Rebecca Traister really gets at what I’ve been trying to articulate, about why it is that the open acceptance of sexist language over racist language is by no means an indication that sexism is a greater problem, and in fact might show why sexism might be an easier problem to overcome:
I think also that, in the United States, race (especially when combined with class) remains a more formidable barrier to professional, political and economic success than gender. Hillary Clinton may have a harder time getting elected than Obama because, frankly, Obama can be comfortably looked at as an exceptional black man, not as a harbinger of what’s to come, whereas Hillary will stand in for all those pushy broads coming to take your jobs, college admissions letters, and your seats in Congress. If Hillary’s success is less exceptional, does she deserve my vote as much as Barack?
That gets to the heart of it. Sexism is perversely the only real tool to enforce sexism, but racism has classism as the back-up plan. Strangely, the figure of the exceptional black person can be used to excuse racist oppression of everyone else. It provides a way for the racist to say, “Look, it’s not society that oppresses black people, since Figure X is permitted access. All those black people living in poverty have every opportunity are just inferior/only have themselves to blame.” Obama has already been used in service of this kind of argument, when William Saletan used his success to argue that other black people who don’t share it are just born stupid.
Update: As this has the potential to spin completely out of control, my point is that there’s not a competition. Putting the two into competition is childish, ignores the fact that there are plenty of people getting double and quadruple doses of racism and sexism, and puts one in danger of losing perspective. My sole point is that it is easier to be openly sexist than openly racist in the mainstream because systematic racism is all too effective a means of oppression.
340 Responses to “Another reason the Oppression Olympics don’t even make sense”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I think sometimes that if the amount of violence directed by men against women on a global scale (abuse, killings, rape, etc…) were just directed between one racial group to another that everybody would be screaming for UN involvement.
But since it’s just women…*shrug*
I also think that classism is used as a tool to enforce sexism against women. It’s the poorest of women that are most likely to fall through the cracks of the justice system and who have the least power to fight the men who victimize them.
Also, of the two (Clinton and Obama) which one is viewed with the most hostility because of their success? Which one is more CREDITED with making their own success (versus riding the coattails of others).
The only part of this that I buy is that racism is more insidiously institutionalized (it has to be, because it’s not as acceptable to be as in-your-face racist as it is to be sexist).
Nobody ever says (well, almost nobody) “Some of my best friends are women.”
Since most of us in the US still live in de facto segregated communities, it’s much easier to be a closet racist than a closet sexist.
Everyone knows the white [Christian] males take the gold in the Oppression Olympics.
After all, the white male is the Jew of liberal fascism…
Obama is anomolous for his age group. His parents were educated, his father was African and his mother was white, and he has met with a mix of barriers that are somewhat different from most African American males of the same age. That doesn’t mean that he hasn’t encountered racism but that his experience of it will be somewhat atypical.
He is not, however, anomalous compared to younger age groups of people. That alone may explain his appeal to younger voters. The age group that is just reaching the age of majority has a greater proportion of immigrant and second generation voters and post-Loving decision mixed race people than other generations of voters. These are the people who grew up watching the likes of Tiger Woods, Johnny Damon, Halle Berry, Derek Jeter and saw both people like themselves and their classmates. It doesn’t matter to them that Obama isn’t “black” - in fact, his unusual heritage makes him more of an everyman to youth than previous generations can appreciate.
YOu really don’t think class affects women? Boy, let me give a few pointers about that one. NObody says ’some of my best friends are women’ because those fucking women are expected to be their servants and their support staff already, reading minds and stuff like that already.
Poor women are supposed to be everybody’s whore. Rich men think we want them for their money and are constantly trying to entrap them. Poor men think we’re they’re punching bags. Everybody projects on us. Oh, yeah, and if we’re not humble and grateful enough, we’re the undeserving poor and sluts besides.
Shesh, I would argue that virtually all socially acceptable racism is institutional–if you’re not in Dog the Bounty Hunter territory, racism is a structural thing more than acts of prejudice. Sexism OTOH is still okay to speak.
Strangely, the figure of the exceptional black person can be used to excuse racist oppression of everyone else.
Nothing strange about it. Tim Wise’s excellent book White Like Me has a wonderful passage about his experiences working as an anti-racism advocate. After dispensing with the ‘what makes me an expert is that I’m white, which is itself white privilege in action’, he talks about the argument by exception, which he refers to as ‘the Oprah effect’.
He points out quite accurately that anyone who is willing to argue out loud that Obama, Oprah, Tiger or who the hell ever proves that racism is over is ignorant. And that you can show him he’s ignorant by asking, So since Madame CJ Walker was a millionaire back when that was real money and was as successful as Oprah, does that mean there was no racism when she was around? Really? Because I could have sworn that lynching was common back then.
Sexism is the only real tool to enforce sexism? Really? Wow, I must have been mistaken about the violence, the rape, the hatred, the contempt, and the rage then. And that’s across all cultures and including men who’ve been discriminated against hemselves, so you can add hypocrisy to that.
To pick up what ginmar said, classism and sexism have another overlap: Privileged women are less privileged than their brothers, fathers, and male partners. They don’t have the same degree of control over money; they have to spend a bigger share of their day doing scutwork; and they don’t get to boss around openly any family members over the age of 9 the way men do. They’re in an inferior class within a privileged class. I’m not saying this problem is especially urgent in a post-Katrina world, but it’s a caste hierarchy that subordinates women under men. Many liberals fume when anyone says so.
Yeah, so, on behalf of less privileged women, you might want to check the privilege.
Question….
Amanda’s statements were (of necessity?) somewhat sweeping. I didn’t hear her say that class is not an issue in the oppression of women, but rather that it doesn’t institutionally oppress women as women in the same way that it does with minorities.
I think in general, she has a pretty valid point. Certainly, the same class issues that affect minority men affect minority women, and in many (most?) cases, affect them disproportionately, for many of the same reasons that affect white women of the same class as specific white men.
Is it really classism as such that does it, or the different forms that sexism takes for different classes? Sexism takes as a given that women are inferior, but puts a different expected role on rich women (ornamental), middle-class women (wife and mother) and poor women (servants, mistresses, and whores.) Again- hugely sweeping. It isn’t so much that classism is what claims women are inferior, as that it defines the form that inferiority takes.
Or am I wrong?
Yeah, Peter, you’re wrong. I really have to laugh.
Also, I Must have missed it. Where exactly did Traister explain how the fact that everybody is happy with expressing sexism somehow means it’s less of a concern? Because the paragraph that Amanda highlights doesn’t explain that at all.
It doesn’t even touch it. And frankly, it’s just glaringly stupid and illogical. One kind of spoken hatred results in firings and punishment, while another kind—backed by rapes, beatings, hatred, and murders—-gets little to no punishment at all and it’s the second kind t hat doesn’t mean anything? Yeah, fail.
I don’t think it’s that classism makes either women or minorities inferior…it’s that class is used to oppress minorities moreso than it is women (since more direct oppression is still acceptable against women to a greater degree). It is still used in both instances, though (and even with rich women, the husband often controls the household expenses and unless the women makes her own money independently (and sometimes even if she does), she’ll have to grovel for an allowance like some child and will have difficultly pulling together the necessary resources to leave an abusive relationship if it becomes necessary).
I think it’s just amazing that people are ignoring the sheer physical power over women. Maybe you’re so disconnected from where you have to fear that power, but as somebody who got mugged while walking to my shitty job, I have to tell you, that’s the most disturbing thing of all. Oh, yeah, and class comes into it hwen you’re a poor woman who shows up in the emergency room with a handful of broken teeth and a bruised face, because the emergency room doc doesn’t give a shit about fixing up the face of some poor woman who’s never going to be a supermodel anyway. Thanks! It’s like there’s this whole class experience that’s missing from this piece.
Missing out on the sheer physical threat women face every day is just inexcuseable.
Wow; that article really nailed it for me - this bit, especially:
That’s my mental conflict, right there; I really, really like both of them. A lot. Neither are perfect, and I don’t agree with them on every single issue, or agree with their every vote. But I like them, and want both of their oppressed groups to succeed equally - it’s a little mind-boggling that in a recent history so dominated by white men has turned on a dime like this. You would have thought, with all the identity issues plaguing the US right now, it would have happened more slowly; a woman up against the white Christian male, or the black man, not both against each other. The only way I’ve been able to reconcile the mental conflict is to create my dream Clinton-Obama ticket.
I do question my preference for Clinton - am I doing the “that candidate looks like me!” thing, is there an unconscious racial bias? I hope not, on either count, but again, Traister articulated it for me:
There’s been eight years of Monkey Rule, and a hell of a lot of cleanup to do. The country - and the world - are heading into very tough times, and as bright and shiny and lovely as Obama is? I feel more comfortable with a more seasoned vet to steer the ship, like Hillary and her Goddamn Ovaries of Titanium.
One kind of spoken hatred results in firings and punishment, while another kind—backed by rapes, beatings, hatred, and murders—-gets little to no punishment at all and it’s the second kind t hat doesn’t mean anything? Yeah, fail.
Um, are you under the impression that African-Americans are not beaten and killed for being black even in the 21st century, or that black women are somehow immune from rape and domestic violence?
Um, if you want to separate race and sex don’t get snotty with me. THanks for assuming I’m stupid, though. Thanks for assuming I don’t know one fucking thing about black history. Thank for assuming I only think of one kind of women. Could that be some kind of class arrogance in assuming you need to educate the poor white trash?
So show me again, how racism isn’t regarded with horror and disgust while it’s okay to call Hillary Clinton a cunt. The last lynching of a black person was Michael Donald in 1992, but nobody calls the rape and torture and murder of women lynchings. Thousands of women have been lynched in this country, but nobody calls it that unless they’re black.
So your point, college girl?
Oh, and I know you from another board, too, so I know that “Um” that started your sentence was intended to be patronizing. WAy to prove the fucking class issue point.
I like it, too, how you ignored everything else I said to focus on what you assumed was ignorance on my part. Good job.
Actually, religion reinforces sexism just fine, and if you don’t think so, you haven’t been paying attention.
Any religion does. Just about all of the majority Western religions have some component of male domination in them, so ‘church-going men’ are often worse than an alternative.
What’s really fun is the way churches try and guilt women into believing that women are supposed to change and reform men. If your man keeps beating you, then you’re obviously not a good enough woman and don’t love him enough. And of course poor women are liable to have few options, church being one of them.
Yeah Ginmar, just like you went out of your way to assume the worst about her statement. Nowhere did she say she needed to “educate the poor white trash”. YOU said that. So it’s not really a credible accusation.
But anyway, as far as the class existance of “poor white trash” goes, it’s possible to go from the underclass to the overclass in one generation if you’re white. Much less probability of that happening if you’re not.
I predict that this is going to end well.
I realize that we are a pathetically dualistic society where every single thing must be distilled into an easily digestible dichotomy for knee jerk reactionaries but I have to point out that there are many people in this country who are neither black nor white. That there are as many poor white women and poor brown women as poor black women according to the National Poverty Center. That there are an increasing number of people who are of mixed race and who refuse to participate in either/or and instead choose both/and.
Hey, OLJB, nice going taking just one side. Fuck you. I know her from another board and she was patronizing from the start. So again fuck you, you patronizing shit.
So it’s possible to go from white trash to upper class in a generation? Yeah, sure. That’s the bootstrap argument so popular amongst the arrogant entitled. First, you have to have bootstraps. Second, it helps if you have a penis. Third, it helps even more if you didn’t have kids in your teens. Fourth, it’s the Condi Rice argument in white face, so fuck off.
More classicism. Let me know when you all want to stop blue skying about Horatio Alger and actually give a shit. But that’s okay. Y’all go on talking about how open sexism is a such a wunnerful wunnderful sign while the cleaning staff waits for the college girls to decide what’s true and what’s not.
Oh, yeah, OLJB, too—–She didn’t say she wanted to educate the poor white trash? I didn’t know I had to wait for my betters to issue a pronouncement as to what they were doing. My opinion of her actions is invalid unless she admits to it. So fuck you again.
I like it, too, how you ignored everything else I said to focus on what you assumed was ignorance on my part. Good job.
Actually, I assumed it was racism on your part, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I’d count the last lynching victim as James Byrd in 1998, personally.
Let’s see…all my adult male relatives have been able to decent jobs - white collar, even - without college degrees. Jobs with benefits, jobs that pay the bills. Not in “the old days” - like, last week.
My B.A. and 1.50 will get me a (small) cup of coffee.
Employers still refuse to hire women for full-time well-paying jobs which they’re qualified for, and justify unequal pay for the old reason of “needing to support HIS family,” and what’s a girlfriend to do when her boyfriend’s boss boasts of not hiring women? What good will bringing a suit do for her or her fiance? And yes, that’s a true story from up here in New England, happened to a colleague of mine a couple years ago.
Women denying sexism is important compared to racism didn’t work very well for any of us, white or black, a hundred-plus years ago. Stop letting the Hegemony play you into self-colonizing, self-abnegating, and thereby yes, pitting one group of non-WASP-XYs against another - because saying we XX should go to the curb doesn’t help, it’s being pitted against ourselves.
It’s not an either/or of deciding if sexism or racism is worse — it’s a both/and. Black women and Latinas get hit with the double whammy of racism and sexism, and often the triple whammy of racism, sexism, and classism. If you’re a poor white woman, you get the double whammy of sexism and classism and it’s hard to pick apart which one you’re dealing with at any given moment.
In the media, this argument has been white women vs. black men, and it’s pretty hard to argue that white women as a group have it harder than black men as a group.
No quicker way to make enemies among your liberal friends than by playing the my-oppression-is-worse-than-your-oppression game.
You can’t quantify any point in this discussion because there are no agreed upon standards for determining “worse than” when it comes to discrimination. Do you judge by direct numbers of people affected? Or by economic consequences, or by how overt the discriminatory behavior is, or by the history of the oppression or which group suffers more violence or… what?
This is a completely subjective discussion, framed overwhelmingly by people’s personal experiences and just serves to piss off natural allies.
And BTW, 1/2 Arab, 1/2 Native American atheist HIV-positive tranny Spanish-speaking disabled women are the most discriminated against group in the country and don’t you forget it.
Women denying sexism is important compared to racism didn’t work very well for any of us, white or black, a hundred-plus years ago.
I don’t see anyone here denying that sexism exists. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t be working in the pink-collar ghetto right now.
I do think that public awareness of sexism as a destructive force in society is about 15 or 20 years behind that of racism.
And I think that they’re both about equally destructive, especially when they’re combined into one corrosive package so you end up spending your day trying to figure out if you can’t get ahead because of racism or because of sexism.
That’s nice, Mnem, but the last lynching death in the country was this victim, dragged to death by a man in 2005. http://www.kmbc.com/news/9894086/detail.htmlOr doesn’t she count in your eagerness to do lecture theyour inferiors? Especially if they make you nervous? And how come you’re not acknowledging just how fucking arrogant your classist assumptions are?
You also ignored getting called on that patronizing ‘um’, too—-typical. You want your ass kissed for the lecture? Not that that’s privileged or anything. IF I want a lecture from some college girl, you can hold your breath till that happens.
http://www.kmbc.com/news/9894086/detail.html
I didn’t say class doesn’t affect women, ginmar. But the middle and upper classes are still 50% female. Women accomplishing is a direct threat to power in your own home, for the white upper class male. Obama isn’t going to make your black servants an iota more powerful. But your wife is always eligible to get a job.
Wow, I must have been mistaken about the violence, the rape, the hatred, the contempt, and the rage then.
These are all under the banner “sexism”. You reinforced my point nicely. Men have to get their hands dirty to oppress women. They have to beat, rape, call names. White people can avoid doing all those things and still manage to oppress the majority of black people.
Sexism is perversely the only real tool to enforce sexism, but racism has classism as the back-up plan.
Comes damned close to me.
Most men, whatever their class or race, know that any uppity woman can be slapped down and killed or raped if she gets really uppity, and the crime gotten away with if you present it before other men. It’s just about open season on poor women. No license required to hunt us.
Mnem, you’re not disproving the whole arrogant college girl thing by accusing me of racism, either. Apologize already. Your arrogance is disgusting.
Bell, thank god I didn’t deny that sexism is important. In fact, the very notion that my extremely minor point—that there’s a reason that one can say “bitch” but not “nigger”—somehow can be extrapolated into denying that I care about sexism, when fighting sexism is basically my fucking career, defies sense.
I think sexism is very important. I think it’s very powerful. I think it’s very oppressive. I do not underestimate the power of it.
I don’t need to pretend black people are doing better than they are in order to believe this. It’s not a competition.
“In the media, this argument has been white women vs. black men, and it’s pretty hard to argue that white women as a group have it harder than black men as a group.”
Actually, I WOULD argue that (or at least that they have it equally bad in different ways). I don’t like seeing this kind of minimalization of womens issues and concerns on feminist blogs, personally. A white woman may have a slight edge in the race wars, but she’s still likely to be abused, assaulted, raped and her accomplishments utterly demeaned unless she is appropriately subservient to her male oppressors. The problems with poverty, incarceration and drugs in minority populations are truly horrifying, but they in no way justify the minimalization of the horrors that all women suffer across the board (and the fact that minority women have it worse by suffering the double-whammy of racism and sexist should in no way reduce the horrors that white women suffer).
Changed the language a bit to note that I think that sexism might be easier to overcome. You can fight it head-on a bit more easily.
Ginmar, you don’t have to wait for someone to admit to what you think he or she did to accuse them of doing it. But it doesn’t mean any random internet accusation is anything more than hot air.
Anyway, back to the topic:
I think the important comparison between Obama’s and Clinton’s respective rises to power has less to do with the relative oppressions they overcame. Trying to determine whether sexism or racism is worse is a fools errand and ignores a lot of complexity anyway.
What’s more interesting is the kind of privilege the two have used to get where they are. If you look at H. Clinton, although she has dealt with sexism that B. Clinton never had to, the method by which she rose to power is directly tied to her husband’s connections in the established, overwhelmingly white power structure.
I haven’t read Obama’s autobiography, so perhaps others can fill me in on the reality, but my current impression is that his political success isn’t tethered quite as closely to the same, tired good-old-boy network (the rich white male patriarchy, etc). Perhaps my impression is wrong, but at least for me I think that explains some of the appeal of Obama over Clinton.
“My sole point is that it is easier to be openly sexist than openly racist in the mainstream because systematic racism is all too effective a means of oppression.”
I think this is somewhat invalidating of the very real systematic oppression of women, though (reduced wages comparable to men, lack of opportunity in the “blue collar” fields, lack of support and bias in the legal system) that exists alongside the blatant and socially acceptable open sexism.
hese are all under the banner “sexism”. You reinforced my point nicely.
So as long as men don’t leave a bruise it’s okay and it’s not that bad, not compared to racism. Of course, sexism never takes any form but violence.
That comes awfully close to dismissing any form of sexism but the worst kind. Is that really where you want to go?
Amanda,
Someone above did point it out, but religion is an excellent way for the privileged class to oppress women without getting their hands dirty at all. And, by and large, religious-based racism is on the way out (ie you rarely hear racism justified on the basis of bible stories in the mainstream, as opposed to coo-coo bananas fringe). On the contrary, mainstream acceptance of bible stories to advance sexism is alive and well - adam and eve, mary magdalene, samson and deliala.
Just to give a quick example - Mitt Romney still has to explain that he didn’t agree with the Mormon church’s decision to forbid blacks to join, even though that ban was lifted 30 years ago. On the otherhand, no woman can have a leadership position in the Mormon church TODAY. Yet no interviewer has called upon him to repudiate that.
Or doesn’t she count in your eagerness to do lecture theyour inferiors? Especially if they make you nervous? And how come you’re not acknowledging just how fucking arrogant your classist assumptions are?
You think that you make me nervous? Why would you think that? I don’t even know you.
Why is it classist for me to think that a poor black woman may have it harder than a poor white woman?
You also ignored getting called on that patronizing ‘um’, too—-typical. You want your ass kissed for the lecture? Not that that’s privileged or anything. IF I want a lecture from some college girl, you can hold your breath till that happens.
I didn’t see anything in my comment that said or even implied that I expect you to kiss my ass, or even to agree with me. As I said, the “um” was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt since what you said struck me as a racist thing to say.
Oh, I think it’s really invalidating to somehow note that sexism is welcome anywhere anytime yet is somehow less serious than racism. The part of Traister’s argument that Amanda says she approves of suposedly ‘proves’ how open sexism somehow…..proves that sexism is not that big a deal. And Amanda herself quotes my comment about how individual men shows how men have to ‘get their hands dirty’ to enforce sexism, as if that’s all that sexism is, and as if threats and fear of those things aren’t a punishment and enforcement of women on their own. But, hey, still not as bad as racism, I guess. AFter all, men have to get their hands dirty to deny women freedom, jobs, safety, indepedence, and everything else men take for granted.
Mnem, you’re not disproving the whole arrogant college girl thing by accusing me of racism, either. Apologize already. Your arrogance is disgusting.
What am I supposed to apologize for? You seem to think that I have full knowledge of your background and circumstances and therefore I was specifically condescending to you because apparently I’m upper-class and you’re not, or something.
Honestly, I have no idea if you’re dirt-poor or if you’re Hilton-rich. I don’t know you. Why are you assuming that I personally insulted you out of classism?
How much more blunt do I have to be before you get it? You treated me like I was racist and stupid and you used a convention that’s frowned on on another board we both frequent.In fact, it’s forbidden there because it’s patronizing and rude.
Next time, try and be less arrogant about assuming people are racist and stupid, which is what you started out doing here. Do I need to repeat that again, too?
How much more blunt do I have to be before you get it? You treated me like I was racist and stupid and you used a convention that’s frowned on on another board we both frequent.In fact, it’s forbidden there because it’s patronizing and rude.
ginmar, if I upset you, I apologize. I didn’t mean to do it, but obviously you took what I wrote much more personally than I expected or planned.
What you said struck me as being racist. Am I supposed to ignore that?
Men don’t have to get their hands dirty to kep women in line. The culture nicely does it for them. Ironically enough, cozily pulling one’s college degrees about one and talking about how only sexism keeps women down also silences women.
Let’s have a show of hands if you really want to discuss class and gender. How many people here now have college degrees? I don’t care if you all worked in fast food before, you’re upper class now, baby.
Now let’s have a show of hands here? How many non-educated manual workers who make less than pverty level post here? How many people don’t have computers—heh. That’s known as ‘being silenced by one’s position in life.’
This place skews educated and upper class. I’d venture to say that college educated women have a lot invested in making the reality of sexism disappear from their lives because if it’s still here and still powerful, well, one day, all your education and shit isn’t going to matter and you’re going to be replaced with either a younger or a male model.
This meshes up with what I’ve read elsewhere, about racism having to go underground due to it no longer being acceptable to be public about it. That makes it harder to fight, because it’s not as open.
Also, I had this comment window open whilst I rereread what you wrote, and it seriously took me like a half hour to get it. I was about to ask where the “sexism isn’t as great a problem as racism” was coming in, but I was reading you wrong:
the open acceptance of sexist language over racist language is by no means an indication that sexism is a greater problem
That doesn’t mean that “therefore, sexism is less of a problem than racism” follows. Thanks for your update; that prodded me to look closer before I commented.
(This is what happens when I only get three hours of sleep.)
