…in what Radical Feminism isn’t.
This is such a stereotypical misunderstanding of radical feminism I am actually giggling - it’s so “Daily Mail”!
Sorry Andrea. I’m sure you’re a lovely person and, because of that, I doubt that you’ve ever seriously examined the “rules that men get to live by” to any great extent (’examined‘ being the operative word here). Without that examination you have no basis whatsoever on which to formulate your thinking from any feminist perspective.
Ok. “Feminist” is a funky label these days - especially that of ‘Sex-Pos’ feminist (given our Western patriararchal culture)….
But, Andrea, you’re not even being revolutionary, you’re being reactionary.
How does that sit with you? Reactionary/radical? How much do you actually care?
Oh, I know. You just wanna make friends and not feel so alone. Funny how there were no ‘unapologetic’ radfems in your list of women bloggers who really are ‘themselves’. Because, of all women, radfems are the least fucking apologetic - for all women.
Silver Oakleaf (Andrea) - currently an object lesson in….
……non apologetic apologising. Yes - yet more panderding to the double standards and acceptance of women’s subordinate place in patriarchy and the bullshit that we face about ourselves - and FUCKING FIGHT - everyday.
I could go on - I have more questions - but that’s enough, for now.
597 responses so far ↓
eilidh70 // April 21, 2007 at 9:13 am
*confused* I haven’t received a copy of these rabid radfem requirements. How am I expected to know I have to lose the bunny ears?
RenegadeEvolution // April 21, 2007 at 9:44 am
Witchy: blow outs or not, I still..well…respect you…but seeing what Andrea said made me think, and wonder, and feel, and say I, as far as feminism goes, at least by many standards, am an expatriate. We can’t all do it your way…and its not that I don;t, hell, that most of ‘us’ don’t respect or understand your way, we just can’t do it…it’s not “true” for us. And I think that is the fairest way to phrase it. I realize Radical Feminism is like, well, home for you. It isn’t for a lot of us. That doesn’t make us bad people, it makes us…grr…other. Different. Not where you are…
I think Andrea is good people. I am tired of seeing good people hurt, you know?
sarmorrow // April 21, 2007 at 1:58 pm
My head hurts.
Gayle // April 21, 2007 at 2:06 pm
elidh70,
Haven’t you received your copy of Straw-feminism for dummies, yet? It must have been lost in the mail.
Andrea’s post does indeed look like a desperate cry for attention — she either longs to be coddled by the anti-feminist contingent of the feminist blogesphere or she’s after much needed links and hits. Or both. Probably both.
Oh, happy endings! Just look at the comment thread! Why her little bash-fest ALMOST made it into the (get this) “Carnival of Feminists.” If that post qualifies, that must be some carnival.
Gayle // April 21, 2007 at 2:20 pm
“I like strong women, I like to be strong myself, and as far as I’m concerned, strong people don’t need hiveminded cohorts keeping them in line every step of the way.”
And she won’t let Witchy post !!! LOL!
sarmorrow // April 21, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“And she won’t let Witchy post !!! LOL!”
I saw that. How daft can you get?
I can understand blocking spam bots and trolls, but a fellow feminist who wants to engage in an intelligent discussion? Nuts.
exangelena // April 21, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I’m a radical feminist, I wear makeup, a bra and skirts, and I remove my body hair …
But I don’t expect a medal for it. I know that I’m selling out a little to get by. I also know that patriarchy, as well as the multibillion dollar fashion, beauty and sex industries that encourage “femininity” have much more power than a few unorganized radical feminists on the internet.
I’m also curious to know who these radical feminists are. Most of radical feminist bloggers I read are not like the cartoonish version in the linked post, and many of them accept that for many women, femininity=survival.
Laurelin // April 21, 2007 at 4:41 pm
In total agreement, Witchy. But that could be just my hivemindedness
I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again: you rock.
exangelena // April 21, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Renegade Evolution - I don’t intend to speak for all radical feminists, but *I*, as a radical feminist, have big problems with the radfem blaming that’s been kicking around the internet.
1.) a lot of it relies on the strawfeminists that Gayle mentioned above that are usually inaccurate.
2.) the rhetoric often strikes me as very sexist - bashing radical feminists because SOME of us are lesbians, don’t wear makeup, don’t shave our legs, don’t do things that are “fun” and “girly”, basically because we don’t fit current ideals of sexy and pretty.
3.) radical feminists are always accused of oppressing and persecuting non-radical feminists, when in reality, most radical feminist bloggers that I read accept that most women have to make some concessions.
4.) the idea that rebelling against radical feminism is the ultimate act of rebellion, when, as I mentioned before, radical feminists have very little power, influence or visibility (like what Witchy Woo said, “you’re not being revolutionary, you’re being reactionary”
Now I’m not saying that you or that all sex pos feminists say this stuff, but these are common themes that I’ve noted in the various anti-radfem posts I’ve seen.
v // April 21, 2007 at 7:01 pm
andrea is not ‘good people’. she’s is one of the most dishonest people i have come across online, and that really is saying something.
belledame222 // April 21, 2007 at 7:28 pm
She’s good people in my book. I realize my book is in the Library of the Damned, but what the fuck.
and gayle, hon:
it IS some Carnival, and I’m damned proud of it. hey, it’s even got yer pals Charlie and sparklematrix in it. it’s also got a fuck of a lot more other stuff than the Eternal Thrash, because, surprise, there’s actually some other shit going on out there.
and pre-emptively:
if’n you still don’t like it, you know what? It runs every two weeks and any one of you lot can host it your very own selves.
xox
belledame222 // April 21, 2007 at 7:35 pm
and by the way: no one said it’s the “ultimate act of rebellion/revolution/whatever.” some people simply got tired of the eternal game of wendy-house and decided they’d rather have a room of their own, thanks.
v // April 21, 2007 at 7:56 pm
takes a lot to make me that harsh bd.
belledame222 // April 21, 2007 at 9:15 pm
we’ve all got our buttons.
what the hell. I’m hardly a disinterested bystander here, god knows; but as i see it, Andrea did her time. so did Kim. so did some other people who’ve been pushed away. Jill Brenneman for instance.
it’s not a “straw” anything if it really does happen.
you know, i wrote a comment in that same thread that was, i thought, rather more diplomatic about “radical feminism” than…some people…might expect.
on the other hand i’m not feeling terribly diplomatic about Some People.
there’s been some seriously nasty shit, and no, it isn’t just “us,” the “wasps” or whatever it is (bzz fucking bzz) slinging it out;
and it’s like…
sigh. the makeup and the leg shaving: -no one- expects a bloody medal for it. -no one- that i’ve met. -no one.- What people -would- like is perhaps for other people to consider their point of view when they say, actually, there’s more than one way to interpret this shit, it isn’t necessarily “selling out,” but if you really don’t or can’t see it any other way how about at least laying off the “sparkle pony feminist” bullshit for long enough to concentrate on the actual fucking work? Because, you know, people can wear glitter and heels and even be unapologetic about it (that seems to be the sticking point) and still be damn good feminists;
and people can throw all their makeup and even porn in the trash and you know something: of itself, i don’t believe it does a damn thing for anyone else. if it gets you through the night, great, but: that is not what “personal is political” means.
and for the record there are -also- posts about leg shaving and hair in the Carnival. i put those particular ones in there because, unlike the people who mock “sexbots” and sparkle ponies” and even “whores” (and then act all surprised when some people take offense), those to me really did read like “personal is political,” as in: the posters owned their own shit, they spoke from the “I,” they didn’t try to tell other women what to do directly or indirectly–
and i’m sorry, but some people, you -raelly do do that.- and no, putting it in terms like “just THINK about it” doesn’t make it any less of a directive. it’s manipulative, and it’s patronizing: it implicitly assumes that other people simply aren’t as Advanced as you, haven’t thought about it, couldn’t possibly have done or by Goddess they’d have come to -exactly the same conclusions as you.-
whether it’s makeup or the evil prawn or—is- there anything else? oh, right, actually, yes there is. you wouldn’t know it sometimes, though, i swear, reading some places, and how many times have i said something like all this, in how many places?
