…in the struggle for the liberation of women, I guess.
To lay my cards on the table: as a radical feminist I believe that the system of patriarchal capitalism (the dominant ideology) and the hierarchies of assumed power it depends upon for its perpetuation locates women and children as ‘less than’. I believe that women and children are actively taught to understand that they are ‘less than’ by the systems of patriarchal capitalism. I believe that violence, or the threat of violence, is fundamental to the learning of this lesson. The threat of personal attack. Personal hurt. Personal pain.
I believe that the threat of violence is oppressive – it makes people conform. As a radical feminist, I believe that sexual violence is currently the most popular expression of the power of patriarchal capitalism against humanity – and, yes, that includes men – in all its forms. I believe that mainstream pornography illustrates and fosters the threat of sexual violence against women and children. As a radical feminist speaking out against the oppression of women and children I will highlight the role played by mainstream pornography.
This is one of the battles I’ve picked.
So, for ex-’feminists’ – let alone ex-rads – who are sick of hearing about mainstream pornography and the role it plays in the patriarchal capitalist oppression of women and children, who think we should all just stop talking about it because, let’s face it, it’s been ok for you so far: why don’t you just become a fully paid up member of PETA? I’m sure they could use you…
156 responses so far ↓
stormy // February 11, 2007 at 2:26 am |
Not even Wednesday, and I’ve been wowed!
Thanks Witchy.
I don’t think there is such a thing as an ‘ex-rad’, primarily as I don’t think they were truly radfems to begin with.
It’s not something you decide to ‘be’, on a whim, out of the blue, or to be popular, or to form some sort of social club.
It’s something that develops, over time, looking deeply into the issues, the enablers of the patriarchy mechanism, and analysing how porn and violence achieves these ends.
It is not about being prudish, or anti-sex. Nor is it to fall for the ‘choice’ brand of feminism that says you can take the bits you like and be against the bits you don’t like (this seems to sort out the truly radfem; high heels, make-up, and tolerating your bf watching porn). BTW, there is nothing inherently ’sexy’ about high heels, it is purely cultural conditioning—in the 1970s platform shoes were highly fashionable, and my-oh-my, how damn ridiculous they were. The masses can be convinced of anything.
It is not enough to say “we want equal pay, equal rights, please give it to us”, because that has never worked. There has to be a strategy to achieve these ends, and that means analysing how the mechanism continues, and to disable it. Being patriarchy compliant and looking pretty, being nice to the boyz, really will not achieve these ends.
Witchy, yes, my battle too. Totally onboard.
Laurelin // February 11, 2007 at 2:49 am |
I’m in full agreement with you here, Witchy.
I don’t understand how one can be ‘ex rad fem’ either- I mean once you start analysing the power structures and the vehicles of patriarchy it’s not like you can turn it off and say ‘right, that’s it, I’ve had enough’.
And no, we won’t stop talking about it. Never gonna happen.
AradhanaD // February 11, 2007 at 3:46 am |
I am an ex-rad fem, but I would never be an ex-feminist ever – but even then I am a rad fem supporter NOT anti-rad fem.
I find in general and now it has become a greater problem for me with the limited scope of defining gender alone as the one and only oppression – my journey started three years ago – and still continues. I believe in the intersectionality of oppression – and therefore define myself as a ‘WOC/third worldist/anti-racist socialist feminist’ – and in that respect I do believe pornography is a fucking huge problem in all those aspects. I acknowledge the huge problems with socialist feminists – and that is why i posit myself as a WOC/third worldist feminist BEFORE socialist feminist. I am equally sick of bullshit arrogant socialist men (mostly white) who do NOT even think twice about gender…
I also firmly believe ‘feminisms’ overlap and that we learn from various perspectives. I am sick of the ‘contest’ between feminists too – i.e. we’re so much better than you.
I also believe ‘labelling’ yourself is important – as much as people would like to claim “AD – you’re a rad fem” I’m not – as I find it too problematic, but that does not mean I haven’t learned from it. How we name ourselves is deliberate, likewise we call ourselves feminists not just for the ’sake’ of it – but because it means something.
I try my best to ‘connect the dots’ so to speak when discussing things as I believe they are interconnected. Therefore – simply stating the oft repeated statement ‘this happened because it’s misogyny at work’ is very limiting to me – we as women are not all the same – and there are many factors that divide us class/ableism/race/ empire etc…
In order to move forward we really need to expand our frame of reference to other issues that connect with ‘radical feminism’.
AradhanaD // February 11, 2007 at 4:01 am |
I wanted to add – when I say ‘contest’ I mean by saying we are ‘onething’ that we don’t take lessons from another type of feminism. We do. It’s bound to happen – and it’s good.
Some feminists repeatedly think – that by saying “this is racist/this is classist’ (I have seen this REPEATEDLY) on the blogosphere – means ‘this takes something away’ from the rest of our struggle. This especially happens in discussions about racism. It’s pathetic.
Bullshit. More viewpoints shout be welcomed = This should only further the struggle – and invite more people and more knowledge to the table. You know who uses that strategy, the strategy of ‘when you talk about this – you take away our rights’ — MRA’s do that. And it’s sickening that other feminists would apply this same logic.
No, instead of assuming something is being ‘taken away’ – it should be respected as a contribution. I.e. if you speak about classism here – then you’re taking away the sexism there… HUH? See how ridiculous that sounds – and YET many, many, many, many radical feminists seem to see it fit to do so when it comes to race.
I do believe the blogosphere is a representation of real life – and it is no JOKE that both my encounters with real life ‘progressives’ and my offline encounters – end up being the same. I will not stand for this. I’m fed up.
I’m supposed to somehow pick this oppression over that to suit whatever agenda at will – BULLSHIT – we all experience a myriad oppressions at ONCE. the same continuous time.
AradhanaD // February 11, 2007 at 4:08 am |
This shouldn’t be just ‘rad fem’ in my post, let me say this – I don’t have much faith in other progressives – liberal feminists and SEX ‘radical’ feminists who blatantly ignore racism when it comes to pornography ALTOGETHER.
I.e. – ‘where’s the racism?’ huh – what… what do you mean it’s racist – it’s ACTING! or it’s a cultural tradition. Funny thing is that US and formerly British imperialism have fostered most of the world’s sex trade and trafficking globally – I CAN NOT AND WILL NOT DISMISS THAT SO EASILY. Militarism, land displacement all of this geopolitical bullshit – FOSTERED this exploitation – and this can not be ignored.
I address rad fems specifically – because I am politically more align with them but this does not mean I am not critical of other positions. I AM.
witchywoo // February 11, 2007 at 4:49 am |
Hearing you AradhanaD . Racism and its history is a tool of patriarchal capitalist oppression too – racism is a staple of the popular patriarch’s daily ‘reading’. And I so recognise that gender isn’t the one and only oppression – but it does figure hugely in the heirarchy of patriarchal capitalist oppression.
My battle is against the subjugation of women – all women – because all women are subjugated by patriarchal expressions of violence against them, whatever their colour/creed/nation. And when I say “all women” I mean ‘all women’. For me, divisions by race aren’t helpful. Men/patriarchy of whatever colour/creed/nationality succumb to the notion that they’re somehow ‘more than’ the women and children in this world.
stormy // February 11, 2007 at 5:20 am |
“Militarism, land displacement all of this geopolitical bullshit – FOSTERED this exploitation – and this can not be ignored.”
I am in agreement AD, and am not really sure why you dismiss the radfems so.
Certainly, I keep one eye on the historical context of these things, but focus on the present enablers/manifestations—it’s always been about ‘the power [over another]‘.
The racism rampant in porn is, well, bleedin’ obvious, and they are part and parcel of the same ‘machine’.
To put sexism over racism or vise versa, and it’s a win-win for the other team. However, it is difficult to effectively fight both together (and that is not saying that one trumps the other) because I think that the fight against both racism and sexism have so many common elements that it actually makes ‘the system’ more easily exposed. ‘The system’ is probably best evident in porn. I would hesitate to say that in porn the discrimination is firstly directed at sexism, and secondly racism. Hence, my focus being primarily about the sexism/power dynamics (which is secondarily played out with the racism). I call the racism out from time to time, but I am hands-up guilty of not calling it out every time. Throwing in the poverty-exploitation thing as well (because the lack of viable sustainable economic alternatives for females enables ‘porn fodder’). It’s all connected, certainly no doubt about it.
I’m not sure if I’ve explained myself very well. This is all coming from the most hated of all, the white, middle-class (radical) feminist. I actually have the least motivation of most of the feminists to fight against all of this, yet I do. Don’t think that because of my birth that I have not experienced hunger, the threat of losing the roof over my head, discrimination or anything else, I have. I choose not to seek the protection (from a man) from all of this, and remain independent.
http://www.answers.com/topic/radical
(Number 6 not really applicable when added to the ‘feminism’ modifier, I muse that it is perhaps No.6 that confuses the younger feminists when they identify as a ‘radical feminist’.) Hell, I didn’t even know I was a radical feminist until someone told me!
witchywoo // February 11, 2007 at 5:33 am |
No Stormy, I agree, it’s not about ‘choice’. ‘Choice’ implies some kind of power and, realistically, the choices of the oppressed are defined by their oppressors – after all, who tells them what’s ok to choose?
Like the abused women who *magically* should be able stand up for themselves and walk away from relationships that don’t work? Oh My Fucking God Would They Chose To Just “Walk Away” – you bet your privileged arse they would. But they can’t! Because…? Think about it.
I think feminism – of any kind – somehow recognises that few women have the power of true self determination.
And, while I agree that race is yet another division of women fostered by patriarcal capitalism – yes, even yet another division of people – there’s something in me that can’t separate myself from WOC because we share so many oppressions – and oppressors. I recognise the differences (that I’m aware of – always learning; and I thank my sisters for that) but I also acknowledge the similarities.
stormy // February 11, 2007 at 6:03 am |
Choice ain’t choice if ain’t real choice.
As with *empowerment*. I still can’t write the word without the little *s. It’s a joke.
Reading Twisty’s earlier tonight, I still cannot get out of my mind the extract from the article about Anna Nicole Smith’s death, a woman who was 110% patriarchy compliant, and post-passing, was denigrated for it [being patriarchy compliant].
Surely that should be the wake-up call for ‘fun’ feminists and ‘choice’ feminists’???
The saying of “there is no pleasing some people” is no more true than when applied to the above or to patriarchy. Wake up and smell the patriarchy!!!
(sorry, it’s late, superfluous use of punctuation) and totally off topic nonetheless… oh well, it’s stormy FFS.
stormy // February 11, 2007 at 6:04 am |
And I promise to ’step away from the keyboard’ now.
witchywoo // February 11, 2007 at 6:21 am |
See you in the morning you dreaded radfem, you
But thinking about the ANS debacle…..she was a gold-digger, right? (Yes, I know, she was seen by the Pat – creds to soopermouse – as walking tits – what was her husband then? blameless?.)
ANS did her fucking damndest – given the system women are supposed to flourish in – she was a patriarchal icon of womanhood (according to them).
Just goes to show, doesn’t it, that even for those women who succeed at ‘choosing’ rather than rebelling, it’s a high price to pay.
RenegadeEvolution // February 11, 2007 at 8:24 am |
Humm, trying to think of what to say other than “blech, PETA, I eat meat…”
I’ve been thinking a bit about the differences between feminists and brands of feminism here lately; those who keep it all in the political or legal realm, those who look at it in any and every aspect of life (such as Radical Feminists), the choosing of battles…all very interesting stuff, really…as are the problems between all the various schools of thought. No conclusions yet, but still pondering…
Bea // February 11, 2007 at 10:36 am |
Whenever I see pornography I feel fear and humiliation, and I feel as if I don’t have a right to be in this world.
