Being Amber Rhea

I’m busy w/ work so I’m just going to dash this off. A few weeks ago Creative Loafing had this story about Atlantans who moved to New York, and what they thought of NYC. I didn’t read it, but in this week’s (or I guess now it’s last week’s) Creative Loafing they had letters responding to it. There was one that was thanking them for running it bc the person said they get sick and tired of hearing the self-righteous assholes who move to Atlanta from cities in the North and talk about “You have no culture, you don’t know good food, you’re not educated, blah blah blah.” Then there was a letter by one of those assholes! It was doing everything the previous letter had said - telling Southerners we have no culture, telling us we deserve to be made fun of by the rest of the country. GOD! Fuck those people! I am so SICK of shit like that! And it’s always from people who describe themselves as progressive and liberal, too. Guess what… even if you’re right about some of it (not saying you are or aren’t, but let’s just put it out there for the sake of argument) it doesn’t matter because you’re being a complete tool about it! Bias against the South remains an acceptable form of bias among progressives and I’m fucking sick of it. It is NOT OKAY. Own your shit before you point fingers, assholes.

Last night, several of us local thin-skinned types got together for food and beverages at our collective second office, and talked about the latest “us vs. them” dust-up and Lack Of Getting It on the part of some traditional media folk. At one point Sara and I said something to one of the Democratic Party guys who’d shown up to do Jäger bombs about how our blogs were a little different because they’re not straight-up political blogs. And this is something I’ve talked about all over the place plenty of times before: how making sweeping statements about “blogs,” as if blogs are a monolith, is pointless because there are so many different kinds of blogs. There are blogs that are online news outlets, many of which break stories. There are blogs that are devoted to political analysis. There are blogs that are focused on a specific topic and definitely write with more of a “for the audience” perspective. And there are plenty of blogs (such as I would class my own) that exist primarily for the blogger, cover a wide variety of topics, but do not purport to be unbiased or “fair and balanced” or objective, etc. etc. etc. So when talking about credibility, citizen journalism, etc., I was thinking it only makes sense to apply those standards to the certain types of blogs that want them.

But then I thought, well, that’s too simplistic, too. With a lot of blogs, there’s not this stark dividing line between one type vs. another type. I would call my blog a “personal blog,” but I also have, arguably, “reported” on plenty of things. So have many other people who write the type of blog I do - and that makes sense, because why should writing about an issue, or posting news, etc., have to be sequestered from writing about one’s life? And really, i think when the two mingle, that’s when some of the most effective political activism can take place - or am I abusing the old adage “the personal is political” again? ;) I just think for a lot of people, putting the humanity into something helps them see why it’s important, and think of it in a more concrete way, and not just as an abstract “issue.”

And, blogs similar to mine have broken stories. Kyle Payne, anyone? And that’s just the most recent example that comes to mind. Look, too, at how bloggers of various stripes pulled together in an ad hoc media team during the Eliot Spitzer brouhaha. A few MSM outlets here and there started to realize that yes, we are the experts, and it didn’t matter what “type” of blog we had.

So are we all really that different? I think yes and no… as Facebook would say, it’s complicated.

Imagine my surprise this morning, during breakfast at Radial, when I saw an article in Creative Loafing(!) about the under-21 stripping ordinance.* Imagine my downright shock when I read the article and discovered that it was not sensationalistic, full of stupid jokes and bad puns, dripping with value judgments, or any of the other countless traits that too often characterize mainstream media coverage of anything related to sex work.

I would’ve liked to hear more from Danielle Barbee and other dancers. But since the article focused on the lawsuit, the plaintiffs probably couldn’t (or, were wise not to) speak to the press directly.

The article also made me feel frustrated and a little angry at the lack of a cohesive sex workers’ rights movement in Atlanta. Those of us who were at Charis on Dec. 17th should be “plugged in” to the same support network as Barbee et al. Caitlin set up a listserv but so far I’m the only one who’s emailed anything to it… my hopes for a bad-ass march through midtown this December are fading, unfortunately.

But more on that another time. Ahem.

Memo to MSM (and especially to Andisheh): it is possible to write a straightforward article about sex work issues. You have no excuse for fucking up so badly 99.9% of the time.

* The ordinance was mentioned during our Dec. 17th event, but I hadn’t heard anything about its status since then.

Well, Creative Loafing finally ran my letter to the editor. Ken Edelstein has a snarky response, which is easy material for those who enjoy fisking and playing “Spot the Logical Fallacy.” I typically don’t enjoy these pastimes, but in this case I can make quick work of a few of the most glaring eye-rollers.