whatever. I care about my friends, is the only reason i’m even posting here at all at this point. i can’t speak for all the bad blood between everybody but you know what: sometimes, it’s really not as Epic as you think it is.
sometimes, it really is just–
well, if you want to think it’s just because you’re too radical, or that it happens so infrequently it’s not worth mentioning except as straw–i can’t help that.
and yes, there’s a fair amount of mischaracterization going around; at least some of us stand by our words when called on it.
signed,
Rude Ignorant Wasp Patriarchy Enabler Insidious Conspiracist Only Bent On Destroying Radical Feminists Who Only Cares About Getting Men Off, By God, That’s Exactly Right.
v // April 21, 2007 at 9:27 pm
thats one of the reasons i think andrea is dishonest bd, because she doesnt cop to her own words, and then on top of that she lies about other peoples.
i dont have any issues with people changing their minds, moving on, whatever. what i do have a problem with is people who outright lie about what they said even though i witnessed them do so with my own eyes. then on top of that theres people who deliberately and maliciously use information given to them in private and in confidence by those who trust them to hurt those people. andrea does these things bd and no matter how much you dislike some radfems or whatever it is not going to change the fact she has done all of this several times in the last year alone. she is not honourable and she is not honest.
Gayle // April 21, 2007 at 11:15 pm
You spend far too much time knocking feminists on the internets, Belledame. It’s a game with you and it’s obvious to anyone paying attention. You’re always smack in the middle of these blogwars, cheering them on, feeding the flames. Jumping in defending your “friends” against, who exactly? Caricatures of your own making, caricatures of actual feminist bloggers.
I couldn’t much give a shit whether your Carnival talks about leg shaving or sparkly make up. The one thing I do agree with you on is that there is “other shit” out there to talk about. Actually, there are MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO TALK ABOUT right now.
But it’s odd that you would state that here, and not on Andrea’s blog. Why didn’t you tell her that bashing non- existent, feminist stereotypes may not be the most constructive use of her blog at this time, you know, considering how women were just declared a little less human by our Supreme Court?
Instead, you called her post “awesome” and added this:
on 20 Apr 2007 at 2:05 am7 belledame222
“and goddamit Andrea, a day earlier and i could’ve put it into the Carnival…”
So apparently that ridiculous post was “the other shit” you mention above. You wrapped your lovin’ arms around it, even called it Carnival-worthy. If you really believe that, your priorities are even more fucked up than I realized.
PS: You obsessively lump people together when you attack, BD. That’s another trait which speaks volumes about your character. For the record, I don’t know who the hell “my friend” Charlie is. Did I post something at his/her site? Maybe I did. I don’t keep records of who is who and decide how I should group and compartmentalize them the way you do. Maybe someone linked there and I followed it and wrote something? Does that mean that blogger is my “friend?” I have read Sparkle Matrix, but I post so rarely there, I doubt she’d even recognize my name. Is she my “friend” now, too?
Pippa // April 21, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I’m hearing you Witchy. This isn’t an argument you can win. We have better things to do, my friend!
burrowklown // April 21, 2007 at 11:35 pm
This whole thing makes me sick.
exangelena // April 22, 2007 at 2:06 am
To be fair, I looked at bd’s Carnival of the Feminists and she did include several posts about the recent Supreme Court decision, as well as some from radical feminist blogs.
However:
“and by the way: no one said it’s the ‘ultimate act of rebellion/revolution/whatever.’ some people simply got tired of the eternal game of wendy-house and decided they’d rather have a room of their own, thanks.”
I’m not sure what the last sentence of that meant, but then what is with the many, many posts in which a feminist blogger talks about how she’s proud that she’s a “bad feminist” and loves men and being sexy, etc., etc., and the big bad (straw)feminist troops hate her because she’s a pretty feminist?
“it’s not a ’straw’ anything if it really does happen.”
Well, I have only been to your blog a few times, and I’ve hardly even heard of those other people, so I can’t say I know. But it’s not fair to tar all radical feminists with the same brush. (Although I have had many disagreements with sex positive feminists, and they have said some extremely hurtful things about me, note that I said upthread not all sex positive feminists have participated in this crap.)
“What people -would- like is perhaps for other people to consider their point of view when they say, actually, there’s more than one way to interpret this shit, it isn’t necessarily ’selling out’”
“putting it in terms like ‘just THINK about it’ doesn’t make it any less of a directive. it’s manipulative, and it’s patronizing: it implicitly assumes that other people simply aren’t as Advanced as you, haven’t thought about it, couldn’t possibly have done or by Goddess they’d have come to -exactly the same conclusions as you.-”
Isn’t it sort of obvious that there are some choices considered more acceptable than others and encouraged more? I’m not concerned with the acts and practices themselves, but with the existing conventions.
I hope I’m not derailing the thread too much, but I’ll continue with another example. I’m not skinny, but I’m considered “acceptably” slender by current racist, misogynist, fatphobic beauty standards. I benefit from those beauty standards, at least in regards to weight. However I strongly oppose them because they are wrong and make women suffer. I haven’t purposefully gained weight in opposition to said beauty standard, and I accept that I have “thin privilege”, but I do what I can to break down that beauty standard (I won’t make or tolerate fat jokes, I discourage women from making body-hating comments or dieting for cosmetic reasons, etc.)
belledame222 // April 22, 2007 at 3:09 am
I posted that there, gayle, because she is my friend, and because that is how I felt at the time.
and thank you for monitoring how much time i spend doing this and that and measuring how much i “should” be doing. now: who the fuck -are- you, finally?
exangelena–the point is, it’d be great if we could all stop fixating on our bodily shit altogether, policing each other, and so on. and: yeah, there are existing conventions; that doesn’t mean that people aren’t perfectly capable of simply replacing those with their own, in subcultures, in…the margins. and yes, that has an effect on people as well.
and once again, for those who felt my selection was biased: every two weeks the Carnival is held, you are more than free to go to Philobiblon same as i did and offer to host.
me, i posted
1) what was submitted to me and
2) what i was reading.
exactly which posts are you referring to that talk about how they’re hated because they’re pretty? Elizabeth’s? She was talking about indulging in fashion as a way to feel more alive on account of she’s got some hideous sudden disabling disease that she doesn’t even know if it might kill her. Octogalore, who wrote about her career as a stripper which really had fuckall to do with how “pretty” she was? Aunt B who wrote specifically about NOT being “pretty?” The queer femmes, i think there were one or two? and btw, per “SOME of us are lesbians–many of “us” are lesbians, too, you know, some who wear makeup and shit, some who don’t; and why the emphasis on SOME? who’s lesbian-bashing, here? no one that i know, and no one in that line-up.
the women of color who mysteriously always seem to vanish from these discussions?
belledame222 // April 22, 2007 at 3:22 am
personally, per the lesbian thing–i have to tell you, as far as i’m concerned my first and biggest problem with most of the online feminists i’ve had problems with is that as far as i’m concerned they’re coming from straighter than straighty-straightertonville. or rather: the term “heteronormative,” academic as it is–it’s a good one. menmenMENmenmenMEN let’s talk about porn which is all about men fucking women let’s talk about sex which is clearly all about sex with MEN let’s talk about how MEN OPPRESS us let’s talk about how being with women is such a SAFE SPACE because SAFE means SEXLESS…let’s talk about fashion and hair and shit like that which clearly means exactly the same thing to all of us…
and let’s all pretend that lesbians are like this sort of asexual Supra-Feminist who’s primarily defined by–well, what? purity? sisterhood? eschewing men? not goddess forfend actual -desire for other women-, shit no, that might be objectifying and then all the straight women wouldn’t feel -safe.-
and we can’t have that.
octogalore // April 22, 2007 at 3:52 am
WW: “I doubt that you’ve ever seriously examined the “rules that men get to live by” to any great extent (’examined‘ being the operative word here). Without that examination you have no basis whatsoever on which to formulate your thinking from any feminist perspective.”