Pornography only needs analysis when you’re dead inside and have lost the ability to empathise or identify with the violated woman in the picture. For me, radical feminism is just that: reclaiming my capacity to feel.
Bea // February 11, 2007 at 10:57 am |
I just wrote a small post about how we very often don’t get to chose whether or not we are exposed to pornography.
RenegadeEvolution, I clicked on your link. Your blog is headed by a pornographic picture. You are leaving a comment on a feminist blog. Many of us who comment here do not want to see pornography. I was upset by the picture on your blog and I didn’t have a choice of whether or not to see it because I assumed – it is certainly reasonable – that people posting here do not link to porn.
RenegadeEvolution // February 11, 2007 at 11:16 am |
Bea:
Actually, there has been some discussion about if, or if not, that photo is “pornographic” or not going on. Most people, women even, have said, erotic, maybe, pornographic, no. I don’t read your blog as I figured you would not want me there, so I did not see your post.
From the thread discussing the logo, I’ll leave this for thought. WW, feel free to delete it if you want, though it is a legit question I think…
look for instance at this image: http://www.jsd.com/paintedpair.html, which I rather like, really, but it has full frontal female nudity, but is artistic and features ‘natural’ women in nature no less. Would there be an objection to that photo on a feminist blog?
RenegadeEvolution // February 11, 2007 at 11:18 am |
and the logo photo is me, btw, and was taken by a woman, not that it matters I am sure.
Bea // February 11, 2007 at 11:31 am |
RenegadeEvolution, the picture upset me. I do not want to see pictures like that. I do not need your permission to be upset. I do not need you to agree that the picture is pornographic before I can feel all the things that I mentioned above.
I did not have a choice of whether or not to see that picture. That is the point I am making and this is exactly what you seem unable to grasp.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 11, 2007 at 12:59 pm |
I’m not sure where I stand on the radical scale. But it’s not a choice, it’s a journey and I’m still travelling.
From that “Answers” link I find a few words give me a flinch reaction – rabid, extreme, fanatic, zealot. They all have very negative associations. So I flinch away and say, No, I’m not one of those rabid, foaming at the mouth, extremist(terrorist) feminists!
But. There’s so much wrong, I see so many things influencing, gently guiding my daughter. She’s 3. She sits in the trolley at the supermarket and that raises her eye level so she can just about see the lads mags. Is that intentional? No, it’s not. No-one bothered to think about it. There’s no conscious conspiracy. It’s just so intrinsically woven into the fabric of society that so many don’t even think about it.
Sorry, I’ll go blog this instead…..
Ethically Speaking :: Am I Radical? :: February :: 2007 // February 11, 2007 at 1:16 pm |
[...] Witchy Woo’s place – thanks Witchy for yet another thought provoking post! I started commenting and then [...]
Laurelin // February 11, 2007 at 1:48 pm |
‘Like the abused women who *magically* should be able stand up for themselves and walk away from relationships that don’t work? Oh My Fucking God Would They Chose To Just “Walk Away” – you bet your privileged arse they would. But they can’t! Because…? Think about it.’
Absolutely. It is the most callous and revolting thing to say ‘why didn’t she just leave’ or ‘if she doesn’t like him looking at porn why doesn’t she just leave/get over it [delete as appropriate]‘. It reeks of privilege and cruelty. It denies the reality of a world in which men have economic, social and physical power over women en masse, and in which there are incredibly strong psychological pressures on women to fit into a certain mould. Never mind the fact that leaving an abusive relationship doesn’t necessarily protect a woman from her abuser- it’s actually quite fucking simple- PEOPLE HAVE TO GET IN BETWEEN THE WOMAN AND HER ABUSER TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR HER TO LEAVE. They also need to place the responsibility squarely where it belongs- on the abuser.
If women lived in a world where they were valued for themselves and NOT the extent to which they fit into the present beauty paradigm it would be different. If women lived in a world where they were not expected to consider getting a man to be the most important thing ever, in which they were respected as human beings, in which they were able to put their feet flat on the ground as someone who does not have to apologise for being on the earth, in which their physical and mental integrity were honoured and their freedom unrestricted- then things would be different.
And it doesn’t have to be like this at all. It doesn’t fucking have to be like this.
stormy // February 11, 2007 at 3:41 pm |
Laurelin, following on from your comment (which I am sure you know anyway), that a woman leaving, or who has left an abusive partner, is the most dangerous time. I cannot recall the exact statistic, but I think it was something like half or two-thirds of the DV-homicides (of females) are when she is trying to leave, or has left the relationship.
stormy // February 11, 2007 at 5:14 pm |
Postscript:
I remember now, it is TWO THIRDS, because a woman is twice as likely to be killed leaving or trying to leave.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 11, 2007 at 5:15 pm |
Thanks Stormy, that’s scary!
RenegadeEvolution // February 11, 2007 at 5:51 pm |
Bea;
You are of course fully entitled to think and feel as you do, and if the logo upset you, I am sorry it upset you. However, you have the choice not to click links, I have the choice to use the logo i used, but neither of us is responsible for the others feelings. You see the image as pornographic, I do not, and it is likely will never agree on the matter, either way, here is not the place to debate it.
stormy // February 11, 2007 at 6:04 pm |
Sarah, I think I got the stat from my local DV officer (or police DV officer) at the time, but I could probably track down the ‘official’ stat from somewhere.
I recall writing to my local Head of CPS saying something to the effect of “why aren’t you taking this seriously, I am twice as likely to be killed post-separation…” when my ex- was smugly giving death threats (which I had recorded and given to police) and which were not treated seriously, even though he was court mandated to ‘keep the peace’. Add to that, that he had almost successfully murdered me about two years prior, I couldn’t get him out of my life, and I had evidence that he was planning to kill me…
well, let’s just say I was a little miffed!
As for Laurelin’s earlier comment about ‘people coming between vic an abuser’, it is usually voluntary agencies like Women’s Aid and Refuge. The police should be part of it, but it is very much a ‘postcode lottery’ as to the type of help you will receive from them.
Bea // February 11, 2007 at 6:25 pm |
RenegadeEvolution, you are not addressing the point I am making and your suggestion that I have a choice of what links I click on is tantamount to saying that I only have myself to blame if a link I click on leads to a page with pictures that are upsetting to me. In other words, you are not in the least bit responsible for the consequences of you linking to pornographic pictures from the comments section of a blog that is read by some women who rather wish they did not have to be exposed to pornography.
If you did not feel that this was the right place to ‘debate it’ then you would not have posted the three comments above.
Laurelin // February 11, 2007 at 7:17 pm |
What Bea said. A lot of women come to this blog who find pornographic imagery potentially very triggering, and it is my impression that Witchy keeps this site a safe space for survivors. A simple trigger warning would do the trick. We should always be aware of our audiences and the effects we may have upon them.
I’d like to put this issue in a more general framework for a minute, as regards blogging. The same with language: occasionally we may, whether intentionally or not, use phrases or logic that uphold patriarchal oppressive discourse. I believe the correct responce when alerted to it is to re-read what one has written
and think about the possible interpretation. Nine times out of ten it’ll be the case that what you *meant* was different from how your words could be *interpreted*, but it is one’s own responsibility to consider the effect of one’s words, and to be ready to be called on them at times.
Laurelin // February 11, 2007 at 7:18 pm |
I mean, one should always take into account the potential interpretations of one’s words.
Laurelin // February 11, 2007 at 7:19 pm |
Excuse the multiple posting, but I’ve got to apologise for the craptastic sentence structure and grammar in my last two comments.
I blame the patriarchy. Oh, and the lack of sleep. gah!
spottedele // February 11, 2007 at 7:45 pm |
Witchy:
“And when I say “all women” I mean ‘all women’. For me, divisions by race aren’t helpful. Men/patriarchy of whatever colour/creed/nationality succumb to the notion that they’re somehow ‘more than’ the women and children in this world.”
You’re right that men of all colors assume they’re more than women. But then, white people of both sexes assume they’re more than women and men of color. So my analysis is getting progressively more wrapped up in both misogyny and racism. I don’t know, I might be causing thread drift. Sorry.
stormy // February 11, 2007 at 7:48 pm |
“I mean, one should always take into account the potential interpretations of one’s words.”
Even with the best intentions, one’s words can be twisted into pretzels by those with less honourable intentions.
It’s a case of pissing off the wrong(/right?) people.
stormy // February 11, 2007 at 7:53 pm |
Spottedele
(As I incoherently tried to mutter above), it’s not really a case of racism trumps sexism, or sexism trumps race, it’s all part of the same power structure.
Probably that MOC are fooled into believing that they have a higher ‘rung’. Certainly they do than WOC for sure. But I think that white women played off against MOC (as to who has ‘2nd pegging’) is completely artificial, and fluid (as the wants [of the patriarchy] dictate).
womensspace // February 11, 2007 at 8:07 pm |
I don’t think the issue is what people “assume” about themselves or others. In other words, I don’t think it’s about men assuming they’re more than women or white people assuming they’re more than people of color.
I think we have to look carefully not at what people assume, but at what they are actually doing in the real world; in other words, who is doing what to whom? Who is earning more money than whom? Who is raping/beating/battering whom? Who is prostituting/pimping whom? And above all, who benefits from all of the above.
I don’t think oppression is about what people think about themselves or other people. I think it’s about what they do, what they participate in, and who benefits.
Heart
spottedele // February 11, 2007 at 8:28 pm |
Stormy-I think I’m being incoherent. Your point was clear-I hope we’re all past “trumping” as it’s unproductive. And I definitely don’t want to try to play white women off of men of color. I think what I’m trying to say is that racism needs to be considered alongside sexism.
I’m still muddling it. When witchy said she didn’t find it helpful to use divisions by race, I get what she means about women. But I think it’s really easy to be clear on some areas and acccidentally ignore other areas. Oh hell, I don’t even know what I’m trying to say at this point.
Heart-I think you might have said what I’ve been trying (so badly) to say. Actions and what you participate in matter, but I’ve found it horribly easy to be unaware of how *my* actions contribute to others’ oppression.
I’m going to stop commenting now as I feel I’m being nonsensical.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 11, 2007 at 8:46 pm |
SpottedEle, I don’t think you’re being nonsensical.
I think that for me as a white woman, issues of race are beyond my experience and I feel unable to comment properly. I haven’t lived it.
But racism and sexism are so woven into the fabric of who we are and how we live that it is so very very difficult to even see it some of the time.
I’m with Witchy (not that there are sides really here) in saying that “when I say “all women” I mean ‘all women’. For me, divisions by race aren’t helpful.” Simply because, for me, it’s hard enough to start thinking about the oppression and shit that I (and my Sisters) face every day, without adding another level to it.
I don’t disregard racism, I consider it (as you put it) all the time and try to address the issues with my kids alongside the sexist issues we see. But I only have so much time, energy and headspace. I also have only my own life experiences to draw on.
I’m pretty sure I’m waffling incoherently now. So, I’ll stop.
aradhanad // February 11, 2007 at 9:15 pm |
“when I say “all women” I mean ‘all women’. For me, divisions by race aren’t helpful.”
And that is primarily the whole problem… My race exists whether you think I have it or not. I can’t wipe it away at YOUR will. It’s there. When you claim we’re all women – you deny the social structures and barriers that exist against my RACE/ETHNICITY/RELIGION.
It’s like saying this: “when I say “all women” I mean ‘all women’. For me, divisions by Ablism aren’t helpful. divisions by class aren’t helpful. Divisions by language arne’t helpful”
I am a feminist – we need to step out of the box of retrograde white feminism of the 70s and move on and examine all the other ways things are happening. There exists a valuable body of literature to faciliate this ‘learning’.
