So, I'm back from William and Mary....but more on that in a moment.
Go read this first...
Now, once again, to put things in context...the post Sam quotes, in full... ah yes, we are now universally aware that words like "lust" and "wank" and laughing like a supervillain are verboten. Such filth must never be uttered because its scary or rude or degrading" or something. Not at all like “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money”, right? Or, say, pornsturbator? Or spreadinism? Or any other number of Samism's out there. Funny, I never refer to warm wet fuckholes...Sam on the other hand??? Ayep.
And yes, let us talk about why Sam might be uncomfortable with me there. Humm...according to event folk, it was because I'd literally threatened her life...as in, something along the lines of I said "sam, I am going to hurt you." Ahem, as we all know, untrue. Ahh, but yes, the thing not mentioned is Sam's threat to me...which I have proof of, the real deal, yet chose not to play in order to keep her from speaking anywhere. Advice at this point would be for Ms. Berg to stop acting like a hapless victim here...I mean, let us compare, shall we? Me never threatening Sam, never even mentioning her name in connection with my "truck" post vs. oh, a threat to out me? Sue me? Blah blah blah....for shit I never did? And I can prove all of that....I mean... how does this sound to you all?
Edit...well, this fucking sucks...the other parties mentioned below asked me to remove the actual, worded, threat from Sam. And you know, as much of all of this...her running around playing victim and fucking with other people and crying big crocodile tears sucks...I'm taking the threat out. The third parties do not wish to be involved, and yep, sure enough, have that right and their own right to privacy- I applogize for any angst I caused them-RE
And yes true believers, I have the rest of the corpse that bit came from...and considering all this bullshit, I am tempted to raise that zombie now. But as there are other parties who wish to stay out of this shit...for now I will let sleeping bodies rest. Humm angle of poor blindsided innocent Sam and evil vicious me look a little different now?
It bloody well should. If anyone had reason to fear going to W&M, it was me. Campus, room with people, security? Sam would've been safe as bear cub with it's mama in non-hunting season on a nature preserve. Did she have reason to be nervous or uncomfortable? Sure. After all, the woman did threaten me, and after all, I am a sex worker capable of speaking articulately, after all, I do know a little something something about porn...
Oh, and yes, please do see those punkass threads...I was just so horrible to her, wasn't I?
As for her attacks on Constance...see, that does piss me off. Slash and burn, right? You know, Constance invited everyone from Gail Dines to Tristan Taomino to this event. They couldn't come. She didn't have a huge budget. She didn't have mad academic grants. She's not a professional event organizer. She and another group of women, students, wanted to discuss porn, pro and con. And oddly enough, Sam, pornographers who are willing to travel to these events on short notice with no fee are pretty rare. I happened to be local, I happened to be available, I happened to get recommended, and don't require a big fee...hell, you should all know by now, I will talk porn all day every day if someone wants to have that discussion. I also happen to be a woman who not only makes but watches porn...and woo, don't have to be imported from CA, NY, or Miami! And really, do you honestly think the average college dude porn watcher is going to jump up to be on a panel with a radical anti-porn feminist, a male feminist/Christian Prof at his own university, and an ex sex worker/sex workers rights adovcate? They paid for gas money for us by having freakin' bakesales. And you know, she isn't a yaypornie. I know yaypornie when I see it, and these gals? Not it. They may not be radical anti porn...but at the event, and after, did they question content? Yep. Did they question social effects? Yep. Was violence talked about? Yep. Did they question whether porn could ever be feminist or empowering? You bet your behind and a pair of Pradas they did! And guess what, they are feminists and in womens studies and young and here you are trashing them because they failed to see to all of your needs, all of your demands, they failed to make it all about you. Brava again. They were in a bind...see, if I went, Jill was likely to go too-of her own accord and by her own decision. You went, the Prof went. Lose lose all around, but you know...I was reasonable and made concesions and demanded nothing.
Truthfully, Sam, I think you, and perhaps the Prof too, but I don't really know because well, never met the man, are less afraid of me, and trucks, and perhaps even me raising that zombie I mentioned than you are of having to engage in debate and discussion on turf other than your own. I think a remotely level playing field is what scares you the most. I really do. And that's a shame. Because you missed out.
Karla, your replacement, really seems to be a wonderful woman. Did we agree on everything? Nope. Did we find ourselves nodding in unison at points? Yep. Was she polite and engaging and articulate? Yep. Was I polite to her back? Yep. Not a single sneer...and her views are far closer to yours than mine are. Did Jill and I gang up on her? Nope. Was there any violence, or circus antics, or any sort of a set up? None at all. Shoot, Karla lives fairly close to me, I'd actually love to meet up with her, have lunch, talk more, and see if maybe we can work on things we both agree are problems. Things like trafficking and forced sexual labor and working towards seeing that women in the sex industry who want out can get there. Imagine that? Did Constance and the other moderators and people who set this event in motion treat all three of us, Karla, Jill and myself politely? Yes. Did they allow us equal time to speak...sure...actually, we all did real well at listening and taking turns with no "rules". Were the topics we discussed ones we could all have a say on? Yep. Was the whole thing civil and polite and educational? Yep. Did we all exchange emails at the end, along with handshakes and "drive safely" wishes? Yep.
And I think the only thing anyone could even find remotely scary about me is the length of my nails. Tell you what, I'm pretty sure Constance and others will be putting up audio and/or video of the event...why not check it out and see for yourself?
Tomorrow- Photos, notes, the topics we discussed, and other random musings about W&M!
edit...heart & maggie join in on the fun too (that is SARCASM, ladies)...but yes...hummm. I make and watch violent porn. I like it alot. Mentioned a truck once. Woohoo. Now...do not a single one of you have the sense, ovaries, whatever, to even recognize the fact that Sam threatened me?
....
I expect to hear crickets. Imagine that? Surpise me. I dare ya! (that, also, is not a threat).
Oh, and why didn't I ever delete the hate and hardline post? Maybe because for as much as y'all like to call me a liar and unstable...I'm not all that into denying ,rewriting, and ignoring the truth...unlike, well....YOU! I wrote it, no use erasing it and denying I ever did. But really, what about that, up there you know...and that other threat. Those okay and all? Really...speak up.
Shrug, better a violent porn performer/pornographer/sexual mercenary whatever whatever than a blind, lying, dismissive bullshit artist and full time victim of....well...everyone.
Yeah. Time to go wank (in that special female womynly way) to Audrey Hollander's latest (Close your eyes and grab your pearls, it has...gasp...dp in it). But I still promise to sleep with my hands above the covers.
Edit 2; and witchy joins the fray....wooo, tapping into my inner sadism, they'll have to save that one for next time they need to cover their own asshatery! Psst...yo...I spend more time getting roughed up than the other way around...in lot's of places.
And, as a side note...not a single dissenting comment, which I know have been made, posted. Looks like they like their debates just like they like their blogs...one sided and utterly under their own control! Shocking, I'm sure! And martyr? Ohhhh please, that shit might work if I hadn't been threatened and the one who ran from the debate the second someone I think is mean and icky was invited...in this case, that shoe fits elsewhere!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
Sounds like it was a great experience. Glad they did find someone to replace Ms. Professional What Backed Out At The Very Last Moment. Glad all was swivilized. Good on you, and good on the organizers.
As for threatening to out you; why would they care, when Stormy already did that and no one said a dickie bird? (oh, look, pornified language again, quick get the smelling salts). Clearly she thinks it was self-defense, or whatever the fuck.
It is good of her to adjudge who is and isn't "seriously fucked up," though, I feel. -nod-
and garsh, imagine how she'd be if she didn't have a "soft spot?" what a mensch, really.
