Being Amber Rhea

Words of wisdom, from another twenty-something feminist with a degree in linguistics and an eye for bullshit (whose blog I discovered yesterday):

The language we use to talk about sex work (and the metaphorical extensions of sex-work related words) emphasizes this point - by charging a fee to have sex with someone, a woman has sold her body and herself. Linguistically speaking, there’s a metonymy there - the “part” (sexuality) has come to substitute for the whole woman.

That’s objectification, and it’s objectification in the narrow, limited, sex-specific sense of the word - the definition of a woman’s self has been reduced to her sexuality, her value has become inextricably attached to her sex. On the other hand, it’s perfectly acceptable - laudable, even - for me to charge for the use of my brain, or for me to be “valued” for my intelligence. That wouldn’t be considered being “used”, it wouldn’t be thought of as “selling myself”. Paradoxically, that’s like saying that my brain is less valuable, less connected to what I am as a person - it can be partitioned off, the use of it essentially “rented” by my employers, and I can joyfully and proudly accept payment for it while I continue to use my brain outside of the workplace to also attract potentially desirable mates. “Selling” my brain doesn’t take anything from me, doesn’t make me less whole, doesn’t make me damaged goods, and yet somehow, selling my body in a sexual manner (because, of course, if I were selling the use of my body for work in a factory, we again would not be having this conversation) would. If my sexuality is not the sum total of my humanity, if it is not even the primary source of my “value”, then this attitude towards sex work is nonsensical.

Read the whole post.

Detritus from my “Stuff to Post” label (with my notes to self, where included):

January 4, 2006

• http://davemerrill.livejournal.com/310920.html
  Maybe reference in post about ATL intown neighbhorhoods, addressing homeless problem, etc… (also idea of “yuppies”?)

February 21, 2006

• AJC women-to-woman porn thing
• UGA Beer class
• For the CSS blog - CSS3 selectors - http://www.evolt.org/article/CSS3_The_new_Frontier/17/60319/ and http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200601/css_3_selectors_explained/

February 26, 2006

• The Top 10 Clues That You Are an Amateur Blogger
  Hmmmm…

March 16, 2006

• Objectification (expand on this in detail)
• Newspaper usage of gay and transgender
• C Loaf transdude story
• Nikki’s rant about contraceptives and “men’s rights” BS
• Gender and blogging - also the implicitly sexist remark on the referring blog about blogging tools being “tricky” - http://a.bunchof.us/2006/03/14/gender-and-blogging/

August 29, 2006

• Interesting comment to blog about

November 27, 2006

• Interesting:
  

  Is it a white liberal American thing this fallacious idea that there are always two equal sides to an argument and that the answer or the truth must lie somewhere in between, thus everybody must have their say in every forum? It certainly seems to be a popular belief on those blogs that give a platform to anti-feminists to air their views.

  YES and I should probably write an essay about it. “Free speech” and “the right to hold an opinion” have been entirely misunderstood in this country, I think. And of course, there are never ONLY two sides, and the ‘truth’ is NOT necessarily in between.

  The right to free speech is NOT the right to speak everywhere, all the time, and the “right to an opinion” does not mean opinions cannot be debated or examined - or ignored.

  Some people seem to be really insecure about their opinions, and yet want them protected: as though they were like body parts they were dissatisfied with, but do not want to be teased about. Of course, one shouldn’t be mean to people about such things, or about experiences they’ve had … but that is a very far cry from deciding or not to engage someone’s opinion, or to disagree with it, or not to give it weight.

  People do NOT understand this, it seems, and I think it is some sort of ideological effect - and control mechanism - “free speech” gets twisted around to mean censorship of free thinking, if I am being clear.

  (Comment by profacero at http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2006/11/24/trolls-and-anti-feminists/)

  [Ed. note: From Heart’s blog, aaahhhh!!!]

August 2, 2007

• http://saraspeaking.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/what-kind-of-friend-are-you/
  

  Since the gist of the thread is about whether a statement has to intend to be sexist in order to actually be sexist, we have the following quote:

  Assuming that there were no hard feelings intended from the offender how do you make the offender aware of what he has just said? Who wins when it’s largely a difference of opinion?

  “who wins?” That’s your problem right there. This isn’t about winning or losing. This is about you having said something that offends/hurts someone else, and whether you’re going to continue offending/hurting them by arguing about the offense, or whether you’re going to apologise and attempt to make amends. In short, whether you’re going to be hostile or friendly.

