Why Nubian Kicks Serious Ass; and Ginmar Can Just Kiss Mine…

Here I am, stuck in my bed with a really bad case of motion sickness/vertigo, brought on by waaaay too much stress at work…but I do have time enough to post some thoughts:

Since almost everyone else has done so, I will, too: Props, kudos, a really big SmackHug,a permanent slot in the SmackDog Baddddddassssss Wall of Fame, and a free gallon of concentrated SmackDog Whupass (TM, 2006) goes to Nubian of Blac(k)ademic for her righteous response to all the haters (especially Ginmar and SarahS) who attempted to pile on her for saying the truth about race and gender. A sample of her brilliance from the original essay, also posted to Alas, a Blog:

in the case of the current duke scandal, some folks feel that we must pay attention to the issue of gender before race since, she is a WOMAN and was allegedly attacked by MEN. however, i don’t see how we can only pay attention to her as a woman, or as just a black woman, or even as a economically disenfrachised black woman, for that matter–all of her identities must be taken into account. her race is already determining who believes her and who doesn’t, how bad of a parent she is (the myth of the bad black mother), and it’s determining how she is misrepresented in the media. additionally, we must not forget that we exist in a media saturated world that continuously reproduces negative images that deem black womens bodies as disposable sex objects. it is all too impossible to deny that those images do not play a strong part in concluding how she was/is/will be treated by men of all races. furthermore, if one believes that gender trumps race in this specific situtation, then they deny the harm of the racial slurs that were hurled at the dancers, which i personally see as a form of violence towards these women–no matter what.[..]

moreover, the argument that “gender trumps race,” also ignores the fact that women of color see men of color as necessary allies in the struggle against “the patriarchy.” men of color do have a complicit relationship with fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences, but, we cannot ignore the fact that these same men face similar oppressions due to the color of their skin aside from their gender. in the case of the duke scandal, if it were men of color who allegedly attacked a woman of color, issues of race would still be in play and i still wouldn’t see how gender would situate itself in a hierarchical position above race, or vice-versa. rather, we would have to take into account how race functions within the specific racial group to understand fully the scope of the attack, what should and can be done about it, ways to prevent future attacks on women, etc.

[...]

finally, if gender trumped race, there would be no need for black feminism, for third world feminism, for chicana feminism or for women of color feminism. generalizations about “the patriarchy” and the oppression of women in a heirarchy based on gender, only ignores the multiplicity of the number of oppressions all women face that are not soley based on gender. however, to some white feminists who face gender oppression in exchange for racial privilege, gender does trump race.

For spelling this essential truth out, Nubian has been basically ambushed and smeared as “whiny”, a “petulant child”, a “token”, and “setting third-wave feminism back” by promoting “racism in reverse” (quotes from SarahS in comments from Feministing)….and those were the more friendlier comments.

But the mother of all attacks came from none other than our dear radicalfeminist friend Ginmar, who obviously is so connected to the microcode of MacDworkinism (the combined and shared ideology of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon which states the feminism — defined as the abolition of essential male domination and essential female victimhood) is the one and only oppression and all others should take a back seat — that she wouldn’t know racism it it stood up and bit her on her behind. To quote the G.rummy:

Long before protohumans crossed oceans and discovered people of other colors, men discovered they could beat up women and make them afraid and obediant. That includes black men, who had an additional excuse white guys don’t: they have truly suffered. Yet they inflict their suffering on black women. When they do it to white women, it’s something we should all ignore, except if we want to call white women liars. Within oppressed groups, the men inflict their abuse on the women to assert the only thing they’ve got: manhood. Black women may consider black men their allies, but I wonder if that includes the kind of guys who are sexist in the way as white guys. Because that’s what it boils down to.Talking about rape, race, and black-white feminism never brings up the thing that lurks underneath: men of color can be sexist, too. None of the black feminists want to touch that one. Instead they want to talk about white female privilege and how black men are their allies. Maybe it’s a privilege to look at a sexist guy and see just the sexist and not the skin color and not give a shit, either. But standing by your man or men in this case…..

That last one was also from Alas, a Blog….

Sorry, but what it comes down to is whether or not women support other women or men. Support men first? Call them innocent victims of lying bitches? Yeah, sorry, I’m a teensy bit skeptical that you’re feminist. Call women liars who victimized men? Yeah, I’m convinced. Sorry, but if you bash other women to protect men, then I’m a wee bit umimpressed. Why does the label feminist matter so much then?

…and that one was from the Feministing thread…

…but Ginmar really showed off her ass at her own Live Journal blog, where she launched a virtual chemical laden Scud missile attack on Black feminists (and by extension, all non-White “feminists of color”) as traitors of their gender and apologizers for innate (Black) male sexism…even going so far as to channel Susan Brownmiller’s exhumation of Emmett Till’s old bones:

Original quote)

When white women lie about being raped by black men, no one resurrects photographs of black bodies hanging from trees, or the mangled and bloated body of young Emmitt Till who, supposedly, only whistled at a white woman.

(Ginmar’s response)
Well, first of all, you have to prove that white women lied in the first place. That statement presents as fact the idea that white women lie. Period. So….huh? The Emmitt Till case doesn’t work here, becuase the white woman in that case didn’t kill him and didn’t even tell her hubby that he’d whistled at her—-one of Till’s murderers got the information from one of Till’s own relatives. White women served as an excuse for two grown up men to defend their property from a fourteen-year-old kid. Exactly what do women have to do with these guys at all? Reminds me of the way some guys will compete over anything. To both groups of males, that woman was property. She might as well have been a ping pong ball being batted back and forth over a net. How the hell am I supposed to feel about that? Evidently, I’m supposed to keep quiet and not dare mention this because what men to do to women just makes us symptoms in their world, and we’re supposed to be content as symbols, trophies, excuses, or anything but human beings. Is it racist to see the sexism first and then not give a shit about the race? If it winds up with these things, I don’t give a shit about what the colors of the partipants are:1. a penis gets shoved into a woman’s body without her consent;

2. she gets called a liar;

3. and a community stands behind their men, claiming that some women lie.

WOW. Just plain f’n WOW.

I guess that G.rummy missed the part of the Emmett Till history that HE NEVER PHYSICALLY ATTACKED THE WOMAN (I put this in ALL CAPS in case she didn’t understand), and that he did in fact GET LYNCHED for his trouble. WTF does that have to do with “shoving a penis into a woman’s body”..unless she happens to be implying that the men who lynched Till actually were acting right because (since all men are invertabrate rapists and all women should be assumed as saying the truth when they say that they are raped, then Emmett Till must be guilty..and therefore deserving of his fate!!! And by logical extension, one can actually argue that those who executed Emmett Till were indeed radicalfeminist ALLIES for taking such a strong stance against brutalizing women…whatever the actual evidence may be.

Oh, but wait; there’s more where that came from:

Original quote)

Moreover, the argument that “gender trumps race,” also ignores the fact that women of color see men of color as necessary allies in the struggle against “the patriarchy.” Men of color do have a complicit relationship with fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences, but, we cannot ignore the fact that these same men face similar oppressions due to the color of their skin aside from their gender.

(Ginmar’s response, again)
“Fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences” is such a passive, academic phrase. And, you know, I notice that black men were regarded as possessions for three hundred years, but women have been regarded as possessions forever, everywhere, by every kind of man there is. Once again, I ask, exactly how am I supposed to feel when some oppressed guy chooses not a white guy to act out his issues on….but a woman? They’ll fight over a woman, with the clear indication that she’s just a piece of ass they’re fighting over, but when they want revenge on society, suddenly women are the most powerful villains there are. Why is that?[Another commenter:]

[Another commenter:]They had something to gain–namely that their otherwise unbelievable stories would take on a patina of common sense in a racist society. Remember the mom who murdered her children by driving them in to the lake, but claimed they were kindnapped? Case in point.

(Ginmar’s response)
Oh, come on, don’t be coy. Everyone knows who Susan Smith is. How come this one white woman is responsible for a racist society, though? Did she create racism? Probably not–it’s been around a lot longer than she’s been alive. How does she have any more to do with other white women, though, than Tawana Brawley has to do with other black women? Isn’t that we’re supposed to be against?How come when white guys like Charles Stewart claim the same thing, when they have way more power than any white woman can dream of, that they’re not demonizied, too? HOw many people know who he is off the top of their heads?

First off, Ms. Moran, it’s Charles STUART…..and secondly, I’m sure that the innocent Black men who were stripsearched, questioned, harassed and otherwise targeted by the police in both these cases would readily appreciate your analysis. And what about the basic fact that Susan Smith’s father (or stepfather) was infact the head of the Christian Coalition in South Carolina at the time of the incident?? Or perhaps she doesn’t really have any privileges there all because she is a woman??? Oh, but even right-wing racist women are nothing more than victims of patriarchy and evil men, even if they don’t act like it.A few more tidbits of Ginmar’s racist madness:

 

That’s why the difference between the way racism and sexism get discussed has always pissed me off. People really don’t want to see sexism that crosses racial lines. It makes it too easy to see that women are still propety to too many men, and that the only real difference is between what price tags we get stamped with, and if we’re important enough to get locked up so we don’t get stolen. The idea that we might want to own ourselves and not have to sell ourselves to some guy still hasn’t arrived yet. We’re still arguing about whose possession is worth more.Unfortunately, black and white people come in two genders. It would be so much easier if one were male, the other female, or vice versa. Nobody wants to deal with the idea that men of all races, creeds and religions can get together over one thing: whether or not that girl or any girl is a slut. Whether she asked for it. Whether the bitch lied. Those are things a man can sympathize with, now that women don’t know their place any longer—in the home, in the kitchen, or in the bedroom, or just by his side, sympathizing when he has to deal with whatever the latest excuse for being sexist is. His treatment of women becomes something that’s a sign of his pain, and we’re supposed to stand by him.