According to Jessica Land's blog, the replacement debater was Karla Mantilla. Googling her name, I see this essay:
"Men in Ewes' Clothting:
The Stealth Politics of the Transgender Movement"
Yep, seems like a dyed-in-the-wool (ha!) radfem, alright. At least it sounds like she can actually treat face-to-face opponents as human beings, though.
I've been reading your blog for awhile and this comment is intended to be a private one to express some thoughts, although you are of course free to publish given it is your blog.
Firstly, cards on table. I am one of those with whom you seem to bear great animosity; a dreaded radical feminist. You may have heard this many times but I have an urge to share with you anyway why we tend to be so passionate about these issues.
For as long as I have been of age to work (and that's been some time for I am now getting on in years) I have been involved in working with projects who support women, men and children who have been subject to violence and abuse; although mainly anti violence against women projects. This has included homelessness work, self-harm projects, rape crisis, women's shelters and supporting non abusing parents of sexually abused children , to name a few. I have supported young gay men who have been broken by prostitution; i have supported women who have been forced into pornography rings run by partners and their friends; i have supported young women in care who have been targeted by pimps who are all too aware of their vulnerabilities; i have supported women in prostitution who hate themselves and the men who use them; i have supported women who have left prostitution who say they could not think of what it truly meant while they were doing it otherwise they could not have survived; i have supported ritual abuse survivors who were used for child pornography; i have supported survivors of sexual abuse (where pornography was used as part of the abusers grooming process) who cut themselves because it is the only way they can feel some control or express their feelings; i have supported sexual abuse survivors who engage in bdsm because it serves a similar function to self harm; i have supported young women who were raped and had to leave their schools, sometimes communities, because they were continuously taunted as sluts and whores; i have supported young women and men who were raped and then hung themselves or jumped to their death from huge apartment buildings; i have supported people who were ravaged by poverty and worked in lapdancing bars to make ends meet or pay their way through college, who were not only hassled while working but also by those who recognised them in the street or social situations; i have supported women who were asked about their previous sexual partners in court during their rape case.. anyhoo, blah de blah. You get the picture and it's a picture echoed by the colleagues i've worked with and the networks of workers i've engaged with over the years and i have no idea of the numbers of people that we have supported but they must number in the many, many thousands. I have also lived my own life, with all the experiences that has entailed, and shared the experiences of my family, friends, lovers and partners.
So,
I have read the textbooks outlining the many feminist theories and have worked, and lived, in an environment where those theories are all too clear; where the links between these experiences and abuses are strikingly evident. Unmissable.
I have worked in this field because it is my passion and that is the case for most of the people i have worked alongside.
In this context, you can perhaps understand a degree of distress on our part when we see radical feminists ridiculed, targeted, taunted and misrepresented (i take particular issue with mr kennerson)
and when we see women claim involvement in the sex industry to be a feminist act. Particularly when the damage and destruction has been so clear in the work that we have done. I cannot question anyones right to define themselves how they wish but i think i can question the naming of particular acts or beliefs as feminist, or at least, of any notion of feminism that i understand.
I think that if, say, the most sexist, misogynistic, right wing, homophobic,leering and generally 'orrible man that i know (eep i can think of a fair few)thinks this new fangled feminism (in which prostitution and pornography are A-OK!!) sounds alright by him, that it's probably not feminist and i don't want to be anywhere near it.
Silly example, but do you know what i mean?
Now speaking as a fairly vulnerable and sensitive soul myself at times, I want to say that i sense a real vulnerability from you, that you're really hurting somewhere. What is also clear however, is that you have great strength and passion, and no little ability to write. So while I might disagree with just about everything you say, and often how you say it (rage doesn't often look good) i still keep reading.
I'm convinced that there is common ground somewhere; a place that we can come together as women and not seek to destroy each other. I'm trying to work at the moment with one of the coolest people i've come across on the interwebs to date who does some work in the adult industry and shares some of the views that you have. We hope to develop some kind of project (i have no idea what) that involves true dialogue and which has at its core a social justice agenda for women.
Sorry for rambling.
Take care,
anonyms
I should have said.. if you want an email address to have a private convo send me.. erm.. a smoke signal.
Anonyms
It was Amanda who backed out at the last minute. And Sam and John were not even notified that Amanda backed out, to be replaced by Ren and Jill.
"xochitl said...
It was Amanda who backed out at the last minute. And Sam and John were not even notified that Amanda backed out, to be replaced by Ren and Jill."
You know, so what? Amanda had to back out for some reason. It happens. The W&M crew wanted replacements. THey found some. I know you are sympathetic to Sam and allied with her or whatever else, but gee....humm. No comment on her threats to me, no comments on her treatement of these students- STUDENTS, I remind you, not professional event planners, working on a limited budget, but oh poor little Sam who CHOSE not to come. And is now affecting other people, me, these students, their professor, so on, with her behavoir. WHAT ABOUT THAT?
Anonymous- I don't hate all radical feminists.
Ren, I don't know anything about Sam's threats. I do know that I would not want to debate you, not because I am afraid of your politics, but because your website is full of "fuck you and fuck off" and other such hostile writings to women who I don't think have ever threatened you (like Maggie Hays), and I would hate to find myself on the receiving end of that.
I do know that she was not informed about Amanda dropping out or that Amanda would be replaced by you and Jill. I posted that here because no one is here is talking about this.
It seems to have turned out exactly as I'd expected.. I'm thankful no trucks or heavy weapons were involved. I look forward to reading the transcript (if it's available)
well X, then I have to believe you are either blind or did not even bother to read what I wrote before running into defend poor innocent Sam, because at the time you originally commented on this post, Sam's threat was still on it.
See, this is typical. I say fuck off and fuck you. Big deal. You, nor seemingly a whole lot of other people can admit that various rad fems also use hurtful and abusive language or do wrong or bad things. When G'Berg's security when down recently and I, via googling MY OWN name found some real choice bullshit about me there, who didn't publish it and emailed Sam & Maggie letting them know the security was down? Me. Maggie said thanks, then proceeded to trash me in her blog for woooo disagreeing with her. Sam? Crickets, well, aside from this whole W&M bullshit. You want proof, drop me your email, I'll be happy to send you what I sent them. Now, you can either admit there has been bullshit and harmful things said all around and admit I've been threatened by Rad Fems...if not Sam (which I was, but to protect the interests of third parties her gem has been removed), Stormy, you can either admit that I've been lied about, called some really horrible things, so on so forth, or you can get the hell off my oh-so violent blog. I'm sick of this one sided oh poor us victims who do no wrong bullshit, and that's exactly what it is.
IACB: Karla was nothing but polite to me.
X; As for Sam not being informed of Amanda dropping out? Gee, not my fault, I had nothing to do with it. The organizers of this event are students ffs. They cannot expect to be perfect. Word has it Sam has fired off an angry letter to just about anyone and everyone at W&M about the whole deal, which you know, could affect their funding and ability to have events and do whatever, so I am sort of left asking who's the adult here, but hey, Sam was afraid of me in a room full of people, so damn the torpedos and all, even if she did threaten me!
Whatever.
I have to jump in the shower and leave for work, so I'll read the full post later... I got to about the third paragraph. And I have to say, Ren, you must be a better person than I... because you are always heeding people's wishes to remove stuff, etc., even when the people in question are supreme assholes of the highest order. I wouldn't do that. I'd say "FUCK OFF" and leave whatever the hell I want on my blog... and that's probably not the sort of thing the "better person" (as in, "be the better person," which my mom always says) would do. But fuck it. I'm vindictive and once someone is on my bad side, they're pretty much there to stay, and I don't give a shit what they ask me to do or not do.
