Being Amber Rhea

I said this on Derek’s blog:

The MRAs crack me up with their constant cries of “censorship!” Never mind that they don’t seem to understand what that word actually means (hint: no, you do not have the inexorable right to scream your head off in other people’s houses and not get your ass thrown onto the lawn) but isn’t it the women - especially us touchy humorless feminists - who are supposed to be so “sensitive?” Not those manly-men, surely not! And yet, whenever I read their comments, I just want to holler for the waaaahmbulance.

Submitted without further comment, because none is needed, and because I’m exhausted. More stream-of-consciousness rambling wherein I do my best to pretend no one’s reading to follow, probably not until after my dentist appointment tomorrow.

Haven’t we heard this before?

Rob Peters, a reporter from Vancouver, says:

Some difficult truths have been brought to light by the personal blogging blitz of the last few years. One such revelation is that most of us aren’t as interesting as we think. Waking up every day and jotting down some deep thoughts about breakfast is a difficult way to sustain any kind of readership.

I could not disagree more. What blogging brings to light for me - and I know I’m not alone in this - is that people are infinitely interesting.

Not every single person is going to be interesting to every single other person. But that’s not news; that’s a fact of human existence, and why would we hold blogging to ridiculous, unrealistic standards that we don’t apply to other aspects of life?

And anyway, why is anyone still publishing this recycled tripe? Every 6 months or so, some know-it-all writes a piece on the “death” of blogging, or how it’s causing Very Bad Things to happen, or how it’s lost its innocence, or whatever other cliché they’ve dredged up for the moment. I guess maybe it’s a guaranteed will-publish if you’re having a dry spell?

On a personal note, I’m not having the best day - in fact, someone on a blog just saw fit to inform me that they “don’t appreciate anything about [me].” Do I blame blogging, though? Give me a break. I think you know the answer to that one.

That reminds me - a post on civil communication is in the works, too.

Dear “that guy” at the sex club last night,

Let’s get right to it. First of all, if you see my boyfriend and I getting our things out of our locker and getting dressed, you make yourself look stupid by coming up and saying, “So, you gettin’ ready to leave?” Thanks, Captain Obvious! However, I could’ve toned down my internal snark and forgiven that awkward attempt at small talk (lord knows I’m no master of it myself) if it weren’t for where you went next.

“I been seein’ her all night. Just wanted to touch her once.”

HELLO. If there ever was the remote possibility that I might have a smidgen of interest in your dumb ass? You just shattered it by speaking to Rusty, about me, AS IF I’M NOT THERE!! If you want to “touch [me] just once” so badly, it would behoove you address me directly, since I am, amazingly, a fully-functioning adult capable of speaking for myself.

Further, I mentally kicked myself the second after the response (see, I can talk!) left my mouth: “Sorry, no.”

Ah, there’s that lovely social conditioning as a woman again. Sorry? I most certainly was NOT sorry. If only I’d had the presence of mind to say, while you were still standing there, the biting things I said a few seconds after you’d skulked away. I would’ve said, “No. And let me give you a word of advice, hon” - and thence recited the third paragraph above.

This is not the first time this has happened, either. What is it with creepy guys at sex clubs, speaking about rather than to a woman who is right in front of them?? Surely you weren’t suggesting that, basically, Rusty is my owner, and thereby grants or retracts consent on my behalf. Surely not.

It was couples-only night, so you must’ve come with a lady friend. I hope for her sake that she’s the Patron Saint of Perpetual Patience.

Wishing you a clue,

Amber

Last night, Jen and Tony were kind enough to give me the dubious gift of a copy of the latest issue of The Sunday Paper. The cover story is (in huge pink letters), “ATLANTA’S HOOKER SCHOOL.” Then in smaller letters, the subhead: “New Program Aims To Make Prostitution A Risky Business For Johns.” (Okay, so it’s not really a hooker school at all, is it, dumbasses? It’s a johns school. But that won’t grab readers by the throat the way “HOOKER SCHOOL” will.)

Now, for those of you who aren’t in Atlanta, The Sunday Paper is a pretty worthless rag. It always has sensationalistic, overblown headlines, especially in the cover stories (I remember one with a big explosion on the cover, and something like “Countdown to Armageddon” - and they were totally serious) and generally includes some of the worst writing I’ve seen in a print publication. They try to publish “controversial” stories with the most watered-down, trite mockery of point/counterpoint you can imagine. And here’s how I think they go about writing features: they have a template, and they drag and drop various talking points from a database, maybe some clip art as well (e.g., in this case: photo of fishnet-clad legs and high heels, standing in a dark alleyway; Julia Roberts 20 years ago), and click “Generate story.” Voila! Your next issue is complete.