I see this in MOST progressive circles that I am involved with — “Where are the WOC???”.
I will not write anymore here about this – I promise, I might have a hernia or blow a gasket and this is starting to take a toll on me, and I think I’m being viewed as an erratic/wild woman – and not being taken seriously. that’s fine.
aradhanad // February 11, 2007 at 9:16 pm |
You deny the fact that we exist and LIVE UNDER AN IMPERIALISM (eco/socio/political/cultural).
witchywoo // February 11, 2007 at 11:47 pm |
On the contrary aradhanad, I don’t think of you as an erratic or wild woman at all. Your comments have given me much food for thought so, thank you, I have some thinking to do.
dreamy5 // February 12, 2007 at 1:34 am |
Witchy…you know I’m not a rad feminist. I’m a liberal feminist. I’m also a former and sometimes member of PETA.
But I do no take offense at your words. I know you have room for all of us. I know you embrace my “sort” of feminism as well.
I think I’m less fierce than you. You see, I think those women who support and promote the patriarchy have a lot to answer for. I see it as a problem not aligned along gender lines. I know you do as well, but sometimes in a rad fem’s fierceness that can get lost (speaking generally her, hon).
I’m fierce in my own way. But it manifests differently.
My point is….I see what you’re saying. I am a liberal feminst. Before people take offense to your post, I encourage them to think about it.
I am a liberal feminist. You are a radical feminist. And we are sisters in a way blood cannot begin to approximate.
I am not sure I’ve made my point…..
Laurelin // February 12, 2007 at 2:05 am |
Dreamy is also my sister
dreamy5 // February 12, 2007 at 2:14 am |
Thank you, Laurelin….You’re solid gold.
RenegadeEvolution // February 12, 2007 at 5:46 am |
Bea:
I really don’t want to argue about this here. I’m not going to, other than to say you most certainly can see images of women that are far more pornographic than my logo on other feminist blogs, and often times (as a commenter on my blog) pointed out, those bloggers have no idea if the women whose photos they are posting were their willingly or not. Charliegrrl currently has numerous photos of lads mag covers up in her blog, Twisty has a close up of a womans vagina, and while they are against pornography, the images are still most certainly pornographic.
octogalore // February 12, 2007 at 6:16 am |
Bea and Laurelin – I think there’s more going on here than you’re saying. I don’t dispute that certain images can be triggering, as I can’t comment on something I haven’t experienced. Yet, as RE points out, many radfem blogs post these kinds of images, instead of linking to them out of sensitivity for what looking at them might do to the viewer, and they are also visible in mainstream magazines of many kinds. Even if the images are used for another purpose on the radfem sites, if they are triggering, then presumably they would be just as upsetting there. It’s hard to believe that a couple seconds viewing of the image on RE’s site, which can easily be then closed, could be problematic. I think your specific reaction here has more to do with your feelings about the beliefs of the site author, rather than the image itself.
To the extent that images can be triggering, I would think that appropriating and posting images of unknown women, whose true consent is similarly unknown, would be much less triggering than a picture of the site owner who stands behind it.
While I agree with Laurelin’s general point that one should always think about interpretations of the spoken work or posted image, I think it’s hypocritical to claim sensitivity about this particular one. If we’re self-analyzing, we should think about why we’re really upset about it, before throwing out accusations.
Bea // February 12, 2007 at 8:37 am |
RenegadeEvolution, I am addressing you and what you are doing. You have left comments here that link to your blog which is headed by a pornographic picture and some women will find it upsetting. I found the picture upsetting and I didn’t think it was fair that I didn’t have a choice of whether of not to see it because I assumed that people posting here do not link to porn.
If you, as you say, didn’t ‘want to argue about this here’, you would not continue posting messages about this.
Sophie // February 12, 2007 at 9:49 am |
Renegade Evolution: you have an adult-rated blog.
I’d think the option of using a ‘cover-page’ is only sensible – you don’t know who could click on your comment links. Pointless rating the blog then linking directly to it where anyone could be reading.
Link to a safe page – your profile, or another page containing the blog link plus warning.
This shouldn’t even be a question, considering that your blog is rated for adults only.
If only the rest of the internet would follow suit
Hi Witchy, I think this might be the delurking comment …
RenegadeEvolution // February 12, 2007 at 3:48 pm |
You’ll note I’ve removed the link, Bea. As I said, I did not intend to upset you.
Sophie, my blog contains no more or less adult material than any other blog out there, really. The language on many feminist blogs is no less colorful than my own, the imagery and content is equally graphic (for instance, the vagina close ups found at Twisty’s currently). Please consider that and advocating a warning for every last blog with adult content, language, and imagery before suggesting that *I* need to do it.
fannyblood // February 12, 2007 at 5:58 pm |
see that’s what happens with our pornified culture. even the pictures at twisty’s are being considered pornographic – which is utterly ludicrous?! that’s the whole point. the female body can not be shown in ANY form without someone thinking it’s there for porno consumption. ffs!
fannyblood // February 12, 2007 at 5:59 pm |
… even if it’s being shown for medical purposes?!?!? FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sam // February 12, 2007 at 6:35 pm |
Ren Ev’s “it’s not pornography if I say it isn’t” reasoning fails when you consider that she doesn’t call herself a model but a sex worker. She’s a sex worker, except for in that picture when she was only modeling, not sex workering.
‘Model’ is so 1980’s and doesn’t capture the “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money” pornsick approval meme nearly as well as “sex worker”. Have you ever read in progressive media anything about the noble liberal cause defending “model worker’s rights”? Me neither.
Sex worker when wanting sympathy and an automatic political aegis no model’s rights person would ever get, and just-a-model when trying to hide the obvious ‘worked sex’ in the pornography.
Also, “everyone else is doing it” has always been the weakest excuse for anything whether or not everyone is actually doing it or not, hence the infamous bridge jumped off by many proverbial friends with the implication that doing the same is the pinnacle of dumb.
Faith // February 12, 2007 at 7:44 pm |
“Also, “everyone else is doing it” has always been the weakest excuse for anything whether or not everyone is actually doing it or not, hence the infamous bridge jumped off by many proverbial friends with the implication that doing the same is the pinnacle of dumb.”
I believe you missed her point. By utilizing examples of other images of nude women used on other feminist blogs, she is not stating, “hey, they do it, so it must be ok!!”, she’s trying to say, “hey, they do it, why aren’t you judging them and telling them to “cover it up”?”
I understand the issues of triggering material. But I believe Ren has a very good point, anti-porn feminist blogs are loaded with pornographic images – blogs that I’m sure readers here read also – and not a single anti-porn feminist is complaining about those images.
If the issue is not wishing to be exposed to pornographic material due to causing possible upset, then said images should be just as upsetting when posted over at Charliegrrl as over at Ren’s.
Bea // February 12, 2007 at 8:28 pm |
RenegadeEvolution, yes, I notice that you have removed the link and I do appreciate the gesture.
Bea // February 12, 2007 at 8:35 pm |
Faith, it is not possible to deduce someone’s motives from a short comment. However, what this can be said with certainty: pointing at somebody elses behaviour when our own is in question has the effect of diverting attention away from ourselves.
The above discussion of Charlie’s blog is a case in point.
RenegadeEvolution // February 12, 2007 at 8:42 pm |
Bea: No problem on the link. And my main point with some of the images used in other blogs is they are there for shock factor and knowledge both, but…reposting them, those images, without the women’s consent, and without knowing if they were consenting in the first place, it that not in an of itself exploitive? I know I was consenting…
Sam, I am of the mind there is absolutely zero reason to even discuss this with you. Yes, I’m a sex worker. It’s my job. I rather like it. I’m not having sex in the photo. Yadda Yadda Yadda.
I’m not changing the logo, I guess that’s what it boils down too.
Faith // February 12, 2007 at 8:45 pm |
“However, what this can be said with certainty: pointing at somebody elses behaviour when our own is in question has the effect of diverting attention away from ourselves.”
Ok…but would you agree that all feminist blogs – particularly those who claim to be anti-porn – should be held to the same standard? As it currently stands, it seems that Ren is getting attacked because she participates in sex work and defends it to some degree, not just because she has a nude picture of herself on her blog.
If someone is going to complain about one feminist blog having pictures of nude women on it because they feel the images are upsetting and possibly triggering, then other feminist blogs should be held to the same standard, otherwise it just seems like a hypocritical and personal attack.
Sam // February 12, 2007 at 9:06 pm |
Faith, my opinion is that the pictures at Twisty’s and the one RenEv graciously removed are not the same in content or context. I don’t believe nudity = pornography and I do believe context is key.
Hustler’s January issue has a photo spread of post-operative designer vulvas presented as if they belonged in an issue of Martha Stewart Living and that didn’t sear through the feminist netiverse like news of the vulva plastic surgery website. I think there’s an augmented disgust for the pussy plastic surgery pseudo-medical language and presentation, while only a fool wouldn’t expect objectification fuckery from Hustler. Context matters.
A picture of a young woman photographed naked and bound by ropes is received differently depending on the accompanying caption identifying her as an eager cumslut pornslave, a young victim of sex trafficking, or a political dissident suffering state-sponsored torture.
The images in my head from when I was a pornography user are lodged in there tightly because they were reinforced with pleasurable sensations, but since doing anti-pornography activism I’ve seen many pornographic images that haven’t made such a messy nest in my skull. The only difference is context.
antiprincess // February 12, 2007 at 9:30 pm |
so – what’s RenEv’s context? does it matter what she herself thinks her context is, or does it matter more what others perceive her context to be?
(asking, not attacking. just asking.)
A picture of a young woman photographed naked and bound by ropes is received differently depending on the accompanying caption identifying her as an eager cumslut pornslave, a young victim of sex trafficking, or a political dissident suffering state-sponsored torture.
of course – however, what if the reality of the circumstances of the photograph bears no relation to any of the situations you suggest?
(again, just asking, not trying to start shit.)
Amber // February 12, 2007 at 9:45 pm |
RenEv’s header image is pornographic? Only if you think the female body is inherently shameful.
Bea // February 12, 2007 at 10:09 pm |
Faith, you acknowledge my point with ‘OK’, follow it with a ‘but’ and proceed with the exact behaviour I was pointing out: diverting attention. If you wish to discuss the inclusion of nude pictures on blogs as a general subject, by all means do so. I am quite certain that this is not the discussion I initiated and I’m happy with RenegadeEvolution’s response to me.
Faith // February 12, 2007 at 10:24 pm |
“If you wish to discuss the inclusion of nude pictures on blogs as a general subject, by all means do so.”
I thought that was essentially what I was doing and have done. I’m also not trying to start shit as Anti stated, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be me that is trying to divert attention. I asked a direct question that had absolutely nothing to do with diverting attention. It was an honest question of which I was hoping to get an honest response.
If pornographic material is triggering and upsetting to some feminists, should we or should we not expect all feminists to not place images of pornographic pictures on their blog? And how do we as feminists define pornographic?
If I post a picture of a naked woman posing as an Earth Goddess, would that be pornographic?
Sam // February 12, 2007 at 10:25 pm |
For the purposes of the thread, this is the context that matters:
Bea said, “Whenever I see pornography I feel fear and humiliation, and I feel as if I don’t have a right to be in this world.”
“I’m happy with RenegadeEvolution’s response to me.”