So, yes... you are a better person than I.
Now, off to work! Will read the full story later.
I'm not Stormy. And I still don't understand why you target Maggie, when she never threatened you. The way you have threatened her (and jump to wrong conclusions about my own identity) makes me doubt your story about Sam.
I am using this pseudonym on the intenet because I was stalked by a guy a few years ago, BTW.
stormy- wrong name to use here, but okay...
I am not allowed to comment at Maggies blog, which is fine, her blog her rules. However, she made two posts directly calling out "pro pornies and sex positives", public posts, which, you know, if they are out there, people can respond to them. I did so. I called her no names, merely presented my agruments as rebutal to hers.
I also have issue with the way she blanketly states that Sex Worker Outreach Organizations have no real interest in helping women who want out of the sex industry to get out, because that is a blatant lie and a huge afront to anyone and everyone involved in Sex Worker Outreach.
Targeting? I'm not a sniper. She made some very bold, contraversial, dismissive and damaging statements, and as both a sex worker and a sex workers rights advocate, when people do that, I'm allowed to respond in my own space if I so choose.
So, how about me being targeted and blamed for all this W&M stuff, eh?
oh, and other stormy....where did I threaten Maggie??????????
Proof Please.
I don't get why people get so up-in-arms about your vitriol, especially when it's clear that it's just part of your personality. If they don't want to deal with you, fine, but they don't have to whinge about it. Your writing's really harsh and uncomfortable, but I imagine if I had to put up with so much shit on so many fronts, I'd be just as pissy too. You seem to make nice offline where people can't see it.
Can't wait for part 2!
X/Stormy:
Clarification...I did not assume you were stormy, I meant that aside from Sam, Stormy has threatend me. I don't think you are that stormy. I assumed you were xochitl. Misunderstanding in responses.
Well, well, well. Another blog post of mine, this time in response to Lauralin's guest spiel from Sam, get's deleted.
Suh-prizzzzze suh-prizzzzzzzze
This was my response ___
>If they had told me Amanda couldn't make it I would have suggested that pornographers and strip club owners are very easy to find through legal channels so they could have been asked to appear on the panel.
RenEv is a pornographer and to my knowledge was contacted through legal channels. So it seems like there should be no objection. What, incidently, is an illegal channel?
>I would have also suggested that the number of porn-using men on campus should have been able to produce just one pornsturbator willing to defend his porn consumption.
Why should a porn-using woman be excluded? Aren't women's voices as valid as men's? And why from on campus. Are campus people more valid that off-campus people? If not, why not?
>How much sex work advocacy has been given a voice there can be answered with the name Constance. I spoke with John Foubert for the first time Thursday and he told me that Constance is a big pro-sex work advocate on campus and she brought the sex worker show to campus the past three years.
Are you saying these events are illegitimate unless anti sex work advocates organize them? It looks like this was balanced 2:2, unlike the original line-up which was 2:1 against - well, until Sam bugged out.
>The trash talk began within hours of being surreptitiously offered the spot on the panel, and that sort of smug pugnaciousness and disrespectful engagement was instrumental in prompting John to cancel his appearance on the panel and he suggested to me that I do the same.
Interesting. Must one assume Sam never talks trash about a prospective opponent? Especially an opponent who persistantly villifies her by both name and by type? And really, what is said before a game, debate, presentation of any sort has little to do with the main event. As Sam's side persistantly notes "The personal is political." Since this is political, why shouldn't it be personalized?
>Saturday morning I woke up to an email from a professor asking if I can come speak to a few women's studies classes of hers in May. It turns out I can make the date.
In other words, speak at 1:0 odds, avoiding all refutation. Perhaps Sam could say which prof and which specific class since she's all about openness and advanced notice. It would also be nice to know if students are graded by there acceptance verbatum of everything they are told. What is the prof's track record here?
Oops, error is composition...
>Interesting. Must one assume Sam never talks trash about a prospective opponent? Especially an opponent WHO persistantly villifies her by both name and by type?
Woule be clearer as ...
Interesting. Must one assume Sam never talks trash about a prospective opponent? Especially an opponent SHE persistantly villifies by both name and by type?
Can someone point me to anyplace Ren threatened Maggie? I could have holes in my memory, but all I remember is a thorough response to a post of Ms. Hays'. I don't recall any "...and by the way I'm gonna give you a knuckle sandwich" or "Die" or anything like that.
Oh, for crying out loud. You people who are so upset that Sam wasn't notified - have you ever been to an academic event before? THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. People drop out all the freaking time, and sometimes they don't even bother to tell the organizers that they can't be there. The self-centeredness of this is just unbelievable: if you agree to appear on a panel, then you agree to appear on a panel, and either you show up or you don't, but you don't raise a stink because you don't like someone else on the panel. You just deal with it like a professional, if, in fact, you are one. The event organizers do not owe you anything, they don't need to ask your permission, and they don't have to notify you of changes, though it's always nice if they do. They consider you to be professionals and to know what your function is: to show up and speak. If they had wanted you to help organize the event, then they would have bloody well invited you to do so.
"Can someone point me to anyplace Ren threatened Maggie?"
Strong criticism or angry words = "threats", apparently. Ren and others threatened several radfems precious fee-fees, an act of aggression that cannot go unpunished!
oh just shut up Ren, you hussy. Only certain women are allowed to speak, you aren't one of them. Now get yer ass back in the kitchen!!!
and stop touching your clitoris!
BAD!
***tongue in cheek***
keep fightin' the good fight. :)
You know, do any of these people ever look in a fucking mirror? Do they spend their lives in some sort of haze, a fog so thick the experiences and words of people who don't agree with them are translated into unwarranted belligerence and hostility before they can even entertain them? Because I read what they say and I can't for the life of me figure out what windmill they're tilting at.
I mean, it seems so incredibly counter-productive to be attacking other people - other women, the half of the species they are supposedly most concerned about - especially people positioned to be such incredible allies. It's hysterical and deeply sad in the same way. Like they're the mean girls who can't grow the fuck up, stop being so shocked - just SHOCKED - at the naughty manly language. Feigning butthurt for the attention is what three year olds do.
I'm a radical feminist, but holy crap do I reject these morons as part of MY movement. Frankly, I'm thinking of dropping the label altogether. I mean, fuck. Talk about not feeling safe. I hope I never need anything genuine from any of them, 'cause I'd be scared my life didn't measure up to their perfect little standards, and then rejection and abandonment. Heartbreak. I do not trust them.
I mean, all of it. The transphobia, the racism, the insistence that theirs is the one true path. It's just way too New Boss, Same As the Old Boss for me.
And now that I've ranted incoherently, I just wanted to say thank you to Ren and belledame and Amber, etc., for existing and sharing your words and lives. I'm way too shy to share my blog, but I read all of you and it's sanity, and love and thoughtfulness and intelligence and strength and warmth. And fun, which is important when you're doing the hard work. So thank you.
Yes, in Karla Mantilla's essays, she ... to put it charitably ... distorted the truth about events at MWMF to make it sound like trans women were dangerous potential (or possibly actual) rapists. While I'm sure she was nice and decent to Ren, her words about trans people (and trans women in specific) leave me wondering just how much human decency she has, or if she simply saves said decency for those whom she actually considers human. Neither of which is admirable.
She's an active contributor to a site dedicated to hate speech.
xochitl -
Amanda did not back out. We couldn't raise enough funds to get her from San Francisco to Virginia. Also, we had originally planned to get Jill (who lives in nearby NC) on this debate, but when we first asked her to do this back in March, she said she couldn't take time during the week off from work because she'd already taken two weeks off for carpal tunnel surgery. So she recommended Amanda. Fortunately for this discussion Jill's availability changed, and we were able to bring Jill in Amanda's place. I say "fortunately" because we could not have given Amanda enough money to make it from across the country.
