Being Amber Rhea

I know I should be glad men are writing about sexism in tech (and I am) but stuff like this always kinds of annoys me too. The person who marked it for me in del.cio.us (btw, I can’t remember who this person actually is; their del.icio.us handle isn’t one they use elsewhere, apparently!) said this:

Hmm. Good article, but I find myself not wanting to link to Yet Another Man Discovering the Issue (sigh). Still, the code-of-conduct proposed seems pretty good, and at least he links out to women in his post.

It is a good post, and I’m not annoyed at the post itself (because as I’ve said before, it’s vitally important for men to talk to other men about sexism), but rather the culture around such posts, I guess is what you would call it. It’s like, it’s only taken seriously when a man writes about it; when a woman does, we’re just whiny bitches. Which is the whole point, but irony is lost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Busy today, and if I’m going to be blogging, I want to get back to writing personal stuff; but I made the mistake of going back to that thread (which has exploded), and I saw this comment from Emilie Dice and it irritated me:

Because men are already “sex positive” by cultural default. It’s not an issue for them. Of course they want women making the right choice to cater to their sexist demands. It’s a given.

That really annoys me because it is so NOT what being sex-positive is about. It reminds me of non-sex-positive feminists who say, “I like sex! So how can I be sex-negative?” Because it’s not about whether you personally like sex. It’s about so much more than that. And the traditional patriarchal construct of how male and female heteronormative sexuality is played out is NOT sex-positive. So a guy not being afraid to say he likes to fuck isn’t necessarily sex-positive, either. Does he subscribe to the virgin/whore dichotomy? How does he view women who are openly, actively, unabashedly sexual? Does he speak in denigrating terms about some women and/or some types of consensual sex? Does he think “gay” is an insult? Does he use gendered insults? On and on and on. And of course, anything that is sexist (see Emilie’s comment) is by definition NOT sex-positive.

A few weeks ago I collected some sex-positive links to serve as reference for explaining what I mean, since I seem to be so often repeating myself.

There’s a post at Feministe, linking to this CNN article, about women changing their last name when they get married. The title of the post is, “How about this? Don’t change your name.”

Now first of all, I want to be clear that I’m not saying the tradition of women “taking” their husband’s last name shouldn’t be questioned or challenged. Duh, of course it should - and no woman should do it because she feels like she has to, or because her husband/family/whoever is getting all bent out of shape about it. Likewise, people shouldn’t flip out if a man wants to change his name to his wife’s after marriage (the horror of bucking a traditional gender expectation!) - or if one or both of them want to hyphenate, or whatever else.

With all that being said… what I don’t like is how these conversations (like so many others) all too often take on that unmistakable air of judgment on individual women. People feel free to draw all kinds of conclusions about a woman based on one thing, when in fact they don’t have all the information and therefore, basically, they don’t know shit. It reminds me of the abstinence-only people who wring their hands about teenage girls taking birth control pills - as if the only reason anyone takes the pill is because they’re having sex. (I started taking the pill when I was 14, but didn’t have sex until I was 18. Obviously those intervening four years were just pointless, right?)

Believe it or not, a woman might have a reason other than conforming to patriarchal norms for changing her name. Now you might say, if that’s the case, why not do it independently of marriage? Again, there could be myriad reasons, one of which might be the easiness factor. If you’re getting married it’s easier to change your name, and look, a lot of us (myself included) are pragmatic and a little lazy with things that involve government bureaucracy.

As for me? Yes, I changed my name when I got married in December 2000. I’ve definitely gotten some raised eyebrows for it - not a ton, but enough for me to notice. (I remember in particular going to a presentation by the campus Women’s Studies group in college called “Confessions of a Married Feminist.” But that’s another story for another time.) Upon finding out that I’d changed my name, one of my ex’s friends who was a big-time conservative Christian and generally kind of an ass, said, “Wow, these feminists will surprise you!” I wanted to slap the stupid grin off his stupid face, but it was the day before his wedding and I figured it wouldn’t do for him to show up at the alter with a black eye.

Anyway, so I changed my name when I got married - and when I got divorced in September 2004, I didn’t change it back to my “maiden name” (can we also talk about how much I hate that term?). Whenever I got married again, I don’t plan to change my name again.