Let’s “examine” this sentence. Boiling it down:
“I doubt you’ve examined [issue] so you have no basis to speak about [issue].”
That’s quite powerful. It would allow us to tell anyone they can’t talk about a certain topic, because we’re oh so sure that they haven’t really thought about it. If they had, maybe they would form the same conclusions we have. If they have formed other conclusions… it’s clearly because they haven’t really “examined.”
The reason that doesn’t work, of course, is: how do you know what Andrea has, or hasn’t, examined?
WW: as you know and as I’ve said, I respect your thinking; however, I’m not seeing any really thought-out analysis here. I’d be curious if you could explain your accusation of “panderding (sic.) to the double standards and acceptance of women’s subordinate place in patriarchy.” How is Andrea doing that? Can you substantiate this?
RenegadeEvolution // April 22, 2007 at 4:49 am
exangelena;
I know there are some great rad fem folk out there. There are also some who really are not. Shrug. I’m an asshole. With a serious temper. I admit that. But when people feel down, or attacked, often, they do lash back, or out. It happens. All I can say is Andrea has been on the level and human to me, and I appreciate it. And that goes a long way.
exangelena // April 22, 2007 at 6:11 am
belledame -
“exactly which posts are you referring to that talk about how they’re hated because they’re pretty?”
First of all, I wasn’t referring to the posts specifically at this week’s carnival, but it’s this phenomenon that ricochets around the feminist blogosphere and seriously gets on my nerves.
“SOME of us are lesbians–many of ‘us’ are lesbians, too, you know, some who wear makeup and shit, some who don’t; and why the emphasis on SOME? who’s lesbian-bashing, here?”
Some of the posts have criticized lesbian radical feminists who see certain kinds of sex as patriarchal (I don’t know or pay much attention to that debate) and accused radical feminists of all sexual orientations of being man-haters. As for the SOME, I’m not a lesbian basher, but I’m sick of radical feminists being perceived as a monolith. We may share beliefs but we’re individuals not a groupthink.
“the women of color who mysteriously always seem to vanish from these discussions?”
I think the two of us have been over this before at other venues - but I’m a woman of color and my nonwhiteness has a lot to do with my radical feminism. I’m getting really sick of white sex positive feminists implying that I’m racist because of opinions I’ve expressed that have very little to do with race, or assuming that because I’m a radical feminist, that I’m white.
exangelena // April 22, 2007 at 6:22 am
As for the “subcultures” thing, I’ll admit that I’m a straight girl from the suburbs attending a very mainstream university with the predominant models of sexuality being Girl Gone Wild or uptight prep.
“most of the online feminists i’ve had problems with is that as far as i’m concerned they’re coming from straighter than straighty-straightertonville.”
Huh. Most of the radical feminist bloggers (and the ones interested in women only space) I read are lesbian, although I agree that most of the liberal/mainstream feminists are straight.
I’m trying to remain civil and articulate but I don’t know if I’m doing a good job
I can see how the “SOME of us” business in the other post could have been misinterpreted and I apologize - I didn’t mean for it to be at all.
I just get angry sometimes because the characterization of radical feminists that I read from people who are anti-radfem erase my existence and experiences as a straight, nonwhite, lower-middle class radical feminist.
(Sorry for using your blog as a soapbox, Witchy Woo!)
Gayle // April 22, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Hey Belledame,
I’ve posted a comment or two over at My DD in the past, (yes, that wonky old white boy’s club, I’m a political junkie) does that make Jerome Armstrong my friend? I read an article on Huff-Post yesterday–is Arrianna my bud now, too?
What is it with you and this whole “friend” thing, anyway? Here you go again, claiming you cheered on that waste-of-space post because Andrea is your friend. Is Andrea really your friend? Does she call you when you’re down; do you take each other to lunch? Does she even know what your real name is? If you two are actually friends then, hey, that’s just super, but something tells me these cyber-friendships of yours are just more fodder in the arsenal, used as an excuse by which to attack other people.
“the women of color who mysteriously always seem to vanish from these discussions?”
Impressive how you morph from paternalistic protector of “friends” to loathsome propagandist in just one post!
Insinuate, insinuate, insinuate, eventually it’ll stick. Unless, of course, someone has the audacity to challenge you.
Uh oh:
“I just get angry sometimes because the characterization of radical feminists that I read from people who are anti-radfem erase my existence and experiences as a straight, nonwhite, lower-middle class radical feminist.”
Nicely put, exangelena. But how can an angry, anti-sex, racist, classist stereotype be maintained when your very existence contradicts it? Erasing you appears to be exactly the point.
Gayle // April 22, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Pippa,
I disagree. I think she can win it.
Burrowclown, I apologize if my posts are upsetting you or anyone else. That is certainly not my intention.
Faith // April 22, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“I disagree. I think she can win it.”
Hey, I have a thought. How about we all stop worrying about winning and protecting our damaged egos and actually do something constructive?
How’s that sound for a change?
Arantxa // April 22, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Oh well, as least I finally figured out the word ‘reactionary’ - the meaning of which has long eluded me.
Spicy // April 22, 2007 at 6:55 pm
This post - and the one that provoked it - make me depressed. Does no-one remember what the ‘enemy’ actually is?
Here’s a clue - it isn’t other women.
A radfem who neither recognises herself in the original post nor in the response to it.
fannyblood // April 22, 2007 at 7:15 pm
For the record, this is a post Andrea wrote some time ago on Vociferate. I posted this on her blog yesterday but she has censored it? I’m not sure why? I was just asking her her stance now on raunch culture since posting this:
……………………………………….
I heard before that Pussycat Dolls lead singer, Bimbi, has morphed into Cyndi Lauper and urged us humourless feminists to not take their lyrics seriously, because they just want to have fun (Bimbi is probably not her real name, but it suits her so I’m sticking with it).
Now, obviously, none of the Pussycat Dolls have written any of the lyrics themselves, I reckon it’s unlikely Bimbi and co. have read a book all the way through, but what they have done is slap a load of T&A on some fantastically sexist songs.
Now, I am a humourless feminist, so I wouldn’t know fun if it bit me in the ass, but I have to wonder about what is so inherently fun about the Pussycat Dolls and their irritating ‘music’. Their first single was all about delightful oneupmanship and feeling superior to some inconsequential man’s existing girlfriend. A song about one of those girls who delights in shagging other women’s partners, but is surprised when the same guy eventually shags around on her. I’m not seeing what’s so fun about that, men might like it when women have catfights over them, but in general women don’t. Even the usurper generally gets hers in the end when she finds her boyfriend up to his balls in someone even hotter than her.
Their second single features one of those Black Eyed Peas wankers (you know, the ones who had the song ‘My Humps’ about the joys of prostitution) going on about how female intelligence and personhood is irrelevant, because men are far more concerned with a woman’s various physical attributes. So far, so offensive, but do Bimbi and her comrades have any complaint about this treatment? Nah, according to them it’s all fine fine fine. They are content to carry on ‘doing their thing’ whilst the aforementioned wanker is playing with himself. Nice! So is that fun? Seems like the type of thing that most women report to the police.
The Pussycat Dolls are not in the interests of having ‘fun’, they are in the interests of making money, and the easiest way to make money if you’re female is by selling yourself. Unfortunately, they endorce songs which sell out other women, too. Bimbi can complain all she wants, but in a world where thousands of women every week are raped, where domestic violence against women is so prevalent, and in a world where women’s human rights are being eroded before their very eyes we really can’t afford to be lighthearted over any woman supporting the very system which oppresses us.
