So, I seems I might be uninvited to the forum at William and Mary. Why? Because apparently, Sam Berg, who has been booked as a panelist longer than I and is traveling further than I, is uncomfortable with me being there. Apparently, once upon a time I said I wanted to push her in front of a truck.
Ah yes, well all know of what Sam speaks, no? She speaks of this post, made by me, in a moment of anger…a post which has been “reframed by radical feminist thinking” to stand as “Ren hates all rad fems and wants to push them to die violently”, yet, never mentioned Sam at all. Never mind that three of the women mentioned in it: Laura, Andrea & Faith were radical or radical leaning feminists, never mind that several of the other women mentioned were WoC bloggers putting up with some really vile racist asshatery at the time, never mind that several of the women mentioned were putting up with some really vile sexism and misogyny at the time, never mind that at least one of the women mentioned, an atheist, was putting up with some really vile godbaggery at the time, and never mind that I have repeatedly explained this before and apologized profusely for making the statement, time and time again…oh yeah, and never mind I got threatened with outing and the publishing of parts of my legal name and unedited photos of myself at a time before I had started posting such things myself-by a radical feminist…oh, and never mind that to the best of my recollection, in all the situations that prompted my angry and ill-advised response, Sam wasn’t participating…I want to push her in front of a truck. So she doesn’t want me at William and Mary.
Which, if I might for a moment… I am the only person on the panel who is currently a sex worker. I am the only person on the panel who does pornography (the main subject). I could, oh, you know, be an interesting person with an interesting perspective to have there.
Oh, and should I mention when the Genderberg Forums, yes, the private super secret ones, where showing up in google-cache where the masses could view them a few weeks back I was the one who wrote to Sam and alerted her of this fact??? I wasn’t going to say as much, but I think now is the perfect time to mention it.
Maybe I should mention that, oh, within the last week I managed to team up, sort of, with a radical feminist in order to put some pressure on a "business man" who was marketing hateful, vile t-shirts?
Maybe I should mention that when lies were told about me on Genderberg, once requested, I removed the statements from the private forums of the site from my blog?
Maybe, even though I make porn and support the right to do that, I'm not a monster. Yeah, Sam and I have some history...but I'm not Lex Luthor here.
And for a moment, let us look at this realistically…I have no desire to do anything but debate Sam Berg. I have enough faith in my arguments that I am pretty sure they are all I will need, but consider this for a moment…I’m a 5’2”, 100 pound woman on allergy medication, who would be sitting in a chair, in a room full of people, on a college campus, with security present, who has to work- both porn and stripping- the next day, and would be driving 3 hours, with current gas prices, to get there. Hardly the perfect time for any sort of mayhem…and Sam could probably kick my skinny ass.
All I want at this point is a chance to speak my side, in a forum. I want the chance to FINALLY get to be a sex worker/porn whore who gets to speak for herself, rather than having anyone and everyone do it for me, or over me, or around me. And now, I may not get that chance…in part, because I made a really, really, really stupid statement in anger. But I don’t think, realistically, that is the entire reason.
I think there are others. I think Jill and I together are formidable when it comes to defending our stances. I think some folk don’t like to be challenged by those they are supposedly speaking for. I think there is a fear there, and it has nothing to do with trucks. I think some people, claim to love women and say they deserve to be heard might be lying a little bit when they say that. I also think maybe a little word called revenge might be floating around in their heads.
I want to be on this panel. Sam, I swear on everything sane or holy I intend to do nothing other than debate. It's right there, in print, for the world to see, my promise, vow, oath, whatever, that debate is all I intend to do...maybe smirk a lot. But if you get your way and I’m not…you know, I can still, legally, be there in the room. In the audience. I don’t think, legally, you could have me barred from the event or the campus. So yes, I would be there anyway. What I am saying here is I won’t be silenced.
Not again, not now, not anymore. If you have faith in your stance and your arguments, you won’t try and silence me.
I am also encouraging allies and other sex workers to write to the event staff for this, if they feel so motivated, and say why they think I should be on this panel. Because I suspect some of them really think I should.
Sincerely- Ren
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
81 comments:
Wait? They might uninvite you because she feels uncomfortable? Seems pretty damn fucked up on the part of the organizers who yes, should be doing their job to make sure all voices are heard. And what of your comfort level and the comfort levels of the peeps who are not comfortable in the least with her perspective on shit.