This might seem weird to people who, you know, aren’t me, but I don’t care. -And often when I say “I don’t care,” what I really mean is, “I actually do care on some level, and feel insecure and vulnerable, but if I tell myself and everyone else that I don’t care, maybe eventually it’ll be true. Fake it ’til you make it, right?” But in this case, I can say with 100% honesty that I really, truly Do Not Care what anyone else thinks of my decision on this matter. Frankly, it’s nobody’s business but mine, and I have my reasons. And they have nothing to do with traditional patriarchal norms.

Regarding this, here is what I sent to whoever receives the messages from Stop Porn Culture’s contact form:

Dear SPC,

As a feminist and social justice activist, I have serious concerns about your slideshow, “Who Wants To Be A Porn Star?”

I am sure you are familiar with 2257 regulations, the set of guidelines for enforcing record-keeping laws by primary and secondary producers of sexually explicit material. (Full regulations here.) The law specifies that producers must obtain and keep on file proof of age for every model appearing in their productions, to ensure that no minors appear in sexually explicit films or photographs. Web sites containing sexually explicit material include a statement of compliance with 2257 regulations, and who to contact for verification of their records.

I am deeply troubled by the fact that I find no such statement on the Stop Porn Culture! web site. Where is the assurance that the women in the slideshow are of age? And beyond the legal implications, there are also the larger ethical considerations. SPC claims to oppose the objectification and exploitation of women. Yet, were the performers in the slideshow contacted and asked whether they consent to have their images used in the slideshow? If not, then SPC is guilty of exploiting these women’s images for SPC’s own gain. It is dehumanizing to simply use an image of a woman in porn as a poster child for a cause. SPC, of all places, should understand that these are actual women who exist and have lives outside of the images on the screen. Does their voice not matter? Is it more important to make a point, even if it means denying the agency of the very women SPC dubiously claims to want to help?

I find this extremely problematic.

- Amber Rhea

I would have said more (I certainly wanted to!) but I felt I should keep it short so they’d be less likely to just pass over it completely.

I urge everyone to contact SPC and express your concerns about their flagrant hypocrisy.

From Apostate:

Back to my bosses… there’s something in their voices, a quality of how they speak when they are issuing orders, disagreeing, taking an antagonistic position. I believe it’s what people call “strident” when it’s coming from women and “authoritative” when it comes from men. And I’m serious: it gets me fucking hot.

I actually get a high surrounded by these strong women. What’s the smiles of men approving of my tits compared to the knowledge that kick-ass, strong as hell women have my back?

They don’t give an inch. They win arguments. They carry their points. They aren’t afraid of retorting sharply to the condescension of a man. They’re bitches. And you bet, they’re seen as such by most of the people they deal with, but damned if they care.

I’m learning. My voice has always, at times, acquired that strident quality but only if the situation was right. I still keep it consciously out of my voice very often because I have more superiors than juniors (as an aside, gaining worldly status - professional, ideally - is absolutely necessary to achieving full bitch status). But the bitch inside me is not very well-hidden. When I recently tried to tell one of my bosses that I was “easy-going” she gave me a funny look and then said, “Yeah, I get that a lot too,” and then we both burst out laughing.

I’ve noticed. You get old enough, you’re a woman - an intelligent woman - for long enough, and you become a bitch. There is no way around, unless people’s attitudes regarding powerful women change. Your voice and manner become strident acquire authority. People may not like you, but you get shit done, people do as you say and yes, you get respect.

Women like this inspire the hell out of me, too. I’m reminded of what my (awesome, female) lead business professor said in grad school, to my project group, which was made up of all women:

“A stern man is a stern man. A stern woman is a bitch.”

And I think most of us knew it by then, anyway - seriously, you learn it pretty early and it gets beaten into your head repeatedly - but coming from her, there was something inspiring about the way she said it. Yes, that double standard SUCKS and we have to continually fight to change it; in the meantime, though, I’ll happily be the ball-buster, the cunt, the bitch, whatever else, and anyone who has a problem with it can attempt to blow it out their tightly-clamped ass. It sure beats the alternative.

I’m also reminded of something Sassywho wrote a while ago. Her blog has since gone invitation-only, but I have a quote of it saved in an old post:

I am the Cunt who challenged your ideas in a meeting, and it even turns out I was right. I am the Whore who has slept with more men than your quota for a woman who deserves your respect, even if it is less than your number. I am the Fucking Slut who responds to your verbal abuse while I am bartending by making you wear that beer you just ordered.