Also, ginmar, concerning class mobility… I think your comment was in moderation before because I didn’t see it then. Just to be clear, the observation that white people have much higher rates of upward class mobility than people of color has nothing to do with Horatio Alger or bootstraps. It’s an extremely simple and well documented observation. How many generations of “huddled masses” of white Europeans have come here as one of the lowest rungs of the class ladder, only to disappear from the underclass within a century? And how many fewer generations have those people’s ancestors been in America than (for example) decendents of slaves who face far worse class mobility?
I’ve personally enjoyed all sorts of oppurtunities and priviliges in my life, economically and educationally. Most can be traced back to the fact that my grandparents were Appalachian “poor white trash” instead of Black Appalachians. That and my male gender. But there were no bootstraps involved. Just the fact that it’s easier to get access to the connections that provide opportunities in this society if you are white. Gender and class background play an undeniably huge role in this equation. But regardless of other factors, the very fact of being white is an enormous unearned advantage.
Why am I not surprised that OLJB just now mentions he’s a white male? Shocking.
I’m sitting here thinking, “Sexism is more socially acceptable than racism…so that makes sexism less of a problem?”
I’m confused. I kind of thought that, all else aside, a form of oppression that is more socially acceptable is so because it’s less challenged in the public consciousness, and more deeply held by more people.
I don’t think it’s useful to argue about which oppression is worse, racism, sexism, or classism, because ultimately, the only people who win that argument are the racist, sexist, classist establishment who get to sit back and watch as the rest of us argue.
What are you, MNem, the racist crusader? Sorry, but your judgement’s skewed. You could have asked for clarification. Instead you arrogantly charged in and pissed me right the fuck off. So, yeah, reconsider your actions. I’ve been writing about sexism and racism from the poor white trash uneducated woman’s point of view for six years. You acted like your judgement was perfect and convicted me. That’s arrogant.
And can the ‘ifs’. I’ve been pissed for several posts now about your comment, so was I too subtle in expressing that or something?
Amanda’s point about the latent power of systemic racism vs. the overt power of systemic sexism undermines the arguments about Clinton’s and Obama’s electability.
The openness and ferocity of the opposition to Hillary Clinton measures the acceptability of open sexism over open racism - it is not really a measure of her electability. It is easier for progressives to gauge the backlash that a female candidate will provoke simply because sexism still persists through its public countenance.
On the flip side, Obama seems to be the more electable candidate because systemic racism no longer engages in pervasive and explicit public expressions of racism. The existence of coded language since Nixon-Reagan registers this phenomenon. The backlash that a black candidate will face in the general election is not as easily measured.
It also suggests though that Obama may be more vulnerable because Republicans only needs to smear the exceptionalism of Obama’s blackness in order to marshal the power of systemic racism. Clinton’s mundaneness and public battle with systemic sexism is then a better defensive posture in a political election.
Yeah, and heterosexual too. Just for the record.
You acted like your judgement was perfect and convicted me. That’s arrogant.
I asked a question. I apologize. I’ll make sure not to ask any questions again.
The idea that sexism is more pervasive than racism, and will prove harder to eliminate, may or may not be correct. I don’t think that deciding whom is more opressed at the moment is very useful, either. I think that its’ one of those “Outside context” ideas, i.e., those that exist outside of the paradigms that must of us use to make sense of the world. These tend to sound very strange, and often provoke anger. People who advance them are often dismissed as crazies, or characterized as being motivated by some unsavory motivation.
Paradoxically, the sheer incredulity and anger provoked by outside context ideas may indicate that there is something to them.
“Paradoxically, the sheer incredulity and anger provoked by outside context ideas may indicate that there is something to them.”
Or it could indicate that the idea is pointless and stupid on its face. Sexism is more overt and therefore less of a problem than racism? Give me a break!
Erm…*re-reads thread*…or it could also indicate that people are reading more into someone’s words than what they’re actually saying. *cringe*
::raises hand::
just now began college, junior college, on full federal grants. i’ll be 27 in april. couldnt afford to go to school before. the most money ive ever made in a year was $7,000. i spent most the time since high school waitressing or working minimum wage retail.
and to be honest, i prefer waiting tables to higher education. i miss reading books i actually want to read, and i miss doing work where i’m more independent and i dont have to have a set schedule and follow specific rules constantly. after this semester i might transfer into the schools cosmetology program so i can finish school faster and go back to relative independence career-wise.
i get my medical care at a county clinic, and if im lucky my medicaid application will be approved once i file appeal.
and i love pandagon and the conversations here. the only time i have ever felt silenced or dismissed have been when people made occassional offhand comments about tattooed toothless rednecks. and even then i found an ally and a friend in a regular poster here, mark foxwell.
and i wont side with you in the opression olympics. i kno damn well that if i was a poor female (as i am) and of color i would have it far worse than i do already.
becos i will never be followed in stores, or pulled over for driving while black/brown, or lose out on an apartment or job becos of my color.
i suggest you read “unpacking the invisible backpack” via the google.
becos right now i live in a culture where “flesh colored” bandaids match my white skin.
Can’t even admit you were wrong, can you, college girl? Class in action. Jesus fucking christ already.
Sexism is more overt and therefore less of a problem than racism? Give me a break!
Yeah, and it only gets really ugly when men get violent, like it only takes a few violent men to keep lots of women in fear. Jesus.
Amanda, I’m still really confused about what argument you’re trying to make. Here’s my current reading: You argue that because racism is more hidden in everyday society, it is therefore more difficult to overcome, because racist oppression can go on under the radar. Sexism is more open and blatantly practiced in everyday society, so it can be engaged and battled. Is that what you’re trying to say?
I agree that it’s not a competition, but I’m not sure I understand the point of this post. And I disagree that sexism will be easier to overcome than racism. Sexism is a lot more socially acceptable than racism, but 1) the two aren’t entirely separate things and 2) I have no idea what the different levels of social acceptance mean for how easy or hard it will be to fight.
Thanks, Jessica, but I dn’t need any advice on the subject, thanks. I’m 44, disabled, and grew up in an abusive house in an abusive neighborhood and got abused at school by boys of all colors. I really don’t give a fuck what some kid has to deal with when his penis gives him an excuse to abuse. Unlike you, I’m not going to college, so once again, you can stuff your advice. I don’t need advice from anybody going to college. Shovel my fuckin’ snow if you want to do something helpful. Shove your advice.
Rebecca Traister really gets at what I’ve been trying to articulate, about why it is that the open acceptance of sexist language over racist language is by no means an indication that sexism is a greater problem, and in fact might show why sexism might be an easier problem to overcome:
A form of abuse being so accepted that it’s not even noticed means it’s not as big a problem? Yeah, that might be why people started comparing and contrasting racism and sexism, Amanda, right there.
Evidently the first thing they hand out at colleges these days is a lectern and a soapbox so that one can immediatley start lecturing and sneering at one’s inferiors. The minute one crosses that hallowed threshold one is above all others.
No, no class issues there.
Thank you, Sheesh, I didn’t mention one important thing: The farther outside of context an idea is, the more easily it is to misinterpret.
*sigh* I am college-educated and it don’t help my grammar none.
Can’t even admit you were wrong, can you, college girl? Class in action. Jesus fucking christ already.
I don’t apologize for questioning your opinion whether sexism or racism is worse.
However, after reflection, you’re right that I’m letting my snarky responses get out of control. The way I stated my opinion was rude and disrespectful to you as a longtime poster, and for that I apologize.
Changed the language a bit to note that I think that sexism might be easier to overcome.
You can not be serious. The one thing that men of all races can usually agree on is their disdain for women.
What I don’t get is, if the Oppression Olympics don’t make sense, Amanda, then why are you engaging in them?
You can not be serious. The one thing that men of all races can usually agree on is their disdain for women.
Indeed. There are few things in life more touching than when a bunch of guys assemble and agree that, verily, Ye Olde Bytche asked for it and they gave it to her.
I may need to wipe my eyes a bit.
It’s so hard to compare racism and sexism when so many men unite with all their institutional power to screw women over literally, figuratively, and in every way possible, while the only option open to women is….harsh language in the face of a male power structure. Pity the poor males, indeed.
You know, perhaps the *idea* of “institutional racism” needs a revamp.
I get the sense that the terms obscures rather than clarify the nature of racism.
In any event, I’m not going to comment on any topic inside this spectacularly unproductive thread. Take the hate down just a tad?
Most men, whatever their class or race, know that any uppity woman can be slapped down and killed or raped if she gets really uppity, and the crime gotten away with if you present it before other men. It’s just about open season on poor women. No license required to hunt us.
Bureau of Justice statistics state that violent crimes against women are significantly more likely to be reported to police than crimes against men, for all races:
See Table 91b here: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0505.pdf
For assault, the BoJ estimates 54.7% of those against women are reported, as opposed to 41.8% against males (2005 stats, see table 93).
What little research I’ve found suggests that sentencing for violent crimes is harsher when the victim is a woman; the full articles are not available online, however.
Given the limited time for searching, I have not found any comments on successful prosecutions for violent crimes by gender of victim.
Please present citations which back your comment, or indicate the basis for your statement.
“In any event, I’m not going to comment on any topic inside this spectacularly unproductive thread. Take the hate down just a tad?”
Come on, shah8. Once you get past the billowing clouds of acrid smoke coming off the flaming bags of shit being left on various commenter’s “porches” by other commenters, it’s really not so bad…
Ah, look, it’ s the rapists apologist acting like reported crimes mean shit.
Go fuck yourself.
Here’s my problem with this. The idea that one kind of prejudice/hatred — that leads certain people to physically attack another kind of person — can be less important than another kind.
And basically, the shear amount of crime against women of any color — simply because they ARE women — can beat out most other crimes against “type” in the world.
That’s what I thought. Keep ranting.
Mnemosyne: The way I stated my opinion was rude and disrespectful to you as a longtime poster, and for that I apologize.
Given the way she has been referring to you throughout this thread, I really don’t think it is you who should be apologising. Being from a poor background is not a justification for being an idiot, and accomodating idiocy on those grounds is also classism - have you considered how you would be treating someone making those comments if you assumed them an equal?
Hey, Phoenician! One of my cousins used to be married to a man who beat the shit out of her, oh, once or twice a week, however often he got plastered slowly enough that he wasn’t too drunk to walk by the time he was drunk enough to get mad.
Eventually, she did report his crimes to police — because she had to choose between either doing that, or seeing my mother blow his worthless fucking head off. (No hyperbole; I was there.)
So that’s one report, for if I remember correctly about five years of being beaten and abused. By your standards, it’s the one reported incident that matters, not the five unreported years of torture. Nice to see how much you care.
(Can’t say I’m surprised, though, out of somebody who’d answer a description of a rape with “Um, safeword?” I sure do hope you aren’t expecting to live that shit down.)
Rapist apologist again.
Safe word, anyone?
Oh, lookie, he’s being dismissive. Guess he must have run out of the screaming, terrified woman porn he likes so so much.
And because it can’t be said enough; You rapist apologist scumbag.
At the risk of entering something truly ridiculous, I have to say there’s something distinctly wrong when “educated” is supposed to be a slur. Yes, it is a limited perspective, as are all personal perspectives.
I agree, though. This thread is sadly a lot less productive then it could be, amid all the grudge-wank and poo-flinging.
I do like the point clarified in the edit, though I might suggest that the issues of institutionalized sexism and racism don’t seem intensely dependant on the acceptability of open acts thereof.
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/12/28/real-consent-manifesto/
Just to be helpful in that aim, Aaron.
When educated people use their status to be arrogant and judgemental, you might want to reconsider that. Sexism may not look like a big, overt deal when you’re safely insulated from it directly, but boy is the perspective different from the shitty seats–especially when somebody assumes from the get go that you’re ignorant and racist.
I do like the point clarified in the edit, though I might suggest that the issues of institutionalized sexism and racism don’t seem intensely dependant on the acceptability of open acts thereof.
Yeah, and when people write like this it comes off as being show offy. WHat in the fuck does that even mean?
r if I remember correctly about five years of being beaten and abused. By your standards, it’s the one reported incident that matters, not the five unreported years of torture. Nice to see how much you care.
They’re not my standards, Aaron. I’m simply pointing at the Bureau of Justice statistics on the matter - the methodology is given there. I have not made any statement remotely concerning “the one reported incident that matters, not the five unreported years of torture”.
My point is that that particular statement by ginmar which I quoted doesn’t seem to be backed up by any evidence, and I asked her politely for her source or basis.
She seems unable to give it.
Quell surprise.
Given the way she has been referring to you throughout this thread, I really don’t think it is you who should be apologising.
As I said, I’ve been getting overly snarky on threads, and I overdid my disagreement on this one. I also had to go to a thread on another site and apologize for doing the same thing to someone else on a completely different topic, so the apology was, in fact, necessary here.
Piator, despite all his time haunting feminist websites, has ignored the most basic reality of women. Quelle surprise.
I guess he ran out of torture porn today.
Amanda, excellent post. Sexism and racism are two dimensions of a whole system, not contestants on a quiz show competing for prizes. That Clinton feels comfortable doing a little race baiting and identity politics, whereas Obama has to be ulta-careful not to be too black, tells us something about the disposition of prejudices amongst the chattering classes, but these two candidates don’t represent ‘women’ and “African Americans”, if that phrase has any meaning - it isn’t as if women or African Americans are going to do especially well under any of the policies they have proposed.
One of the attractive qualities of Hillary Clinton as a candidate, I think, is that she is prepared to fight dirty. She’ll do what it takes, and that is excellent. The dems face the dirtiest opponents in American history, and it worries me a bit that Obama sometimes gets snobbish about good old eye poking politics. I still like Obama better, but I hope he is learning a lot from the Clinton campaign. Here, I do think sexism is a drag on Clinton the way it isn’t on Obama. Clinton, raising her voice and doing a normal politician’s job of scoffing at her opponents, is accused of being a bitch - hell, a friend of mine who is a very liberal woman told me that was her first impression during the New Hampshire debate, and then she realized, wait a minute, this is simply due to the fact that she’s a woman. I think sexism extends especially to what Ervin Goffman called “performance” - the presentation of the self in public. Because our politics exists so much within the context of impression, sexism might be worse for an elected official than it is for, say, choosing upper management positions. The routine of presidential electioneering has been uniformly male, and this does advantage Obama - in everything from tone of voice to the violence allowed him to criticize Clinton. This is why I think the press is nutty to criticize Hillary’s use of Bill - whenever she has used him more, as in New Hampshire, she wins, because she is able to meet this sexist impression expectation.
Good God, PIATOR, how thick are you? You know, or should know, how strong the correlation is between “reported violence” and “actual violence” when the victims are women.
You KNOW, or should know, that rape, for instance, is reported in 1 of 10 cases.
And yet here you are going on about crime reports, as though that tells the story of how well men get away with violence against women. You should know better than that.
But I suspect you do, and you’re doing your usual “Apologist In A Time of Rapists” dance.
They’re not my standards, Aaron.
Bullshit they’re not. You might be speaking with reference to the Department of Justice’s reported numbers, but you most certainly are interpreting them as you please.
And, yes, I’ll concede your point that there’s no evidence of equal standing for the argument that those numbers are low because more abuse doesn’t get reported than does. But you’re on a feminist blog, and have been since longer than I was, and I’ve never seen you once even allude to having demonstrated that your interpretation is more correct than that taken by, oh, I don’t know, just about everyone else here, as far as I’ve ever been able to tell. Now how do you explain that? Ignorance — inexcusable and unbelievable, given the context — evidence I haven’t seen yet which I’m sure you’ll be happy to link to, or malice?
Oh, and lest anyone forget: “Um, safeword?”
Oh! I forgot to mention that there can’t be evidence of equal standing — because how can the Department of Justice accurately report on the degree of unacknowledged, possibly unrecognized error present in its own reporting?
…or, put another way, what Flewellyn said, only I didn’t put it in words nearly as good.
For assault, the BoJ estimates 54.7% of those against women are reported, as opposed to 41.8% against males (2005 stats, see table 93).
And, I suppose that you have evidence that the victim is more likely to be a man in all assaults? Or do you merely have statistics about what has been reported? Are you wanking to a bogus assumption? Do you care?
Or, as Aaron stated, “what Flewellyn said”.
I personally suggest a vote (Andy-Kaufman-style) as to whether PiatoR’s posts should be posted. Fucker has his own blog. Let him tweak there.
Nothing is foolisher than white women arguing how they have it worse…Seriously what the fuck are you guys accomplishing in this thread?
Oh, look, a man. Just what we need. Thanks for reducing everything to oversimplicity, asshole! Appreciate it!
Nothing is foolisher than white women arguing how they have it worse
Quote any one person that said this. Please. I’m calling bullshit.
And it’s “more foolish”. Gah, it’s like any MRA tweaking on a feminist website! Grammar problems and false assertions!
Teri wood: Women of color are six times more likely to be the victim of intra-racial crime rather than inter racial crime. They are more likely to be raped than are white women, who outnumber them by like four to one in the general population. They are often targets by men of different colors as well as men of their own community.
As women, we owe all women protection and allegiance. I don’t owe any man anything if he thinks abusing women—any women—is his prerogative. Fighting against the assault of women of color challenges sexist and classist assumptions. I don’t want to argue that some cases are more important than others, but when some victims are burdened more than others, what argument can one make?
My problem with comparing ‘isms’ is that it seems to pit men against women, and racism is often framed in terms of what black men suffer, not black women or other women of color. I don’t care about men and I won’t apologize. Women are my interest, period. Helping women is my interest, period. Men get all the attention. They don’t need my female ass helping them. Let the elitests focus on them. Often they take it out on women close to them. Women need other women. Feminists are concerned with women first. Doesn’t mean we can’t take on other causes, but women first. When it comes down to it, men can clean up their own damned house, because often enough they spend all their time tearing down women.
When we talk about racism we often wind up talking about black men and white women, becuase, well, white men face an embarasse du choix, not tribulation. Only when it affects men is it a human rights issue. Well, women are human beings, and only feminism takes that seriously. Flawed, certainly, but still there.
Well, when people get the chips off their shoulders long enough to actually post reasonable comments…..
*sigh*. Too bad, Amanda. Interesting topic, thread mucked up by inconsiderate asses.
God, I am so sick of people posting vague comments. Name names. The topic was flawed from the beginning. Sexism is easier to fight because what, it’s so invisible? Bullshit. If I’m one of the people you have a problem with, bring it on.
“They’re not my standards, Aaron.”
Bullshit they’re not.
When I wish you to speak for me, I will pay you. Until then, you don’t speak for me. You are not my spokesman, and anything you say does not represent anything I say.
Ginmar stated that most men “knew” they could get away with violent crimes against women if the case was presented before other men.
I pointed out that according to your BoJ, violent crimes against women are significantly more likely to be reported than violent crimes against men. What little indication I dug up suggested that sentencing for violent crimes against women was harsher than for violent crimes against men. I was unable to dig up anything quickly re successful prosecutions; apart from the differential for prosecuting rape, of which the vast majority of victims are women, I have never seen anything supporting the idea that violent crimes against women are less likely to be successfully prosecuted than violent crimes against men.
Ginmar’s statement seemed wrong, or at the very least unsupported - men committing violent crimes against women do not get away with it more than they would get away with violent crimes against men. I asked Ginmar for the basis for her assertion.
She, conspicuously, failed to provide it. You, in leaping to her defence, conspicuously failed to address my actual statements. Both of you displayed much heat in ad hominem attacks, but never actually provided anything to back up her statement.
Again:
- what evidence is there that, at least in comparison to violent crimes against men, violent crimes against women are “easier to get away with”?
- What evidence is there that violent crimes against women are less likely to be reported than those against men?
- What evidence is there that comparable crimes against women are less likely to be successfully prosecuted than those against men (noting the lower prosecution rates for rape than for, say, assault or murder)?
- What evidence is there that violent crimes against women receive lesser sentences than against men?
I’m open to evidence - a good comparative study such as that showing bias based on race would be illuminating. This, for example, shows evidence of gender bias in social services.
So far I haven’t seen such evidence. You or Ginmar turning red and ranting are not adequate evidence.
I had the same reaction as ginmar. BULLSHIT! People are always quick to pull out the “oppression olympics” line, which is fine if the person in question really doesn’t give a shit about the other group in question, but it’s invariably wielded against those who are using the only other tangible analog we have in this country to make people reframe how gender is treated. If we had to go on sheer logic alone, this country would be in worse shape than it already is. Dimwitted bigots need C-O-N-C-R-E-T-E examples. The sad fact of the matter is that women have always needed the race analog to help impress their perspective on the opposition, as sex inequality has consistently trailed in most respects throughout history. In fact, many legal victories for sexual equality were accidental, because racists would try to slap “sex” onto a racial discrimination bill in order to kill it, because it usually worked. So, my point is that calling it a “competition” is childish because anyone who tries to make their case by using race as a model for a desirable direction does not have any kind of “competitive” perspective of rights advancement. Recognizing that women’s rights have always trailed historically in no way disregards the more complex ways race, sex, and class privilege intersect.
I think open sexist language is mainstream because women as a class are divied up among the oppressing class, which allows for one-on-one desensitization and conditioning (low-level Stockholm Syndrome). Black solidarity is less penetrable and more formidable to white dudes.
Phoenician, you’ll have to excuse Women As A Class for not giving a shit about your MRA-like rants about how women-abusing misogynists Get Shafted By The Legal System, Those Wicked Cunts BE DAMNED! You’ll have to excuse us for not giving a shit about the guy who learned so much from pedophile newsgroups, like the fact that sex abuse doesn’t hurt kids, but it’s the non-abusers’ REACTIONS that do. Your sacred liberal white dude insights never fail to further solidify the obvious, which is that YOU ARE THE MOST THINLY VEILED MISOGYNIST WHO IDENTIFIES WITH LIBERAL FEMINISTS IN ORDER TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF YOUR OWN GUILTY CONSCIENCE!
I pointed out that according to your BoJ, violent crimes against women are significantly more likely to be reported than violent crimes against men
Nope. Just that They were more reported. You would have to have percentages on actual violent crimes occurring to say “more likely to be reported than violent crimes against men”. But seeing as how you are a shitwit, there’s no reason to believe you actually are worried about your own stupidity.
Ginmar’s statement seemed wrong, or at the very least unsupported - men committing violent crimes against women do not get away with it more than they would get away with violent crimes against men.
Stated like you have actual proof, which you have also NOT PROVIDED. “Reported crimes” is an utterly ignorant basis for representing “actual crimes”, shitwit.
Again, I posit a vote. Let PiatoR tweak at his own blog. He rarely contributes anything other than substantially-MRA-like horseshit.
Meh.
JackGoff, you’ve got a lot of sex poxes recommended at your blog. I’m sorry, but that makes me wonder too. RenEv? Anti-Princess? The fuck? They’re right in line with PIATOR and those assholes who tried to take down Hearrt’s site a while ago. Hell, they’ve gone after me. Ren Ev’s said she hoped Radfems would die choking on their own blood. She makes money off pornstitution. Why? Why are you promoting them? Do you know that some of them run an anti-feminist website devoted to bashing feminists?
Ginmar, I am sorry, but I don’t wish to talk about this here. I can set up a thread at my place if you would like, but this thread is not the place to discuss this.
What do you want? Feminism is feminism. You support those who support the commercial exploitation of women for fun and profit. “Not here” just means it makes you uncomfortable. “I shame the matriachy” based on a radfem blog? An anti-feminist who wants radfems to die choking on their own blood? You’re not on my side. You want me to die. Fuck you.