RenegadeEvolution // February 12, 2007 at 10:44 pm |
Sam-
The image I once upon a time had on another blog and removed? Yes, absolutely offensive to some no doubt and I had no problem removing it what so ever. I am not totally unreasonable. That image however is not the one in my logo. I had no problem ‘de-linking’, Bea made a reasonable request, no need not to be reasonable…
“Ren Ev’s “it’s not pornography if I say it isn’t” reasoning fails when you consider that she doesn’t call herself a model but a sex worker. She’s a sex worker, except for in that picture when she was only modeling, not sex workering.
‘Model’ is so 1980’s and doesn’t capture the “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money” pornsick approval meme nearly as well as “sex worker”. ”
And could you do me the small favor of not mocking me blatantly, misrepresenting me and all that good stuff in the third person like that? As for bi-seexxy, I am so straight it’s painful.
Sam // February 12, 2007 at 11:35 pm |
I was mocking the archetype of the ever-ready fuckbunny sex worker all pornstitution is predicated on. Same culprit, in the form of imitating pornography, causes straight women to make out with each other for men’s attention. Your sexual preferences don’t put a dent of give-a-fuck into the man-made edifice from which your money originates.
Faith // February 12, 2007 at 11:49 pm |
“ever-ready fuckbunny sex worker”
So if I were to state that I was a bi sex worker who would basically have sex with anything for money would you also feel that you were entitled to mock me? I’m struggling to figure out exactly when it became acceptable for feminists to mock any woman.
” Same culprit, in the form of imitating pornography, causes straight women to make out with each other for men’s attention.”
So now pornography also causes women to behave in manners which they ordinarily would not? How do you even know that the women of whom you speak have even seen porn? I’ve personally never equated experimenting with bisexuality – whether for their own personal enjoyment or for attention – with imitating porn.
Faith // February 13, 2007 at 12:01 am |
“Your sexual preferences don’t put a dent of give-a-fuck into the man-made edifice from which your money originates.”
And that was just completely out of line.
simplywondered // February 13, 2007 at 12:15 am |
blogwar for ms woo…sign here, please.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 13, 2007 at 12:17 am |
**hiding in my handy blogwar bunker**
Sam // February 13, 2007 at 12:59 am |
There’s blood in the water and I only have my birthday suit.
What part of blaming the “man-made edifice” mocks women?
Yes, pornography, like all media, influences people tremendously. Calling the simple truth of that into doubt makes me question the value of continuing to debate you here.
I like to color outside the lines.
mistermorgan // February 13, 2007 at 1:25 am |
Yeah dude, radical feminists are all like ‘we help women! we help women!’, but I once heard that one of them once said something nasty… to a woman! Astonishing but true.
So anyway, I guess we can discount the entire movement until we can figure out why it’s somehow ‘bad’ to post porn on a pro-porn blog, but not on an anti-porn blog in a post that specifically attacks the image it includes.
I for the life of me can’t imagine why, but then I’m a fucking moron. What’s more, I can’t recognise satire or even parody when it’s shoved violently in my face with a big label on it reading ‘THIS IS SATIRE’.
Oh, also: I’m not trying to start anything or upset anybody with this post. I’m just participating in discussion. Just wanted to abrogate any kind of critical response, you know?
RenegadeEvolution // February 13, 2007 at 1:27 am |
and apparently judge women by your cause and feelings towards an industry regardless of their status as individual human beings with their own personalities and feelings. In the name of the monolith, I am sure, and to hell with the humans in it.
Nice. I think I’ll go spit now. Bad taste in my mouth and all.
dreamy5 // February 13, 2007 at 1:47 am |
Renegade, I got a little lost. Are you responding to Sam?
Veronica // February 13, 2007 at 3:07 am |
Not, to bring things back to to the entry, but:
“As a radical feminist, I believe that sexual violence is currently the most popular expression of the power of patriarchal capitalism against humanity – and, yes, that includes men – in all its forms.”
Based on what, though?
I’m with AradhanaD on this one, and I’m honestly curious as to why you think that the threat of sexual violence is any more powerful or even more popular than the threat of extreme poverty, or the threat of physical violence? Particularly given that both the threat of poverty and physical violence is what causes a great deal of the actual sexual violence that occurs in this world?
Faith // February 13, 2007 at 4:49 am |
“Yes, pornography, like all media, influences people tremendously. Calling the simple truth of that into doubt makes me question the value of continuing to debate you here.”
I can’t recall stating that it didn’t. However, I still have a problem with you stating that women who experiment with bi-sexuality for attention are doing “because of the porn”. I mean, have you ever by any chance heard of this really radical thing called peer pressure? Do you think that perhaps that might have something more to do with women experimenting sexually than say, porn?
Faith // February 13, 2007 at 4:52 am |
“So anyway, I guess we can discount the entire movement until we can figure out why it’s somehow ‘bad’ to post porn on a pro-porn blog, but not on an anti-porn blog in a post that specifically attacks the image it includes.”
The argument made, Mr. Morgan, was that pornographic images are upsetting to certain feminists and that they wished to not view them under any circumstance. There has not been any discussion or accusations made by anyone that Ren’s image was offensive simply because she defended it.
Therefore, if feminists are going to state that they find pornographic images disturbing and possibly triggering, the images in and of themselves should be just as disturbing and likely to cause psychological harm on an anti-porn blog as on a sex workers blog.
But, damn, I guess I’m just a fucking moron who for the life of me can’t figure out what’s really going on here.
dreamy5 // February 13, 2007 at 5:27 am |
Ok….I agree that porn does women no favors at all and is indeed harmful. But the discussion begs the question: What constitutes porn? What happens when we cannot reach a consensus even among ourselves?
dreamy5 // February 13, 2007 at 6:11 am |
I have been pondering this question of what constitutes porn. Clearly some things are porn beyond question. Others are more iffy, as mentioned in previous posts.
Also at issue is the use of porn to make a point, strike a blow for women. What then? Sometimes porn will graphically portray the cultural ownership of women’s bodies in such a way as the message gets across.
Say we agree that’s ok (not saying that’s agreed on, just putting it out there). Then we get hit with “well you do it, we can too.”
No, no, no, no. This is an onion, this whole porn thing, with layers upon layers upon layers. It is not black and white (once you get beyond the obvious!).
The answers? I don’t have them. Who does? I need someone to figure this out for me because I can’t. You see, I find the female form beautiful. Is the unclothed female form pornography? Certainly nude photos are needed in medical matters at times. So…….
fannyblood // February 13, 2007 at 10:27 am |
the argument here is the same argument as the warped minds that compare women who are bathing topless on the beach to women who sell their bodies in pornography.
give us a goddam break FFS!
dreamy5 // February 13, 2007 at 10:40 am |
Please don’t think I’m advocating any position. I’m simply asking the question. What is pornography?
dreamy5 // February 13, 2007 at 10:42 am |
Perhaps, more to the point: Our inability to agree on what pornography is hobbles any real assault on it’s availability or acceptability.
mistermorgan // February 13, 2007 at 11:11 am |
Faith – that was not the argument made, but the argument that Ren and others extrapolated from Bea’s original comment, because it wouldn’t have been possible to mount a reasoned attack against what was clearly a personal remark about having suffered distress.
I think what Bea had a problem with, further to having taken offense at Ren’s header photo, was that rather than respond with understanding or sympathy, Ren immediately set about denying Bea her ‘right’ to be offended, citing both an ongoing debate over whether the header was in fact objectively pornographic, and Bea’s ‘choice’ to not have clicked on the link. Naturally, Bea responded that the potential interpretations of others weren’t relevant, because it was Bea herself who had already been offended. Ren continued to respond, not to Bea but to the rebuttals she might have made responding to counters to the argument Ren had extracted from Bea’s fairly innocuous comments.
Sam attempted to point out that Ren’s efforts to defend the image as erotica were a little dishonest, claiming that she variously identified herself as either ‘model’ or ’sex worker’ depending on which was most beneficial at the time. Unfortunately, his comment also contained a few rude words, so people got distracted and missed the main argument.
By that point, the entire ‘debate’ had collapsed into repeated claims that ‘you should attack all displays of nudity before claiming that one particular blog didn’t have the right to post a header of a nude woman’. Nobody was arguing Ren’s header was offensive only because she defended it, or that she had no right to post it. Not even Bea. The response to the counter-argument Ren mounted (against what she imagined was Bea’s argument) was that nudity posted with reckless abandon would probably be judged more harshly than nudity that was posted but then attacked in a context of opposition to pornography.
Whether an image is offensive or not is subjective – context and intent never have the final say, but I don’t really think that that was what Bea was getting at. The repeated attempts to re-characterise then attack her comments as a developed set of views about the interpretability of nudity in and out of context just made it look as if Ren would do anything to avoid having to apologise or take any responsibility for somebody’s interpretation of her work (as Laurelin suggested we all should do).
But anyway, forget about that for the moment. Bea and Ren seem to have patched things up. What you’re doing now is trying to make a case that Sam’s attacks on pornography also constitute a direct attack on women who work in the sex industry, and that porn’s influence is far less pervasive than he believes.
The attempt to argue that it was not the cultural influence of pornography but ‘peer pressure’ that caused women to experiment publicly with bisexuality was mind-numbing. Where do you suppose the peers got the idea? They plucked it out of thin air? Its myriad causes were too complex to trace?
‘Porn doesn’t cause rape – rapists do! Poverty doesn’t cause theft – committing theft does! ‘
You can’t cut the chain of causality short just because you’re a beneficiary or supporter of the ultimate cause.
Faith // February 13, 2007 at 1:48 pm |
“Faith – that was not the argument made, but the argument that Ren and others extrapolated from Bea’s original comment, because it wouldn’t have been possible to mount a reasoned attack against what was clearly a personal remark about having suffered distress.”
I don’t believe that this is entirely true. However, regardless of Bea’s original statements, the argument was then made that since pornographic images can be triggering, we should be respectful of this and provide a warning of some sort, “What Bea said. A lot of women come to this blog who find pornographic imagery potentially very triggering, and it is my impression that Witchy keeps this site a safe space for survivors. A simple trigger warning would do the trick. We should always be aware of our audiences and the effects we may have upon them. ”
Then I asked the question of whether or not it would be logical for all feminists blogs to not display porn due to the possibility of triggering survivors or causing other psychological harm. To which Bea replied that I was diverting attention when I was asking a direct question. She then stated this, ” If you wish to discuss the inclusion of nude pictures on blogs as a general subject, by all means do so.” That is the discussion I have tried to initiate several times, yet not a soul here seems to wish to address that concern.
“Sam attempted to point out that Ren’s efforts to defend the image as erotica were a little dishonest, claiming that she variously identified herself as either ‘model’ or ’sex worker’ depending on which was most beneficial at the time. Unfortunately, his comment also contained a few rude words, so people got distracted and missed the main argument.”
The comment was more than just a little rude. It was something I would expect to come spewing out of the mouth of an MRA. Regardless of anyone’s feelings of sex work, feminists have no more of a right to insult sex workers than anyone else. I was actually under the apparently mistaken impression that Sam was a woman (short for “sam” or something). If he’s a man, then the insults are even worse as it’s bad enough we have to deal with women who claim to be feminists insulting women, we certainly shouldn’t have to deal with men coming onto a feminist blog and insulting women.
“The attempt to argue that it was not the cultural influence of pornography but ‘peer pressure’ that caused women to experiment publicly with bisexuality was mind-numbing. Where do you suppose the peers got the idea? They plucked it out of thin air? Its myriad causes were too complex to trace?”
Believe it or not, Mr. Morgan, many of us womenfolk and even menfolk have minds and imaginations all of our own and have participated in activity that many people believe would only occur in porn without having seen the first bit of porn.
“You can’t cut the chain of causality short just because you’re a beneficiary or supporter of the ultimate cause.”