I told Sam that we could reimburse only a small part of her travel fees, and told her that I would understand if she couldn't make it from Portland because of that. She told me that she was happy to raise the funds from her friends and allies. She told me she couldn't afford to stay in a hotel, so I offered my house, warning her that I didn't have heat (which was important back when we had this scheduled for early April), despite our political disagreements.
We rescheduled this because we had some major funding hang-ups. Not because my group and I were out to get anyone.
Furthermore, Sam contacted ME to ask if she could be on this panel when an e-mail I sent to several anti-pornography and anti-trafficking feminists was forwarded to her. I sent this e-mail looking for anti-porn feminist speakers to TONS of strong, intelligent activists, from Robert Jensen to Chris Stark, Gail Dines, Diana Russell, Rebecca Whisnant, Lierre Keith. None of them could make it on our original dates or on our scant budget. The idea was to have a discussion. Not a one-sided battle.
Also, I sent Sam our original proposal for this project and it clearly states that we intended to have FOUR people on this panel - two antiporn feminists and two sex workers rights advocates - preferably 2-3 would be former or current sex workers / porn actresses. I will post it if you like. Amanda was the only confirmed sex workers rights advocate until the last week of the panel because for whatever reason, it's easier to find contact information for anti-porn activists than sex workers rights advocates.
A final point: we confirmed Ren as a speaker the morning before Sam called to talk to me about her concerns with Ren. I hadn't had a chance to notify the other panelists about this change in line-up because I have full-time class and work 20 hours a week. Also, I did not realize there was a history between Ren and Sam, and did not anticipate that changing the line-up would be problematic.
I apologize for my lack of foresight on this - I will say that a previous knowledge of this history would have saved me a lot of trouble and stress as this panel's coordinator.
I will also mention that Karla filled in for Sam at the last minute in spite of Sam's warnings against doing so because she trusted my good will and investigated Sam's claims against me before making her decision to attend.
yeah, I would like to see where Ren "threatened Maggie" too.
and garsh, I say "fuck off" all the time too. Scary, scary. Really, so: you're, like, gonna revolutionize the world and stuff, batten down the doors of the Patriarchy...but you'd wilt at the thought of publicly debating a woman who's been known to use harsh, strong language.
Also, the -male professor- who backed out too, his protective I mean solidarity oh I don't even know...
...
Can you hear yourselves? Isn't it just a -little- embarrassing?
and yeah, because Sam's a delicate fucking flower and never says outrageous shit in general or about her opponents. PLEASE, Mary. I mean...how disingenuous can you get?
apropos of nothing at all, I love that the guy's name is "John," and that they're on a first name basis. I think that's really sweet, actually.
It was Amanda who backed out at the last minute. And Sam and John were not even notified that Amanda backed out, to be replaced by Ren and Jill.
OK...so Sam wasn't informed that Amanda had to bail out and that they had to replace her at a spur's notice. Like, that doesn't happen everywhere???
And I didn't know that the debate organizers had to get approval from one side to determine who the debators should be. But, I guess that it would be only fair if Sam simply took over the entire debate and set all the terms and panelists...now would it???
Nice try, X, but the truth reveals the opposite.
Anthony
Oh, and to Anony, who seems to have listed me directly as the cause of her ennui:
I really do acknowledge and respect your activism in protecting women from abuse and child pornography; but please try your best to refrain from implying that those of us who don't back your treasured antiporn theory care any less about those issues than you do.
You may pardon me, madame, if I tend to respond quite harshly to being called "a pimp", a "Dick", a "moron", and a "john" (or, at least, "having a john's mentality" for being critical of antiporn "feminist" ideology. I no more "hate radical feminists" than Ren does; but I will oppose what I see as a reactionary, bigoted, and hateful ideology that smears innocent people anytine, any day, and anywhere.
Oh...and talking down to Ren as if she is a child needing your guidance doesn't help your cause, either. She is an adult who makes her own decisions; try accepting that fact before you come here and ramble on about "true dialogue".
Anthony
You don't know me, and I don't know you or those other people. I'm not about to take sides in whatever personal issue these people have with you. I just wanted to say, I come here because what you write is interesting, eloquent, thought-provoking and sensible. You're probably feeling bad about all the negativity, so this is just to remind you that even if you can't ever convince some people, you're often putting things into words that less eloquent people (like me) have struggled to try and express for themselves. Just wanted to say that.
E.
Lucizoe- Thanks.
Constance- I’m really sorry you have to put up with this shit. If you need me or…well…probably any of these folk to write to anyone at W&M, feel free to send me the needed e-mail addresses.
E; Thanks
Panel discussion at William and Mary, ending the smear with facts
Posted on April 22, 2008 by jillbrenneman | Edit
There are a series of blog posts circulating the internet of this nature, which, are presented as fact when in fact they are opinions of Sam Berg, opinions that are based upon her presumptions, which are often absolutely incorrect. Thus, to me, it is imperative to put out a statement of fact about the William & Mary College events, about the organizer, Constance, members of the panel and what truly transpired. While Sam Berg is certainly entitled to her opinion and perceptions, they remain just that opinions and perceptions not fact based, nor realistic analysis of the events.
First, what did actually happen at the April 21, 2008 Conference on pornography. It was a three person debate with two moderators. The panelists were Karla Mantilla, Renegade Evolution and myself. It started late due to my late arrival as a result of major traffic delays caused by severe weather and a wrong turn which ironically lead me and my colleague Jessica Land being on a dirt road with sheep. The dirt road seemed to be a good indicator that I had gone the wrong way. For me the sheep confirmed this wasn’t the correct road to the college. It wasn’t. Correct assumption. Very cute sheep, even a mama feeding her babies.
I am very glad to have met Karla. I knew of her peripherally and respected her work and commitment to social justice from what I had seen of her work in the past. Meeting her in person and speaking with her both in the debate and afterward only further enhanced my respect for her. While we did not always agree, there were many times in which we did, many times in which all three of us did. Karla’s arguments were presented very well, she was respectful, civil, kind, and it was clear that she was there to debate issues not personalities which was completely consistent with the hopes and aspirations that Ren, I and other SWOP East members had. At no time did the discussion become heated, each person was given ample and equal opportunity to speak uninterrupted. And even when we disagreed it was respectful. I have no doubt that Karla is very dedicated to social justice and she is an articulate, approachable spokesperson for social justice. I was honored to debate with her, hope that we work together in the future as there is more than way to achieve social justice and the world is a better place when people are given different viewpoints toward that process and allowed to judge for themselves the best way to work for a better world. I don’t have all the answers and never claimed to, the world is a better place when many views are expressed and when differing views and diversity are respected we grow together and become stronger in our fight for social change. Karla’s presentation helped facilitate an event which brought people together despite differences of opinion rather than divide. Which in my opinion is what social justice movements should be focused on.
In all honesty I came in feeling a sense of empathy for Karla because there was so much discussion about how dangerous this conference was, how dangerous the evil likes of Ren and Myself were, how there was all this vast need to protect other speakers from being harmed by Ren and I with security presence. This had to be a very challenging environment for her to present in. She was very courageous to do presentation, alone no less because her colleagues withdrew, in what was presented prior to the event as such a potentially hostile environment. I am supremely fortunate to be part of a movement in which we stand in solidarity with each other and that if there is a perception of potential hostility we still fulfill our obligations and or attend these events in support of a colleague who is fulfilling an obligation.