That just sucks mujer.
ugh....
just not right. who did the inviting in the first place...was this a student group, or a prof?
let us know what needs to be done in terms of trying to get you heard.
sly, a student, who is really trying to do what she can to keep things going here...I don't want her to take it in the chops on this....gah, I'm just frusterated as hell.
Blogswarm it, I guess. Post about it. Get other people to. I don't know. I just want to be there to speak.
Is there a William and Mary address we can email to on this? I tried to Google up one to no avail.
Are you fucking shitting me??
And just WHY do her wishes matter more than yours? Oh wait, some feminists are more equal than others, I forgot...
oh forchrissake.
what a baby.
Ren -- I'd be happy to write to the event staff. This is ridiculous. (And yes, I will incorporate polite legal stuff). Can you send the info?
Holy shit, Ren. Does their sliminess NEVER CEASE?!
Did I or did I not freakin' call it???
This is standard operational procedure with Sam and the antiporn femininists to chicken out of any debate with real opponents who are sure to kick their asses in a fair fight. If they can't slant the debate to fit their terms, then they won't debate at all.
Oh...and to once AGAIN break out the old "choke on your own blood" meme; as if that's far more dangerous than their actions (which I will not reset here).
If the organizers of that debate knuckle in and disinvite you, then Jill should back out in solidarity as well.
And you have not a GODDESS DAMN THING to apologize for, Ren....it's Sam Berg and her cult who should bear the full responsibility for attempting once again to control the debate and silence their critics.
The hell with Sam Berg...and if William and Mary College is so skeetish as to allow her to dictate their debates, then to hell with them, too.
Anthony
I think it would be outrageous if you couldn't be invited, especially if the self-same women who would ban you from their discussions then start telling people they are the ones being silenced, or telling lies about how you delete posts and are personally silencing them.
Something said in anger should not be taken as the basis for one's whole personality. They know this, and they're just hitching onto it because it's all they've got against you. Let's hope the William and Mary people can see sense, because if Ms Berg cannot allow her views to be exposed to opposition, they must be very weak and flimsy views indeed. Everyone, everywhere, needs to question what they think and why they think it.
I will blog this as soon as I get back this afternoon, but yeah, if there is an email address or other contact info for W&M, I'll drop them a line...
Oh noes - you have been vengefully banned as a threat from this safe space for women!
Censorship sucks, huh?
And yet, it IS a primary feminist tactic.
Remember when I told you guys about this looongggg ago??? And many of you pooh-poohed me?
Of course, many of you looked the other way as long as you weren't the ones being targeted (at the time). But, the way people treat others is eventually the way they will treat you. Which is why EVERYONE should be held to ethical standards.
Welcome to the gynocracy. A safe space for all (who agree 100% with them).
My suggestion is not to fight them. Start your own forum there on a separate date and invite her on your terms.
Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood.
That's construed as a threat?
Who could possibly construe that as anything other than a cry of frustration, anguish, and yes, of hate? But a threat?
No offense to all you feminists, but this (Sam Berg's that is, et. al.) is the type of intentional twisting of words, of trying to silence others, of refusing to listen to people who disagree with you, of dehumanization and othering, that drives me and many others away from feminist causes.
"I agree with feminism, but I am not a feminist." THIS IS WHY PEOPLE SAY THAT.
People ain't stupid. People outside the ivory towers have more sense than this. People at the water cooler understand this is bullshit.
Only feminist zealots who don't care who they run over because after all they are oppressed so their evil means justify the positive ends insist this is some reasonable way for "progressives" to act.
Ren, when you discuss this with faculty, make sure you ask them how your statements could be construed as a threat, and ask them about free speech, othering, silencing, and most importantly, if they feel excluding you would be in the interests of academic freedom.
Best wishes,
I just read your explanation of the quote that Sam Berg was using, and
My god, I am so sorry that happened to you. I don't often like humans either, and now I like them a little bit less.
And after Sam Berg's actions then, I think you should consider pointing to that when you, should you, decide to talk to the seminar organizers or faculty.
Sam Berg basically violated you then as a person, and is doing it again now.
