fuck you, regardless of his orientation?

So for the record: just because I talk about sex with you doesn’t mean I want to have sex with you. It means simply that I like talking about sex as one of many topics I enjoy talking about. It doesn’t mean I am trying to turn you on, even if you do get turned on. Saying that I enjoy sex doesn’t mean I’m thinking of having it with you. Necessarily. Of course, any of those conditions may be true: in some cases I might want to fuck the guy I’m talking to, or tease him to arousal, or I might be thinking about having sex with him. But this is not the rule by a long shot.

…

End point: A blog gives you very little to go on. Even when people are totally genuine, we are all of us more than we appear in the little glimpses of ourselves we give you. I myself have been surprised multiple times when I’ve met online people in real life and something about them has completely clashed with my perception of them.

And, I will end by posing to my readers the same questions Miss Syl poses to hers (the “what do I look like” one is less relevant, since I post plenty of photos).

I’m curious: Just for fun, what image of me do/did you have in your head? What do I look like, sound like, act like, dress like? I promise to debunk all misconceptions offered with the real picture (unless you ask me not to).

And for those of you who already know me off blog a bit–or for anyone else–what misperceptions do you run into most between your writing and in-the-flesh selves?

Check out these interviews Rachel Kramer Bussel did with me, Viviane, and Twanna. They’re a precursor to an upcoming Huffington Post piece. Here’s an excerpt from my interview:

How do you see the “sexual community” where you live vs. the community you’ve found online? What do online communities offer that offline ones don’t regarding sexual openness?

It’s not always a simple matter of delineating “online” and “offline” community; the beauty of social media is that those barriers are breaking down. My online community is my offline community. Maybe not all the time, when things like geographic distance comes into play; but all these people who knew of each other thanks to the internet came together at Sex 2.0 and had a really kick-ass time in Atlanta.

But speaking of geographic barriers, online community can fill the gaps when people aren’t able to get together IRL. If you live in an isolated area, you might feel pretty cut off from others who share your sexual interests; but with access to the internet, suddenly you’re not so alone anymore.

Also, online, people may feel more comfortable talking about things that are painful or embarrassing for them to discuss face-to-face. This is a useful facet of online community regardless of what one’s offline community looks like.

He is, apparently, now a regular blogger at Feministe.

This is the first of two loosely-related posts about my thoughts on the current state of the feminist blogosphere - both in general terms, and wrt specific blogs/situations. In the past few months there have been more than a few things that have left a bad taste in my mouth, and I’ve been struggling to put my feelings into words (and also just plain did not have time for a while, as Sex 2.0 was looming on the horizon). Fortunately, Octogalore, Donna Darko, and Apostate have been kicking ass in that area.

But for now, back to Thomas at Feministe.

I don’t subscribe to the Feministe RSS feed, so I read it sporadically - most often when someone whose blog I do subscribe to links to a post there. So a few days ago I was skimming the front page of Feministe and noticing the byline “Thomas” an awful lot. I wondered why the hell a dude was suddenly the most prolific blogger on a feminist blog - and, as I read his posts, pretty much all of them made me squirm.

I mentioned before how I was thoroughly unpleased with his throwaway paragraph, peppered heavily with paternalism, about Deborah Jeane Palfrey. And then came this, which signaled the cue to end any feeling of obligation to “give him a chance” or whatever.

Super, super creepy post. The paternalism, the othering, the “white knight” feel of it all, the talk of jerking off to her hot writing and oh isn’t it awful that she was raped in the same paragraph… FAIL.

And then someone came along and thanked him for all the writing he’s been doing about sex workers! What?? So when a man posts about female sex workers on a feminist blog, it’s just the cat’s meow… never mind all the blogs of actual sex workers that are out there, and almost never linked by Feministe or other prominent feminist blogs! (Gotta keep that filter up, right? Us, them… never the twain shall meet?)

Would people be okay with a white person as the main blogger on an anti-racist site? I think not. So why is it okay in this case?

Update: This post has been sitting half-written in draft mode for almost two days, and in the meantime I commented on the Feministe thread and apparently that comment got more people talking, and Thomas has apologized and said he will think about the criticism. So, good. Here’s hoping he’s for real.

…because I’m too tired* to do anything else. Sometimes cop-outs can work, though.