  Frankly, I don’t think you’re a very good friend at all if you’re going to take the former route. Denise has a good analogy:

  Say you’re sitting at a table with several friends. You stretch, and unintentionally hit the person next to you in the face, hard. Is the correct response to berate the person who has been hurt for leaning forward, or is it to apologize and keep greater awareness of your surroundings? Nic’s response has been telling the person who has been hit to stop being so sensistive and continuing on in ignorance. Intent is a part of what matters. Your friend would likely find the anger at being struck easier to let go of once he or she knew it was an accident. BUT that the injury was unintended does not make the injury go away. A failure to apologize and an insisitence that you are in the right when you injure people because you’re not paying attention makes you look like a jackass.

  Exactly. Not meaning to do something doesn’t undo the fact that it has been done. I didn’t mean to overdraft my bank account, but that sure as hell doesn’t change the fact that I’m a couple hundred dollars in the hole. I didn’t mean to hurt my friend’s feelings, but that doesn’t change the fact that she is, in fact, hurt. And I can either argue — oh, oops, I mean “have a difference of opinion” with her as to the state of her feelings and the justification thereof. Or I can be a friend, apologise, and kiss and make up.

Some of these links might not work anymore. I haven’t checked. Now I can clear out that label, though!

I don’t subscribe to Shakesville (or any other “big” blog, because I can’t handle the pressure of a constantly overflowing RSS reader), so I’m just now seeing this, even though it’s over a month old. It’s well worth reposting, though. Hence:

Feminism is an integral part of progressivism.

If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a progressive.

No matter how much you hate Bush.

No matter how much you hate the Iraq war.

No matter how much you hate our current torture policy.

No matter how much you want to restore habeas corpus.

No matter how much you’re totally going to vote for the Democrat in November.

If you’re not a feminist, you’re not a progressive.

You’re a fauxgressive.

End of story.

Hell yeah.

And I hate that this is even something that has to be said, but it does, and there it is. It’s part of why I have such disdain/disinterest/reluctance/irritability surrounding partisan-type politics… I just can’t get worked up about debates, or so-and-so’s campaign signs, or all the other gossip. Frankly I don’t understand how so many people can, but since a lot of ‘em are people I consider friends, I just have to shrug my shoulders and say “To each their own.” (And yet if there’s an election returns watching party in November, I’ll be there; because, I’ll be honest, to me it’s all an excuse to socialize. And it’s not that I don’t care on any level. I vote, after all.)

But if you dismiss feminism as a “special interest” (hello, Kos!), all bets are off, and it’s “fuck you” time. You are on notice, or perhaps even dead to me.

I mean believe it or not, Melissa even had to post an update, because apparently (and I wish I could say I was surprised) a lot of people had trouble getting this rather simple concept through their thick skulls. If she had a FAIL stamp, I bet the inkpad would be dry by now.

You see? This is why I just do not have the patience to be some kind of Bringer of the Progressive Message, unless it’s on a one-on-one or very small group basis.

Via Melissa (I would never read Gawker Media blogs if it weren’t for her!), powerful words from someone called Slut Machine, on Jezebel:

I’m pissed. It’s an anger that’s been on a slow boil that’s beginning to bubble over, and at this point, there’s no putting a lid on it. I’ve been writing about sex on a pretty public platform for some time now, at first anonymously, and then under my real name. I’ve had to endure ignorant assumptions and cheap shots made about my looks, my weight, my vagina, my tits, my sexual health, my mental health, my morality, my character — and all for what? Being honest? For liking sex? I’ve poured my guts out all over my keyboard, and I’m well aware that that invites criticism, particularly on the internet, where people think they can say whatever the fuck they please — in the most offensive manner possible that they would never employ in real life — with impunity because they’re protected behind a shroud of anonymity. It’s frustrating. And lemme tell you, I am so sick of people telling me, “You write about sex and personal issues. You have to accept that people will sling insults.” Fuck. That. Shit. I don’t have to accept it. I refuse to accept it. Mostly because I know that this wouldn’t happen if I were a man.

Rock on, lady! I can relate. (Today’s understatement.)

And yeah, this is related to the last post because it’s yet another manifestation of the sexual double standard and bullshit sexism in our society. (I kind of hate whenever I type “in our society,” because it reminds me of freshman year of college when my friend Kira and I used to hang out in Washington Square Park between classes with this very disaffected emo guy who was in a punk band, and one time Kira and I went to see them play and their music was all screaming commentary, and one song was just repeating “society” and “brutality” over and over, and Kira said, “I can’t listen to songs with the word ’society’ in them.” But really, there’s no other way to put it that I can think of.)

From Chris Hall at Sex in the Public Square (be sure to read the full post). Chris is a wonderful writer.

The real tragedy of [Palfrey’s] death, from where I’m standing, is not anything extraordinary about her story, but how common and familiar it is, to the point of being cliché. If the story of Deborah Jean Palfrey had been laid out in a novel or play or screenplay, I would be angry at having my time wasted by a writer who was unable or unwilling to rise above cheap hackery that was old and worn out in the days of the Victorian penny dreadfuls. But Palfrey was a real person, and it makes me sick and angry to think how often the lives of people who should live peaceful, untroubled lives are forced into old patterns.