Sorry Bimbi, you’ve made your bed, and part of lying in it is accepting the criticism of feminists who recognise what a sell-out you are. But nevermind, I’m sure your money will make you feel better.
shannon // April 22, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Hey, Shannon will express her grievances with belledame. I think if the post feminists didn’t make a big deal out of things, there would be less fighting. Heck. even Jill, got yelled at by some idiot because she was able to note that society has some input on why she presents the way she does. Yes, things can be thought of different ways, but well..some ways are more right than other ways is what I am meaning. As a person who is obsessed by psychology, I think people can and do fool themselves. A whole lot! They don’t mean to, but the way the human brain works, there’s a whole lot of rationalizing going on for everyone.
I have to admit that I see saying that one is different from the norm and outside of society as a sign of immaturity, and as a person whose current life task is becoming an adult(a role incapable with femininity, as it happens), that really annoys me.
Laurelin // April 22, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Thanks for posting that, Fanny. It’s curious how the tone of that post is so similar to her present ones.
Burrow // April 22, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Gayle: I was lamenting the whole thing, not anyone in particular. The infighting and attacking each other is what makes me so sick.
Amber // April 23, 2007 at 1:43 am
Oh give me a freaking break with the superlatives there. If Andrea is one of the most dishonest people you’ve come across online, then your travels around the internet must be MUCH more pleasant than mine, thus far. There are some folks I could introduce you to, if you’d be interested in some perspective… let me just dig out the list of commenters I’ve banned from my blog…
v // April 23, 2007 at 1:11 pm
amber, it doesnt matter how many liars there are on the internet, she still stands out in my mind as one of the worst ive come across, are you gonna tell me im a liar too? shes done it to me, shes done it to ww just now - seriously since when did ww ever call other women whores? the irony is that andrea herself came so close to doing that so many times, she’s the one who described you and your mates as ‘disgusting’ last year and now she’s calling her ex mates ‘disgusting’ this year. her MO is exactly the same she just switched targets. i mean, seriously, you could pull up one of her year old blog posts and switch the target from sex pos to radfem and the rest would stay pretty much the same, same words, same insults, “disgusting! disgusting! disgusting!”.
i dont know why im even wasting my time talking about her, other than she accused ww of being a liar and calling other women whores, which is fucking bollocks, because one of the biggest differences between ww and andrea is that ww has integrity.
Kim // April 23, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Sigh.
Never ENDS, NEVER EVER, EVER NEVER EVER NEVER FUCKING ENDS.
I heart Faith and Spicy.
I think Fanny’s posting of old post of Andrea’s was downright creepy.
I think Andrea is good people.
This whole business sucks my ass.
Over and out.
Lya Kahlo // April 23, 2007 at 1:52 pm
An excellent attempt, Witchy, but as Vera found out trying to explain that something isn’t what they think it is, they just say “not everyone agrees with you”. Which is code for “we’re going to manufacture an insult out of this, damnit, and we’re not going to allow truth to stop us!”
As I think she may have told you, Witchy, she’s since given up trying to reason with them. I think she’s realized that they like pretending they’ve been insulted. They like manufacturing offenses from radfems. She’s hurt by it, I think, because she likes them as well.
Arguing strawfeminists is the only place left to go when you have no real arguments with feminism. No one tells them they can’t wear this, or they can’t do that. No one tells them they can’t fuck this person or in this fashion. But they like to tell everyone that we do. All that feminists have ever asked them is to consider how these things might be indicative of women’s position in society. That choices are not always personal and non-political. That maybe - just maybe - it’s NOT just about them. Somehow, this translates into “those bitches are jealous of us, hate sex, are crazy/mean/controlfreaks/etc, and hate us and men!”
“Sparkles” are subversive - subversive to feminism. So it’s nice that some have stopped pretending to be feminists. At least that approaches honesty.
RenegadeEvolution // April 23, 2007 at 3:24 pm
lya- no, in many cases, nothing has had to be “manufactured”. Nasty shit and lies have been said. Smugness and condemnation have been thrown around. No need to make up much of anything or attribute false motives- it’s all right there, really.
shannon // April 23, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Ren, there’s a huge difference between me being like OMG!! Lip glitter is $15!!! TOO L OF THE PATRIARCHY!!! and me saying that nobody ever can wear lip glitter. And even if I said that, why the f would anyone care? I’m one woman in a big small town, not the infallible hivemind of feminism.
shannon // April 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Ex told me to show everyone post feminism bingo:
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m213/animeg3282/bingopostfeminist.jpg
Contents are offensive.
Lya Kahlo // April 23, 2007 at 4:42 pm
It’s clear these things have happened from all sides. Far too frequently. And yet, apparently it doesn’t happen enough for some so they need to invent more reasons to be offended by that which isn’t offensive, or more to the point, what isn’t intended to be offensive. The word “sexbot” comes to mind here. When it was clearly laid out what the word meant those needing more strife and more conflict cling to the insult they want to be there. And when this was pointed out it was countered with “not everyone agrees with you”.
Well, that’s handy. Fuck what the word actually means, and how it’s actually used. Apparently, regardless of anthing else - just saying “I don’t agree” renders everything else invalid. That negates the reason for debate all together - which is what I think the actual goal is.
“I’m one woman in a big small town, not the infallible hivemind of feminism.”
The hivemind of feminism being yet another strawfeminist.
Shannon - careful! Trying to point out the difference between what radfems are actually saying and what the others want to believe we’re saying is likely to be met with “I don’t agree with you”.
Amber // April 23, 2007 at 4:53 pm
No, I’m not going to call you a liar. Not sure why you would jump to that conclusion.
Still - if Andrea is one of the worst, then hey, lucky you. Consider yourself fortunate never to have encountered the MRAs, the Christian fundamentalists, and in particular the lovely fellow who referred to me as “the world’s biggest feminazi.”
Lya Kahlo // April 23, 2007 at 4:55 pm
A p.s. - in case this is misunderstood, allow me a moment to be clear - this is not saying everyone must agree. This is saying that continuing to disagree even after it’s been shown you’re misled, and continuing to deny that you’re incorrect is not an honest disagreement but rather either willful denial or a silencing tactic.
Kim // April 23, 2007 at 6:15 pm
“No one tells them they can’t wear this, or they can’t do that. No one tells them they can’t fuck this person or in this fashion. But they like to tell everyone that we do.”
Some radical feminists ABSOLUTELY say this.
It cannot be enforced, of course, but many, many times I’ve read how I cannot truly be a feminist because I wear makeup or shave or whatever.
Or that I need to examine my reasons for doing so more.
And always the general implication that I’m just not “as good” a feminist by doing so.
“Sparkles” are subversive - subversive to feminism. So it’s nice that some have stopped pretending to be feminists. At least that approaches honesty.”
Once and for all, can someone please tell me what a “Sparkle” is?
To anyone who reads my blog, am I a “Sparkle” and why/why not?
Kim // April 23, 2007 at 6:33 pm
” All that feminists have ever asked them is to consider how these things might be indicative of women’s position in society. That choices are not always personal and non-political. That maybe - just maybe - it’s NOT just about them.”
Not really directed at you, Lya but I am very tired of this. Because, where does one draw the line?
Me, I’m big on not wearing fur, buy cruelty-free products, support vegetarism and in general helping animals. Eating meat/buying products tested on animals is political also — but I understand not everyone has the same convictions against animal cruetly than I do. Everytime someone says “I love/need meat too much to be a vegetarain” I don’t launch into the million reasons this is wrong and how it burns my ass to hear it.
I just accept that either their “fight” for rights/equality is somewhere else, that they frankly don’t give a shit or that they have thought — but decide to eat meat anyway.
Fair enough.
(Though the strawmans here piss me off — I get the anger here, even as I think some — not all –things labeled “strawfeminists” are not “straw” at all.)
I have a natural sapphire — should I have bought lab created in case the earth/worker swere harmed?
Maybe.
But you know, I do what I can.
All we can ever ask is that folks help whoever they can in whatever way they can.
Also, I HAVE examined, deeply, how makeup, porn, etc. effect women’s position in society. Since young adulthood, I took it for granted and belived fully that porn of course is harmful to women.
