An Open Letter to Carolyn Hoffman

[This is in response to the email that she sent to 'Da Queer Bitch this morning, to which QD posted on her site. Since QD is currently occupied and could not reply directly, she asked if some of her allies would counter with a response. One look at the email was enough for me.

Since her private email was not revealed, I will treat this as an open letter.]

Ms. Hoffman:

To say that I was totally whelmed by your attempt to counter Queer Dewd (formerly known as Bitch | Lab) on the issue of pornography and women is an understatement. I do understand and appreciate your passion in defending your views about how porn apparantly is so dangerous to women…even as I totally disagree with your findings.  Unfortunately, it seems that in your zeal to publish antiporn agitprop…I mean, state your case, you seem to have missed some basic facts…which I will, at your indulgement, now expound upon.

First off…I totally respect and will not criticize you for stating your previous experiences as a adolescent facing the scrutiny of young boys….teenage years can be such trouble for most girls, especially with the raging hormones and all the open leering that boys often do.  However, to target Playboy pictorals as the main source of such attitudes is, to say the least, a stretch beyond imagination. What’s to say that a Sears catalog featuring women in intimate apperal, or a scantily clad (but not naked) pinup of a rock starlet in a bikini or halter top, wasn’t enough to feed into their developing lusts?  And while their behavior with you (especially the teacher who boasted about having his turn) was certainly at the least boorish and disrespectful (and, especially in the case of the teacher, crossed the line of ethics into outright sexual harrassment and probable statutory rape), it only proves that some boys will carry their lusts a bit over the line of mutual respect and mutual consent.  Attacking and censoring Playboy or even hardcore porn will do nothing to cure that; reporting such behavior to the proper authorities for immediate action would be far more effective.

Also, Ms. Hoffman…what would you say about the many young girls who don’t have as much a problem with consensual groping as you do?? (Note I said "consensual", meaning that they willingly seek and approve of such activity.) Would you say that those girls who choose to engage in such sexual activity for their own personal pleasures should have the same assumption of protection from nonconsensual acts and autonomy of free will as those who are put off by such activity?? Or are you likely to dismiss these girls in the classic antiporn radicalfeminist ideology as mindless victims of "patriarchy"…or merely, total "sluts" and harlots who feed the worst in men and boys?? One look at your letter reveals the answer to that question pretty quickly.

Next up…you drop names of various antiporn activist spokespersons (Gail Dines, Robert Jensen, et. al) whom you assume that QD needs to read to reveal "the truth" about how porn so degrades and damages women.  All fine and good for agitprop…but a bit incomplete for genuine study and analysis, which requires a bit more open and diverse point of view than what you would allow.  And it would also be a bit wiser, Ms. Hoffman, if you managed to check your sources a bit more; I’m sure that you do know that Bob Jensen is not only "a former porn user", but also an self-outed (yet self-hating) gay man whose strategy of humiliating and demonizing men not just for the collective sins of individuals, but merely for having erections and thinking about sex in the unapproved radfem way, has been revealed countless times. (This is especially cogent given the fact that you decided to impose your spam…ahh, I mean, your email…on the owner of a site (Queer Dewd) that openly embraces the type of homoerotic images that Jensen would say causes great harm to women.

Then we come to your vivid and quite explict depictions of what apparantly goes on in "typical pornography"…though, I tend to wonder how you got such experience that you can describe with such pinpoint accuracy what goes on in the making of porn films..but that’s irrelevant for this issue. To wit, this accounting:

Can you explain and defend all of the typical pornography I have seen including now on porn blogs that rate this sick damaging sexist woman hating degrading dehumanizing sh*t like they are rating songs,that describes women as sluts and bi*ches being fu*ked hard,and pounded banged,and slammed by huge monster co*ks,and videos called This Bi*ch Hates Facials? You see she’s a bi*ch that has to be taught a lesson because she feels like most women do that it’s degrading and disgusting to have men ejaculate on her face,and she’s seen as a bitch because all of the women in porn are portrayed as loving it! So they ejaculate on her face to spite her! And another video describes a woman f*cked so hard in the a*s until she screams,another has a stepfather who video taped his stepdaughter f*cking herself,another is a slut getting a facial in public,another is a slut getting slammed by 2 huge c*cks in her own home after she puts her 2 children to bed,other videos are throat f*cking and sluts gagging on huge c*cks,a whore sister getting f*cked hard etc etc.

