Link Farm and Open Thread #11
| February 26th, 2006Once again, the stuff I’ve been reading lately. Use the comments thread for discussions of these links, providing other links, or just saying whatever’s on your mind. And please, if you want to stick in a link to your own work, don’t be shy.
The Ninth Carnival of Feminists.
So much good reading! (Many of the following links were swiped from the feminist carnival, of course.)
Norman Finkelstein & Shlomo Ben-Ami Debate
Ben-Ami is an Israeli historian and former Foreign Minister (during Barak’s administration); Norman Finkelstein is an American professor known for harsh criticism of the Israeli government. The “debate” isn’t much of a debate - the two actually have a hard time finding areas of strong disagreement until rather late in the interview, and Ben-Ami doesn’t seem like much for forensics - but it’s fascinating reading. Ben-Ami, with his twin perspective as a historian and an insider during the Camp David and Taba negotiations, is particularly interesting.
Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty responds to a recent post by me regarding Israel and Palestine.
Holocaust Denial Among Leftists
Interesting essay by someone who became involved with an anti-Holocuast-denial community because he was arguing against pseudo-lefty Holocaust deniers - but then found that his refusal to refrain from criticizing Israel meant he couldnt’ be part of the anti-Holocaust-denial community.
Struggling With Identity Politics
bell hooks Lecture
Never Say Never… summarizes a bell hooks lecture she attended: part 1 and part 2. Interesting stuff; if you’re not familiar with hooks, this could be a quick, easy introduction, and if you’re already a hooks fan, then you’re sure to enjoy it.
T&A Advertising Debated By The French
Dangereuse Trilingue discusses (in English) a debate going on among some French bloggers, set off by T&A ads for a webbrowser:
Can Someone Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Without Being a Bigot?
Terrorists Have Their Own Talk Shows
New To the Blogroll: Den of the Biting Beaver
Ultra-smart, angry radical feminist blog, posting against pornography and rape and just generally kicking ass. This blog stands out from the crowd. I particularly liked this recent post about masculinity and rape.
Women and Patriarchy
I can’t even begin to summarize this post, which is about if women can be blamed for participating in patriarchy, but also touches on the near-rape aspects of Girls Gone Wild, bullying, homeschooling, and on not living in a vacuum. Go read it.
Feminist Television Studies: The Case Of HBO
I haven’t read this yet, but it looks interesting so I’m blogging it to preserve the link. There’s an article each about The Sopranos, Six Feet Under and Sex In The City, but nothing on Deadwood - probably Deadwood didn’t exist when they wrote it.
Rapists Are Terrorists. Rape Is Terrorism.
Also a great post, from another recent addition to the blogroll, “I’m Not a Feminist But…”
You’re Invited To a Pimps and Hos Party
Debate: The Value of Open Acceptance versus The Value of Leaving Labels Behind
Male Afghan Parlimentian Dismayed That Female Parlimentians Travel Without Male Escorts
New Study Shows That TV Doesn’t Make Kids Dumber
Take that, books!
Welfare Agencies Taking Assets From Their Wards
The New York Times reports on welfare agencies using inherited social security payments due children to help cover their budgets - which can leave orphans broke and homeless the day they turn 18. I blame anti-tax activists who’d rather give a huge, unneeded tax break to millionaires than give orphans minimally decent support.
How The Republicans Will Win In 2006: Declare Victory in Iraq
Mind on Fire (male) asks, Is There A Place For Men In Feminism?
Self-Portrait As… (female) says “yes there is.”
But men have got to lay off the dumb questions and expecting pats on the back.
The Soapbox (female): A Resounding YES!
Rad Geek (male): Congratulations on Washing!
Den of the Biting Beaver (female): In THIS movement you are just another person.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Amp, um no. A hearty and resounding bullshiitte.
There is nothingultra-smart about the Den of the Biting Beaver. What is posted there is same old same old, not particularly well-written, long, rambling, borrowed from other places, and especially abjectly *heterocentric*.
And that last is why I think so many like that place and want to shout its whereabouts from the rooftops while ignoring, for example — or banning — brilliant women like Ginmar, funnie, and char. The Den is popular because BB is het and her man is all over, not only her blog but the internet. You can’t go *anywhere* without encountering the arrogant, self-righteous, and sometimes misogynist pontificating of BB’s So Dim/Dubhe.
So you like that place. And Rich likes it. And all the het men like it. And the het women.
Well, ya know what? If you want brilliance, there are much, much better places to find it. If you want what makes you feel comfortable — hurrah! some radfems are actually het and their boyfriends write more than they do, and say stupid things just like me! — then you’ll like the den.
Sorry, BB. I know you mean well. But this is a real issue.
Heart
This comment was written by CherylLindseySeelhoff.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 2:13 am
Cheryl, until you said so I had no idea that she was heterosexual, so that’s certainly not why I liked the posts I read. And I’ve never even heard of her or her bl0g before today, so I doubt it’s as omnipresent as you imply. At least, not in the places I hang out.
I haven’t read much by Char lately (if she has a blog, I’m not aware of it). I agree that Funnie and Ginmar are brilliant. (I wasn’t aware that Ginmar is ignored; I had thought she was one of the most prominent feminists on all of livejournal. But I’m not very up on livejournal, so I might be mistaken.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Hi Cheryl,
I am not very familiar with the Biting Beaver, but I have some questions about the nature of your objection:
Is it that you object to the ideas expressed on her blog? Or is it that you think Amp tends to promote mediocre heterocentric blogs at the expense of excellent non-heterocentric blogs? Or is it both?
And if you object to the ideas expressed on Biting Beaver’s blog, could you expand on that? Specifically, as a het feminist blogger (who writes a lot about het stuff like male-female dating and male-female marriage), I am also curious to know more about the phrase “abjectly heterocentric?” Does this phrase refer simply to someone who writes primarily about issues of interest to people in male-female relationships? Or does it refer to someone who writes with the assumption that all the readers are straight? Or does it refer to someone whose heterocentric point of view leads him or her to conclusions that are antithetical to the interests of gay people?
Any info. you can provide would be most appreciated!
This comment was written by The Happy Feminist.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 8:19 am
It’s really great to see you going to bat for the banned feminists, Cheryl. Better late (and highly selectively) than never, I guess.