[...]

All races have within them the poison of sexism. You can avoid other races. You cannot avoid the other gender, and one of those genders, no matter what, gets pregnant and is smaller and lighter and less respected than the other.

[...]

White women are privileged, I’m told. I wonder if Martha Stewart believes that while she watches the very tardy trial for the Enron bigwigs, who aren’t being villified the way females are. Years from now, Kennyboy Lay is not going to get a tabloid soubriquet or be the subject of a gossipy, bitchy bio like any female who crosses the line. Leona Helmesley got called the “Queen of Mean” but Michael Milken sure never got labelled the “King of Cruelty.” That privilege comes with a vicious backlash, which comes into play whenever a woman isn’t perfect. If she’s perfect, she’s fake, and if she’s not perfect, she’s whatever the guy wants to blame—slut, whore, bad mother, bad girlfriend, lying bitch, evil stepmother, what have you. Not only are all women property, but some women are marked down from the get go. Then they blame—other women.

The last two sentences, I guess, are particularly telling of Ginmar’s snide rejection of Black and WOC feminists as gender traitors and male rapist enablers..since they have the unmitigated gall to question the privileges of upper-middle class White radicalfeminists, they are undermining the great cause of toppling patriarchy by dividing women from each other and tackling the REAL source of oppression..namely, men with penises. And notice how she gets a dig in favor of Martha Stewart as a “victim”..never mind that she’s never been raped by anyone, only jailed for insider training while Ken Lay apparently relaxes by his pool awaiting his fate on the same charge.And here’s the supposed knockdown blow:

 

Here’s the thing about racism, though. Men are human beings. Always. Women are still possessions. Nobody thinks of black men as possessions, but any and all women are possessions, to be taken or stolen or destroyed. Some men of various minorities get regarded as animals, but after walking down the street and getting harassed by different-colored guys who don’t see my owner anywhere and think I’m a freebie, I’m damned if I can the difference. Am I supposed to ignore the sexism for the race?

There you have it…walking down the street and facing a few boorish men hurling sexist catcalls is far, far more important an issue than Black men getting lynched and murdered and beaten up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time..and any Black woman who attempts to place the latter above the former is simply a traitor who defiles all women. See, gender not only swamps race, gender is the SOURCE of racism, and until it is eliminated first, you uppity nigg….errrrrrr, Blacks…will just have to take their seat at the back of the bus and wait your turn. So there.With “radical feminists” like Ginmar….who the fuck needs David Duke????

I’d rather take my chances with a porn starlet and a stripper as an ally than this racist crackhead whiny-ass fool.

Here’s to you, Nubian, for breaking off her sorry ass real proper.

(And the usual tip of the rack to Ms. B over at Bitch|Lab for documenting the whole sorry episode and bringing her own can of Whupass.)

UPDATE:

Oh, my Goddess…get a load of this classic comment from Ginmar from further down the same thread, which I just sent over to Bitch | Lab :

[..]

But going back to Ginmar….I read through the responses to her thread and I discovered this gem that I just have to share:

ginmar
2006-04-28 01:12 am UTC (link)
Actually, there is evidence that white women were raped by black men, but no one knows which men, how often, or much of anything. The NAACP report which I cited a week ago found that while rapes were the excuse for lynchings only in one third to one quarter of all cases, in the public mind they became the only cause. The strangers who have posted to this blog have ignored that repeatedly in favor of accusations of racism.

There is also evidence that white women resisted the lynchings, but, hey, let’s ignore that, shall we? Anti lynching societies were formed by white women who saw clearly that they were being used. funny how nobody is making generalizations about white women’s character on that basis, is it? It’s just so much more satisfying, for some reason, to have a ‘no class, low class whore’ white woman being blamed for lynchings instead of a white male establishment which would eventually prove useful to the black community—-which is something white women never have been, an inadvertant endorsement of their lack of power. What is clear is that white men orchestrated the lynchings and claimed they were doing them on behalf of southern womanhood. What is also clear is that rape of black women was so common as to be in effect legal. What I have always objected to is the blanket characterization by the black community of white women as lying bitches who killed black men. Men are men. It is impossible to believe that any community of men does not contain rapists, especially when said community makes sexist generalzations about the women that are all too familiar.

http://ginmar.livejournal.com/722413.html?thread=22348013#t22348013

Yup…just like it is impossible to belive that any community of women (especially upper-class radicalfeminist women) does not contain racists, especially when [representatives of] said community makes racist generalizations about Black men and women that are just as all too familiar.

Hello..Kettle…this is Pot calling. How ‘ya doing??? BTW…you do know that you are Black, don’t you???

And while there were a few White women brave enough to oppose the mass lynchings, the overwhelming majority of them (including most of the feminist sufragette activists of their day) mostly ignored the issue…and quite a few even lent their support to the Southern regime which supported lynching in the first place, as a compromise to obtain suffrage, I guess). Most of the main activism against lynching was mostly launched by Black WOMEN and Black men…does the name Ida B. Wells ring your bell, G.rummy???

Asshat…pure racist asshat. I say it again…with such radicalfeminists like this, who the f*ck needs David Duke??

 

The more she talks, the deeper the BS. Keep this up and Bill Napoli might have someone to share his title of Asshat of the Year with.

Wingnut Trolls Beware: The Buck Stops Here!!!

I’ve been noticing of late that there has been a rash of right-wing trolls invading progressive websites and blogs to poison the debate and smear anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing wingnut tripe line on various issues..but especially the Duke alleged rape case.

A great many sites (including Slant Truth, Blac(k)ademic, Rachel’s Tavern, and Browninfempower’s Women of Color blog) have become the target of some of the ugliest, meanest, and most hate-filled assaults not only on the accused victim of the assaults as a liar, a hysterical nut, a slut/whore/prostitute who just made this up to blame innocent White folks who wouldn’t hurt a fly (never mind that one of the suspects charged in the case has already been arrested and faces trial for beating a gay man); but also on those who defend her as “reverse racists and “race hustlers” who use supposed anti-White hatred for crass political gain. (Not, of course, like those great fair and balanced negotiators for peace like Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and the brave pontificators of FOX News, who simply smear the accused woman in her own blood for their own profit…that’s just good “conservative” reporting.) And it hasn’t even been limited to flooding the comments sections….one blogger has been the subject of a denial-of-service attack on her blog for expressing her support of the victim in this case.

Now, this isn’t the first time that we have seen a concerted effort by right-wingers to intimidate and smack down critics of their policies..but the intensity of the hatred and the level of concurrence is still quite astonishing….if not totally unsurprising, given the state of affairs for the Right these days. With their Brave Decider’s ratings plummetting to new lows (even Faux News has Dubya near 32% as of today), the grand war in Iraq falling flatter and flatter, the economy getting weaker and weaker, and the threat of indictments and even a whiff of the “I” word (as in “impeachment”) openly brandied about, what better and more consistent need of a distraction for the Right can there be than a nice high-tech modern day lynching??? When all else fails, Nigguh-baiting, queer-bashing, slut-baiting, and Mexican/Latino-whacking is the usual choice of Whitey-Rightie fundie wingnutters to save the political day for them…and so what if it enables the ultra-Right true believers who would go well beyond mere border fences and gang rapes to retain their control???

The sad thing about this is that it has had a significant impact on the blogosphere: some blogs have simply shut down completely (such as Blackamazon); others have had to totally shut down their comments against these hatemongering spammers; and a few brave souls have even been forced to change their comment policies.

Which brings me to announce the official comments policy for this here blog, which basically comes down to this:

I, as the blog owner/manager, reserve to myself the right to delete or reject any comment that I find offensive, libelous, slanderous, or just plain stupid. My decisions on who gets posted here are simply MY OWN, and are absolutely final…and none of your business. My blog; my choice…DEAL WITH IT.

Any attempt to post spam of any kind will be quickly deleted, and the perpetrator PERMANENTLY BANNED.

And this rule is especially for you wingnuts who think that you’re going to defile my house with your crap: First time, I give you the benefit of a response if you are polite and respectful enough; second time, the can of SmackDog Whupass comes out and I dissect your arguments piece by piece; and on Strike Three….well, You’re OUTTA HERE!!!!!

Friends and decent people, however, can post all they want without fear.

If you want to have a decent debate, you are more than welcome. If you want to come here to troll and bash….don’t even think about it.

BTW…Kevin at Slant Truth has come up with a brilliant idea for all you progressive bloggers who are sick and tired of all the wingnut trolls; he has formed up a special forum/message board connected to his blog where progressive bloggers can interact on the nuts and bolts of running and maintaining a blog, as well as other technical topics. If you are interested, just go here to check out his board….and of course, only progressive kick-ass bloggers need apply.

When “Porn Liberal Feminism” Really Isn’t: My Issue With Amanda And The Pandagonites

Pardon me, please, if I’m feeling a bit moody….because I just had to break off someone whom I usually respect and agree with most of the time, but just got me more than a bit upset over a disagreement we have over the subject of men, women, and sexual attractiveness.

Most of you know Amanda Marcotte as the house feminist over at Pandagon; she’s the feisty progressive feminist “porn liberal” who does her level best to attack the roots and branches of the evil male patriarchy as it attempts to revoke women’s rights back to the 5th Century. Before tonight, I could wholeheartedly stand behind her efforts…but, something has been bothering me for a long while about her style of collective guilt-tripping men as a class for their thoughts rather than their actions…and tonight it all came to a head over some comments she and her regular contributors made.