• As you may have seen if you follow my Twitter updates, I got into a little fender-bender yesterday morning. To be specific, I freakin’ backed into a parked car. :P Oh well… not much damage was done to either vehicle. Mine is getting repaired Thursday, and it costs less than my insurance deductible, so no need for a claim on my part. If the other driver has an issue, my insurance will take care of it. J. put a silver lining on the situation by pointing out that my new car would inevitably get dinged up at some point anyway, so at least I’ve gone ahead and gotten it out of the way - actively!
• We’re going to court Thursday. That’s all I’m going to say right now, but I’ll say more afterward. It should certainly be interesting, one way or another.
• This is also happening on Thursday, and Rusty and I will be there. I’ll need to remember to bring my “I’m Blogging This” T-shirt with me to change into, in case we don’t have time to go home after court. Other ATL bloggers, come on out! It should be a rollicking good time, especially if Susan Capaluto (sp?) shows up. (And is it just me, or does anybody else wonder why the Equifax guy is on the panel? That seems random.)
• On Friday I’m heading to Boston (well, Cambridge) for the Women, Action & the Media conference. The keynote speakers are Helen Thomas and Haifa Zangana. I’m excited! I’ll get to meet some bloggers I’ve read for a while, and Dacia and I will be sharing a hotel room so we can be shut-ins when the socializing gets too overwhelming. And I’m looking forward to Dacia’s session on sex workers and media representation; after the past couple weeks, she should have plenty to talk about! (Not as if she didn’t already!)
• Apparently my site, like a lot of Dreamhost sites, was down for a few hours today. One of these days I’ll actually switch hosts, I swear. Anyway, this means my del.icio.us links didn’t get posted today, which annoys me, because I had some good ones. I’ll probably post them manually tomorrow, but in particular I wanted to point out that this post really resonated with me, and I might have more to say on it later.
• I cross-posted my “Why I Quit Download Squad” treatise on BlogHer.
• Be sure to register for Sex 2.0 by Friday if you want to pay $40 instead of $50! Meanwhile, I will try not to freak out too much between now and April 12.
• I swear I’ll blog about the manicure thing one day. I have lots to say, oh yes. Dacia and I are getting manis and pedis Friday night in Boston. So maybe I’ll blog about it then!

* I’m a naturally sleepy person, but the Lexapro has made me feel downright fatigued. I don’t like that one bit. So this morning I cut the pill in half, and it seemed to help a bit. Hopefully that’ll be the way to go.

I’m feeling emotionally exhausted, and I haven’t done even a tiny fraction of what Dacia, Ren, Amanda, all the BNG folks, and more have been handling with grace for the past two days. I can’t imagine the constant interviews, last-minutes radio spots with angry callers, TV crews showing up at your apartment… well, okay, I can imagine it, and the thought leaves me feeling drained!

And now, we see that the NY Times has exposed the escort previously known as Kristen.

Real smart move there, credible, authentic, trustworthy, high-and-mighty MSM.

All the news that’s fit to print, right? You fucking assholes.

Look, it’s not that I’m surprised. I’m not surprised in the least; this is what sells papers, air time, ad space… duh. And yet MSM people continue to look us in the face and declare that it’s bloggers who are unconcerned with actual discussion, presenting facts, equal time… how can they say that with a straight face?? Meanwhile this shit could actually destroy this young woman’s life. You know that, right, NY Times? But you don’t give a shit. You want to break a good story. You won’t give a second thought to this actual person whose life you have put in real danger. You’ll forget about her by next week.

And like I said, I’m not surprised. All media outlets want to break a good story… sensational is good… I get it. You don’t have to tell me. They don’t care… no shock there.

But I wish it weren’t this way. Maybe this is the nasty side of capitalism (which I generally think isn’t so bad)? Or maybe it has nothing to do with capitalism - it’s just the way media works. I’m inclined to go with the latter, but as an eternal optimist (often at my peril), I have to believe that it doesn’t have to work that way. It can change. Everything can.

Right?

Edit: Or, as Amanda succinctly put it, “Notice how there doesn’t seem to be a single ethical quibble in outing this young woman who obviously has another career in the works.”

The bad (awful, horrible, heart-wrenching) news it that on December 10, blogger and sex worker Razor Mick was stabbed six times and left for dead in a dumpster.

The good news (well, good given the situation) is that as of December 28, Razor Mick has been moved out of the ICU, and it’s looking like she’s going to make a full physical recovery.

It seems crass to remark on the closeness of this attack to the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, but the proximity of the dates did enter my mind as my stomach lurched.

Please keep Razor Mick in your thoughts, prayers, or whatever other goodwill-invoking mechanisms you prefer. Feel free to stop by her blog to leave some words of support, as her friends are passing all supportive messages along to her.

[Via Ren]

BarCamp Atlanta starts tonight, about an hour from now. Apparently we’ll be having dinner on the top level of a parking deck. Swanky!

I have no idea what to expect from BarCamp, but I’m looking forward to finding out. This will be my first hardcore, totally purist unconference (as in, no pre-planned schedule). I’ll try to do as much liveblogging (or pseudo-liveblogging) as possible and take lots of photos.