I said that at the table last night, and Kim brought up a good point, that if she were still working at a newspaper and getting paid $8.00 an hour, she wouldn’t exactly pour her heart and soul into researching every story in-depth and writing a thought-provoking, well-rounded piece. Can’t say I blame her. And The Sunday Paper is a free weekly, so who knows what those writers are getting paid. This is a topic that isn’t discussed much in all the various rants about the mainstream media and why they suck so badly. So maybe new media and independent media (often the same thing, but not always) can fill the void? But that’s a tangent for another time.

I’m always torn on stories like this. One the one hand, they’re such pathetic, rehashed tripe, that it feels like a waste of time and energy to address them at all. But then I think, that kind of rationale might make sense in some other situations, but when it comes to sex workers’ rights advocacy, we are dealing with an issue that is literally (yes, literally!) life and death for many people, mostly women; and it’s an issue fraught with layers and layers of bullshit, where all of a sudden everybody thinks they’re a damn expert, and everybody loves to hear themselves talk except they can’t be bothered to listen to the people who are actually affected by all the laws and stigma and such; and the silence is rather deafening when it comes to calling bullshit.

So, I feel compelled to call bullshit, yet again. And I just hope that if people keep on calling it out whenever they see it, whether on 20/20 or in some piddly little hometown rag, maybe progress can slowly be made.

Kim actually read the article before me (I didn’t read it last night when we were at Manuel’s), and afterward, she said, “Yeah, you’re going to need your meds after reading this.”

The article starts off talking about how “hookers” are portrayed on film (because that’s so relevant), and how it’s in stark contrast to “the truth.” (Yeah, the truth which includes sex workers being talked about but not talked with, and called “hookers.”) From there it’s just a matter of marking off the various Bingo squares. It includes the phrase “selling their bodies” and refers to them being “victims of abuse.” (No sources are cited, of course, but why bother? I mean we all just know this is true.) And oh of course there’s that whole thing about how “john’s schools” don’t work, but why get sidetracked with that annoying little piece of information?

They do include a quote or two from Carol Leigh (a.k.a. Scarlot Harlot) representing SWOP, which is more than most articles of this type do. But I’m not giving them a cookie. No, they don’t get a gold star for doing what should be the bare minimum in anything purporting to call itself a journalistic endeavor.

One thing that I really hate about bullshit articles like this is that they reinforce the idea in so many people’s minds that “sex worker” == “street prostitute.” Hell, that’s what I thought until I was 18 or 19. In fact, street workers account for only 10%-20% of all prostitutes/escorts/courtesans (not using the term “sex workers” here since that term encompasses many other types of work).

And once again, they don’t give a shit about actually helping sex workers, or any of it. (I know The Sunday Paper certainly didn’t come right out and say, “We care about sex workers!” but with all the victim language and talk about the “johns,” that’s what the superficial message clearly is - even if it falls miserably flat with its condescending, pearl-clutching tone.) They make bank on perpetuating the very stereotypes and stigma they dramatically wring their hands about in articles such as these. It’s so transparent it’s pathetic. Sex workers aren’t people after all… they’re just an easy way to move some papers!

Here’s an IM conversation I had with the lovely SakuraSarashi mere minutes ago:

[11:18] sakurasarashi: just got an interesting comment on my blog
[11:20] AmberATL30309: interesting how?
[11:20] sakurasarashi: its SUPER long
[11:20] sakurasarashi: and its from an ex creepy guy
[11:20] sakurasarashi: on the entry i made after being harassed that night
[11:21] AmberATL30309: oh wonderful, one of THOSE
[11:21] AmberATL30309: one word… DELETE
[11:21] sakurasarashi: i approved it… he took a lot of time writing it
[11:21] AmberATL30309: fuck him
[11:21] sakurasarashi: and made some interesting points
[11:21] AmberATL30309: you don’t owe him shit
[11:21] sakurasarashi: and was very respectful
[11:22] AmberATL30309: well, it’s your call. but i used to be all concerned about the delicate fee-fees of assholes on blogs, and then i realized, why? they have no right to my space. they got somethign to say, they can say it on their own blog.
[11:22] sakurasarashi: oh yeah, i have deleted disrespectful comments
[11:22] sakurasarashi: but i dont mind this one… just thought it was interesting
[11:23] AmberATL30309: i’m reading it. he sounds like an asshole.
[11:23] AmberATL30309: classic “Nice Guy”
[11:23] sakurasarashi: haha
[11:23] AmberATL30309: he should read the Don’t Be That Guy post i linked to last night
[11:23] sakurasarashi: i am SO going to link that
[11:23] AmberATL30309: seriously, anyone who makes a statemetn like “Guys are assholes” and leaves it at that? FUCK THEM
[11:23] sakurasarashi: in reply to him
[11:24] sakurasarashi: he has some hella WMP too
[11:24] AmberATL30309: WMP?
[11:24] AmberATL30309: “It’s taken me years of hard work to reduce my creepiness.” - bwahahaha!! oh really, dear, do tell!
[11:24] sakurasarashi: white male privilege
[11:24] AmberATL30309: uh, yeah, he’s kind of drowning in it
[11:25] AmberATL30309: clue phone is ringing… guess what dude… you are STILL CREEPY
[11:25] sakurasarashi: haha
[11:25] AmberATL30309: i’m sorry (actually, i’m not) but guys like this make me sick
[11:25] AmberATL30309: all tiny violin and male privilege
[11:25] sakurasarashi: i can tell
[11:26] sakurasarashi: lol
[11:26] AmberATL30309: i’ve just seen it so many times that it’s SO not funny anymore
[11:26] sakurasarashi: yeah
[11:27] AmberATL30309: anyway, like i said, your call. if it were me, i’d either delete the comment, or repost the comment with the FAIL stamp on top of it
[11:27] sakurasarashi: i was ALREADY in the process of the fail stamp thing
[11:27] sakurasarashi: hahahaha
[11:27] AmberATL30309: lol!!!
[11:27] AmberATL30309: GMTA
[11:27] sakurasarashi: I KNOW!
[11:27] sakurasarashi: can i quote you on the “clue phone ringing thing?
[11:28] AmberATL30309: indeed
[11:28] AmberATL30309: and now to get super meta, can i blog this whole damn IM convo?
[11:28] sakurasarashi: yes
[11:28] AmberATL30309: awesome

Here is the comment in question. It is an EPIC FAIL, as you will see from the number of stamps it required. (It actually could’ve used a few more, but my stamp pad ran out of ink.)

[Click for larger image version, if you're so inclined.]

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.”

As posted on my Tumblr (yes, I have one of those, although I don’t use it very often)…

That’s a comment on Tiffany Brown’s post about Violet Blue’s recent SFGate column, which I keep meaning to blog about myself.

Rusty made a fail stamp image with a transparent background that I can put on top of screenshots of stupid/ignorant/obnoxious/pathetic comments, or anything else, really. Fun!

Fucking mainstream media. Oh, who am I kidding, why be so specific… fucking mainstream society.

The MSNBC request came through Seal Press, the publisher of Naked on the Internet. I said I would talk to the show’s producer and possibly do the show if I could talk about sex worker rights, politics, and trafficking. They were casting for someone who had been a sex worker to talk about the mechanics of hiring a prostitute, and the producer I talked to point blank asked me the question that is the title of this post, though then he quickly backtracked and said, “I’m sorry if I’m not using the right terminology,” and I told him that no indeed he was not. When asked if I have had sex for money, I told him I had been a fetish worker and sensual masseuse (I’ve briefly been an escort too, though for a fraction of the time of the other jobs) - which seemed to disappoint him, and he said things like, “So you weren’t a real… you didn’t have sex…”

MSNBC was only interested in having a woman who had been a prostitute talk about the mechanics of hiring a sex worker - a little salacious how-to on national television, gotta love it. They told me flat out that they weren’t interested in discussing the political interests of sex workers or the issues around sex trafficking as it is today. And while I am not ashamed that I was a sex worker, and I know sound bites are short and cannot be anywhere near as complicated as my shit is, I don’t want to be MSNBC’s whore on television. It does nothing for me personally and nothing for the movement I’m part of for me to be boiled down to the essence of “will fuck for cash. here’s how.”

Read Dacia’s full post here.