Ginmar, if they gave out medals in the oppression Olympics, you’d get the gold.
Wow, some anon troll has somethign to say. Shocker.
Jack, you need to explain yourself and your company. Sex poxes make sexism possible. You won’t deal with it, that’s your problem. You pick your friends. You’ve picked those who profit at fellating the patriachy.
Shocker. A man doing this? Wow, I’m startled.
Well then, that is that, Ginmar. I won’t deal with it on a thread that isn’t about “it”. I am sorry for doing so.
Ginmar, I habitually read your blog, and have considered myself a fan until this thread. That being said, might I suggest taking a deep fucking breath?
“Not here” just means it makes you uncomfortable.
“Here” is not your or my personal website to use as we see fit, Ginamr. I was going to set up a thread specifically devoted to your assertions on which only you and I could comment, but no. That is worthless.
No, RenEv, antiprincess, belledame222, and any other person you have a problem with are my friends. I’ve read their websites for a long time. And if that makes me an evil person, okay. I will only say “I am sorry” to you from here on out.
Ginamr
Shit. Damn typos. Of course, I mean “Ginmar”.
any other person you have a problem with are my friends
Should read: any other person that I link to whom you have a problem with are my friends
How am I anon? Not everyone has the privilege (to toss out one of your favorite words there) to have one.
Seriously, dear. Chill out—all that rage couldn’t be good for your heart.
So it’s true! Liberal white dudes love to belittle and minimize women–with condescending words and criticizing their “anger,” naturally–just as much as wingnuts on the right do! Real male feminists are unicorns. They’re feminist insofar as paying lip service to all the elements that don’t threaten their lifestyles and personal conveniences, and even then, they only bother to engage in it primarily for the ego-inflating moral superiority baby!
Is it wrong of me that I wish Malcolm X hadn’t had a change of heart about taking out all white men? Because they really haftagoalready.
For what it’s worth, I’m not a white dude. I’m a woman with rather radfem leanings.
(If any of that dismissal was directed at me.)
Ginmar, is there anything in particular which has happened to you or someone near you recently that has precipitated this rather intense thread hijack?
You are usually this passionate, but rarely this poorly aimed.
You’re right, K.A. I am no pro-feminist. I deserve derision. I always did. No matter what, I am distinctly sorry for ever blogging and linking to people that ginmar does not approve of. My blog is going to be duly deleted, and I will never post on any feminist blog again. Again, I am sorry.
34/115 comments - a full 1/3 of the thread. Ouch.
Oh, and KA, if you think I’m a “liberal white dude” you’re waaaay off.
Oh, geez, Jack. I understand if you’re a bit put off, but that’s just passive-agressive bullshit. You’re better than that.
You’re better than that.
No, I “want [ginmar] to die”, apparently. Apparently, I’m worse than “passive-aggressive”. Again, I am sorry for being completely evil and murderous.
Oy gevalt. Look, maybe you should try approaching her about this some other time. Acting whiny in public is not going to help.
moremalice, just talking to you? Don’t flatter yourself.
Now when did I say that all that attention was for little ol me?
Acting whiny in public is not going to help.
No, Flew. Whiny? What could I do, other than letting Ginmar dictate who I link to? All the people she has a problem with have been very good friends to me. We have all disagreed with each other and yelled at each other and discussed our issues with one another. I have not delinked them specifically because, despite all our issues with each other, I still respect them. That thread on RenEv’s where she made that horrific remark? I told her how completely disappointed I was with her. That we disagree with one another at numerous interval does not mean she is not my friend. I will not blog in fear of other people, no matter how much I may disagree with them.
I too used to to think that your blogroll determined your worth. I was wrong.
And also, acting like I want ginmar dead is a well-thought out argument which I am going to have to devote my time and effort to refuting? No, Flew, I have no reason to assume that this is going to end well.
Whatever, I’m whining. This is my is my last post. I am tired of all of this.
As far as I can see, JackGoff was forced to take shelter in passive-aggressive ridicule due to ginmar’s vitriolic attacks - she quite obviously was in no state to have a rational discussion. “You’re not on my side. You want me to die. Fuck you.” The assumptions and argumentative leaps made there certainly left something to be desired.
Perhaps ginmar should try approaching us about this some other time; as MsKate stated above, ginmar is rarely this poorly aimed, and I’m inclined to think that something else must have set her off take the this post and the comments in it so personally. I think even if she ultimately doesn’t feel like she owes any apologies, she could at least accept those offers of apology made to her.
Didn’t read the comments yet.
Frankly, her article sounds a lot like “just because I’m a girl it doesn’t mean I’m stoopid. I wouldn’t vote for a girl, not really. I’m serious, really I am. Please take me seriously. I’m special. I don’t think with my crotch.”
Pointing out that sexism is less visible than racism is NOT playing “oppression”, and it’s certainly not childish; it’s stating a fact. How can people learn anything if their blind spots aren’t pointed out? “Worse” isn’t exactly the issue, because “less visible” and “more accepted” automatically make it more difficult to overcome. It also doesn’t mean that the other oppressions are forgotten or ignored.
I’m also not seeing your point about sexism being more invisible because racism’s more effective. (?) Just…not clear at all to me.
I think Amanda’s class imagery is a bit one-sided and outdated (in her post, 32, re. domestic servants and housewives). Just because women make up 50% of the middle class (and I question the ability to say upper class when the inequalities in the corporate space, culture industry, and in wealth distribution are taken into account) does not mean that the actions and personal accomplishments of middle class women directly pose a threat to patriarchy, or white patriarchy.
For instance, take the petition from earlier today, “New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama!”
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NYfeministsforpeace/
How often do black scholars, Afrocentrists, and the grassroots African-American activists feel the need to get together to sign a petition to explain their support for the non-black candidate in terms of “blacks’ issues”? No doubt, there are black activists who support Hillary Clinton out of support for her positions on “blacks’ issues,” but are they collaborating to sign petitions that redefine “blacks’ issues” in such ways as to encourage support for the non-black candidate?
Most of the feminists who signed this petition appear to be college-educated, middle class professionals (including a contingent of feminist and gender history academics). None cite working-class credentials, union leadership, or anti-poverty advocacy. I really wonder to what degree working-class and underclass feminists are prone to consider Clinton’s Iraq war vote and withdrawal plan as the single most important issue in this election - so “closely intertwined” with domestic issues that it tips their support in favor of Barack Obama regardless of all other considerations.
My view is that their class ideology defines how these women view the election. And, it is questionable to what degree their class conceptions of women’s issues may be characterized as anti-patriarchal. I am certain they chose their words carefully, and they clearly state that the “first priority is to address domestic needs.” They do not use the phrases, “feminist issues”, “women’s issues”, or “women’s needs” - rather, the petition cites the gender neutral phrase, “domestic needs”. There is no effort to contrast policies or positions on gender equality - and hence no evidence articulated to the effect that pervasive public sexism in our discourse and institutional patriarchy will be more effectively challenged by yet another male president, white or black.
The whole piece is essentially about the Iraq War authorization vote - its outcome, its implications, and its consequences. For that reason, in the direct context of a political choice between Obama and Clinton, the petition reduces women’s issues to the candidates’ original positions on the Iraq War from several years ago. Although the petition nods to women’s issues in the introduction to their petition, their political agenda ultimately sacrifices or minimizes those issues as a simple register of foreign and military policy as embodied by the Iraq War authorization act.
So, this is what has repeatedly struck me about Amanda’s Democratic primary endorsements and other feminists’ endorsements of Obama - the compulsion to elevate the Iraq War authorization vote into a single issue litmus test of “women’s issues” or “gender equality.”
(Note: I know this will not be the case in a choice between Democrat and Republican for these feminists and I don’t doubt their commitments to women’s issues. However, in the Democratic primaries, candidates’ differences on women’s issues is too often reduced to a question of how one voted or admitted to mistakes in their Iraq War Authorization vote. Conversely, the same feminists also reduce the election of a female president to a generic historical achievement (or “cause for celebration”), and neglect to discuss how the election of Hillary Clinton as the U.S. President would be a fundamental and direct attack on patriarchy and sexism in America.)
Don’t hold your breath.
By the way, did anyone else notice that JackGoff was taking ginmar’s side, right up until she attacked him?
Joe makes some excellent points.
And so, although we are generally mortal enemies and she banned me from her blog eons ago, does ginmar.
This is all of course a continuation of the discussion that Gloria Steinem began with her NYTimes article a few weeks ago. And Gloria was right then, she’s right now.
This isn’t an issue that really involves conservatives - they hate women and non-whites pretty much equally. This issue is one for liberals. It is not acceptable among liberals to compliment someone by saying “that’s very white of you.” But few liberals even think twice about complimenting someone - even women - by saying “you have balls.”
Much racism, in my experience, focuses on “culture” (class) issues, and that is why ‘exceptional’ minorities are acceptable. They meet the cultural standards, expected, and are therefore ‘the same as us’.
Sexism, however, usually contends that women and men can never really understand each other, much less be the same underneath the plumbing. There is a direct denial that culture is responsible for gender differences.
There is a segregation of a different kind. Red Line laws may put minorities into previously white neighborhoods, and white men will find themselves talking sports with their black neighbors, and white women will get exotic recipes from Hispanic and Asian co-workers. But there’s a red line in the minds of many people regarding the aliens that are the Opposite Sex.
Men will often make a woman who breaks the “Venus” paradigm into an Honorary Man, and either consider her unbelievably hot or a bitch, depending on how they feel about a challenge to gender stereotypes. A man who breaks the “Mars” paradigm has to struggle not to be considered gay. Rather than reorganizing their thought patterns and questioning the validity of stereotype, sexism simply creates subcategories for those who don’t fit.
Which is not to say racism isn’t *worse*. It’s bad in ways that continue to astonish and shock me. If it had been largely white women rather than blacks who had been left in the wake of Katrina, I doubt the media would have covered it the same way. (Instead of looters, there’d be much footage of dead, scantily clad drowning victims in the news). But I think that racism is likely to be marginalized and ineffective a lot sooner than sexism will be.
I think many people could use the benefits of reading a post by LowerManhattanite…
http://www.groupnewsblog.net/2007/08/its-all-just-little-bit-of-history.html
Even though racism is underground, doesn’t mean that it’s a step forward. Honestly, it bubbles just below the surface and comes up at the slightest provocation. I’ve talked to seemingly rational white people and am surprised when they spout something racist - but nooo, they’re not racist, they’re just making an observation about Black culture (that just happens to be a racial stereotype). And it always seems that these same people are also sexist and xenophobic as well (also homophobic, but not all of them are). I think it’s part of the package of oppression - the tools being sexism, classism, and racism. And many people buy into this because they want to be morally superior to someone. I think that’s why fundamentalist religion sells so well…all of your moral superiority in one neat little God-package, go on and hate [insert group here], now with Biblical justification! If sexism went underground as racism, it wouldn’t be far underground.
The media narrative of Clinton and Obama bothers me. They are actively pitting race against gender, and if a person votes for one candidate over another doesn’t really mean that someone’s more sexist or racist. I get the feeling that they want you to feel guilty voting, because if you vote for the Black man, you’re a sexist, and if you vote for the White woman, you’re racist, and that just proves that Liberals are elitist sexists/racists. It’s like it doesn’t occur to them that the rest of America votes based upon other issues that are important to the person voting, and “Who would win ‘Most Likely to Succeed’” wouldn’t be one of the issues.
“By the way, did anyone else notice that JackGoff was taking ginmar’s side, right up until she attacked him? ”
Did you happen to notice that she’s got some very good reasons for not thinking of him as being on “her side”? The company he keeps are the big time happy contributors to the problem.
Has anyone else seen the polls that show the number of Democrats who would vote Republican (for McCain no less!) before voting for a woman? Here in Nuevo Mexico you routinely hear…”well at least he’s got balls, hehe”. nuff said.
I don’t know, the fuss about who Jack links to shouldn’t be an issue here. To be honest I’ve known others who do it to provide an alternative and to keep themselves from drifting from their position by reminding themselves of the batshit crazy ideas and just why they should be as vocal as they are. Maybe Ginmar should have taken advantage of his offer to discuss this at his place where it would be more appropriate and not a total threadjacking.
Oww the numbers are SO hard to see for my 19 year old eyes. I’m near-sighted so that shouldn’t be a problem, but dang it’s almost impossible to tell what they are.
Which problem? What do they have to do with this topic? And how does it make sense to attack someone who’s defending your position, even if you don’t like them for other reasons?
Been there, done that, you’re just a troll, so fuck off. JackGoff wants to hang around his pro pornie, troll-loving anti-feminist friends like Ampersand, it’s just another male feminist.
Ms. Kate, this topic was fucked up from the get go. Sexism is easier to fight because it’s more accepted? Huh? Class doesn’t matter? Yeah, well, like I need some college-educated women to tell me shit like this. I also notice that there’s the assumption that you have to tolerate condescending bullshit from people who are supposedly ‘on your side’ if you’re a feminist.
That sounds odd to me, because sexism applies on top of racism and classism. All other things being equal, the woman still gets screwed. So wouldn’t that mean that it’s easier to be openly sexist because sexism is so much more deeply held and accepted?
I also pretty much wrote off JackGoff after looking at his website. A lounge lizard who uses an aggressively sexual nick on a feminist(!!!) website is not somebody I care to know. You’re in a place where you expect to see rape and abuse victims, and there you are with your dick out. That’s flasher behavior.
ginmar I’m sorry you got attacked.
“JackGoff” is my name, btw. I am sorry, Ginmar.
My sole point is that it is easier to be openly sexist than openly racist in the mainstream because systematic racism is all too effective a means of oppression.
Very Orwellian.
Isn’t Flewllyn a male feminist, too?
Ginmar “got attacked?”
ginmar, i’m sorry you’re jealous that some people went to college, and you were not able to. but you were too busy slaughtering iraqis, were you not?
Isn’t Flewllyn a male feminist, too?
In a technical sense, perhaps. I am male, and I am a feminist. However, I don’t self-identify as “male feminist”, just as “feminist”, because I don’t think my sex is particularly relevant to whether or not I believe in the feminist cause.
It’s relevant insofar as I don’t experience the oppression women do, and it’s relevant insofar as I have male privilege, unearned and unwanted, but there nonetheless.
But I don’t make a point of demonstrating “how awesome I am” vis a vis being a man who actually thinks women are human beings, because I don’t think that’s laudatory, so much as mandatory.
“but you were too busy slaughtering iraqis, were you not?”
Now THAT is nasty. I don’t understand the JackGoff/ginmar thing, but that comment is really over the line.
moremalice, you should be ashamed…
ginmar, i’m sorry you’re jealous that some people went to college, and you were not able to. but you were too busy slaughtering iraqis, were you not?
Right, that’s absolutely the most appalling thing I’ve seen anybody say to her, ever.
I’m disgusted by ginmar’s behaviour in this thread as much as anyone, but that comment is far, far out of line.
Been there, ginmar got mugged and punched in the face. It’s the first thing she said.
Well, then, you don’t have any right to be disgusted, because that kind of shit is what Jack Goff’s pro pornie friends have subjected both myself and other radfems to. You want me to the Virgin Mary, that’s your fucking problem. I don’t forgive that kind of shit. It’s all very well and good for you all to get pissed off at Moremalice’s malice, but when it’s somebody like the sex poxes and trolls that Jack Goff pals around with who say the same things and worse, it should be brushed under the carpet? No thanks. You get disgusted all you want. Meanwhile, there’s lots more Moremalices out there and you just want to ignore them. Thanks bunches.
And if Moremalice isn’t one of the pro pornies sockpuppeting I’ll be very surprised. That’s exactly the kind of thing they say. In fact, I think one of them did say more or less the exact same thing to me before.
Sexism is perversely the only real tool to enforce sexism, but racism has classism as the back-up plan.
Sexism doesn’t have classism as the back-up plan? Since when? Do you ever, like, talk to women of different classes or do you just keep these conversations between you and your old college buddies? Or other college grads, or whatever?
I could tell you from my own life experience that classism definitely gets in the way. And I am having a hard time grasping that; despite my background, I come off as slightly higher-class than others in my ethnic group. Hell, you can’t even tell I’m in my ethnic group. I don’t have the accent. But the bastards can still tell, I assure you.
Lower-class women don’t even have the hope of marrying up out of their class group most of the time; we’re seen as gold-diggers. Doubly so if we already have children, even though another man is supposed to be supporting them.
But hey, YOU know more about my life than I do, so I guess I’ll defer to YOU.
As this has the potential to spin completely out of control, my point is that there’s not a competition. Putting the two into competition is childish…
Well then, don’t.
I don’t see how bloggers like you can call themselves liberal or progressive, I really don’t. Or, maybe this IS what “liberal” and “progressive” mean, and I just need to abandon the labels entirely. So what if people think “wacked-out terrorist” when they hear the phrase leftist radical? *shrug*
And, why are people defending JackGoff? Whether or not Gin’s accusation holds water, the fact remains he runs around online with a pack of jerks. Just because they are nice to HIM does not mean they are nice people. I’ve had bad people be nice to me too, until I was of no use to them anymore, then it was open frigging season. That’s fine; I have no use for that nonsense anyway.
I think what pegged it for me that RenEv was a bad person was reading about her near-rape experience, watching the wheels turn in her head, and witnessing her use it as a pretext to say, “And I’m still not oppressed and radfems still suck NYEH!”
Really? Because I would have felt oppressed by nearly being raped on the job. I would have felt VERY oppressed. And angry. And traumatized. And the fact still remains that it’s easier to rape you if you’ve already appealed to a guy’s libido and you have fewer clothes between you and him. Above and beyond the oppression inherent in participating in an industry that says to men, Here I am all wrapped up for you as a commodity because YOU ARE ENTITLED TO IT.
And I don’t care what she feels. I could feel that the earth is flat and you guys would laugh at me. Deservedly so. One’s personal feelings do not change political facts.
And Jack’s proud to be friends with someone like that? He can have her. I’m sure she makes a great token female friend, even if he doesn’t come out and say “some of my best friends are women.” At least unless she wises up and goes into a completely non-sexual field of work, then she won’t be fun anymore.
Sad, sad world we live in.
Dana: So I deserved it right? Nice…
And I said nothing to the rad fems who commented (under their blog names) on the event other than to THANK Heart for her words on the matter until I got attacked by…guess who? What pissed me off, much like the experience itself, was then seeing it appropriated and co-opted for a cause I do not support or believe in, without my consent of course. Thank you for bringing it up, again. I’d call that the move of a jerk.
I was not even participating in this thread and Ginmar used me as a threadjack.
Good thing i don’t much give a fuck about your feelings either. And no need to tell me about my job, I’ve been doing it for close to two decades, and a lot of the time, for me, it still is fun.
Wise up? Please. And oddly enough, you don’t get to tell me what to do for a living either.
Amanda- sorry the presence of a sex worker on the net who takes exception to various attitudes and isn’t quite about it derailed your entire thread, even though I wasn’t even involved in it.
I’m sure if McCain gets elected over Clinton or Obama it will somehow be my fault as well.
>>>Really? Because I would have felt oppressed by nearly being raped on the job. I would have felt VERY oppressed. And angry. And traumatized.
Let’s talk about feelings!
>>>And I don’t care what she feels. I could feel that the earth is flat and you guys would laugh at me. Deservedly so. One’s personal feelings do not change political facts.
No, not yours!
Well so long as *your* feelings are more important than Ren’s, you know, the actual woman who actually experienced it. Charming.
what would you deserve for us to do to you if you were to call somebody a bad person for not having the same, or even a similar, emotional reaction to a given situation as you would have had, no more than one paragraph ahead of claiming to not care what that person feels — even though (by implication) you would seem to want that person to care about what YOU would have felt in some given hypothetical situation?
So it’s fine to discount everything else you’ve just said, like:
Because the fact of the matter is you can’t say someone deserved to be raped and claim to be a feminist. There is no “mixed signal” that mitigates the fact that a person is having sex with another person against their fucking will. Sex worker or not. Having sex and being raped are completely different.
And you have a lot of nerve telling Ren what she should feel because it doesn’t square with what you would feel. News flash, Dana: she went through it. She’s come to her conclusions.
As one of the “bad people,” no doubt: fuck you with a chainsaw, Dana, (o noez violent imagery, i must totally mean that literally, too) whoever the hell you are, and the sucking black hole of an energy creature you and some other people, for some reason, keep enabling.
Ginmar just attacked Mnemnosyne, Renegade and now Jack, the former frothing way over the top for politely disagreeing with her and YES even fucking apologizing to her (unnecessarily, but of course it went unnoticed anyway), the latter two apparently (?!) out of a -clear blue sky,- for no other reason except that she was looking for a fight, once supposedly looked at her cross-eyed, or had a friend who had an acquaintance who supposedly looked at her cross-eyed, and thus landeth in her Ever Growing Rolodex Of People What Keep Oppressing Her, isn’t that so? How the hell do you even keep track anymore, gin? Got your fight now, do you like it, do you love it? Does it have a good beat and you can dance to it? Does it shovel your fucking sidewalk, you entitled, squalling infant?
And, Dana whosis, excuse me? You don’t care about Renegade’s feelings, but we’re supposed to care about your -hypothetical- feelings? She didn’t play the victim exactly the way you wanted her to, the victim you feel ENTITLED to, so she deserves whatever she gets. Doesn’t everyone, in ginmarandfriendsworld? Except ginmar herself, of course. Because she’s not responsible for a single goddam thing she says or does. She’s not like other people! She can’t stand pain, it hurts her!
Sorry, now returning you to the ever-thrilling topic of I Totally Don’t Believe In Oppression Olympics, But If I Did, Sexism Would SO WIN.
Wow… this is what the oppression olympics thread turned into? Jeez, a couple days ago I was planning on coming back and checking this discussion. How did you all just let this trainwreck keep going? Did you think it actually WAS the oppression olympics?
GOLD MEDALZ 4 EVERY1
As punishment for your participation in this debacle, everyone who posted in this thread, even the on-topic people, are all stricken from my (nonexistent) blogroll! Along with all of your friends, who clearly lack the judgment and taste, moral fortitude and commitment to True FeminismTM to be your sworn enemies. Also your pets are off the blogroll, your houseplants, and the guy who sells you coffee. I bet you didn’t know he had a blog, did you? Well he does, but now it’s BLACKLISTED.
Phew, now nobody will blame me for having any of you sketchy characters on my blogroll, if I ever get around to actually setting it up on Feministe.
</makinglightofthesituationafterthefact>
Because the fact of the matter is you can’t say someone deserved to be raped and claim to be a feminist.
Yup, that’s about “what pegged it for me” that this conversation no longer has anything to do with feminism.
PROUD PROUD PROUD to call Renegade Evolution a good friend. She is dazzlingly brilliant and beautiful. I am continually astounded by how “feminists” (who apparently believe that some women really do ask for it) can’t keep their mouths off her, even in threads that have nothing whatsoever to do with her. How does that happen? Why are they so obsessed with everything she does?
“Sad, sad world we live in.”
Some people with nothing else to do are far more sad than others.
“And the fact still remains that it’s easier to rape you if you’ve already appealed to a guy’s libido and you have fewer clothes between you and him.”