When I heard that Palfrey had hung herself, one of the first things that I thought of was the story of Ida Craddock. Craddock was a freethinker and feminist who wrote several sexual education manuals and pamphlets in the late 19th century. She was hounded and pursued for over a decade by the moralists of the day, in particular the infamous Anthony Comstock. In 1902, she was finally convicted for sending obscene materials through the mail and sentenced to five years in prison. Craddock was 45 years old at the time of her conviction and didn’t think that she could survive her sentence; the night before she was supposed to report for incarceration, she slit her wrists. Comstock showed no signs of regretting her suicide; in fact, he commonly bragged that he had driven as many as 15 people to suicide in his crusade for public morality.

One hundred and six years later, I want Ida Craddock’s story to seem quaint and old-fashioned, like an aged relic of less enlightened times. But Deborah Jean Palfrey is dead, hung from the neck by a nylon rope; her former employee, Brandy Britton, went the same way. David Vitter is still in the Senate. So it goes.

In the eye of the media, Palfrey’s death was regarded almost without a blasé fascination, as if the urge for a woman who transgressed to hang herself in her mother’s shed was as natural and unavoidable as birds migrating. And it seems unbelievable that one hundred and six years after Ida Craddock, we have to work so hard to justify not only the course that she chose to make for her life, but that we also have to fight to make others see that her death was a stupid waste, and not the inevitable end to a badly-written melodrama.

What we do, all the blogging and writing and organizing sometimes can seem futile, especially with stories like Palfrey’s. The one thing that we can be grateful for, in a somewhat grim way, is that Palfrey had to do more than merely write about sex before she was hounded and shamed into her grave. That, at least, is something that we’ve accomplished in the one hundred years since Ida Craddock opened her veins with a straight razor. But it’s not enough.

And I’m crying, again.

Yeah, I’ve mentioned before that I can be pretty emotional, and cry at inopportune times. But this week, I think it’s appropriate.

It’s been almost a week since the untimely death of Deborah Jeane Palfrey. In my second post on the topic, written on Friday, I lamented the lack of coverage of this tragedy on big feminist blogs. Being an eternal optimist (often to a fault, I know), I gave Feministe and Feministing the benefit of the doubt, saying that hopefully they would post more about it soon - because as I well know, when you’re juggling a full-time job and other personal responsibilities along with blogging, it can be a challenge to find time to sit down and write a substantive post.

However, the weekend has come and gone, and this week is half over, and still… nothing new on Feministe. Feministing hardly ever loads for me anymore beyond the header, but a quick view of the source in IE (it won’t even show me the source in Firefox; it’s hung up on some script, apparently) shows nothing new.

I’ll briefly hop over to some other feminist-leaning blogs that I don’t frequent as often and see if they have anything…
Read the full post »

Talk about your Bingo card of arguments! Seriously, if I see “selling their bodies” one more time - and from a feminist, at that! - I am going to lose my damn mind.

Other Bingo-worthy words and phrases in this comment:

• empowering
• collection of holes and body parts Ed. note: ick! Bonus point for use of unnecessarily porny language.
• cash in on it
• post-feminist
• sex-as-a-commodity
• Sorry, but…
• early sexualization

As I said on the Feministe thread from whence this comment came:

And I guess I’m one of those old-fashioned feminists that doesn’t think a woman’s entire self-worth is wrapped up in what she does sexually. The phrase “selling her body” is *extremely* patriarchal and reduces sex workers to one aspect of their being: their sexual behavior. Sex workers are *not* selling their bodies - they are offering a service. Sorry but I thought that feminism didn’t subscribe to the belief that a woman engaging in sex with a man constitutes a transfer of ownership.

I do, however, need a “Stamp of Approval” or “OK!” stamp, because the last three sentences of that comment do not fail. I have no Photoshop skills to speak of, though (aside from putting one layer on top of another to make the above image, and the like) so that’ll have to wait until Rusty feels motivated to create more graphics for my amusement.

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.

Via Melissa on Twitter, I just found out that Deborah Jeane Palfrey (a.k.a. the “DC Madam”) has committed suicide.

Fuck. Fuck. Shit.

I am sitting here at my desk at work, fighting back tears.

No, I didn’t know her. But I’m grieving, because I have some humanity in me, unlike the media and judicial system and court of public opinion that tore her life apart.

Earlier today I was contemplating finishing a long-stored-in-draft-mode post about my fear/issues surrounding death. I think I’ll put it off for a while longer now, but this just shows… I mean… I don’t even know how to say it, but just, she’s gone now.