This comment was written by alsis39.5.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Amp, that’s interesting that you just learned about the Den. I apologize for being unduly crabby — I think in part I’m still fuming over some things (having to do with rape) that were posted over on Twisty’s blog a couple of weeks back (not by BB but by her partner, Dim/Dubhe). I assumed without checking that the blog entry you linked to was one I remembered Dubhe having written about rape, and I also figured (unreasonably– sorry!) that you must have seen that thread on Twisty’s blog, and so I thought, “Great, here we have Amp’s endorsement, once again a male feminist gets approval and a pass for some really unfortunate statements around rape, whereas feminist women get banned for being too impolite, how aggravating.” I shouldn’t be presuming you read where I read– again, I apologize for my overall grouchiness.
I now see, having actually gone to the link, :-o, that it’s something BB wrote more recently. It’s interesting– it is kind of an example of what I mean. I think the “rape is violence or control not sex” position is, again, a heterocentric position, and a male-friendly position, really, reflecting a certain male-centeredness. It brackets rape off from heterosexual sex in a way that doesn’t reflect the reality of most women who are rape survivors or most men who rape. It also has the (usually-unintended) effect of bracketing battering off from heterosexual sex in a way that doesn’t reflect the reality of most women who are battering survivors or most men who batter. If rape is about violence, not sex, then certainly battering isn’t about sex, it’s about violence. When in fact, far and away, battering is sex-specific, something sexually done to women by men. In other words, the “rape is violence not sex” position is not a radical position, but it’s offered up as one. I just think it’s easier for people to get behind and get excited about something that offers itself up as radical feminism (whether it is or not) if it is male-centered (and het-relationship-centered) in these (and other) ways, and if it’s a man who identifies as a feminist who is doing a lot of the talking. This perturbs me. Hence, my crabby post. (And again, I apologize for my excessive crabbiness.) Dubhe and BB do a lot of good feminist work, and that’s all for the good. I just get frustrated over the way the presence of a man in the picture allows for a certain voice on the internet and a certain kind of approval (and passes of various kinds) that feminist women aren’t usually afforded (unless they spend a lot of their time, again, focusing on or talking about men in ways which are positive or favorable or sympathetic.)
Heart
This comment was written by Heart.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Simply stunning.
This comment was written by CaptDMO.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Alsis.
On December 28, 2005, during the week Ginmar was banned, I posted this in a guest blog entry to Alas:
“A couple of days ago, Ginmar posted to my boards, alerting me to the treatment she was receiving here and to the fact that she had finally left Alas. I read her blog, then came here and read the various threads she’d described. ”
In my next post I said:
“… My post today is me, standing up for Ginmar. And against the bannings of radical feminist women including Paige and funnie. I think we deserve a spot here, certainly if mens’ rights activists and antifeminists, do. ”
*****
This thread went 360-some posts worth, most posts of which were directly or indirectly related to ginmar’s banning.
A year ago, February 2005, when paige and funnie were banned, I started this thread on my boards as well as participating in the Alas thread(s) around their banning. So I sure did go to bat for paige and funnie at the time they were banned, both here and on my own boards, and I went to bat for Ginmar when she was banned, both here and on my own boards.
Happy Feminist, I wrote a post this morning that I think answers some of the questions you asked there, but it’s awaiting moderation. I’m saying that because this post might go through and I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring you!
This comment was written by Heart.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Ampersand, you might already have seen it, but I thought I’d mention PZ Myer’s post, We’re all Dakotans, in which he tries to take a long hard look at the laws etc. of Minnesota.
I think it is very important for everyone, and especially men, to try to do that once in a while. Try to understand what barriers there might be to women deciding to either avoid pregnancy or having an abortion. And when the barriers have been identified, everyone should work to tear them down.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Apology accepted, Cheryl. Thanks.
I don’t agree with the “rape is violence or control not sex” position for several reasons. It seems empirically doubtful. And it creates a false dichotomy; for many rapists, rape is about sex, but that doesn’t mean it’s not also about control. And I also agree with the critique of the position you provide here.
Edited to add: Actually, I’m not sure I fully understand your position, and in particular how you’re defining heterocentrism (why is saying “When in fact, far and away, battering is sex-specific, something sexually done to women by men” not heterocentric?). I think that one problem with the “rape is about violence not sex” view is that it can falsely reassure het men that as long as they’re not turned on by hitting women, that means that nothing they do could be rape. If that’s the kind of thing you’re getting at, then I agree.
(I’m not sure, by the way, that BB ever said “control not sex.” She said rape was about control, but I think that’s different in an important way from saying that rape is about control not sex.)
There are aspects to BB’s post that your analysis doesn’t discuss. The majority of her post wasn’t arguing that rape is about control not sex; it was arguing that rape is to a great extent about masculinity (and power and control are, in turn, about masculinity), and men’s need to maintain masculinity - an approach which isn’t, in my view, heterocentric. It was those aspects of her post that account for my enthusiastic linking.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Thanks Cheryl!
This comment was written by The Happy Feminist.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 10:42 am
No, no, Cheryl. You don’t get to wiggle out of it that easily. My point was that once upon a time, bean and myself (and several others) were banned from another feminist board and you refused to get involved, though you had once gone on record as stating “No feminist should ever be banned” from feminist boards. Oh, wait. You did get involved. You came to bean’s home board at the time and justified the fact that we had been banned.
I would like to know, just for the record: Are you sorry about that now ? If the same thing happened today, would you stand up for bean, for myself, for the others ? I don’t mean only in this case, with a male as board owner. I mean on a space where the board owner was female, not male ?
This comment was written by alsis39.5.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
lol… what melodrama! veeery eenteresting!
This comment was written by lucky.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I’m pretty sure that’s a different Lucky than the one who was banned many times from the boards in question. Just in case anyone’s wondering.
* * *
I have a lot of sympathy for my friend Alsis’s position; her banning at Ms was unfair, and while I don’t remember what Heart in particular did, I do remember that few if any of the “women must never be banned” crowd gave Alsis or Bean even a teaspoon of support.
Nonetheless, I don’t want to make “Alas” a place for reviving conflicts that happened years ago.
Out of fairness to you, Heart, you can make one post here defending or clarifying how you responded to Alsis’ and Bean’s bannings (but please don’t make counter-accusations against Alsis). After that, I’d really like it if this subject was dropped here on “Alas.”
I respect you both, and what’s most important to me here is that both of you (Alsis and Heart) feel that I’ve treated you fairly. At the same time, I’d rather not have an extensive debate about what happened years ago take place here, if I can avoid it. (Especially not since it could derail what I think is a more interesting conversation about possible heterocentrism in how many feminists discuss rape.)