(If it helps, I deal with humanity by undressing everyone, then redressing them to look like Gorillas, and then a lot more seems explainable and understandable. We're a bunch of stupid apes, barely evolved at all.)
Good Lord, since when can "fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood" be reasonably interpreted as "I'm going to push you under a truck so you die choking on your own blood".
And if we're comparing angry and nasty statements, don't Sam Berg's statements count for anything? She's made some absolute whoppers!
I really have to wonder about this student group, though, and why they basically have to kiss Sam Berg's ass like this. Who are these people?
Oh, what a pile of bullshit. Yeah, what do we need to do?
She's such an asshole. All that crap about "spread-emism" and so on and so forth; this is such a -weak- excuse. She's probably crapping herself, and -not- because she actually thinks you're gonna push her in front of a truck forfuckssake.
"I am also encouraging allies and other sex workers to write to the event staff for this, if they feel so motivated, and say why they think I should be on this panel.
I'll be on it – just let us know who to write to.
Hey, Ren check this out.
Scared to lose, pure and simple. Outgunned and outclassed and she knows it.
Just like in the Olympics, they do everything they can to eliminate the scary competition, Ren, and that's you.
Chickenshit, moral coward. And Sam wants to LEAD THE CHARGE against pornstitution, when she can't even manage to deal with one little debate against one little 5'2" stripper?
Sam--I realize you've been out of touch for awhile now, but I hope you realize the Evil Patriarchy is a lot more fierce than one lil ole stripper-blogger, right? They have artillery, they wage wars, they have billions of dollars, they mean business. And you are too scared to take on ONE WOMAN who might have said some unpleasant things to you? Oh yeah, Sam, you got the patriarchy quaking in their boots, alright!
Jesus H. Christ. What a fucking fraud.
*Sigh*
Can't we all just get along?
Ren,
This is nothing but typical. Trump up and excuse why you shouldn't get your say and then manipulate conditions so you don't. It's happened to Nina over and over.
And it pisses me off beyond measure. No one is afraid of being pushed under a truck. No trucks will be likely to pass through the room while you're speaking.
It's their vile ideas they're afraid might go under the wheels of someone with actual experience and a coherent, opposing point of view. Can't have that.
Please let us know who to contact and we'll get right on it. If you like, we'll post it on nina.com and send some of our friends from over there to kick in their two cents.
This is just too infuriating. Any excuse to keep opposing views from being aired.
Byrd: one word. TRUCK.
I have an inquiry in regard to my post on bipaganpolykinkygamergeek http://community.livejournal.com/bipolypagangeek/739237.html "Do you have a source for the specific language of Sam Berg's objection? I'd be interested to see what was said."
I have no response. Do you have an email, post or somesuch that I might venture?
Give me the address (email or otherwise) and I will write on your behalf. I will link this post on my blog as well. I don't get much traffic but I will try and do whatever I can for you!
This, from the woman who shows such contempt to other women, dismisses us with words like 'spreademism', doesn't allow us to reply to them on her sites...yeah. I really hope this one can be unravelled peacefully, but forgive me if it's taken Sam Berg down another notch in my estimation.
It's censorship. You called it yourself, Ren: Big Sister instead of Big Brother.
Trying to construe your words as a "threat" is just pitiful.
Belle, interesting link... Janice Raymond manages to get her greasy little ex-nun-busybody fingers into everything, doesn't she?
(((pukes)))
Which, if I might for a moment… I am the only person on the panel who is currently a sex worker. I am the only person on the panel who does pornography (the main subject). I could, oh, you know, be an interesting person with an interesting perspective to have there.
Teachable political moment, everyone pay attention.
I recently saw some stuff on TV (History channel, maybe?) about women in labor movements, complete with men men men, a few token women scholars and various feminists. Did they include ANY women who are currently organizing in labor movements? No.
Same thing with the immigrant "debate" on the news shows--they never talk TO immigrants rights groups or actual immigrants who will be deported.
Similarly, during the Ashley X debacle, I didn't see a single disability activist on any of the news shows that discussed the issue. You hardly ever do. (I don't think they know any.)
This is standard oppressor behavior. They like to TALK *ABOUT* those troublesome women/minorities, but will not deign to talk TO them. They might get rowdy or say something unscripted and GENUINE.