What will it take, people? How many more women have to die before sex workers are actually considered human? How much longer will we excuse - or, more accurately, applaud - exploitation by the media of women who “step out of line” in some way? How much longer will we keep denying that the sexual double standard isn’t just an annoyance, it actually kills?

People’s - oh who am I kidding, women’s; it’s not like any of the men involved have experienced anything even remotely comparable - lives have been ruined because of this case. And now the woman at the forefront of it is dead.

Her blood is on the hands of lawmakers and the media, and no I don’t even care if I sound like the religious guy (Pat Robertson?) who was blaming 9/11 on teh ghey… IT IS TRUE in this situation.

Fuck you. Fuck all of you who want to pick apart sex workers’ lives, dehumanize them, get the juicy details for a good story, then throw them out like yesterday’s trash when the story goes stale.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey is dead, and I think I’m just going to have to ignore all MSM (and a lot of new media as well) because if I see any salacious “tell-all” stories in light of this, I am going to go ballistic.

Bound, Not Gagged was started in the wake of the original breaking of the “DC Madam scandal”… and that is where I will be turning for information and updates. And I think now is a fitting time to revisit the words on their page, “Why a Blog for Sex Workers?”

When sex work is in the press, the coverage most always brings to the surface more issues than a single organization’s statement can address. As advocates, it would be impossible to make a statement that truly reflects the voices of this dynamic and diverse community.

BoundnotGagged is a space for these voices to be heard. It is a place for sex workers to respond to the way that they’re portrayed in the media, the way that sexist laws are used to undermine women’s rights and their feelings about the ethical dilemma of exposing a client list. The issues are deep and broad. The stories are powerful and frustrating.

BoundnotGagged is our way of responding to the injustice and hypocrisy that keeps sex workers’ voices muted and faces hidden. Sex workers may be in hiding, but they refuse to be silent.

Also, here are some excellent interviews with which to remember Palfrey:

• Interview With Deborah Jeane Palfrey, AKA The DC Madam - Radical Vixen’s podcast interview w/ Palfrey
• The D.C. Madam Speaks! - Susie Bright’s interview w/ Palfrey

And now I have to continue going on about my day as if everything is okay.

Rest in peace, Ms. Palfrey.

ETA: Noteworthy excerpt from Radical Vixen’s interview with Palfrey (as printed in $pread magazine):

Some of the attorneys that I have had and that are no longer in my life or will not be soon have said things to me like, “Jeane, don’t you just go to prison for 8 months? You’ll be out in 8 months. It’s going to take at least 8 months to fight it. I thought this person was the biggest buffoon- and he’s an attorney. Only a buffoon would say [to] give up your liberty for 8 months. I wouldn’t give up my liberty for 8 minutes. I’ve had people say, “Don’t say anything, don’t give any press conferences, don’t speak up, just be quiet, don’t aggravate the situation.” Don’t aggravate the situation? You’ve got to be kidding me. These people can come after me, destroy me, take every shot they possibly can at me, and I’m supposed to just sit back and be quiet and dutiful and well mannered?

That’s why I’m doing this interview with you. These people who are telling me, “Just take it,” these people scare me to death. I just don’t understand them.

ETA, pt. 2: What Dacia said:

These men spent a few weeks being raked across hot coals and being the targets of gentle ribbing from colleagues. There were cries of “hypocrite!” echoing all across the American media, but just beneath that is a resigned shrug: boys will be boys.

But if boys will be boys, whores will be punished. Deborah Jean Palfrey went to trial. And now she’s dead.

It saddens and angers me that this is Palfrey’s end, that she saw no easy way out other than suicide, and that women have to pay such a high price for their sexual and economic sins (especially when the two are combined), when men get slaps on the wrist.

ETA, pt. 3: See also, Anthony:

I would like to say that I’m surprised…but I’m not…because this is the ultimate (if to the extreme) means to which our sex-negative society deals with women who challenge the status quo when it comes to our hypocritical sexual mores. It’s much easier to drive the woman to suicide or simply murder her than it is to take a realistic look at how our laws and social mores against consensual adult sex (for free or for pay) do far more destruction and degradation than the actual sex acts and services that are bought and sold.

(That’s right, GenderBorgians, I said “acts” and “services”. not “bodies”; women who do sex work are not comparable to slaves, and they still own their own bodies, regardless of whether you like what they do with them.)

Like the Duke University rape accuser who gets slimed and virtually raped over and over again in the media because she dared to even make the claim that she was raped (and NO, MRA jackals and all other “White pity” fools, this is NOT permission to send me your half-baked comments on that case, either).

Like the rape crisis center owner who decided that a woman like Renegade Evolution should be denied the right to even counsel women who have suffered from abuse….merely because she might defile the center with her clients.