Great prose, Ms. Hoffman..but probably a bit off.  You see, those promos for such porn sites tend to be a bit more hyperbolic in the rhetoric than usual..that’s just a hook to attract potential comsumers; nothing more or less. To take them so seriously as promos for rape is, to say the least, sophistry on your part.

Now, I don’t deny at all that there are attitudes amongst some porn consumers (and a few producers) that women who enjoy facials or anal sex or sex with more than one man (or woman) at once is inherently degraded and humiliated…but that is not so much a byproduct of porn than it is the classical antisexual attitudes put forth by mainstream culture to control and regulate women’s sexuality.  Far more likely, however, is the view that a "slut" who likes sex many different ways should be praised, even worshipped, for accepting both her and men’s desires…and that she remains a full human being deserving of respect even after engaging in such "degrading" activity. It may have escaped your mind in your rage, Ms. Hoffman, but there are indeed women who really do like and openly seek the type of sex you decry as "demeaning" and "degrading", and there are men who truly do enjoy that kind of porn, yet continue to give the full respect and humanity to women.  But I guess those views don’t count too well with you, since the only women allowed to appear in your mindset are those who are "prostituted" or victimized by porn.

Finally, Ms. Hoffman, some suggestions for alternative sources of material (since you are so willing to offer sources of your own to educate the unwashed masses…even those who really don’t need it such as QD):

"Caught Looking: Feminism, Pornography, and Censorship" by the Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce
"XXX: A Defense of Pornography" by Wendy McElroy
"Defending Pornography" by Nadine Strossen
"Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality" ed. by Carol Vance (in particular, Gayle Rubin’s essay "Thinking Sex"
"Whores and Other Feminists" ed. by Jill Nagle (especially Nina Hartley’s essay "In The Flesh")

And of course, no real analysis of pro-sex feminism would be complete without a visit to Nina Hartley’s forum..in particular the "Off Topic" and "Porn and Porn Performers" sub-forums, where such issues are discussed with regularity.

Now, perhaps listening and reading perspectives which run contrary to your own antiporn agitprop might hurt your brain initially from previous underuse….but on the whole, it will be all the better for being exposed to the real world, and to engage in actual discussion.

In the meantime, Ms. Hoffman, may I kindly and respectfully request that you use a bit more public and less obtuse method than harrassing emails to opponents of your philosophy to get your point across?  It really doesn’t do your side much credit when you call for "open debates"…while simultaneously intimidating the same opponents.

With that, I bide you a great day…and I welcome the discussion.

Anthony Kennerson
Lafayette, LA
http://redgarterclubwebsite.com/SmackChron_Blog/index.php (My SmackDog Chronicles blog)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Real Quote For This “Special” Day…

 

So the purchase of flowers, chocolate or underwear, or all the other bullshit that the shops are pushing men and women to buy for their partners doesn’t impress me. When it comes to someone expressing their affection for me, why should it involve spending money? Anyway, I want them to be romantic daily, not just one day out of 365. Give me an intelligent, funny man who cooks nice meals, gives me regular massages, and allows me access to his cock on a frequent basis, and I’ll show you a woman who’s happily loved-up. Love and romance don’t come from monetary expenditure and I refuse to buy into – or expect my partner to buy into – the philosophy that it does.

– Abby Lee, the "Girl With a One Track Mind",
talking the truth about Valentine’s Day 

Of course, if said sweetheart shows up at her house with a big glittering rock the size of a hailstone and a dick the size of Ron Jeremy (and the skillz to use it as well as his fingers and tongue), would Abby be singng the same tune??

Probably….but it’s worth asking.

Do something nice for your sweetheart today, Clones…as J-Lo sang, Love doesn’t cost a thing. 

 

An Open Letter In Support of Amanda

[UPDATE: Shakespeare's Sister lead Melissa just announced that she's resigning from her position at the Edwards campaign as well.  Sad to see that, too.]

