Closed for business
In some ways I never thought this day would come, but I’ve been feeling the need for a while now: I’m closing this blog. Not necessarily forever – because I don’t want to be one of those bloggers that makes some grand exit statement and flounces off, only to reappear back at the same URL a few months later – but for the near future, at least. Who knows, I might end up back here at some point, writing about any number of things. Or this might become another internet artifact.
I don’t have a grand exit statement, other than this blog has run its course and is no longer good for me. I’ve written here for over seven years, and now it’s time to pack up and start over. You might say that’s just a psychological thing, and yes, I’m sure it is; but I need the feeling of a fresh start.
I’m tired of feeling the breath on my neck from readers ready to latch onto any word and twist it based on their own bizarre motivations. I’m exhausted from trying to explain myself and anticipate attacks. The imperative to self-censor has become too great a feeling, and as much as I’ve tried to soldier on, I’ve realized I can’t, and it would be foolish to continue trying.
I’m not going to be ultra secretive about my new location, and if you try hard enough (it’s not even all that hard), you’ll be able to find it. I’m not keeping it a secret, I’m just not publicizing it. If you do find and choose to lurk in my new space, there can be no misunderstanding as to its purpose. It is mine to do with as I choose, and its use is at my sole discretion.
In its time, this blog has been good to me and led me to some really great things. With any luck, the new blog will do the same.
See y’all later.
Just hit publish
[I started writing this several hours ago, so now the "Rusty in a meeting" part doesn't make sense. But he was in a meeting when I started it!]
While Rusty is at a meeting and I’m waiting for him at the office after hours since we carpooled to work, I should take this opportunity to blog. And there’s so much I could blog about.
Diva’s post about acceptance, sexuality, and gender identity. I don’t disagree w/ the premise. But a few parts of it felt like little barbs, because I’ve had the “acceptance” line used against me to punish me for not staying with my ex after I found out she was trans. You know: “If you REALLY loved her, you’d stay with her!” Love is about the person not the gender, etc. But what none of them seemed to understand is finding out she was trans was about more than the gender. SO much more. That was part of it, of course, and not a miniscule one; but people reduce it to that and draw this line in the sand when they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about. Often it came from other trans people, probably projecting their feelings of resentment toward their own exes onto me, and at the same time using pronouns I was not ready to hear. Guess what: sometimes it’s not about you. And that’s why I created the SOTS Forum web site, to talk about these things that nobody else seems to get, to have a place where we didn’t have to constantly explain ourselves and do damage control. And this morning, I was cleaning up a few things on the site, and everything felt painful. I know I’ve neglected that site for a long time, and the message board has been broken for over a year and I recreated it as a half-assed Google group… but it feels too draining to try to maintain it, a lot of the time. I don’t think it’s healthy for me. But then I feel guilty because I feel like I’m leaving other SOs hanging out to dry – people who need the support like I needed it when there was nothing there for me (and so I created the group). The good news, though, is that in the years since 2003 a few other support forums/sites have sprung up. I haven’t really taken a look at them to see what they’re like, though; but at least I know they’re there. Then I start wondering about my responsibilities to myself vs. my responsibilities to others, and what the balance is. My dad used to say I should write a book about my experience, and there isn’t a book out there like it; and indeed I’ve referred to it as the book that scares me. That book would be filling an empty space and maybe helping to make some people feel a little less alone, less like bad people for not loving their trans partner unconditionally (not that that’s really what the situation is, but I’m saying, that’s what people spin it as). But for now, at least, I don’t think writing that book would be healthy for me. And yet I feel so strongly empathic to all the suffering people out there who have nowhere to turn.
I could write about going through a depressive spate – but lately I feel hyper-aware of writing about anything like that, even though I really want to. My mom reads my blog, Twitter, etc., even though we don’t openly talk about it (which is probably fucked up in its own right but I need to focus on one thing at a time), and I’m not going to try to stop her, because it’s the internet and we’re both adults. But I do think she has some responsibility, too, to realize that we’re BOTH adults, and if I need her help or support on something, I’ll tell her. Sometimes we’ll talk on the phone and she’ll preface something with, “I know this might make you mad but…” and inevitably it’s about something she read on my blog, and she’s saying she’s worried. Which I didn’t mind terribly the first few times, but it’s getting to a point where it’s starting to feel less like concern and more like, take care of my need to think you never have ups and downs in your life by silencing yourself on the not-so-great parts. Even though those are the parts I most desperately need to write about.