I am the Bitch who wants equality in a relationship and refuses to be your mother. I am the Ballbuster who isn’t intimidated by your masculinity. I am the Wife that was not okay with your 15+ affairs, so I had an affair myself before I left. I am the Fucking Bitch who filed a restraining order on your ass and prosecuted you to the fullest extent of the law when you tried to intimidate me and my friends with harassment to keep me in the relationship. I am a Misogynist’s worst nightmare.

YES.

Repost of two comments I left at Season of the Bitch.

I have longer posts in the works about each of these sentiments, but for now this will have to suffice until I flesh out my thoughts a bit more.

—
First comment:

I have a big problem w/ people who dismissively cast concern about sexual equality as “bourgeois.” To me, this says, yet again: “Oh, it’s sex, it’s not REALLY important, silly little girl.” And it doesn’t acknowledge the truth of MY experience, growing up in a working-class family and being VERY interested and concerned with sexuality.

I think Queer Dewd a.k.a. Bitch | Lab said it best here.

Major quotage:

Because, lord knows “my” issues aren’t also anyone’s who doesn’t share them. Because lord knows “my” issues are white mainstream middle class feminist fluff. So, heaven help me if I dare speak to something that has profoundly fucking shaped my life and the lives of men and women I love: being sexually marginalized, being erased, having to hide who I am or watch others do so, having to listen to all manner of bullshit.

So, when I dare talk about anything that matters to me, why, I’m a fucking pro-pornstitution feminist and/or white mainstream feminist - if I’m lucky to be called a feminist at all. If I’m even lucky to not be called a man. Because, after all, what it is really all about as I learned a year ago is that I’m all about my moist pussy and my vast, vast, vast, vast porn collection. (oops sorry. Channeling Heart)

Erased. Deleted. Evaporated. My identity, my past, who I am, who my friends are - it doesn’t matter - because I am immediately assumed to be engaged in the issues of concern only to white middle class women or, conversely, a male-identified, patriarchy-fucking, freelancer provacateuring for the right wing. (Damn. Wish I knew who the rest were. I need to do some benchmarking on my competition.)

Because lord knows there are no poor, white, queer women. And it often seems that the only way to have anyone take us seriously on this issue is to focus on extreme marginalization or the fact of poverty, rather than examining the everyday acts of silencing and erasing. If it involves bodily harm or extreme psychic harm, that’s important. But if it’s the harm done to women like RenEv by the way they are treated in this society, then it is *piffle*. If it’s the harm from having your sexual identity erased and you are bisexual: big fucking whoopee. And for christ’s sake don’t you even dare talk about taking pole dancing classes and how that’s personally empowering for you given your working class, Southern, conservative, Christian upbringing. There are more important things in the world and obviously poverty supercedes that.

Except. It. Doesn’t.

Because I (or Amber, or any other woman) can’t be pulled apart into those baby block beads that are discrete from one another, that can be snapped back together after examining each one: one bead poor, one bead queer, one bead woman, one bead white.

I am sex positive because I don’t know what else to call a feminist who fights against the instantiation of elitism and classism in mainstream society and among feminismS, an elitism and a classism that is so subtle virtually no one sees it, and who rails against the way this normalization of class warfare revolves around, among other things, sexuality and sexual representation. I don’t know what to call a feminist who cares about the way these same issues are racialized, who cares about the way sex and sexuality are subject to the same normalizing hegemonic institutions as any other oppressive system we are all supposed to struggle against and dismantle.

—
Second comment:

And also?

My feminism is critical of power relations based on a linear hierarchy. (This translates into me feeling guilty being ‘the boss’ at work).

Fuck guilt. First of all, sometimes hierarchy is necessary - and as long as you’re not being an asshole, there’s no problem. Secondly, we get enough guilt heaped onto us as women, without burdening ourselves with MORE guilt for achieving a modicum of success.

Lately, Melissa keeps writing stuff that feels like something piercing my gut and brings a tear to my eye, and then I struggle to put into words what is resonating so deeply and why. Here’s the latest installment. And my rambling commences after the cut.
Read the full post »

I feel like a fucking flake. But it just wasn’t happening. Sorry, Jill. :( Anyhow, this is as far as I got… might as well post it here:

—

What makes a feminist choice? Too often, that question is construed in such a way that it becomes meaningless. Because it’s not about the act itself; it’s about the meaning behind the act. And it’s extremely important to remember who defines that meaning. It’s not defined by outsiders looking in. It’s defined by the woman herself, the one doing the action.