1. “Organizers also asked Nouraee not to expose names and identities of those attending the meeting.”

Well, since I was one of the organizers, I’ll tell you what we actually said. Before the program began, we asked that members of the press not reveal anyone’s name or personal information without their explicit permission. We said that any individual should definitely feel free to agree to an interview; we simply asked that they step away from the program to do it, so as not to disturb others. (E.g., Caitlin was interviewed that night and included in another piece.) So this line about “Wah, he wasn’t allowed to expose anything!” is really stupid and easy to see through.

2. “Later, Nouraee tracked down a woman who was involved directly in an incident with Gower, and he quoted that woman, Cheryl Courtney-Evans, extensively in the article.”

Extensively? Go back and check the article again, Ken. I wouldn’t call a few lines, preceded by several paragraphs devoted to Gower on his nasty soapbox, “extensive.” Give me a break.

Edelstein closes with this, which I guess he intends to be a real zinger:

3. “Another point worth considering: Gower, whom Rhea describes as homophobic, is openly gay.”

You know, people make dumbass arguments like this one all the time, and yet every time I see it, I’m still amazed. (Several commenters on the original CL story trotted it out like a beacon of truth, and were properly taken to task by other commenters.) Gower is openly gay. And?

Just because you’re gay, doesn’t mean you can’t be homophobic. Arguments like this one show a profound lack of understanding of the way privilege and prejudice operate in our society. If you grow up in this society, no matter what your race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, class, etc., you internalize a degree of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and classism because these things operate on a structural level. (Which is why we can’t successfully fight against and dismantle them until we acknowledge them within ourselves.) Sure, Gower probably doesn’t sit up nights entertaining a bunch of consciously homophobic thoughts like, “Hey, I really hate faggots!” Because that’s not how it works. Whatever thoughts he may or may not have are irrelevant. His actions speak for themselves.

This is the same stupid shit as when people say, “I can’t be racist, some of my best friends are black!” Are you fucking kidding me?

And, anyway, let’s just allow for a minute that maybe Gower isn’t homophobic. Maybe he’s done all kinds of examining of societal conditioning and is totally not affected at all by it anymore. Again… so what?? He’s still an asshole, and an extremely dangerous one at that. So I don’t know what this triumphant “He’s gay!” declaration is supposed to prove.

Overall, CL’s continued defense of Gower is puzzling… -well, okay, not really. I don’t think many of us still buy into their self-proclaimed “alternative” status.

Update: Christ on a cracker. I just noticed the letters to the editor page has comments. The good news? A few of the comments there are sensible. The bad/annoying/hilarious (depending on my mood) news? Check out this comment:

Sex Worker Article Comment - It seems that Rhea has a uninformed image of prostitution. A life of a prostitute is nothing like what is portrayed in the movie Pretty Woman. Most prostitution is tragic and the people selling their bodies would probably rather be doing something better with their lives. Tragically, Rhea romanticizes the world of prostition. Internet images and radical ideologies due more harm than good for our public health. She needs to step away from the internet to see the world. She obviously hasnot seen families torn apart due to prostitution. It is very tragic.

Oh, this person knows me so well!

Also, ten points for using the loathsome, worn out, and wholly inaccurate term “selling their bodies.” NEXT!

There has been talk lately about “semantics” and “picking [news stories] apart word by word.” These things are said in a fairly derisive way, as if “arguing semantics” is bad or pointless.*

But you know what?

WORDS MATTER.
Because words carry implications.

Anyone who makes their living as a writer should know that words are important, and should be mindful of the words they choose, with everything they write. They should know better than anyone that words can be loaded, and the implications can go way beyond the dictionary definition, and that in the end it’s not just the dictionary definition that matters.

For example, “running a high-class call girl ring” is not factually inaccurate. But it’s sloppy reporting, and sex workers were rightly pissed. Because each of those words is pretty loaded. They carry with them assumptions that are embedded in the societal consciousness, which most people don’t even think about.

Another example: Violet Blue’s column entitled Kink.com and Porn Hysteria: The Lie of Unbiased Reporting, wherein she writes,

Steve Rubenstein and Jesse McKinley are reporters, and so we require that they report and not serve us with opinion, instead. In both articles, slanted phrases such as “dirty movies” were slipped in like a hostess silently sliding a coaster under your drink — blink and you don’t even notice it’s part of the judgmental scenery — when a more accurate term like “adult” could serve better. Rubenstein’s piece went the distance, making Kink’s employees into “manacled performers.”