Veronica supports poverty? Oh, porn causes rape. Has it occurred to you that possibly men who rape were already unbalanced before they were exposed to porn? Has it also occurred to you that not all men who rape have ever even seen porn? I’m not an expert in the matter, but I’m doubting that men in most destitute African countries in which rape is ridiculously prevalent have ever seen the first bit of porn. The porn certainly isn’t helping in many cases, but it isn’t the root cause of rape.
Faith // February 13, 2007 at 1:49 pm |
“I was actually under the apparently mistaken impression that Sam was a woman (short for “sam” or something).”
Make that Samantha.
antiprincess // February 13, 2007 at 2:50 pm |
I seem to have missed this somewhere – but hell, when have I ever been afraid of looking stupid on the internet? point me to the answer if it’s upthread or elsewhere:
what precisely about the image was pornographic and therefore offensive?
was it the on-her-back-ness? was it the boots? was it the skin? was it some combination of those factors?
RenegadeEvolution // February 13, 2007 at 5:51 pm |
“I don’t believe that this is entirely true. However, regardless of Bea’s original statements, the argument was then made that since pornographic images can be triggering, we should be respectful of this and provide a warning of some sort, “What Bea said. A lot of women come to this blog who find pornographic imagery potentially very triggering, and it is my impression that Witchy keeps this site a safe space for survivors. A simple trigger warning would do the trick. We should always be aware of our audiences and the effects we may have upon them. ”
Correct. That was my point.
“Sam attempted to point out that Ren’s efforts to defend the image as erotica were a little dishonest, claiming that she variously identified herself as either ‘model’ or ’sex worker’ depending on which was most beneficial at the time. Unfortunately, his comment also contained a few rude words, so people got distracted and missed the main argument.”
No, Sam went ahead and applied her views of the marketed image of women in porn to me as a person. If one bothers to read Ren’s full Bio, it says this: “Occupation: Stripper/Fetish-Nude Model/Sex Worker Type”, I never denied being both, a nude model or a sex worker. I still happen to be an individual person.
“of nudity in and out of context just made it look as if Ren would do anything to avoid having to apologise or take any responsibility for somebody’s interpretation of her work”
Incorrect. I stated early on I did not intend to offend Bea and removed the offending link. I still think my question (willing, consenting nudity, ect. of ones own body vs. nudity used in an anti argument where consent and the identity of the nude people is unknown) is a valid one. It all goes back to both collections of imagery may be triggering. The original complaint, that women should be safe from clicking on links and seeing upsetting images…obviously, my link had an offending image, I removed the link, responsibility taken. That does not mean I cannot, after my content was questioned, then question content myself. Other clickable feminist links also lead to offending images. Does the responsibility to see that clicking links does not lead to such things fall solely on me and my offending images, or should it be applied to all who post offending images? In short, once it was made know other blogs host nude/erotic/pornographic images why was I continually being singled out, especially when it is known I consented and the same cannot be said of other images? Is there a double standard based on pro vs. anti?
Amber // February 13, 2007 at 7:18 pm |
Well said, Veronica!
Amber // February 13, 2007 at 7:32 pm |
I can’t seem to hold back the snark, so I’ll answer your question with another question: is water wet?
Sam // February 13, 2007 at 7:42 pm |
“Sam went ahead and applied her views of the marketed image of women in porn to me as a person.”
or maybe it was really
“Sam went ahead and applied her views of the marketed image of women in porn to my professional sex worker persona.”
I also went ahead and applied my views of the marketed image of women in modeling to your professional model persona when I asked, “Have you ever read in progressive media anything about the noble liberal cause defending “model worker’s rights”?
When I’m ready to insult a person instead of the mad-made construct of eternally wet, omnisexual prostituted feminity there will be no mistaking it.
RenegadeEvolution // February 13, 2007 at 7:50 pm |
Great then Sam…you know, who I am on my blog is who I am. Just the way it is. You really don’t get to define it, really, sexworker/model/human…and since we’re all SO concerned with the way sex workers are treated and their rights and how some things, words or images might offend people…maybe you should consider doing what I’ve been asked to consider doing. Fair is fair and all.
mistermorgan // February 14, 2007 at 4:50 am |
Ack, sorry Sam – thought you were a man.
mistermorgan // February 14, 2007 at 5:09 am |
So let me get this straight -
Bea’s reaction to Ren’s header pic leads immediately to massive debate about definitions of pornography, but Faith’s and Ren’s reactions to Sam’s remarks are untouchable and objectively reasonable.
Did you consider that maybe you just failed to exercise your choice not to read what Sam wrote? Or that there are plenty of people wouldn’t have found it offensive? Maybe you should go and attack all the other offensive blog comments on the internet before you attack Sam’s. I do concede Ren apologised to Bea though. Eventually. With qualifications. But yes, she sort of did apologise, in a broad sense. Wasn’t that the source of angst here, more than the disagreement between pro and anti?
And yes, of course there’s a double standard between pro and anti. Tell me, which of these remarks of more offensive:
1) “It’s niggers that are the major cause of crime in this country, and the sooner we get rid of them all, the better”
or
2) The idea that, and I quote “It’s niggers that are the major cause of crime in this country”, is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to race hate in our nation.
I’m sure you’d find the first statement attacked a little more often, but it’s not fair to call that a ‘double standard’.
RenegadeEvolution // February 14, 2007 at 6:41 am |
Mr.Morgan:
Oh, forget it, not worth the damn effort.
CoolAunt // February 14, 2007 at 7:23 am |
AradhanaD posted this:
“I also firmly believe ‘feminisms’ overlap and that we learn from various perspectives. I am sick of the ‘contest’ between feminists too – i.e. we’re so much better than you.
I also believe ‘labelling’ yourself is important – as much as people would like to claim “AD – you’re a rad fem” I’m not – as I find it too problematic, but that does not mean I haven’t learned from it. How we name ourselves is deliberate, likewise we call ourselves feminists not just for the ’sake’ of it – but because it means something.
I try my best to ‘connect the dots’ so to speak when discussing things as I believe they are interconnected. Therefore – simply stating the oft repeated statement ‘this happened because it’s misogyny at work’ is very limiting to me – we as women are not all the same – and there are many factors that divide us class/ableism/race/ empire etc…
In order to move forward we really need to expand our frame of reference to other issues that connect with ‘radical feminism’.”
That post really pisses me off because I wish I’d posted it first. That’s exactly how I feel, AradhanaD. We are all different, from different places, races and classes. Our experiences and perspectives will therefore differ some. As women, there’ll also be similarities. And they’re all worthwhile and important, just as we are. But you said that better, in my opinion, and I thank you for it.
mistermorgan // February 14, 2007 at 7:30 am |
Indeed.
Hey I have an idea! Why don’t you blog about it? You’ll find that in your own space, you’ll tend only to get replies from people who agree with you already.
It’s a luxury Witchy just doesn’t have.
RenegadeEvolution // February 14, 2007 at 8:22 am |
Witchy can ask me to leave any time she wants, she knows that.
RenegadeEvolution // February 14, 2007 at 8:23 am |
oh, and if you think I only get replies from people who agree with me, you are sadly mistaken.
stormy // February 14, 2007 at 12:20 pm |
Just to back track a defence of further up the chain (sorry, haven’t had time to check this thread) — which was about anti-porn activists posting porn on their site.
I cannot think of any (of my regularly visited blogs), apart from two, that have porn on display and without trigger warnings. One is Twisty’s, the other is Charlie’s.
I cannot recall Twisty posting such material before, but I could be wrong. Charlie’s blog frequently has disturbing pornographic images, however, these are usually from the covers of the UK Lads’ Mags, which are legal to be sold to children of any age, and not legally-enforced to be sensitively displayed — in fact, these mags (hence same pictures) are on prominently on display in 98% of shops that sell magazines.
Which is kind of the point we protest against them (one of the reasons anyway) that porn is forced upon us just for a simple retail excursion, to a local supermarket, newsagent, or corner store.
As for the defunct stormyblog, sorry to disappoint, but no porn pictures there, and anything of a sensitive nature had a trigger warning of some sort.
I guess I’m just pissed off when people use the minority cases as “they are all doing it” when they are not. That is twisting reality and distorting facts, quite a common activity from the porn apologists.
Laurelin // February 14, 2007 at 12:34 pm |
Exactly, Stormy.
Personally, I always put up a trigger warning if I’m going to post something which I think might be triggering. It’s common courtesy which costs nothing.
And if someone tells me that something on my site has triggered them, you can bet your ass I’ll listen to them. My defensiveness can wait in such circumstances!
Liz // February 14, 2007 at 1:16 pm |
I have to agree with Stormy because Charlie’s site is an activism site against Lads Mags which are definitely not regulated in the UK and you can find them pretty much anywhere. Whereas porn that is considered porn is *normally* on the top shelf or in sex shops where it is meant to be.
Charlie’s site is self explanatory – yes the images may be triggering but the title of her site and her posts show what the site is about. In the UK, any woman who walks into a newsagents, WHSmiths, supermarket or whatever is confronted with triggering images which is what Charlie and many feminists are fighting against. I’m sure Charlie would listen to someone who said that the images she puts on her site are triggering.
I do find the image on your banner to be possibly triggering, RenEv, and although you have ensured it hasn’t harmed anyone in the production of the pic (as its yourself by a woman photographer), it may very well be triggering for some people. Perhaps, as someone above suggested, if you link somewhere, maybe ensure you link to your profile first rather than the site with the banner?
Faith // February 14, 2007 at 3:56 pm |
“I guess I’m just pissed off when people use the minority cases as “they are all doing it” when they are not. That is twisting reality and distorting facts, quite a common activity from the porn apologists.”
Stormy,
I can’t recall myself or anyone stating that everyone does it. I’d appreciate you pointing out where that occurred. Again, I asked a simple question of which I wanted an honest response. I can’t recall twisting anyone’s facts or reality.
“Bea’s reaction to Ren’s header pic leads immediately to massive debate about definitions of pornography, but Faith’s and Ren’s reactions to Sam’s remarks are untouchable and objectively reasonable.”
My only objection was to the rudeness of the statements and the insults contained within. And exactly how and when has anyone stated that our words are untouchable?
“Charlie’s site is self explanatory – yes the images may be triggering but the title of her site and her posts show what the site is about.”
Yes, and if the images are triggering shouldn’t they contain a warning, especially since you just told Ren that she should use a warning? Silly me, I’m just still having trouble seeing people argue that Ren should put up a warning for her one teeny little picture and not arguing that anti-porn activists should do the same.
jo22 // February 14, 2007 at 6:02 pm |
What are you lot on about?
RenegadeEvolution // February 14, 2007 at 7:14 pm |
I’ve applogized (and do so again) to anyone who found/finds my logo offensive.
I’ve removed the link from my log in here.
I will say here, and have elsewhere, that if you find images of semi nude women or men possibly triggering or offensive, you will find such things on my blog.
However, I am not removing my consentingly made. freely produced, never used for profit, all woman created logo from my blog.
Liz // February 14, 2007 at 7:25 pm |
I don’t really know, I’ve been a bit confused by it myself. Bea objected to a link put up by RenEv as her website has a potentially triggering image at the top, so RenEv removed the link, so all seems to be okay, but I dunno.
I’m just defending Charlie’s website as it’s meant to be self explanatory, being anti porn and all. Charlie does tend to warn readers of triggering pictures that she has in her posts as she normally has ‘read more’ links on her posts and she has once or twice warned of triggering content.
Okay, maybe Charlie could do with a trigger warning on the front of her site or whatever but I think people are smart enough to know what her site will contain (Blog of Feminist Activism Against Porn).