Take for example, a woman posting nude photos of herself online. The act itself is not the important part. The question of whether posting nude photos is a feminist choice is a question that doesn’t make sense if we don’t consider the woman’s motivations. That’s what makes or breaks whether it is a feminist choice or not. Just going on the act alone, we don’t have any information that can tell us if it’s a feminist choice.

And yet (sticking with this example), people feel free to make all kinds of assumptions about women who post nude photos. Similar assumptions are made by society at large and, distressingly, by some feminists. She must be craving male approval; she must have low self-esteem; she must be superficial; she must need validation… on and on and on. But the fact that people make such assumptions based on a particular act is far more revealing of their own biases and the stereotypes they’ve bought into, than anything about this woman’s psychological state.

Sure, she might be doing it out of any of those stereotypical motivations assigned to her without question. But she might be doing it for a variety of other reasons that are all about her and not about what other people say she should or shouldn’t do. She might be giving the finger to the dichotomy we draw between “smart” women and “sexy” women. Perhaps she’s challenging your assumptions, asking you to examine why you make them in the first place. Maybe she’s saying, “I’m not ashamed of my body, and I reject patriarchal norms that tell me that I’m ‘demeaning myself’ if I show it, or that I can only show it to certain people in certain contexts.” She might be stating, “Refusing to keep my sexuality neatly compartmentalized does not disempower me; the patriarchy disempowers me by dictating such compartmentalization.” Maybe she’s doing it because she wants to, and she doesn’t owe you any explanation.

That would be all too radical, wouldn’t it? Because it would mean centering her, the woman, instead of centering men. And even as feminists call out countless examples of male privilege, many of them continue to place a lot of importance on what men think and how men interpret things - even if their interpretations are dead wrong. Somehow those interpretations are granted more importance than what the actor (the woman) states as her intent.

Nothing new there.

And I get it, we don’t live in a perfect world. We live in a world which is, unfortunately, still very much controlled by sexism. So I can understand being concerned about how things may appear to and be interpreted by men. They are the ones making the rules more often then not, and therefore their interpretations are going to be given more credence by society at large. But do we, as feminists, have to replicate this structure?

Surely there’s got to be a middle ground. We won’t shake up the status quo by not doing the things we want to do, out of fear of how some men might take it. If we take that route, we’re still letting ourselves be controlled by men - only they’re forcing us not to do something, rather than forcing us to do something. Either way it’s the same thing - we are passive, reactionary. Instead of being true to ourselves, we base our decisions around what men might think. And that’s not radical at all.

So we have to push. We have to keep on pushing back against the stereotypes, dichotomies, double standards, prescriptive norms. Because if we push long enough and hard enough, people will notice. I won’t go the predictable, clichéd route of invoking the Civil Rights Movement; but the truth is, with any major societal change in our nation’s history, things changed because people had the courage to act instead of just react, to push back instead of just being moved around like a pawn.

—

Maybe next time. Or, maybe writing for somewhere else isn’t for me? Who knows.

I fully support Ren declaring herself the god-emperor of Rome for the day.

Common sense, people. Let me show you it.

I do not understand that while there is no question that sexism affects everyone, there is such a refusal to see that there is a great difference between “slut” and “stud”. Or that cat-calling, honking, or otherwise making loud overtures towards a woman will, often, annoy the shit out of that woman and it is, generally, not something men have to deal with as often, if at all. I give a thumbs up to the idea that attraction is natural, but a thumbs down to “society expects/forces this behavior on us, thus I must”…the God Emperor of Rome believes in free will. And that both men and women are capable of employing it and using it to not do what society tells them to do all the time.

And seriously, I do not understand why more men are not, apparently, offended at the idea that they’re basically mindless automatons doing whatever society or “biology” (to which they often nebulously appeal) tells them to do. ‘Cause I’d be pretty offended if people were suggesting I’m incapable of making my own decisions. Oh wait, people are suggesting that, and yeah, I’m offended!

Sometimes my mind just boggles at the, well, mind-boggling stupidity of it all.

Which reminds me of the title of a post I need to write: “I am not a patient person.”

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

—

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

THANK YOU!!!

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

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

Oh really?