What the heck??? So if you’ve been raped under circumstances where you’ve already appealed to a guy’s libido, and have fewer clothes between you and him, you’re a bad person if you perhaps still want to appeal to someone else’s libido later, and have not so many clothes between you and him? And if you don’t want someone using the real trauma of your rape as an occasion for denouncing your sexual choices as bad and wrong and partaking of oppression?
Look, I’m pro-Swedish system myself, so, if you want to argue the badness and wrongness of the sex industry while leaving Ren’s rape out of it, I’ll give you no argument. But can’t you see that what you’re doing here is the same darn “she wouldn’t have been raped if she weren’t such a slut” thing that feminists have been objecting to for decades?
Thank you, belledame222 Wonderfully put.
Another proud friend of Enemy of the People, a.k.a. Ren, right here.
We’re in thought-crime territory now.
And anyone who thinks she deserved it ought to join the Taliban/Pat Robertson and spare us their stupidity.
What a great thread!!
The reason people engage in the “Oppression Olympics” is because most people have the unquestioned belief that there is a direct relationship between the level of oppression you endure and your moral claim on others. The oppressed are considered more pure, more innocent, and more virtuous than others, just because they happen to live at the bottom of the food chain. The more oppressed you are, the better you are as a person. That is why the title of most oppressed person, or most oppressed group, is fought for so tenaciously.
And this thread shows how silly that belief is.
What a great thread!!
The reason people engage in the “Oppression Olympics” is because most people have the unquestioned belief that there is a direct relationship between the level of oppression you endure and your moral claim on others. The oppressed are considered more pure, more innocent, and more virtuous than others, just because they happen to live at the bottom of the food chain. The more oppressed you are, the better you are as a person. That is why the title of most oppressed person, or most oppressed group, is fought for so tenaciously.
And this thread shows how silly that belief is.
What a great thread!!
The reason people engage in the “Oppression Olympics” is because most people have the unquestioned belief that there is a direct relationship between the level of oppression you endure and your moral claim on others. The oppressed are considered more pure, more innocent, and more virtuous than others, just because they happen to live at the bottom of the food chain. The more oppressed you are, the better you are as a person. That is why the title of most oppressed person, or most oppressed group, is fought for so tenaciously.
And this thread shows how silly that belief is.
Jumping up and down as a friend of Ren, a proud friend of Ren, and a FEMINIST who doesn’t believe that ANY woman deserves to be almost raped, or really raped, or brutalized in any manner, no matter what she does for a living or no matter how she pisses off a bunch of radfems or other lemon-faced losers. That means that even you, Dana, who just verbally abused my friend, don’t deserve to be raped either, even though at this point I think you’re a pretty despicable person.
As for ginmar–well girl, we all know you’re about 20 degrees short of human, so your ravings mean nothing. And ya know what, even though every time you come rampaging through a thread you show yourself for the vicious idiot you really are, I don’t wish harm on you either. I just wish you didn’t spew your sickness all over the rest of us.
Oh yes, Dana, because it’s such a brave feminist idea that women who dress sexily are somehow deserving of rape.
Fuck you.
Ah, the usual suspects have showed up, and the possibility of mental illness has been brought up, again. *snif*
Ok, Medium Dave, strike the word “sickness” from my post and replace it with any of these: bitterness, anger, hate, viciousness, intractability, rage, venom, negativity, nastiness, horridness, just plain bulldog meanness, whatever. Whatever gin’s problem is might not be illness but it sure makes me sick.
Dana, it’s a sad sad world indeed when a feminist invokes “bad people” arguments; the equivalent of “those people”. It’s not surprising with all of the lunchroom politics with who is on whose side, but it is pretty glaringly obvious that Ren was not involved in this thread yet she’s always your convenient whipping girl. Why is that? Because as a sex worker she is worthy of your contempt? She is unrepentant so she is worth the label of “bad person”. Grow up, people stopped being bad when their parents stopped punishing them, not just because she didn’t fall at your feet begging for your approval and redemption.
huh.
Dana insults a group of “bad people”, and all of us bad people come out of the woodwork and defend ourselves - who’da thunk it? seriously, what did you think was going to happen?
my question is - are we all being judged solely by the company we keep, or are we bad on our own merits?
so Dana earns the Big Yawn from me. haven’t we all been asserting since 19whateverdebleen (and all down this thread) that it doesn’t matter what a woman wears or does or says, there is never an excuse for sexual assault? even the sexual assault of a Bad Girl who is also a Bad Person?
some weird-ass feminist doublethink going on in your head, Dana.
as far as Dana’s position that she herself would have felt differently about Ren’s experience, and that is the reason she feels that Ren is a bad person (if I read her correctly) well - that speaks more to Dana’s own boundary issues than any real political point Dana was trying to make.
Ren’s not the only woman in the world to feel the way she feels. For what it’s worth, as a survivor of domestic abuse, I still don’t have any desire to Blame The Patriarchy for the unforgivably bad behavior of one man. I prefer to put the responsibility squarely on his own head. Blaming “the system” for his bad behavior lets him off the hook in a way that I can’t abide. So, no, I don’t feel especially oppressed by his abuse, similar to the way Ren feels not-especially-oppressed by the experience she had (if I read her correctly).
There’s multiple people whose blogs I read loyally involved in this discussion, although I’m a bit stingier with the label “friend” than most. I say this entirely without intending to back anyone’s gruges.
“And the fact still remains that it’s easier to rape you if you’ve already appealed to a guy’s libido and you have fewer clothes between you and him.”
Dana, go fuck yourself.
If you’d aimed that comment at anyone but a sex worker, you’d be shouted down from the rooftops as a raving misogynist.
similar to the way Ren feels not-especially-oppressed by the experience she had
which is not to say that her experience didn’t make her feel sixty kinds of awful - just not particularly oppressed.
and yeah, medium dave - what on earth did you expect to happen?
Nnnooooo! Not my pets! Anything but that!
…bitterness, anger, hate, viciousness, intractability, rage, venom, negativity, nastiness, horridness, just plain bulldog meanness…
Those words sound familiar, kactus. Aren’t those the same words you get tagged with when someone like, say, Sweating through Fog is disturbed by your opinions?
(antiprincess, since you asked, I expected exactly this. After a few go-rounds, I know how the game is played. If I were more energetic I’d diagram it in Visio.)
Dana, please don’t try to pass off your uninformed judgments as a result of careful consideration:
“I think what pegged it for me that RenEv was a bad person was reading about her near-rape experience, watching the wheels turn in her head, and witnessing her use it as a pretext to say, ‘And I’m still not oppressed and radfems still suck NYEH!’”
Then you weren’t reading very carefully. The conclusions I took from that post were the following:
(1) Ren was bravely putting an bad job experience out there despite the inevitable gathering of folks eager to shove her into a “victim” role.
(2) It was by no means a “near rape”; she had a bodyguard and was in control of her safety, although not her happiness, throughout.
(3) She made clear that although she’d opted not to sugarcoat her sexwork experience, on balance it remained a good choice for her.
Nowhere did she make any kind of “radfems suck” claim, eager as you are to read that in everywhere (why, pray tell?)
“an industry that says to men, Here I am all wrapped up for you as a commodity because YOU ARE ENTITLED TO IT.”
Really? How is having to pay through the nose for something entitlement? As a former stripper, I never got wrapped up for free. There are aspects of the sex industry that are oppressive, yes, but I hardly think Ren’s participation provides proof to men that they are entitled. As we all know, people don’t feel “entitled” to therapy, massage, higher education, and other services for which we pay through the nose.
“At least unless she wises up and goes into a completely non-sexual field of work, then she won’t be fun anymore.”
Oh, please. Ren is fun talking about history, for fuck’s sake. Why is a discussion about her in her absence capable of derailing a thread, when there are a ton of other sex workers you could be discussing? Because she’s interesting, for reasons other than porn. If you could get your mind around sex workers being people, this would not be so difficult a concept for you.
” For what it’s worth, as a survivor of domestic abuse, I still don’t have any desire to Blame The Patriarchy for the unforgivably bad behavior of one man. I prefer to put the responsibility squarely on his own head. Blaming “the system” for his bad behavior lets him off the hook in a way that I can’t abide.”
Well said, AP.
Some serious fucked-upness happening around here, what with Ginmar and Dana’s comments. I leave you hardier folks to it. Me, I’m tired of even attempting to reason with people who perpetually demonstrate how much they get off on spewing hatred in the name of “feminism.”
But yeah: Ren, AP, Belle, Daisy, Kactus — all “bad people” who I’m proud to have on my little blogroll.
“But yeah: Ren, AP, Belle, Daisy, Kactus — all “bad people” who I’m proud to have on my little blogroll.”
AND Octo!
Missed you the first time around, Octo — appears we were posting at the same time.
Octogalore, I believe Dana was saying, with her last remark, that I would no longer be friends with Ren if she wasn’t a sex worker. Because I’m using Ren as a “great token female friend”.
So, on top of every other idiocy, we have Dana Seilhan, who can divine that another woman is a bad person just on the basis of her choice of words in recounting a harrowing experience of sexual assault. More, she helpfully informs us that victims of sexual assault make it easier for assailants if they aren’t wearing the right clothes, as determined by Dana Seilhan. And this passes for feminist discernment.
As if it weren’t enough for one thread that another spittle-flecked horror denounces some guy who was trying strenuously to agree with her for “want[ing] me to die,” just because he’s evidently had civil relations with the woman who nearly got raped.
It’s true there’s a bad person here, several of them, but Ren Evol isn’t one of them.
My sympathy to the proprietor for all this.
You know, I bet Ren organized and planned her own assault experience, just to fuck with radical feminists. And those guys committing suicide in Gitmo are committing acts of asymmetrical warfare through pure hatred of the United States. And my screen name was specifically formulated to make me look nonthreatening as a platform so I could be seen as un-male-enough to attack radfems at will. And…I’ve seen all this before.
Anyone who disagrees with an iota of your ideology, or associates with anyone who does, is no longer a feminist, or even a person; they’re monsters whose only desire in life is to hate on feminists and women! even if they’re feminist women themselves! even if they’re dedicated activists! because they disagree with some radical feminist ideas or figures, they hate all women!
And anyone who cares to listen to them does, too.
Today JackGoff, tomorrow me. I listen to plenty of people. And if that means I’m no longer allowed to have an opinion about anything, especially about this feminist movement I hold so dear, well, we’ve got a problem.
If your worldview is that anyone who disagrees with you–or anyone who knows anyone who disagrees with you–is a disingenuous liar whose only reason to have an alternate opinion is all about you and is, no matter where they put it, secretly a veiled attack on you, you’ve got worse problems than the Patriarchy.
If you cannot imagine any motivation to do, feel, or think something you wouldn’t do, feel, or think except as an attack on you, somehow, somewhere, you’ve got worse problems than the Patriarchy.
If your world is that anyone who has ever disagreed with you, especially about the humanity of someone else you don’t like, wants you dead, you’ve got worse problems than the Patriarchy.
And if you’re so desperate to hold onto that worldview that you start blathering that sex workers deserve to be raped, you’ve got a much bigger problem than the Partriachy–feminism.
Just stopping by to announce my own friendship with Ren, so you should all remove my name from your blogrolls (which I’m sure I’m not on).
Seriously, you should make sure to block all access to Ren and her friends. Otherwise, you might be able to see for yourself the lies Ginmar is telling. Such as: “Ren Ev’s said she hoped Radfems would die choking on their own blood”. RE was attacking particular individuals who behaved in disgusting ways, such as stalking, trying to close down other people’s blogs, etc. For ginmar to claim RE is attacking her or all radfems is unfair to the truly creepy folks who were the object of that post.
Of coruse, if you don’t know how to find Ren or any of her friends, you’ll never learn that. Don’t risk it! You don’t want to know the truth. Delete! Delete! Delete! It’s your only hope. Being ignorant is the only way you’ll be safe!
Just stopping by to announce my own friendship with Ren, so you should all remove my name from your blogrolls (which I’m sure I’m not on).
Seriously, you should make sure to block all access to Ren and her friends. Otherwise, you might be able to see for yourself the lies Ginmar is telling. Such as: “Ren Ev’s said she hoped Radfems would die choking on their own blood”. RE was attacking particular individuals who behaved in disgusting ways, such as stalking, trying to close down other people’s blogs, etc. For ginmar to claim RE is attacking her or all radfems is unfair to the truly creepy folks who were the object of that post.
Of coruse, if you don’t know how to find Ren or any of her friends, you’ll never learn that. Don’t risk it! You don’t want to know the truth. Delete! Delete! Delete! It’s your only hope. Being ignorant is the only way you’ll be safe!
Just stopping by to announce my own friendship with Ren, so you should all remove my name from your blogrolls (which I’m sure I’m not on).
Seriously, you should make sure to block all access to Ren and her friends. Otherwise, you might be able to see for yourself the lies Ginmar is telling. Such as: “Ren Ev’s said she hoped Radfems would die choking on their own blood”. RE was attacking particular individuals who behaved in disgusting ways, such as stalking, trying to close down other people’s blogs, etc. For ginmar to claim RE is attacking her or all radfems is unfair to the truly creepy folks who were the object of that post.
Of coruse, if you don’t know how to find Ren or any of her friends, you’ll never learn that. Don’t risk it! You don’t want to know the truth. Delete! Delete! Delete! It’s your only hope. Being ignorant is the only way you’ll be safe!
Well Dave, no intent of commenting on this thread until a feminist more or less jumped out with the “you shouldn’t have worn a short skirt” line and decided I was a bad human for not feeling (feelings she doesn’t care about) they way she would have in a certain situation. That sort of thing is going to draw attention. Hell, I’m not the one who brought my name, my blogroll, and my experience into the thread in the first place. That thread jack was instigated by others.
Here’s what I see that is interesting about this thread. A legitimate and interesting topic is introduced. Conversation ensues. Ginmar jumps in and starts throwing around random insults with no basis, blanket stereotypes with no founding, and generally turning what could have been an educational debate for everyone into a shit-flinging fest simply because she desperately needs attention and is too damaged a human to play nice.
Back on I think repression is self made. Being treated badly by men? Leave, find something else. There is no place in the world where a woman doesn’t have options. End of story. Stop whining about patriarchal repression on blogs and get out there and improve those options so they are even better.
Nope. Just that They were more reported. You would have to have percentages on actual violent crimes occurring to say “more likely to be reported than violent crimes against men”.
True enough. The statistics are from the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau - description of methodology and links at that address.
However, the same criticism applies to the original comment - if you believe that the national survey carried out tby the US Census Bureau is not sufficient for capturing the true extent of violence against women, how can you claim that it captures the true extent of violence against men, and this make any claim about comparing the two?
Which is my point - there is no evidence being given to back up the statement about “men getting away with violence against women”, at least in comparison with “getting away with violence against men”. You are substituting heat and rhetoric for actual proof.
Stated like you have actual proof, which you have also NOT PROVIDED.
Go back to my original comment. Ginmar stated
“Most men, whatever their class or race, know that any uppity woman can be slapped down and killed or raped if she gets really uppity, and the crime gotten away with if you present it before other men. It’s just about open season on poor women. No license required to hunt us.”.
The pertinent part of my reply is this:
“Please present citations which back your comment, or indicate the basis for your statement.”
I stated the reasons why I found this suspect - that the BoJ stated that reported crimes were significantly higher for violence against women than against men, and that what little research I could do suggested that sentences for violence against women tended to be harsher than those for similiar violence against men.
But the ball was not in my court. It is up to Ginmar or those agreeing with her statement to actually provide some evidence backing this up.
The replies so far only make you look like the caricatures the MRA people would like to paint you as. If you have the truth on your side, you don’t need ad hominem or calls for censorship.
Nope. Just that They were more reported. You would have to have percentages on actual violent crimes occurring to say “more likely to be reported than violent crimes against men”.
True enough. The statistics are from the National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau - description of methodology and links at that address.
However, the same criticism applies to the original comment - if you believe that the national survey carried out tby the US Census Bureau is not sufficient for capturing the true extent of violence against women, how can you claim that it captures the true extent of violence against men, and this make any claim about comparing the two?
Which is my point - there is no evidence being given to back up the statement about “men getting away with violence against women”, at least in comparison with “getting away with violence against men”. You are substituting heat and rhetoric for actual proof.
Stated like you have actual proof, which you have also NOT PROVIDED.
Go back to my original comment. Ginmar stated
“Most men, whatever their class or race, know that any uppity woman can be slapped down and killed or raped if she gets really uppity, and the crime gotten away with if you present it before other men. It’s just about open season on poor women. No license required to hunt us.”.
The pertinent part of my reply is this:
“Please present citations which back your comment, or indicate the basis for your statement.”
I stated the reasons why I found this suspect - that the BoJ stated that reported crimes were significantly higher for violence against women than against men, and that what little research I could do suggested that sentences for violence against women tended to be harsher than those for similiar violence against men.
But the ball was not in my court. It is up to Ginmar or those agreeing with her statement to actually provide some evidence backing this up.
The replies so far only make you look like the caricatures the MRA people would like to paint you as. If you have the truth on your side, you don’t need ad hominem or calls for censorship.
There is no place in the world where a woman doesn’t have options.
That is patently false.
Ah, look, the pro pornies have shown up the way they always do, complete with sock puppets. Oh noes, kactus doesn’t like me! Whatever shall I do? I’m heartbroken and will not be able to deal with the feelings of some dipshit I don’t care about anyway. As for the rest of you sex poxes, I could give a shit. You’re scum. You enable sexism. I will never forget that or forgive it and I’ll do whatever I can to make sure you guys constantly get exposed for the sexism-enablers that you are.
And by the way, BD, get that distemper treated. The spitting and barking is really messy.
Fucking disgusting, Dana. I wasn’t going to enter this thread because frankly, anything to do with the Oppression Olympics annoys me.
How you can call yourself a “feminist” after you blame RenEv for her situation is beyond me. How you can claim someone is a “bad person” simply because she won’t let one bad experience stop her from what she WANTS to do, is beyond me. How can you get angry at someone because they don’t fit your mold of how a victim looks like?
And ginmar, wtf - why the hell are you attacking others because they have a college education?
Love the minimizing of ‘I hope they choke to death on their own blood under a truck’ by the way. I’ll have to remember to quote you. Even if what you say is true—and I wouldn’t believe you on anything—you’re no better than what you’re screaming about. It’s not okay if she threatens a little bunch of people. Get it through through your thick head.
Scum. Total scum. It’s always nice when you guys come out and prove me right in anything I’ve ever said about you.
Ginmar, sweetness, I’m not a sock puppet, I’m a plagiarist.
Do try to keep up.
Whatever. You’re nothing to me, so who cares? There’s two people who don’t have home pages, so they’re sock puppets. Shockingly enough, they’re echoing the bullshit another john/pornie/pox used on the last thread.
You guys always think the shit you pull is going to die. I’m just taking a page out of BD’s playbook. Don’t like it when I do it? Then take her to task.
I’m just imitating her. You all have some nice double standard. Don’t think I’ll ever give up.
“If you’d aimed that comment at anyone but a sex worker, you’d be shouted down from the rooftops as a raving misogynist.”
Hexy, well said. If I may propose one small alteration I would suggest the following:
“If you aim that comment at anyone including a sex worker, you are a raving misogynist.”
And I’ll tell that to the folks on the rooftops, too, so they can shout it down.
Gin: The scum and distemper thing, right back at ya. Love how you minimize one of your buds more or less saying sexworkers deserve to be raped. That’s just as priceless as my choking comment.
Nice threadjack, btw, always lovely to see how you can throw my name out in the middle of an actual discussion rather than, oh, stay on the topic and defend your points…a skill you do actually have.
Cause you know, it is all just a sex pos/class/whatever plot against you…forever and ever, ad infinitum, amen.
Shit, if the choice is scum or…you? Scum is much more appealing.
Now, why don’t you, a soldier, and betty, a cop, talk some more about me being in a sexist industry…because you know, the army and the police force are just such bastions of equality, peace, and respect for women.
all of your bleating has pretty much lost it’s efficacy. everyone has been there, done that, got the t-shirt. “ginmar called me scum and all i got was this fucking t-shirt” baahhaaa. it’s getting redundant.
Oh gin, you’re making me laugh more and more. Don’t you ever learn a different strategy? Attack attack SEX POXES!! I don’t like you so you’re shit! Curse curse babble spit!
Now run off to your lj and call us names, that’s a good girl.
Of course, though, I know what Hexy was getting at. It’s both misogynist AND spineless to aim the comment at a sex worker, because SOME people will give you a hall pass for that.
And they’d be misogynists, too.
And allow one more “sex pox sockpuppet” to intervene in this rumble:
Last time I checked, Ginmar, you were NOT one of the creators or moderators of this blog; which means that unless Amanda or Pam or Auguste or whomever does rule has given you special mod powers, your basis to throw out insults and ad hominen attacks on other posters here is, shall we say, a bit lacking.
But, if you want to keep on derailing what could have been an excellent and intriguing discussion on race and class and gender oppression and how they intertwine, simply so that you can continue your vendetta against Ren and Belledame and JackGoff and the rest of us “sex posies”, then just go right ahead, dearie. Just remember what I originally said about words coming back to haunt you. (And that still is not a personal threat against you, Ginny, regardless of whay you say.)
Oh….and we all know that women of color are more likely to be abused and battered by people of their own race than by other-race people; that does not change one damn bit the significance of racism AND sexism intertwining together to hold down women AND POC. Either we fight this together as human beings or we drown together as fools.
Expose us all you wish, Ginny…we will be doing the same for you and your equal enabling of bigoted nonsense. We have blogs too, you know.
Anthony
And allow one more “sex pox sockpuppet” to intervene in this rumble:
Last time I checked, Ginmar, you were NOT one of the creators or moderators of this blog; which means that unless Amanda or Pam or Auguste or whomever does rule has given you special mod powers, your basis to throw out insults and ad hominen attacks on other posters here is, shall we say, a bit lacking.
But, if you want to keep on derailing what could have been an excellent and intriguing discussion on race and class and gender oppression and how they intertwine, simply so that you can continue your vendetta against Ren and Belledame and JackGoff and the rest of us “sex posies”, then just go right ahead, dearie. Just remember what I originally said about words coming back to haunt you. (And that still is not a personal threat against you, Ginny, regardless of whay you say.)
Oh….and we all know that women of color are more likely to be abused and battered by people of their own race than by other-race people; that does not change one damn bit the significance of racism AND sexism intertwining together to hold down women AND POC. Either we fight this together as human beings or we drown together as fools.
Expose us all you wish, Ginny…we will be doing the same for you and your equal enabling of bigoted nonsense. We have blogs too, you know.
Anthony
Oh, yawn, look at all the sex poxx descend en masse and blather, bitch, and moan. Soon it’ll be turned into lies on various sex poxx blogs.
I nailed JackGoff for associating with you. Sorry you’re too stupid to see that, whatev.
Why don’t you all go write about how evil I am, and be sure you work in a reference to….Oh, wait, you already did! Of course, nobody dare refer to REn Ev as a stripper, because that’s so totally unfeminist. You guys get to toss shit any way you want to.
And I see you’re all strenuously ignoring the way you’re getting bit on the ass by BD’s own strategy of never giving up. So you have only yourselves to blame.
Now go on and ignore what actually happened and make being a soldier an insult again, why don’t you?
Kactus, you’re so cute. You’re a sex pox. That’s just the truth. Don’t like it? Then don’t do it.