I may have to ignore the internet tomorrow just so I don’t stumble onto blogs/tweets/etc. talking about the Spitzer thing. Because I just can’t fucking take the stupidity and the teeming assholes anymore.

This is all I have to say about tomorrow night’s Nightline special:

Scratch that; submitted with the only comment being, “Are you fucking kidding me??”

DEAR ABBY: There seems to be an awful lot of women exposing themselves on the Internet in graphic sexual fashion. My wife says that men degrade themselves by looking at them.

My question to you is, what is more degrading? Looking at them, or women exposing themselves? — WONDERING IN PUYALLUP, WASH.

DEAR WONDERING: For a woman to post graphic sexual images for people she doesn’t know to view strikes me as more degrading because it indicates that she thinks she has little else to offer.

However, for a married man to view those images could also be considered degrading — and threatening — to his wife. Many women have written to me because their husbands spend more time looking at porn on the Internet than having a sex life in their own bedroom. In other words, the practice became an addiction.

*headdesk*

Again, I ask, “Why oh WHY do so many people persist in the idiotic belief that taking nude photos of yourself means you have no self-respect??”

I do not understand.

[Via Dacia]

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!

Guess I need to add a #8 to this list…

Just because someone says it’s his/her CHOICE to be a bank robber, a terrorist, a homicidal killer, a prostitute, a porn industry worker…. that makes the CHOICE and that “profession” acceptable and legitimate?? Some may have obvious and tangible negative consequences on others, but worse are those with subtle, insidious, and intangible negative consequences. Wake up!

The stupid! It burrrrnnnnnssss!!

You see? THIS is yet another example of why I don’t read the so-called “A-List” blogs. (And let’s not even get started on the even more “mainstream” ones like Daily Kos. Or the mainstream media such as the New York goddamn Times. Just fuck me in the ass with a football bat already, as Queer Dewd would say.)

Fortunately, Ren is going to make an “arguments about sex work” Bingo card. I can’t wait to see it.

Also, to be fair (I guess), some of the other commenters on the Feministe post give the dumbass equation of “sex worker” == “terrorist” a good dressing down. Unfortunately, even most of them still seem hung up on “sex worker” == “victim,” which isn’t a whole lot better. They seem to think Bob Herbert is generally A-okay. And the concern trolls going on and on about how they’re so worried about sex workers spreading STIs makes me lose my appetite.

People and their hang-ups… GOD!

About a week or so ago I saw that new Burger King commercial where they stop selling the Whopper and all the customers freak out. Naturally, the part at the end about “Burger Queen” set off my Über-Feminazi Victim Hysteria, and I thought about blogging or at least Twittering about it, but then never did. But Roy (whose blog always makes me think of the time Sassywho said, “Someone give me a penis so I don’t sound like a feminazi”) did, and therefore he is the source of today’s Quote of the Day.

“If Burger King doesn’t have the Whopper, they might as well call themselves Burger Queen.”

I mean… what does that even really mean? Burger Queen? Like, what, if Dairy Queen started serving a shitty burger covered in Thousand Island dressing they’d become Dairy King, but since they don’t, they’re just a Queen? It’s obviously meant as an insult, but I just don’t understand what the insult is supposed to imply- Whoppers are manly and if you don’t have them you’re a girl?

I guess it’s convenient that I think Burger King is shite anyway.

Read the whole post here.

In various places ’round the feminist blogosphere, I have been deemed part of the (here comes your favorite word, Jenny) Sparklepony Brigade. We’ll put aside for now the fact that I can’t believe anybody is actually using that word seriously, and move along to the other reason this is particularly hilarious.

I just have to laugh, a somewhat bitter “are you fucking kidding me?” laugh at this designation. Me? Presumed to be “adhering to conventional beauty standards” (*guffaw*) and “supporting the status quo?”

If there was every any doubt that these people don’t know who I am, it has now been eliminated.

The bitter part comes from that fact that throughout middle school and about half of high school, I was the ugly girl. Looking back, I wasn’t actually ugly; but they (yes, they) had me pegged that way, and it stuck, and that was that. I was the ugly girl who dressed weird and had unruly hair and listened to weird music and couldn’t afford name brand clothing and didn’t want it anyway. They called me “freak.” When I had the audacity to actually ask out a boy, he responded by pretending to vomit; there was much approving laughter from on-lookers.

And now, people on the internet are saying I’m upholding the status quo and perpetuating beauty rituals for women! Ye gods!!