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

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

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

Ren has yet another anonymous commenter (a.k.a. troll) on her blog. He exhibits many of the characteristics on the Anti-Feminist BINGO card, as well as the follow-up version 2 of said card.

I don’t bother to engage w/ such people, and I recommend against anyone else doing so. But if you want a synopsis, here’s shorter (longer?) Anony:

“Yeah, I mean it sucks that a woman’s sexual history will be put on trial in a rape case and could determine whether or not the rapist is convicted, and if she has ever dared to admit to liking sex that must mean she likes it all the time, with anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances, so how could she be raped; and never mind if she’s a sex worker, and yeah it sucks that sex workers are often abused by law enforcement. I mean sure it sucks that men are congratulated for sexual ‘conquests’ while women are called sluts and their emotional wellbeing, physical health, mental health, competence as parents, competence in their jobs, etc. are called into question all because they dare to have sex on their terms; yeah it’s pretty crappy that women have had their children taken away from them and deemed to be unfit parents, or lost their jobs over sexual activity between consenting adults; yeah I guess it’s a pain in the butt that a woman’s entire self-worth is judged based on the state of her hymen; and it must be kinda annoying dealing with sexual harassment and having it written off as ‘just a joke’ or her being ‘too sensitive,’ and anyway didn’t she ask for it if she’s dressed that way, why doesn’t she want a little attention? Yeah it could suck not being able to walk around by yourself without people yelling comments, not to mention groped and having your physical space disrespected and having no recourse, that must be a minor inconvenience sometimes. ….

But men get made fun of if they can’t find sexual partners! So stop being sexist and talk about THAT! Why can’t you be rational and logical, just like ME!”

Ren gave me kudos for engaging on this thread; and frankly, I surprised myself by having the stomach for it.

Quote of the morning goes to Ren, commenting about this particular installation of hand-wringing. (It was hard not to quote her entire post!)

MAYBE for people with kinks or rougher preferences feminist sex includes being aware enough of what they like to ASK for it, do it, enjoy it, explore it WITH other CONSENTING ADULTS! Wow! There’s a fucking thought…

I’ll tell you what, I think the woman who has the spine to tell her partner “I want you to pin me down, choke me, fuck the hell out of me and call me names” is a hell of a lot more empowered sexually than the vanilla woman who lays there and thinks of England rather than telling her partner amid sex what she really wants…no matter what that is. The woman who says “tonight, you’re going to fuck me like an animal, and tomorrow, I’m gonna fuck you like an animal” is light years ahead of the woman too ashamed or afraid to say that. The woman who tells her partner she wants to tie them up, do them with a strap on, and smack them around is better off that the woman who takes what she is given because she is ashamed to mention she’d like to do that.

And I sure as fuck want everyone to examine why they think they can tell other adult consenting people how to fuck or that they are doing it wrong and why they feel they can shame them for it.

I’ll have more to say about this later, when I get a free moment.

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

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

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

Interesting post up at Uncool. This idea of a woman’s body as a signifier for sex is something I first discussed back in college, in my awesome Biology and Politics of Women’s Reproduction class. The professor had asked us to bring in magazine clippings of ads that use sex to sell their product. A lot of people brought in ads featuring scantily clad women. As we went around and each showed the ads we’d brought, the professor called these out and asked, “Why does this signify sex? This is a picture of a woman. Why do we understand the picture to represent sex?”

It was a real “a-ha!” moment for me.

I don’t think this is something nearly enough people consider, or that it even ever enters their mind as something that needs to be considered. There’s nothing to think about there, right? Sex sells… and we understand that even an image of a woman’s face or lips [can't find the photo I was looking for] means “sex.”

But, why? Talk about your deeply embedded cultural assumptions. We’ve got some unpacking to do. Because until we do that, there are a lot of other problems that will remained only partially dealt with at best, instead of getting to the root of the problem.

For example, Caroline says:

Now, to me, it seems reasonable to make a connection with street harassment (I’ve got a post in the drafts, will do very soon). Because naked women = sex, so to do ‘revealing’ clothes. Take, for example, the lady pictured (right, taken from Tom Paine’s blog). Sexy? Certainly this image would equate with sex in this society because 1) the jeans show clearly her figure and 2) there’s a lot of skin on display. Therefore, some men believe that sex is being ‘offered’ to them and whistling, leery looks, comments etc ensues. So, if women say, “No, I’m wearing these jeans because I like the way I look in them and they make me feel more confident and therefore happier, and it is not about attracting the attention of all the men on the street,” many will laugh and dismiss that as utter nonsense.