Then there’s this fucking post which makes my brain want to slide out of my ear – but if I write about that at all, I think I’ll do it in a separate post.
I’ve had this post by Daisy saved in an untitled draft for two months, and the thoughts about blogging and what it means to me and how it feels have been hanging around, mostly unwritten, since that time, too (actually more like three months now). That last round of bullshit in late February changed something for me. I actually have mentioned this briefly before. But speaking of being hyper-aware, I’m now hyper-aware of writing about ANY part of my life because someone might pounce on it and attack me for my “privilege,” (never mind I spend half my time calling out ACTUAL privilege), twist my words to fit their own agenda, use me as a convenient punching bag, etc. All that kind of stuff had been in the back of my mind for years – it comes w/ the territory of being a woman blogger, particularly a feminist blogger – but somehow that last crap made it feel even more stark. I’m trying to push it down and push it away and just press on like I always have before, but it feels way harder this time. I was reading back through some of my archives recently, looking at some of the bullshit I was handed by commenters before I either banned them or they got bored and stopped coming around, and to look at it objectively I wonder how I stood it. And how can people be so awful that they think it’s okay to talk to another human being that way? But then, that’s MALE PRIVILEGE for you.
I’m getting off track here. I want to write more about class and my experiences, but I feel like there’s no good way to do it without someone using me as an example for something. I hate the feeling of being analyzed and picked apart under a microscope by people who don’t know the half of it. You don’t know my life. So who the fuck do you think you are?
I think maybe part of it, for some people (the ones I’m at least willing to give the benefit of the doubt – a list which, admittedly, is getting shorter), is that they have a hard time understanding differences in blogs. This is a similar thing to what I mentioned when Toby interviewed me, and I’ve experienced it plenty from that direction too – where people who use social media for business/marketing purposes simply can’t conceive of the fact that there are bloggers out there who have different goals, non-business-focused goals, and that those goals are just as valid as theirs. Likewise, people who use blogging primarily for activism/advocacy can have a hard time differentiating the personal and the political. Yes, sometimes they mesh, and yes, sometimes I write posts of that nature. But my blog has never had one “theme” for me to feel boxed into (I started blogging before there was much of a concept of themed blogs) and sometimes my posts are just PERSONAL. As in, there is nothing here to debate or question. This is my truth. It is not a political statement aside from the fact that I think any woman speaking her truth is an act of personal revolution. But when I talk about my experiences with class growing up, I’m not talking about CLASS in the big-picture, societal, analytical way. I’m sharing something with you, the readers, and if you get something out of it, that’s awesome. I do hope that sometimes my personal posts will help someone out there feel less alone, or whatever. But if you don’t get anything out of it, or you want to project all over it? Just leave it alone, because it’s not that kind of post. Some things are not up for debate.
This is the same kind of thing I mean when I said, for example, reproductive justice is not an “issue” to “debate.” This is MY LIFE. You don’t get to “debate” about it, and fuck you for thinking of it as a dehumanized issue; THAT is one of the hallmarks of privilege.
But back to blogging and how I feel about it… Basically there’s a lot of goddamn drama in the feminist blogosphere and I’m sick of it. I barely read any feminist blogs anymore because I don’t have the energy for all the bullshit. We talked about this a little at Sex 2.0 during the Naked on the Internet panel… Dacia said something like, “I think we’ve all been in the position of getting righteous in a comment thread on Feministing and then saying, ‘Oh, fuck this!‘”
But I will always call myself a feminist. I know that the drama and bullshit is with the feminist blogosphere (and really just part of it – a loud part, but not the whole), not feminism itself. I am continually baffled by people who conflate the two, and I really don’t have much patience for it.
I don’t have a lot of patience in general (except when I do – but that’s another tangent) and I’m fucking DONE trying to explain privilege, feminism, class, etc. I should also be done w/ trying to appease people who are going to complain about what I say no matter what I say. But I just hate that w/ some topics there doesn’t seem to be a good way to write about it that doesn’t make me sound like someone whose views I disagree w/ equally.
