Being Amber Rhea

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.)

Re: citing one’s sources, and related recent blogosphere drama (of which I’ve only been on the periphery, I admit; I haven’t had the time or interest, quite frankly, to follow it closely)…

I’m no fan of ‘X’ (not by a longshot!) but I think people are getting a tad carried away with this “she stole it!” thing. There are a lot of assumptions going on and they’re not fair ones. ‘X’ herself said she wrote the piece before she saw BFP’s speech… now I know we might not have reason to believe her wholesale, but why would she outright lie, either? I think she’s an asshole, but I can’t see her concocting this elaborate lie. I don’t think assuming malfeasance on her part is fair or productive. You know, zeitgeist and synchronicity do happen. And when dealing with more traditional media operations where there’s an editorial cycle, a pub schedule, etc., things get published weeks or months after they were written.

Is that so hard to believe?

Obviously, you should cite your sources; I would think everyone can agree on that. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to automatically assume that an instance of “wow, we both wrote about the same topic” is a case of copying without crediting.