Smirk. Gin, being a solider isn’t an insult. However, is the military sexist? Yes, it is.
I am a stripper. People say that all the time…it’s descriptive of my job, and what are you on about with that? Saying strippers deserve to be raped? That’s the unfeminist part.
Wooo, you NAILED jack…was it good for you?
And evil? No. Hitler- Evil.
Let’s shift the blame for bullshit to BD…nice try, it isn’t working. And don’t talk about lies and whatever else when you are rolling in them yourself. Kinda like that one about how no sex poses or sex workers posted on the Philly/Judge Deni case?
I don’t forget either.
Gin exactly what IS a sex pox? And thanks for calling me cute. Nice to know somebody still finds me attractive.
And don’t do what, Gin? The Sex Pox? Is that a daring new position for menopausal ladies such as myself? A new dance step? How can I not “do it” when I don’t even know what “it” is?
God, do you actually believe the bullshit spouting from your mouth?
Unlike you, I am working to change something. You pander to men. I don’t. So, yeah, piece of bullshit number one. Of course sexist organizations magically tranform themselves, don’t you know? Of course you do. You’re the intellectually superior college girl stripper who thinks she’s being all transgressive.
Adn you know what else? Every time I see one of your little asshole buddies/johns/pro pornie/whatever buddies, it feels damn good for calling them out for the two-faced bullshit they spew.
You have a double standard for your friends. You’re lying if you say otherwise. Just own up. I mean, you’re a lying scumbag anyway, so I don’t know why I expect you to have any honor after that simpering, “I respect soldiers’ pose but still, I always have hope.
Oh, and what are you going to do? Hope I choke to death on my own blood again? Insult my service again? You need some new tricks.
I nailed JackGoff for associating with you.
It wasn’t really a secret.
Oh, and nice try blaming me for what Dana said. You liar.
I’ll remember that, too, though I’ve no doubt you’ll shortly be attributing the quote to me.
And associating with her? What is this, the 1950s and I’m in front of HUAC?
It wasn’t really a secret.
Who cares? You’re associating with women who pander to sexism. They associate with men who use and abuse women and try to take down feminists’ websites.
Seeing as the sex poxes have descended en masse, I’m done. You all can jerk each other off to your heart’s content. There’s nothing better than watching a bunch of gang bangers descend on one person. Nothing wrong with that.
Be sure and lie and attribute Dana Seilhan’s quote to me, now! I look forward to it!
Who cares?
Well, obviously you, for starters.
Gin exactly what IS a sex pox?
“sex pox” - I wrote about the term here, if anyone’s interested:
http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2007/12/expansion-of-comment-from-couple-of.html
(hope the link works and does not cause html problems.)
Ginmar, I nearly got raped when I worked in a 7-Eleven. My sniveling male co-worker was no help; my willingness to scream like hell, apply a beer bottle to the robber/would-be rapist’s crotch, and use plastic bags to tie his hands and gag him were what saved me. The differences between my situation and Ren Ev’s was that my profession was legal, and the cops were willing to help me out, and people would congratulate me instead of saying I deserved it. That (and the sexual comments I’d overhear when I first worked in an office) taught me that *all* occupations can be unfriendly to women as long as sexism exists, and that sex workers’ causes weren’t all that different from my own. At minimum, sex workers also need to be able to call someone for help when they’re in trouble!
I have used this example elsewhere and will here: Say a hot dog vendor on the street sells a person a hot dog and a bag of chips, and is paid the $2 or whatever he charges. The customer’s friends come out of nowhere, and the group proceeds to overturn the vendor’s cart, take all the food and money out of it, and beat up the vendor. Does anyone say the vendor asked to be robbed, beaten, and taken advantage of, since he’s already selling goods and services at a convenenient and easily accessible location? HELLLLLL NO, he’s a victim! So, then, is a sex worker who is raped!
Call me a “sex pox” all you want; I’d rather have that nickname than whatever it is that you have. I bet that when the rubber meets the road, any of us would want to help you out if we saw you in trouble, even if we have the kind of creativity that’s born of desperation instead of actual-factual miltary training.
I’ve wanted to say something for a while, and not known what. I had to say something here. I have many words for someone who believes that a woman deserves or asks for or facititates rape; “feminist” isn’t one of them.
And so I bring the discussion further afield. But it’s like Clinton and Obama both are showing us just how much ugly, disgusting infection lies underneath what many of us thought were healing wounds. They are testing whether this country is actually ready to be part of the future or not. I hope enough of us are. I’m seeing so much evidence that we may not be.
Oh, and Ginmar? If you really are done, don’t let the door hit you where the Gods split you. I’m sure the grown-ups would like to talk.
Gin:
PROVE we had anything to do with trying to take down feminist websites…you know Vanessa ALSO got attacked, as did Feministe, as did lots of other sites, and unless you can PROVE we had something to do with it, you really should drop it.
Are you saying the military isn’t sexist?
And of course I treat my friends better than random assholes, who doesn’t? Don’t pretend you are any different.
Double standards? HAHAHHA.
Woo, stripper college girl! And? I am not going to appologize for my degrees or how I got them. Just because you have some grudge against college girls doesn’t mean we have to appologize for it.
Oh, and scum so lost it’s sting a long time ago.
Ginmar, shut the fuck up. You’re sickening, and are giving the sane feminists a bad name. Ignoring the fact that you’re barely a feminist at all. A little bit of Google and some link-clicking brought up the fact that you don’t seem to think that a woman can have an opinion if she’s still a virgin.
Ginmar, shut the fuck up. You’re sickening, and are giving the sane feminists a bad name. Ignoring the fact that you’re barely a feminist at all. A little bit of Google and some link-clicking brought up the fact that you don’t seem to think that a woman can have an opinion if she’s still a virgin.
“Love the minimizing of ‘I hope they choke to death on their own blood under a truck’ by the way. …”
Totally missed my point, ginmar. You are the one minimizing RE’s choke comments by pretending they were directed toward yourself and other radfems. They were not. They were directed at certain people who stalked and threatened to out women who blogged.
“…It’s not okay if she threatens a little bunch of people. Get it through through your thick head.”
Nope. It’s easy:
1. “I am going to choke you until you die” is a threat.
2. “I hope you choke until you die” is a wish.
Even thin-headed, non-college-degreed working class stiffs like myself can see the difference. I’m sure you can, too. You and Ren have plenty of things you disagree about. You’d be a lot more effective if you actually quoted her rather than twisting her words. Misrepresenting her is lazy, especially when anyone can look it up for themselves.
so I don’t know why I expect you to have any honor after that simpering, “I respect soldiers’ pose but still, I always have hope.
Ok - Ginmar, look - call me whatever you want, do what you gotta do, say what you gotta say about me or people who hang out with me/my friends - whatever.
but this position you are taking is inconsistent with your own online behavior.
On January 19, you wrote a post on your LJ about your neighbors, two girls who visit you frequently. in this post you say “Anybody who’s got kids has got my respect.”
(http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1303428.html)
yet, on December 4, you commented in an unrelated thread on your LJ -
(http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1265342.html)
“Typical Anti-P. Is this recent? I’m so glad she’s having a baby. She’ll be such a wonderful mother to the next Norman Bates.”
(my response is here:http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2007/12/so-i-havent-done-lot-of-blogging.html)
You, too, have a double standard. Either I, as a person who’s got a kid (or will, in a matter of days), have your respect, OR anyone whom you don’t think is a patriarchy-sucking sexpox who has children has your respect.
you and I don’t have to respect each other for any reason. But in the same way that it’s possible to respect Class Mother but hate me personally, it is also possible to respect Class Soldier but have no love for you personally. And someone saying she has respect for Class Soldier, at the same time as having no personal goodwill towards you Ginmar, does not make that someone smarmy, dishonorable, twofaced or simpering.
if you think Ren is smarmy, dishonorable, twofaced and simpering for sticking up for soldiers at the same time as she openly dislikes you personally, you may wish to examine that notion in light of your own behavior online.
(sorry if this got double posted)
so I don’t know why I expect you to have any honor after that simpering, “I respect soldiers’ pose but still, I always have hope.
Ok - Ginmar, look - call me whatever you want, do what you gotta do, say what you gotta say about me or people who hang out with me/my friends - whatever.
but this position you are taking is inconsistent with your own online behavior.
On January 19, you wrote a post on your LJ about your neighbors, two girls who visit you frequently. in this post you say “Anybody who’s got kids has got my respect.”
(http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1303428.html)
yet, on December 4, you commented in an unrelated thread on your LJ -
(http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1265342.html)
“Typical Anti-P. Is this recent? I’m so glad she’s having a baby. She’ll be such a wonderful mother to the next Norman Bates.”
(my response is here:http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2007/12/so-i-havent-done-lot-of-blogging.html)
You, too, have a double standard. Either I, as a person who’s got a kid (or will, in a matter of days), have your respect, OR anyone whom you don’t think is a patriarchy-sucking sexpox who has children has your respect.
you and I don’t have to respect each other for any reason. But in the same way that it’s possible to respect Class Mother but hate me personally, it is also possible to respect Class Soldier but have no love for you personally. And someone saying she has respect for Class Soldier, at the same time as having no personal goodwill towards you Ginmar, does not make that someone smarmy, dishonorable, twofaced or simpering.
if you think Ren is smarmy, dishonorable, twofaced and simpering for sticking up for soldiers at the same time as she openly dislikes you personally, you may wish to examine that notion in light of your own behavior online.
(sorry if this got double- or triple- or otherwise multiple-posted)
so I don’t know why I expect you to have any honor after that simpering, “I respect soldiers’ pose but still, I always have hope.
Ok - Ginmar, look - call me whatever you want, do what you gotta do, say what you gotta say about me or people who hang out with me/my friends - whatever.
but this position you are taking is inconsistent with your own online behavior.
On January 19, you wrote a post on your LJ about your neighbors, two girls who visit you frequently. in this post you say “Anybody who’s got kids has got my respect.”
(http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1303428.html)
yet, on December 4, you commented in an unrelated thread on your LJ -
(http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1265342.html)
“Typical Anti-P. Is this recent? I’m so glad she’s having a baby. She’ll be such a wonderful mother to the next Norman Bates.”
(my response is here:http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2007/12/so-i-havent-done-lot-of-blogging.html)
further on -lots of women who identify as sex-positive (or position themselves towards that end of the continuum) have children.
You, too, have a double standard. Either I, as a person who’s got a kid (or will, in a matter of days), have your respect, OR anyone whom you don’t think is a patriarchy-sucking sexpox who has children has your respect.
you and I don’t have to respect each other for any reason. But in the same way that it’s possible to respect Class Mother but hate me personally, it is also possible to respect Class Soldier but have no love for you personally. And someone saying she has respect for Class Soldier, at the same time as having no personal goodwill towards you Ginmar, does not make that someone smarmy, dishonorable, twofaced or simpering.
if you think Ren is smarmy, dishonorable, twofaced and simpering for sticking up for soldiers at the same time as she openly dislikes you personally, you may wish to examine that notion in light of your own behavior online.
Changed the language a bit to note that I think that sexism might be easier to overcome. You can fight it head-on a bit more easily.
So long as you are not already in a weakened state, you can have some chance of fighting it head -on.
But once they’ve got you up against the ropes and you are starting to look much worse for wear, because of all the punishment you’re taking, well, at THAT POINT you will rarely be believed, no matter what claims about sexism you have. Because, you know, you lOOK bad, and nobody really thinks you can have that much credibility when you look so bad, so beaten down. People conclude that you must have brought it upon yourself.
Uh,disgusted, dear, you’re a sock puppet who mouths DB’s bullshit. So fuck off. I get to bring up old grudges if you do. Fuck you twice.
AP, you expect me to respect you? YOU? After all the shit you’ve pulled? Oh, I see—-different standards. Glad to clear that up.
Green eyed whatever the fuck: YOU’RE ATTRIBUTING DAN SEILHAN’S COMMENT TO ME, YOU LYING FUCK. Not that I don’t like being proven right, but jeez, that soon after I said it?
God, you guys are so fucking stupid and dishonest it’s like Michael Corleone says in the third Godfather, “They keep pulling me back in.
What a nice little sex pox gang bang. I said you were going to accuse me of saying shit I didn’t say, or bring up three year old shit and you’ve done exactly that.
You hang out with trolls dismissed from feminist blogs and you gang bang me on a feminist blog. You have blatant double standards for your friends. No, you guys are exemplary feminists.
What a gang bang. Why don’t you film and RE and can sell it?
re sex pos
To me it’s like choosing to vote Republican, while believing in socialized medicine. No, it’s not your fault Republicans oppose poor people getting healthcare, but you threw your hat in with them and supported the belief you’re backing them.
If you make a choice, and that choice affects how other women ae treated, you have some responsibility in contributing to those affects. Sex pos feminists are choosing to confirm male belief that sex and womens bodies are commodities, and the end result is that rape is treated like theft of service. Which is not in any way asserting sex wokers are responsible for rape. The difference isn’t that subtle either.
Choosing sex work of your own free will while misogyny is in full power does not combat one damn thing. The overall affect is negative. Now, it may not impact YOU negatively, but you’re not the only one who matters.
You become the tool sexist men use to silence all women. Th rest of us get to hear how his femle friend doesn’t find it degrading, so NO woman can without being dismissed. Until we can eradicte the belief that 1 woman = ALL women, it would be nice if we could at least remove sexists ability to beat us with our own sex.
Bottom line
Do what you want, but if it affects me, you better believe you’re going to hear about it.
So, for the record, “Uh” is properly feminist, but “Um” is a condescending tool of the Our Patriarchal Oppressors.
Maybe I’ll come back in a new life as a white girl, then I can choose to work in industries which historically rape and abuse my people’s women and little girls. After all, it won’t really impact my white priveleged life, so it’ empowering and shit.
Ginmar, I apologize for mis-attributing that terrible post to you. I really should have read much more closely. I’m tired, but that’s no excuse. It was inaccurate, and it negated Dana’s responsibility, which is a lot. Dana, you are no friend to women, and certainly no feminist. (Oooh, playing gatekeeper’s *fun*!)
OTOH, you have more than enough offensive posts of your own that you deserve to be called out for. It would be really rather nice if you would stop confusing taking on a line of work that you wouldn’t or getting an education as an attack on you…or politeness as classism…or reading blogs you disagree with as a desire to see you dead…or bad reading comprehension as being “a lying fuck.”
By the way, it’s Lilo. As in the little girl in the movie Lilo and Stitch. You can rent the movie or check it out of most libraries. It might improve your disposition; it’s cute as hell.
Yeah, like I’m not being judged for things that haven’t changed. For your information—not that you’ll believe me—I’ve written many posts about the plight of trafficked women and children. I’ve also made something of a habit about writing about rape. Oh, and the post that BD and all hte other sex poxes like to bring up? It was two conservative women—one of whom repeatedly interjected her virginal status into every conversation—-who had sneered at me once I came back from Iraq and stopped being funny. They supported the war. I did not. They more or less called me a liar because I didn’t agree with their armchair assessment of the war. One of them had ceased being my friend six months earlier but had been jeering at me the whole time behind my back as she read the things I still trusted her with. Somehow BD never mentions that. Nor does she mention how, upon reading an excellent post of Piny’s on the use of sexist language by women, I stopped using sexist language. There is no reclaiming that language. Funny, she never mentions that, either. I’m expected to forgive them but they do nothing of the sort with me. And she froths and rants and raves about me, and holds me to a Hail Mary status, and then the other sex poxes back it up. Meanwhile, I lived in a neighborhood with street prostitutes nad know women who strip out of desperate need, and write about things that Ren Ev says I never write about, and they all hobnob with trolls and feminist haters and have anti-feminist websites.
If you want me to be perfect, you’re wrong. I never said I was and I don’t expect it in return. But I do expect the same standard. I don’t have anti-feminist friends: I don’t make allowances for ‘how people are nice to me’ if they’re assholes to others, and that’s that. It goes double if they’re friends with people who support a sexist business, and I get the shit emails to prove it.
Sex poxes have long positioned themselves as transgressives and rebels even though they’re pandering to men who want to use womens’ bodies. I don’t know any college girl strippers or prostitutes. I only know what it’s like to live side by side with them. They did it out of need, and the johns harassed every female in the neighborhood. I didn’t read that in some feminist theory book; these women were my friends and neighbors. Something like ninety percent of trafficked women wish to get out of it; every woman claiming she’s a rebel for pandering to that market might as well slap those women in the face.
I’m in the Army, as someone upthread sneered. I’m fighting the system from within, and challenging the notion that women are cowards, weaklings, and unsuited to tough jobs. In return I get—in theory—-the ability to challenge perceptions for the women who follow after me. In my Reserve unit, I’m the only person who’s been in combat. Every woman who takes on an unusual job for a woman does that.
So I haven’t had the college background that the so-called transgressive college-educated women have had, I’ve just known women who’ve done it for cheap wages, for drugs, and for survival. And I draw a line between them and the high-priced college women who think they’re rebels. When they associate with trolls and men who use women, I don’t forgive that. Everything I’ve said to and about them has been in response to something they’ve previously said. They always forget to mention that, the way BD never mentions the women who sneered at my reaction to the war they supported.
As for the sex poxes, well, I’m still remembering the ever-so-radical sex pox who sneered that ‘the war had run her mad’ and linked gleefully to people bashing me. If I’m nuts, then how do you feel about that? If I’m not, they’re lying assholes. If I’m bad, then they’re the same. The difference is, I’ve made efforts to change. My language has changed. My thinking about some things have changed. Meanwhile, RE says I hate prostitutes because she claims I never wrote about the
‘theft of services’ rape—which is a lie. Meanwhile, AP cherrypicks quotes and acts like I’m the virgin mary. If that’s the standard I’m to be held to, she and the whole crew better fucking be the Holy Ghost.
Veronica, pay attention or shut up. That was already explained upthread. Keep up or shut up.
Oh, thanks for the patronizing recommendation to watch a fluffy movie to improve my disposition. When I started showing symptoms of PTSD some conservative suggested I pet the puppies and duckies because, after alll, it’s that simple to get rid of suicidal thoughts and nightmares. I’m shocked that the psychiatric community hasn’t picked up on that yet. To say nothing of being held to a higher standard than you hold for your friends. Thanks for the tip!
Upthread:
What the sex poxes don’t pay attention to, from moi:
As women, we owe all women protection and allegiance. I don’t owe any man anything if he thinks abusing women—any women—is his prerogative. Fighting against the assault of women of color challenges sexist and classist assumptions. I don’t want to argue that some cases are more important than others, but when some victims are burdened more than others, what argument can one make?
My problem with comparing ‘isms’ is that it seems to pit men against women, and racism is often framed in terms of what black men suffer, not black women or other women of color. I don’t care about men and I won’t apologize. Women are my interest, period. Helping women is my interest, period. Men get all the attention. They don’t need my female ass helping them. Let the elitests focus on them. Often they take it out on women close to them. Women need other women. Feminists are concerned with women first. Doesn’t mean we can’t take on other causes, but women first. When it comes down to it, men can clean up their own damned house, because often enough they spend all their time tearing down women.
When we talk about racism we often wind up talking about black men and white women, becuase, well, white men face an embarasse du choix, not tribulation. Only when it affects men is it a human rights issue. Well, women are human beings, and only feminism takes that seriously. Flawed, certainly, but still there.”
“Meanwhile, AP cherrypicks quotes and acts like I’m the virgin mary.”
I provided links for context.
The longer this thread goes on, the more I think of the climactic scene from this movie.
If only I could have found the clip on YouTube.
http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1234536.html
http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1023007.html
Funny, BD never mentions those. Neither did AP. Neither do any of y’all.
I should know better to try and have anything to do with this group.
I provided the links for context.
Yeah, I posted links too. Let’s see if you’re honest enough to read ‘em and acknowledge them. The suspense is killing me!
Yeah, Mnem, because that’s all it is to you.
The longer this thread goes on, the more I think of the climactic scene from this movie.
I dunno - the sequence from here springs to mind.
And the rapist apologist is back. Of course PIATOR doesn’t take arguments between women serioiusly Maybe he’s thinking of his screaming and terrorized women porn.
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2006/12/28/real-consent-manifesto/
Ginmar, it was a joke. A subtle one, but a joke nonetheless. The point was, and still is, that *something* needs to improve your disposition. I have dealt with clinical depression most my life, since I was seven, so I do know it takes way more than that.
Here it’s going to be black man v. white woman, or white woman v. black man, but really he’s a biracial man, simply because in the context of the presidential election, that is who is running! Doesn’t forgive the exclusion of black women, or members of other races, in other contexts, but still. The original post was about the election. Does anyone remember that?
By the way, the racism is piling on ever thicker for Obama. The longer he stays in this race, the more viable he looks, the uglier it’s going to get. Check out some recent examples. There’s a reason the man got Secret Service protection way back in Spring ‘07.
We’re all about movies tonight, aren’t we? I was thinking about Idiocracy tonight.
Ta ta, y’all…see you all in another thread, maybe.
How convenient that you bow out without addressing anything I said. Isn’t that just typical?
yes, I followed them, and thanks.
clear examples of how awful men can be to women, no doubt.
I have never denied that men can be awful to women. what’s your point?
here are things I have done:
I have said that there is no “patriarchy”. That it’s a myth.
I’ve said mean things about Heart, probably more frequently than I’d like to admit. back when her blog was attacked, I think I said she had it coming, but also that we ALL had it coming, that all bloggers are vulnerable, and that it was the cost of doing business.
I said “fuck you” to you and others. Then I apologized for losing my temper.
I’m sure there’s more. I’m human. I’m not really a good person or a bad person - I’m just a person.
I cited links upthread precisely so that it would be possible for other readers to decide for themselves whether I was taking your words out of context or not.
What links are you following, exactly? The links I posted haven’t appeared yet. So it appears you’re full of shit when you say you’ve given readers a chance to appreciate context.
Shocking.
How convenient that you bow out without addressing anything I said.
Uh-huh.
Let’s try it again and see precisely how honest you are:
Here’s what happened what she doesn’t cite:
http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1234536.html
http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1023007.html
Yeah, yeah, yeah, reported rapes, dipshit, more rapist apologizing from a documented scumbag. Why do you bother with feminist websites?
I know many women on the reservation who have been raped and abused. They don’t report it because their attackers are white men. We know it’s pointless because we’re still viewed as subhuman.
Leave it to white privelege to pull out stats from agencies that have always shown clear bias against minorities as evidence of anything important.
What links are you following, exactly? The links I posted haven’t appeared yet. So it appears you’re full of shit when you say you’ve given readers a chance to appreciate context.
Shocking.
woah, hey - you posted links in comment 31 and in comment 81 (or thereabouts). I thought those were what you meant.
way to shoot first and ask questions later.
PiatoR gargled:
Leaving aside for the moment the issue of how many unreported assaults there are for every reported one, you present the statistic as if every report resulted in a conviction. I’d be much more interested in knowing out of how many reported assaults, how many perps were convicted of assault? How many actually served time?
I await with interest what will likely be an echoing silence…
Sex pos feminists are choosing to confirm male belief that sex and womens bodies are commodities,
Pheenobarbidoll - is that all you think sex-positive feminism really is? that’s it and nothing else?
No wonder you’re not feeling it.
you might find the book “Skin” by Dorothy Allison to be a different yet enlightening perspective. just as a start.