But the most interesting example was the presentation of unchallenged material in the form of quotes from people on the street as anti-porn pundits — with no weigh-in from pro-porn pundits. Protesters were quoted as saying, “This neighborhood is already plagued with enough violence and prostitution as it is” and “Kink degrades the neighborhood, degrades women and offers ‘dead end’ jobs that no decent person would want.” Such statements bracket the piece — with no counter-opinions about pornography — and are presented in such a way that readers could interpret opinions as fact. Kink.com was indeed quoted — but only about their use of the space.

If the only yardstick we had for media were “Is is factually inaccurate?”, then no one would have grounds to complain about anything. Errors of omission and the connotations of specific words would be unimportant. The public would be effectively silenced.

We should hold our media accountable; we should hold them to a high standard. (One would think they would want to be held to a high standard by their readers.) Criticism of media is healthy and important, and should be constant. Or are we supposed to operate from a lowest common denominator perspective?

Speaking dismissively about “semantics” undermines the media/editorial process criticism so many of us in this conversation profess to stand for. So which is it? Is criticizing media and exposing biases a good thing, or a bad thing? Should we hold them accountable to tell our stories fairly and accurately, or just accept whatever we’re handed?

Part of the solution is to use new media to tell our own stories, without the filters of mainstream media; but that does not mean we should accept anything less than the highest quality reporting from mainstream media. After all, not everyone has access to new media tools yet (though access is improving on a daily basis).

So yes, I will gladly pick news stories apart word by word. Because those words are everything.

* I can’t link to the one conversation that is really sticking out in my mind, because Rusty removed the post where it took place. Similar conversations have gone down in other places, though. In fact, it’s becoming a bit of a blur at this point.

The new issue of Creative Loafing is out, and they didn’t run my letter to the editor. (I had gotten an email from someone on their staff saying they might run it, which is why I waited before posting anything here.) So here it is. Later I might do a follow-up post where I expand on some of the points and include some other points that I had to cut out in order to keep it around 500 words.

—

I’m writing to express my disappointment with the 1.16.08 feature, “One man’s battle against Midtown prostitutes and their johns,” by Andisheh Nouraee.

There are two separate matters here. The first, and most obvious, is that Gower and Denby are dangerous vigilantes. I am glad that their deplorable tactics are being exposed.

It should go without saying that posting videos of sex workers on YouTube is a horrible idea. What is the goal? Sex workers - especially street prostitutes - are disproportionately the targets of violent crime. Violent criminals target sex workers because they know they can get away with it. (In fact, this was the exact justification given by Gary Ridgway, who was convicted of the murders of over 40 prostitutes.) Gower’s dehumanization of sex workers through his behavior and language perpetuates the cultural mores that make such violence acceptable.

But I am also disappointed with Nouraee’s treatment of the issue. Nouraee learned about Gower’s harassment of street workers at an event I helped organize at Charis Books, commemorating the 5th annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. After the program, he spoke with the other two organizers and me and expressed interest in learning more and possibly doing a story.

Nouraee sat through our program that night and listened as people recounted individual encounters with Gower, citing Gower’s blatant homophobia and transphobia. He listened as we discussed the glaring absence of sex workers’ voices in the media, as well as the fact that when sex workers are mentioned in the media, they are either troublemakers or victims - in other words, they’re not people; they’re useful objects in making a point and reinforcing a stereotype.

He spoke with several sex workers that night and a few weeks later, while doing research for this story. He expressed concern about making sure to include sex workers’ voices.

If Nouraee tried to speak with street prostitutes in Midtown and they did not want to speak to him, he could have mentioned it in the article. Reporters do this all the time (”so-and-so declined to comment”). If that were the case, he could also reflect on why sex workers might be wary of talking to a reporter. Could it be because they’re tired of having their words (and existence) twisted to fit whatever agenda is at hand?

Nouraee fails as an investigative reporter with this piece, especially as one for a paper that claims to be alternative. Terms like “transvestitute” and “real female” go unchallenged and uncorrected. Nouraee does not probe Gower about why Gower is so fixated on harassing prostitutes. He does not examine how the criminalization of prostitution perpetuates the violence that many people associate with street prostitution. He does not discuss the societal and economic conditions that lead to many transpeople working on the streets.

For people who are interested in learning more about sex workers’ rights activism, some good sources of information are SWOP-USA, Desiree Alliance, COYOTE and $pread Magazine.

Courtesy of Ren, here it is, the sex work debate bingo card! Click to enlarge.