I don’t wear make-up. I have short hair because I can’t be bothered to deal with anything else (well, and because I like the way it looks on me). I shave my legs once in a while, if the stubble starts to itch. I rarely wear skirts. I don’t like a lot of pink or other “girly” stuff. Sometimes [stupid] people assume I’m a lesbian.

And it’s even funnier when you start listing out the other people who are part of this horrifying Sparklepony Army… Belledame, Kactus, Antiprincess, Trinity, Ren… seriously, we’re the ones enforcing the status quo? With what magical powers?

People say that Ren, arguably, does fit the conventional media-perpetuated beauty standard, but I don’t think she does, actually. But I guess because she admits to waxing and wearing make-up (hello, it’s part of her job), that’s enough to make her Public Enemy #1.

That is all for now. I have to go put on a skirt (yes, it’s one of those rare occasions) and get ready to go to the Flesh and Fetish Swingers Ball with Rusty.

Cross-posted from a comment I left at Ren’s blog. The blockquoted part is some very-pleased-with-herself LiveJournaler talking about me, in reference to something I said after breaking my own rule and commenting on the latest Feministe porn thread/debacle.

—

Oh, and didn’t you love that one interjection by the girl who just CAN’T IMAGINE why anyone would think that ATM is a bit off color?

Okay dumbfucks, it’s on.

I would love for somebody show to me where I said I can’t imagine why anyone would think ATM is a bit off color. (Although, the phrase “off color” sounds a little too “this offends the delicate sensibilities of the high society ladies” for me.) I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth. (You can form your own pun or metaphor here.)

What I said was, could we PLEASE stop with the judging of other people’s sexual activities, if those activities are among consenting adults. WHY IS THIS A DIFFICULT CONCEPT? Why is this controversial? You know what, nobody has to like ATM, I really don’t care, to be quite honest. What I do care about is when people start with that same old drivel about, “Oh, how could anyone like THAT, that is just so DISGUSTING, if you like that there must be something wrong with you!!” And with ATM in particular, people have a goddamn conniption fit about “OMG POOOOOO!!!11!!1″ In which case, I think calming the fuck down and getting a little education about the way the body’s plumbing actually works (assuming one does not have a medical condition that would make things different) would be a good idea. We don’t have much in the way of sex ed in this country, nor much in the way of education about our own bodies; and all of that goes double when it’s something (gasp!) “off color.”

I’m sorry, but I got over poop jokes when I was about 13. Not sure about the rest of y’all.

—

*simmers*

I will have more to say on this topic later.

Cunning Minx is right on:

Somehow, we’re all supposed to believe that sex is bad and our leader (sic) don’t have any despite the obvious presence of children. Or perhaps we’re supposed to believe they had it two or three times for procreation, but they never enjoyed it. I do live for the day when adults can sit down and talk about sex rationally, without “morals” and religion getting in the way. Fact is, our bodies are built the way they are for a biological reason, and to me it just makes sense to acknowledge that like a grown-up instead of sniggering over the girl with the giant hoo-ha’s walking down the street.

*sigh*
I hope this can change in my lifetime. I choose optimism because the alternative is too damn depressing.

It’s just so fucking BORING at this point.

Octogalore’s post is great, as per usual for her; but I could predict the responses before they came swooping in, as if on cue. I’m sure a lot of us could.

So I’ll just say here what I said over there, and leave it at that, because this kind of thing is so OLD and worn-out and ridiculous at this point.

I do not understand the need some men apparently have to find a non-gendered explanation for EVERYTHING, even when it’s oh so painfully clear that it’s gender-based discrimination that’s at work. Why the fear? Is it fear of acknowledging male privilege? Well, probably. And, too, I think that’s based on a misunderstanding of what privilege means. So, stopping, listening, and learning would be a start.

I am just SO FUCKING TIRED of the reactionary, “Well, uh, no, it’s not because she’s a WOMAN… she just happens to be a woman! It’s because of x, y, and z!” excuse, over and over, trotted out for any woman who faces sexism and refuses to pretend it doesn’t exist.

The knee-jerking is just not cool, guys. You wanna be progressive? Sack up, assholes, and walk the walk in addition to talking the talk.

From Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Novels, via Rachel Kramer-Bussel; and I’ll tell you up front, they were riffing off the AJC’s “Woman to Woman” column, which should prep you for exactly what kind of stupidity they were dealing with.