Their willingness to adhere to the status quo in this matter shows you they aren't feminist, radical or seriously political, just engaging in more wanking in the wind.
Bringing in the usual suspects is not debate, that's Bill O'Reilly.
If you are collecting links about this, here's one more:
http://octogalore.blogspot.com/2008/04/clean-hands.html
One point that should be clear to the organizers is that if her concern were really as stated -- ie that you would be scary and spewing threats -- it would be in her best interests to have you there as proof positive of the dangers of porn. Logically, it should be clear to rational thinkers that her concern must therefore be the opposite.
Here's my post on the subject, with updates:
http://nataliaantonova.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/i-am-disturbed-by-the-attempt-to-silence-renegade-evolution/
Ren:
You may want to get in touch with FIRE over this.
http://www.thefire.org/
They've done a great job of defending the free speech principle from campus censors, both from the left and right, though sadly most of this stuff seems to come from the progressive community, including "feminists" like the recent colardao college incident where feminists tried to censor a satirical flyer making fun of them.
there are deeper issues at stake here, of course, like how "progressive" definitions of freedom (herbert marcuse, for example) can silence certain voices, and to what extent mainstream academic feminism has enabled this...but that's for another post.
WHAT? i'm sorry? WHAT THE FUCK? people never ceas to amaze me. nd by 'amaze me' i mean 'piss the the hell off'.
Yeah, mixed feelings about FIRE, because although they did clearly defend the Sex Workers' Art Show as free expression (here and here), which was counter to the line conservative groups were taking on it, it certainly didn't devote the amount of space to it as they did to the issue of the attempted quashing of an affirmative action bake sale (list of article's here).
While the W&M administration didn't go so far as to outright ban SWAS, it was under heavy attack from both conservative groups and, as we've seen, certain 'feminists' (where have we seen this alliance before?), it is as important of a free speech issue as affirmative action bake sales. The president of W&M was actually forced to resign over having SWAS on campus, and who knows if they'll be allowed to return next year. Still, SWAS barely seems to have come up on FIRE's radar, which makes me wonder if they're stuck in the WorldNet, etc loop about campus speech and expression issues and can't really see beyond it.
(And, yeah, I do think "affirmative action bake sales" are a free speech issue, even if I don't agree with their message – I don't care if I'm against 90% of the left/feminist blogosphere in that regard.)
I do think its a problem that free speech issues have become so fucking balkanized that such conflicts always come down to "right vs left" issues. That whole political football is something that's corrosive to free speech in the non-virtual public square (ie, off the internet), especially on college campuses.
Don't you get it Ren? We're not allowed to be angry.
WOC, transpeople, PWD, sex workers, immigrants, Muslims, gay people, women, whomever is not priveliged in the subject at hand.
We're not allowed to get angry. It breaks the rules.
Vanessa- Yes, we're supposed to be grateful, I'm sure!
I think I flunked that lesson.
Vanessa: yeah, there have been some -themes- this past week or two, haven't there?
Wow, what JERKS. 8( 8(
Misuse of power is such a reality, it amazes me people miss it.
Looks like there's quite a blogstorm going, so that's good news... hopefully there will be more good news in the form of a still-open invite from William and Mary.
A quote for the occasion, from Wendy McElroy's XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography:
"Anti-pornography feminists try to silence any real discussion of pornography. Catharine MacKinnon, for example, flatly refuses to debate women on this subject. Feminists who disagree are treated as traitors. Their bottom line is: Individual women must not be allowed to question the sexual interests of women as a class."
...
"Why? Because anti-porn feminists will not tolerate any attempt to apply freedom of speech to pornography. In her book Only Words, MacKinnon goes so far as to deny that pornography consists of words and images, both of which would be protected by the First Amendment. She considers pornography-in and of itself-to be an act of sexual violence.
For years, anti-porn feminists effectively silenced dissent on pornography."
Welcome to "radical" feminism! Of course, nowadays "radical feminism" is institutionalized, dogmatic feminism, so they do their utmost to control all debates they engage in. The thing is, if that's the way they treat porn, how do you expect they feel about prostitution? From a doctrinaire feminist point of view, you're a gender traitor.