Renegade Evolution the other party in the debate was stellar. She was warm, engaging, witty, open and honest even if it was obvious her answers were not going to be popular. She clearly has a very strong understanding of the issue being debated, as did Karla, she was nothing like the fearsome, threatening presence the was portrayed to be. In differences of opinion she was gracious, validating of others differing views even if they were diverse from her view, she was truly professional. There was no sense of threat from her, if anything, this being the first time I have met her in person, her warmth and sincerity are immediately apparent. The worst word that came out of her mouth was “bunk”. A term we can all live with. We had talked at length prior to this panel discussion and there was never any doubt amongst any SWOP East members of which Renegade Evolution is a member that we were all in agreement that any panel member would have received the same level of respect.
The organizers including Constance had multiple protocols in place to ensure each person was treated with respect, the questions given as debate questions were neutral asking us to speak our views, thoughts and beliefs as panelists. We were three separate people thus there were three separate views. There was no slanting of questions to meet any political agenda. Thus the idea of a debate. To discuss and represent viewpoints and perspectives for the goal of the audience’s benefit, not to convert the other panelists to our positions. Given all the controversy I have no doubt that ensuring a neutral and fair event was paramount to Constance and all the organizers. Rather than be criticized they should be commended for their professionalism, sincerity and extensive efforts to ensure fairness and the safety of all panelists in attendance and those who did not appear as they had committed to.
Addressing facts.
In early March I was contacted by Constance Sisk about presenting on a panel discussion resulting from controversy relating to the Sex Worker’s Art Show. I advised Constance that I had just had reconstructive surgery on one wrist just days prior and was facing the same on the other within a yet to be determined time frame. That my availability was entirely subjective to my recovery and to the determination of the surgeon about when to proceed with surgery on my other wrist. This information could not be given until it was available and given that it was recovery from surgery and pending second surgery, the situation was fluid. If there was slow recovery on the first wrist, I would have been released to go back to my full time Monday through Friday job thus I would not be available for a weekday presentation. Thus I was asked two questions by Constance. Could I commit to a Sunday presentation in which John Foubert would also be invited so that we could discuss views and concerns? Yes, I could pending that I was not just days off the second surgery which was still unknown. The second question, could I recommend a speaker that could represent the sex worker rights view. I presented that request to all of my colleagues at SWOP East. The only person at that time that could confirm availability was Amanda Brooks. Who despite being a board member with SWOP East, lives on the West Coast. It is a 3000 mile journey for Amanda to come to Virginia also. During this time frame there were funding concerns as to whether Amanda’s travel expenses could be covered. After a significant time frame in which all efforts on the part of both the organizers and SWOP East had failed to come up with funding to cover Amanda’s travel costs it became obvious she could not attend due to travel cost issues.
During this time frame, I had seen the surgeon, was sufficiently recovered to drive to Virginia from Raleigh/Durham, which this was a paramount issue given I have a stick shift car but I was still awaiting a second surgery date in early April, thus until that date was known and my recovery level was determined which dictated when I could return to work at my full time job and whether or not I could be recovered enough to do a presentation and drive I could not make a commitment. I was invited to do a presentation on March 30, John Foubert was invited and it was made very clear that I was very open to discussion with him, with the audience about their views, their concerns etc, as it was specifically stated before, during and after the presentation that I was open to any question and any concern during and after this presentation. There was a very hostile series of letters to the editor in response to my upcoming presentation in the local student newspaper Flat Hat. To which I specifically asked the hostile person to please introduce themselves to me at the presentation and we could discuss their concerns face to face. That person did not show up. Neither did John Foubert or anyone representing him.
I had the second surgery on April 2. It was not until the follow up visit with the surgeon on April 15 that I would be able to give an answer to whether I could commit to being on the panel. Again it depended both on recovery and doctors recommendation. I advised Constance that I could not commit to present until I had the answer on April 15 as I was unwilling to commit to an event that I could find myself unable to attend due to medical or return to full time work conditions. Because my presentation had drawn strong reviews and support from the audience, Constance expressed interest in having me attend the panel discussion if possible. Her basis was the positive response from feedback from the audience and attending students. As a result she wanted me to present at the panel if possible. I was given clearance to return to work on April 23, and was sufficiently recovered by the April 15th doctors visit to confirm my attendance and know that I could and would live up to my commitment. Constance was not the cause for the delay in determining who the sex worker rights speaker would be. It was out of everyone’s control due to medical reasons. As soon as I was able to confirm she was able to confirm.
Thus Amanda did not back out. It simply wasn’t feasible due to travel costs. Perhaps Sam Berg’s colleagues are in a financial situation to offer financial assistance. SWOP East members were not, nor was SWOP East as we are not funded. Constance did not play a game. There was no conspiracy. If anything she should be commended for taking heat to protect the confidentiality of my medical status. I would never ask a conference organizer of any sort to reveal personal information to me about potential other speakers as the potential other speakers aren’t particularly relevant as they do not change my presentation. I as a presenter in a debate am there to debate issues, to present my views to an audience, not to engage in personality conflicts with other panelists or to try to convert other panelists to my view. That isn’t the idea of a panel discussion/debate. If anything in a debate format that would cheat an audience if other panelists suddenly jumped up and said I repent and have seen the light and agree completely with you and we spent the remainder of the panel nodding about our agreements. Once again, the idea of a debate is different views being expressed to the audience, for the audience. It is not for the benefit of the speakers.
When it was knowledge that I would be able to attend my understanding was that it would be in debate to John Foubert and Sam Berg. Both parties having very significantly different viewpoints to my views. John Foubert being local and likely having many colleagues that could have attended which would have been hostile to either of my presentations. That did not effect my willingness to attend, nor did the face of probable strong disagreement with my views from John Foubert, his local supporters or those of Sam Berg cause me to request special accommodations on the part of the organizers. My anticipation was to be the minority view. I have certainly taken my fair share of criticism from Genderberg supporters, many of which are blatantly hostile. I had significant debates with Sam Berg in the past which were not at the level of hostility of other members of Genderberg, which obviously she can not control the actions of Genderberg members, but certainly the debates with Sam did not leave me with a sense that she held me in high esteem or that I was going to expect a warm reception. Sam and I had communication in March in which she stated that I had engaged in sleazy tactics regarding the purchase of a domain name related to Wheelock College’s conference on pornography of which I was a signatory on a petition, not the author of the petition but had been widely viewed as being the author, of which someone purchased a very similar domain name to the Wheelock event and posted that petition and the assumption of Sam was that I had done so and that it damaged my credibility with her. I advised her that I had not purchased the domain name she believed I had and in fact I was in agreement with her that whomever did it was misguided and that it was a poor choice on their part and a choice I oppose. And that if any evidence that I had done this could be provided I would appreciate it so that I could refer the matter to the domain administrator to have my name removed as I had no part in that and no support of it and have no knowledge of who did. But I would have appreciated Sam asking me if I had rather than making an unfounded assumption that I had and called my credibility into question over her misunderstanding. While I support the basis of the Wheelock petition and still do, I did not purchase any domain name related to it, did not write the petition and did not “spam” it to radical feminist message boards. I sent the original copy a year ago to many message boards as I felt the petition had strong merit that should be discussed as it is an entirely one sided presentation on pornography from a radical feminist perspective that excludes perspectives from sex worker rights advocates and that should be discussed as a legitimate concern. Just as my blog is completely open and unmoderated to anyone to express their concerns about me, about sex worker rights, as is the SWOP East website which is blog driven. We don’t censor content because we disagree with it.