I know what I really need to do is what I’m constantly telling myself: write like no one is reading. That is what blogging is about, for me. But it’s not always easy. And of course I always keep in mind issues of where my life intersects w/ other people’s lives, and that even though there are things I might want to talk about, they might not want their life made public in that same way. But that’s a whole other can of worms and not what I’m rambling about here. That can of worms, I actually feel pretty equipped to deal with and I can happily discuss the ins and outs of it all day long!
I guess in a way this very post is indicative of me trying to take back my own blog… half of it doesn’t make sense, I’m talking in circles, making sense to no one but myself, and it’s fucking LONG. Yay!
I had a few other things on my “could write about” list but they’ve flown out of my head at the moment. So I suppose I’ll do what I thought I’d be doing a few hours ago: just hit publish!
Top 10 blog topics of 2008
Inspired by Griftdrift, I decided to make a list of the top blog stories/topics/themes of 2008 ’round the parts of the blogosphere I frequent. The great thing about blogging and top 10 lists? There’s no wrong answer, because of the diversity of the communities we move in. So here they are, in (mostly) chronological order:
1. Spitzer scandal
On March 10, the story broke about New York governor Eliot Spitzer being involved in a (get your Bingo cards ready) “prostitution ring.” The pro- sex workers’ rights blogs were all over it from the beginning, especially Bound, Not Gagged, which was the #1 resource for updates as they unfolded. Sex workers’ rights groups across the country and world issued statements and press releases supporting Kristen and denouncing Spitzer’s hypocrisy. Bloggers challenged the same-old, same-old coverage put forth by mainstream media – oversimplification, titillation, and reinforcement of stereotypes – as well as MSM’s clumsy and transparently insincere attempts to “reach out” to sex workers. Behind the scenes, via email, text messages, and Twitter DMs, sex workers and their allies wasted no time in organizing a media team, and gave last-minute interviews from far-flung locations. Even though the voices of sex workers’ rights advocates were largely overshadowed by the usual rehashed “arguments” about prostitution, for the first time we began to make a dent in the coverage, thanks in large part to the greater connectivity offered by social media.
2. Atlanta tornado
On March 14, a tornado ripped through downtown Atlanta. I first heard about it on Twitter; Dave, who was at the Flatiron at the time, sent this tweet: “Tornado just came through the flat iron. We’re all fine but it was insane.” Coverage via social media and citizen journalism was almost overwhelming in its immediacy and thoroughness. People were taking photos, shooting video,Twittering, etc. Because of the coverage from the people on the ground, mainstream media reluctantly had to admit that the tornado hit parts of town other than the business district – although their coverage of the damage in places such as Vine City was still miniscule compared to citizen journalism coverage.
3. Seal Press/WAM!2008 debacle
Some bloggers who are women of color went to WAM!2008 and had some complaints about it. Blackamazon said “fuck Seal Press” and the feminist blogosphere blew up. Seal Press responded and the bloggers Apostate refers to as the noisy group didn’t like the response, and the blogosphere blew up again. Then other publications wrote (poorly and inaccurately, for the most part) about what happened and the blogosphere blew up a third time.
I stayed out of this one for the most part, because I’m pretty sure my thoughts on the matter wouldn’t have been popular with most people on either opposing “side” of the brouhaha, and I didn’t feel like dealing with drama.
4. Amanda Marcotte, Brownfemipower, and “intellectual appropriation”
On the heels of the Seal Press girlcott, there was also Amandagate (have I mentioned I hate the use of -gate as a suffix for any scandal?), wherein some bloggers accused Amanda Marcotte of having plagiarized Brownfemipower. I stayed out of this one for the most part, too.
5. New UK porn law
In May, the UK passed a new law banning so-called “extreme” porn. Bloggers on both sides of the pond covered the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill (of which the porn ban was a part) as it made its way through the Houses of Parliament. Protests were held and people of all stripes spoke out against the ban, but ultimately it passed. So you’d better be careful about what’s on your hard drive, even if you don’t live in the UK; this law sets a dangerous precedent.
6. Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s death
On May 1, the body of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (a.k.a. the DC Madam) was found at her mother’s home in Tarpon Springs, Florida, dead from an apparent suicide. I first heard the news on Twitter, from Melissa. As with the Spitzer scandal, Bound, Not Gagged was again the central location for information – and, in this case, mourning. An online memorial was created shortly after her death, and starting on the night of May 12, a 24-hour vigil of remembrance was held.