This probably isn't anything personal against you; this is simply doctrinaire feminism insisting that your opinions are wrong and you are not to be allowed to represent women, because you're not being a proper woman.
Which is bullshit. Fight the power!
iamcuriousblue:
i suspect the bake sale was a cleaner cut case than SWAS. first of all, since william and mary is private, there is no first amendment issue, but rather a contractual right to free speech between the students and the University. since the bake sale involved only students, and limited university funds were not at stake (i think), this was a slam dunk case.
SWAS was slightly more problematic since it involved outside guests (with less contractual rights) and university funds (i think). so you have a situation somewhat analogous to govt financing of art. in other words, no one has a right to these funds, and the govt can discriminate on the basis of quality, but they cannot viewpoint discriminate, as Giuliani found out when he tried to ban funding for art that offended religious sensibilities.
i think william and mary did viewpoint discriminate, as FIRE acknowledges, but given the existence of limited funds, not everyone being entitled to funding, and no contractual rights, this case was probably more difficult and nuanced.
daisy - same thing with Darfur. That's when you know it's just a puppet show with the supposed "victims" just being exploited for ulterior motives.
The Washington Post reported April 27 that the rally organizers scrambled at the last minute to add two speakers from Darfur because of objections from Sudanese immigrants that the speakers list contained eight western Christians, seven Jews, four US politicians, several celebrities, but no Muslims and no one from Darfur.
You realize that if she can't get you off the pannel she'll use that as an excuse not to show up, right? If there is one thing in any sort of political debate today, no matter the topic or forum, the people that matter on the subject will not take on said debate unless they are sure they have the best of it. The very sad result is no matter where you go to get your information all you ever are going to get is a completely slanted and biased to the point of view of whoever is presenting...
You realize that if she can't get you off the pannel she'll use that as an excuse not to show up, right?
That's certainly her prerogative. If she wants to come off like a sulky, cowardly prat, then on her head be it, you know?
manju writes:
"first of all, since william and mary is private, there is no first amendment issue, but rather a contractual right to free speech between the students and the University."
No, actually W&M is a public university – it was taken over by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1906. (Thanks, Wikipedia!)
And, as you're probably aware, based on court decisions in the early 20th Century, the First Amendment very much applies to US States, not to mention that some version of the First Amendment is written into every state constitution. What that means is that a state university like W&M practicing viewpoint discrimination is not only wrong, its illegal.
"SWAS was slightly more problematic since it involved outside guests (with less contractual rights) and university funds (i think). so you have a situation somewhat analogous to govt financing of art. in other words, no one has a right to these funds, and the govt can discriminate on the basis of quality, but they cannot viewpoint discriminate, as Giuliani found out when he tried to ban funding for art that offended religious sensibilities."
I think there's a complete analogy to Giuliani's trying to defund an art exhibit that offended him and his constituency. Certainly one can argue from a right-libertarian viewpoint that the state doesn't owe anybody funding to express their right to free speech. (As a left-libertarian, I don't have a big problem with public funding of expression, as long as the funding is equitable.) However, once public funding is broadly made available to fund speech and expression, which is the case with student activity fees, you cannot discriminate in the dissemination of funds against a particular point of view, which I think is clearly what conservative groups (and campus "pro-feminists") were calling for.
"'You realize that if she can't get you off the pannel she'll use that as an excuse not to show up, right?'
That's certainly her prerogative. If she wants to come off like a sulky, cowardly prat, then on her head be it, you know?"
What BD said.
Ren, I'm terribly sorry to hear this.
"No, actually W&M is a public university"
o, crap! I was going to google it to make sure, but the name sounded so private. Yeah, that definitely lowers the bar.
i think we're basically in agreement here but i'd just like to add that the fact that discrimination based on quality is allowed when limited govt funds are at stake makes proving a 1st amendment violation difficult, since the state (or state actor) can always argue that it was the lack of quality that lead to the discrimination.