Why? Because, like we said, naked women = sex, and that attitude permits, in part, that sort of behaviour (obviously it’s by no means solely responsible). Blokes don’t want to wear their shirts in the summer because they’re too hot, whatever. Women want to wear short shorts or, say, cropped tops because…. what? They’re sexy? They’re trying to be sexy? Cos they’re after attention? Please. Some do, some don’t. Depends on the lass just as it depends on the lad.

I think the other thing at work in this example is entitlement, which as we know, is a big part of male privilege. Obviously it must be about the men, what else could it possibly be about? Surely she couldn’t have her own reasons for dressing a certain way, that’s inconceivable!

It’s really, really stupid. I mean when I really think about it, the utter stupidity just knocks me on my ass.

Unfortunately I see similar arguments coming from some feminists, and the fact that I know they’re not stupid at all points to just how entrenched this idea is. For example, in Caroline’s post she points to another incarnation of the ever-present hand-wringing discussion over why some women post naked photos online. It simply must have something to do with wanting male approval, right?

My reaction, again, can be summed up with this emoticon: :|

I think there is a discussion to be had over the relative lack of male bodies portrayed on some self-identified sex-positive sites; but getting hung up on the “women only do it for male attention” / “those sites are replicating existing power structures” argument will simply lead to a stalemate, preventing discussion of whatever the real issues are.

ETA: Also be sure to see Laura’s original post which Caroline was referencing. Meant to link it when I first wrote this post, sorry!

As usual, inimitable Susie nails it:

For her, it’s like Iggy Pop spotting a CBGB T-shirt for sale at the mall. What “Sex and the City” did was co-opt a very real, very important movement at the time that was dedicated to female sexuality and was in no small part spearheaded by Bright. Unfortunately, “in some cases, like with ‘Sex and the City,’ the fantasy became bigger than the reality of women speaking about their sexuality.” As “Sex and the City” returns, “everyone knows who Sarah Jessica Parker is, but Sarah Jessica Parker is not a pioneer in sex-positive feminism.”

The women of “Sex and the City,” asserts Bright, aren’t political. “They’re desperate to get married. They obsess about their marital status.” And they turned the sexual revolution for women of the new millennium into a business. To make her point, Bright references a recent New Yorker essay, “The Fall of Conservatism” by George Packer, in which Pat Buchanan paraphrased social theorist Eric Hoffer: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Comments Bright: “‘Sex and the City’ is the racket part of what once was recognizable as the sexual self-emancipation of the feminist movement.” For her, the commodification of the 21st century female sexual revolution hits too close to home. “I can’t watch these women, you know, make asses of themselves and be so petty and small-minded about sexual possibility. I take it too personally.”

Says Bright, “I feel like someone drove over me with a truck. I feel invisible. I feel — you know what I feel like? I feel like Trotsky when Stalin airbrushed him out of all the pictures of the Russian Revolution. I feel like the revisionist version of the sexual liberation movement is so stupid and shallow. If the original idea was about self-knowledge, and being orgasmically aware, and large and in charge, and independent, and not pathetically hung up on a man’s approval, then the show is a failure.” But, she adds, “I take it very seriously. I’m sure the people who make the show would say, ‘Lighten up. Susie Bright — what a pain.’”

This is what bothers me so much about Sex and the City.

And the money quote:

You have to laugh sometimes, how these things finally enter the mainstream vocabulary, what becomes exploitable, and what becomes lost.

And once again I find myself feeling like I did when I first read Full Exposure ten years ago: wishing that I could be like Susie when I grow up.

I’m working on my Balticon wrap-up post. It’s slow going; I’ve been feeling sluggish all day. (I’m telling you, I need that colonic!) It seems like the older I get, the more recovery time I need from travel; and the more sensitive I get to things like air quality in hotel rooms (which is hardly ever good). The Balticon hotel was surreal on many levels.

Anyhow. I just saw this post from season of the bitch, because she linked to me in it.

Women used slut to wound and to mark others as inappropriate, as socially unacceptable, as vicious-a slut will take your man, she doesn’t care, in fact she likes it. She doesn’t deserve female friends, she’s not loyal to women, she just cares about male attention. Slut doesn’t even mean you have lots of sex or even any sex-it just means you look like you might, or talk like you might.