It’s hard to talk about death without slipping into what sounds like clichés and platitudes, even if they’re actually sincere, but what I want to say is: We might never know whether Palfrey actually took her own life or was murdered, but sex workers’ rights activists will keep asking the questions that need to be asked, in memory of her life which was needlessly cut short.
7. Kyle Payne
Kyle Payne is a self-professed anti-porn feminist ally, who “is particularly interested in men’s roles in confronting pornography and the rape culture” and served as a rape crisis counselor for four years. It just so happens that he was arrested for assaulting a female student at Buena Vista University. After Eleanor’s Trousers first mentioned it, the news spread like wildfire through the feminist blogosphere. In the weeks leading up to Payne’s sentencing, feminist bloggers stayed on top of the story and sparked a letter-writing campaign to the judge that would preside. Ultimately, Payne was sentenced to six months in jail. It should have been more; but feminist bloggers brought attention to a case that would have otherwise gone virtually unnoticed, and that’s a testament to the power of blogging.
8. The C-word: “Credibility”
So here’s what happened. Andre Walker, who is well-known in the Georgia blogosphere (if not necessarily well-respected), was exposed as having received money from Congressman David Scott’s campaign without having disclosed it. Because Andre wrote several favorable posts about Scott and was credentialed as a journalist by the Georgia Legislature, this is your classic conflict of interest problem. I have to admit I was nonplussed by the revelation, since I never understood why anyone would consider Andre’s blog a beacon of journalistic integrity to begin with. But although I said that with my tongue firmly in my cheek, it’s exactly those sorts of words – “integrity,” “credibility,” “ethics” – that were suddenly being tossed around by the likes of Ken Edelstein. Andre’s actions apparently served as an indictment of all bloggers (stop me if you’ve heard this one before). The debate flared for a while and then died back down, but it’s only a matter of time before the embers are stoked again. Unfortunately, the actions of a few bad apples reinforce the negative pre-conceived notions held by new media naysayers.
9. Pink slips in the pink ghetto
I know, the title for this one is cheesy. I should’ve just stuck with “Sex writers getting canned,” but somehow I couldn’t resist. All silly puns aside, though, the fact is traditional and online publications lost many important voices for positive sexuality this fall. The tanking economy and the precarious position of the media industry in particular was the inevitable explanation. Whether or not you agree that these cuts make sense from a bottom-line perspective, there’s no denying that the effect will be yet another obstacle to intelligent, nuanced discourse on sexuality. While I hate to see people I respect losing their jobs, I do think there’s an opportunity presented here, too. Since one thing that certainly won’t happen is that these people and others like them will simply shut up, I have hope that blogs and other forms of new media will continue to grow and fill the void left by traditional media institutions. Mainstream media might see smart sex content as too risky, but as advocates of positive sexuality we take risks every day.
10. Prop K
Proposition K was a San Francisco ballot initiative, but its importance was covered online regardless of geographic location. Unfortunately Prop K did not pass, but the fact that it was on the ballot at all and got 42% of the vote should be seen as positive gains. I know that doesn’t do anything to change the lives of vulnerable, criminalized sex workers facing real violence right now, and the people who voted “no” and/or vocally opposed it need to think very hard about what their “no” means. Yet this was a historical moment and hard as it is sometimes, I think it’s important for activists to remain positive (which also means taking care of ourselves). I don’t believe Prop K would have had nearly the support it did without the effects of the online community; and maybe next time those effects will be even greater.
Honorable mentions:
Steve Gower
Gower is a dangerous vigilante who terrorizes street-based sex workers – especially trans* workers and workers of color – but thinks of himself as some sort of neighborhood champion for midtown Atlanta. On the heels of the 5th International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, Creative Loafing published a predictably slanted (and infuriating) piece about Gower. For a short time there was outrage over this asshole in the local blogosphere as well as the larger sex workers’ rights blogosphere, but sadly Gower and his MNA sidekicks (see Peggy Denby’s latest stunt of racism and homophobia) are still terrorizing some of Atlanta’s most vulnerable populations.
SpaceyG booted from Peach Pundit
Speaking of predictable… in August, SpaceyG had her front-page posting rights on Peach Pundit revoked. Coverage in the local blogosphere had a particular tone that other stories about political bloggers lacked; it didn’t take a rocket scientist (and we even have one of those!) to smell the sexism. It manifested itself not only in SpaceyG’s initial ousting from Peach Pundit by overlord Erick Erickson, but also in the manner in which it was “covered” – downplaying the significance, blaming the victim, saying “nuh-uh!” – all the usual Bingo squares. C’est la vie, right women bloggers?