Based on my latest, um, encounters at Blog For Democracy* and Creative Loafing (a.k.a., further attempts at not taking a claw hammer to my eyes), I’ve already got ideas for a Version 2.

Oh and for everyone who likes to run off at the mouth about “privileged” sex workers, allow Ren to remind you of a small point…

you know what so many of them forget…with the privilege and all?

ALL THIS CAN BE USED IN A US COURT OF LAW AGAINST ME.

All of it.

Not like I HAVEN”T been BLACKMAILED.

I get raped? You think I stand a fucking chance in HELL? Even if I am beat to shit?

No.

I don’t. Cause I;m a whore who likes rough sex.

It takes SToNES to do this.

Most sex workers DON’T want to take that chance.

Which, hello, this blatant injustice is exactly what so many of you are reinforcing with your words, actions, and stubbornly closed ears. Yeah, I’m pointing fingers. DEAL. Start listening.

* I’m referring to certain heads-up-their-asses commenters, not the post itself.

I am so angry I can barely see straight.

I’ve already Twittered about it. I will blog about it eventually. But I need to wait until my hands stop shaking, my heart stops pounding, and my stomach stops doing somersaults.

You want to know why I’m burned out on activism? Perfect fucking example.

Holy shit holy shit holy shit.

More to come, eventually. But right now, I need a DISTRACTION in a big way.

There’s a process I’ve seen played out in the blogosphere (and IRL, but it becomes more pronounced in the blogosphere, in my experience) on feminist blogs, political blogs, POC’s blogs… and, now, interestingly, in the current local dust-up re: “these blogs are a-okay and the rest of ‘em are shit.”

In general, it goes something like this:

1) Someone in a relative position of power writes or does something.
2) People being written/spoken about (in a direct or tangential way) take offense at a shortcoming in what was written or said, and point it out.
3) Legitimate criticism silenced by third parties coming in and saying, for whatever mysterious reason, “You’re just jealous.”
3a) People who see a sort of middle-ground (or just plain different) perspective also silenced - and often demonized as part of the “you’re just jealous” crowd.
4) Original speaker/writer, or someone on their behalf, does not address legitimate complaint and instead says, “You’re being unfair.” Focus is put on intent, not impact.
5) Outside observers, typically identifying w/ the person/people in a relative position of power, off-handedly remark about how “amusing” the whole thing is, thereby further trivializing the legitimate criticisms.

It boils down to a problem of not listening. And those of us who have been not listened to time after time are all too familiar with this pattern, and it has gotten really, really old.

The timing of the CL thing is particularly interesting given that the FFF thing hasn’t yet completely blown over.

In the case of FFF, I am in the ‘3a’ position. That is, as I’ve said before: I agree that there are some problems w/ the book. I do not think the problems w/ the book are major, debilitating flaws, especially because no book can be all things to all people. And Valenti strikes me as someone who is willing to engage and listen. I also agree that WOC have legitimate grievances w/ the larger feminist and political blogosphere, but I feel like the fallout of many past incidents got unfairly aimed at Valenti. Therefore, it really irritated me to be categorized as someone who was dismissively saying “You’re just jealous” to WOC, when that is not what I was doing at all. My legitimate criticisms, both of the book and of the behavior of others in the blogosphere, were drowned out by people unwilling to listen.

In the case of the CL story, I am in the ‘2′ position. I have already repeated myself more times than I can count in various places throughout the local blogosphere; that is, my complaint w/ the story is not based on who was and was not included. I’ve said repeatedly, the five bloggers profiled were excellent choices who deserve this recognition and much more. My complaint rests solely w/ the divisive, snobbish language that casts the Atlanta blogosphere in general as worthless, making no attempt to acknowledge the vibrant community that is thriving here.

Now, perhaps it was unfair of me, Rusty, and Grayson to lump the CL story and the SMC event together (as I did a few posts down, in my round-up). It could be seen as analogous to bloggers taking out other, past offenses on Valenti’s book. I can see that argument. However, I do think that this case is a bit different, because there isn’t one individual who is receiving the entire brunt of the accumulated anger. I also think it is fair, and necessary, to speak of the two events not as isolated, random incidents; because, they are both representative of a larger problem. (Not that I’m equating this whole thing w/ racism, but it does remind me of the meme where anti-racists have to point out to privileged folks who refuse to acknowledge their privilege that racism is not individual acts of meanness, but a larger, systemic issue.)