I didn’t ‘tell’ RenEv to have a warning on her site, it’s just a friendly suggestion. She can do what she wants, I’m not picking a fight. I’m not ‘condemning’ anyone, so no need to be so defensive.
Anyway, sorry Witchy, this is so totally past the whole point of your post. I don’t think I’ll post about this again!
Faith // February 14, 2007 at 8:17 pm |
“I didn’t ‘tell’ RenEv to have a warning on her site, it’s just a friendly suggestion. She can do what she wants, I’m not picking a fight. I’m not ‘condemning’ anyone, so no need to be so defensive.”
Sorry, that was a poor choice of words. I know you weren’t actually trying to tell her what to do. I was in a hurry when I wrote that comment this morning.
“Okay, maybe Charlie could do with a trigger warning on the front of her site or whatever but I think people are smart enough to know what her site will contain (Blog of Feminist Activism Against Porn).”
It just seems odd that anti-porn sites have porn on them to me. I believe that it is possible to blog about being against pornography without posting pics. At the very least, they could be blurred or something. Personally, I don’t really have any objections to the images on the anti-porn sites. I was just questioning what appeared to be hypocrisy when people were fussing about Ren having one little image of herself and stating that it could be triggering while defending much more graphic images on other sites just because the site was anti-porn.
And I don’t really have anything else to add either. I can’t see anything else constructive coming from this discussion.
Bea // February 14, 2007 at 8:19 pm |
Faith, you have the perfect opportunity to here and now point out the exact nature of rudeness and insults contained within my comments. I challenge you.
Faith // February 14, 2007 at 8:41 pm |
“Faith, you have the perfect opportunity to here and now point out the exact nature of rudeness and insults contained within my comments. I challenge you.”
I never said anything at all about any of your comments being rude and insulting. I was talking about Sam’s comments.
“but Faith’s and Ren’s reactions to Sam’s remarks are untouchable and objectively reasonable.”
My only objection was to the rudeness of the statements and the insults contained within. And exactly how and when has anyone stated that our words are untouchable? “
Amber // February 14, 2007 at 9:39 pm |
Okay, I posted this at RE’s, but after some deliberation, I’ve decided to post it here, too, because I’m curious to hear an answer…
—
Now, I’m sure others’ experiences differ from mine; but I’m also pretty certain that my experience isn’t all that unusual. For me, if I see a picture that I find disturbing and/or triggering, the context DOES NOT MATTER. Because the context is not what’s pushing my buttons – it’s the picture. One of the best examples of this is lefty, anti-war blogs that post lots of graphic photos of wounded people, limbless children, bloody body parts… etc… you know, all to make a point about the horrors of war. But when I see that picture, my immediate gut reaction is to the PICTURE; I am not reading the words. And the words cease to matter. All I know at that point is that I want that image out of my head; and I get away from it as quickly as possible.
And, sure, it probably would be a good idea for these blog owners to post warnings, and put the pictures below the cut or something… especially when they hit a certain number of readers… but, ultimately, it’s their decision, and I can choose not to visit their blog. Or, if I want to read their content but not see the pictures, I can disable images (Firefox lets you do this, as do some other browsers) or read it via text-only RSS.
—
I would be interested to hear others’ thoughts on this.
stormy // February 14, 2007 at 10:06 pm |
Faith, recent insinuations [my emphasis], from upthread:
The examples given (and the only radfem sites that I know of doing it anyway) are referred to, in essence, ‘as an example of the [many] doing it’, when in fact, they are the exceptions, not the rule.
But to set the record straight, on one of the above comments that was designed to discredit radfems:
“have no idea if the women whose photos they are posting were their willingly or not”
Of the two blogs cited above, Charlie’s site uses the images from mainstream (albeit misogynist mainstream) publications, whereby in the (presumed) majority of cases the young women have been paid, and the remainder have given their ‘consent’. I highlight ‘consent’, because it is usually coercion (either of societal mumbo jumbo that stripping off is *empowering*) or coercion that “you will get into ‘glamour modelling’ by doing this”. The fact that the YW’s consent is obtained from hearing a pack of lies and manipulation, is dubious consent.
As for the photos on Twisty’s blog, they have come from a site that is (supposed to be) a medical site. I am not sure of the US regulations, but elsewhere if a medical establishment/publication was using pictures of a patient, then permission would have to be sought. Also, the photos on Twisty’s blog are theoretically medical, not classified pornographic (as in the pose/context is one that is not designed for arousal).
Whilst I’m at it, I may as well debunk the other inaccuracy, “close up of a womans [sic] vagina”, the language of which is designed to make the photographs sound more ‘graphic’ than they are. As anyone who is a woman knows that the vagina is the muscular (internal) canal. The pictures are not even of the vulva (outer genitalia) but of the pubic bone region, mons pubis or mons veneris.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5951
Just to spell it out, it was the insinuation that [many] radfems were willy nilly posting up pictures of porn, with no idea of source. This is untrue.
But then, I am sure if I visit RE’s blog, I will most likely find further distortions, in threads designed to become rad-bashings. Her favourite putdown seems to be that radfems are hypocritical. And sigh, I guess this comment too will be taken to RE’s blog for a bitchfest?
Amber // February 14, 2007 at 11:34 pm |
Bitchfest. Hmmm. Nice word coming from a feminist.
shannon // February 15, 2007 at 12:40 am |
RE may not have intended to offend, but why don’t we all try to have warnings on non work safe material? The issue of those triggered by porn is important, but also a lot of people surf at work or at the library or when their parents are in the room, and often I don’t want my mom to look at my screen the wrong way and see nudity, no matter how artful.
The issue of state sponsered violence should be raised in some manner. Also, let’s try to keep our arguments to the substansive parts. Explain, Amber, why we’re not allowed to say b*tchfest?
finnbee // February 15, 2007 at 1:07 am |
You know Stormy has some very good points in her comment. For example, the difference between medical images and what is classed as pornography…which leads me to a different direction regarding …just *who* in fact does regard female nakedness as pornographic.
Something I believe has been broached before by our host and Violet socks.
Anyway, these have been ignored by the comment “bitchfest – nice word coming from a feminist”
Once again deflecting the essence of what was said.
RenegadeEvolution // February 15, 2007 at 7:21 am |
SC: Actually, the majority of disucssion on this issue over at my place has been not so different than what is here…what is pornographic? offensive? when is it okay to use those images? so on so forth. Some of the comments have been…colorful…but people say what they want. Oh, a list RosaRose dug up re: images on blogs…aside from charlie & twisty…
http://www.feminish.net/2006/11/15/womens-gaze-on-women-the-work-of-lauren-greenfield/
http://sparklematrix.wordpress.com/2006/12/22/zoo-win-a-boob-job-for-your-girlfriend-update/
http://touchinglynaive.blogspot.com/2007/01/boobalicious.html
You know, I have no more problem with these bloggers using images to illustrate their points any more than I have a problem with me using images to do the same. My problem is, while several bloggers are doing it, it is the non anti-porn blogger who is singled out for using her own damn image. That’s my issue, and not mine alone.
And no, SC, your comment is safe from a bitchfest at my place.
Bea // February 15, 2007 at 8:57 am |
Faith, I have re-read your comment and it is quite clear that it is not me you are referring to. I think my own expectation about the sort of things you might say stopped me from reading your comment properly in the first instance.
stormy // February 15, 2007 at 9:33 am |
“Explain, Amber, why we’re not allowed to say b*tchfest?”
Because it is fine and dandy for one of their number to be called Bitchlab (now Queerdude or something like that), but we must ensure that double standards are applied to ALL radfems.
Besides, they have already denounced me as the most destructive force known to feminism (probably the Free World as well?). So I shrug.
‘Having a bitchfest’ is also quite a bit different from calling someone (woman particularly) “a bitch”. But hey, lets chuck a few insinuations around and see if any stick?!
stormy // February 15, 2007 at 12:14 pm |
[RE's comment has obviously come out of the moderation queue since I posted my last]
Took you a while (to find the links), RE.
At least it kept you busy for a while.
And no, there is no-one immune from your venom unless they ’side’ with you (or at least maintain a ‘fencesitting’ position). So, you are behaving as expected RE, certainly no surprises. Yet ‘dare a rad’ cast the slightest aspersion in your direction, and you are justified, vindicated, etc. And so it continues.
Give it up.
I asked for a truce between pro- and anti-porn, and all I got was an entire thread of rad bashing, plus a few personal-blog bashings as well for good measure. It is rather obvious that you desire no peace, and seek only to disrupt the radfem blogosphere.
Citing recent response to (my) “wrong tree, stop barking”, which is shortblog for well known expression “barking up the wrong tree”, from RE we get:
“One, lady, I am not a dog”
“No, I need no notebook, you elitist charmer you, and as I said, until asked by whomever not to speak, you don’t get to tell me not to. Its that easy. Now, why don’t you go choke on your superiority and bullshit for a while, lady.”
And the comments from the regulars, including former radfems, well, charming.
I think the term ‘bitchfest’ was a particularly apt word to describe the goings on, despite how they behave on other blogs, which is usually far more polite, and the playing the continual ‘hard done by victim’ stance. I’m a hardened old crone, think I can see through that BS by now.
But, despite what they say about me, they say similar about Heart, Twisty, Ginmar, and most of the prominent radfem bloggers. All this and more from the ‘feminist’ who “cares for women more [than those nasty evil radfems]“. Bah!
ps, you may wish to defend your use of ‘vagina’ about now. You see, if you were truly ignorant of what a vagina was, I would be cruel by pointing it out. However, it is assumed that, as a feminist, you know full well what a vagina is, and were just using it for ’shock’ tactics and distortion of truths (again). I called you on it (because I know it is the latter).
I really, really, cannot be bother engaging you any further RE. I could debunk until ‘the cows come home’, but that would really be a lifetime’s work. [and no, I am NOT calling you a cow, that again is a very famous expression and I'm damned sure you know it.]
Amber // February 15, 2007 at 12:57 pm |
FFS I didn’t say no one’s allowed to say “bitchfest.” It just seems rather… counter-productive and dismissive. You know, the way some MRAs and other men patronize women when we have a legitimate grievance… basically, “Oh, you hysterical women, you are so silly…”
Calling oneself a certain name is a different thing entirely, because it involves the important process of reclaiming and taking a small step toward disarming those who use certain words against us.
If everyone would like to continue belaboring this point, have at it. I see no one has yet addressed my question/concern re: triggering material and context. I wish I could say I was surprised by that.
Carry on then.
RenegadeEvolution // February 15, 2007 at 5:11 pm |
SC:
Actually, yes, my comment was in moderation for awhile, and Rosarose found the links.
I also suppose it is okay for the anti side to attack people, which you did, I might add, and the pro side not to respond. Similar rules to nude images, I see. And stop accusing everyone under the sun for playing a victim role when you do it just fine yourself. You called for a truce with consessions that included the deletion of another womans entire blog, people found that unreasonable. I get along fine with people who are willing to admit that there are somethings people are just going to agree to disagree on. You cannot do that. My first response here had nothing to do with any of that, but it contained the now removed link. I did not change the subject on this thread, I removed the requested link. A lot of what some of you seem to want from me you are not going to get. Now, I will be more than happy to go back to pretending you do not exist if you can refrain from taking every available opportunity to take a shot at me. How are those for terms?
shannon // February 15, 2007 at 8:09 pm |
So amber, how is your behavior of complaining that someone said bitchfest productive? Does it strengthen relationships, does it help any women be freer? I try not to sound too grumpy, but my temper is very hot. What I’m trying to mean is that maybe you come off as a little bit nitpicky, a little too eager to say someone else is not productive. I’m sure you probably don’t mean it that way, but that’s how it comes off to me.