So let me know if either of you feel I’m treating you unfairly, and especially if you have a suggestion for how I can better handle this current situation.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Alsis, I don’t think it’s true that I refused to get involved when all those people were banned from the Ms boards. I think in fact, I objected to the bannings of feminists on the Ms boards when they happened. As for the Strife, what I remember is char being banned by bean almost immediately and Jeanne being relentlessly trashed and flamed for weeks on end there, including by you, even though she never registered there and never posted. I don’t remember what I posted to the Strife about the bannings now (and I did a search and came up with nothing), but I do know that the treatment char and Jeanne received figured prominently in to what I felt like saying there, or not, and to the fact that I didn’t stick around there myself.
Amp, as to BB’s post about rape, I know what her views are because I’ve read others of her blog entries about rape. I’m not inclined to say more than I have about that for a bunch of reasons. I just wanted to register my objection to your having endorsed the Den while having banned a number of radical feminists from Alas. That is problematic to me in a bunch of ways, some of which I’ve talked about.
As to your saying you’re glad I think you’ve been fair to me– huh. I think it’s more like, I have been willing to play nice when I’ve posted here (something other radfems have not been willing to do, and I completely understand their reasoning and support them). Similar to the reasons I’m objecting to your endorsement of the Den in light of your having banned radical feminists from Alas, I’m bothered by your suggesting I think you’ve treated me fairly. Something like: “See, Heart thinks I’ve been fair,” (subtext: “So I must have had good reason to ban all those other radfems.”) And along the same lines, “See, I’ve endorsed the Den,” (subtext: “So I must have had good reason to ban all those other radfems.” )
Well, that’s enough.
This comment was written by Heart.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Amp, you wrote:
What BB says pretty close to the beginning of her post is:
While this does not quite mean that rape is not about sex, it does separate the issue of control from the issue of sex, nor does she say anything anywhere in the rest of her post that I could see that suggests she does not agree with the position in the above statement. Personally, I think a lot of what she says about pornography implies that somewhere in her she believes that rape is precisely about sex, but that is an implication that I may be reading into it. One of the reasons I have always thought that Dworkin’s book Intercourse was so brilliant is that it forces you to confront on so many different levels not only that rape is about sex, but also that, in a patriarchal culture, you cannot avoid the fact that heterosexual sex is also about rape, and that the issue is not, therefore, that men and women shouldn’t have sex or that every act of intercourse is therefore rape, but rather how you account in your relationships for the patriarchal power dynamics inherent in all aspects of all heterosexual relationships. An essay I wrote that was published in Salon tells a personal story that is relevant here. I know I have linked to this essay before on Alas…I forget which thread…but the experience brought home to me very powerfully, in a way I had never felt it before, how much heterosexual sex in a patriarchal culture is about rape and, therefore, how much rape cannot help but be about sex.
You also wrote:
Actually, I thought Cheryl’s statements…and am I right that Cheryl is also the same as Heart?…made it pretty clear that what she meant by heterocentric was a point of view solicitous and comforting of, and therefore comfortable for, men. To say that battering is sex-specific because it is overwhelmingly something men do to women, it seems to me, is only heterocentric if you your statement renders invisible that battering that does go on in the gay and lesbian communities, which is different. And now that I’ve written this out, I can see what your confusion might have been. Personally, I have always preferred the term heterosexist for things like the rape-is-not-about-sex position, because its relationship to the term sexism reflects its investment in male dominance, while heterocentric has always seemed more appropriate for things like the point about battering because it is talking more about a point of view rather than a desire to perpetuate male dominant ideology.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
(shrug.) I’ve spoken my piece, Amp. I just get tired of Cheryl’s grandstanding sometimes, since I have a fuller picture of what conditions she offers support under than do some others here, perhaps. That doesn’t invalidate by any means much of the commentary she offers, but it still gets on my nerves.
Leave this up or take it down. Your choice. :/
This comment was written by alsis39.5.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Sorry in advance if you have already linked to it, but Rachel E. Sullivan has an informative post about “Race, Porn, and Interracial Relationships” (though the results are sadly unsurprising). The attacks on Aura Bogado by Hustler (with the support of Susie Bright) come to mind.
This comment was written by Jimmy Ho.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Richard Jeffrey Newman: Actually, I thought Cheryl’s statements…and am I right that Cheryl is also the same as Heart?…made it pretty clear that what she meant by heterocentric was a point of view solicitous and comforting of, and therefore comfortable for, men.
I think what you’re describing there would be what I would call “male-centered” as opposed to heterocentric– I think I also used that term, “male-centered,” in my earlier post. ( Although, I also think that where you find heterocentricity, you usually find male-centeredness as well). By “heterocentric” I was referring to arguments which proceed out of an assumption of het relationships and sexuality as normative. When someone says rape is violence or control, not sex, it is too often a way of exempting the whole issue of heterosexual normativity from feminist scrutiny (and now that I’m thinking about it, I think I should have used the term “heteronormative” instead of “heterocentric”.) (I also wanted to say that I think the idea of rape *as* violence and not sex was an important contribution to feminist theorizing about rape, in that just the idea communicated how deeply women believe and know and have learned that there is nothing sexy about rape. That was huge. I just agree with Andrea Dworkin and others that the fact that there isn’t anything sexy about rape doesn’t mean rape is violence, not sex.)
As to what I said about battering, I think that battering is an outworking of heteronormativity in intimate relationships, whether it is happening in het relationships or in gay and lesbian relationships, because battering has to do with the perpetuating of gender hierarchy, male (dominant)/ female (submissive), in intimate relationships regardless the sex of the partners. And again, a better word for me to use would have been “heteronormative” as opposed to heterocentric.
I like the distinction you’ve made between the word “heterosexist” as a critique of male dominance, whereas “heterocentric” makes more of a statement about a point of view, although I’d also have to say that a heterocentric point of view is heterosexist (!).
And yes, I’m Heart and Cheryl as well, sorry for any confusion!
Heart
This comment was written by Heart.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Heart wrote:
Huh indeed. I don’t think that’s what I said, and it’s certainly not what I meant. I’m sorry I failed to make myself understood.
What I meant was, it is important to me that you not feel I’ve treated you unfairly; so if you do think I’m treating you unfairly regarding discussing the Bean/Alsis bannings, I’d like it if you could let me know and suggest a different way I could handle the matter.
I wasn’t saying anything about what you feel; obviously, I don’t know what you feel. I was letting you know that if you think I’m treating you unfairly, then I’m open to suggestions.
Let’s me see if I’ve got this down: First I was linking to BB because she was married to a man; then, when it turned out that wasn’t true, you switch to claiming I’m linking to BB in order to send devious messages. The truth is that I linked to BB’s posts because I liked the posts.