I know that I have had many differences with Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon….mostly on her incomprehension of liberal versus radical Left policies and her quite passionate advocacy towards feminism and women’s rights. (Her approach I’ve argued…not her base politics.)

There comes a tiime, though, where you have to suspend the pettiness and join in social solidarity in defense of a fellow or sista progressive who is under the barrel of a gun….and this is definitely the case with Amanda and the ensuing battle called "Bloggergate".

To reset; Amanda —  along with Melissa Ewen, the lead voice of Shakespeare’s Sister —  was approached by the John Edwards for President campaign to run their website and basically run interference with the A-list liberal bloggers.  Naturally, both accepted the offers, since it would give them major credibility and engage the progressive netroots with the larger political climate.

Not everyone was so happy, though — some from the further Left such as Dennis Perrin  of Red State Son decried the deal as a sellout of progressive principles; quoting some of Edwards’ latest statements implying that he would have no problems with bombing Iran or continuing the war in Iraq.  But that was mere politeness compared to the howls coming from the Right…and especially the Catholic wing of the Christian FRight led mostly by Michelle Malkin and William Donohue, chief spokesman for the Cathollic League for Civil Rights.

The latter two (especially Donohue, using his media cred on MSNBC and FOX News) then launched a bitter and brutal campaign against Edwards, mostly rehashing some past quotes from Amanda’s blog implying "bigotry" against Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, to taint Amanda and Shakes’ Sis as "dangerous anti-Catholic bigots" and called for the Edwards campaign to immediately remove these evil feminist radicals from their campaign.  There were also noises coming from the more traditional "centrist" media as well, with Fightin’ Joe Lieberman leading the verse that Edwards was pandering to the "far Left" by hiring such dangerous women on his payroll, and that he was risking alienating those key Catholic "swing voters" unless he relented and removed them quick.

For a while, it seemed to succeed; Salon.com on last Thursday released a story claiming that Edwards had indeed fired the two women (followed up by another story the next day saying that they had been rehired)….but this set off a firestorm in the progressive blogosphere in defense of Amanda and Shakes’ Sis as martyrs of freedom of speech and decrying Edwards as a craven chicken allowing a right-wing extremist to dictate his campaign strategy. 

On Friday, Edwards himself released a brief but terse statement at his campaign site basically admonishing the two women for stirring up controversy and asking them to cool it down…but allowing them to stay on. Seperate statements by both of the women apologizing for their ways were also released simultaneously.  

That sorta ended the controversy….actually, it didn’t, since Donohue announced that he would turn up the heat on Edwards and the two women for their "bigotry"….and some others (like Brownfemipower over at Women of Color Blog) openly asked if the actions of Amanda and Melissa amounted to back door censorship for past actions.

Finally, on Monday, Amanda announced at her blog (Pandagon) that she had resigned from the Edwards campaign, citing the wish to not inflame the campaign with excess baggage and the affect of squelching her own freedom of speech in responding in kind to the lynching antics of Donohue and his allies. The original note was released at Pandagon, but wasn’t accessible due to an Denial of Service (DoS) attack launched by Donohue’s allies to silence and shut down her blog. (It is currently open for the moment. Fortunately, Steve Gilliard of The News Blog reprinted Amanda’s statement at his blog, it can be found here.)

In addition to all that, Amanda found herself buried in an avalanche of hate email launched by Donohue’s followers…and most of it was pretty ugly and even explicit in its loathing and hatred for her stances. A couple of examples, as posted by Amanda recently to her blog:

[from "R.R." in Tallahassee, FL]
Amanda,
after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, I just had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less, with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correct about the blank, dead stare, but other than that you’re not too bad. I then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I’m figuring you’re just mad at him for making you a woman.

 [from Vivian Thomas]
Catholics are concerned about killing unborn children, you stupid bitch. Chop away if it suits you, but we don’t have to accept that as moral. That’s why it’s called a religion. Look into it

 But those are virtual love letters compared to the more…..shall we say, expressive and explicit greetings thrown at Amanda from what appears to be sexually frustrated Christian men…or MRA wannabes. ByrdBrain would probably blow his wad be mighty impressed at the following screeds:

[from Andy Diggers of Dallas]
Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven’t found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn’t want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.