The slut is a monster. Her body is the body of all women (”a cultural body”). She doesn’t recognize boundaries (”harbinger of category crisis”) and she is not like you (”dwells at the gates of difference”). She is what you should not be, she defines by being it what is wrong (”polices the borders of the possible”) and yet, strangely, she makes you jealous. You want to be her. (”Fear of the monster is really a kind of desire.”) Most importantly:

“They [monsters] ask us to reevaluate our cultural assumptions about race, gender, sexuality, our perception of difference, our tolerance toward its expression. They ask us why we have created them.”

My college roommate gave me the craziest look when I told her that I was going to a fetish party the night before Halloween. Despite the fact that at the time, I’d never even had sex. But I’d made myself appear sexual and I’d talked about sex, out loud. That was enough.

(I almost felt the need to justify myself further here by talking about said roommate’s sexual behavior, which shows you how deeply this shit is ingrained-it’s certainly not right for me to pass judgment on her sex life any more than it was for her to do it to me. Hell, it’s stupid that I justified myself by pointing out that I was a virgin.)

But the point is that when a woman publicly appears to be sexual, declares herself sexual, we try to shove her back into that box.

Rusty and I (and yesterday, Rusty, Jenny, Dan, and I) have spent a lot of time talking about what happened in the “Don’t Be That Guy” session. I’m still processing a lot of it, which might also be contributing to why I’m having a hard time writing my wrap-up. Tomorrow night Rusty and I plan to record a podcast about it, so maybe I’ll be able to better express myself by speaking rather than writing.

Oh, but I was trying to tie the season of the bitch post (what’s her name? I can’t find it!) Sarah’s post to the panel experience. She writes about how she is fine with the word “bitch” (applied to her but not to other women) but cannot stand “slut.” I guess I am the opposite… sort of. I mean, I can completely relate to what she says here about “slut”…

That word hits me like a slap across the face-it leaves marks. And it’s so totally unexpected when it does happen, now that I’m not in high school or even college. When it slips out of the mouth of a male friend-not directed at me or a real person-I shudder before calmly and patiently explaining that I wasn’t OK with that word in ANY context, I didn’t care how much I disliked the girl in question. That it’s a word that hurts me as much as any woman it’s directed at.

That’s a feeling I’ve had many times - sometimes when I’m the one being called a slut, but more often when the word is directed at another woman. When it’s directed at me, it depends on who’s saying it and what the context is. Often, it just slides right off as an insult, and even makes me laugh and go, “Yeah, and? You’re damn right I’m a slut, now fuck off!” I do believe that the word can be reclaimed and can be a source of empowerment. Other times when it’s used as an insult, it just makes me roll my eyes at the utter non-creativity of the would-be insult-slinger. Seriously, that’s all you’ve got? Try again, bucko. FAIL. And, during sex? I love being called a dirty little slut or several variations thereof. Hotness! And it’s hot in that context because it’s not used derisively or judgmentally. Context matters.

But there are other words I cannot abide at all. In particular: bitch.

I won’t say “never,” because I know things change, especially in how people experience their sexuality and use it as a way to work through other issues; but right now, I absolutely would not find it hot to be called a bitch during sex. I know this is arbitrary because there are other women who love it and hate “slut,” and a million other permutations. But something about that word… it gets under my skin. It is never funny to me in the context of a joke; it is never acceptable to me as a general-purpose insult (why use a gendered insult when “asshole” will do just as well?)

Yesterday during the panel, there was a point where that word started getting used by some of my fellow panelists - and then, after being met with uproarious, approving laughter, by some audience members. I can’t say whether it stings worse in the mouths of men or other women; they are different kinds of hurt, but in both cases, my reaction is a feeling of deep-down queasiness.

I was already uncomfortable with the direction that panel was going at the beginning, but when that word came out, that’s the point when I started shaking. I don’t know if anyone noticed. But when I was reading an excerpt from synecdochic’s seminal reference post* on how not to be that guy, I noticed my hands trembling and I tried to keep them close to the table so no one would notice; and I tried to keep my voice as even as possible. I don’t know if I succeeded in either of those things. I guess the audio will hold the answer to the latter.

More to come.

* If you have not read this piece? READ IT. Immediately.

Update: Audio from the “Don’t Be That Guy” session is now available.