The funny thing is, the sorts of people who love to blame romance novels for the breakdown of the family are usually the ones who go on ad nauseam about the importance of personal responsibility, especially when it comes to social issues. Pregnant with an unwanted child? Gay? Brown and po’? SUCK IT UP, BECAUSE IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT TO BEGIN WITH, AND IF YOU TRIED HARD ENOUGH, YOU WOULDN’T BE ANY OF THESE THINGS. But once something like, say, violence in video games or the manly (but sensitive! Don’t forget they’re so sensitive!) heroes in romance novels rear their heads, they’re all for warning people off lest the poor, unsuspecting victims shatter their fragile psyches against the ramparts of oiled man-titty. As soon as blame can be attached to something that directly affects them, you won’t see a group of people so eager to pass on the buck. God forbid that the kids do awful things because they had shitty parents or because they’re being, y’know, kids, or that the woman left her husband because he’s a terrible spouse.

The rebuttal didn’t get my dander up quite as much as it did Sarah, but the derailment into Pornolandia made me raise my brow. I tend to question studies that claim violent porn increases propensities towards sexual violence–my gut feeling is that people who voluntarily seek out violent porn (not kinky BDSM stuff–I’m talking snuff porn and rape porn) on a regular basis probably are inclined in that direction to begin with. Linking causality for this sort of thing is incredibly tricky.

And all this clucking and flapping over female porn always makes me wonder: are female orgasms so terrifying? Seriously, why are people so damn worked up over women getting turned on and rubbin’ one out? Every time a woman masturbates, are TWO kittens killed instead of just one? I want to know, because I’d like to know how many kittens I’ve killed last week.

Sarah and Candy win at life.

I came across yet another random blog thread this morning where it devolved into radfem hand-wringing and sticking-out-of-tongues at the so-called (by them) “YAY PR0N!!1!” crowd. (And no, I am not going to provide a link. I am sick of people going, “OMG WHY WON’T SHE PROVIDE A LINK???” My blog, my call.) As if on cue, a commenter chimed in with, “Well, Biting Beaver used to be a sex worker, and she’s anti-porn and anti-prostitution!”

This strikes me a bit like, “Well, I have a black friend, and she says it’s okay for me to use the N-word!!”

Which is, of course, one of the most fundamental trappings of unrecognized privilege - viewing one person who is a member of a group as a representative of the entire group. (So, for example, a woman who wrecks her car proves that women are shitty drivers; an unemployed Latino man proves that Mexicans are lazy; and so on.)

One sex worker’s bad experience does not negate another sex worker’s good experience; and vice versa. A fundamental concept that we’re all supposed to be keeping in mind here is that people are individuals who experience the world in unique ways, and my experience will never be like yours, or hers, or his… etc.

I don’t want to harp on this anymore, though. I don’t like to fall into the trap of just doing blog posts about, “Oh look at this shitty thing another radfem blogger said!!” because even though I blog for myself first and foremost, sometimes I do worry a bit about what people might think of feminism as a whole if they see posts like this one. -And, yes, I know that if someone draws generalizations about all of feminism based on my complaints with one miniscule segment of the feminist blogosphere, ultimately that’s their problem for not using their brains; but still, I don’t like to be negative more often than positive. However, I do feel compelled to comment on stuff like this from time to time, because it upsets me to see such sentiments expressed under the guise of feminism.

And, now, I’m off to photograph dilapidated old buildings.

Okay, this is just too damn funny. Where to begin…?

I don’t really know what BlogNetNews is or why I’m supposed to care. Anyone can build an aggregator, but the blogosphere relies on community buy-in, and apparently some of my fellow Georgia bloggers think BNN is something worth noticing, or at least something not worth laughing at? I don’t know. I remember hearing about it a few months ago at Grayson’s, then I forgot; then Sara blogged about it yesterday.

– Okay. I feel the need to interject something here, given the profound lack of basic reading and listening ability many people demonstrated during the fallout of the Creative Loafing hunk-of-shit blogosphere article. People who apparently couldn’t see beyond their own shit got all hung up on, “These folks are just JEALOUS that they weren’t INCLUDED!!1!11!OMGhighschool”. This isn’t about me being jealous of not being listed on freakin’ BlogNetNews, ffs. This is just some funny shit… Ren, got an extra “Typical” file? I need to replenish my stock.