Renegade Evolution came into the picture when I was advised one of the questions would have to do with feminist pornography. I expressed to the organizers that while I could research the topic, it was one that I knew virtually nothing about and that it would be a disservice to the audience for me to be the speaker on that specific plank as regardless of my research over the weekend I would not have a full perspective of the topic as I would be starting from a point of virtually zero knowledge. She asked if I knew anyone local who knew the topic that could be available on short notice as for the best possible presentation for the audience’s benefit there should be someone there who knew the topic. Of those which strong topic knowledge in and outside of SWOP East, the only person qualified and local was Renegade Evolution, who was and is supremely qualified as a current porn actress. There was no conspiracy on the part of anyone to undermine the radical feminist and male feminist perspectives.
Nor was there any concern on the part of Sam Berg or John Foubert about either my or Amanda having any concerns about being outnumbered when it appeared it would be 2 to 1 in opposition to us. While it was never the intent of anyone to even the numbers by having two anti porn and two sex worker rights activists present with the addition of Renegade Evolution, it should be strikingly evident that for all of John Foubert and Sam Berg’s airplay about their feelings, they did not consider mine or Amanda’s and seemed perfectly content to have a 2 to 1 advantage and only when the numbers evened out, even though that was never the objective, did they complain and then withdraw. Ironically leaving their own, a radical feminist, to be alone on a panel they considered too dangerous to attend. It seems my and Amanda’s feelings were not the only ones forgotten. I can imagine this left Karla feeling unsettled being left alone on a panel considered too dangerous to attend despite security presence and despite one of the projected panelists being male. Should I also mention that Ren is physically small woman. If she is 5’2” and 110 lbs, I am two weeks off reconstructive surgery on both wrists, thus the idea of violence is absurd. Ren and I together probably don’t weigh much more than John Foubert.
Sam writes: “that wholesale changes were being made to the panel just five days before the event without informing me. I had agreed to do the panel with John and Amanda, and I hadn’t gotten any emails saying she couldn’t attend or that they were looking for a replacement.”
I have done many panel discussion/debates both while as a radical feminist activist and later as sex worker rights activist in which the other presenters were fluid and ultimately irrelevant. One agrees to speak on a panel discussion to represent their views and present them to an audience. They aren’t intended as personality contests. Who the other panelists are should have very little bearing on anyone that is well prepared and knows and believes in what they are representing. Even in the case of Sam being intimidated by Renegade Evolution, the conference organizers went above and beyond the call of duty as not only was security and police presence and awareness of her concerns offered but Karla Mantilla another radical feminist was offered and accepted a position on the panel in support of Sam to no objection of either Ren and I.
Sam writes: “If they had told me Amanda couldn’t make it I would have suggested that pornographers and strip club owners are very easy to find through legal channels so they could have been asked to appear on the panel.”
It is entirely out of the context of standard procedure of panel discussions for panelists to place demands o who they are debating. And why would a strip club owner come take time off work running his business to debate a feminist and a male feminist? That is an unrealistic expectation.
Sam writes: “ I would have also suggested that the number of porn-using men on campus should have been able to produce just one pornsturbator willing to defend his porn consumption.”
his is almost jaw dropping. To expect Constance to find a “pornsturbator” defies the remotest level of professionalism. This would be entirely unproductive as just the term pornsturbator is so inflammatory that it would have lead to heated confrontation. It would also make Constance guilty of setting up this “pornsturbator” to be blasted with rhetoric of this nature, which would lead to him being angry, and an audience that gets cheated out of a debate and instead exposed to some kind of tag team on some guy that watches porn. To give into a demand of that nature would make Constance a very poor organizer. While personally I don’t watch porn and don’t give a lot of thought to the concerns of men that do as my focus is on sex worker human, civil and labor rights and don’t have the bandwidth or honestly the desire to defend mens porn usage, I can’t see any inherent value in placing him in what would be an obvious sham debate which ultimately would turn into a shame based free for all argument trying to convince him of his wrong doing. Again!!!! The audience is the reason for the debate. Not the other panelists.
It is hypocritical to say the least that Sam Berg while so concerned about the safety and well being of herself and John Foubert by default, are completely unconcerned about those feelings for Amanda and I, ummm, former sex workers, that genderberg alleges concern about, and intends to set up some unsuspecting guy under the guise of a debate to turn it into Williamsburg’s version of the FOPP.
Gee, and to think the rest of the world including Constance didn’t see these suggestions as feasible. Sam would you ask Farley to go recruit strip club owners and pornstubators for you to debate? Or does Constance get treated with some absurd standard of having to meet a large series of demands, suggestions regardless of their damage to her credibility, to that of the audience and to the University.
Sam Writes: “Because I was under the impression that Constance & Co. were being honest with me about their intentions,”
They were. As documented above you don’t know what you are talking about. If you want someone to blame, blame the bastard pimp that I was used against my will in BDSM prostitution as a submissive and his clients for all the times they forced me into obviously unsafe bondage, suspension and other forms of torture that were unsafe, that were against my will, that I wasn’t compensated for and because of the lack of sex worker rights could not be open and honest with a doctor about how I arrived with those injuries as this is the fourth surgery for nerve compression issues related to the nerves in my elbows and wrists which is consistent unsafe bondage over a three year period. But I had no rights then and have none now. Something tells me though that my coerced participation in the sex industry and what I suffered is going to be viewed as irrelevant or even worse as imaginary because I am the political enemy.
Sam Writes: “I chalked up the lack of a pornographer or porn-using man on the panel to inept organizing and the extreme amount of publicity given recently to sex work advocacy at William and Mary.”
Then get new chalk because there was a pornographer on the panel. Ren. Your challenges of inept organizing are absurd, libelous and hypocritical given that you and Foubert backed out of a commitment at the last second leaving Constance scrambling and leaving your ally alone. I stood my ground in the face of an actual death threat presented to VAASA deemed credible enough by Charlottesville PD to warrant the police to provide me with protection of their accord, not of my request. I still showed up because I made a commitment.
Sam writes “How much sex work advocacy has been given a voice there can be answered with the name Constance”
You failed to show Sam, so didn’t Foubert. She can’t represent your sides if you fail to appear. She gave you every opportunity. She gave Foubert the opportunity twice, once with me and once on the panel. This Constance bashing is a total shit.
Sam writes: “I spoke with John Foubert for the first time Thursday and he told me that Constance is a big pro-sex work advocate on campus and she brought the sex worker show to campus the past three years.”
Or perhaps Constance believes in giving voice to diversity? Not just one sided discussion like Wheelock? How hypocritical is it that you so strongly opposed the petition by sex worker rights activists for any participation at Wheelock, how you and your associates maligned, cast dispersions on my character, among other things, made baseless accusations at me, because I asked forwarded an petition for Wheelock to include other perspectives.