It all began when high-tech writer/sex-positive guru Annalee Newitz, who writes a regular column for AlterNet called “Techsploitation” (and who recently opened a blog of the same name). Annalee recently wrote a serious high-tech column that was reposted in the high-tech journal Slashdot about two weeks ago; but some of the men who viewed the article were more interested in her fuckability and her attractiveness than the nature of the article she wrote, and they got loose in the Slashdot comments section within. Annalee was not too happy with not having her article taken as seriously as she liked, and in so many words said so in a recent article she posted over at AlterNet as her latest column. (Though, she did express gratitude that some men did take some of the more “sexist dicks” to task, and she hoped that more women would be willing to go there and challenge some of the more entrenched sexist attitudes there.) In her most recent Techsploitation blog entry, she recapitulated the whole controversy.

Well…being the liberal feminist and the outspoken person she is, Amanda couldn’t hold herself back; in an entry to Pandagon posted today (April 20), she quoted from both Annalee and from some comments placed in Annalee’s column, then went off on her own. Here’s an excerpt, including three comments and Amanda’s response to them.

(Quotes from Annalee’s Techsploitation column comments)

You’re Sexy When You’re Angryfor the record, i think your pretty hot. smart chicks are always hot.So let me get this straight: If a man looks at a woman and thinks about having sex with her, that is “sexist”? If so, call me and every other man on the planet sexist. Apparently, men are supposed to ignore and overcome millenia of evolution, merely to fit into your PC paradigm. I thought this sort of Victorian, sexless feminism had been discretited by the likes of Camille Paglia long ago.

.

.

(Amanda’s response)
As for the third comment, I have an idea of a public protest art similiar to what’s done here. We need to get together a hit squad of straight women and gay men together and start hitting big blogs run by men and turning every single discussion into one about whether we’d fuck the guy or not. Refuse to engage on the topic at hand and when anyone says this isn’t about his fuckability, get all pissed off and accuse that person of being an anti-sex prude and suggest they join the Christian right. Sometimes just turning the tables tells the whole story.Anyway, that guy is clearly an idiot, but unfortunately the other two, while totally well-meaning, are basically falling into his same line of thinking, which is that they cannot conceive of a discussion about a woman’s writing that doesn’t put her value as a sex object up front. I don’t know about Newitz, but there’s been huge, public discussions about my fuckability and I’ll admit, comments like those two cause mixed feelings–it’s not fun to have your looks discussed so openly, but even though compliments can weird you out, you know they generally come from people with good intentions. But I’ve never been in exactly Newitz’s position where the discussion ignored her ideas in favor of talking about her looks and so at least it’s always conceivable that any upset I was feeling was due to just all the people who insult my looks. But in this case, Newitz couldn’t be more clear that it wasn’t the insults or compliments aimed at her so much as she was pissed off that her ideas went ignored.Basically, I think for some guys when they hear, “I hate having my looks discussed,” they assume straightaway you’re feeling inadequate and immediately jump to the compliment instead of considering what you’re talking about. I’m disinclined to think the guys rushing to assure her they find her attractive were actually intending to add to the frustration. They like her, read her blog, and I think it was just out of habit, actually, because men are trained from the get-go to shower women they like with compliments about their looks, which isn’t the problem per se, but more that it’s often the only kind of compliment men assume women want to hear. (The reverse of this is also true–I had to force myself to learn to compliment men’s looks instead of just achievements, and it’s actually funny watching a guy get flustered but enjoy it if I do so.)

I blame the Men are from Venus, Women are from Mars (or whatever it was–I remember reading the personality traits and I’m much more Martian, so that’s what women must be, right?) thinking. Or Adam and Eve or whatever you want to call it, but the cultural idea that men and women are both opposites and put here to conjoin sexually and that’s that, there’s no reason that men and women should be friends or whatever since they have nothing in common. This way of thinking creates massive problems when men and women have non-sexual interactions, because so many people are stuck in the sexual way of interacting they habitually apply it to these non-sexual interactions. The father-daughter purity balls would be an extreme example of this. I’m sure many of the men there have no incestous urges towards their daughters, and they were applying sexualized modes of interaction out of desperation, because they have no other way of relating to women.
[/Amanda]

.[/Amanda]

.[/Amanda]

Now…I have no argument with the basic belief that some of the men’s comments did cross the line into disrespect for Annalee’s article….but my first question is this: Why assume that that was the case with ALL of them?? Perhaps they were simply saying their feelings that Annalee Newitz was an attractive woman, and not disrespecting her at all. Perhaps they really do respect her for her work and her achievements, but merely had their lower heads get in the way of their thinking at that time. To simply label them as misogynists merely due to having sexual thoughts about a woman who is reasonably attractive (even if they did choose the wrong venue to state those thoughts openly) sounds to me as grossly overreaching and a total mass scapegoating of all men for merely having normal thoughts of sexual attraction (even if misdirected somewhat).

Well…I said as much in a comment I posted to Amanda’s thread this afternoon…and by the resulting roasting I got, you would have thought that I had advocated that Annalee Newitz (and by extension, all professional women) deserved to be raped. Some highlights from the Comments thread follow (beginning with my original comment:

——————————————————————

Anthony Kennerson
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:22 pm

May I bring a slight bit of dissent in here??

I acknowledge and agree with all the arguments that Annalee should be taken seriously as a woman and a journalist, and that some of the comments at Slashdot do cross the line into blatant sexism by putting her sexuality above her intellect. But…should it really be such a sign of rancid sexism to say that a woman is sexually attractive WHILE still respecting her humanhood??

Let’s remember that Annalee Newitz isn’t just a geek journalist…she also happens to write a great deal about sex and sexuality on the Internet from a very progressive, “sex-positive” point of view. Given that, should it be that much of a surprise that some men would focus on the latter side of her personality…and that she would come across as more accepting of flattery from them???

As long as they do appreciate her as a human being, then what’s the really big deal about commenting about how desirable she is??? Or do some of you believe that ANY depiction of a woman in a serious profession as sexually desirable and attractive can be nothing less than an basic insult to her intellect, and one step removed from sexual harrassment, if not rape??? And how is that any less of a caricature than the sexless, humorless, ball-busting “strawfeminist” stereotype always put forth by antifeminists that Amanda regularly and rightly smacks down???

Besides, I don’t think that most of the men commenting on Slashdot really were putting down Annalee’s intellect…though the argument on whether she was “ugly” or “pretty” did go a bit too far down the road of not addressing the real point of the article she did there.

A woman can indeed be both intellectually stimulating and sexually desirable….or she can be either of the two, or she can be none of the above. The only issue is that she should be given the full respect for her humanity and her achievements…and if others want to undress her mentally in their minds, well, that’s their issue as long as she’s not offended by it.

Geeky women can be sexy, too…and sexy women can be geeks.

The best solution to dealing with knotheads like some of those guys at Slashdot is just to either ignore them or let the decent men on the board dissect them (as what indeed did happen). If thay can’t think of a woman as anything other than their personal sex toy..well, they’re in the wrong place.

Anthony

61 Mike Nilsen
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:27 pm

Maybe Amanda should edit the comments from this post into a book: ‘Dating Tips for Geeks’. C’mon, you’ll sell a million!

62 Sjofn
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:40 pm

I just went through a thread on a geeky board about a blog post. The post was about making the gaming world more friendly to women. On the one hand, most of the men in the thread seemed genuinely interested in what makes women feel like total outsiders and unwelcome, and how to change it. But there were two or three guys who went on and on and on and on and on about how it isn’t really a problem, sexism either doesn’t exist or isn’t NEARLY as bad as we think it is (that was my favourite), and how we need to look at ALL SIDES of the issue. When the “all sides” guy was pressed for what those sides could possibly BE, he scurried off saying he didn’t want to get involved, but his opinion (whatever the fuck it even WAS) hadn’t changed.

Blog post(s) in question, if anyone is curious:

Part One: http://rpgtalk.net/msw/weblog/148.html

Part Two: http://rpgtalk.net/msw/weblog/163.html

63 another lynne
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:41 pm

Anthony, I gotta take issue with your best solution. We gotta call bullshit when we see it.

Because someone writes about sex in one forum, or even in another article doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to focus on sex whenever that person writes.

And there is a huge difference between mentally undressing someone (quietly) and discussing their fuckability in a forum that is (in theory anyway) about something completely unrelated. As I said earlier, context is everything.

64 Sheelzebub
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:46 pm

But…should it really be such a sign of rancid sexism to say that a woman is sexually attractive WHILE still respecting her humanhood??

Anthony, when it is normal for men to hear women routinely comment upon their looks, their hotness, and their sexiness when they are trying to discuss a serious topic, I’ll agree with you. But that’s not the case. It’s like someone making conversation with you and staring at your tits. No one feels they have to legitimize men by telling them how sexeeee they are.

This isn’t the strawfeminist slapping a man across the face and yelling RAPIST!! when he tells her she looks pretty. It’s genuine irritation at people commenting on a woman’s looks when she’s talking about something that has fuck-all to do with her looks.

And it should tell you something, Anthony, that the sex-positive Newitz herself was irritated at this.

You know, there’s a reason why I don’t post any pictures of me at my blog–besides the whole avoiding stalkers thing. It’s the comments about my looks that I’d be sure to get–I’ve seen it happen to Jill and Lauren at Feministe, Amanda here, and several other female bloggers. I don’t care if someone said that they think I’m the hottest chick in the universe (or an ugly pug) in response to my post. My reaction would still be: WTF does that have to do with the subject at hand?