(Interjection over.)

So anyway, after I saw Sara’s post yesterday, I overheard Rusty talking about other bloggers (who I don’t read as often) who had written about this apparent Top 10 list. I decided to check out the BlogNetNews site. There was a link to email them your feed if it wasn’t listed. So I sent a two-line email with my blog URL and my feed URL, with the subject line “For BlogNetNews Georgia.”

Here is the email I received in response:

Amber,

I am sure you’ve heard this before: You are trouble. BNN/Georgia is a humble politics and public affairs blog aggregator. Your content isn’t very local or public affairsy. However, I love the blog and your obviously broad blogging involvement. Take a look at www.blognetnews.com/cotillion . I built it for a friend who is a member. I am wondering whether you might have an idea for a group that you belong to. Thoughts?

Best,
Dave Mastio

BlogNetNews.com
We Serve Blogging

Remember to visit our advertisers

Bwahahahaha… what the fuck.

We will come back to the “you’re trouble” remark. Let’s just stick, for now, with the “your content isn’t very local” part. I sent him some examples…

Search my 5+ years of archives (I haven’t been at that URL for long) if you’re so inclined… on the old blog I had a category for “Atlanta”; on the new blog I have an “Atlanta” tag. I publicize local events of interest very frequently. Everything tagged “Atlanta” at my new URL: http://www.beingamberrhea.com/tag/Atlanta

I organized PodCamp Atlanta. I’m the co-founder of the Georgia Podcast Network. Pretty darn local. I give presentations on the value of hyperlocal content. I attend meetings of the Atlanta Press Club (I’m a member), Social Media Club Atlanta, Georgia for Democracy, Georgians for Choice… the list goes on… to help figure out how to best leverage social media at the local level.

But okay. My content isn’t local or “public affairsy.”

Dave replies again…

Let me be a little more clear. The intent of the blognetnews state sites is to cover state and local news and politics. Reading your posts, I didn’t see you covering what I think fits in to waht I am trying to do on those sites. We are building other aggregators — city focused ones where all topics will be in and national ones that will take narrower slices of the blogosphere. You’d fit in both those places.

The last part of my note was a suggestion that you come up with an idea for a national aggregator where you’d fit.

I replied with a short note…

I understood the last part of your note, but I’m not interested in being part of a national aggregator. My main concern/interest is hyperlocal content, which is why Rusty and I started the Georgia Podcast Network. We feel new media has the most potential for influence at the local level.

I also asked him to clarify what he meant by saying that I’m “trouble.” His reply:

Visits to sex clubs are hardly the stuff of a mainstream site.

Now, this is the REALLY hilarious part. I mean, aside from it being just good old-fashioned sex negativity and compartmentalization of sexuality, it’s also just another boring rehashing of - guess what! - the double standard! Oh, yay! I just never get tired of that.

This is highly (grimly) amusing to me, because Rusty’s blog is listed on BlogNetNews. He recently wrote about our visit to the sex club, too. But, as Jenny said in an email, “You’re a woman. You may choose between your sexuality and your intelligence. You may not have both.”

Lest we forget!

Many other questions spring to mind, too, such as: what makes him think I’m trying to produce a “mainstream site” - whatever that even means?

Btw, Dave is fine w/ my blogging these emails because, as he stated, BNN is “big on free speech.” Just not wrt sex clubs, I guess.

I will reserve further commentary because really, these emails speak for themselves. I wouldn’t want to kick a puppy. (Commenters, however, should feel free.)

If I list a cable modem for sale on Craigslist (which it just so happens I did), do not email me and say, “Do you still have the modem? Did you buy it? If it was no [sic] bought, Comcast will make me return it.”

I KNOW. I wouldn’t be selling it if I had to return it to Comcast.

…And “right-wing whiners” isn’t exactly apt, but I can’t think of a snappy description that doesn’t involve at least five adjectives, including references to stunted adolescence… ah, anyway, onto the point:

No fat jokes, no racist/stripper-bashing jokes, no sexist dumb blonde jokes, no misogynist (no, dumbass, “misogynist” is not a -joke-, not an -insult-, that is a -description-. “Dumbass” -is- an insult, yes, genius, very good), transphobic “Mann Coulter” jokes? Butbutbut then -where’s the funny in life?-

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Also: FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH ZOMG HELP HELP I’M BEING OPPRESSED!!!111!!eleven