The “subtext” you’ve assigned me isn’t what I think at all. In particular, the bannings of Ginmar, Funnie and whatshername were the furthest thing from my mind until after I wrote this post, when you reminded me of the bannings in comments.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Amp, I think my posts here speak for themselves, and I’m going to let them speak for themselves, other than to say that whether or not you knew BB was het and married, the heteronormativity in the post you linked to is unmistakeable. I think your endorsement of some radical feminists as against others (whom you’ve banned) bothers me. With that, I’ve said my piece.
This comment was written by Heart.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
I just saw your post, alsis. I think all of us who have been posting in the same venues over the past five years could, as you’ve done, invoke some sort of arcane knowledge of one another we supposedly possess in a cheap shot kind of a way, which is what I think your last post, however apparently civil, was all about, just pure ad hominem. This exceeds my one-post limit, it’s true, but that last post of yours was unfair, and I hope either this response of mine stays up, or both of ours come down.
Heart
This comment was written by Heart.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Gotta speak up for Spokane here. As of the last time I was there, it had an enormous bookstore and a great vegetarian restaurant. What more is there?
This comment was written by Ledasmom.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
This puzzles me - because I’ve banned some radical feminist posters, it’s wrong for me to link to any post written by a radical feminist, ever?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Heart:
You’re right. I was typing quickly–my son was calling; Curious-George-related homework–and therefore distractedly; I guess I jumped to the end of what I was thinking, which was that what you’re calling heteronormativity, in the case of talking about rape, ends up protecting men’s interests (I know that you are talking about a broader range of interests when you talk about heteronormativity, but I was focusing on men.)
There’s something interesting here: This makes complete sense to me thinking about it from a female perspective, i.e., that one could distinguish the violence of rape from the “sex in rape” (if that makes sense) for the reasons you cite and, at the same time, hold Andrea Dworkin’s position that this does not mean that rape is not also sex/about sex (which I think is what you meant: the syntax of your summary of Dworkin was a little complex). What is it that makes sense to me…I just realized I wasn’t clear about that: That this position is not heteronormative.
If, however, I put the same words in the mouth of a man, it is not so straightforward for me that it is not heteronormative: As the object of rape, a woman can and should distinguish between the violence perpetrated upon her from the the sexualization of the violence, for the purposes of making clear that what happened was violent and not erotic, or “sexy” to use the word you used (as someone who was sexually abused as a child, I identify with this strategy, because it was important for me as well). For a man to do the same thing, however, is for him to separate the sexual use of his body as a form of violence from the sexual use of his body, and in a patriarchal culture, for him to do that…whether he has commited rape or not…is for him to sidestep the ways in which this patriarchal culture is a rape culture and in which he (we) is invested in that culture whether he wants to be or not.
In other words, for women to take the position you outline is one thing; for men to take it feels to me like a cop out.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
This is a bit of an aside, but,
Heart
You mentioned that there were a great many other sites you would recommend over BB. I’d be particularly interested in which sites you’d suggest and I am generally looking for more radical feminist blogs (excepting Twisty’s blog, ginmar’s blog, Vociferate and Angry for a Reason as I already know about them).
Thanks.
This comment was written by Lorenzo.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Cheryl, I didn’t start this round. You did. Here’s an oh-so-”civil” pointer: Your shit stinks as bad as or worse than that of all other humans. If you don’t want that brought up, don’t pontificate as if you thought your shit smells like roses. It doesn’t.
You ban who you want in your own space at your discretion. So does Amp. Your hands are not clean. You don’t give a shit about a feminist’s lack of safety in feminist-friendly space, unless you can show up a man you dislike by pointing it out. Let one of your own in-house bullies play those kinds of games, and you disemble.
Let it go, or be prepared to be called on your hypocrisy. Period.
This comment was written by alsis39.5.Report this comment to the moderators
February 26th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
“while ignoring, for example … or banning … brilliant women like Ginmar, funnie, and char.”
??? Heart, you mentioned ginmar being banned during the week of 28th Dec 20055. You might want to update your reading a bit - ginmar has posted to that blog within the past week or two.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Sheena, I believe that was a reference to my having banned Funnie and Ginmar from “Alas.” I don’t know why Char was mentioned; I don’t recall having banned her from “Alas.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Cheryl is confused –on purpose, I presume– because bean threw Char off the board bean used to run on ez. Cheryl’s rosy POV of herself and Char as Great Martyrs neglects to take into account that Char had viciously and nastily insulted another regular on that particular board;Using language at least as inflammatory as the stuff that allegedly got bean and me thrown off Ms.
Some feminist animals are more equal than others, don’t you know…
This comment was written by alsis39.5.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Kinda like when a woman who has been married 3 times, has born 11 children, and lived 50 years as a heterosexual starts complaining about heterocentricity, thinking that she is representing the lesbians in the audience. Irony much?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Richard Jeffrey Newman: For a man to do the same thing, however, is for him to separate the sexual use of his body as a form of violence from the sexual use of his body, and in a patriarchal culture, for him to do that…whether he has commited rape or not…is for him to sidestep the ways in which this patriarchal culture is a rape culture and in which he (we) is invested in that culture whether he wants to be or not.
In other words, for women to take the position you outline is one thing; for men to take it feels to me like a cop out.
I think you’re right and that these are really good thoughts. Would that more men would think more and more deeply about what is theirs, meaning men’s, to define and theorize and talk about, even, and what has to belong to women, i.e., the spaces in which it makes sense for men to say less and listen more and speak really, really carefully.
Amp, I’m saying, if as it turns out you begin to accumulate a new group of radical feminists to endorse after having alienated or banned quite a few so far, well, that does not sit well. How long before some of the new group come on here, run afoul of the civility police or some such (although this thread is certainly about as UNcivil and nasty as any I’ve seen anywhere in a long time, and it’s not radical feminists who are guilty, is it), get banned; in the meantime you keep endorsing women who identify as radical (who actually may not be, but that’s a different topic) as though, or giving the appearance, that you are not having the ongoing problems with radical feminists that you clearly have had and are having. You know? I’m not trying to be mean here, I’m being frank. This is how I see it. This troubles me.