As always, I can speak for no one but myself, and take responsibility for no one’s words or actions but my own. I feel that I’ve made my position abundantly clear. People can choose to listen and engage, or not. I think Grayson’s position is somewhat more complicated than mine, given that she has a hell of lot more experience and history w/ the local media community than I do. Again, people can choose to listen and engage with her or not. I may not agree w/ some of how she chose to express her anger, but again, that’s her choice, and it comes from a different (though related) place than mine.

Anyway, I wanted to write this to try to spell out, step by step, what I see happening over and over again. There’s no easy solution, because this is a massive, pervasive, society-wide problem, tied in w/ all sorts of complicated issues like race, gender, class, and other, more specific “status” markers (e.g., Edelstein and Nouraee are in relative positions of power here as editor and writer of a MSM publication). I think we could all use a good dose of Communication 101.

To people who can’t read:

I think the five bloggers profiled in the CL story were excellent choices who deserve this sort of attention and much more of it. They all run excellent, informative, unique blogs and they deserve to be recognized for it. So far, none of the criticisms I’ve read have been about the blogs that were chosen (or not chosen). The criticism rests with Andisheh Nouraee’s apparent need to disparage the Atlanta blogosphere as a whole.

I could talk about credibility because MSM likes that word, but I’m out of time for the moment.

These two things represent pieces of a larger picture, so naturally they are being discussed together.

For your reference, here’s a bunch of posts and such! I know you’re so excited. (Actually, this is mostly for my reference, so I don’t have to keep clicking around looking for all the different threads.)

• Moi: Mainstream media splatters here and there
• Rusty: A strange confluence of negativity and More on the latest kerfluffle
• Grayson: Pretend Voices Carry, What Planet Did I Land On?, Blogger 24, and Things Change
• Ranty Mostly ITP episode w/ Grayson, Rusty, and me: Thoughts on the Social Media Club meeting
• Dave: Reflections on SMC Atlanta Event
• Griftdrift: Feel The Snark!
• Soon-to-be-expat (*sniff*) Doug: Andisheh does the blogs — including this one!
• Metroblogging Atlanta: top blog?
• j. brotherlove: Atlanta Bloggers Who Matter - Who’s to say?
• Buzz Brockway: Atlanta bloggers meet with Big Media Officials…
• Joeventures: Crying bloggers, a slow news week, and a simple(?) suggestion
• Mingaling: Blogosphere says huh?
• Joseph G: Train-Wreck: Atlanta Blogs vs. OldSkool Media
• Thomas: Everybody’s Talkin’
• James: this whole creative loafing blog-o-sphere thing.

I’ll update this post if people write new stuff.

What Grayson said, about the Creative Loafing “five shining swallowed pennies in the overflowing toilet bowl that is the Atlanta blogosphere” story:

This piece was just wrong on so many levels, Andy. But essentially, you missed the ENTIRE story. To single out a few blogs (and they’re all great blogs… that’s not the issue here) and give the readership the impression that those five blogs are somehow BLOG FUCKING ATLANTA is such a slap in the face to the entire social media community here.

The many bloggers, academics in citizen media like Leonard Witt at PJNET.com, podcasters, the techno entrepreneurs, videobloggers like Amani Channel for instance, who have worked long and hard, and those who have helped organized social media events and conferences like PodCamp Atlanta and SoCon07 were reduced to five blogs you want to make a teen style, MySpace style list over. You and Ken should be ashamed of yourselves for trivializing and reducing an entire new direction in media to five blogs with this “starter piece” on social media.

It’s just lazy, uninspired journalism really. Just look to the state of the music industry to see how long you have to “get it.”

While we’re on the subject of traditional media, I should mention that Rusty, Grayson, and I went to the Social Media Club event last night where a guy from the AJC and a guy from WSB were there to, ostensibly, converse about how they’re embracing social media. (Har har.) You can listen to our podcast review of the thing, if you’re so inclined.

And I didn’t even mention all the sexism. We tried to keep it to about a half hour. This was after the full-on rant session at Central City Tavern… be glad you got the “toned down” version. (Yes, it’s all relative.)

It’s hard to say what my favorite part of the night was, but I think I’ll have to go with WSB’s Steve Riley saying to me, “What you’re doing seems more… artistic.”

…

*blank stare*

Obvious notes: 1) he has no idea what I’m doing; and 2) artistic? the hell?

Clue Phone ringing… it’s for you, Mr. Riley!

On a completely unrelated note, the next time I hear some asshole ask plaintively, “What crime is not a hate crime?” I’m going to verbally eviscerate them while assuring them that no, don’t worry, this is not a hate crime.