Kudos to Jeff Haynie for putting this together!

At this point, I’ve been to half a dozen social media unconferences, and at almost all of them, there has been much discussion about how/why/if PR and marketing folks should “reach out” to The Bloggers.

Should PR and marketing departments be embracing social media? Of course they should; and fortunately, a lot of them seem to be past the if and focusing on the how. But for some reason, that’s where there seems to be a major roadblock to understanding.
Read the full post »

The title of this post was going to be something like, “Maw! I’m on the TeeVee!” but Griftdrift already did that. So instead I went with basic and search engine friendly.

Grayson will be creating videos for the Huffington Post’s Off The Bus section on a regular basis, and you can see the first one here. It was recorded Tuesday night at everyone’s home away from home: Manuel’s Tavern. Her intro spiel cracks me up. And oh yeah, I give a sound bite in there, too.

(And here’s hoping for fewer old white guys enamored with the sound of their own voice in future videos!)

See also: Rusty’s interpretive Photoshopping of his sound bite from the video.

I meant to post this sooner; but, as they say, better late than pregnant. Our AC was on the fritz this weekend, which meant a lot of time spent away from home (a 95° apartment is no place for me), and a lot of sleeping once the AC was back in action.

BlogHer recap posts from people I met there:

• AAG: So Here We Are at BlogHer and Thank You, Friendly Cabbie
• Cunning Minx: Sex bloggers meetup and Yay BlogHers!
• Susan Mernit: Blogher07: Sunday morning take-aways and Blogher: Surfing the Sex and Relationship bloggers
• Viviane: Back home from Blogher and Chicago

Heh, I suppose I’m officially a “sex blogger” now?

Well, that is fine with me! (And I feel humbled to be considered of the same caliber as many of those with whom I share the label.) As Rachel so eloquently put it:

I’ve been trying really, really hard of late to check myself from having to “apologize” or downplay that, yes, I do, write about sex. It’s easy as pie (or cupcakes) to fall into the trap of seeing writing about sex as lesser: less valuable, less challenging, less worthwhile. Of seeing all writing about sex as simply exhibitionistic without any greater purpose. I do it all the time and am learning to rethink those assumptions, not just for peace of mind about what I do, but because it makes the writing that much harder if you only half believe in its worth.

My conundrum in talking about this is that I don’t believe there inherently should be a greater purpose. I’m sickened by the current way we define obscenity legally, that every other value (scientific, artistic) comes first, that “prurient” is such an epithet.

RIGHT. ON.

In other news, I’m feeling a bit worried about the ongoing situation (approaching ’saga’ territory, in the lexicon of melodramatic bloggers) of my stripper pole. On the one hand, it would be fun and possibly arousing to listen to Rusty verbally strong-arm some folks; on the other hand, I just want the damn thing to be taken care of already, so I can practice. I already feel like I’m lagging woefully behind the rest of my Level 4 class, and I know the self-doubt isn’t making things any better.

Oh well… I would write more but I’m worried a bunch of assholes are going to swoop in and tell me to stop being so selfish, don’t I know there are people starving in [exotic location]?

Oh and one other thing: Ren, Kim, Belle, AP, Octo… much love to you all; I’m still not caught up on your blogs. Just wanted to make sure you know I’m not ignoring you!

Well, we’re here - at the Navy Pier for the start of the BlogHer conference. Right now most people are doing this “speed dating” introduction thing, but Rusty and I opted out because it’s just way too damn social. I know I should probably be taking this opportunity to force Sex 2.0 MOO Cards on people, but I just can’t handle it. So, instead, I’m doing what my T-shirt says I’m doing: blogging this. The wifi here is great, the schwag bags are amazing… well, generally everything is amazing so far.

The best way to follow me today will probably be Twitter, but even with that i don’t know how many updates I’ll be posting, since my top priority will be having fun, participating, and all that good stuff.

We had breakfast with AAG, Viviane, RKB, Susan Mernit, and a few other people whose names I can’t remember. Last night we had dinner w/ Viviane, RKB, Susan, Cunning Minx (who called me “perky and adorable” - ha!), and Lisa Williams. I’ll post photos when I get a chance!

So far I think Chicago is a great city. One thing we learned: there is apparently a shuttle from the Orange Line train to Navy Pier. We did not know that, and instead spent $75 on a cab this morning. Oh well, live and learn. It was the cab driver who told us about the shuttle, actually; and he was a really nice guy, he and Rusty had a grand old time talking about sports. So it could have been much worse.

Okay, that’s all for now… off to enjoy! :)