…of the kind of stuff mentioned here.

This morning I was pulling one of my favorite shirts (seen here) out of the closet, and then I thought, “Oh, I have to go to the creepy eye doctor today; I shouldn’t wear this, he might look down my shirt.”

And then I caught myself.

Because there I was, yet again, as I’ve been taught as a woman, making his potential bad behavior my responsibility.

So I said, “Fuck that, I’m going to wear what I want to wear.”

Everyday sexism, example #787,346,245,986,090.

I heart this post by Debauchette. An excerpt:

Sex with someone changes over time in interesting and beautiful ways. Aggressive sex tends to expand my boundaries; intimate sex tends to deepen the territory within those limits. It allows me to shut off my brain, to be primal, physical, and open, and to experience someone else in an equally primal state. It heightens my empathy. It reminds me to stay in the moment.

And promiscuity was an important part of my development as a woman. Promiscuity made it possible for me to better understand myself, my emotional needs, my kinks, my physical range, my priorities, as well as my relationship to other people. When we accuse women (never men, always women) of having no respect for their bodies when they sleep [with] many men, we’re working from the assumption that sex itself is degrading to women (never men), when the contrary should be true. That nagging, pervasive Judeo-Christian construct of sex as some corruptive force keeps us defensive and nervous when we should be forthright and proud.

My rejection of sex-as-sin morality isn’t new - I think every major artistic movement has fucked out of social, sometime political, defiance, but it never seems to stick, maybe because it’s mostly men who are doing the rejecting, the fighting, and the fucking. Or maybe because history is predictable and repetitive - there’s always a backlash, and then a backlash to the backlash. Whatever it is, I’m just another promiscuous blip in a continuum of irreverent fucking.

I cannot even tell you how much I relate to this post.

This part, in particular, struck a chord with me:

I’m pretty sure I have no real concept of the scale of the sexism I’ve experienced in my life. Women are, let’s face it, used to being victims of sexism - we rationalise it away, shrug it off, don’t dwell on it. Which is all very well for short-term personal happiness, but not for revolutionising society. We go out of our way to avoid sexism, which is often self-defeating when our long-practised skills at avoiding abuse result in a lack of convincing examples to persuade anyone that there is, in fact, a problem.

Writing down all the various instances of sexism I experience on a daily or near-daily basis is something that I’ve thought about before. But I’ve never done it, because I think it would end up being too depressing/infuriating to me. I know I tend to internalize my anger, so that would end up being toxic to me. But the flip side is, it just means there are more ignorant men still out there. And of course the flip side of that is, it is so not my job to educate men - they need to do their own homework.

And this comment…

This post is enlightening. I’d not actually realized these things actually happened, and on such a regular basis. Not you’re not overreacting, those are all squicky and nasty things to happen and make me shudder. Presumably because I’m male, I guess, they don’t happen to me, so I don’t see them. And I really can’t fathom the mindset of any man who would behave like that. I should just learn to appreciate how lucky I am that these things don’t happen to me, I guess.

(And immediately after that one, there’s a comment where some pleased-with-himself dude shows up to tell her other [more important?] reasons why accepting random Bluetooth messages is “a bad idea” - namely viruses, which I guess she never thought of because she’s a girl, or maybe because it’s totally irrelevant to the topic of the post, but I digress…)

I mean I’m glad there are men who are actually willing to listen and learn. (Isn’t it sad that I’m glad about that? I mean, that should really be the default, expected behavior. Ugh…) But I always feel like rolling my eyes when I see comments like that. I got one on Twitter today when I posted the link, from some dude who follows me but I don’t follow him and I have no idea who he is… he said he was appalled. Well, yes, of course he is - because he doesn’t have to deal with this shit. Whenever women explain the (unfortunately) mundane details of day-to-day sexism to men, they are always shocked, shocked!, I tell you. (Well, assuming they’re not calling us lying over-sensitive feminazi bitches, of course.)

My reaction to that can best be represented by this emoticon: :|

Well, yes, that is the definition of privilege: the luxury of ignorance. Not having to know something happens, because it doesn’t affect you. And the first step in pulling one’s head out of one’s ass, of course, is acknowledging the rather simple fact that just because it doesn’t happen to you, doesn’t mean it never happens.

“Someone give me a penis so that I don’t sound like a Feminazi.” - Sassywho

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.)

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.