Bloggers taking blogging back
To close on a happy note, I started to notice this year that one by one, bloggers are getting fed up with the little boxes into which “digital entrepreneurs” and “social media experts” have tried to shove them. You can do this, you can’t do that, play by the rules if you want to be taken seriously! We’ve reached the tipping point, and more and more bloggers aren’t having it. We’re taking blogging back from those who have tried to co-opt it. My prediction for 2009? Even more momentum of this sentiment!
(Long) Quote of the day
Today’s winning post comes from Sarah at season of the bitch.
In studying journalism, it’s been pointed out to me several times that women journalists and journalists of color are always presumed to be biased when dealing with issues that relate to their gender or race. White men, by contrast, can be “neutral”–can live up to the famed journalistic goal of being “objective.”
Of course, this is crap.
Straight, cisgender white men write from a straight, cisgender white man perspective. In the field of journalism, most of them are also from the middle or upper classes, are educated, and thus bring additional slants to their writings. (Witness the coverage of the bailout of the financial giants v. the coverage of the proposed bailout of the big 3 automakers.)
In any case, “objectivity” is impossible. I would maintain that facts and truth are possible (at least truth insofar as it relates to empirical fact–George Bush is President, Nancy Pelosi said something, John McCain voted for that bill, it contained this text), but the idea that a journalist can put aside his or her own personal feelings and more importantly, his or her background to write from an “objective” position is impossible. The best we can hope for is, as one of my profs said, verification.
We see more and more verification being supplanted with this false idea of “balance” these days. Balance is even more screwed up than objectivity. Remember Jon Stewart going on Crossfire (a purportedly “balanced” show) to bitch out the hosts for hurting America?
“Balance” means that you go find someone from one side of an issue, and someone from another side, and get both their opinions, and then you’re being “objective.”
Yeah, well, there are lots of problems with that. But the one I’m thinking about right now is that it once again buys into a false binary. The idea that there are only two sides to any issue is a lie, but it sure buys into the way we like to see things in this country.
Democrat/Republican. Black/white. Male/female. Gay/straight. For/against. Enemy/ally.
This leaves out so much nuance that it’s disgusting.
Sorry for the lack of original posting. I was feeling discouraged about blogging for a few days, and then today I started a 5-day cleanse and am feeling a little unfocused. So it’ll basically just be tweets and links, with the occasional blockquote.
I love this
Here comes a big blockquote! Bolding mine, for the parts I love the most.
(And yes, I know the post I’m quoting from is over a year old. But I just now found it.)
Maybe it makes me feel safe to think that I think that if I tell you all my secrets you won’t have any ammo against me that I haven’t given you. Maybe it’s that I think that my pain and my pleasure are just that fucking important. Maybe I just like telling. Part of it, certainly, is that I don’t want to have these thoughts and feelings inside me. I want to get them out. But if it’s just about getting them out, why am I not just pouring them into a word document or some flower-printed dear Diary?
Because: I don’t believe that “private” exists anymore, if it ever really did. Privacy depends and always has depended on pretense. We politely pretend that the versions of themselves people present to the world are the ones we accept, but behind their backs we whisper. I hate that shit. For a long time it has been considered unseemly but tacitly acceptable to mock and examine and analyze the personal shortcomings and proclivities of celebrities but now everyone who achieves anything like prominence in any field is accessible to us in a thousand intimate ways online. We’re all “celebrities” now. It is futile and silly to pretend that we have “private” lives anymore, so why not just let everything hang out?
Well, for one thing, because other people besides me are involved in my secrets, and those people might still want to cling to the fragile little scrap of perceived privacy that is left to them, and might be sad or disappointed or angry to be portrayed in a public confessional. Also: their own reticence prevents anyone from ever knowing their side of the story. I can understand how shitty that must feel, which is why I’ve password protected some of the posts on this blog. (You can email me for the password and, quite possibly, I’ll give it to you.)
Here’s another thing, though: I know it is silly to imagine that, by preemptively spilling my secrets, I’ve been successful in controlling the pain. I might just have been letting the pain control me. And, perhaps, letting myself in for more pain. But ultimately, I don’t regret telling you anything. I’m glad you know. I’m glad you heard it here first.