Renegade Evolution,
You are saying that being uninvited from the panel is censorship. Perhaps you are being uninvited because things that you have said reflect very badly on you. Regardless of whether or not you have the 'right' to say what you want in any way you want, what you say is going to carry consequences for you and for other people. You are focusing on Sam as if she is the reason you are uninvited and at the same time giving reasons why what you have said and done is not that serious. Actually, it was your own actions that got you uninvited. The organisers could invite another woman to take the place on the panel as someone who has been or is in prostitution. They are not uninviting you because you prostitute. I don't think that your apologies for things you have said go very far to demonstrate that you take responsibility for what you have done. If you were prepared to take responsibility you would bear the burden of that responsibility yourself and not make out that you are being victimised or that you are being silenced because you are in prostitution.
Punk, Welcome to the Party, grab a spear...
Here's the deal, the organizer of the event DOES want me there, very much so in fact. Sex workers are ignored in these sorts of debates. Gee, my violent statement vs. REAL honest threats....the people running the show want me there. Sam? Who Knows.
I offered to go in leg irons and a straight jacket if it would make her feel better...who has made concensions here?
And I'll remember your concern next time someone, feminists someones even, tell me women like me deserve to be raped and that they wish they could kick the shit out of us.
Oh gee, I have no reason to be angry, right? i get it...just take it you bitch.
Punk –
Take responsibility for what? I ask you, how does "fall under a truck a die choking on your own blood" translate to "I'm going to push you under a truck"? Answer, it doesn't, a least, not to anybody who isn't totally paranoid from smoking too much crack.
Oh, and speaking of taking responsibility for statements, is Sam Berg ever going to offer a defense of her description of sex workers as "hot, bi-sexee, and will fuck and suck anything for money" or "hanging from poles like painted negroes in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts".
Or do some people have to "take responsibility" for their words, while others get a free pass?
Again, you are focusing on your being angry and your reasons for being angry and being justified in saying what you said, which you also say wasn't a real threat anyway so it doesn't matter. Well, actually, all those things do matter to other people. You may not see it that way and you may not agree that you should be held responsible for or take the consequences for things you've done but other consequences there will be nonetheless. And you are experiencing them right now. Except you blame everyone else.
Where is the event held? Is it at an educational institution? Who is responsible for paying the insurance? These are considerations you don't have to worry yourself with. Others do.
This doesn't make sense. When Sam agreed to speak at William and Mary, was she informed that she was expected to debate with RenEv? Or did she find that out later, after she already said she would do it? If it is the latter, this seems pretty unethical of the organizers.
Punk; I've admitted what I said was wrong. Repeatedly. Both myself and the organizer of the event have tried to do everything possible to make it so both sam and i can be there. frankly, I think having a male feminist/self identified evangelicial christain there as the only opposition to the arguments Jill & I will present would be sad. sam's presence there would be good. I also think my presence there would be good. I'd like us both to be there. And honestly, if the organizer were to univite me due to my "truck" statement, I'd understand. But really, let us not pretend that I'm the only one who has ever made shocking or violent statements. As I've said previously, I've seen a lot, and documented a lot, and there have been some very REAL threats made towards me as opposed to my statement, some of them even made by Sam herself. I have the proof, and yet, I am not using it to try and have her thrown out of any events.
Now, I've looked at IP's. Feel free, if you are going to comment on my blog...again...to use your usual nomme de plume.
X:
"This doesn't make sense. When Sam agreed to speak at William and Mary, was she informed that she was expected to debate with RenEv? Or did she find that out later, after she already said she would do it? If it is the latter, this seems pretty unethical of the organizers."
X- I think, and I cannot swear to it, the organizer would be the one to know, that she was told she's be there with Jill B and they were looking for another person to be there with Jill to represent that side. I ended up being that person (for now anyway).
When Sam agreed to speak at William and Mary, was she informed that she was expected to debate with RenEv? Or did she find that out later, after she already said she would do it? If it is the latter, this seems pretty unethical of the organizers.
Actually, the question should be whether, when Sam agreed to speak at William and Mary, did she inform the organizers that she had preconditions for her agreement?
If Sam had insisted on being able to determine who could NOT represent the other side of the debate (RE in this instance), and the organizers deliberately ignored those preconditions, then we should question the ethics of the debate organizers.
If not, then we can conclude that Sam cannot be trusted to fulfill her promises. In fact, Sam's personal animosity toward Ren apparently is more valuable than her ability to advocate a point of view.