Which meant, I never even vaguely entertained the notion that maybe porn isn’t the end all evil of feminism –til recently.
But that’s a different story.
It is offensive when you assume because a woman wears heels or strips or whatever that she’s never given it a second thought.
It’s offensive to assume she’s not a feminist — maybe not a feminist like you, but one nonetheless.
Sometimes folks examine and mull and educate themselves and still don’t agree with you.
That’s the nature of human individuality.
Lya Kahlo // April 23, 2007 at 6:35 pm
“Some radical feminists ABSOLUTELY say this.”
Link? A name? Anything?
Every time I personally have seen radfems say anything close to this is when they are talking about the patriarchy assumptions that go along with it.
On this thread there are radfems talking about doing these things - makeup, shaving etc.
Even if there are “some” (a conveniently non-specific amount) radfems who do say that - who gives a shit?
Right here and right now there is a radfem telling you that she does this as well. I do those things too. So what?
Here’s a hint - if a self-described “feminist” is peddaling the “you can’t do “x” and be a feminist” they’re peddaling a strawfeminist designed to discredit feminism.
Which means, you know, it’s NOT feminist.
As for what a sparkle is - I saw the term first on Ren’s blog so I assumed she or someone of that stripe coined it. You tell me what it’s supposed to mean.
delphyne // April 23, 2007 at 6:44 pm
“Some radical feminists ABSOLUTELY say this.
It cannot be enforced, of course, but many, many times I’ve read how I cannot truly be a feminist because I wear makeup or shave or whatever.
Or that I need to examine my reasons for doing so more.
And always the general implication that I’m just not “as good” a feminist by doing so.”
Well I remember way back when, November I think it was, when you used my words regarding this issue to illustrate what you destest about radical feminist attitudes Kim.
What I’d said was that I thought makeup wasn’t feminist. I stand by that. It’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it same as you are to disagree with it. Men aren’t held to a set of beauty strictures, only women have to deal with those and they are OPPRESSIVE thus, not feminist.
I don’t think you aren’t a feminist because you do these things, I don’t even think you are less of a feminist for doing these things. So I’m just wondering, which feminists have decided you are less of a feminist for wearing make-up because I’d like to have a word with them.
Lya Kahlo // April 23, 2007 at 6:59 pm
“Not really directed at you, Lya but I am very tired of this. Because, where does one draw the line?”
I don’t think it’s that hard to see. If the question comes down to you can indulge yourself or help someone else and you chose to indulge - how, exactly, are you an ally? This isn’t about expecting everyone to surrender everything and join the borg. This is about exercising some basic common sense. You mention vegetarianism - do you consider those who eat meat to vegetarians because they say they are, or are there some basic common practices and goals implied with the word.
Feminism is no different. It just so happens that the common practices and goals implied in the word aren’t all the noskirts/nosex/nomen/noheels nonsense “sparkles” like to pretend radfems are peddaling.
A common goal - the safety and freedom of women
A strawfeminist - you can’t wear high heels and be a feminist
_________
I am loathe to discuss the “p” word, but since you brought it up - this: ” I took it for granted and belived fully that porn of course is harmful to women.” is easily seen.
and this: “Which meant, I never even vaguely entertained the notion that maybe porn isn’t the end all evil of feminism –til recently.”
Let me ask you this: would you trust a tobacco company or its employees to tell the truth about smoking?
Personally, I wouldn’t. They have too much invested in promoting it postively.
Likewise, I don’t trust a porn company or its employess to tell the truth about porn or it potential effects on it consumers.
I’ve volunteered in a women’s shelter for a decade. If I recall correctly you too have similar experience (please correct me if I’m wrong). I see - daily - what happens to families into which porn is introduced. The harm and the damage are real, no matter how much it is denied. http://nopornnorthampton.org/
Lya Kahlo // April 23, 2007 at 6:59 pm
thank you Delphyne for illustrating the difference between what we’re actually saying and what they apparently really want to believe we’re saying.
Amber // April 23, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Lya - The term “sparkle pony” was coined by Ginmar. At least, that is the first place I saw it used.
delphyne // April 23, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Yup, and it didn’t have to do with make-up or any other “feminine” accoutrements, she coined it to describe the women who turned up to her blog calling themselves feminists whilst at the same time accusing her of being an evil man-hater and going on about how much they loved men - “princesssparkleponies”
Lya Kahlo // April 23, 2007 at 7:33 pm
So it doesn’t have anything to do with non-radfems (neccessarily) either? Why are they using it to describe themselves?
shannon // April 23, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Let’s push this a bit further. What if these invisible radfems called you not a feminist? What do you care? What effect on your life would it have if this really happened?
Arantxa // April 23, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I think these arguments about examining the role one plays in the world, reflecting over one’s actions and seeking to belong to or identify with a specific group of persons are things that we all do to varying extents and are not specific to any movement.
I don’t think online arguments - no matter how heated - reflect badly on feminists because I don’t agree that these online arguments are ‘infighting’: they’re not between women that work together. In any case, are we not allowed to be angry, disagree, lash out, be in the wrong?
I’ve learnt a lot from getting involved in arguments in the past and from observing them and good things can come out of thinking about one’s own behaviour and that of others.
Arantxa // April 23, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Good news is, shannon (lowercase?), one doesn’t need a licence to practice feminism.
Amber // April 23, 2007 at 8:09 pm
It’s not an “if.” Something that’s actually happened is no longer hypothetical.
That being said, it has absolutely no effect on my life, other than to make me shake my head in wonder at some folks.
Lya Kahlo // April 23, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Okay, so since it’s actually happened - who did it? what was said? I have never seen a radfem make proclamations like the ones you’re saying have happened, so sans proof I’m skeptical this is anything more than a misunderstanding.
That said, I second what Delphyne said.
v // April 23, 2007 at 10:05 pm
amber - yes andrea is one of the most brazenly dishonest people ive come across online. and yeh, i have come across the fundamentalists and ive been called much worse than feminazi. dont talk to me like im some naive kid prone to exaggeration and lacking in experience, thanks.
ren said on her blog, and i didnt see you make any comment on it, “Point is, out numbered or not, SOME radical feminists are the loudest, most abrasive, and yeah, cruel people I’ve EVER run across”. well ive known a lot of really fucking cruel people, and rens an incredibly lucky woman if she really means that and the worse cruelt shes EVER come across is indifference or insults online from less than a handful of radfems.
so no, amber, i dont need to get perspective. there are lots of really cruel people about, im only too aware of that thanks. but making comparisons like you’re doing still doesnt change my opinion about andrea which i came to, on my own, without coaching, from my own personal experiences with her. you disagree, fine, i used to think she was sound too. we live and learn, eh.
exangelena // April 24, 2007 at 1:54 am
Look, I don’t even know Andrea or half of any of you (I do visit egotistical whining and teetering slightly) and I have no idea what went on at whose blog last year or two months ago or whatnot - but as a radical feminist, I took offense at the hatred being spewed at me.
As for the whole “examining it” thing, I don’t think that “sparkles” (shorthand for feminine beauty and sex practices that radical feminists generally criticize) are bad in themselves, but I think that you cannot ignore the way that patriarchy encourages and rewards the “sparkles”. Two choices - “sparkles” and “no sparkles” are *not* created equal when one is conditioned from birth and the other is often ridiculed and punished.
I used the “fat” example above. I am not fat (although I’m certainly not Victoria Beckham or Nicole Ritchie). However I am 100% opposed to fatphobia and the anti-fat beauty standard. I’m not interested in saying that skinny is bad, and note that I haven’t gained 50 lbs in support of my beliefs and I still have my “thin privilege” - but I can do that and still agitate against the beauty standard that makes fat women suffer.