Hey Lorenzo, I’ll come back and provide you with a list of good radical feminist blogs. Good to read you. ;-)
I don’t think anybody’s shit doesn’t stink, yours included, alsis and Q-grrl, but who cares about that? So what? The difference between you two and me, or one difference is, fighting with you doesn’t appeal to me. I think it is a useless and stupid waste of time. So I won’t. I will say, Q-grrl, that damn right, that’s me you’re talking about right there, three husbands — count them, one, two, three — and 11 kids, all but three of them grown now, and four grandkids, the oldest 11, and I’ve lived to tell the tale, I’ve survived, I’ve kicked male supremacist ass in ways nobody else has so far, and today I am stronger and better and happier and more hopeful than I’ve ever been in my life. I am very, very proud of who I am, and I am who I am because of the life I have lived. I lived by my own lights, I acted on the basis of my best understanding, always, and when the time came for me to kick ass, I did, and it went quite well. I think your long-term dedication to behaving llike an internet asshole around radical feminists who have offended you for some reason really does not become you.
With that out of the way, I think a whole lot of het women (and men) better get busy and talk sa whole lot about heteronormativity because that is a *feminist* issue — a *feminist* issue, not a lesbian issue or gay issue only — and nobody needs to be a lesbian to challenge heteronormativity every time she sees it. The sex of who you love is neither here nor there, really; what matters is a woman’s (or man’s) commitment to the end of male supremacy, her or his willingness to *think* deeply about heteronormativity in relationships as the problem that it is. Being het doesn’t mean a woman (or man) has to be heterosexist, heterocentric, heteronormative, or male centered. Feminist work is work that all of us can do, and should do, regardless the sex of who we love.
So, that’s enough.
Heart
This comment was written by Heart.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Sorry for the formatting problem there, this sentence was Richard Jeffrey Newman’s:
In other words, for women to take the position you outline is one thing; for men to take it feels to me like a cop out.
[I think I’ve fixed the formatting problem –Amp]
This comment was written by Heart.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 11:56 am
I think your long-term dedication to behaving llike an internet asshole around radical feminists who have offended you for some reason really does not become you.
Pot, kettle, black.
Cheryl, has it occured to you that one reason why you’re encountering some hostility from your sister feminists is because of the BS you and your crew have doled out to us in the past here? Because quite frankly, you and your crew have acted like complete assholes to us in the past. We’ve seen you and your Margins friends repeatedly dismiss us like so much frivolous trash–what was the term you used? The “fun kind of feminists” who like porn? That right there tells me you perused maybe one or two blogs and read just a few posts.
We’ve seen you and your allies swoop in and declare that we’re not doing anything particularly meaningful (which begs the question as to why you come here to shake your fingers at us–real meaningful, that), and demands for respect for “real” feminists (ie, you and the Margins folks) who’ve done “important” work while the rest of us get tarred as cowardly and lacking integrity (see–the Andrea Dworkin thread for some of that bullshit). Pretty ironic, considering the fact that one of the “cowardly” posters in that thread does work that makes her the target of harassment and worse from batterers and MRA fuckwits, and another works with battered women and immigrant women. (Those are just two I could tell you about off the top of my head.)
Nope, what we saw were demands for cred from us, as if you were the artisocrats and we were the lowly serfs (and it’s reminiscent of the treatement we get from supposedly progressive men). Not one apology for jumping the gun, only more fingers wagging in our faces. Who the fuck needs that? Not me, and if that’s your idea of sisterhood–us bowing and scraping while you act like “internet assholes”–well, I’ll pass, thanks.
Women like Qgrrl and Spicy and Bean and Alsis and CrysT–and the other women who post here and blog elsewhere–are fully deserving of respect. Many do participate in activism outside of blogging, but you’d have to know us and actually read our blogs and give us the time of day to realize that. Instead, you and your buddies have preferred to come here and trash us every so often, which doesn’t make me all that eager to back you up when you want to take Amp to task. So you think he shuts women down. Frankly, so have you folks.
You don’t have to post here, or read here. While I–and Qgrrl, and Bean, and Alsis, CrysT, and others–have taken Amp to task on different occaisions, and butted heads with him, we’ve managed to do it without trying to establish ourselves as the winners of a “more feminist than thou” pissing contest. The fact that you “real” feminists have deemed such a pissing contest as a valid use of your time is ironic on several levels.
And the fact that you make sweeping (and ignorant) assumptions about us, our level of involvement, and our integrity, while expecting to be exempt from such judgement in kind, is yet another irony.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
As long as we’re arguing about whose cred is more credible, and whose feminism more feminist…the other side has time and energy to steal a march on us.
South Dakota, anyone?
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
And that of course had nothing at all to do with the muddy middle and pseudo-progressives that would prefer that we just sit and smile while the right wing take our rights away, as we need to compromise and make sacrifices.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
[passes Sheelzebub a New Seasons brownie]
Cheryl gets a great deal of her core POV –the part that most exasperates other feminists when it’s not infuriating us– into her use of the word “becoming.” As if my disgust with her agenda and tactics here were of no more consequence/had no deeper meaning than a dress that makes my ass look too wide or a tacky hair-dye job. “Not becoming.” How very old-school mother-daughter of you, Cheryl. What’s next ? Maybe you’d like to remind me to floss more often and to not slouch so much, too ?
Get a clue. You’re not my damn mother. I’m nearly forty, and I don’t even listen to that sort of patronizing static from my actual biological mother any more. Not for a long, long time.
Yes, it’s only we poor little lost sheep on the margins of the Margins who need to worry whether or not our tactics are “becoming” or not. Those who are part of your flock do not. If you and yours want to hunt the big game (ie– men) and painfully wing a few female bystanders over and over in the process, tough shit.
Well, I don’t like being winged on your little jaunts, Cheryl. Frankly I’m fucking sick of it. Obviously I’m not alone in those feelings, either. So just stick to discussing feminism and shut the fuck up about your poor little dear friends who were so cruelly and undeservedly cast off from this space, as if it were the be-all and end-all of feminism and as if they didn’t have a score of other spaces in which to do their thing. If I had a dollar for every time you showed your own hypocrisy in this fashion, I could stop looking for work tomorrow. Just knock it the hell off.
This comment was written by alsis39.5.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Richard, I know you’ve actually read BB’s post, as you quoted from it, so I find your agreement with Heart over it somewhat bizarre. Your discussion of the various terms relating to heterocentricism was interesting, but has no relationship to BB’s post, as BB simply was not doing what Heart accuses her of.
First note, BB is a woman, so men taking the position she is explaining is pretty much irrelevant to a discussion of her post, in which she is explaining her position.
Second note, BB’s post was all about how men are raised and trained by rape culture, and was all about how rape exists as a predictable result of that training, and how rape is simply a part of a continuum of men’s behavior within rape culture. So it is hard to see how it lets men off the hook, or fails to acknowledge the Dworkinian relationship between rape and sex. Also, it explicitly states that it should not be read as letting men off the hook.