Like the cops in LA who mocked and laughed at and dehumanized an arrested street hooker into wetting her pants because they could only see her as an “object” to be used and manipulated for their benefit. (But I guess that since they were trying to get prostitution off the streets, that makes it OK for some so-called radicalfeminists, right???)

Like every Goddess-damn porn starlet, sex worker, adult model, and merely overtly sexual woman who has to face the full stigma of “slut-baiting” for simply not being as “pure” or “chaste” or “decent” for the public taste. Not even a young adolescent like Hannah Montana is immune from the anti-sex gaze; lest even sweet virginhood is defiled by her actress character flashing a bra for her boyfriend.

And all this done in the name of “protecting women and children”, no less.

…and the inimitable Susie:

I know how pissed you were. This was an act of revenge, and I know who you’re determined to haunt.

You were righteously furious at all the men who “walked away.”

That included the esteemed gents on your client list: Louisiana fundamentalist, Senator David Vitter. Abstinence Ambassador Randall Tobias, who squashed AIDS funds all over the world. “Shock and Awe” war profiteer, Harlan Ullman.

And that was just the expendable layer. None of them were charged with anything; all are living quite comfortably, in particular because they have no conscience whatsoever.

Later this month, Rusty and I are going to Balticon. Yay! I’m looking forward to seeing Jenny (either at the con or just within Baltimore), hanging out with Regina Lynn, and being on some panels about sex, tech, and other related stuff. One of the panels I’m going to be on is called “Don’t Be That Guy: Advice From the Women of New Media.”

Serendipitously, Ren recently had a “don’t be that guy” open thread on her blog. It’s full of good stuff, including a damn perfect object lesson of someone being that guy. (I like and respect Ernest, but seriously, again with the “I believe in gender equality” line? Please. I wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that!) And then today, I came upon synecdochic’s post entitled Don’t Be That Guy, which is all about being a feminist ally.

Guys, read it and learn, especially if you consider yourself progressive, feminist-identified, not a troglodyte, etc. Here’s an excerpt:

If you consider yourself an ally, and you wind up doing or saying something that gets a really strong negative reaction, and you see one of your friends saying something along the lines of “it’s okay, he’s one of the good guys, it’s not like that”, that should be a warning sign that it’s time to immediately apologize. A real apology, not an “I’m sorry if you were offended” — because that kind of language isn’t an apology at all. You clearly did offend someone, or else the dogpile wouldn’t have happened. “I’m sorry that I offended you, and I’d like to make sure I understand why, so it doesn’t happen again; what I’m getting is that it was such-and-such, and I’m sorry I did that, and if that wasn’t it, I’d like to listen to anything else you have to say…”

If you hear a guy who says “I’m a feminist”, but who behaves in ways that trip women’s creepdar, call him on it. It is a very sad fact that nine times out of ten, people with privilege, who are exercising that privilege in a way that makes other people feel uncomfortable, will not hear the fact that they are making other people uncomfortable until it’s pointed out to them by someone with the same privilege. They literally will not process what people are saying. It happens all the time, and it is so subtle and pervasive that people don’t see it even when someone calls them on it. You can, however, use this for good in terms of pulling another guy aside and saying: dude, you’re being a creep. The sad fact is, that guy is way more likely to listen to you.

Read the whole post, seriously.

It’s like I was saying to Rusty earlier today… one thing that bugs the shit out of me is when guys try to ingratiate themselves with feminists but clearly have no idea what the fuck they’re talking about, and then when someone calls them on sexist/assholish behavior, they get all petulant and sulk away with their tail between their legs, or trot out the old tried-and-true “YOU’RE the sexist one!” trope.

I think I’ll have plenty to talk about at Balticon!

Update: Check out this object lesson, as if on cue!

Apostate and I have had our disagreements, and I imagine we’ll continue to do so. Some of what she’s written (especially wrt sex workers’ rights) has made me downright livid. But I am nodding my head in 100% agreement with this:

It’s very easy to trivialize discriminatory attitudes against women’s sexuality, because who cares about your right to screw around while people are dying!

You know, someone’s always dying. It’s not our job as feminists to make women feel bad for focusing on what matters to them and what makes it harder for them to live in this male-dominated world on a day to day basis. Anti-feminists are doing a terrific job on that without our help.

Black civil rights workers are not going to take a break from their earth-shakingly important work and tell us about sexist condom commercials and sexist media in general. They’re not going to point out all the videos out there that our young women’s male peers make about how screamingly funny rape is. But someone needs to.

We’re well-aware that our concerns always come last. It’s why women are self-conscious about calling themselves feminists. It’s very trivial to worry about your body and your safety while other people are dying. After all, you’re a privileged white woman. And black men get raped in prison too! Who cares what your concerns are, and never mind that you’re still a second class citizen even if higher on the totem pole than the people who are dying.