I also think that the comparison of the pressures of radfems vs. the pressures of patriarchy is asymmentrical. Patriarchy is a pervasive power structure, and I’d guess that few of us can escape from the presence of the fashion, sex and beauty industries. As for radical feminists - we’re an unorganized group of probably less than 100 women scattered throughout the world, we don’t agree with each other on every tenet of radical feminism and I’d guess that very few of us are “professional” radical feminists.
exangelena // April 24, 2007 at 1:59 am
And I’ve said this before, but another thing that annoys me is the way that the negative stereotyping of radical feminists sounds suspiciously like the way that misogynists stereotype feminists.
That we’re “man-haters”, we’re hairy, we don’t wear makeup, we’re uptight and no fun (humorless?), we’re old and ugly, we’re intolerant (feminazis?). Aside from the arguable “man-haters” and intolerant issues, what’s wrong with being hairy or not wearing makeup or being old or ugly? Why is everyone so interested in running away from that? You’re not hurting anyone by doing that, but you are offending the aesthetics of sexist men.
Gayle // April 24, 2007 at 2:24 am
“Hey, I have a thought. How about we all stop worrying about winning and protecting our damaged egos and actually do something constructive?
How’s that sound for a change?”
Doing something constructive on-line sounds great to me. Actually, I’ve been disappointed by how little on-line activism there is. For that reason, most of my “constructive” work happens off-line. I do respond to calls-for-action, etc., try to jump in when I can.
For the record: When I wrote “I think she can win.” I meant she can win in the battle of ideas. I didn’t mean to imply anything else.
While I agree with much of your comment, Faith, the false equivalence it paints is somewhat off-putting. WW didn’t launch the attack, she simply responded in defense of her deeply-held beliefs. Big difference there, IMO.
Burrow // April 24, 2007 at 2:54 am
exangelena I think I love you.
shannon // April 24, 2007 at 3:33 am
I lowercase it because I am lazy. I agree about being feminine and being unfeminine not being equal. People actually verbally praise me when I am feminine. But yea, I agree there’s nothing wrong with me in the winter when I have hairy legs. Who I am as a person is defined by more than whether some random guy thinks I am hot.
RenegadeEvolution // April 24, 2007 at 3:35 am
V: I wouldn’t say I’m lucky and know nothing about human cruelty, thanks. I’ve known some real abusive fuckhead prize winner asshole human beings in my time…but yeah, when it comes to the way I’ve seen some radical feminists treat non radical feminists, I stand by my words. I am not saying all, but some, most certainly. Abuse does not have to be physical or sexual to mess someone up after all.
Exangelena- You know, I have YET to see any woman who even LIKES the word feminist, no matter her camp, talk smack about a woman because of her weight, her choice not to wear make up, her choice not to shave, her choice not to wear “girlie” things, or her choice to not sleep with men.
I have however seen a lot of snide criticism of women who shave, diet, wear make up, dress “sexy”, so on so forth…. Sure, it is okay to ask anyone WHY they might do something, out of honest curiosity and all, but so very often, this isn’t honesty interest, it’s flat out bashing..,and NO MATTER the reasons one might give (I detest body hair on all people, I am in theatre and like dramatic make up, I live in Some City Where it is Hotter than Hell and less clothes are more comfortable in the heat) it just isn’t good enough or does not matter.
octogalore // April 24, 2007 at 6:09 am
Exangelena : “That we’re man-haters, we’re hairy, we don’t wear makeup, we’re uptight and no fun (humorless?), we’re old and ugly, we’re intolerant (feminazis?). ”
Much of these are straw arguments. Feminists of any stripe don’t make these generalizations globally, and are more likely to point out specific examples of the non-appearance-related ones where it can be argued they exist. As Ren says, I haven’t seen any self-proclaimed feminist comment about anyone’s weight or hair level.
Further, I find it interesting that the folks most likely to point out (apologetically, of course) how much thin privilege or bodaciousness they have, despite their sincere wishes not to have this stuff, are not the so-called sparkle pony feminists. Of course, it will be claimed it’s all in context. However, the contexts in which it’s mentioned, to me, are pretty thin…
exangelena // April 24, 2007 at 6:42 am
Burrow - Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!
Renegade Evolution - Then what is with the profusion of posts in the feminist blogosphere* meeting all the criteria that I listed? Lauredhel tackles the phenomena. No, generally they don’t criticize individual women for being fat or hairy, but the mythical strawfeminist who tells them that they can’t be pretty or sexy or wear makeup.
That being said, perhaps you’re more sensitive to the anti-”sparkle” blog posts than I am, and I’m more sensitive to the pro-”sparkle” blog posts than you are.
I think I’ve tried to explain it in other comments of mine - but I don’t necessarily have a problem with you if you wear fewer clothes because of the heat - goodness knows I don’t insist you walk around with sweat stains all day. I do have a problem IF and only IF you were to get defensive and complain that feminists who criticize the existing pressure on young women to wear trendy and scanty clothes are oppressing you and if you ignore the fact that the choice of wearing, say, a crotch-length miniskirt and tube top gets more societal approval than wearing a baggy shirt and loose trousers during the summer.
Continuing with my body weight example, I do get upset sometimes when heavy women say that thin women look like starving children, are nasty bag of bones, anorexics, unnatural, etc. At this time I am not slender because I am on a crash diet - it’s more a function of genetics, youth, an active lifestyle, anxiety and an aversion to calorie-rich meat and fats. However, I understand that their anger likely comes from years of hatred thrown at their bodies, and that I can tune them out any time I want and go back to my thin privilege. And I strongly believe that I can be slender (let’s be honest here, a US Size 4) AND be anti-fatphobia and against the thin beauty standard.
Sorry for the ramble, but I just want to say that I appreciate that you’re willing to have respectful dialogue with radical feminists. And hey, I’ve said some hurtful and mean things about sex positive feminists in the past. I don’t think you’re an asshole, I don’t think I’m an asshole - we’re both allowed our bad moments
*(I’m reluctant to link to any posts or name names, since I don’t want anyone coming over to Witchy Woo’s space that I’m currently using as my soapbox to fling crap at me.)
exangelena // April 24, 2007 at 6:57 am
octagalore:
“I find it interesting that the folks most likely to point out (apologetically, of course) how much thin privilege or bodaciousness they have, despite their sincere wishes not to have this stuff, are not the so-called sparkle pony feminists. Of course, it will be claimed it’s all in context. However, the contexts in which it’s mentioned, to me, are pretty thin…”
First of all, I’m not generally considered beautiful or bodacious. I have never been a pretty girl. I have been, however, spared the abusive treatment that many fat women get. Although of course, no woman is ever thin enough …
I also never said that I hate being thin. (Much more content can be found in my above response to Renegade Evolution.) I would probably have to quit my job and blow out my GI tract to gain enough weight to qualify as fat. I would be pretty angry if someone told me that I’m not allowed to be thin (although most of the radical feminists I’ve come across are not big on passing laws and ordinances),
I would be a “sparkle pony feminist” if I said things like “tee hee! I’m such a bad feminist, I’m thin!” or “I’m not going to be a radical feminist anymore because some radical feminist said I was too thin!”. And I think that the fact I have privilege - due to some random, meaningless combination of genetics and lifestyle - sucks.
I think that recognizing privilege is useful and changes the way you look at things. I’m nonwhite and female, and I find that I can discuss race and gender issues much more easily with whites and/or men who have examined their privilege.
I can see that women fighting size-ism might take me with a grain of salt and I don’t have a problem with that. I’m willing to help and be their ally, but I don’t want to appropriate their struggle.
Kim // April 24, 2007 at 10:10 am
Just weighing in for the moment to say I appreciate this discussion. It’s far too early for me to appropriately comment or even read everything here clearly as I’m not even thru my first cup of coffee.
But so far this discussion, sans name calling or overuse of sarcasm, I think is a good think.
Back later …
Kim // April 24, 2007 at 10:10 am
“a good think.”
THING.
I rest my case — not fully awake!