I guess someone forgot to tell that asshat that Amanda is already hetero. 

 [from Paul Bernard of Scottsdale, AZ]
i like the way you trash talk i don’t particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.

Oh, but I thought that she was one of ‘dem radicallesbians that don’t do men, huh???

And then there is this typical wishful wingnutty greeting from someone named Bud Phelps (no relation to the "Reverend" gay baiter Fred Phelps, no doubt):

It’s just too bad your mother didn’t abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?

Oh, goody, goody….does dewd know that most of the raping and beating in Iraq is being done by…you know..FREAKIN’ AMERICANS?!?!?!? And how about a Christian who is supposedly "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" openly wishing that Amanda was…well, aborted??  I guess that some fetuses are more sacred than others.

But the grandaddy of all roundhouse insults — at least the ones Amanda chose to print — comes from a fella named Romanco de Lorne who is so passionate about defending his church from "bigotry" that he resorts to all caps:

YOU RACIST WHORE. FAT UGLY BITCH. SUCK MY LONG COCK ASSHOLE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU ASSHOLE BITCH!
I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO HELL YOU BITCH

Yup….nothing like  good, solid Christian men defending their religion, isn’t it??

Amanda herself hits the nail square on the head when she riffs:

Reminder: Donohue was claiming to be so hurt by my “bigotry”. Yet, for some reason, his supporters write me and they are more interested in telling me that my womanhood is repulsive to them. Interesting—almost as if his claims to speak for Catholicism were in fact dog whistles to scare people about women’s equality.

As I told some close friends in the days that Donohue was on the news, spraying code words about “get the feminists” (which explains why he roped Shakespeare’s Sister into this, even though she really had nothing to do with any of this—except she’s pro-equality, which is what is really what offends Donohue and all the people who gave that anti-Semite airtime), a good half of my hate mail could be summed up, “You have a pottymouth, you stupid cunt.” 

[...]

Right wingers right now are pretending like sexism has nothing to do with me, which is an argument that works if you think a) men get emails about how they need to suck a dick on a regular basis and b) that there’s nothing whatsoever sexist about allowing men to curse but hitting the fainting couch if a woman does.

Oh, but Amanda…try being a gay man, or someone who fits the type….I’m sure that they’d get the same treatment.

Time to wake up and smell reality—real bigots follow the siren call of the fascist right wing. Why would they even bother with liberals and all our equality and human rights and other tedious ideas?

[....]

But I shan’t belabor the point. I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the hate mail the Bill Donohue’s “Christian” campaign against me has inspired. This is all stuff from days ago—I’ve gotten more than 100 since. Hell, from the looks of my email from last night, I’ve had more than 100 in the past 12 hours from self-proclaimed Christians who want me to know that I have hurt their feelings and this has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with their own misogyny and tendency to witch hunt.

In short, this is nothing more than the classic "slut-baiting" that happens to any woman who dares to challenge the wacky Christian FRight’s principles on sexuality or women’s position in society.  This could have been launched just as strongly and just as easily against Nina Hartley or Joycelyn Elders, or Dr. Susan Block or Dr. Carol Queen or Dr. Gloria Brame, or Renegade Evolution or the Queer Bitch or Brownfemipower or Blackamazon, or Vicky Vette or Bridgett Lee, or Kira Reed or Shauna O’Brien, or Annie Sprinkle or Susie Bright, or even Lani Guenier or Hillary Clinton…it’s just that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa Ewen happen to be strong women and feminists who dare to be open about calling the fascists out on their bullshit…and happen to get way too close to real politifal power for the wingnutter’s comfort.

This is what you get, Clones, when you don’t defend to the death the basic principle of "My body, my choice, my damn business and nobody else’s"…and that other principle "Keep your Jesus off my penis (or clit) and your morals off my balls (and wombs)". An injury to one is still, in the long run, an injury to all.

Well done, Amanda….go get that mountain of human crap, and don’t ever let him up when you get his ass. The can of Whupass is at your full disposal if you need it.

Like I said….sometimes you put principle ahead of personal differences.  I’m backing Amanda on this one.  How about thou7??

\