65 Hershele Ostropoler
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:47 pm

Anthony Kennerson:
But…should it really be such a sign of rancid sexism to say that a woman is sexually attractive WHILE still respecting her humanhood??

Yup.

The sexism is in treating a woman as decoration. Assuming good faith on the part of all involved, if someone says something insightful about a topic, and that person’s a woman, and you respond with “you’re so pretty!” it looks like you don’t think what she has to say is important.* If you say “that was well-argued, and you’re pretty,” it’s not much better, since it still suggests that you value her not for her insight, but for her appearance, with the insightfulness being a nice bonus.

It’s not always sexist to comment on a woman’s appearance. On a date, say**, it’s perfectly appropriate. Because on a date, her attractiveness (and yours), are pertinent to the purpose of the meeting. In an intellectual discussion, it’s not.

I could never have a relationship wit someone stupid, but that doesn’t mean I think of non-stupid women as nothing but relationship material.

*If we don’t assume good faith, it could be taken as a way for you to convey that you don’t think she should aspire to hold opinions while letting you say, if you’re called on it, “all I said was that she’s pretty!”
** Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether dating is unavoidably and inherently sexist.

66 R. Mildred
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:52 pm

But…should it really be such a sign of rancid sexism to say that a woman is sexually attractive WHILE still respecting her humanhood??

If you cut the hyperbolic modifier “rancid” then yes, yes it is a sign of sexism, because you are undermining the humanhood you think you’re respecting by subjecting her to the male gaze and thereby turning her into a sexual object when such attention is irrelelvent to the fact at hand.

She does not NEED you to tell her she’s sexually attractive, she does not NEED you to tell her that you’d pork her if you had the opportunity (more importantly, by making such a statement you are ensuring that she would never willingly give you teh opportunity, which leaves one other option…), it’s the internets’ equivalent to builders wolf whistling at passing women or those jackasses who honk and shout sexual propositions to women on the sidewalk while they driveby, which, in case you were unaware, are all forms of sexual harrassment.

Note how the justification are identical to the justification for the builder and car-borne abuse “we’re just complimenting you honey, what’s the big deal?” The Rape Culture’s the big fucking deal, the dehumanizing aspect of it is the fucking deal, the sheer, unadalterated immaturity of it is the fucking deal buddy, and I’m sure that if you zip up your flies for long enough to actually THINK about it, you’d get that.

Don’t you just love how you can’t get away from this shit even on the internets?

67 Sjofn
Apr 20th, 2006 at 4:00 pm

Hell, I find it much worse on the internets (just as an attitude, of course). But maybe that’s just me?

68 lt
Apr 20th, 2006 at 4:17 pm

Also . . in my experience guys who really are into smart women don’t have to go around saying it . . . I mean, it should go without saying – I like being complimented, but if a guy said to me “wow, you’re smart, I like that” it has a creepy Samuel Johnson (the thing is that she does it all) feel

69 Lanoire
Apr 20th, 2006 at 5:04 pm

Anthony, it’s a matter of timing and context. Yes, it’s possible to appreciate a woman’s looks and her humanity. But if someone started expressing their opinion on an issue, and you responded by saying “Nice ass” or “You’re beautiful,” don’t you see how that might be demeaning? Because it’s so irrelevant. If someone writes an opinion column, the correct response to that is to discuss the issue. If Newitz had posted her picture on Hot or Not, then it would be appropriate to discuss her looks. Men don’t have to deal with out-of-context discussions of looks as much as women do.

70 Matt Weiner
Apr 20th, 2006 at 5:16 pm

In re Slashdot, a guy who appears to be a Slashdotter showed up at Unfogged to defend the ultra-ultra-fundie Pensacola Christian College, a school that condemns Bob Jones as too liberal. Scary stuff (scroll up and down and look at the original post for context and for much more of his defense).

71 Jill
Apr 20th, 2006 at 5:27 pm

“As long as they do appreciate her as a human being, then what’s the really big deal about commenting about how desirable she is??? Or do some of you believe that ANY depiction of a woman in a serious profession as sexually desirable and attractive can be nothing less than an basic insult to her intellect, and one step removed from sexual harrassment, if not rape???”

The big deal is that you feel entitled to share your opinion of how desirable she is in a forum that has nothing to do with her putting herself out there for judgment. I’m a little sensitive about this one because I’ve had my physical appearance held up for scrutiny many times on my own blog, and it gets old. While many people are well-meaing in their compliments, I don’t see why your opinion of what I look like matters any more than your opinion on Baroque art matters in a conversation about abortion rights. Completely unrelated, irrelevant, and distracting to the topic at hand. And as other commenters have said, there’s a good deal of entitlement involved when one person feels that it is entirely his right to evalue someone who hasn’t put herself out to be evaluated, in a forum where it’s unrelated.

The issue isn’t with depicting women as sexually desirable. It’s with directly commenting to a woman about her physical appearance when she didn’t solicit such comments, and when those comments have absolutely no purpose except to share the viewer’s opinion on an irrelevant topic.

72 Jesurgislac
Apr 20th, 2006 at 5:42 pm

Anthony Kennerson: May I bring a slight bit of dissent in here??

Anthony’s got a really nice ass. And I like the way he does his hair. But he could use a bit of work on his belly – too much beer, not enough sit-ups. Good package, though he could wear tighter pants.

73 Amanda Marcotte
Apr 20th, 2006 at 5:44 pm

Anthony, you blew your entire argument and any shades of gray when you decided that we were calling rudeness rape. The entitlement reeking off you blows my mind. At what point do you permit a woman to have her own definition of rude? Frankly, I find it hard to believe you’d appreciate it if you were at dinner with your mom and when she ordered, the waiter said, “I’m sorry I couldn’t hear you, I was staring at your ass.”

74 Anthony Kennerson
Apr 20th, 2006 at 6:01 pm

To Lanoire and RMildred:

OK…so a woman’s attractiveness should be completely of the table when it comes to discussing any subject matter, then??? Does that mean that ANY man, who even THINKS of a woman an ANY context as a sexual being, is a prima facie misogynist and should only think of a woman in intellectual terms….even if she happens to be attractive??

Well, I guess that makes me a total misogynist, never mind my committment to women’s equality or my general opposition to support for the broader principles of feminism…I guess that men really do have to castrate themselves and only look at women on pedestals as sexless status objects to meet some “feminist” standards, do they???

It may be one thing to blurt “I think you’re hot” in a serious venue as a professional setting..but this was a blog, for Pete’s sake, and the comments were for the most part complimenting Annalee, not demeaning her. But since I’m one of those evil Male Gaze, leering men who only cares about bedding them down (my respect for their intellect to the contrary), I’m no better than a mere rapist in some people’s minds for merely saying out loud that a smart woman happens to also be sexy. And never mind if that woman is capable of taking that as a compliment for herself; she is obviously incapable of speaking for all the other women who are supposedly so demeaned and defiled by such a comment.

Obviously, Annalee must be (if I read your response properly) just as much a traitor to her gender for allowing herself (and by extension, all professional women) to be seen as a “sex object”, as the men who responded thusly are apparently evil, sex-crazed misogynists.

After all, women who comment about a man’s (or another woman’s) physical attraction and sex appeal in blogs aren’t traitors to their gender or demeaning men, are they?? Or is that just another patriarchial vestige imported from men as well?? Women, after all, don’t ever think about sex appeal or eyballing men for sheer sexual attraction, do they???

Thank you, ladies, for bringing back the double standard and proving my main point. I would have thought that even today some would be able to differentiate between actual misogyny and well-meaning (if misstated) praise; or that women shouldn’t have to choose between two basic essences of their humanity (their brains and their bodies) or that men shouldn’t have to support a sexless stereotype pedestal to get “feminist” approval…but now I see that even within certain elements of feminism, some women are more equal than others.

So much for “porn liberal” feminism…sounds like the same old neo-liberal Dworkinism with a smiling face to me. Thank you very much, but I will pass on this one.

Anthony

75 mythago
Apr 20th, 2006 at 6:07 pm

Shorter Anthony: How dare you feminazis shame me for telling Annalee I think she’s TEH HAWT!!!!

76 Anthony Kennerson
Apr 20th, 2006 at 6:25 pm

Hold the phone, Amanda:

I never said that these men were in any way “entitled” to make over the top comments at Annalee or any other woman; nor did I ever say that I ever approved of disrespecting women who were put off at such comments. And NO man is ever entitled to violate a woman physically or in any other way.

But..to say that any man who even thinks of an attractive woman in his mind in a sexual way is automatically deemed a misogynist is not only as sweeping an overgeneralization and indictment of men for merely stating a truth (perhaps a bit abruptly and in an improper setting), but it potentially goes into convicting a person merely for his thoughts rather than his actions. Please forgive me if I happen to think that calling a sex writer and a generally attractive woman “hot” may be highly innappropriate in some settings, but does not merit the same criticism as actual workplace harrassment…or for thinking that some women may even find such behavior relatively irrelevant or even flattering. If you are going to smack down the men for not taking Annalee seriously (and that is your right as a feminist that I never questioned at all), then why not take that argument to its logical conclusion and criticize Annalee for focusing much of her work on sex to begin with??? (And I am NOT criticizing Annalee for her profession in any way, either, for those of you about to break out the “typical male elitist card”.)