Also, maybe we all have different opinions of what is productive. I don’t mind if someone says that someone is doing a bitchfest if they are being honest, because sometimes you gotta say stuff so people will catch themselves and say oooh instead of phrasing it so that people have no idea what you are talking about.
Amber // February 15, 2007 at 8:34 pm |
I’ve already posted my explanation of what I meant by my “bitchfest” comment. I am waiting now with bated breath for an answer re: my question about potentially triggering material and context.
stormy // February 15, 2007 at 10:29 pm |
The site in question was “I shame the Matriarchy”, which on the few occasions I saw it, it’s SOLE purpose seemed to be for radfem bashing.
I am sure that I am not the only one who gained that impression of the site (especially given the title). I did not, on those visits, see evidence of ‘general feminism’. It was with that impression, that I asked for it to be abandoned.
Why would a (general) feminist blog have a title like that? Feminists don’t generally refer to “the Matriarchy” in that context, and shaming? That is the turf of the MRAs, it really does sound like an MRA site.
A site such as that (or at least the impression it gives visitors), plays into the hands of the anti-feminists, who really don’t care what type of feminism is under attack. It works against ALL feminists (including the porn-apologists).
I really cannot see that the title makes any sense for a ‘general feminist’ blog. Perhaps if it didn’t have so much radfem bashing, the impression would be different?
So, I don’t really understand it. Please type slowly so that I can understand.
I am happy to open dialogue with AP directly (but privately). It surprises me that it is she behind it, being the closest to sensible on the pro-porn side.
shannon // February 15, 2007 at 11:11 pm |
I’ve never gotten the matriarchy thing either. The reason why I side with the rad fems often is because they seem more well..c0herent. Apparently the patriarchy doesn’t exist, but somehow we are trying to create a matriarchy to oppress all women? And intemperate blog titles and saying bitchfest is apparently really horrible and sets back the cause, but industries full of a lack of condom use(porn), gang rape(prostitution) and people touching the strippers are apparently not that bad and don’t set back the cause?
I apologize for ranting on other people’s blogs, but I feel better.
Faith // February 16, 2007 at 12:15 am |
“Why would a (general) feminist blog have a title like that? Feminists don’t generally refer to “the Matriarchy” in that context, and shaming? That is the turf of the MRAs, it really does sound like an MRA site.”
I can’t speak for Anti, but I always perceived the title to be something of a light-hearted crack on herself, not feminism. Regardless, I can’t see that it’s appropriate to suggest that anyone shut down their blog. I’d like to tell some MRA’s and conservatives to shut down their site but I recognize that it isn’t my place to do so.
stormy // February 16, 2007 at 12:28 pm |
The ‘ironic’ defence again?
Surely you can do better than that.
Amber // February 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm |
AP has explained the meaning of “I Shame the Matriarchy” before. Guess y’all didn’t see that.
Regardless of what you think of the title, the content, whatever – none of it gives anyone a right to tell another person that they should abandon their blog.
Faith // February 16, 2007 at 1:48 pm |
“The ‘ironic’ defence again?
Surely you can do better than that.”
You just can’t help it can you. In case you are unaware of who I am, I run the Broken Dreams blog, the WallofShame blog (wallofshame.wordpress.com), the Pussyfightsback blog (pussyfightsback.wordpress.com) and I was in on the Britney anti-porn googlebomb. But I’m sure none of that will matter to you. I’m sure that in your head I’m just an evil wasp out to destroy the rad. fems.
Sad.
Faith // February 16, 2007 at 2:09 pm |
Oh, and I also defended Bea’s use of the DMDR slogan and made three posts about that debate on my blog. But I’m clearly just trying to discredit Rad. Fems.
antiprincess // February 16, 2007 at 3:01 pm |
Stormcloud – you could have just asked me, any old time, any old way – “hey, what’s up with your title?” or “wow, your blog seems really hostile to radical feminists. what’s up with that?”
I’m a little distressed that you felt like you couldn’t come to me, like I’m somehow unapproachable or unreachable. I’d like to fix that.
on the other hand, you could have dropped by this thread here:
http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2007/01/yall-may-have-noticed-i-havent-done.html
or this thread here: http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-admire-ginmar-there-i-said-it.html
or this thread here: http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2006/12/if-you-wandered-in-here-on-oblique-and.html
and we could have hashed it out. There has been no shortage of opportunities to address it right there on my blog, or even via email if you wanted.
what modifications to your behavior were you willing to make, if I had made modifications to mine? If I had taken down my blog, what were you willing to do to keep to the terms of the “cease fire”?
as it is, I rarely comment anymore anywhere. (not never, but rarely.) I have been making an effort to avoid controversial topics and inflammatory language. I’ve been trying to broaden my content and, as the slogan goes, increase the peace, insofar as I understand how to do that. It’s a process, and though I’m sure I’m not really there yet (I can think of a dozen ways in which I’ve failed this week alone), I think I’m at least making some small progress.
But I get the sense that’s not quite satisfying to you.
Amber // February 16, 2007 at 3:55 pm |
It’s just pathetic at this point. That dichotomy doesn’t exist. None of the “wasps” (*sigh*) have ever said any such thing, and it’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest so. I mean, out-of-left-field, what’s-your-planet-like ridiculous.
Anyway, I’m still wondering about triggering material and whether context matters. It’s a good thing I haven’t been holding my breath waiting for an answer here.
shannon // February 16, 2007 at 5:50 pm |
You have said up thread that saying bitchfest is ‘unproductive’ which is a good way of trying to shut down discussion, you have whined that dead men don’t rape is ‘hate speech against men’ This sort of bullshit and dodging is why I have no respect for you as a person, let alone as a feminist. Why should I try to answer your question when I can not trust you to be honest?
If you have nothing useful to say, I don’t want to say you should shut up, but maybe you should take a cooling off period from feminism. If you can’t remember how your own statements may have contributed to people having a bad opinion of so called wasps, maybe you need some time to think about it?
Faith // February 16, 2007 at 7:13 pm |
“This sort of bullshit and dodging is why I have no respect for you as a person, let alone as a feminist. Why should I try to answer your question when I can not trust you to be honest?
If you have nothing useful to say, I don’t want to say you should shut up, but maybe you should take a cooling off period from feminism. If you can’t remember how your own statements may have contributed to people having a bad opinion of so called wasps, maybe you need some time to think about it?”
Yet it’s only the “pro-pornies” who are guilty of poor behavior.
Good Gravy.
antiprincess // February 16, 2007 at 8:55 pm |
stormcloud (or anyone else) – my email is:
laurelresources AT yahoo DOT com
if you’d rather take it more private.
Phemisaurus Terribilis // February 16, 2007 at 9:01 pm |
Yeah, get a room or something.
stormy // February 16, 2007 at 10:01 pm |
Thank you AP.
I will have a look at those threads, I had not seen them, as it is not a blog I go to often. I have even cut down on my regular blogs.
Why I am so hostile, is that I left a message on the OpWasp blog that I would explain my request/views in more detail (primarily in language that was not personally attacking to you AP), however, within days there were comments (mainly RE/BD) denouncing me as [paraphrasing] “the most unreasonable bitch to walk the face of the earth”, and also for no particular reason, attacking other radfems as well. 30-40 comments worth.
Hardly fair and reasonable treatment when I said, “gimme a few days”, was it? And again upthread, RE doing same.
Because I was wholly sincere at the truce request. It became obvious that the likes of RE and BD had no interest in a truce, and had more interest in ‘fanning the flames’. So I gave up, and didn’t bother to leave the explanation on that thread.
So I ask the pro-pornies again, are you interested in a truce or not?
RenegadeEvolution // February 16, 2007 at 11:06 pm |
SC: I did not say any such thing over there…whislt getting liberally attacked by Liberal Dood myself I said this regarding your truce:
“Stormy- You felt as if all this silenced you, yet you want AP to get rid of her blog, which would be silencing her? You don’t have to like what AP says, no one does, but she does get to say it.
Also, I’ve admitted I can be mean and nasty to people, and when overly so, I appologize if it is due. I realize my stance on porn drives radical feminists up the wall but I respect their right to disagree. There are womens issues discussed on ‘wasp’ blogs, and as for my reactions to your post…even though you took it down, it does not negate what you said. Period. Once it is out there, you cannot take it back. Yes, Retro is a fashion term, but looking at the text book definition and then claiming that is was not rude or insulting or that is how you meant it is just asinine (and of course there was the ‘your ass is mine list’ and the accusation that I, and others, willfully plot to take over ‘hives’- untrue and rude) , the point is, if I feel attacked, or I feel people I like or care about have been attacked, from what really seemed out of no where to me, I am going to say something about it. Like I said initially, you cannot post something like that and expect that people are not going to react. I’d been nothing but civil to you until that one admittedly rather snarky reply to you on the DMDR thread, then post ‘bugs’. So, I suppose the question is, are we, am I, willing to call a truce? I don’t know speaking for myself. I’m not removing my replies to your post, you reap what you sew on that one. I am not going to advocate that AP delete her blog either, because she has as much right to her thoughts and views as anyone else. I don’t agree with what Twisty says, but I would never comment on, let alone demand she remove her blog. Nor am I willing to say that if things piss me off in the future I won’t mention it…but I will continue NOT to call names, and I am willing to attempt to be civil if other people will. Bullshit a-raging about a womans right to choose over at my casa currently…there is an issue ALL feminists could agree on I would wager. The selling of playboy merchandise to children? Hell, I am with most of you ladies on that one…and I’ve said so…there is some common ground and I am willing to look at it. I’ll leave it at that.”
And yes, since then, I called you a name, I admit it, but it wasn’t “unreasonable bitch”. You know, I cannot speak for BD, but I get just as frusterated as you probably do when every word, action, move I make is attacked and criticiszed, even AFTER I attempt to address the situation or rectify the problem (like here, after I removed the link, said flat out I am not changing my logo, and asked what I thought was a valid question). Hell, I attempted to ignore you on this thread completely, you decided to call me out anyway.
Sure, yes, I would like less fighting, but if less fighting means myself and others have to consistantly walk on eggshells whenever we post or comment, and we can be attacked out of no where by others and are just supposed to smile and take it, well then, no. It is simply unfair and untrue to always play it off like we are the aggressive and rude ones who are always in the wrong.
stormy // February 16, 2007 at 11:33 pm |
Paraphrase:
Free rendering or amplification of a passage, expression of its sense in other words…
I did not say ‘literally’ (in the true sense of literally, which is oft used to mean figuratively).
RenegadeEvolution // February 17, 2007 at 1:27 am |
sc;
that’s pretty much the sort of response I imagined. So, I shall repeat myself again re: a truce, as it were.
” Sure, yes, I would like less fighting, but if less fighting means myself and others have to consistantly walk on eggshells whenever we post or comment, and we can be attacked out of no where by others and are just supposed to smile and take it, well then, no. It is simply unfair and untrue to always play it off like we are the aggressive and rude ones who are always in the wrong.
The ball, as they say, is totally in your court at this point.
witchywoo // February 17, 2007 at 3:11 am |
Apologies for my absence from this thread (did you notice?) but it’s grief-city in the woo household at the moment
FWIW; I, too, would appreciate an end to hostilities.
Time after time I find myself checking myself before hitting ’submit’ – and that’s just to post on my own blog, never mind about comments I’d like to make elsewhere. I have a queue of drafts; issues I’ve written about but, because of the eggshells thing RE mentioned, I find myself second guessing the flak that’ll come my way if they get posted. Even my sanity has been called into question by the armchair psych’s this week, from what I’ve read (which has actually given me the biggest laugh I’ve had so, thanks
– but that’s beside the point).