You think you lot have credibility with me? Sorry, it’s not my week to be Mother Theresa. I’ve posted links in hte past twenty comments that haven’t shown up. They show that BD is being a disingenuous liar by pretending that that’s who I am now.
http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1023007.html
Here’s one. Click on the tag and find the other.
He’s also forgetting how police departments have been busted for skewing reports filed by women. No invstigations were carried out before the reports were filed as false or unfounded, thus they didn’t get sent it and counted.
Philadelphia for one. Thousands of reported rapes were classified as ‘unfounded’ without investigation.
Wait, why are we bothering with the rapist apologist? Seriously, why?
“is that all you think sex-positive feminism really is? that’s it and nothing else?”
When it comes to sex work and being “empowered”, that’s pretty much the nutshell of it.
I cannot tell you how utterly repulsed I get by sex pos feminists who go on and on about how it’s their choice to work in the sex industry and that it causes no harm to any other woman to do so.
It’s a very insulting thing to read, given that it seems to only be this great and wondermous choice for WHITE women, and women like myself and my NA sisters aren’t even an afterthough.
Do you *know* what that industry does to NA women?
It rapes and murders us daily, but we dont have blonde hair and blue eyes so no one hears about it.
Do you know what white men think of us? We’re animalst to them. Not human. To the point they (and other men of other races matter of fact) come onto our reservations to rape us. And they do it because we can’t even press charges. The Cherokee Nation can’t prosecute non NAs. The Federal Government can’t prosecute no Na’s who commit sex crimes on reservation land.
And I wont even get into the stats about NA women in poverty, and the astounding number of those impoveished women who turned to sex work out of sheer desperation.
But Im supposed to ignore the cries of my sisters and show any form of support for the very industry that enslaves them? Am I supposed to be understanding to women who would support an industry that murders and rapes my sisters?
We live with your choices. Only you don’t see it because our suffering, our words, our opinions, our persepctives are ignored.
So give me a reason to have any consideration for that industry or those who would willingly support anything but its total and complete destruction.
You seem to be confusing “explained” with “I DEMAND WE PLAY BY MY RULES WHICH ARE ARBITRARILY ENFORCED AND GENERATED ON THE FLY, DEPENDING ON WHAT LEVEL OF INSANITY I’VE RAMPED UP TO THIS WEEK.”
That said, this isn’t your tightly controlled LiveJournal. You aren’t able to shut people up here, which must be a sort of nasty adjustment for ya these days, huh?
Personally, I have declared myself the Most Radical Feminist of Them All. And, as the MRFOTA, I only deign to post here a second time, on Pandagon, the blog with is tainted with Playboy Ickies, to tell you, Ginmar, that your voluntarily posting here has rendered you Less Than Perfectly Radical. You clearly have Playboy by Proxy Disease, and as such I say YOU are the Sex Pox. Because, any feminist that does not meet my exacting standards of radicality is, by default, SEX POX SCUM, aka dick-sucking gang-banging murderous porn stars, aka rape apologizing man-centered fake tittied sociopath monsters that I WILL NEVER FORGIVE. EVER. I WILL WRITE YOUR NAME IN MY BOOK, GINMAR! I WILL! FEAR MY LIST OF THINGS I WON’T FORGET!
Blah, blah, blah Veronica, it’s very simple and it’s explained upthread. Beyond that? You? Nothing. Buh bye.
So give me a reason to have any consideration for that industry or those who would willingly support anything but its total and complete destruction.
no, I really can’t, after reading your comment.
thanks for sharing your perspective. (If you have shared this perspective other places, that I have missed, I am sorry.)
look - I do not believe that one woman is responsible for the treatment of All Women. To me, that’s like saying that one woman who does not leave her abuser (for whatever reason) is responsible for reinforcing the attitudes of all male abusers, and is therefore responsible for the suffering of all domestic abuse victims.
That said, I thank you for giving me much to think about. I admit to having a massive blind spot about NA women. So, again, thanks.
Leaving aside for the moment the issue of how many unreported assaults there are for every reported one, you present the statistic as if every report resulted in a conviction. I’d be much more interested in knowing out of how many reported assaults, how many perps were convicted of assault? How many actually served time?
Already commented on here. Evidence on conviction rates would be extremely relevant, but I haven’t located any. Since Ginmar was the one making the original assertion, perhaps she might care to show the evidential basis for her remarks?
God, you’re stupid, PIATOR. It’s been asked and answered on any feminist website you go to. Fuck off and go masturbate.
AP, I notice you’re still avoiding any recognition of the link I posted. Could this be the much-noted sex pox intellectual dishonesty? Your bias is showing.
Contributing to a problem does not = responsible for all women.
But I do hold people responsible for their choices (if they are going to tell me its a free choice I will believe them and act accordingly) and if your choice contributes to an overall harm done, then at the very least, that can be owned up to.
It’s not an abused woman inadvertantly reinforcing the belief its ok to abuse all women, because women I’ve read here (like ren ev) insist it’s their choice and they aren’t abused. *That* changes the dynamics completely. It’s more like a woman into BDSM contributing to the belief all women secretly enjoy it. Which is what men already believe about women. They bring up womens rape fanatsies as proof.
It’s a racist industry. Even if one can debate over the sexist issue, one cannot deny the racism rampant in it. It’s very foundation stands on the bodies of my people, among others.
I’m glad I opened your eyes to our perpective, but how many of us have to suffer before ALL eyes are opened to it?
Ginmar - I hate to say it but I don’t think you were treated remarkably unfairly on that whole “professional virgin” thread, or anywhere in its aftermath, if that’s what you mean. I followed the link, and the link off the link (the one labeled “collaborators”) and that’s what I think.
That’s correcting for my obvious bias.
I mean, it’s old news, and a drag that people keep bringing it up, but you own your words, the same as I own mine. someday (probably sooner rather than later) someone will bring up something embarrassing in my online life (there’s plenty to choose from), and I’ll have to deal with it as best I can.
and I don’t know what to say about Ann Coulter (the first post off that link). sorry.
I realize that I may as of this writing be missing other links. I’ll come back later and check to see if there’s more.
but what’s that got to do with you and me, and our interactions around the blogosphere, except for the fact that the people I tend to like (because they don’t insult me, and tend to agree with me, and when they don’t agree with me they tend not to want to damn me to the coldest hell forever about it) make you mad, and because of that (and other reasons, I’m sure) you like to use me as one of your handy punching bags?
Because they’re dishonest assholes who don’t recognize change when they see it and collaborate in, as pheenobarbidoll said, in the exploitation of women? My other link hasn’t shown up yet, but BD is still pimping her one little link as fast as hse can and other sex poxes are pumping it, too, what do you want? That’s three years ago. Oh, yeah, and I’ve been struggling with PTSD the whole time. Am I crazy? Then you’re an asshole. If you’re not, you’re a dishonest asshole. But either way, there’s been a difference since then and BD and your buddies keep pimping a three-year-old quarrel from one side only. Um, am I Mother Theresa? You let BD do it on your own blog. You didn’t check it out. I was there, remember? BD vanished really fast. What do you want from me? Perfection, ain’t gonna happen. As long as you support shits like BD and RE—note her little lie above, about me and the ‘theft of services’ rape—-without reservation, what am I supposed to think of you? Seriously? Do you have a clue at all? You accept this shit about me and don’t check it out and yet you expect me to be all sweetness and light when you come charging in on behalf of your dishonest friends? Does that strike as a wee bit biased and odd? Maybe a tad?
Did you even clink on the tag? Do you even get what that’s about? I’m totally serious. I’d be delighted to back off on everything I ever said about you because I love to think the best of people, but your unwillingness to accept anything but the word of your friends makes that impossible.
Ginmar - I read what you asked me to read. I formed the opinions I formed, without any help.
I’m sorry you think my friends are a pack of lying liars. I don’t agree. if that makes me a dishonest asshole in your eyes (and in the eyes of your friends), I can’t do anything about that.
Even if I go back and re-re-re-read, and I decide that I was mistaken, what would you have me do? ditch all my online pals and declare undying fealty to you? (if everything you’ve said about me over the last couple of years is true, it doesn’t sound like you’d want me as a friend anyway, even if,as you say, you’re willing to take it all back in the name of always wanting to think the best of people.)
Consider also this - loyalty is important to you. It’s a core value for you, if I read you correctly. Can you not understand that loyalty could be a core value for others, and that doesn’t make those others assholes?
But that’s not really as important as this idea - if I thought they were wrong, I’d tell them. Telling someone you disagree is not the same as being disloyal. even a houseplant-sized intellect such as mine can grasp that.
I’d expect you to be honest and tell your friend they’re being dishonest. I guess t hat’s too much. And that doesn’t have anything to do with what I think, does it? You don’t think they’re wrong, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Do you think I’m lying? Because that’s what it comes down to. If you think I’m lying, then, well, I have no regrets. Just admit it up front and we’re done with the pretense, okay?
I take it you didn’t feel it necessary to read, much less re-reas. So, yeah, we’re done. You’ve taken your place alongside your friends, and without pretense. My point’s made.
Ginmar – having read those threads, looked at the context, and your description of ways you’ve changed, I agree that you should not be judged for them. I don’t think you should be held to a standard of perfection – nobody should.
On what you say about sex positive women positioning as rebels – in some ways yes, and in some no. Yes, it’s easier in some ways to be positive about things that mainstream society craves. In another way, it’s rebellious to own and control something that mainstream society wants to use to control you. While 90% of trafficked women may indeed wish to get out of it, I haven’t seen effective backup of 90% of sex workers in general wanting to get out.
I’m not clear on exactly where “college” fits into all this. College makes many things in life easier. Whether one is in sex work, business, sales, whatever. If we are to deny credibility or respect to folks who’ve had this advantage, however, then there are a lot of women (like the one who hopefully will be our next POTUS) who lose out.
“While 90% of trafficked women may indeed wish to get out of it, I haven’t seen effective backup of 90% of sex workers in general wanting to get out.”
And why on earth do you think this is?
I know for my own people, they can’t.
It’s a form of slavery.
I don’t see a great mass of abused women up and leaving their abusers either, but no one is moronic enough to pretend its some big mystery as to why, nor do they imply it’s because DV isnt really that bad, or women would really really want to leave.
A hearty HELL YEAH to everything pheenobarbidoll has said. I couldn’t say it any better.
You know..I was actually hoping that things would cool down a bit here so that we can get back to the original subject or the “oppression Olympics”….but I see that Ginny’s still having her flame war here.
Look, dearie….You brought out the gas can and started shooting your mouth off. Like, do you expect those of us who are getting singed to simply melt away??
Whatever. Say whatever you want about us “sex poxxes”. Reset all of Ren Ev’s horrible quotes from her blog. (Even the ones she didn’t immediately take back…BTW, will your ally Stormcloud take back her threat to out Ren and destroy her publically?? Just wondering…) Threadjack this whole blog, for all I care. Those who actually do have an understanding of reality will know truth from fiction and discussion from bullshit.
Oh..and stop mixing your singular-plural agreement. “t….tell your freind(s) they’re…” Or is that just another legacy of elitist college education imposed by us “sex poxxes”???
Finally: “fuck off and masturbate”??? Gee, is that supposed to be an insult? Like, most men and women don’t do plenty of that already??
You’ve made your point pretty clear, Ginmar. Time to turn the page.
Anthony
Those with a grasp on white reality, doncha mean.
“In another way, it’s rebellious to own and control something that mainstream society wants to use to control you. ”
That control is an illusion. It can be taken from you at a whim. And it generally is, the second a rapist walks in the door.
Wait.., someone is assuming I am the pure white girl?
Gin, I can’t believe I am attempting something even remotely human. You are in the military and say you are challenging the notion that all women are weaklings, challenging from within, unsuited for combat…
Out of utmost sincerity and with feeling from me, you get a “Give them fucking hell, Gin, I AGREE!” I fucking ADMIRE THAT. I see it, and a think it is wonderful. I wish there were more women soldiers with that attitude.
You think it can’t be done in my own industry, and there is the problem. Because I think it can be. I think it’s possible.
And Gin, I know you wrote about the theft of services rape, but you didn’t think, and said as much, that I had. Why twist words when the proof or disproof is right there? I know you didn’t say “I deserved it”…dana did, I said as much. I know you wrote about Deni, SO DID I, when you speculated I did not, and Delphyne and Hexy had to inform you.
You know what Gin? You are as dishonest and fervent as I am. I suspect, over a round, we might have much to talk about, in many ways.
But you’ve made me your villain…and I respond in kind.
Oh, the reason I did not go to the cops that night? I was afraid. What? Like they would believe me?
And you know, I said a horrible fucking thing. I cop to, admit, and own it.
If you’re not the scum you say I am, you will do the same. especiallu regarding AP’s kid.
Oh, wait..I am a lying piece of shit, Gin?
PROOF.
PROVE IT.
links, quotes, words, facts, that I AM THE LIAR.
Yeah, Ms. Plastic Tits.
Nice quote from Flynt on your part, btw.
“You think it can’t be done in my own industry, and there is the problem. Because I think it can be. I think it’s possible.”
At who’s expense though?
“Oh, the reason I did not go to the cops that night? I was afraid. What? Like they would believe me?”
Maybe it’s just me, but that doesnt sound very empowering. In fact, it sounds like you’re no different than women who do NOT choose sex work and who DO feel used and demeaned by it, and that fear you just spoke about is part of why they are NOT empowered by it.
That power isnt real when it doesnt stop the source of the fear.
Until sexist jackoffs are stripped of power, its not going to get distributed to anyone else. Not you, not me, not Gin. Not any woman.
You dont fix the problems by skipping directly to Z. It just doesnt work that way and if you’re not “pure” white, you should know this.
Gin, why do you keep calling your opponents “college girls”? Don’t you have a college degree, yourself huh?
I heard all US army officers must havo a college degree or equivalent
))
Really? When those men hired her, did they hire her to dance or did they hire her to dance and have some sex? You can’t say that agreeing to dance means that the “some sex” is implied because - the last time I checked - “no” continues to mean “no.”
I am curious, though: What’s your job? Is your job feminist enough? Where do you work? What oppression does your job support? Show us how clean your hands are, and how you deserve to hurl stones at Renegade Evolution for daring to not be a victim of the sex industry? What kinds of oppression are okay to enforce? Which deals with patriarchy are you allowed to make? Clearly, working for the military-industrial complex is fine, or you’d be trying to tear Ginmar a new one… so, where’s the line that says “What I do is okay, but what you do is evil and must be destroyed with fire?”
“And why on earth do you think this is?
I know for my own people, they can’t.”
Pheenobarbidoll, I’m not arguing that there are some unwilling victims. That doesn’t explain why you’re sure of the percentages.
It also misses the larger point. The problem is poverty. Absolutely, more women are unhappy in sex work than men, because of the market for sex work. And we should work towards helping unwilling participants out of the industry and into a better life. But while coercion, trafficking, etc. should be eradicated, is the problem really the existence of sex work, or the decision of some women to do it, or the poverty that forces other women into it?
I don’t think anyone disputes that various practices need to go. But beyond that, removal of the sex work option would not, IMO, solve the problem for poor women with few options.
Octogalore is right to question dogmatic claims about the percentage of sex workers who’re unwilling victims. The number most widely quoted by prohibitionists comes from Melissa Farley, & has been widely questioned on methodological grounds. It’s a bad number. Pheenobarbidoll’s reference to “[her] own people” resolves nothing.
It matters whether a woman who’s unwillingly in sex work (or agricultural work, or the garment industry, or domestic service) is in it because of threats or force, or because of the dull compulsion of economic relations. The two cases call for different responses. People who choose something because of poverty aren’t helped by prohibition, which merely eliminates what was, by their own lights, the best of a rotten set of eligible alternatives. For people coerced into anything by threats or force, a different approach is needed.
(Many of the most desperate sex workers in rich countries are under the compulsion of a drug habit. Prohibitionist shibboleths avail them little.)
Anyone who honestly imagines that what people who do sex work against their will really need is for willing sex workers to be subjected to crude public abuse is mistaken. It only makes things worse.
Octogalore is right to question dogmatic claims about the percentage of sex workers who’re unwilling victims. The number most widely quoted by prohibitionists comes from Melissa Farley, & has been questioned persuasively on methodological grounds. It’s a bad number. Pheenobarbidoll’s reference to “[her] own people” resolves nothing.
It matters whether a woman who’s unwillingly in sex work (or agricultural work, or the garment industry, or domestic service) is in it because of threats or force, or because of the dull compulsion of economic relations. The two cases call for different responses. People who choose something because of poverty aren’t helped by prohibition, which merely eliminates what was, by their own lights, the best of a bad set of eligible alternatives. For people coerced into anything by threats or force, a different approach is needed.
(Many of the most desperate sex workers in rich countries are under the compulsion of a drug habit. Prohibitionist shibboleths avail them little.)
Anyone who honestly imagines that what people who do sex work against their will really need is for willing sex workers to be subjected to crude public abuse is mistaken. It only makes things worse.
Maybe it’s just me, but that doesnt sound very empowering. In fact, it sounds like you’re no different than women who do NOT choose sex work and who DO feel used and demeaned by it, and that fear you just spoke about is part of why they are NOT empowered by it.
I’m not sure that Ren has ever made the argument you’re responding to; Gin said on her blog that Ren didn’t go to the police because her career would suffer.
Here’s the link:
http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1283330.html?thread=41989634#t41989634
And her comment:
You stand up to men, they’re less likely to pay you big tips. And Ren Ev couldn’t give a shit about abused, powerless, or less advantaged women than herself. The way she whines about how bad it is and doesn’t once acknowledge that that’s like what it is for the vast majority of pornstitution workers is pretty conclusive proof that she only thinks about herself.
But I think this is really inappropriate. I think a woman has the right to not be attacked for her reaction to her own sexual assault, especially months after the fact on a thread that has nothing to do with either it or her. She came into the thread because a commenter objected to a tangential connection between her and another commenter. Now the commenters are discussing that time she was threatened with rape, and picking apart her feelings about it.
I have no idea, honestly, how we got from a discussion of sexism and racism to attacking Ginmar and Ren for their career choices and Ren for asking for it. But it’s really disturbing.
“Pheenobarbidoll, I’m not arguing that there are some unwilling victims. That doesn’t explain why you’re sure of the percentages.”
I’m absolutely sure of the percentages in regards to Native American/First Nations women, and that poverty is the driving force. Poverty coupled with an utter lack of hope. Not only that, as it stands we’re sexually attacked at a rate 3 times higher than any other race/class of women. Sex work has not benefitted our women. Period. It has harmed them at an unacceptable rate. Then again, I don’t believe in an acceptable percentage of collateral damage.
“But while coercion, trafficking, etc. should be eradicated, is the problem really the existence of sex work, or the decision of some women to do it, or the poverty that forces other women into it?’
this is partially my point. Until we can eradicate poverty, sex work does not and will not contribute to women in a positive way.
To put it in a very simplistic way
You’re putting the cart before the horse.
I ask myself this about that industry
Does it contribute to an environment where sexism flourishes or wilts? And if the answer is flourishes, then I can’t support it. And as long as NA women can be killed and fed to pigs (recently in Canada) because they’re NA and prostitutes and no one gives a shit, I wont be calling for anything but the head of the sex industry on a platter.
“I’m not sure that Ren has ever made the argument you’re responding to; Gin said on her blog that Ren didn’t go to the police because her career would suffer.”
I just quoted Rens own words from upthread.
She stated she was afraid to go to the police because they would not believe her.
That is not empowement. That is the status quo. It’s status quo because we live in a very sexist society that does believe women in the sex industry ask for it. Until we change that sexist belief it will remain status quo.
Does it contribute to an environment where sexism flourishes or wilts? And if the answer is flourishes, then I can’t support it. And as long as NA women can be killed and fed to pigs (recently in Canada) because they’re NA and prostitutes and no one gives a shit, I wont be calling for anything but the head of the sex industry on a platter.
Can I ask what your position is on legalization and regulation? It would be a Band-Aid at best, but it would at least give prostitutes a better legal standing since they wouldn’t have to worry about being arrested themselves if they reported a crime against them.
Yeah, Mnem, because that’s all it is to you.
Damn straight — because that’s what your antics have turned it into. You’re clowning for your audience and making sure we can’t have rational discussions about very serious subjects. You’ve ensured that no one who reads this thread will ever take you or your opinions seriously ever again. And you did it all to yourself.
“Can I ask what your position is on legalization and regulation? It would be a Band-Aid at best, but it would at least give prostitutes a better legal standing”
I can’t say that I’m for it. Looking over infomation where prositution is legal, human trafficking numbers are insane.
Here in Canada, prostitution isn’t technically illegal, but I’ve yet to see any indication that it’s better than the US which outright bans it.
And I can’t quite rid myself of the instinct that the sex industry aids in the further genocide of aboriginal people’s, legalizing yet another form fills me with dread.
I can’t say that I’m for it. Looking over infomation where prositution is legal, human trafficking numbers are insane.
If done correctly and with an eye towards workers’ rights, I would be for it, but I agree with you that the way it’s actually been implemented has been very, very bad and does nothing to actually protect workers.
But I understand your qualms about it. There certainly isn’t much of a history of woman workers being treated with anything resembling respect, and a lot of abusive underground stuff would still go on. And that’s leaving aside the poor women and WOC who might feel forced into it by economic necessity since you can make a hell of a lot more as a hooker than you ever could working at McDonald’s.
God, you’re stupid, PIATOR. It’s been asked and answered on any feminist website you go to.
Hand waving instead of evidence - didn’t think you’d be able to put up. Nice to see you’re so predictable.
Pheno:
No, that incident was in no way empowering. But in case anyone missed it, for the millionth time, I am very much in favor of supporting programs that help any person unwillingly involved in the sex industry out of it. I actually belong to organizations that do that sort of thing. And you know, when I come to a thread where I’ve been attacked and what not for X amount of comments, which I’d ignored, and respond only initially to Dana, a feminist, saying I deserved it? Woo, there is some sexism right there.
And why yes, I am still waiting for that proof I mentioned, but I suspect it will never come, because it is not there. When I can go read that a friend (I assume) of yours who says she is a feminist calling me a liar (no proof) making all kinds of assumptions (incorrect) about me, and calling me things like scum, a piece of shit, stupid, Ms Plastic Tits, yadda yadda, as well as accusing the Sex Positives for being in league with the people who attacked various feminist web sites (untrue) even as our own were being attacked, and saying /supporting some really vicious shit about a woman and her unborn son (which I can prove, her own words, it’s right here and elsewhere), gee, I see some serious dehumanization and sexism right there. And you, best as I can tell, support it, or at least have not called it out. Gin says people are always saying she said things she never did? She does the same damn thing all the time, and makes some really out of line assumptions about and attacks on people. She’s telling everyone that I said she never posted on Judge Deni? That’s a lie. I pointed out that there was the assumption myself and other sex poz had not posted on it (a lie) because we indeed had, extensively. She says I am saying she hates sex workers? A lie, I’ve not said that. She says I am saying she is the one who said I deserved it? A lie. Dana said it, and I’ve not implied that Gin did. She consistently moves goal posts, conflagrates statements, makes demands for answers and owning up when she does not answer or own up herself, then accuses everyone else of being dishonest, cowardly, and playing by double standards. The irony on that is real thick. People get tired of it. She complains about Belledame using three year old arguments, yet NEVER fails to mention my in the past choking statement, out of context, to derail and shut down arguments or attack people…people who were pissed at me for saying it themselves. She constantly says we’re the liars and rule changers and whatever else….well, from this side of the fence, it really does seem she needs to apply those accusations to herself. Because she engages in every single dirty tactic she accuses the whole world of using then claims “at least she is honest”.