It just seems to me that men can’t win for losing in this game: If they make a legitimate attempt to treat women as equals and respect their intellect, while simultaneously praising them for their appearence, they still get smacked down for “objectifying women” as “sex objects” even when they aren’t really attempting to.

As much as I respect you and your crew, Amanda, I still reserve my right to disagree with you on some issues and still remain a feminist supporter. You have as much of a right to disagree with me as I do as well..but please, read what I said before casting be out as another MRA loony..which I am NOT.

I see that I am offending some people, so I will leave it at that. To each his or her own.

BTW..my ass is like most other men’s asses…typical. If you want to kiss it, then that’s your perogative…just be gentle. It’s the only ass I have.

I apologize for offending anybody…I’m gone.

Anthony

I’ll just allow all of you to digest that before I continue with my rant.

The Flight of the Fairy Blogmother: The Washington Post, Maryscott O’Connor, And The "Angry Left"

It’s been a real interesting time looking in at all the foofoo going on over Friday’s Washington Post lead article featuring My Left Wing’s chief founder/Fairy BlogMILF…errrrrrr, Blogmother…Maryscott O’Connor as the prototype of today’s “Angry Left”. Never mind all the mudslinging over the accompanying pic of Miz MSOC scrawling over her PC in her PJ’s and a wine bottle loaded with Diet Coke, plotting what obscenity she will use to match the latest obscenity of the Bush Crime Family and their enablers on the Democratic side; all over the portside anchor of Blogoliciousville there has been charges and countercharges of Maryscott either being the most brilliant and passionate liberal writers in this century or merely a publicity whore who used appearences on John Gibson’s FOX News gabfest shows and the WaPo article to undermine the supposedly more sensible and even tempered critiques of a kinder, quieter liberalism.

(Personally, I lean towards the former…but then again, I happen to have a soft spot for intellegent, pretty women who aren’t afraid to drop a few f-bombs and kick a lot of asses in defense of truth, justice, and the progressive American Way. And you know my fondness for sexy Irish women, too.)

Anyways, Maryscott has just tonight posted at MLW a resoundingly beautiful rebuttal to all the criticism and the praise for her fame; here’s a small sample of what she wrote (with additional emphasis bolded by me):

Everything else, from quotes to descriptions, was factually correct. What Finkel didn’t quite capture was some of the context, and I’m fine with that. My son isn’t scared of me; in fact, we usually recite the Howard Beale speech together. His backing away was more about the presence of a stranger and his unwillingness to be my trained monkey than about being “startled” or afraid. Of course, Finkel couldn’t know that, and I am not upset about it. It bothers me somewhat that some people think I’m a bad mother — but among the hate emails I’ve received, many express the sentiment that I’m sending my child to hell for being a liberal and instilling him with liberal values, so I guess an accurate context of our Howard Beale routine wouldn’t exactly mitigate my image in the eyes of that type of audience, anyway…

I am a smoker. I quit every few months, with varied lengths of success. I do not enjoy smoking, I do not like cigarettes and I consider my continued failure to quit and stay quit one of the biggest problems in my life. I do NOT need anyone to tell me how harmful it is, how unattractive or how much longer I will live if I quit now.

I do not drink. I do, however, have a number of silly affectations, one of which is drinking Diet Coke in a wine glass. I drink non-alcoholic beer, and there is .05% alcohol in it — I am aware of this and I choose to drink non-alcoholic beer AND non-alcoholic wine anyway. IF some people consider this inappropriate choice for a recovered alcoholic, it is their right to believe so. It is also their right to mention it. Once having received my validation of their opinion and heard my decision to disagree, it is then incumbent on them to shut the fuck up about it. The same should be assumed about the smoking thing.

I do not consider, nor have I ever promoted myself as the Spokesperson for the Angry Left. The fact that I have been designated or implied as such by two members of the corporate media is beyond my control; I deny such a claim, I repeat that I speak only for myself, and that is the best I can do. To those who would advise me that I should eschew the media altogether, I can only reply that it is an absurd suggestion. I blog because I want to be heard; when offered the opportunity to be heard by increasingly large numbers, I accept it. If anyone is offended by the very idea of my speaking my opinions into a larger megaphone than theirs, they are free to say so, but it is not for them to tell me what I may and may not do. To suggest, as someone actually did, that I ought to have asked permission of the left blogosphere to go on television and be profiled in a newspaper as a liberal blogger, is the height of surreal arrogance.

I chose to allow a reporter into my home to observe and listen to me, and to report what he heard and saw in a major newspaper. I was under no illusion that I might be portrayed flatteringly or maliciously. I believed he would report the truth, and that, he did. Whether anyone feels it was flattering or malicious is irrelevant; we see what we choose to see, more often than not, and objectivity is an illusive and often impossible goal. Every word of the story was factual and true and real. If that offends people, so be it. If it encourages people, so be it.

Now, personally, I do think that the WaPo did manage to graft what could have been a decent piece on progressive blogging into a basic hit piece villifying the “Angry Left” blogosphere as beyond the pale…but that is merely par for the course for them and their basic Center-Right politics. But I do kinda wish that they would spend some time with a few of the countervailing blogs on the starboard side….you know, blogs like RedState.org, FrontPage.com, Human Events, Mistress Malkin, and a few other of the “conservative blogs” and compare their anger to that of MSOC. Or, if they really want to take a chance, pay a visit to a site like Free Republic or Conservative Underground or even Little Green Footballs…compared to them, Maryscott’s a freakin’ Zen master of restraint.

Oh, but I forgot…that wouldn’t be so fair to the Right blogosphere, since the Post has already pissed them off too much by firing that blogger plagarist Ben Domenech who was actually on the WaPo payroll as a blogger after the not-angry consevatives complained about the “liberal” bias of the Post….right after they ran that editorial dismissing Dubya’s admission of involvement in the CIA Plame leaks as
just fine with them.

Gee…perhaps that might have more than a little bit to do with all the “anger” of the Left….well, that, and the looting, and the spying, and fiscal mismanagement, and the war, and the torture, and the racist greedheads exploiting poor people for profit, and the abandonment of and basic values….nah, the Left’s just being hysterical, that’s all.

All this is is just another suck up to power and privilege…the Right has all of it, and the Left has none. Guess who’s going to get the short end of the scapegoat stick, as always???

Brava one more time, Maryscott, for poking them with the stick of truth. A few more principled liberals like her, and I might have still remained a Democrat. Might.

And BTW…I was only kidding about the MILF thing.

More of the fallout on MSOC and her WaPo article can be found at these fine places:

Shakespere’s Sister
Pandagon
The News Blog

Update: Get a load of Jesus’ General’s nice smackdown of the WaPo; it is an instant classic.

Way To Go Again, Heart(less)…

Technorati tags: sex wars, porn, prostitiution, feminist sex wars, antiporn radical feminism, sex-positive feminism

What a wonderful show of hypocrisy you have.

You allow your bandwidth of your blog to be used for the most personal and hateful ad honimen attacks on critics of your antipornradfem ideology.

You tolerate — if not openly enable — some of the most racist, bigotted commentators  known to womankind (Luckynkl with her anti-transsexual smack, Ginmar with her conspiracies of Black women enabling the evil male enemy against innocent White women, Sam with her basic boilerplate about the assumed rapicity and mass rape fantasies of those who aren’t as zealously opposed to “pornstitiution” as she is; and Delphyne and Pony on general man-/sex- baiting principle)..then hide behind your own “race traitor” history when rightfully called out on your nonsense.

You and your APRF allies continuously and regularly distort, abuse, dehumanize, objectify,  and personally attack other women and other feminists when their views don’t perfectly match with your own….all in the name of unifying sisterhood and attacking “dehumanization” and “objectification”, of course).

And you do all this, and escape to your firewall of privacy whenever the people you desecrate attempt to defend themselves, or merely speak the truth about themselves.

And yet….you have the unmittigated GALL to accuse Renegade Evolution of “threatening” and “silenceing” you and your allies….because she got tired of your personal attacks on her and your friends, and used some words of anger to boot against your sensitive, fragile being???

That’s quite rich of ‘ya, considering that you allow your blog to be used for slandering and crucifying the likes of Jill Brenneman, Antiprincess, Amber, Ren, Bitch|Lab, Laura and Faith, (the latter two being, strangely enough, still quite anti-porn, in spite of all the evil “wasp” influences), among others.  Not to mention that you don’t even allow them the common decency of defending themselves….you are so quick to shut comments down when it suits your needs..but allow your groupies to fire at will without any hint of censure??

This is radical feminism, indeed???  More like Radical RIGHT fascism cloaked in “feminist” garb.

These are my words and mine only….as always, I don’t attempt to speak for anyone else.  Besides, Ren has responded quite adequately here.

Ahhhh..The Smell of Freshly Roasted Wingnuts

A special Thursday morning treat for y’all:

La Queen Sucia: More Stupidity in my In-box

Alisa is a highly noted Latina professional producer; and the link is to a nice, swift pixellized ass-kicking she delivers to a typical Minuteman wingnut who attempts to smack her down for dissing the entire “illegal aliens/Mexicans” debate.

Since it is so long and in detail, I’ll just recommend you check it out for yourself.

Brava, Ms. Valdes….way to show those racist f***heads.

The Duke Rape Case: Addedum and Errata

Well, it seems that things are becoming a bit clearer about the Duke rape case..and some of the original facts about the case have been proven wrong..including some of my statements in my previous essay.