Pippa // April 24, 2007 at 10:42 am
It’s my opinion that in order to understand what you are dealing with Witchy, you take a look at the full comment thread for the original post. I’m stunned at the ignorance and loathing that is splashing around there. I am upset and disturbed by the whole tone. You might also go and look at the “Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood.” comment on another site. I won’t link, you’ll find it. I am disgusted with what I’ve read today, and you absolutely have all my support IRL and online. Pippa x
fannyblood // April 24, 2007 at 12:01 pm
they are a very very angry bunch that’s for sure.
stormy // April 24, 2007 at 12:11 pm
The “Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood.” comment was brought to you by The Feminists That Care About Women More [than those nasty evil radfems]TM.
A survey of the previous week’s posts (16-24 Apr) on that blog reveal that out of 24 posts, 6 posts (25%) are radfem/anti-porn-activist bashing. Now go to a radfem blog at random and try to find 25% of the posts dedicated to pro-pornie bashing.
This so-called ‘porn war’ is totally one-sided, with one person in particular continually inciting it and maintaining it ['the war'].
Personally I would like to take a match to that blog of strawfeminism.
stormy // April 24, 2007 at 12:13 pm
The “Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood.” comment was brought to you by The Feminists That Care About Women More [than those nasty evil radfems]TM.
A survey of the previous week’s posts (16-24 Apr) on that blog reveal that out of 24 posts, 6 posts (25%) are radfem/anti-porn-activist bashing. Now go to a radfem blog at random and try to find 25% of the posts dedicated to pro-pornie bashing.
This so-called ‘porn war’ is totally one-sided, with one person in particular continually inciting it and maintaining it [’the war’].
Personally I would like to take a match to that blog of strawfeminism.
stormy // April 24, 2007 at 12:14 pm
[apologies for the double posting, the comment 'disappeared' on the first attempt, and re-appeared after posting it the second time -- Witchy, please delete the second one, thanks]
Lya Kahlo // April 24, 2007 at 12:34 pm
“And I’ve said this before, but another thing that annoys me is the way that the negative stereotyping of radical feminists sounds suspiciously like the way that misogynists stereotype feminists.”
Yes, that is interesting, isn’t it. Makes you wonder where they’re actually getting their info from.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“You know, I have YET to see any woman who even LIKES the word feminist, no matter her camp, talk smack about a woman because of her weight, her choice not to wear make up, her choice not to shave, her choice not to wear “girlie” things, or her choice to not sleep with men.”
Then you apparently don’t read the comments on your own blog. It’s routinely agreed on that radfems are jealous of all you hot’n’sexxxxaay chicks who get all the boys in a tizzy - because they aren’t as *prettyprettypretty* as you (collectively). And the boy cheerleaders always make sure to add that we’re all mentally unhinged in some capacity.
Vera used to read your blog, and therefore so did I - since she used the office comp.
“I have however seen a lot of snide criticism of women who shave, diet, wear make up, dress “sexy”, so on so forth…. Sure, it is okay to ask anyone WHY they might do something, out of honest curiosity and all, but so very often, this isn’t honesty interest, it’s flat out bashing”
And yet neither you or your buddies have managed to produce a single shred of evidence that this is the case. So I say once again, sans evidence I’m forced to conclude that either A) you’re inventing insults in order to justify your bashing radfems, or b) you can read minds and *know* a random stranger’s *true* motives.
And this is also what I meant by maybe this isn’t all about you. Though it may shock you, they’re not always out to get you. It is possible that you weren’t even on their minds when they wrote whatever they wrote that you find so personally offensive. (that’s still the collective “you”).
___________
“This so-called ‘porn war’ is totally one-sided, with one person in particular continually inciting it and maintaining it [’the war’].”
And notice, how whenever a negative point about porn is posted, its ignored and whole conversation becomes about how all the feminists are mean to them - you know, all the ones they have yet to name, and all the comments they have yet to prove are personal insults to them.
I’m underwhelmed, I have to say. And I understand now why Vera’s given up. No wonder she avoids certain blogs like the plague now.
stormy // April 24, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Thanks Lya, I have missed you around these parts lately. I just want to go “ditto” on everything you’ve said on this thread.
Laurelin // April 24, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Go Lya!
Kim // April 24, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Not to harp on the negative, but the following quotes are exactly the kind of blog discourse I so detest:
“radfems are jealous of all you hot’n’sexxxxaay chicks”
“Though it may shock you, they’re not always out to get you.”
“A survey of the previous week’s posts (16-24 Apr) on that blog reveal that out of 24 posts, 6 posts (25%) are radfem/anti-porn-activist bashing. Now go to a radfem blog at random and try to find 25% of the posts dedicated to pro-pornie bashing.”
When I see this sort of stuff, the sarcasm, the effort put into getting statistics (!!!) my eyes glaze and I’m not longer interested in reading with an open mind.
Seems to me the focus is more on fighting than reaching an understanding and I’m trying to stay away from the sort of thing.
For this reason, I’m not interested in offering up fucking blog “evidence.” I could spending hours and hours copying and pasting ONLY the mean-sprited comments from rad fems; name names; give links.
This sort of thing does not appeal to me in the least, indeed it is the behavior of someone a bit unhinged in my opinion.
I think you know where to find the sort of “evidence” you demand, Lya, as much as I would know exactly where to go to find the meanest of the mean comments from “the other side” (fuck “Sparkle”
a la “Fall under a truck” or what have you.
We all go to blogs where folks express sentiments to ours.
We’ve all read the comments and many of us have written them.
I’m all pissed off again.
At least I admit it.
No more from me for a while
Lya Kahlo // April 24, 2007 at 1:58 pm
“When I see this sort of stuff, the sarcasm, the effort put into getting statistics (!!!) my eyes glaze and I’m not longer interested in reading with an open mind.”
The sarcasm is meant to illustrate the absolute absurdity of the premise that anyone is “just jealous”. And to highlight the fact that NO actual arguements of radfems is ever discussed. Interesting though that you dismiss statistics are being just too boring (apparently) for you to consider. Conveniently that allowed to you totally ignore the fact that she’s proven its nonradfems who are doing the bashing - while you (collectively) are making up lame excuses as to why you lack any evidence.
“Seems to me the focus is more on fighting than reaching an understanding and I’m trying to stay away from the sort of thing.”
Yes, nonradfems are interested only in fighting. As you so quickly prove with the next pile of bullshit:
“For this reason, I’m not interested in offering up fucking blog “evidence.” . . . This sort of thing does not appeal to me in the least, indeed it is the behavior of someone a bit unhinged in my opinion. ”
Ah yes! How “unhinged” of me to request evidence of the treatment you (collectively) routinely accuse radfems of. How “unhinged” of me to ask that you back up your statements. It’s not like that’s a basic expectation in a debate, or anything.
The reason you’re avoiding my request is because you don’t have any evidence. But thank you for tossing in a few insults at me, as I have very noticiably not insulted you at all. It is very easy to see who is interested in “just fighting”. I expected better from you Kim. Especially from you.
“I think you know where to find the sort of “evidence” you demand, Lya, as much as I would know exactly where to go to find the meanest of the mean comments ”
can anyone parse out this sentence? I’m at a loss at the meaning here. Is she saying that we’re all the same because she might know one blog that insults?
I am also pissed off. Pissed off that nonradfems are apparently incapable of producing any evidence of the behavior they accuse us of. Pissed that the ignore basic, simple and reasonable requests that what we’re being accused of happens. Pissed that any moment now we’ll see another round of blog posts about how “mean” radfems are - still without evidence.
shannon // April 24, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I think the huge difference between meanness and oppression needs to be talked about. It’s mean to laugh at the fact that sometimes I try to wear shoes that I can’t walk in, because of the obsession with OMG, heels! in women’s shoes. It’s oppressive to talk about how women only make political decisions based on whether people like their shoes.
Also, evidence is seen as an important part of knowledge by many people., especially those who value being right over being nice. I did get the impression that certain people spend a whole lot of time bashing the other side. It’s not to say that I don’t mock the stupid on my blog, but I don’t go around complaining that people are super mean either.