And yes, the sex industry is sexist. I’ve never said otherwise. Yes, I am in it by choice. Yes, you have every right to disagree with that choice on my part. I have been very plain and straight forward about the fact that I Do Not Think The Sex Industry Is Ever Going to Go Away….so my concerns and interests rest with making it as safe as possible, seeing that sexworkers are humanized, and helping those who want out get out. That’s where I am. However, I do not see a whole lot of hope there when I can see feminists dehumanizing and othering sexworkers all over the place…and not just me, but pretty much any and every other sex worker who has ever commented on any of these threads who dares to say they are in it by choice. When you can be verbally slaughtered, degraded, lied about and mocked by supposed allies who have concerns? Hummm, doesn’t say anything too good really.
ahem, make that Pheenob, not “pheno” as in PITOR…
“this is partially my point. Until we can eradicate poverty, sex work does not and will not contribute to women in a positive way.
To put it in a very simplistic way
You’re putting the cart before the horse.”
I think that’s what you are doing, in fact. Sex work will always exist until we eradicate poverty. (Even after that, those who opted in for reasons other than or in addition to the purely financial will still do so). Can you refute that? Even if all aspects of it were rendered illegal to do or pay for, which won’t happen (do you see stripping getting past the first amendment?), do you think that would improve the lives of sex workers and of women in general? Do you think that would improve access to medical care or other alternatives for poor women? I think it might have the opposite effect.
We are talking ideal world vs practical realities. Of course, in the ideal world we agree there is no desirable level of collateral damage. But if your only proposal for getting there is something that’s undoable, then arguing its pros or cons misses the point. And wastes time that could be better spent strategizing about what can indeed be done.
correction: should read “do you see *illegalization of* stripping getting past the first amendment”
” am very much in favor of supporting programs that help any person unwillingly involved in the sex industry out of it.”
And I’m in favor of there not being that industry for them to get into in the first place. I’m in favor of helping them avoid having to get into it in the first place. It’s slavery. And you don’t make slavery “better” or safer. It’s not really something one can change from the inside, either. I just cannot support an industry that has it’s hand in genocide. I’ve gotten to the point that Im in a kill it before it kills us mode. It directly enables human trafficking, even when sex work is legal. It directly objectifies and stereotypes WOC. For those reasons alone I simply cannot advocate for anything less than it’s eradication.
“And you, best as I can tell, support it, or at least have not called it out. ”
I haven’t called out you or anyone else here that have (from this thread and past) jumped in head first, eagerly splashing about in the name calling pool either. Both parties have said things that really shouldn’t have been said, but seeing as Im not anyones mommy, Im not about to dole about spankings and time outs. The insane ranting too angry lashing out type comments are equally sexist and equally dehumanizing as plastic tits and stripper.
If you really *want* me to start calling out everything I see, I can assure you, none of you involved will like it. But frankly I don’t see much of a point in alienating 99% of the posters here, over what to me amounts to a pissing contest.
“When you can be verbally slaughtered, degraded, lied about and mocked by supposed allies who have concerns? ”
I’d wager you and sex pos feminists don’t have that particular complain cornered.
This convoluted mess started before I began to come here or to Gins, and for the most part Im not in the who pissed off what feminist/non feminist internet drama loop.
The only advice I can give (and yes I’ve given it to Gin too) is to disengage. Short of that, you’re all grown ass women. You’ll do and say what you want, regardless of my opinion.
Now, back onto the important subect
I’ll reiterate again with
I just cannot support a racist, sexist industry. And right now, I feel like Im not only fighting a racist sexist culture but Im also having to fight women in the industry, because of their choices. I’m sorry to say, but I feel your choices are contributing to the racist sexist culture and not detracting from it.
So while I will support you being safe and will never blame you for sexual assault, neither will I support your choice when your choices affect more than just you.
“Sex work will always exist until we eradicate poverty. ”
So will slavery. But we don’t try to make slavery safer for slaves while we try to figure out what to do. We dont choose to become slaves while slave owners continue to use that as proof people LIKE being slaves so it’s ok to enslave more people and create condition where more people are forced into it to survive.
“Even if all aspects of it were rendered illegal to do or pay for, which won’t happen (do you see stripping getting past the first amendment?), ”
A mere 40 years ago, noone would have foreseen a womans name on the presidential ballot side by side with a black man.
Something inconcievable now does not mean it will remain so.
pheeno:
fair enough. we’re not going to agree, so no use in continuing to engage.
No, it doesn’t seem that we are going to agree. However, what we disagree on is merely the path to what sounds like the same goal.
I haven’t the first clue how to unite the 2 different factions of feminsts, but at some point, we’re going to have to in order to get anything done.
I’d like if it we could all just suck it the hell up and work together, putting pesonal feelings aside, but I honestly don’t know if it will ever happen.
Pheeno: me either, and it’s hard to ally with folk who, if they did get to their end goal, would eliminate choice for folk like me. That makes me real nervous, actually. Which is why I’ve taken the road I have…which is helping the unwilling, and leaving the content alone. But yeah, often times I can overlook that in immediate here and now situations, but like anyone, or at least a lot of people, I cannot work with anyone who fails to see me as human.
It may have to be on a workers’ rights basis. Personally, I disapprove of sex work (sorry, Ren and everyone else!) but my personal disapproval is no reason why they should be deprived of the same protections that any other worker in a hazardous profession has. It may be a job I disapprove of, but it’s still a job and there should be certain minimum standards.
Do we take away job protections for slaughterhouse workers because animal-rights activists protest it as immoral? Or do we protect the workers as best we can while we improve the industry?
Mne: You are in no way required to approve of it. No need to appologize.
Morality doesn’t enter the it for me, other than the obvious issues in regards to racism. Other than that, couldn’t care less who someone loves/has sex with.
I don’t really see it’s eliminating a choice, we no longer have sweatshops in the country, but somehow I doubt you’d consider that eliminating one of your choices.
More to the point, IF it stopped being so damned racist/sexist/overall harmful - what I’d want as a goal is the *Industry* aspect of it eradicated. Personal choice to charge someone for stripping for them or charging someone for sex is one thing. Making a living off the backs and lives of those who choose (and those who do not choose) to exchange money for these things..that’s a horse of a different color. That leads to slavery, trafficking, exploitation etc.
Pheeno: Well, the US certainly still has sweatshops…not legal ones, but they are there. And the argument of eliminating sweatshops is not exactly a perfect analogy, as it assumes everyone in every aspect of sex work is forced, which is not the case. Would one eliminate the entire (insert industry here) to get rid of sweatshop labor, or merely eliminate sweatshops and see to worker safety/rights in other aspects of that industry?
Anaology perfection isn’t required to make the point.
There are numerous jobs no longer in existance, some because of overall harm, some because of mere obsoletion and many aren’t jobs most people would lament or feel limited by no longer having.
Would I eliminate the entire industry? If it were killing off certain groups of people left and right, while the population at large looked the other way? You bet.
Has there ever been an entire industry that was eliminated because of safety? The only one I can think of is asbestos mining (they mine it, right?), but it didn’t kill the entire building or the mining industries. It just forced them to use a different material.
And all of the talk of sweatshops inevitably brings up the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire. Again, it didn’t kill off the garment industry — it forced changes in the way that industry was run.
Fucking hell. I had a long ass post written out but the stupid anti spam crap timed out on me and the ONE time dont bother to copy it before refreshing, the page reloads and eats the post.
The gist of it was this
My first and foremost concern are the women of Native America and First Nations persuasion. Enough of us have been sacrificed for the ideals of others.
This industry can either stop killing us, or it can die as far as Im concerned.
“Totally missed my point, ginmar. You are the one minimizing RE’s choke comments by pretending they were directed toward yourself and other radfems. They were not. They were directed at certain people who stalked and threatened to out women who blogged.”
Those comments were directed at Stormy. A women who was under constant attack by RE and “friends”. A blogger who asked, fucking begged, to simply be left alone. Why did RE become so hostile? There was no excuse for RE’s comment. Stormy didn’t deserve it, nor does anyone else.
JackGoff, were you not the one who ran around the blogesphere demanding everyone de-link Twisty Faster? Yeah, I think you fucking were that guy.
Asshole.
The sex industry isn’t like the steel industry, a highly capitalized, concentrated system. So long as people two people willing to trade sex for money, exchanges will take place. To speak of a young woman who occasionally turns tricks in her neighborhood for spending money as if she worked for a large multinational corporation misrepresents the social dynamics at work & suggests false solutions to her problems.
If sellers are in a market for any reason other than threats or violence, state interference with transactions leaves them with alternatives they’d already rejected in favor of sex work. It leaves them worse off.
Given two poor women, if one chooses to increase her income through sex work & the other doesn’t, you can either (1) use state power to prevent the first woman from doing what she intends to, (2) leave them both alone, (3) offer the sex worker an alternative that she’ll freely choose over sex work, but leave the second woman, the one who didn’t go into sex work, where she was, or (4) offer both women alternatives better than either of them formerly faced. Alleviating of poverty. that of sex workers & non-sex workers alike, is the only way to eliminate sex work undertaken because of the dull compulsion of economic relations.
Preventing slavery restricts no one’s alternatives but the slaver’s. But in the absence of something better, prohibiting non-coerced sex work, or sex work undertaken only because of the dull compulsion of economic relations, just forces sex workers back onto the options they’d already rejected as inferior even to sex work. Paternalism in this area harms its intended beneficiaries.
“Preventing slavery restricts no one’s alternatives but the slaver’s. But in the absence of something better, prohibiting non-coerced sex work, or sex work undertaken only because of the dull compulsion of economic relations, just forces sex workers back onto the options they’d already rejected as inferior even to sex work. Paternalism in this area harms its intended beneficiaries.”
Oh, yes! So we should all be for slavery now! Yes that make a lot of god damn sense. Jesus Christ, the comments here get stupider and stupider.
JackGoff, were you not the one who ran around the blogesphere demanding everyone de-link Twisty Faster? Yeah, I think you fucking were that guy.
I did have a delink Twisty Post. I was an idiot. I deleted that post. There are a couple of posts at my blog espousing my idiocy in this regard.
Oh, yes! So we should all be for slavery now! Yes that make a lot of god damn sense. Jesus Christ, the comments here get stupider and stupider
You utterly misunderstand my point, which most certainly in not that we should all be for slavery now. On the contrary. What we should be skeptical of is paternalistic coercion of voluntary sex workers.
“Those comments were directed at Stormy. A women who was under constant attack by RE and “friends”. A blogger who asked, fucking begged, to simply be left alone. Why did RE become so hostile? There was no excuse for RE’s comment. Stormy didn’t deserve it, nor does anyone else.”
Let’s not re-write history, Gayle. Stormy posted a satirical allegory denigrating anyone who disagreed with her viewpoint. Those she stereotyped and vilified chose to object. On this planet, that’s a fairly typical internet action/reaction.
“Why did RE become so hostile?”
I really don’t get your inability to understand the hostility. Do you regularly watch your friends get trashed, stalked and run off the internet? Is this something you deem acceptable?
What if that should happen to be you next time? Would you prefer everyone else just sit back and watch as your very existence gets called into question? Would you be OK if nobody expressed anger at the way your words became twisted and re-interpreted?
I wouldn’t. I can admit that much.
For The Record, Stormy was not the only one I was angry at. After all, best as I know, Stormy had no interaction with people like BfP and BA, who had also recieved a lot of shit, and gee, were mentioned as women I was sick of seeing take shit, and that I was angry about the shit they were taking.
“What we should be skeptical of is paternalistic coercion of voluntary sex workers. ”
Then it’s a good thing I’ve already stated if a woman tells me she chose it I believe her. She does not, however, become exempt from disagreement as to what and who her choice affects indirectly.
Sex work as an option has not improved the lives of aboriginal women, most especially those living on reservations. They still have no heat. They still have no running water. They still have dirt floors in a 2 room home with 12 people “living” in it. They’re still on that joke the government calls aide. It has not removed them from povery or even eased their impoverished lives. It has only brought death to their door, disguised as option and money.
Neither the sex industries presence nor absence will change that, but its absence will increase the number who will live.
This may be my last post on the subject for a few days. I have discovered a book, and I am one of those readers who let life fall away until the last page releases me.
Ginmar:
Nor does she mention how, upon reading an excellent post of Piny’s on the use of sexist language by women, I stopped using sexist language. There is no reclaiming that language
It’s always nice to get compliments, but there’s a bit more to this.
I don’t think it makes so much sense to bring up old stuff, like the “embalmed vagina” comment and the “choking on blood” comment. And I’m not all that interested either way. You changed your mind again, though. See here:
http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1266408.html
It’s true, of course, you don’t usually use sexist language. You just used it to refer to BD because she’s, well, such a bitch.
Look, you’ve said that your detractors in this thread are lying and not giving full context for things you’ve said because they aren’t also pointing to all the times you’ve argued for feminism, against sexism, and in support of all sorts of women. Like in this post just a day later, when you talk about how sexist language is stupid:
http://ginmar.livejournal.com/1265489.html
That’s not how it works.
I know you wrote about the Deni case. I know you wrote then that sex workers shouldn’t be called victims of theft rather than rape, or treated like greedy bitches who clearly don’t even want basic respect. I know you’ve written often about how it’s wrong to second-guess a woman’s behavior during a sexual assault or its aftermath.
When you turn around and do that to another woman because you hate her, your other comments don’t make those words less wrong or less sexist. They just make you inconsistent. All your uncompromising feminist arguing is not a dispensation; it’s the opposite.
Pheenbarbidoll:
It’s good that you deign to believe women who say they freely choose sex work. But believing them isn’t the same thing as rejecting paternalistic arguments for coercing those women into choosing some other, already rejected, even less preferred way of making a living. Do you reject paternalism here?
I agree that feminists & policymakers should take into account any negative externalities of any activity, including sex work. If there were compelling evidence that any kind of workers - sex workers, military interrogators, bloggers, whatever it is you do - imposed concrete, verifiable harms on third parties, their choices would be subject to fair criticism. (Even then, normal policy-balancing considerations would in most cases weigh against prohibition.) But I’ve listened to people make this argument against sex workers for years, & have yet to see any actual evidence that any given sex worker imposes any measurable harm on any specific third party, just by doing sex work. It’s churlish as well as unpersuasive for self-described feminists to continue, in the absence of evidence, to hold out this despised & put upon class of women as somehow victimizers, rather than victims, of the rest of society.
Instead of “rather than victims,” I should say “as well as victims,” because even people who excoriate (some) sex workers for oppressing other women typically also acknowledge that (some, maybe other) sex workers also are subjected to the most terrible kinds of abuse, & without much evidence of concern from the more morally upright sections of the community. I share your anger about violence against sex workers. This isn’t the place for it, but I just note that there are reasonable arguments that prohibition, including Swedish-model regimes, are not the most effective way to protect sex workers from violence, much of which is an artifact of current policy, which puts sex workers outside the protection of the law.
I also agree that sex work hasn’t solved the multiple problems of aboriginal women. No reasonable person would claim they have, or ever could. By the same token, however, no other work they currently do has solved their problems. That obvious fact isn’t an argument for singling out any one of those forms of work for criticism or prohibition; it’s an argument for better politics & policy across the board.
“have yet to see any actual evidence that any given sex worker imposes any measurable harm on any specific third party, just by doing sex work. ”
Sex work contributes to an environment that allows sexism to flourish largely unchecked. Which harms 3rd parties, the same as racism harms 3rd parties. A minority doesn’t have to be in the room when someone tells a racist joke to be harmed by it. Choosing sex work for reasons that do not stem from what amounts to having no other realistic choice to make a living is akin to choosing to sit silently by as racist jokes are being made, knowing full well it does have an affect on others.
It also fosters an environment ripe with racist stereotypes, which negatively impacts those of a minority status.
You’re not going to see the concrete evidence you’re seeking, because the affects are subtle.
A sexist man doesn’t leave a strip club or a prostitute shouting into the streets ALL WOMEN ARE WHORES, then go on to rape women while wearing an ALL WOMEN ARE WHORES banner. But he does leave with his belief that women can be bought and sold, that their bodies are commodities confirmed, and that poisons everything he does. It poisions his mind when he reads of ANY woman being a rape victim. He will be amongst the first to disbelieve her. It poisons his mind against the women in his life. If he is in a position of power, his decisions will carry that taint. Making even more difficut to combat, this is so accepted and normal he won’t even be aware of it. It is in this way that the harm manifests.
“By the same token, however, no other work they currently do has solved their problems. ”
Very few alternatives lead them so quickly into death. As it stands, Native American women are 3 times as likely to be sexually assaulted than any other minority group. This is not because we are seen as human. This is not because this society views us with respect. That disrespect starts somewhere and is carefully tended. Sex work serves as the fertilizer, and much like a weed, it chokes the life out of our women.
I have no trust in the white government. Their policies have never and will never benefit us. I have no trust in their policies, they break those policies daily where we are concerned. They fail us every time. Legalization will not protect us. Safety regulations will not be applied to us. Even now, they look at us, shrug and say ” It happened on your reservation, we can do nothing”. And because the perpetrators are non Native, our own leaders are prevented from carrying out justice.
We will be in the same limbo we’ve always been, and only we will know about it. Everyone outside our world will talk about how good it is they now have some protection or promise of safety measures.
And we will still die.
That’s what many of you just do not get.
Even if you managed to pass laws and regulations to protect sex workers, They Will Not Apply To Us.
If a US citizen rapes a NA prositute, nothing can or will be done. He will not go to jail. He will not go to court. He will not be arrested, prosecuted, nothing.
Where are your safety regulations then? What good do they do us? Your solutions or temporary fixes only apply to your world.
“Even if all aspects of it were rendered illegal to do or pay for, which won’t happen (do you see [prohibition of] stripping getting past the first amendment?), ”
A mere 40 years ago, noone would have foreseen a womans name on the presidential ballot side by side with a black man.”
There’s a difference, though. There’s no constitutionally or otherwise sound reason for prohibiting women or POC to be president. There is a constitutionally sound reason to continue to allow stripping. It’s called the First Amendment. To deny rights to this kind of expression would set in motion a parade of horribles that, believe me, won’t hapen in 40 years or 400 years. Many dance troupes would face bizarre regulations. Arrests would be made at beaches. Partial nudity in movies/TV would have to go. Think that’ll happen? Looking at our society and where the money and power are seated, how can you realistically see things going in that direction in our lifetimes or our grandchildren’s lifetimes?
I agree with you that many of us want the same ends, but through different means. Where the common goal is no unhappy/unwilling sex workers, and on a broader scale, no women facing coercion to do unpleasant tasks because of poverty. I agree with Ren, though, that agreeing generally on the means (or at least some of them) is critical to working together. It will be a long, long time before poverty is wiped out, if ever. So until that time, there will be women for whom sex work remains the best option. How one contends with this fact (and it is a fact) is therefore central. Someone who wants to remove the option out of an instinctive but unproven sense of external harms is not going to work effectively with someone who believes the option should continue to exist (1) until the remaining options are improved; and (2) afterwards, if she truly enjoys the work.
A sexist man … leave[s] a strip club or a prostitute … with his belief that women can be bought and sold, that their bodies are commodities confirmed, and that poisons everything he does. It poisions his mind when he reads of ANY woman being a rape victim. He will be amongst the first to disbelieve her. It poisons his mind against the women in his life. If he is in a position of power, his decisions will carry that taint. Making even more difficut to combat, this is so accepted and normal he won’t even be aware of it. It is in this way that the harm manifests.
With respect, I asked for evidence for this claim, which everyone here has doubtless heard before. Simply repeating it doesn’t make it true. You say the “affects are subtle.” I think it’s more likely that they’re negligible or nonexistent. If you accept that it’s an empirical question, what evidence do you imagine warrants your conclusion, rather than mine?
You have not only an evidential obligation here, but a moral one. You’re accusing an already despised & abused class of women of afflicting their more comfortable sisters. You’re further stigmatizing them. Accusations like yours are widely used to support law & policy that does them great injustice, costs no small number of them their lives, & compounds the suffering of countless others. You do them a great wrong if you repeat accusations against them that you can’t prove. Simply repeating the same old just-so stories isn’t enough. It risks disqualifying you from lecturing others about the hardships sex workers face.
From the point of view of law & policy, the relevant question isn’t just whether sex work creates sexism so much as whether one or another of the policy alternatives under debate increases it. If sex work creates sexism, it does so under current law & would also do so to some degree under the Swedish model, or any other alternative. I don’t doubt that the current system - which criminalizes sex workers, hounds them, stigmatizes them in myriad ways, makes harassing them & disrupting their efforts to earn their living an official end of state policy, deems them unfit to raise their own children, effectively casts them beyond the protection of the law, makes them fair game for any psychopath looking for a socially disposable victim to kill - does little to reduce the level of sexism in the society. It’s sex workers themselves who’re its main victims. I think there has to be a better way. If you think whatever law & policy you propose would be better in this regard, please inform us.
If it were true that a sex worker contributed in some measurable way to the sexist environment that some other woman faced, how much harm would you be willing to impose on the sex worker in order to make the other woman’s life freer of sexism? Is hounding sex workers, who aren’t as a class among the most advantaged women, honestly the best way you can think of to fight sexism? Sex workers work to feed their children & put roofs over their heads. If you’d deny them that way earning a living, you’d force them back on the alternatives they’d already rejected in favor of sex work. You’d leave them with lower-paying jobs, more constricted alternatives. How much would you further immiserate them? And how much of an improvement in other women’s circumstances would it take to justify this in your mind? What kind of trade-off you you have in mind?
Even if sex workers did confirm sexist men in their sexism, the fact that sexists have sexist responses to things women do doesn’t make those things wrong. If women wear short skirts, or sleep around, or do any of a multitude of other things, sexist men may draw sexist conclusions. If we take sexist men’s reaction as the index of what women’s behavior is blameworthy, very little that women do will pass muster. It is itself a sexist proposition that sexist men’s reactions should govern our lives. Sexist men, not their victims, are responsible for their sexism.
Don’t assume you’re angrier than I am about violence against sex workers, including aboriginal sex workers. I don’t require instruction from anyone about how dangerous sex work, particularly forms like illegal street prostitution, can be. The question is how to stop the mayhem. We know that certain kinds & contexts of sex work are vastly more dangerous than others; that suggests that the whole danger isn’t inherent in sex work per se. Law & policy create environments that are more or less dangerous for sex workers. If you didnt believe that, you wouldn’t care which of the competing policy approaches were implemented. Some reasonable people think prohibition, or a Swedish-model regime, would minimize the violence. Others, equally reasonable, think not. Recognizing that no alternative in this life is perfect, but I put myself in the latter group. What evidence you have that bears on this issue?
You’re mistaken if you imagine I’m a defender of any government, least of all where policy with respect to aboriginal people is concerned. I don’t doubt any of your charges concerning the formation, implementation & enforcement of policy, although I don’t think they relieve us of the obligation to fight to make governments more responsive to the just demands of aboriginal people.