Your “crap” is my lifeline
That Geoff Livingston guy linked to me again the other day. For someone who thinks I’m silly and stupid, he sure does link to me a lot! At first I didn’t read the post, I just saw the trackback, and it included the words “defend your right to be stupid.” *eyeroll* Then, J (incidentally, the title of this post comes from something J said a while back, which is now in my header quote rotation) told me he’d read it, because the post included a link to his blog as well, and he was pissed – so I finally went and read it myself.
It wasn’t anger I felt when I read the post, just immense frustration – that same “brick wall” feeling I mentioned yesterday. The most frustrating thing about dealing with people like this is that I really feel like we’re having two different conversations. I’m saying one thing, but he’s responding to something completely different. You can understand why that can be a little maddening.
I am sure that Geoff Livingston and other “social media consultants,” “digital entrepreneurs,” whatever other buzzword-laden terminology they self-apply, truly believe that they’re teaching people the right way to blog and to implement a social media strategy. But I’m firmly in the camp with something I believe Josh Hallett said: if you use “social media” and “strategy” in the same sentence, you’re doing it wrong.
The problem as I see it is that a lot of the sites that call themselves blogs really aren’t. They should stop using the term because it just confuses things. Instead of constantly having to differentiate between different types of blogs and explain that the different varieties have different purposes, we should start using new terminology. The Gawker blogs publish several posts an hour; combine that with their writing style, funding, and a bunch of other traits, and come on, that’s not really a blog anymore. “Online magazine,” for example, would be more appropriate. And if you’re “leveraging” a blog to drive traffic to your business, then fine, but own it and call it what it is: NOT a blog. Some of these corporate blogs read as little more than press releases.
I’m not saying that such sites don’t have value. For some people, I’m sure they do. For me, not so much; but that’s the great thing about the internet and social media, we all get to decide what’s valuable to us. So that’s a big part of why the dismissive attitude from people like Geoff Livingston really gets under my skin. He seems to think blogs like mine don’t have value. But how do you define value? I’m not trying to make a buck. I’m not trying to create business opportunities. To measure blogs like mine with that sort of yardstick makes no sense.
Besides, I think personal blogs have tremendous value. 100 years from now, what will our great-grandchildren look back on? Personal blogs will be treasures. Think about it – history books are great, but when we find old letters, diaries, written records of people’s day to day lives, that is something really special, because it’s a person who lived in that time period telling their own story in their own words. No filters, no dressed-up language, no glossing over the nasty bits. We’re putting down that kind of record for future generations to find. Blogs about branding and social media strategy might be useful today, to business owners, for example; but where will they rate in 100 years? Are people going to be as interested in advice for how a 100-year-old business should engage with its customers as they are in reading how their great-grandmother felt the night Barack Obama was elected?
The other day, Rusty threw this post out on Twitter. It really rankled me. Joseph has already written a great response and I’d like to echo much of what he wrote, especially this:
The power of the platform was never that Joe Blow could become a “star” or rise to the Technorati Top 100 – it was simply the promise of an easy way for anyone (from a large corporation to a guy in his living-room) to publish on the Internet.
First of all it just irritates me when people write over-the-top posts sounding a death knell for anything. Secondly I’m pretty amused by it because this guy’s blog appears to be exactly the type of blog that he’s bemoaning for “killing” personal blogs. Self-awareness, now that is valuable.
Personal blogs are still alive and well, though I do think many of them have changed in form a bit – but that’s natural, as anything will change over time; and as more people are blogging, many of us are dealing with questions of boundaries and when our story becomes someone else’s. That’s not an indictment of the medium but a simple fact of being part of a community.
It’s really not important who’s in the Technorati Top 100. Personal blogs are about chronicling one’s life and forging a connection with others who share similar experiences. That’s still happening, and the fact that Nick Carr might not see it doesn’t make it any less true. Maybe he doesn’t visit the areas of the blogosphere where personal stories are thriving, but whose fault is that?
So, defending my right to be stupid isn’t part of the equation at all. But defending the value of being human? That’s what it’s all about.
Online identity redux all over again
I was trying to fit this into my previous post on the topic but couldn’t find a way to work it in. Anyway, I want to address something Nikki said a while ago.