As I noted before, I crossposted the original entry about the Duke case over at the My Left Wing megasite….and promptly got highly praised (and the highest rating) by the MLW Fairy Blogmother (aka Maryscott O’Connor) as well as another regular named Shanikka, who is highly respected there for her prolific viewpoints. However, Shanikka did manage to drill me for ignoring some of the facts emerging from the case; and she sent the following response to my diary earlier tonight concerning my original recollection of the case:

That is not what has been reported as occurring, not since Day 7 (the first report outside of the original police report.) And the last thing you want to be accused of is changing the facts with a story this serious (and, so far, this ignored). Here are the facts as were reported by the victim herself during an interview on March 28:

The victim was hired to dance at what she was advised would be a bachelor party with approximately 5 guests. There was another dancer who had also been hired who was there. They discovered that, contrary to what had been represented to them, there was a house full of 40 men. Both women had misgivings, but decided they needed the money and so agreed to stay. When their performance began, several of the men began making a number of racist and misogynist comments. One reportedly simulated with a broom handle a desire to sodomize one of the dancers. The women became uncomfortable with this, and stopped dancing and left. Several of the men followed them outside and continued taunting them racially: one is reported to have screamed “Be sure to thank your grandfather for my cotton shirt” as they were leaving. Neighbors and a white woman driving a passing car called 9-11 to report this part of hte incident. When the dancers were outside, several men in the house came out, apologized for the behavior of their friends and promised that if they came back and finished their performance there would be no further problems. According to the victim, when they went back inside, she was separated from the other girl, forced into a bathroom, and raped and sodomized by 3 white males who she identified by first name. She reported struggling and, in fact, lost 4 of her fingernails (acrylics) which were later found in the house. The victim reports that this went on for approximately 1/2 hour, when she was allowed to leave. She then exited the house without one of her shoes, her purse with all the money that had been paid, her fingernails and her cellphone, and got into the car of the other dancer, who then drove her to Kroeger’s Supermarket parking lot. The police were called from Kroeger’s.

So, in other words: (a) there is no allegation that the entire lacrosse team raped this woman. In fact right now we don’t know if the perps are even on the lacrosse team. All we know is that the event occurred at a house rented by members of the lacrosse team; (b) there is no contention that the women were forced back into the house. They weren’t. Moreover, the sole African-American member of the lacrosse team has not denied being there: the only reason he was not DNA tested is because the victim identified her attackers as white males.

The reason these details matter is precisely for the reasons you highlight with your diary: already the charge of anti-white racism is making the rounds (along with the standard “we all know Black women can’t be raped” subtext of the delayed reporting and action on this case.) It therefore becomes 1,000 times more important to be meticulous in reporting the facts. Especially now that, as I suspected, the DNA is rumored to have cleared all of the members of the lacrosse team (which is why my suspicions were greatly raised when I heard that the testing was limited to the members of the lacrosse team to begin with.) Folks were already crying “Tawana Brawley” before tonight. It will only get worse. The fact that the woman was injured vaginally and anally and ended up in the hospital will be utterly drowned out by the cry that the lacrosse team was persecuted unfairly. The clearing of these particular men will, within a week, mean that there was never any rape at all.

A genuine and valid point…and I hereby correct the record and apologize to you all for not getting the actual events straight…even though I still feel that even if the Duke lacrosse team may not have actually participated in the dirty deed; they do hold at least some responsibility for the climate of racist hostility and allowing the assault to happen in their venue. And none of this changes the main thrust of my essay about the attempt by neocon right-wing media to pile on the victim as a stupid, vain “slut” who got what she deserved, or just made it all up to spite Whites…the fact remains that she more than likely was assaulted and brutalized, and she deserves all the justice that any victim of rape should get.

But…accuracy is still important, even when you are right in your anger…and Shanikka was right on for calling me out on not getting the facts right. My sincere appreciation and thanks go to her for that needed kick in the ass…and I do hope that she and I get to debate each other more here and at MLW in the future.

See, Clones..I’m man enough to admit that I’m wrong, and I always do my best to clean up my mess. I wonder if the wingnutters at FrontPage.com can ever say that.

Manic Monday Morning Quickie Links

A few links to sites which caught my attention over the weekend:

——————————————————————————-

1) Maryscott O’Connor of My Left Wing made an appearance on right-wing hack John Gibson’s Faux News gabfest talk show “The Big Story” in a segment debate called “Blue on Blue”…and basically went Teddy Roosevelt (as in “Speak softly and carry a BIG stick”) on Mr. “Two in the noggin” and Democratic pollster Bob Beckel. Here’s the shorthand of what ensued (from MLW with relay by Pandagon):

“Gibson opened the segment with the now infamous clip of Harry Taylor confronting Bush in West Virginia. Gibson wondered if this was a sign that there was a tip to the left ? Maryscott O’Connor was set up as the spokesperson for the Left and Beckel was the Centrist guy. If there was a debate imagined by the FOX producers, it never happened as planned.

Gibson asked O’Connor why she didn’t like Hillary Clinton as a candidate for 2008. Without hesitation, O’Connor said she was “too centrist”. Gibson wanted to know if the candidate O’Connor would support would have to back censure or impeachment. O’Connor came back with strength, ” I would expect candidates from both parties to impeach Bush.”

Her answer would normally be an invitation for rant and ridicule on FOX but not today. Beckel earlier in the segment let it be known that he has been a proud Liberal or the last 30 years. Annoyed that Gibson had characterized him as a centrist, Beckel talked about his civil rights involvement and how enraged he was in 1974 when nobody brought up impeachment for Nixon. So when Maryscott O’Connor made her stand on impeaching Bush clear, Beckel agreed that he would be glad if it happened but then he proceeded to discuss why it would be impossible to impeach Bush.

O’Connor responded beautifully without skipping a beat. “Sounds like a strategist talking. We’re talking about a principle. He broke the law. It shouldn’t be about whether it’s a “winning issue” or not.”

(A podcast of that segment in full is available and downloadable over at MLW, feel free to check it out for yourself. [Available in RealPlayer, Quicktime, or WMV format.])

And I’m probably betting that it won’t happen again, either…Faux usually has a one-liberal debater per program quota; allowing two in the same program would mess up their brains too much.

Well done, Fairy Blogmother. More of you defending progressive values won’t hurt any.

Side note….I have decided to post my previous essay here on the Duke alleged gang rape case over there at MLW…I eagerly await the response there.

Update: Steve Gilliard at The News Blog has a more developed post on MSOC’s smackdown here; I updated the quote from there.

————————————————————————–

2) Whatever Rachel Kramer Bussel has, I’d really like to borrow…especially when she comes up with columns like this recent defense of sex within feminism at her Lusty Lady blog:

A sample:

[...]

The problem with throwing out the pagaentry and fucking in favor of corporate boardroom (or White House) driven feminism, is that, well, we still have bedrooms and sex drives and orgasms (or the pursuit of them) to attend to. Ignoring sex doesn’t make it go away, and to basically say that sex, sexuality equality, sexual politics, and erotic experimentation, the pursuit of happiness in our sex lives, has no place in feminism, is to ignore the ways gender roles get played out during sex. It’s to ignore the real revolution in women’s sex lives that started largely after the official sexual revolution, one that can be traced back to Betty Dodson’s orgasm workshops and on to Monica Lewinsky and today to all sorts of things such as the rise of burlesque, the boom in erotica, especially women’s erotica and African-American erotica, the genre of couples porn, sex toys being sold on Amazon.com, etc.

[...]

This is not just a women’s issue, though, and I’d really like to see more of the male fans of, say, Jenna Jameson or Joanna Angel or just sex in general stand up for themselves and their right to an erotic life, a fantasy life, a fully realized sexual road map. I interviewed one such man, Tom Birdsley, creator of Steak and Blowjob Day, for my upcoming Voice column about cocksucking, and was really impressed at how un-macho he was. I’ll get into it more in the column, but I think it’d be easy to look at something like that and simply go “wow, what an asshole” without even trying to understand where he’s coming from. When we blanketly condemn sex workers, we are also condemning their consumers, and, well, I wouldn’t be too shocked if men who are tres vocal about being anti strippers and anti porn weren’t jerking off to both.

Complete with this divisive, binary way of thinking about life/career vs. sexuality is the continuing denigration of women who work in the sex industry. Sex workers are in many ways the last frontier of the sexual revolution, and until we value them, as well as sex industry consumers, I don’t think it’s fair to say we’re living in a truly sexually free time. Maybe it appalls some people that educated, smart, talented, go-getter women would actively choose to make sex their career. Just like I don’t understand why gay marriage poses a threat to straight marriage, I still haven’t quite gotten it through my head why these women are so threatening, but clearly they are.

[...]

I think that I will go eat me a cupcake now after that fine blast…way to go, Rachel.

——————————————————

3) Belledame over at Fetch Me My Axe has been posting up a storm over her views on sex-positive feminism and the Duke gang rape case; go here for some of her latest.

—————————————————-

4) Violet at Tiny Nibbles goes off on a real asshat who started an online vendetta against one of her female sex-pos activist friends…and a New York Times columnist who, in her words, enabled the freak stalkerby making a bit too much light of the situation. The original righteous smackdown is here; the response to an “off the record” attempt by the NYT columnist to defend his tainted ass is here.

——————————————————

That’s all for now, gangstas…..more later when I can get off…..errrrrr, work.