I agree that it’d be naïve to expect that any policy with respect to sex work will be enforced equitably or evenhandedly, but don’t accept that this fact weighs for or against any of the competing alternatives under debate. Prohibitionist approaches, including Swedish-model regimes, are as susceptible to selective & inequitable enforcement as any other approach. And I don’t agree that the inequities you describe make it a matter of indifference whether, as a matter of statute, sex workers should be left outside the protection of the laws. Even in a rotten world, some laws are better than others.
You still don’t get it. It does not matter what policies or how even handed they would not would not be.
To avoid those policies, a non NA would only have to step foot onto a reservation.
Because of tribal, state and federal laws interfering, non NA men can rape a NA women (today) and avoid arrest. You think that’s going to change or that anything you’re working for will change that?
Show me. Show me how it will protect NA women. Prove it.
Beyond that, I can’t actually believe Im having to explain that sexism and racism have 2nd and 3rd hand effects.
Do you disbeleive racist images color how people view minorities?
I was under the impression that the Assimilative Crimes Act addressed the problem of crimes committed by non-NAs on reservation land, but would be happy to accept correction. Still, if current tribal, state, and federal laws need to be changed, nothing I’ve said rules that out.
I don’t doubt that as a general matter sexism and racism can have third party effects. My claim was more specific. Please re-read.
Uh, Piny, you’re doing it, too: you’re accusing me of saying sometihng that somebody else said.
And if you want to bitch at me for falling off the wagon once by calling BD a bitch, I expect you to go after her for all the shit she’s pulled on me, but then again, she’s welcome on your site, isn’t she, along with all the other sex pozzes? You’re hardly the one to dispense judgements. As I said, if you expect me to be perfect, you fucking well better hold them to task for every time they’re cruel and vindictive. I treat the sex pozzes with all the courtesy they show me. If you want more, you’re out of luck.
How nice of you, Piny, to try and tar me with Ren’s accusations. If I quote her own words I’m to blame? What a wonderful example of your pro sex poz bias.
If you think I’m going to be nicer to them than they’ve been to me, think again. They can’t stand harsh language? Too fucking bad. They’ve dished out enough to merit some backlash and I won’t apologize for it. You consistantly refuse to acknowledge that. Not honest.
PIATOR, once again, asked and answered a long time ago. You don’t get to ask for shit that’s basic feminism. Don’t you have a rape to go justify or something?
Um, safe words?
KH, nope. You are incorrect.
Tribal prosecutors cannot prosecute crimes committed by non-Native perpetrators. Tribal courts are also prohibited from passing custodial sentences that are in keeping with the seriousness of the crimes of rape or other forms of sexual violence. Crimes that are reported to the federal government just conveniently disappear without ever going to trial.
“I don’t doubt that as a general matter sexism and racism can have third party effects.”
But you doubt an industy inherantly racist and sexist does.
Pheeno, and others, are you familiar with UBUNTU! ?
http://iambecauseweare.wordpress.com/a-statement-about-sex-work-sex-workers-and-sexual-assault/
Specifically talks about sex work/prostitution in the context of a racist and classist society.
also see:
http://www.ywep.org/
and
http://brownfemipower.com/?p=1437
and
http://brownfemipower.com/?p=1995
and wrt the question of if any common ground can be found,
http://brownfemipower.com/?p=1951
hope you or at least someone finds this useful. happy reading.
…fuck it. That last was mine, the post about Ubuntu! if and when it shows up. what do you know, a sock puppet. i’m not a fan of them in general, anonymous drive-bys, so if it means people are less likely to read the links who otherwise might’ve, I am sorry. If it helps, it was brownfemipower who first linked to all of the others; I’m just passing it along. I don’t know how much work Ubuntu! specically does wrt First Nations/NDN issues, but you’re likelier to find a starting point there
ginmar: really, your calling me a “bitch” is pretty far down the list of stuff I hold against you. I’m not interested in your “wagon;” feminism isn’t a bloody twelve-step program, and in any case, that’s entirely your own lookout.
Far more important: the constant baiting of Renegade and other “sex pox” (charming phrase; ever consider what it might mean to people with, oh I don’t know, AIDS?), your bizarre fixation on what other people do or don’t do with their tits, or the relative natural “perkiness” thereof, the “prancing like she’s at her job, expects people to stuff money in her g-string” crack..not even to mention your enabling of Dana’s jaw-droppingly reactionary crap here: you haven’t a leg to stand on. Really. That’s not a beam in your eye, it’s an entire fucking building.
in the immortal words of “Chuck and Buck:”
“You have a problem with women. And you have a problem with men.”
And gin baby: whatever else my problems are, admittedly legion: those? Ain’t mine. Or anyone else’s.
You’ve got a lot to answer for, ginmar. I expect much of it is shit we’ve never seen and never will, and you know, my sympathies on -that-, really. You can take them and $3.50 and get a nice cappuccino at Starfucks. Whatever. You’ve made it abundantly clear that you’re not interested in half-measures, burying hatchets, apologies, or anything short of total capitulation to your own version of reality. Well, it’s not going to happen, that. Not a fun place to visit, no one wants to live there. I don’t blame you for trying to get company for your misery, but you know what: your methods, they are inappropriate. Maybe the millionth and first person to tell you this will get through to you, someday. I hope so. More for the sake of the blameless people who have to deal with your crap than yours at this point, admittedly; nonetheless.
“You’re not going to see the concrete evidence you’re seeking, because the affects are subtle.”
If we are going to examine subtle effects, then why not attack advertising or the diet industry or the fake political battles over issues like flag-burning?
Which isn’t to say that what you are talking about isn’t horrible. The issue, for me, is who should get the most attention? Who is most deserving of our anger? What will be the most effective use of our energies?
I think targeting sex workers is too easy and way too popular. It doesn’t make a dent in the overall sexism that pervades our lives. It doesn’t improve the lives of poor and oppressed women.
It’s the same problem I have with talking about welfare cheaters. Sure, there are a few of them out there. But compare them to one oil company executive or one government contractor charged $700 for a hammer.
I don’t want sex workers targetted. I want the sexist, racist industry that exploits them and any other woman they can targetted. I want the industry that paints my people as drunken “exotic” indian princess whores targetted. I want the industry that portrays Black women as over sexed sluts targetted. The industry that portrays Black men as predators of white women targetted.
Ya know, these stereotypes were around when white people were marching mine to their deaths and selling them over seas. These stereotypes were around when Black slaves were raped by white owners and Black men were lynched for looking at white women, because everyone “knew” a Black mans main goal in life was to rape a white woman.
These are the same stereotypes that incite outrage when the minorities in question are shown with their clothes on. They aren’t any less offensive or harmful because (some) of the minorities chose that line of work.
The most common reason for getting into sex work among the women on my relatives reservation? “They’re going to take it anyway, I might as well get paid for it” Thats the most sorrowful internalization of ” rape is like the weather, might as well enjoy it” mentality I’ve ever heard. And then you get people with non NA privelege wanting proof, as if anyone gives a shit about brown women on reservations enough to do any real research. It’s an insidious way to silence and dismiss minorities experiences, because their proof will never meet the criteria of the priveleged.
There’s a nasty implication that the minority is lying or playing the race card”.
KH, nope. You are incorrect.
Tribal prosecutors cannot prosecute crimes committed by non-Native perpetrators. Tribal courts are also prohibited from passing custodial sentences that are in keeping with the seriousness of the crimes of rape or other forms of sexual violence. Crimes that are reported to the federal government just conveniently disappear without ever going to trial.
I’m incorrect about what? Specifically? You’re entitled to reflexively dispute whatever I say, no matter how anodyne, but not continually to misrepresent me. Contrary to your claim, I did not claim & do not imagine that tribal prosecutors can prosecute crimes committed by non-NA defendants on reservation land. No reasonable, good-faith reading of my comment could suggest otherwise, so what do you possibly hope to gained by continuing to attribute things to me that any reader can easily see I didn’t say?
It’s not my purpose to dispute anything you say about the prosecution of rape committed on reservation land. My comment sought only to clarify a point that you’d left unclear. As I understand you, your complaint isn’t so much that current law makes no provision for prosecuting non-NA defendants for crimes committed on reservations (but see your no. 318). The Assimilative Crimes Act bears on those offenses. Rather, you’re objecting that US Attorneys offices, who have responsibility for those cases, don’t prosecute them vigorously enough. It’s not that there’s no law against a non-NA going onto a reservation & raping an NA woman, but that existing laws aren’t adequately enforced.
The distinction matters because it bears on what should be done. Again, I await your thoughts about solutions. Should jurisdiction to removed from US Attorneys offices & returned to tribal authorities? Should the operation of US Attorney’s offices be reformed, & if so, how? Where should additional resources be directed? How, if at all, should rape statutes be revised? How generally should we seek to ensure that rape on reservations is prosecuted to the limit? What can be done to reduce the incidence of rape on reservations in the first place? Misrepresenting me is no substitute for answers to these questions.
“I don’t doubt that as a general matter sexism and racism can have third party effects.”
But you doubt an industy inherantly racist and sexist does.
Again, please re-read my previous comments. I don’t doubt that there are utterly repulsive representations in pornography. But it’s an empirical question how much any given offensive representation contributes to the reproduction of sexist & racist attitudes in the wider society. The fact that something offends you, even rightly, isn’t proof of any sociological hypothesis about its causal efficacy. It’s far from clear, for example, that to whatever extent NA women are viewed by the wider society as “drunken, ‘exotic’ indian princess whores,” it’s because of anything strippers, prostitutes & porn actresses do. (I’m not familiar with NA-themed pornography, but accept your word if you say it’s prevalent.) Bigotry has ample other sources in this society; it’s overdetermined. Nor is it clear that prohibitionist policies would actually reduce the amount of racism & sexism in the society. Law & policy promulgated on the assumption that sex workers are a significant cause of racism & sexism impose non-negligible costs on them, so it’s not just an academic exercise whether your claims are rationally warranted.
The insight your standpoint affords you is valuable, but it doesn’t make you omniscient, or afford you privileged or certain knowledge of the causal mechanisms underlying the reproduction of racist & sexist attitudes in a society of 300 million people. It is not “an insidious way to silence & dismiss minorities experiences” just to note that there are unanswered questions about the channels through which racism & sexism are reproduced. (Minorities’ experiences and opinions on these questions are far from unanimous.) The vital interests of a large class of women, many of them vulnerable & voiceless – silenced-, depend on getting the answer right. It doesn’t derogate your personal experience, & it isn’t racist, to express skepticism about sweeping statements laying any significant share of the racism & sexism of a larger society at the feet of strippers, prostitutes & porn actresses.
I won’t repeat my other earlier comments, which you fail to address.
pheenobarbidoll wrote:
Choosing sex work for reasons that do not stem from what amounts to having no other realistic choice to make a living is akin to choosing to sit silently by as racist jokes are being made, knowing full well it does have an affect on others.
And then you wrote:
I don’t want sex workers targetted. I want the sexist, racist industry that exploits them and any other woman they can targetted.
Here’s where I’m seeing the contradiction. You claim to be targeting an industry, but you’re choosing to blame individual sex workers.
Just setting a few things straight, evidence right there in the thread…
Ginmar repeatedly takes shots at me and AP, among others, her friends arrive and support her, this goes utterly ignored until Dana made her comment at which point I said something- as did others. But yeah, let’s take a look here…a few of Gin’s own from this thread…since she already jacked it an all.
“Now go on and ignore what actually happened and make being a soldier an insult again, why don’t you?”
If you actually read as you insist others must do, I never made being a soldier an insult, nor am I ignoring what really happened. What really happened is documented by the thread itself, which you choose to ignore.
“Oh, and what are you going to do? Hope I choke to death on my own blood again? Insult my service again? You need some new tricks.”
I never insulted your service. I called you “solider girl”, after have been repeatedly called stripper girl/ college girl by you. You do not have a lock down on dismissive and condescending monikers. And you bring up the choke comment far more often than BD brings up the vagina one or whatever.
“Oh, and nice try blaming me for what Dana said. You liar”.
I never blamed you for Dana’s comment. You insist I did, the proof is in the thread. Who’s the liar?
“I’ll remember that, too, though I’ve no doubt you’ll shortly be attributing the quote to me. “
Incorrect. Dana gets all the glory on that one.
“try to take down feminists’ websites.”
PROOF. Especially when “some of us” got attacked too.
“God, you guys are so fucking stupid and dishonest”
Lovely. I won’t say you’re stupid, but dishonest? Hell, I can prove it.
‘What a gang bang. Why don’t you film and RE and can sell it?”
I only do that sort of thing with willing participants. Besides, really, you and yours already did it to us first on this thread.
“Meanwhile, RE says I hate prostitutes because she claims I never wrote about the
‘theft of services’ rape—which is a lie.”
No, that statement is a lie. I never said you hated prostitutes. I never said you did not write about the theft of services rape. I said YOU said myself and other sex poz did not write about the theft of services rape, which we did, extensively. I can prove this, and thus, you are the liar…or need to read far more carefully and stop accusing others of being liars.
“As women, we owe all women protection and allegiance.”
You have an odd way of showing it.
“How convenient that you bow out without addressing anything I said. Isn’t that just typical?”
Yes it is, on your part even. You move goal posts endlessly, never address accusations (even those with proof) aimed at you, and for as much as you inisist others “own up”, rarely do so yourself.
Double Standards indeed, and special treatment for friends.
Oh, and sexist language? I do believe Ms Plastic Tits and other assorted gems of yours count as such.
I’m not blaming them. I’m not ignoring their responsibility for what they choose to contribute to. You can contribute to something without being at fault or to blame for the existance of the thing you’re contributing to.
I drive a car. I’m contributing to the pollution problem. I choose to drive a car, I enjoy driving a car, it’s my right to decide if I drive my car or pick an alternative means of going where I want to go. I’m not the cause of global warming, but my active decisions aren’ detracting from the problem, they are contributing to it. I’m responsible for my contribution. I am not to blame for global warming existing, I can’t have it both ways. I own my choices, and anything that comes of them, good or bad.
Sex workers by choice have chosen to work for and bring profit to an industry that is sexist and racist. That does not make them responsible for sexism and racism. The sex industry isn’t the ONLY factor in cultivating a sexist and racist society, but it is one factor.
” was under the impression that the Assimilative Crimes Act addressed the problem of crimes committed by non-NAs on reservation land, ”
Specifically, you are incorrect about this. The Act falls into a loophole of Tribal, State and Federal red tape. The result is that non NA predators go unpunished.
The solution would be to allow Tribal prosecutors to prosecute non NA’s, but we will never be given that power by the federal government. The max penalty would also need to be raised beyond 1 year for crimes such as rape. Until our Nation is viewed and treated as a true Soveriegn Nation, without interference from the US government, we’re screwed. As it stands, any decision we make as a Nation is threatened by the US government, who’s favorite threat to date is to take away our Sovereign illusion. Genocide is still happening, it is still sanctioned by the US government. The extermination of our people didn’t fade with the Old West. It’s not history, it is ongoing and this is one tool used to eradicate us as a people. Your government still steals our land, breaks treaties, steals water from our land (I doubt I have to even mention minerals and oil) and removes our children just as it did generations ago. The sex industry is yet another small pox blanket. It’s not the only one by far, but it is one.
I have no trust and no respect for the amendments and documents of the US government. It would be second only to introducing the bible into the conversation.
My personal preferance would be to go the way a delegation of Lakota wish to go. Secceed completely from the US, cancel all treaties and be an independant Nation. It would be to reinstate the laws and beliefs of my culture. But our Cherokee President is up the ass of Bush, and I’d hate to think what he’d do given more power.
But the laws we can pass for ourselves are ALWAYS subject to being overruled by your government. Always subject to being broken by your citizens and government. Your government routinely breaks our laws. Changing the laws doesn’t stop that. We’ve been saying that for years upon years. We’ve been protesting it for years and years. We’ve been fighting since the US governments conception. So tell me, in reality, what will your regulations change for us?
How can we be protected when no one in your government respects or obeys our laws to begin with and reserves the right to overrule them when it suits them?
And once again, I’m not claiming sex work CAUSES sexism and racism. Sex work reflects it, and perpetuates it as opposed to fighting it.
No shit. Speaking of “lying.”
RE wasn’t even IN this thread before you started fapping away. Jack hadn’t DONE anything to you. Can we -try- and focus?
And did you seriously just say that? What the hell is wrong with you, anyway? “Miss Plastic Tits?” “Gang bang?” You sound like an MRA.
I don’t owe you shit, lady. And,
Uh, HELLO.
“Come back here! I’ll bite your legs off!”
So long, you sad, angry little gnome.
Belldame
I’m looking over the links you’ve provided.
In particular, one from Brownfemipower struck a chord (Ive read her before as well, Im just not an avid blog reader)
‘about ethics of performance. Of course you’re free to do whatever racist performance you want to do – you are White in America after all and no one’s going to criminalize you. But the rest of us who are harmed by your actions are also free to call you to account for being racist and protesting your racist oppressive acts in order to defend ourselves, our communities and our value. And again, standing behind the censorship argument is another example consistently used by white folks to distance, reframe, ignore, or even invisibilize the topic of racism.’
This to me seems to echo my own sentiments regarding choosing to work in a sexist/racist industry. Your choice (be it wearing black face in a performance, or working for racists) does not exempt you from being called to account for it. Some here have pulled out the freedom of speech amendment, which is no different from the censorship arguement.
And this
“so I wonder how to confront the reality of of the “most” woman–while at the same time, working with the reality that at least *some* white women *have* begun to cross the river–along *with* the fact that there’s a lived reality of woc sex workers that is really really being affected by the bullshit. and that this lived reality is not just within their work, but leaks into their communities as well.”
Clearly, she believes the affects of racism in sex work leaks into the communitues.
Where I disagree with Rens comments
“Girls who fake accents (especially those that legit have nothing to do with their backgrounds, heritage wise), or “dress” the part (even though I have done it), well, it bothers me a bit. But I think a lot of them, if they hear how much it bothers people, will at least take a step back and consider that.”
I’ll be blunt here.
Seriously?? How long have WOC been saying that shit “bothers” them? That stereotypes “bother” us isn’t news. Have the stereotypes diminished at all? If no, then obviously simply telling women it “bothers” us hasnt resulted in much of a step back or consideration. And if it has, there hasn’t been a signiicant step back and considerations have been dismissed. And yes, I have a problem with the usage of the word “bother”. A fly buzzing in my house bothers me. Stereotypes of minorities sicken and infuriate me.
I’ve looked at the Ubuntu site, though not exensively. A cursory exploration doesnt reveal much on NA/First Nations people, though there is a refernce to Two Spirit, but given how often NA/First Nations words and concepts are co opted by non NA, I can’t assume that means NA/First Nations people.
Ya know, never mind.
I’m sick of having to scroll through the fighting. It’s distracting.
I won’t be back.
Thanks for proving my point, BD. College didn’t even give you a vocab; it just made you a pretentious little shit.
I don’t regret a single thing I ever called you. In fact, I may have been too nice.
You and your friends can have a nice circle jerk now. Maybe you can gangbang another lone radfem the way you always do. It sure proves how superior you are.
College didn’t even give you a vocab; it just made you a pretentious little shit.
Vocabulary and snide comments aside, I AM NOT A FUCKING PILOT FISH. The only reason belledame and Ren had to come to this thread was your questioning of my blogroll and Dana’s inane misogyny. And yes, blaming the victim for a near rape is misogyny, and quit trying to downplay it because you have a problem with Ren.
There is no reason to believe otherwise or to say otherwise. I told no one who has commented on this thread about your problem with my blogroll, and you and yours are tweaking stupidly to suggest otherwise. Tinfoil hats are pleasant and cozy, I presume, but not logically or factually accurate.
And yeah, I got it. I’m Ampersand’s Ghost of Tweakery Present. Zoh. Mah. Gawd. Should I sign a loyalty oath to prove my worth, or are my “associations” enough to blacklist me? I do remember the last time I went through something like this, until the other 9th graders realized how stupid it was.
Yeah, Jack, you were the one who wanted to de blog Twisty, not the sex pox crew. Speaks for itself. You picked your friends. I’ve gotten threatened by at least one of the trolls they coddled. I’m sure I’m not the only ones. But, hey, they were nice to you.
Yeah, Jack, you were the one who wanted to de blog Twisty, not the sex pox crew
This post is my answer to your empty accusations. I asserted my own stupidity long before you got to tweak about it. I knew I was idiot about that. I admitted it. I have zero problem admitting that I am an idiot, and that I am wrong.
Pheenobarbidoll,
Having consulted the relevant statutes, I remain unconvinced that it’s legal for non-NA men to rape (or commit other crimes against) NA women on reservation land. Not to be obdurate, I think you’re wrong to insist that I’m mistaken on this narrow point. The problem lies elsewhere, esp. in overlapping & confused jurisdictional lines & the indifference of the relevant authorities. Still, our disagreement concerns details, & isn’t something I want to dwell on.
On the larger issue of the rape of NA women, you’re absolutely right, & have opened my eyes. I knew from press accounts that things were bad, but you’ve pushed me to look further, & I see now that it’s far worse even than I’d imagined. You’ve done a real service here, & I hope the rest of us can make your effort worthwhile. Every feminist in the US should put this at the top of her agenda. I recommend anyone with the heart for it read last year’s Amnesty International report on the subject, at:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/alfresco_asset/
5afead16-a2cc-11dc-8d74-6f45f39984e5/
amr510352007en.pdf
If anyone has other references, please leave a note.
On sex work, I’ll just say I remain unpersuaded. We remain miles apart.
…
That’s what I thought. Consider me unsurprised.
moremalice: ginmar, i’m sorry you’re jealous that some people went to college, and you were not able to. but you were too busy slaughtering iraqis, were you not?
speechless. I was left speechless by that. My first reaction, after the initial shock was, “fuck you”, because, no matter how vitriolic ginmar may be being, that’s uncalled for.
I’ve seen a lot of cold shit done to people here. A lot of heated words, assumptions about motive, places where predjudice trumps reason and all manner of logical and argumentational fallacies.
I’ve had heated disagreements with ginmar, on some of the same things boiling in this thread; but I have never seen so intentional a piece of bullshit ad hominem invective invoked.
And for what, because you got your feelings hurt because she said fuck you?
Well boo-hoo. I mean really? You weren’t playing the role of the person taking the high road (what with the dismissive one-liners about gold medals in the oppression olympics).
You don’t like the war fine. Your privilege. You wan’t to comment on the war, also fine; your duty.
You want to abuse the poor bastards who have to go fight it… not on. To tie it to this thread, it’s a piece of classism (and moralism). You have no clue what you are talking about. You don’t know why she joined. You don’t know what she did, nor what it was like (and the best books, films, articles and personal recollections you may hear are not better than pale shadows of what it’s like. You may appreciate, as through a glass darkly, but you will never understand).
What, in the name of heaven did you think that little mal mot was going to accomplish?
It was puerile, pathetic, mean-spirited, cheap and tawdry. If you’d said that in a public place, I might not deck you, but I sure as hell would be telling you off, and if someone else decked you, I’d not say they were wrong.
It was a verbal lynching. You stooped to a level of insult and personal attack loathesome in the extreme.
Not that I think you give a damn, but the back of my hand to you. I have not enough skill with words to express the level of scorn I have for someone so weak-minded to think up such a retort, and actually use it.