I guess my point is that some people have a valid, personal reason for not feeling like it’s all that and a bag of chips to have every detail of their personal lives on the internet. I don’t mind if anyone else does, but maybe it’s not for me. I realize what probably sets my take on it apart from some of these people is that I’m not *judging* anyone for having 100-0% of their lives online, I just understand why I make the choice *I* make, without feeling like it’s incumbent upon me to force it on someone else.
I want to respond to her comment because I sincerely hope that throughout all the times I’ve spoken about this issue, it’s been clear that my attitude is actually the same as what she says above. The crux of the matter is not how much or how little you choose to share about yourself online. We all have our own boundaries and set them as we see fit. What matters is that we respect each other’s right to set those boundaries differently.
I was getting very pissed off about this back at BlogSavannah, because when Gennie was leading her session she mentioned that she doesn’t use swear words in front of her son, and some woman in the group kept harping about it and saying she wasn’t “being honest,” because she uses those words on her blog. This woman really pissed me off, because who is she to make that call for Gennie? Get off her back already!
I would never attempt to “force” any degree of personal revelation on someone. That goes against the entire spirit of what I see as the power of blogging. These decisions are for each of us to make, on our own time, in our own spaces.
Believe it or not – and I say this only partially sarcastically – there are things about my life that I do not share online. I am a very private person in the sense that only a few people truly know me, good, bad, ugly, everything. It is very important to me to write openly online and speak my truth; but that does not negate my privacy and the fact that I have boundaries. Personally I don’t think this is such a radical notion, but apparently to a lot of people it is (I mentioned it here, and of course there’s always the whole sex thing with dudes).
Why do we assume that if you choose to share some things about yourself that are traditionally coded as “private” – i.e., ew ick keep it out of public conversation; that’s just not fit for polite company; that might make people uncomfortable; chin up, dearie – then you have nothing left that you keep to yourself or to a small group of friends/family, for whatever reason? And that just as the words you speak to a larger community are yours to share as you see fit, so are your reasons for not speaking about other things yours alone to determine?
Obviously, I think there is tremendous value in people – especially women – defying the traditional rules of what you can and can’t talk about. But only if they want to. If someone feels stifled, then I want them the find the tools and the strength to not feel stifled anymore. As Muriel Rukeyser wrote, “What would happen if one woman told the truth about her life? The world would split open.” (I was recently reminded of this excellent quote via a post by AV Flox; eventually I want to write a direct response to that post.) Far too many of us feel stifled, so let’s split open the world one blog at a time – and no, I do not think that’s hyperbole!
Sex writers: not a monolith
As I mentioned yesterday on Twitter, I was linked by Salon in a piece by Tracy Clark-Flory entitled Sex writing goes limp. My initial reaction was to roll my eyes at the title, but I thought, well, writers often don’t choose their own headlines, so I’d better give the piece itself a chance. So I read it, and unfortunately I was pretty disappointed.
The bulk of the article is devoted to talking about how “sex writers” (not a huge fan of that term, as I feel it’s too reductive; but it’s the term used by Clark-Flory) aren’t talented, don’t work hard, and have nothing substantive to contribute. Take this quote from Susannah Breslin, for instance:
“Sometimes people become sex writers because they screw a lot, not necessarily because they can write well,” she told me in an e-mail. “If your career as a writer is driven by you showing your tits on your blog on a regular basis, maybe you shouldn’t be so surprised when you lose your cred.”
This is asinine but also infuriating, because it implies that the writers who were laid off and/or chose to leave fit this description. But none of them do. So why waste time talking about the mythical sex writers who have jobs only because they show their tits?
I said “mythical,” but I know such writers do exist. However, it’s pointless, misleading, and frankly seems a bit malicious to bring them up in this situation, because they have nothing whatsoever to do with the specific people being discussed!
The conflation is maddening. The loss of Regina Lynn’s Wired.com column and Tristan Taormino’s Village Voice column (and all the rest) is upsetting specifically because they were not fluff writers putting out glossy features about 10 ways to give an awesome blowjob.