Sam Writes “Constance was a guest on Jill’s radio show a few weeks ago,”
So what??? Radical feminist/abolitionist Bill Nelson did a show last week. Gee, he is really pro prostitution. He runs a shelter for street based prostitutes that want to get out of the sex industry, that need help which chemical dependency, offers them job training, counseling, all of this on a beautiful facility in the wealthiest suburb in the Twin Cities so that they are far away and safe from pimps and johns. A place so awful and pro porn that deer come up and you can feed them…… I have begged radical feminists to appear on my show. All have refused accept Bill. Most refuse to even acknowledge the request. Sam you want to be on my show. I’ll give you and anyone you want the show. I have an open slot at 10pm 646 200 3136 www.xxbn.net, you knock yourself out. I’ve also had a rock group on the show, The Naked Heroes, a Hurricane Forecaster named Rob Lightbown, a fired flight attendant named Queen of Sky, Ellen Simonetti that was fired for standing up to corporate powerhouse Delta Airlines for their sexist application of unwritten policy, I have begged feminists to support Ellen after she was called a bitch and an immature self serving whore. See details below. Who has supported me and written the station? Bill Nelson, sex worker rights activists and Canadian pro feminist Martin Dufresne, whom while we have had strong disagreements from time to time also have come together to support Ellen. Martin wrote a plea for support that is supremely well written. Where were you? Where was Genderberg? Or does Ellen not count? I approached many genderberg members was was rebuffed. Why? Is Ellen somehow evil too? Why because she talked about her book on my show? Because her skort, not skirt, skort, rode up in a pic of her sitting an airplane seatback? Nothing pornographic about her pictures. She is in full uniform, perhaps in one pic a millimeter of her bra shows. God forbid. Like all women don’t wear a bra and haven’t had a piece of it show in a pic. Is it because she is wearing pantyhose? Corporate policy. Is it because her legs are long? She is 6 feet tall. I’m 5’ 10”, long legs go with the territory. Ellen was royally pissed because the day she went public with her book Queen of Sky diary of a dysfunctional flight attendant, a porn site grabbed the name queenofsky.com So one can’t exactly call her pro porn. Why exactly is Genderberg unconcerned about Ellen? She is a woman who was called a bitch and whore and the radio station went so far as to do a second segment to trash her more two days later. Why doesn’t she count? Regardless of her feelings on porn, sex worker rights activists stood up for her, 2 men stood for her. Where are the rad fem women? Trashing Constance, Ren and Amanda with assumptions, distortions, factual misrepresentations.
Ellen Simonetti is an ex-flight attendant who blogged about her work and got fired for doing that by her employer, Delta Airlines. She has written a book about it (”Diary of a Dysfunctional Flight Attendant: The Queen of Sky Blog”) and is getting flak from a Los Angeles talk radio station, where three shock jocks (Frosty, Heidi & Frank - think Three Stooges) did a number on her these last few days, calling her, among other insults, an “immature attention-seeking whore”, and blowing a fuse because she is talking back on her blog. If you have time to look into this and want to chime in in support of a woman challenging a big corporation’s work practices, here are references: Simonetti’s blog: http://queenofsky.journalspace.com/
and web page: www./myspace.com/queenofsky The radio station’s website: http://www.971freefm.com/pages/1249.php
where you can scroll down to listen to the show’s podcasts with Simonetti.
Their e-mail address: klsxpromotions@cbsradio.com
Sam writes: “and Jill did a pro-sex work chat with William and Mary college folks”
No Jill did not! Once again you speculate. I support sex worker rights and harm reduction. I didn’t do a pro sex work chat, I didn’t advocate anyone join the sex industry, I advocated that someone with no other choice but sex work in order to survive isn’t consenting. Poverty is not consent! I spent the majority of the presentation talking in first person about my experiences in coerced prostitution, about my own work against human trafficking and that of SWOP East, of our project to get condoms to sex workers without them in Chile who are there largely because of poverty, thus no choice, no consent, who are dying of HIV because they can’t get condoms from outreach providers because the outreach providers can’t afford them because US Governments “Anti Prostitution Oath” Does that make me pro sex work? Wanting to save lives? Advocating sex workers have the same human rights as everyone should have? You come back to me with proof that I did a pro sex work chat or you retract the statement. You don’t even know me.
Sam Writes “a few weeks ago, but in her emails Constance claimed ignorance of the lengthy pro-porn and radical blogosphere debates on this contentious subject.”
Well, excuse her if she didn’t hang of your every post. Oh wait, she couldn’t have, she isn’t allowed in Genderberg.
Sam Writes: Constance. Constance said she was excited to have me coming and offered to let me spend Monday night at her place, where she planned on cooking dinner for a group of people post-panel”
Which she did and does for every event………….. Wow, cooking dinner for you, what a terrible thing to do, offering you a place to stay so you don’t have to pay hotel costs because she couldn’t get funding.
Sam Writes: How do you think it would feel if a pro-choice feminist were invited to a predominantly pro-life campus by a predominantly pro-life group and the pro-life organizer did everything Constance did without revealing her pro-life politics to her pro-choice panelist and house guest?
How about you invite me to a panel discussion that I had to pay the flight for because you couldn’t get the funding and you were concerned about my expenses and appreciated me flying to Portland on my own dime to present on your panel, so you invite me to your house for supper with other guests, audience, panelists, and let me stay the night without charge rather than having me eat supper alone and go to a hotel I had to pay for alone? I would assume you were being kind, being a human being concerned about me, my finances, my not being alone in a far away city and that you were kind enough to care about me regardless of whether you disagreed with my politics. That is how I would feel. I would appreciate your kindness and feminism that we could agree , disagree or in between but that you treated me with kindness. That would be how I would feel. It would exemplify feminism.
Sam Writes: I agreed to do the panel with John and Amanda three weeks ago. Though it was unethical to make major lineup changes at the last minute like that without telling me and things started feeling really fishy due to the lack of notification about the event anywhere besides pro-john blogs
Pro John blog,,,, I’m done with this,,, There is a difference between arguing factual misrepresentations and rhetoric. We’ve hit the rhetoric point.
Do you realize what you have done Sam? Do you even realize what you are doing?
Infiere
I commented on two of the threads you linked, and my comments were never permitted. These Stalinist- puritan censors do not permit ANY QUESTIONING of their specious logic. (And the only cuss word I used was "bullshit" so it isn't that.)
I *am* a radical feminist, but I am censored by these women, who are NOT radical feminists. They are scared wittle puritans hiding behind feminism, so they can demean other women they have marked with their ideological scarlet letter. They can't handle debate with Ren, so who are they waiting for, then? Larry Flynt? Some MAN?
They are a joke. They'll pass and be a quaint memory, like Carrie Nation and WCTU.
Sam Writes: Constance. Constance said she was excited to have me coming and offered to let me spend Monday night at her place, where she planned on cooking dinner for a group of people post-panel”
Which she did and does for every event………….. Wow, cooking dinner for you, what a terrible thing to do, offering you a place to stay so you don’t have to pay hotel costs because she couldn’t get funding.
...
god what a putz Sam is.
!#^$%&U$^& – nothing like a browser crash just when you were about to post something.
Anyway, there's a blog for the class that sponsored the debate. Not much there, but it does give some background:
http://www.pornographypanel.blogspot.com/
Also, Karla Mantilla just posted her take on the debate over on Heart's blog. (Lots of whackiness on display in that thread from Heart and the WS regulars, but that's par for the course.)
per the first anon: you know, I can't imagine RE or anyone else here not supporting any of the work you're doing. I just don't understand, I guess, and never will, the vilification flung at people like RE or Nina Hartley. It's not like they're saying "hey, everyone do this," and RE doesn't even claim to -be- a feminist anymore. She's saying, it's her body, her choice, which is in line with feminism in general, you know?
but that's where the hostility comes from, not to sound so much like "she started it." IF it were just a question of "look, I can't stand the stuff you make, but I like -you-, let's work together on getting people off the streets" that'd be nifty.
When people insist RE must be a marketing front, or a tool of the patriarchy, or a "sociopath," or actually say she's not fit to volunteer at a womens' crisis shelter just because she strips (this happened), or otherwise try to dismiss her experience because it doesn't fit their narrative...it just isn't on, you know? It isn't -feminist.- And, it doesn't help anyone.
And, personally, in general, while I'm less than impressed by the behavior of quite a lot of people I've encountered styling themselves "radical feminists," I don't automatically blame radical feminism as such, and do try to stick to a case by case basis. Mostly, I Blame The Assholes.
and, sorry, but whatever else, Sam here is so -totally- being an Asshole.
but I mean, like, I don't know, anon, or anyone, here's my question, I guess: say RE was a B-movie "legit" actor, didn't do porn, but did appear as the "scream queen" in a lot of slasher horror films. She says she loves her job, and the genre in general, even if she doesn't love everything about it or all the people doing it, acknowledges the sexism, etc. And calls herself a feminist, wants to work for feminist causes, anti-abuse, etc. Do you think people would react to her the same way?