On Race, Sex, Gang Rape, and Slut-Baiting (Or: Why FrontPage.com Is A Mountain of Fascist Pus-Ridden Poop)

Now…there are quite a few things that really piss me off about the looniness of the Far Right; such as how they use the language of equality and “equal rights” to justify laws and actions that do their best to undermine those lofty concepts; or how they have this magnificant gift of selling their BS political theories as if they were the common people defending themselves from the big, bad, evil “liberal elite” (while all along cashing in their 401Ks and leveraged buyouts; OR how they are so capable of preening themselves as representatives of the “victims” of society..despite relying as their base on the upper 25% of the most privileged White male fundamentalist Christian folk in this country (and being funded by the 1% who control almost 98% of all the wealth in this country).

But never in my wildest dreams would I suspect that these fascist asshats…ahhhhh, I mean, these fine young conservative activists for all things right, proper, and American…could stoop so low as to mock the suffering of a victim of a violent crime.

Well..never until yesterday, when I came across one of the vilest pieces of “journalistic opinion” this side of the White Citizens Council….and while I really hesitated putting this on this blog, the ultimate depravity and wretchedness of this essay is more than deserving of absolute disgust.

I’m sure that you have heard all the stories about the horrific alleged gang rape and assault at Duke University, where the entire lacrosse team (all White save for one Black member who happened to have the good sense to be absent, and all male) allegedly forced themselves (as in brutally raped, sodomized, and physically assaulted) one of two female strippers whom they paid to entertain them at a frat party just outside their campus. (For the record, the woman that was attacked was Black; the other woman was White; she was merely verbally abused.) From the evidence gathered so far, the two women were paid to perform a typical strip tease for the “guys”, but decided to pull out when the “guys” got a bit too physical with them and peppered them with racial insults. The women threatened to leave and were about to, when some of the “men” decided to take matters into their own hands. The resulting brohaha (with DNA tests pending on all the team members present; the entire team suspended and the coach fired; and the university taking heat from all sides) has launched a firestorm of debate over not just the climate of racism, male sexual agressiveness, and rape at Duke, but the overall issue of respect for women in general, Black women in particular, and especially, sex workers who run the risk of being targets of such attacks every day.

But while the potential for direct physical assaults are bad enough, the social stigma placed on such women as somehow deserving of their fate because of their chosen profession can be, if anything, that much worse….and Black women who happen to be sex workers face the additional stigma of their skin color to boot. The old right-wing racist myth of Black women as super-sexed nymphs who are useful only as objects to be used and thrown away (and the collorary myth of Black men as hypersexed animals who exist only to hunt down women with their penises) still afflict much of popular Rightist opinion and nature….even though such mythologies have long been proven false.

Try to keep in mind that fact while browsing through the following essay on the Duke calamity which was posted to the “conservative” online journal FrontPage.com last week. Could be really hard, though, considering the rotten stench of raw sewage mixed with that tinge of old-style lynching fluid that flows through that entire article.

A warning for all you progressives in advance: I apologize if anyone is offended by my posting the full text of the article here, since many other sources (such as Kevin at Slant Truth, Bitch Lab, and Feministe have already dissected this piece of turd article without having to endure reading through it fully..or even linking it. However, this crap is so definitive in its evil and its total loopiness that only a full and complete fisking can do it the justice it deserves.

So, here we go….time to break out the Gallon of SmackDog Whupass. The original article appears in italics within the blockquotes; my annotation follows as needed.

———————————————————————

Guilty ‘Til Proven Innocent

By David Yeagley
FrontPageMagazine.com April 4, 2006

It’s racism at Duke, all right. Racism against white students. Members of the Duke University Lacrosse team may have abused a black party girl, but, without any proof or trial, the Duke Lacrosse team was punished by the university, suspended from further games. So terrified was the administration of being charged with “racism.” The black female wins again. She is truly an ace on the field and in court.

Hmmmm..right off the football bat, we get the usual right-wing “poor oppressed White folks” card off the top of the deck…as if the attack didn’t occur at one of the wealthiest Catholic liberal arts universities in North Carolina (if not the South). And how about the notion that the guys “may have abused a (B)lack party girl”…as if the author had private access to the DNA tests which somehow prove that she wasn’t raped or assaulted.

Now, imagine if the assault had occured across town at the very public, very working-class, and predominately Black North Carolina Central University (also in Durham, NC), where members of the NCCU football team or band had assaulted….errrrrrrr, allegedly….two White girls in the same way. I’m real sure that the good folks of FrontPage.com would have opined the same caution about presumed innocence in that case, too. Yeah, right….this is the same site that gives up the intellectualism of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Dennis Praeger…would you expect anything less???

Naturally, the name of the black girl has not been released – appropriate if she is a rape victim, inappropriate if she is engaging in scurrilous race-baiting. The reports say the woman is a divorced, 27-year-old “mother” of two, attending North Carolina Central University. She is not a person of note, and is said to do exotic dancing as a side job to pick up extra cash.

Obviously, (I’m attempting to read Mr. Yeagley’s mind here) such a evil anti-White (because only those who really hate White people en masse attend historically Black colleges and universities) “hoochie mama” ‘ho slut (and I’m guessing that Mr. Y must be personally wondering what she is still doing in college at the age of 27, which simply proves that she must be such a failure if she’s stripping for a living) must be doing the bidding of Tawana Brawley and making all this rape shit up so that she can get paid off the largeese of Duke University and still get laid by the manly men of the Duke lacrosse team…and of course, no woman who flashes her tits and ass for any man other than the special person who uses her as an human incubator should ever be refered to as a mom without the airquotes of mocking disapproval. Unless, obviously, it’s for Mr. Y’s personal entertainment, I guess.

The entire Duke Lacrosse team and the university may have been severely maligned on all sides. The alleged incident occurred March 13, but as of Sunday, April 2, no charges have been filed against anyone. One report says 46 of the 47 members of the team were required to submit DNA for testing. (The black member of the team, of course, was exempted, since the accuser says she was attacked by white males.)

OK..so how long does it usually take in typical rape cases (especially those involviing gang rape) for charges to be filed or investigations to be held?? And if the “guys” were quickly indicted and charged within a week, would that have made much of a difference in Mr. Y’s opinion that, in the immortal words of Justice Clarence Thomas, “The bitch [Anita Hill] set me up”???

BTW..further adding to the “malignment” is the release by The Smoking Gun website of an email by one of the alleged assailants basically promoting the affair as basically one great snuff party where the “bitches” would be killed and skinned alive….but, thank Goddess, not raped. I wonder what our intrepid bigot…ahhhh, I mean, conservative journalist would think of that, too.

The story, as reported in the papers, indicates either profound social retardation on the part of the black “dancer,” or else irrationality on the part of racist-oriented reporters.

Indeed..because only self-hating commie-lib Whites and politically motivated Blacks would ever believe the word of a stupid nig— ….sorry, a mentally disturbed Black ‘ho over such Godly, wholesome, decent men such as these.

Or, to put it a bit more accurately….only a bunch of whiny, bullying Klan-supporting privileged asshats would believe this crap that these “young guys” were totally innocent…but since that happens to be the sole political base and the main demographic of “conservative” screeds like FrontPage.com, why the hell not say it like we think it???

There were two women involved, one apparently white (whose name also remains unrevealed), and the other black. Police got a call from the black woman who claimed she had been yelled at by some guy in the rented quasi-frat house of the Lacrosse team. She and her companion nevertheless went back to the house to “dance,” expecting, they say, four or five college boys to be there. Idiotic mistake No. 1.

Gee…you’d think that Yeagley assumes that the women were actually out there not as dancers but as full blown prostitutes looking for clients??? Or does he think that all “dancers” who dress their way should be assumed to drive men to rape and sexual assault??? And why would they not assume that only five men instead of forty would be there…because all 40 were there hollering at them??? But it’s all their fault for not being prepared to give it up…so never mind!!!

Then, she says, the two women were suddenly surrounded by 40-some boys, all coughing up racial epithets—presumably at the black woman. (Remember, she’s a 27-year-old-mother. Some of the team members are under twenty-one, else how could any of them have been charged with under-aged drinking?) The women then say they were so upset and frightened that they left the house.

Then, “helplessly,” the two women went back! Idiotic mistake No. 2.

Some guy on the porch “coaxed” them back, after which time they claim the black woman was abused. So far, there are no witnesses. (So, what happened to the other woman?)

I don’t know, Mr. Y….maybe the guys didn’t think that the White woman was good enough to assault??? Or perhaps there was a bit to much racial hatred going on that they decided to focus their anger and delayed lust on the Black woman, perhaps???

Notice, though, that somehow the other (White) woman’s occupation and age doesn’t seem to matter much to Mr, Y…perhaps a bit of projecting of his racist beliefs?? Or a bit of relief that she wasn’t attacked as the Black woman was??

Two weeks later, the team was suspended from games. The team captains say that the DNA testing will prove that all the members are innocent. This, of course, if true, will mean that it was either an easy set up for the women, or else the fervor of youthful hormones blinded everyone. In the heat of passion, well-ignited before the girls even showed up, there may have been some rough-housing. That should have been a serious tip-off. Of course, a 27-year-old mother of two certainly must have more sense than a drunken 19-year-old, no? However, our nameless victim showed less maturity than a six-year-old.

Hold on a sec…last paragraph ago, you were criticizing BOTH of them for stupidity for returning to the scene of the crime after being harassed initially…now you go and focus your blame exclusivly on the Black woman for her alleged “inmaturity” dealing with obviously drunk frat guys??? Gee, why isn’t her accomplice equally stupid for returning with her…is she less of a “slut”?? Or perhaps she’s less stupid because she happens to be….well..White?!?!?! Who writes your copies, Yeagley…David Duke???

All the racial issues in this story are moot. This is a tale of stupidity on the part of two women, particularly the black woman.