This is another sneaky technique to put women last. This is yet another way to confuse women about themselves, about their place in the world, about their importance.

To put it another way (via Mint Jelly)…

Unless you’re a female you just don’t get the experience of catcalls and “playful” followers and hard-held stares. How men pretend that suddenly the whole world is small town america, - they’re just saying hi, they’re just being friendly, women like it they say, when they know full well that’s not what they’re doing and that’s why they’re shouting from cars, waiting outside of convenience stores and following you home from the mall. If a man gave them the finger, they wouldn’t say, “oh yeah! is that what you want baby!?”

If I were president (i know, i know) there would be a recipe for immediate corporal punishment: grab throat, throw to ground, beatings until there is sufficient whimpering, vary ingredients and amounts according to need. And one would be allowed to walk with a spark plug in hand, to smash the windows of offending men in vehicles who think that slowing down and pacing you while you walk is cute.

There would be public service messages on television, with rainbow graphics and shiny faces telling you to not be such an idiot all the time.

That’s just how I feel. If my humanity isn’t acknowledged I will have to act like a thing, a monster. Women don’t get credit for the courage they find and the normalcy and humor they apply to it. It takes balls to be a girl, to walk around being a girl.

Couldn’t have said it better.

Note: As I’ve mentioned before, I do dislike the use of “female” as a noun to refer to women; but other than that slight nit-pick, this is brill.

I’m not saying where this came from, but I hate headlines like this: “Quick Breakfasts That Kids and Dads Can Prepare.”

Kids, sure. But dads? Come on. Way to infantilize grown men.

It’s so simple! Even dad can do it! Because he’s not much smarter than a trained monkey!

(If I had a screenshot of the headline, it would get the FAIL stamp.)

Perfect example of male privilege, from a commenter on Jenny’s blog:

I said something about how it’s evident to me that sexism still exists in our society because women get cat-called and belittled and judged on their looks by strangers, and he said…

“Can’t you just yell back at them? There’s nothing stopping you from yelling back at them! You can do it too!”

:|

I cannot tell you how many times I have had a similar exchange with some dude. My reaction has gone from flustered to outraged to nonplussed and now to a feeling I can describe only as, “Would you prefer to be kicked in the pants, or the head? Here, just sign on the dotted line.”

Jenny has written another post that makes me want to do a little happy dance over the fact that she finally has a blog.

An excerpt from Sex, Guys, and Videotape:

Similarly, my experience on the way home last night can be written off as No Big Deal. It’s harmless, right? Silly, right? There’s nothing wrong with being called beautiful, right? Wrong. And, honestly, I do write off situations like this pretty much every day.

Which makes me part of the problem.

I put it to you, dear readers: How does a feminist respond firmly and unequivocally to this type of innate sexism without escalating a situation? When you cannot (and really should not) take the time to explain the inappropriate and harmful nature of these comments, what is a productive response? I’m at a loss.

Rusty and I were talking about this the other day. I can’t remember the specific thing we were talking about… something like a woman being verbally harassed while walking down the street, but it wasn’t that. Whatever it was, it was something asshole-ish, and Rusty said something like, “He turned it into a situation no one should have to experience.”

And I said, “But see, the thing is, women experience shit like that all the time. So much so that, unfortunately, we tend to forget how fucked up it really is.” Or to put it another way: of course it was a situation no one should have to experience. But women experience such situations on a daily basis, and no one (including the women, half the time) bats an eye.

And how fucked up is THAT??

Then I described a blog post I read a while back (too lazy to search for it right now, might do so tomorrow though) written by a guy who didn’t used to consider himself a feminist… you know the type, women have the vote and can get jobs and wear pants, so why do we need feminism anymore, and anyway shouldn’t it be called humanism, because otherwise that’s sexist. But then one day he was talking with a female friend of his and she was complaining about some asshole who’d just cat-called to her or something, and he was OUTRAGED, and was outraged that SHE wasn’t MORE outraged. And she was like, “Um, yeah, it sucks, but that happens to me all the freaking time” and that was when the light bulb went on over his head that, hello, feminism is VERY necessary! (Hello, male privilege… ah, how weird it must be NOT to know that women put up with this shit all the time and to truly believe that feminism’s work is done.)

Do we, as women, sometimes forget that men don’t know all the shit we put up with?

Maybe… but also part of it is, it’s not as easy as just calling them on it all the time, because 1) then we’re responsible for policing other adults’ behavior; 2) we’re humorless hairy-legged bitches if we do; 3) often there is the real threat of violence if we do; 4) we’d never have time to get anything else done.