Third note, it seems weird to say that rape (something men do) is something that men need to shut up and listen on. What it is like to live under constant threat of rape in a rape culture? Yup, that is something men should shut up and listen on. The experience of being raped and what constitutes rape, likewise. Why men rape, what of our training leads to it, how all our training is the same training of rapists, how our behavior exists within a continuum that includes rape? All that is something that men are pretty well situated to talk about. Not that women aren’t well situated to talk about it too, but men are also. I think men’s unwillingness to talk about these things is more of a problem than our over-eagerness to do so (although certainly matched by our eagerness to shut down women talking about these things), so claiming that we should shut up and listen seems distinctly the easy route. It lets you say, “Oh yes, men are trained like that, how wise!” rather than, “Here is how I have been trained.”
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Charles:
Frankly, I think you need to go back and read my posts again. In my original post, I was responding to Amp saying that BB never said rape was about violence/control not sex, and I quote a spot where BB seemed to make a version of that distinction, i.e. that rape was about violence/control and the chosen weapon was sex. I then went on to say that I thought BB implied in the rest of her discussion that rape was about sex, but that she never actually came out and said it. My point, in other words, was that Amp had perhaps missed something in the post that would in fact support Heart’s critique, but also that the subtext of BB’s post at least implied that she holds a view…i.e., that rape is about sex…that Heart clearly feels she (BB) does not. And so, in fact, I was actually disagreeing with Heart, or at least suggesting that Heart’s critique might have been too hasty.
I also wonder where you understand from my posts that I believe men should shut up and listen?
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
[Emphasis mine in both cases]
If she implied that rape was about sex, how did she do that without ever suggesting that she didn’t agree with the statement that rape was not about sex? Your recent version is an accurate description of BB’s post, but it isn’t an accurate description of your previous description of her post.
You took the simplistic statement that BB was attempting to explicate, and used that to support Heart’s claim that BB was making the simplistic statement in a manner that let men off the hook, and then went on to parse the terminology of how she was letting men off the hook, without ever challenging the idea that she was letting men off the hook. While you didn’t emphatically join in the trashing, you joined in the discussion in seeming agreement, without ever challenging the trashing.
Well, when Heart praised you for taking that position:
I didn’t see you object.
Of course, no need to object the general sentiment, but on the subject of what men have to say about their training under rape culture, I don’t think that the conclusion men should reach is that talking about their training, and the ways in which it relates to the idea that rape is sex used as a weapon of oppression and control, is something on which they should fundamentally defer to women, which is what BB was talking about, and is what therefore you were saying was a cop-out position for men to take, and therefore Heart was saying it was good to see a man recognizing that men should talk less, listen more, and talk very very carefully about (which I paraphrased as shut up and listen, which is harsher, but not any less true).
Also,
Now, the position Heart is outlining is the position that BB was taking, right? And BB was talking about how men are trained to be rapists, and how that relates to the idea that rape is about control, with sex as the means of expressing that control. So, you are saying here that talking about how men’s training leads us to use sex as a weapon of control over women (and therefore to rape) is a cop out when men say it.
Now, clearly, I am being excessively uncharitable in my reading of you, and none of that is what you meant, since you now respond with bafflement to my having read you that way. As far as I can tell, you somehow failed to notice that your discussion of this subject was within the context of a completely unfair reading of BB’s post, and that your pleasant terminological discussion with Heart would be read in that light.
Fair enough, I retract my accusations against your posts. You were having an interesting terminological discussion about heterosexism, hetero-centricism, male-centeredness, etc, which had nothing to do with BB’s post. But I hope you now have a better sense in what light they could reasonably be read.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
For clarity — and I think I alluded to this in one of my posts, but I can say it again — my response to the post Amp linked to was informed by another post bb wrote about rape last week entitled “The danger in thinking rape is sex.” I have never said that bb intends to let men off the hook because I don’t think she does. In fact, I think she tries really hard not to. I think the position she has taken, though, has the effect of letting men off the hook, in that, again, it brackets sex off from rape in a way that doesn’t reflect the experience of most rape victims. When we are raped, it is our sexuality that is violated, and it is violated in a way that it is not violated when we are beaten but not raped. Having said that, when we are beaten by an intimate partner, that is *also* a violation on the basis of our sex, something that also gets obfuscated when we say that rape is violence and not sex. If the latter is so, then pure violence, as in battering, is not sex either– except that it *is* in the sense that it is about, again, heteronormativity, male dominance as against female submission. Insisting that rape isn’t sex but is violence has the effect of exempting the whole continuum of heterosexual intimacies from feminist scrutiny, and that’s a problem, because heterosexual intimacy is always already suspect, no matter what, just because men and women do not yet enjoy the same degree of power in the world. IOW, there is a certain s/m-ness about *all* heterosexual intimacy, inequalities of power, which feminism has always sought to confront, call out, illuminate, challenge, in the interest of ending gender, ending heteronormativity, heteronormativity meaning the way intimate relationships are regulated under male supremacy so as to maintain inequalities of power: dominance and submission, maleness and femaleness, one-up, one-down relating, and just this idea that it is difference, maleness as opposed to femaleness, that makes sex sexy. If rape is violence and not sex, the suggestion is that all of the other intimacies in het relationships are sex and not violence, and that just isn’t so. There’s a lot of violence that flies under the radar in what passes for sex in het relationships every single day because it isn’t viewed as rape. Well, if rape isn’t sex but is violence, then what are all of these day to day violences which are part and parcel of so many het relationships, small violences, small coercions, lesser pains and injuries and sufferings to which women give something that passes for “consent” and which do not rise to the level of rape? These are both sex and violence, just as rape is both sex and violence.
I apologize in advance for the thickness of all of this and for any lack of clarity or repetitiveness, I just don’t have much time right now.
Sheelzebub, I think you’re referring to my sig line in other places, “I’m a radical feminist, not the fun kind,” which is something Andrea Dworkin said in an interview with Off Our Backs a long time ago. I found it, loved it, and have used it as a sig line for years. I’m not sure I said that everybody who approves of pornography is the fun kind of feminist– I think that very very often, feminists approve of or endorse or participate in some way in porn because they haven’t really thought deeply about it. That was certainly true of me. When I first met Amp and bean on the Ms boards, I was a pro-porn feminist and argued the pro-porn side. It was, in fact, mostly bean’s posts which got me really thinking about my position, and eventually, changing my mind, and I’ve always appreciated bean for that and have said so many times. It’s true that over the years I have come to really and truly hate pornography– all it is, means, and does– and I can’t apologize for that, but I’m certainly not talking out of some sort of moral high ground place as though I haven’t myself struggled with the issues around porn; I definitely have.