The dearth of smart sex content is what we’ve been bemoaning, people. The fluff writers aren’t losing their jobs – who can resist a checklist of 5 daring and dirty new positions? The titillation factor is high and the threat level is low. That kind of material is exactly what a society that can talk about sex only in a “ha-ha tee-hee let’s make puns” manner demands – and it reinforces this arrested development mentality toward sex. The writing of the people who lost their jobs recently was remarkable because it challenged the status quo of how sex is represented, and helped to expose more people to the possibility of a thoughtful, interesting, non-judgmental discourse about sexuality.
I hear and completely agree with what Gracie Passette, Melissa Gira, Regina Lynn and others are saying about the lay-offs being part of the larger issue facing media: plummeting profits and circulation. I have no doubt that that’s what led to these writers being laid off, but I don’t think it’s pointless to note the fact that a particular type of writer is being let go. Coincidence or not, noting the zeitgeist of it is appropriate, and we should use it as a jumping-off point for greater analysis of how our society views sex.
Smart sex content and getting paid
So by now you’ve probably heard about seemingly everyone in the freakin’ world getting canned (or voluntarily leaving due to “circumstances”).
Dacia wrote about it the other day and included a master list of sorts. Let us also not forget Regina Lynn leaving Wired, and Playboy Radio putting the kibosh on her Sex in the News segment. And you could really say it all started nearly two years ago, when the Village Voice killed Rachel Kramer Bussel’s “Lusty Lady” column.
In particular, it was really bizarre to hear about Melissa being laid off from Valleywag, because just a day or two before that, I’d heard about Tristan’s Village Voice column being axed, and as Rusty and I were walking from the MARTA station to work, I said something like, “It seems like the only one who still has a job is Melissa, at Valleywag.” Then Rusty said something about all of us starting a site together and how awesome that would be.
Ahem.
Dacia isn’t so worked up about the idea of starting a new site – and neither am I, honestly. Admittedly, after hearing about all the latest news, I did say this on Twitter (tweets listed in reverse chronological order, for those not on the bandwagon):
(more…)
OMG YES
This is so perfect I can hardly stand it:
I’m tangling hard with this notion of public persona. That for whatever reason, writing about sex gives some people the idea that you are available sexually to them (this is not new, this is something I’ve noticed a long time ago). But this being commonly understood as a consumable girl is hitting a breaking point for me. Does it mean I can’t flirt-for-real in public spaces without being perceived as buying into a role, without agreeing with that being pegged as The Sex Girl?
I was never that girl. I never played against my own intelligence to make men comfortable around me. I come on strong by being open, not teasing. I don’t look for strength in men’s eyes that way. As temporarily delightful as cocktail conversation may be — until our cabs come — I get my real and lasting courage from my own vulnerability. I can only trust my sense of worth to be safe with those unafraid to love me, not someone who finds me amusing five minutes at a time.
It kind of gives me déjà vu because it’s everything I’ve been thinking but, as usual, Melissa puts it into words so much better than I could hope to. (That sounds kind of assholish, doesn’t it? Argh…)
On Twitter I said: “This is what I would’ve talked about at BlogHer ATL” and “I’ll mention this at @blogorlando, too; I won’t have a prepared presentation but it’ll be a ‘talking point.’ We’ll see where *that* goes.”
I HATE it. I hate this stupid, asinine, absurd, insipid idea that if a woman writes about sex then she is The Sex Girl (as Melissa puts it). This pigeon-holing, it’s… well, there just aren’t enough adjectives for “ridiculous” to convey it!
I was never That Girl either – I wouldn’t even know how to be – and this is why, for instance, it makes me absolutely livid to see sex-positivity so COMPLETELY misrepresented by people who obviously have NO FUCKING CLUE what they are talking about. I’m staying out of blog wars with “radfems” for good – it’s just a waste of time – but occasionally I see them quoted on Ren’s blog or Caroline’s blog, prattling on about how “sex-pozzies” (yes, they really say that; can you believe it?) are all about pleasing men and the men love us because we do what they want and blah blah blah and I’m like, okay, this is the part where it is GLARINGLY obvious that you have absolutely NO GRASP of my life, my experience, my reality, and holy hell could your head possibly be FURTHER up your ass? I mean it’s kind of funny in a way, but it still just infuriates me. I cannot even convey to you how totally absurd it is.
Oh, and as for people assuming that because you write about sex, you obviously want to have sex WITH THEM – well, that’s nothing new, either. It’s as old as the hills and it, too, is a jaw-droppingly ridiculous depth of stupidity.
And, too, let’s revisit this.