So, what do we do, indeed? I don’t know. I’ve asked this question many times before and it sucks because I just don’t know.

And until more men have that light bulb go on over their heads, of the bind women are truly in with this stuff, unfortunately I think I’ll have to keep wondering (and trying to flip the switch myself, if possible…).

So here’s the long and short of it. This coming Monday, Ren was supposed to be involved in a forum at William and Mary College about porn, sex work, and feminism. She and Jill Brenneman were going to debate John Foubert, the W&M professor who had a conniption fit about the Sex Workers Art Show coming to the campus, and renowned friend to women everywhere (seriously you guys, she loves women, now shut your stupid face about it before she sics her minions on you) Sam Berg, whose accomplishments include popularizing the portmanteau “pornstitution” and refusing to leave a beaten horse good and dead.

I was all set to write a post about it and encourage anyone within driving distance of W&M to head up there to witness the dressing down of John and Sam this historical meeting of the minds.

But now it seems, Ren has been “uninvited” to the forum. If you said “WTF??” to that, you’re not alone.

Apparently Ms. Berg is “uncomfortable” being in the same room as Ren. (She’s got the sex pox cooties, ya know!)

Seriously y’all… give me a fucking break!

So presumably, the forum will go on, and will consist of a bunch of people who are not sex workers opining loudly, vehemently, and at great length on the evils of porn (with plenty of salacious details and X-rated language, no doubt), and the ins and outs of the ritual whippings that take place on every porn set in America, and the secret chip that’s implanted in the neck of every sex worker who says she enjoys her job… and all the other various top-secret info only they have access to, being super-special Select Feminists™, of course.

God forbid Sam have to actually spew her hateful tripe directly in the face of a living, breathing sex worker. That would make things too difficult; it might threaten the One True Path! In that case, I can’t say I blame her for not wanting Ren there… you know, a sex worker who isn’t a walking embodiment of a stereotype (which, btw, the caricatures of sex workers as drug-addicted, self-loathing victims of untold travesties is totally not patriarchal, no, not at all).

Update: Ren clarifies that she hasn’t officially been uninvited yet. Apparently one of the students organizing the forum (the same group of students, btw, who brought the Sex Workers Art Show to W&M and had to deal w/ Foubert’s ensuing brouhaha) is trying to talk some sense into Sam Berg. We’ll see how that goes… I really, really hope they don’t let her walk all over everyone.

Once again, file under “Typical.”

Feministe » Feministe Feedback: Being a Feminist Boyfriend

The discussion here has me thinking about some of the pretty damaging stuff that happened during my marriage, a lot of which I didn’t recognize for what it was until much later. I look back on the times he would “tease” me for, you know, not wanting to live in a filthy house like a damn slob, or accuse me of “nagging”… that stuff was really harmful to me. It makes me so angry, to this day, thinking about how it has affected me.

The “equal partnership” thing is important for the sanity, agency, and self-respect of both partners in a heterosexual relationship. It’s something that takes work, not just lip service. And yet so many guys still fall short, and as women thanks to our socialization, we don’t speak up because god forbid we be perceived as “nags.” Disempowering much?

The Barefoot Bum: Whining and complaining

On a similar note, here’s another word that’s often used to knock down legitimate arguments (especially from women): whining.

The portion I quoted in del.icio.us from the above post sums it up: “What’s the difference between a complaint and a whine? Why is objecting to ‘nappy-headed ho’s’ a legitimate complaint, but objecting to ‘Take out the garbage’ a loser’s whine?”

Boinkology: Sexploitation In Anti-Drug Ads Isn’t Normal… No Wait, It Is.

How fucked up is this ad? There are so many things wrong with it, I hardly know where to begin. I suppose “blaming the victim” would be a reasonable start, though.

Astarte’s Circus: I am a feminist

Octogalore explains why disavowing the label “feminist” is harmful. I agree, and I could ramble on this for days!

But, for now, back to bed with me. I need more Aleve Cold & Sinus. It seems to be helping. (Fingers crossed.) I want to be able to go back to work tomorrow, dammit!

She describes it perfectly…

As smart, sensitive and educated as this good man is, he still has difficulty really understanding the female experience. That’s how insidious misogyny is in our culture; men just can’t see it. And when it’s pointed out, it makes them uncomfortable & defensive. “Hey, not all men say/think/do that… I don’t!”

As if that’s what I am saying when I point out the crap; as if I am blaming him personally.

Then there’s the, “If it’s not everyone, then don’t worry about it,” and the looks that say, “Oh, gawd, there she goes again…” as if I’m “one of those foaming at the mouth feminists” because I won’t just sit there silently and take it.