As to swooping in– well, here’s what I can say. Paige is banned, funnie is banned, Lily is banned (something I didn’t know until recently), and ginmar is banned. Those are four good feminist wimmin banned that I know of. So far, I’m not banned, and so when a woman I believe has really worthwhile things to say gets banned because she isn’t civil enough in the way she says it, because she insults Amp or is just a really mean battle-axe from hell or whatever, yet courteous misogynists post on like they have good sense because they are assholes to women courteously, in general, I’m going to show up and speak up. I think that’s really, really wrong. I think it was wrong every time Amp did it, even though I understand his reasons and sympathize with how crappy it feels to get shat upon in ways that feel unfair. Hell, that’s happened to me right here in this thread and it pisses me right the hell off. It’s bullshit. But I wouldn’t ban a feminist woman for it. And I don’t think Amp should either. So yeah, I’m going to register my objections; that’s an important part of my own feminism. In this case I registered my objection because the banned remain banned, yet new, as yet-unbanned radical feminists are endorsed and approved. Again, that seems wrong to me, because the only difference between the latter group and the former group is that the latter group hasn’t yet insulted Amp. I mean, honestly. That’s just wrong. Well, I think so.
Well, I just don’t have more time, but did want to say these few things.
Heart
[Edited by Amp to fix broken link]
This comment was written by Heart.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Heart,
Your link to the other BB post is broken.
[It’s fixed now! –Amp]
I totally agree with what you say in terms of the problems of a pure ‘rape is violence not sex’ argument, it just didn’t seem to me that what BB was saying in the post that Amp linked to was at all that sort of argument (actually, even the starting point wasn’t the same, since it was ‘rape is about control, sex is just the tool,’ which still acknowledges that rape uses sex, and that sex can be used as a weapon of control, and, since most of the post was about how all men are trained to think of sex as a weapon of control and power, it didn’t seem to me to be obfuscating the relationship between ‘normal’ het sex, control, and rape, but instead was highlighting exactly that), but that is just my take. Like Amp, I don’t have much familiarity with BB’s writing, so I accept that there may be other things she has written that would lead you to read her in a much less charitable light.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Heart, you’re conflating two things I don’t conflate, which is my “endorsement” of a feminist’s writing and whether or not I can deal with interacting with them on “Alas.” But these aren’t the same things at all.
For example, I can’t deal with Funnie on “Alas.” But I still “endorse” her as a person; I don’t question the worth of her thinking, or that she’s a good, smart person. And her commitment to feminism - and to many things I believe in - is simply, obviously beyond reproach. It just happens to be the case that I find it impossible to deal with her.
Also, your post seems to imply that every feminist on “Alas” who has criticized me harshly has been banned. Perhaps that isn’t what you meant, but for the record, it’s far from true.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
For example, I can’t deal with Funnie on “Alas.”
You’re not all that witty in real life, either.
Ba dum bump, ting!
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 27th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
But, Amp ! Your blog is clearly the definitive board on feminism. Any woman who can’t post here might as well have had her computer carried off and hocked for cheap cigars or something !!
Well, at least Cheryl just flipped me another dollar. Now that the bucks are rolling in, I think I’ll splurge tomorrow and buy myself a pair of socks at Goodwill or something.
This comment was written by alsis39.5.Report this comment to the moderators
February 28th, 2006 at 12:34 am
Heart,
I apologise for misreading your posts about which feminist women are banned ““ I hadn’t realised you were referring to Alas.
I’m still not entirely sure why you have taken quite such a dislike to the Den. I understand that you disagree with the sex/rape position, but I’m surprised that the disagreement caused a reaction that could lead onlookers to think she must have kicked your dog or something. If she’s made the cardinal error of being writing something which Ampersand likes (”the potential friend of my enemy is therefore my enemy”), I don’t quite understand either. After all, both Ginmar & Lily have commented at the Den, IIRC positively, but you’ve placed the greatest value (albeit negative) on a man’s commendation.
Your first post here said:
“And all the het men like it. And the het women.”
Not everyone who posts in the Den comments threads has stated their orientation, so that’s quite an assumption you’ve made there.
I’m also quite puzzled that out of all the interesting & worthwhile links Ampersand added here (Welfare Agencies Taking Assets From Their Wards, bell hooks Lecture, etc), this was the only issue you mentioned. I know that your posting priority isn’t to keep the internet safe from feminist women, but some onlookers might get the wrong impression.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
February 28th, 2006 at 12:57 am
I’ve been giving the matter some thought, and I think this thread hasn’t gone in good directions. In particular, I’m worried that having so many folks criticize Heart may have created a “gangpile” effect, even though I’m sure none of the critics intended that to happen. Regardless of if the criticisms are legitimate, having a lot of them piled up at once can be overwhelming and feel unfair.
Please, folks, don’t use this thread to attack other feminists anymore. We’ve gotten that out of our systems (I hope) - let’s move on to different topics.
Although discussing other feminist’s theories (like saying you agree or disagree with what BB wrote, and why) is fine. Just don’t discuss other feminists personally.
Thanks.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 28th, 2006 at 1:23 am
I’m sure none of the critics intended that to happen.
I be honest, I don’t care what happens. It’s fucking galling to be reminded over and over again that one Just Doesn’t Rate. Call it a “gangpile” if you must, Amp. But I was personally relieved to hear from Sheelzebub and a couple of others. It’s helpful at moments like this, because then I know that I’m not just imagining the vibe Cheryl gives off in this space and elsewhere. Perhaps it’s different to you precisely for the same reasons that Robert’s attitude doesn’t affect you the way it affects me and some other women: Your interest in feminism isn’t the same as ours;The same things aren’t at stake for you as for us.
For the record, I’ve enjoyed my brief visits to the BB a lot. I remain in the dark as to why Cheryl is treating it the way she is. Does every last radical blog in the galaxy have to take exactly the same approach that Cheryl does on the Margins before it’s legitimately about radical feminism ?
To be blunt: It just smacks of territorial pissing to me. Particularly her criticism of a male partner posting in the space. Doesn’t Cheryl have a husband who posts on feminist issues ? Okay, fine. He has his own space for doing that, but so what ? Every radical feminist space has to be woman-only before it can have any cred at all ? Also, since when does it make sense for a het woman to criticize another blog just because some het women like it ? Are those who like the blogs that Cheryl hasn’t vetted for her perception of proper conduct suddenly a less highly evolved form of het woman than she is ?