I know I can’t agree about everything with everyone in the world. We all know that, surely? Doesn’t mean I can’t discuss the issues, does it? Doesn’t mean I’m somehow derranged because of what I say, does it?
Then again, if I put up a post about my personal experience I kind of expect to be politely questioned, maybe challenged, even called out – but directly, you know? Given a chance to respond. Likewise, if I post purely about an issue I expect to be directly asked for reputable evidence if I haven’t already cited it.
I don’t ever expect to be personally vilified or find comments questioning my mental health made by people who’ve never even met me just because they either disagree or didn’t understand – and, if they didn’t understand, surely it’s better that they ask me rather than presume to know? My email addy is up there for all to see….
Stormy – being the one who ignited the bubbling methane in the feminist bog – has sincerely requested a truce. I’d like to second that request.
Don’t get me wrong… being thought of as ‘a bit mad’ doesn’t phase me in the slightest and being asked to “kiss my arse” doesn’t fill me with the required chills – I can sink to any level you like (if I can be bothered) – but aren’t we all bigger than this?
In fact, looking up-thread a way…Bea remarked to RE that she found the link to her blog upsetting and so RE removed the link. See? We can hear one another, and co-operate, without fuss, on occasion.
And Amber has asked a question that really interests me but that I haven’t been able to think about properly because I’ve been too aware of the underlying hostility here. I have to say, that pisses me off a bit but I’m thinking about it and may well post my thoughts either here or in a whole new post.
Whether radfem or pro porn we’re all just women and all operating under the same shitey, bullying system. We share more than we admit.
Truce?
shannon // February 17, 2007 at 3:24 am |
I don’t like people who can dish it out but can’t take it. I don’t devote my blog to insulting propornies, despite the fact that it hurts my heart to have the pain and suffering of women and girls ignored because it’s not ‘PC’ to be against porn or to be against the expectations of women in this country(usian here). But I’ve never gotten anxious hegemony anyway
Amber // February 17, 2007 at 5:58 am |
You know, Shannon, I wish I could say I’m terribly broken up over your declaration of a lack of respect for me. But instead I’m just sitting here laughing.
Bea // February 17, 2007 at 9:28 am |
Witchy, I think blog hostilities continue as long as people find them entertaining.
belledame222 // February 17, 2007 at 5:54 pm |
Well, I don’t find this entertaining. And that’s quite a paraphrase, Stormcloud. What I said -first- was, before i got exasperated again and turned the blowtorch back on, was,
Asking someone to remove -her entire blog- is not a -truce.- That is not -reasonable-; that is not even in the same -area code- as reasonable. And I stand by it. And, “oh, well, I didn’t really read it, it just seemed really offensive to me”? That doesn’t make it okay.
Antiprincess is a -person-, not a “munitions dump.” That blog serves as much purpose for her as does the DMDR blog or anyone else’s (and by the way, for the record, once again, for all the meen meen things i’ve said, i have never told Bea or anyone else to -take down her blog-, and i don’t believe any of your loosely-defined enemy group has either).
I don’t know why I’m bothering, actually. And yes, I’m a meen bastard. We know. Antiprincess isn’t.
You tell antiprincess to take down her blog; you tell Renegade to take down her link (which she does, and it still isn’t enough apparently), and then you complain because no one wants “peace,” and you’re being silenced. -You- are.
What I keep reading here, over and over, is, pretty much, what, little us? We have no power. We have nothing. And you’re trying to take away what little we have.
But you know what? Other people just don’t see it that way. They get hurt, too. -By you.-
And you know, there’s some irony here. On the one hand, the complaint is that Bea shouldn’t have to justify her being offended (i.e. how she feels) on seeing an image. Okay. Here and now, I say: That is correct. Bea does not have to jsutify her -feelings.- If she’s offended, she’s offended. If she’s triggered by that one rather tame image on Ren’s blog but not (apparently) by much harder-core images on say Charrliegrrl’s blog on account of the context, well then, that’s how she feels. So be it.
However. That does not mean anyone else is obligated to -do- anything in particular about it.
Now, Ren kindly obliged and did remove the link to her blog, which means that other people here who’ve never before encountered her are less click her name and see her blog; it means that they, too, are less likely to be triggered by that one rather softcore image of her own body in a rather cheesecake pose, clad in boots and a thong and black rectangles over the nipples, by herself. It also means they’re less likely to see anything -else- Ren has to say for herself, unless they go out of their way to look her up, and so might well imagine that the image people are so up in arms about was something a lot more hardcore than it actually is (for instance), but, well, so it goes. Fine.
Now: Sam says things that Renegade objects to, and instead of acknowledging that Renegade, too, has feelings, even if Sam did not intend those words to be hurtful toward Renegade or any other “bi-sexee, pornsick, etc. etc.” actual person–you know, sort of the same way Renegade didn’t -intend- for her image to offend anyone, seeing as how it was a picture of -herself- on -her own damn blog-
–you *might* think that, just maybe, somewhere, somehow the penny might drop and someone might say, “well, I can see how that was offensive,” and i don’t know -do something- to indicate giving a crap about the the other person’s feelings, as opposed to more well i didn’t mean it that way so it must be okay.
Well, you might if you hadn’t been engaging in these epic battles for the last x millenia.
Whatever. I don’t know why I’m bothering, actually.
Just keep going the way you’re going, then, I guess. Keep being surprised when doing the same damn thing over and over does not, in fact, produce different results. Blame everyone and everything–sinister conspiracies, traitors, brainwashing, all that incredibly -reasonable- sounding stuff–except your own part in any of this. At all. Because, you have no power. At all. No responsibility. At all. World without end, amen.
Okay, then.
Enjoy.
belledame222 // February 17, 2007 at 6:02 pm |
and yes, I am aware I am conflating a few different individuals with the “you” there, which normally i try to avoid if possible, but you know: bees and fucking wasps, right? Team team. World without end.
Bzzzzzzz.
belledame222 // February 17, 2007 at 6:07 pm |
oh, sorry, I know “hurt feelings” is something we just make fun of (except when they’re our own, which is Very Different), let’s say, “point of view,” how about. as in, Renegade has a point of view, it’s not the same as yours, it might be worth trying to engage it as though it were as worthy as yours, at some point. or at least, you know, -someone else’s-. -Anyone- else’s. if you truly want to have dialogue at any point, that is, as opposed to “clearly, one of us has to be Wrong here, and clearly it isn’t me.”
Pony // February 17, 2007 at 6:21 pm |
Presumably Ren Ev you go onto rad fem blogs wanting to be part of the discussion there and I think to be friendly and with hopes of being treated in a friendly manner. No? If that is true then you don’t link to porn with your addy and you don’t demand to know why and bring up what others do or don’t. You just delink, apologize, or leave and don’t come back.
I have nothing else to say here.
I’m not interested in arguing. I’ve just made a point.
stormy // February 17, 2007 at 7:59 pm |
Witchy:
You can remove this response as you wish, I was backed into a corner to respond to RE. I was sincere in the call for a truce. However, I can see that ‘a truce’ only benefits the radfems, and it is in the interests of those who seek to disrupt (for whatever motives) to keep it going. Neither has there been a stampede for a truce, from ANYBODY (except you!)
All I can say to BD is:
AGAIN, you use the opportunity to take a rant session out. I clearly stated to AP that I would check out her links, investigate, and discuss further. But no, you cannot resist the opportunity to hurl more venom can you BD?
To RE:
Why the hell is ‘the ball’ supposed to be in my court?
I have taken down the two ‘offensive’ posts, I am no longer blogging, and (apart from expressing my anger in this thread) have done two indirect comments elsewhere. Hardly a match for 40-odd comments at Operation Wasp or indeed your own blog? I have remained silent through two weeks of abuse from the pornies. Two weeks.
As for the “you reap what you sew” as to the reposting of those posts by pro-pornies, that is most definitely what it is NOT all about is it? The reason was two-fold, firstly just as an excuse to ‘let it rip’ onto a radfem, secondly, to keep so you could trot it out for future use to ‘prove’ how nasty radfems were.
AP:
I still haven’t gotten around to checking out the links yet, I like doing my own research, rather than have any minions do it for me. I will most likely contact you privately. If it is, as you say, not a site designed to tear down radfems, then I would just question the content combined with the title. It would then be a case of modifying one or the other? Preferably not diss’ing the rads?
—
For the record (RE/BD), I shall not be baited into a passive-aggressive challenge again, Witchy can run the terms of the negotiations for a truce (she certainly has my full proxy)
RenegadeEvolution // February 17, 2007 at 9:16 pm |
I am done bothering to try to do much of anything as far as any of this goes at this point. It seems to be of no use.
Pony // February 17, 2007 at 10:26 pm |
Ren Ev I’m sorry to hear what you’re going through.
Pony… a mother
RenegadeEvolution // February 17, 2007 at 10:35 pm |
Pony-
Thanks.
Sarah (Ethically Speaking) // February 18, 2007 at 12:23 am |
Apologies for my absence from this thread (did you notice?) but it’s grief-city in the woo household at the moment
Absence noticed!
((hug))
veravenom // February 20, 2007 at 4:54 pm |
“I’m struggling to figure out exactly when it became acceptable for feminists to mock any woman. ”
When that woman doesn’t identify as whatever type of feminist that is acceptable to the mocker. In this case, it’s okay to mock a sex worker because the mocker is a Rad Fem. And were the mocker a pro-porn feminist, it would be okay to mock rad fems.
Which is why I’m just “A Feminist”. Screw modifiers. There’s too much hypocrisy tied up in the modifiers.
Though even i do still identify as a ‘rad fem’ as politically speaking, that is the group I most agree with. But, I’m working on that.
I want no modifiers. Perhaps without the modifiers we could stop this endless AND COMPLETELY POINTLESS blogwarring?
Pony // February 21, 2007 at 2:35 am |
In case you hadn’t noticed Vera Venom, this thread has gone silent.
Now run along and stop trying to start something.
veravenom // February 21, 2007 at 2:16 pm |
You still felt the need to insult someone on a thred you claim is dead and yet *I* am trying to start something.
Thank you for proving my point about hypocrisy, Pony.
how’s that foot taste?
Pony // February 21, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
Vera Venom I tried to post on your blog. It didn’t seem right to respond to your here, but I couldn’t get the password section to work.
You came into the feminist blogosphere and were warmly welcomed by rad fems. I was one of them. I read you now tearing us apart behind our backs. I also see how polite and deferential you post to on those other blogs.
If you would, perhaps you could keep your comments to your own blog and those of your friends.
For now, you’ve gotten rid of two more of us.
Amber // February 21, 2007 at 5:23 pm |
What?? You’re accusing Vera of trying to “start something”?? I am completely floored…
v // February 21, 2007 at 10:55 pm |
for fucks sakes
Women's Space/The Margins // May 14, 2007 at 12:15 pm |
The First Carnival of Radical Feminists
Introduction
As those of you who have been patiently waiting have observed, putting the First Carnival of Radical Feminists together became far more intense and complex — and time-consuming — a project for me than I had anticipated it would be. …
Feminism « Scorpio Risen // May 24, 2007 at 11:40 am |
[...] really made me think. http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/04/14/some-notes-on-revolution/ http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/we-each-pick-our-battles/ http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/im-a-radical-feminist/P.P.S Male Entitlement/ Male [...]
First Carnival of Radical Feminists « Carnival of Radical Feminists // October 17, 2007 at 11:59 pm |
[...] this post Witchy-Woo talks about picking our battles and says: …as a radical feminist I believe that the system of patriarchal capitalism (the [...]