This is what I was trying to describe to Rusty the other night, about a certain asshole commenter who used to come around my blog all the time until I banned him, and even though he was an intelligent person he would ALWAYS try to find ANY other explanation for an obviously sexist situation than, well, sexism. It’s like, if YOU’RE “not like that,” then why are you so fucking afraid of admitting that YES, sexism exists, and calling it out when it does??

Oh wait, because maybe you are “like that.” That’s the ugly truth.

So frustrating!

I am not happy with the villifying of Seal Press I’ve seen in the blogosphere recently. No, not happy at all. There, I said it.

I wonder what people expect. And I mean realistic expectations. How would YOU react if you were Brooke and Krista? Seriously?

They are not this big mythical insulated power-house super-corporation. They are people. Just people. Like all the rest of us.

I guess I can relate because people have pulled shit like this with “criticizing” PodCamp Atlanta and Sex 2.0… and it’s like, HEY. This is a one-person operation. (And specific to these two cases, they are unconferences, so if you don’t like what’s going on, fix it instead of just complaining, like the guy who was whining about the sound quality on some of the podcasts.)

Also this irritates me because, well, Seal Press has done a lot for publishing women’s voices. And this is the kind of thing that just… does not sit well with me. It makes me itch.

Okay, that’s all I’ve got for now. I would say more but I’m afraid of people coming over here and trying to rip me a new asshole, and then expecting me to be all gracious about their “criticism.”

Also I am waiting for the BBC to call me back about a radio interview and trying not to freak out. Nerves, be calm! It’s probably a good thing I didn’t have any caffeine this morning. I hope my cell phone doesn’t lose reception when/if they call.

Figleaf has been sayin’, too.

Anyway, SnowdropExplodes makes an excellent (yet rather common sense) point, re: a discussion about what a “feminist relationship” looks like:

One thing that, as a guy who’s learnt enough skills to be able to contribute properly around the home (cooking/kitchen work especially, also laundry and ironing shirts - not so much tidying and hoovering, despite my best efforts to improve my skills there) - one of the big “red flag” things for me was when a woman observed me contributing in a place where I’m living (it was usually when I was living at my parents’ home) and says within my earshot to my mother (or some other female acquaintance of mine), “I see you’ve got him well house-trained”. Sometimes it’s even been said to my face. It’s a different effect when men say something similar, because they’re just likening me to a woman (since I believe women are equal to men, I don’t have a big issue with that to take personal affront - although I might very well speak up to say that everything I do is manly, because I am a man!) When a woman says it, it not only affirms the patriarchal gender roles, but is also a direct belittling of my choices, and says that I do not deserve respect because of it. Whether she identifies as feminist or not, that’s not going to fly with me as a statement of gender equality or egalitarian living.

Viewing men as needing to be trained, tamed and/or “made acceptable”, almost as if we are animals, is not feminism. It’s gender essentialism and legitimises the “boys will be boys” approach.

Of course, we have learned that “common sense” is not always quite so common.

Seems pretty obvious to me: not expecting each partner in a relationship to do 50% of the work (assuming both are in good health, and related caveats) is, well, pretty damn insulting to that partner. Kind of makes you shake your head at all the MRAs who whine about “ball-busting feminazis” and whatever else they say… they’re not exactly setting a high bar for their own gender, are they?

“You’re doing it wrong.”

What is Sex 2.0?

Sex 2.0 will focus on the intersection of social media, feminism, and sexuality. How is social media enabling people to learn, grow, and connect sexually? How is sexual expression tied to social activism? Does the concept of transparency online offer new opportunities or present new roadblocks — or both? These questions, and many more, will be addressed within a safe, welcoming, sex-positive space.

Respecting the confidentiality and protecting the identities of participants who wish to maintain a degree of anonymity will be a top priority at Sex 2.0.

When? April 12, 2008
Where? 1763~A Deviant Place of Decadence, 1763 Montreal Circle, Tucker, Ga., 30084
How much? $50.

REGISTRATION IS MANDATORY. We will not be taking any walk-up registrations at the door.

At Sex 2.0, everyone is a participant rather than a passive attendee. This is YOUR event!

Octogalore, in a comment on Ren’s site, in response to a commenter called JZ:

You also say: “Having money is also weakly empowering.” There are two serious problems with that.

First, it’s an incredibly privileged statement. Can you imagine how single moms who cannot pay their food/electricity would feel about how weakly they could be empowered by money?

Secondly, it’s an antifeminist statement. Telling women how unpowerful money is, and how much more rewarding other nonmonetary rewards are, is a powertool of the patriarchy.

Know why? Because the political positions that we don’t have the resumes for (because we chose not to pursue wage-earning), the VP jobs at companies who have the power to promote women (or not), the media leaders who have a role in what images of women to put forward? Guess who gets those if the gals back off? Wanna tell them how weakly empowered they are?

I could not agree more.