Black advocates are trying to play the racist element to the hilt. Rayone Bland, a black divinity student at Duke, thinks it’s that superiority complex of the rich whites. “So being told ‘No’ for the first time, I mean, is mind-blowing for them,” he observes.

Yup…you can’t even have a decent lynching anymore without those damn “Black advocates” getting in the way.

If a rape occurred, it is inexcusable, regardless of the race of the victim or perpetrators. However, all the indications raise serious questions about this situation – and the racial hyperventilating makes the case even muddier.

Nice qualifier there: “If a rape occured…” It really does give a nice colorblind sheen to mask the stench of bigotry and presumption that this is only an evil Black urban legend invented by liberal-communist-Whitehaters to embarass Whites for political gain.

So, that black woman said, “No,” eh? First, she’s in a profession where she’s expected to do tricks for clients. Second, she’s walking into a house full of young, drunken athletes, who happen to be white. Third, she called the police and complained once; then she went back, but then left. And then she went back again! That’s a peculiar way of saying “No,” it seems to me. These racist black people just want a role model victim, with mistreatment wreaked upon the weakest of the weak: the black woman. All she has to do is cry, “rape by white male!” and she rules the world.

Weak? How about “strong” – as in a strong manipulator?

Uhhh..hello, Earth calling Astro-Bigot Asshat Yeardley?!?!? First off, the women were there to take their clothes off and dance, not to have sex with any of them…last time I checked, erotic dancers did not do prostitution as part of their work. (At least, not publically; some may do such on the side privately.) But beyond that point, one of the basic principles of common decency is the simple rule that once a woman says “NO”, the action ceases immediately…and you kinda forgot that the guys didn’t quite take her “NO” seriously..they GRABBED HER AGAINST HER WILL AND RAPED HER, YOU FU&KHEAD!!!! Being drunk is one thing; being drunk and forcing yourself on a woman against her will is something altogether different…and my guess is that this was a bit more than just “raging hormones” mixed with alcohol, since if they were so stoned, they would have attacked both of them.

Sorry, Mr. Y, but this looks like a deliberate sexual lynching of a Black woman who just so happened to be a stripper at the wrong place at the wrong time….and all this pile of shit that is your column does is to dump on her and anyone who has a shred of decency to defend her.

But she had to have the money, right? She just has to feed those children, pay that tuition, rent, car payment, and books. She’s not on welfare, scholarship, or assistance of any kind? Well, whatever she does receive may not cover her expenses. That’s quite possible.

But, exotic dancing—and then to cry “abuse”? This may be pushing victimhood beyond reason.

Translation here: Of course, she didn’t need the money…the stupid bitch could have gone ahead and worked for sub-minimum wage or married a nice, Christian Black man who would give her a decent security for the price of being a human baby factory for Jesus (but not too much, though… us White folks gotta keep our majority!!) That she chose to prostitute herself is definitive proof that she got exactly what she deserved…and she’s just using White guilt to get paid.

———————————————-

Such is the sick, sick mind of a unreformed racist pig….the same mindset where the likes of Rush Limbaugh can publically and without (remorse utter his smack about Al Sharpton wanting some “Black ‘ho” action at Duke…or, in a slightly related item, Michelle Malkin can break out her official “race card” for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney for the sin of defending herself against a Capitol security officer who tried to stop her from entering her workplace (Capitol Hill); or “libertarian” radio talk-show host Neal Boortz describing McKinney’s decidedly kinky hairstyle as looking like a “ghetto slut“….and so on ad infinitum.

There is a special place in Hell prepared for these “conservative citizens”….and as far as this Black man is concerned, all of them can just take a long trip down a short plank into a steep cliff right down into the abyss straight there..and I do hope that the demons are there to give them the same treatment that this poor woman suffered through.

Memo to all rapists and their right-wing anti-sex wingnut fascist enablers: Kindly make like your boss Dick Cheney and fuck off. Your existence on this earth is a waste of good DNA.

And there’s no qualifying “allegedly” here, either.

K (Gently) Bitch-Slaps ‘Dog…Details at 10

Right off the bat, my Red Burqa take gets the business from Bitch | Lab: here, I will respond and rebut in kind (that is, with the same love and respect):

bitchlab Says:

April 3rd, 2006 at 5:23 pm
@ Anthony

Oh. Well. There are a lot of issues going on, but real quick:

Do you think that women in blue states should run around steroetyping everyone who lives in poverty in the deep south as the epitomy of what it means to be oppressed?

In other words, would someone in NYC be “cool” if she had an advertisement of a woman symbolically portrayed as southern white trash, laying splayed on the floor beaten, a man over her slinging a beer can in one hand and a clenched fist coming down on her again. Text reads:

Women of the Blue States unite, this is what your fate will be like if you don’t unite against sexism in the Blue states. This is what your government is turning into: the guy in the wife beater tee-shirt and you will be the black and blew trailer trollop getting slugged.

—-

Acknowledged and so noted, Miz Bitch…but still, I don’t really think that that was the goal of TennGW to smear Arab women or Muslims..it was to raise interest to the basic notion of women’s rights under attack here in the US of A. I do cede that the use of the burqa is well over the line and pretty uncool..but that does not erase the stated goal of those who support anti-abortion and other anti-sex laws in the US, which is to reduce women in the US to third class citizens.

Of course, the sensibilities of Arab Muslim women who do resist the more misogynic and brutal laws and customs of their governments while retaining their right to express their religious beliefs should always be respected..and I am totally in favor of Islamic feminists who attempt to emphasize the more progressive elements in Islam (as I would any attempt from within to transform an institution into something more humane and equal.

My point here, however, is that it’s one thing to criticize the misplaced sensibilities of TennGW’s ad from a perspective of winning over other groups of women..it’s something else to excessively bash them as racist, elitist, and White supremacists for their apparent lack of sensibility to Islamic women. For them, the context is to defend women’s rights here in the US, not to reach out to Islamic women as part of the greater world feminist movement. That’s hardly what I’d call “Western imperialism” in any way.

Besides…how many of those professed “Islamic feminists” would be willing to openly support the goals and objectives of groups like TennGW in supporting reproductive rights for women…or would that be too “Western” and “imperialistic” and “elitist” for their conservative sensibilities?? As to use your analogy, not all red-state women are or should be cracked on as “White trash” (and that would definitely be a serious example of class and race bigotry)…but the fact remains that many red-state women do indeed reject openly and defiantly the progressive agenda assumed in “blue-state” feminism. Do thier sensibilities have to come before the principles of defending the freedom of women who are under assault from the broader Right..the same Right to which those same red-state women continue to support with their votes??

Similarly, just because there may be a few Islamic feminist women who use the burqa as a means of challenging Islam from within does not erase the basic fact that the majority of those women who defend the burqa tend to be staunch traditionalists (if not fundamentalists) who would reject even the most basic of feminist theory as “gender feminists” and who would ally with the most reactionary forces to maintain their privileges. Should attempts to win these people over trump basic defense of the most fundamental rights of equality here???

[/Bitchlab]
Completely silent are the voices of women in red states. Women in red states are positioned as having no feminist consciousness, as having no agency whatsoever, as being — effectively — incapable of speaking.

Now, thrown in there a scenario where it’s racial stereotyping of southern poor black women and men.

That’s what people are on about.

It comes — at least I assume — from deconstructive readings of imperialist feminism made by the likes of Gayatri Spivak, Mohanty, and others.

No one says you must ask permission.

They DO say: can’t y’all be a little less fucked up about they way you choose to represent those “brown Others”?

It’s a complicated issue, and arguing against the misappropriation of symbols from other cultures — demonizing as much if not more than the US govt has already — is wrong is not the same thing as saying, “Oh yeah, your religion is like so totally cool.” [/BL]

That is more than fair, especially in the current situation…that’s the very reason why my critique of them is based on principles of radical anti-imperialism and internationalism rather than mere cracking down on their religion. Just because Islam may be the only institution in th Middle East that is opposing US interventionism in the Middle East does not take away or cancel out legitimate criticism of their base conservative social mores…any more than it would with Judaism or Christianity or any other organized religion which uses the power of the state to enforce their rules.

To make it all hit home, what happens when feminists in blue states tell women in red states that their lives totally suck? A lot of those women say, “You know what, fuck you, you elitist snobs. Im’ sick of you assholes stereotyping us. I’m sick of you mocking our language. I m sick of you making fun of our culture, our food, our mores as somehow low class.”

And the possiblities of actually building a women’s movement that sees our liberation as bound up with their’s, as pithy as that is, kind of falls by the way side as some variants of feminism literally encourage women to side with the very things we on about, defending it and their identies against assaults from people who send off the vibe that they really do think they are incredibly superior to your ass.

Bad juju.

Again, Miz Bitch, so noted and acknowledged. But..I would say that the better way of engaging those who may not agree with our principles is NOT to suck up to their conservative values to the point of undermining progressive values; we’ve had enough of that with the DLC and the antiporn feminist movement (and what good that has done, too). A much better way is to use the ideas of full equality and respect for difference and diversity, combined with a focus on the institutions and foundational theories that generate and enforce inequality and injustice, to win over those suspectable to right-wing populist ideas to a more humane agenda. And I’m not just talking about just a women’s movement, either; I’m talking about a radical movement against all inequal institutions.

Before we can tackle the world, though, let’s first address the struggle here in the US, where much of the battles will have to be fought, since here where is the bulkwark of world imperialism and White supremacy and reactionary social policy resides.

Not to say that TennGW wasn’t overstepping it a bit..but the reaction just made it that much worse.

That’s only my view…to each his or her own.