Now, you can call all this an “attack” or a “gangpile,” and snip it to high heaven, or whatever, but it is no more an attack on Cheryl’s character than those she makes against you virtually every damn time she shows up here.
This comment was written by alsis39.5.Report this comment to the moderators
February 28th, 2006 at 3:29 am
Sheelzebub and Charles, it’s Dim/Dubhe’s posts I take issue with, far and away more than bb’s, as I said in my first post. Dubhe says things that are really just all around over the top, he says them all over the place, not just in the Den, and he gets away with it in large part because of his connection with bb– because she gives him room to say them and space to say them. This is a 24yo het white guy. Please. I think that a whole lot of men who fancy themselves to be profeminist like to see that, as I also said in my first post: a ha! Finally a radical feminist woman we can get behind– her male partner is all over the internet saying the same kinds of stupid things most anti-feminist men say. (And I know Amp said he was not aware of Dubhe’s participation, which surprised me since Dubhe is quite the presence in the Den.) bb strikes me as someone who is working out a lot of things for herself — and I think that is absolutely fine, we’re all doing that, really, and we always will be — but her posts reflect the connection she has with this guy who has a whole lot more work to do than she does. So it irked me to see Amp’s endorsement — though I did apologize for being overly grouchy — especially in light of the bannings of women who do great work and who really have worked hard not to be male-centered, though they may have been het. As I also said (why do I have to keep repeating myself, gah), I have been fuming over some really asinine stuff Dim said over on Twisty’s blog recently, including saying to a feminist woman, “What if I said to you, hold on a moment while I rape you,” or “When I get home I’ll cut off your tits.” (my paraphrase.) Yeah, he said that. I immediately and vigorously called him out on it, as did at least one other radical feminist, and he never apologized. Instead, he basically stomped off feeling sorry for himself. He gets away with this stuff because, again, of his connection with bb. And what he said caused conflicts between feminist women, and I *hate* that but that is *usually usually usually* what happens whenever a feminist’s male partner enters the picture like this. The guy says and does things that cause problems, and then feminist women square off against one another for all manner of usually-complicated reasons, and the men say, “Look, those feminists can’t even get along with each other” and they come out smelling like a rose, when if they’d just get the hell out of the picture, the women would get along just fine. It is, after all, women’s connections with men — or not — which have historically been our stake in the system (or not), how we have been treated has depended on our connections with men, it’s those connections that have privileged us as women (while unconnected-with-men women are marginalized), and for that ever to end, our connections with men have to change in ways that are significant, including on the internet. And so (in answer to your question, sheelzebub), that’s why what Amp wrote about the Den caught my eye (as opposed to the other links posted.) What happens around bb and Dubhe matters to me because they do identify as radical feminists and what they write and do affects all the rest of us who identify that way. It’s all connected, we’re all connected, we can’t not be.
Amp, I do hear what you’re saying, and I also am not unsympathetic to the way it feels to get clobbered in your own space. Any of us who has our own spaces know how really aggravating that is.
As to my personal situation, I would like that not to be a topic for discussion. What I will say is that it is my experience that men who truly are allies to feminists in the ways that matter most are often the quietest men, standing way back, getting the hell out of the way, something which is often a really hard thing for them to do and which usually costs them a *lot*. This has certainly been true of Rick.
Heart
This comment was written by Heart.Report this comment to the moderators
February 28th, 2006 at 3:41 am
As to my personal situation, I would like that not to be a topic for discussion.
Um, but didn’t you just write three chapters on bb and Dubhe and their personal situation? Sauce for the goose, no?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 28th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Ok, normally I don’t leave my little area of the blogosphere to comment on anything people are saying, and BB and I are certainly am not in the habit of acknowledging personal attacks on either of us… but I would like to simply post the link to the Twisty comment thread Heart mentioned to give folks the context of my statements.
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/02/05/may-we-live-long-and-die-out/#comments
Thanks,
This comment was written by Dubhe.Dubhe
Report this comment to the moderators
February 28th, 2006 at 7:32 am
Charles:
I think your reading of me is not uncharitable; I think it is a misreading, and while I do not want to get into an extended argument over this, since it seems we fundamentally agree on a lot of things, I do want to set the record straight. The original, full text of the post you partially quote back at me is this:
So BB says, quite explicitly, that rape is not a crime about sex, that sex is the weapon of control. That is a distinction very, very close to the rape-is-violence-not-sex distinction. I also think that the implication of much of what BB then goes on to write is that rape is about sex, but she never says that. So she says one thing and then implies another, but–because she states at the outset that rape is not about sex (and I would add that her next sentence says something about how she just assumed that people “got it” by now)–there is no way to know if the implication I see in the rest of the post is there intentionally or not. And if what BB wants to get at is a radical critique of rape–and I don’t think her discussion of male training, important as it is to talk about again and again and again is either new or radical–then the difference between what she says and what she implies is something that needs to be worked out. You choose, in the reading that I am guessing is yours based on your posts here, to give BB the benefit of the doubt in this; I do not.
I don’t have time to continue this right now. If I have the chance, I will come back later and respond to the rest of what you said about my post.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
February 28th, 2006 at 7:42 am
No, Cheryl. You’re not getting off that easy. From the first time I saw you and your crew swoop in here, you all derided us as “the fun” kind of feminists in your criticism of Amp. Pre-banning, BTW. Your words–you derided the blogs that Amp links to, the bloggers who post here, as “the fun” kind of feminists who like porn and aren’t threatening to men. Again, your words. Dismissive, and in all too many cases, wrong.
You want to criticize Amp for banning people from his blog, go ahead. I really don’t give a shit. I also don’t give a shit about whatever quarrel you had with him or anyone else from the Ms. Boards. But as Alsis pointed out, this place isn’t Grand Feminist Headquarters.
And in the AD thread you got in our faces and preached to us about how we should learn some integrity since we don’t post with our full names–after we’d been accused, quite wrongly, of “gossiping” about her. We’ve heard unending amounts of bullshit from you and your crew about how we’re not really doing anything. You have expressed frustration in the past in frustration over the fact that none of us “fun” feminist bloggers linked to you, the Margins, whatever–but why would we when you don’t link to us, you don’t pay us any mind except to lecture us, and you dismiss what we do out of hand, if you even bother to learn what we do? I didn’t want to point trolls in your direction, but af