Okay a few things...
xochtl said:
Ren, I don't know anything about Sam's threats. I do know that I would not want to debate you, not because I am afraid of your politics, but because your website is full of "fuck you and fuck off" and other such hostile writings to women who I don't think have ever threatened you (like Maggie Hays), and I would hate to find myself on the receiving end of that.
You don't know anything about Sam's threats to Ren? Really? I find that REALLY hard to believe, if you've been paying ANY attention to Ren's blog at all. I'm going to use a word I don't like but which fits perfectly here: disingenuous. I don't believe for a second that you "don't know anything" about Sam's threats. That little game won't work and frankly looks stupid.
And as for being afraid of debating Ren because of the language she uses on her web site? Again, please. Pretty fucking stupid. Blogs are often a place for people to rant, vent, get things off their chest. Sometimes that means using some pretty strong language. I drop way more F-bombs on my blog than I do in real-life conversation. And the number of F-bombs in real-life conversation also depends on the context. If I'm talking to my best friend? Yeah, I'd probably let a few more fly than if I were talking to my grandmother or at a job interview.
I think Ren has enough sense to know that if you're in a formal debate with someone, at a university, and your goal is to actually provide clear arguments and get people to consider your position, you don't go around dropping F-bombs.
Secondly, as for Sam's behavior with complaining to W&M, writing letters, generally being a diva, etc. etc... that REALLY pisses me off. First of all, it screams privilege - and I say that as someone who's getting a little sick of the "privilege" card being played. But it really does. It's like you said Ren, this is a group of students organizing something out of a desire for dialogue and learning, and Sam throws a fit like ... who was that rockstar who had to have a certain color M&M's in her hotel room, and a bunch of other "demands" to be met? It seems like that.
And as an organizer of two unconferneces now, it REALLY pisses me off when people bitch and complain about every little thing that they perceive as "wrong" with the event, which was put together by the energy and passion of the organizers, not by some ruling body or formal event planners.
That's all for now... all in all, Sam and her little posse of sychophants are making themselves look worse by the minute, and I wouldn't give a shit about their assholery if you weren't right smack in the middle of it, Ren, as a target who absolutely does NOT deserve to be there.
Hey, thanks Lucizoe.
you know what your problem is ren? you allow men to comment on your blog. MEN! this is not a woman only space! holy shit! since you are clearly not toeing the party line of silence and subjugation for all men you must obviously therefore be evil.
after reading enough of the backstory on various blogs about this whole nonsense, i'm gonna go ahead and say it, what about the menz? i mean, censoring and demeaning people who disagree with you is bad enough, but censoring and demeaning a person based on their gender? oh wait, wasn't that why feminism kicked off in the first place?
ugh, the hypocrisy makes my stomach turn.
i actually have several coherent points to make regarding this whole nonsense, but in my bewildered toddler-full-day state that's the only outrage i can manage. maybe more later.
i smooch you, hang in there.
<<26 Arantxa writes
Heart. Reading the comments you’ve posted by ‘Ren’ and ‘Jill’, I get the impression that these comments were made out of spite towards Sam. I find their comments patronising.>>
What a bunch of shit. No Arantxa, the comments regarding Karla are not made out of spite toward Sam. We both genuinely like and respect Karla and recognize that she cares a great deal about social justice. We both appreciated and respected her commitment to social justice and professionalism. There is no conspiracy.
Not to mention, what you accuse us of, putting both of our names in brackets for some bizarre reason, would be a passive aggressive bunch of shit. Passive aggressive methodology isn't my thing, and it sure has hell doesn't seem to be Ren's either. We both are more than willing and capable of saying about and to Sam exactly how we feel. Perhaps Arantxa, you missed the rest of my post, I was straight forward in my feelings about Sam's actions in this whole thing.
You don't know me and you have no basis to challenge my authenticity. If I have a problem with Sam it is straight forward, I don't need to use anyone as a conduit to express my feelings about her actions surrounding this. Nor would I. And I truly detest your statement that my statements were disingenuous when you don't even know me.
Throwing shit at women you don't even know, have never met and know nothing about is not feminism. It's fascist bullshit.
well jill, we are opressors, remember? so she's free to say anything...even if it is a load of sheep shit!
Anon –
I'm happy that you're doing work that helps people and everything, but that does not mean the rest of the world somehow owes it to radical feminists and radical feminism to treat it as above criticism. Especially given that radical feminism has degenerated into this super-authoritarian and rather cult-like thing that drives behaviors like those exhibited by Sam and her ilk.
I really do hope you do the work you do because its your "passion" and not because you think it makes you some super good special person that the world needs to bow down to. There are already too many would-be saviors in this world, mostly not saving a damn thing.
Oh, Good Lord, the Diva is still at it:
http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/sam-berg-truth-and-reasons/
From my interaction with Arantxa on Witchy's blog, she's not much more than a troll. The best she could muster in response to my comments was to call me a man over and over again.
I certainly hope that respect goes both ways with Karla, as what she said on Heart's blog sounded kind of bashy toward y'all (and toward women like me, for that matter). I don't trust her goodwill in the least. Yes, she can behave professionally when it counts, and that already puts her well beyond Sam Berg.
I just wish that the polite, professional radfem had been someone - anyone - else who didn't have a history of really vile transphobic writing (and probably speaking) behind her.
who was that rockstar who had to have a certain color M&M's in her hotel room,
it was Van Halen, and it was no brown m&ms.
http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp
From my interaction with Arantxa on Witchy's blog, she's not much more than a troll. The best she could muster in response to my comments was to call me a man over and over again.
she did indeed actually troll my blog with about fifteen spam comments in a row, once, when she was being "Phemisaurus Terribilus." she's had about six different monikers and has been horrible under all of them.
Lisa: that sounds about right.
I mean, to me, the expectation that someone will behave professionally in a debate situation is -minimal.- I'd expect no less from, say, James Dobson. And if he actually showed up to a debate and acted like a civilized adult, whereas say Pat Robertson acted like, well, Sam, I'd give at least those minimal props to Dobson, even though he is also a poisonous bigot. It's still damning with faint praise, though. And if anything, it'd make him a more dangerous opponent.
I mean, just...yeah, Sam. stupid and hateful is just such a -winning- combination. and it's like, on the one hand, eventually, you'd think, ultimately you don't have to take them as seriously, since they're doing an excellent job of destroying their own credibility? but on the other hand, if someone's -really- stupid, it's sort of dangerous, because you can't predict how they're going to respond, even out of what you'd think would be basic self-preservation.
"I have a gub, and it's loaded."
Ren writes>> well jill, we are opressors, remember? so she's free to say anything...even if it is a load of sheep shit!>>
Yeah I forgot about being the oppressor. Fuck, I'm worse than that. It was Witchy that said I had ran a cult and had followers. Just call me Jill Jones as I have a fascination with South America too.
Thus I'm spreading my evil by speaking horrific things in a foreign pro trafficking language sure to mind control more followers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Hy6rDahuQ
she did indeed actually troll my blog with about fifteen spam comments in a row, once, when she was being "Phemisaurus Terribilus." she's had about six different monikers and has been horrible under all of them.
She's so awful, she's self-parody at best.
I laughed at her flame at me on Witchy's blog, it was just so over the top, like "HA HA I KNOW YOUR BUTTON I'LL PUSH IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN."
Post a Comment