Kim // April 24, 2007 at 2:37 pm
“Unhinged” was not directed at you for requesting evidence, Lya. My mistake if that wasn’t clear.
“Unhinged” to me is a rather what Stormy has done — gone to blogs specifically looking for posts which do not view rad fems favorably — “atttacking,” if you will — then getting stats, etc.
This sort of rather — stalker-esque? — behavior would make me wonder if she even bothered to read the CONTENT of my “anti rad fem” posts this week. It ain’t bad towards rad fems at my place, you know? I’m not all “I love porn!” either.
I just think a lot of stuff out on my blog and don’t care so much anymore if this makes me unpopular — with either “side.”
While I fully admit to getting angry (my use of “fucking” a few times in my last comment, for example), I don’t usually write posts just to “slam” or “attack” anyone.
I realize it seems I’m getting pretty nasty towards Stormy by calling her behavior “unhinged,” — I didn’t want to do that.
The whole “Operation Wasp” had led me to distrust anything that vaguely rings of that debacle –intense, selective-editing, blog hunting, “Wasp” Witch Hunt sort of thing — just creeps me out.
But hey, that’s just me.
You know, maybe the reason I get so uptight about all of this is that I genuinely don’t consider myself on either “side.” Which means when I feel “attacked” — genuinely or perceived as this may be — by a rad fem, I’m like “But I’m not AGAINST you!” you know.
As for the other “side” well so far, they’ve been nothing but civil towards me. I still smart over all the blog “friends” I lost when I began questioning.
Not expressing myself as well as I’d like due to time. Back later when not so rushed, perhaps.
Perhaps I could find a few comments/posts that upset me, if not embarking on a whole Rad Fem Witch Hunt. A Rad Fem Witch Hunt would make me “unhinged” via my own definition.
Lya Kahlo // April 24, 2007 at 2:59 pm
““Unhinged” was not directed at you for requesting evidence, Lya. My mistake if that wasn’t clear.”
Apologies for the misunderstanding then.
“It ain’t bad towards rad fems at my place, you know? I’m not all “I love porn!” either.”
I know very well. I read your blog frequently. I also know that there are some good people on all sides of the fence, and that this in fighting is mainly the fault of a crappy discussion medium (internet forums) - they lack tone, subtext and subtlety.
I think the main problem here is that we all - ALL - occasionally read some comments which were intended to describe an sitch between specific people, but we mistake as being a slam against the whole group. Or that slam the whole group unintentionally.
I want to know what it is that we’re saying that is being taken as an insult - so frequently. Because I am convinced it is not intended to offend, but to discuss things that need to be discuss. But perhaps send an unintentionally negative vibe to those who aren’t normally part of the group discussing it.
Perhaps what we really need is a feminist vernacular dictionary. (and for the record, I totally stole that idea from Vera)
Lya Kahlo // April 24, 2007 at 3:11 pm
A p.s. I think it’s unfair to categorized Stormy’s actions as “unhinged”. What she did is what debate requires - she provided evidence to back up her case. If gathering evidence is “unhinged” then every scientist, lawyer etc are unhinged.
exangelena // April 24, 2007 at 3:30 pm
“Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood.”
Lya, stormy - what happened with that? I saw that at womensspace, but I think (as usual) I missed the flame war.
Lya Kahlo // April 24, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I know what blog the quote came from, but not what sparked it.
Kim // April 24, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Fair enough, Lya — you got me smiling over here which is a whole LOT better than what nearly happened with us a few comments back.
Ditto and retraction on any interpretation of Stormy as “unhinged.”
That’s what I’m talking about over here — understanding each other.
(I still have “unhinged” feeling towards the Op Wasp blog thing, namely as one quote of mine was yanked out of context. But I’ll get over it.)
stormy // April 24, 2007 at 3:56 pm
So, statistics cause you to shut down? Interesting, as they are a statement of fact, the proof of what is going on, but you choose to put your head in the sand. If you recall I have also done analysis of porn spam on a similar basis. That survey was interesting, as it was highly suspicious that only radfems were receiving such a volume of ‘rape porn’, and when I announced that I was to do another more indepth one on New Year’s Day, magically, it [porn spam] stopped on December 31st.
‘Trying to stay away’, is that what you called it when you joined in the Stormy-bashing fest of a month or two ago? Strange, as I had never had any disagreement with you, nor really any direct conversation (within the blogosphere). So let me get this straight, it is fine and dandy to ‘join in the fun’ of radfem bashing, but not ‘fine and dandy’ to collate evidence and call someone on a repeated behaviour?
Do it. I think you will find that the wealth of evidence of mean-spirited comments originates from one side, and you are more than happy to party along with that side in radfem bashing.
[Lya, actually it was obvious that she was refering to me as unhinged]
You may not write the posts, but you are still happy to join in radfem bashing. On the ‘unhinged’ nature of statistical evidence, I guess that all the rape researchers are also ‘unhinged’ for analysing events of an icky subject like rape?* The analysis of the blog content of a self-proclaimed feminist is actually important in this discussion. What I did not mention is that the ‘feminist’ content of that week’s survey yielded about three posts tops on ‘feminism’ (excluding just linking to other blogs). Hence that validates my stance that the blog has less to do with feminism, and more to do with bashing radfems.
*Actually, another fucking strawfeminist argument put up by pro-porners is that radfems ‘obsess’ about pornography. That is the double bind of, if we study it, we are ‘obsessed’ by it, if we don’t study it, we don’t know what we are talking about. Kind of reminds me of ‘typical’ Patriarchy in that double-bind stance.
Ah, some selective memory or observation. Operation Wasp was TWO POSTS, two posts out of hundreds—not exactly 25% of my posts, was it? Besides which, it was political commentary on the feminist blogosphere landscape, rather than a ridicule post as is standard at the pornie blogs. In a nutshell, for the incredibly thick of you out there, I should have perhaps simply said, “Trojan Horse”, which is RE, BD et al maintaining that they are feminists and infiltrating the radfem spaces, primarily to disrupt them from the inside. My mistake was in trying to do it by allegory rather than simply just naming names as I have done here.
Now if the pornies wish me to seriously regard them as ‘feminists’, they can easily do that by upping the percentage of quality posts on the subject of FEMINISM (not feminists) to around 80%. But the content of their blogs speak for themselves as to their motives, and it isn’t feminism. Wake up and smell the Patriarchy (agenda).
stormy // April 24, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I do not recall EVER quoting you (in any of my posts). I did quote another radfem in those posts, which I later removed at her request. So what is the quote that I took out of context?
RenegadeEvolution // April 24, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Hey, watch this..
I was the author of “die choking on your own blood” yep, I admit it. (Originally posted at my own blog, gee, I guess it got taken to Womenspace to feed something…imagine my surprise…
Why, well, I look around at see the way I think some pretty keen people…you know, not assholes like me are treated, like Antiprincess on a recent thread at Hearts, Laura back around January or so, anybody and everybody in the Wasp thing, BFP and BlackAmazon almost any and every time the address race or class, and it makes me angry.
There have been 3, exactly three women I can think of who know the word feminist who have mentioned jealousy. I’m not one of them. As for the men, I don’t tell them what to write, but it is a well known fact, sooner or later, EVERYTHING, every single comment posted to my blog is published, sometimes on the intended post, sometimes in a wrap up, but published nonetheless. That’s been my policy for a long time.
Yep, sure enough, I have been unleashing some fury on SOME radical feminists here lately. Between the above mentioned women I like being slagged off for no real reason, a few totally erroneous statements made at Genderberg about me, the calling of women like Jill B outright stupid, and the great anonymous (and in one case, signed) yet not too subtle pot shots at me that show up in my blog daily by radical feminists…gee, I wonder why I might take issue?
delphyne // April 24, 2007 at 4:04 pm
“I think the main problem here is that we all - ALL - occasionally read so