So, "Punk" (if that is indeed your real nom de internet, and we all know it is not), do words only matter when they're spoken by people you name as enemies and don't like, while Sam Berg gets a free pass for describing sex workers as "hot, bi-sexee, and will fuck and suck anything for money" or "hanging from poles like painted negroes in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts".
You brushed this question aside, but it needs an answer if you want to be taken seriously.
What raven said.
And, really, give me a break, "unethical:" people make last minute changes and additions all the time, events work like that, you know? Surely Sam knew she was going to be debating -someone-, and chances were good it wasn't going to be someone she had warm fuzzy feelings about?
Look, if she doesn't want to face RE, then she can back out. Throwing a tantrum after the fact because ooo not THAT person, she might push me under a truck, well not really but I just don't -like- her--I'm sorry; was someone talking about "professionalism?" You deal with it. Jesus.
"Where is the event held? Is it at an educational institution? Who is responsible for paying the insurance? These are considerations you don't have to worry yourself with. Others do"
Punk:
this is a smokescreen. none of these (legitimate) issues are in play. the organizers want her there but Sam Berg wants her out.
Now, specially since its a public university, there are some first amendment issues at play. If the State decides to accommodate Sam Berg, it cannot use Bergs safety considerations as a pretext when the real issue is silencing.
The courts will probably use a "rational person" standard to determine if Rens statements constitute an actual threat, and I very much doubt it would. So once you take the "threat" of the table, you're left with a very plausible (but, admittedly, not slam dunk) argument that a public school engaged in censorship...ie, a 1st amendment violation.
Personally, I think we should all be concerned when self-described liberation movements engage in censorship. We all know where that leads. Just ask the Cubans.
I'm so sorry to hear this.
I have a suggestion: Write two essays.
One is an essay to send to the panel that they might read aloud in your absence.
The second is a letter to the NY Times explaining your position and how you feel it is unfair that you've been uninvited.
Renegade Evolution, you have looked at IP's and you say that I should use my usual nomme de plume. You have looked up IP's connected to my comments and you are very sure that my pseudonym is not my usual one and that I'm really somebody else using a fake pseudonym. You are very sure because you would like it to be true. If it wasn't true then that would mean that several people have something to say about your conduct. Some of your conduct online has been unacceptable to some people. Your conduct says something about you not always what you want it so say. People make up their own minds. If pinning this comment on somebody else is very important to you then that is what you will do. and if it's more important than taking any notice of what I am saying then you will take no notice of what I'm saying. You don't have to take any notice. I want to say before I go that I think publishing IP's even though you think you've preserved privacy is actually hostile and makes you look hostile. It can also be seen as threatening because you could be a way of saying that i'll publish the whole thing if I decide that your privacy isn't important to me anymore. All in all you are not exactly showing that you can be trusted so your promise that you wont be violent looks less believable. I'm not saying that you are a violent person or that I think you would be violent towards another woman but stuff that you say and do on this post and the one above don't exactly do much for the credibility of your promises.
Punk: Truth is, I could really care less what one of the UK posse you are. You obviously know enough about the history here in bloglandia to have been around for awhile, under various names I suspect, and have shown, say on Questioning Transphobia as well as here, for instance, your own ability to produce bile. Are you Witchy? Maybe, maybe not. There is a style to your writing and arguments you present here that are very similar to her work, so it wouldn't surprise me. Maybe you're not. Shrug. Point is, sure, my behavior isn't always sterling. Neither is anyone elses. I've made statements that could be construed as threatening. Fine. I've actually been threatend, by more than one radical feminist. Which can be proved to be exactly that- Threats, and not a damn word of condemnation out of you for that, or pretty much anyone else out of the merry little crew...and that my dear, says a whole lot.
Really, what DO you think about that? I don't actually expect an answer, because me being actually threatend isn't the same, right?
all this condemnation out of me for my behavior and none for anyone elses...I mean, I assume you can read...that hardly speaks well to your nutrality on the issue...and if my words affect my credibility...well, everyone elses words should affect theirs as well- but you seem not to want to mention that.
Why?
And cry me a river about the partial IP address. When people like you start admitting and recognizing that I was actually threatend, opposed to making some rash statements, your concern will have a bit more weight. If I was of the mind to publish the whole thing, I would have....but that's just not my style. Unlike other people, I actually think folk are entitled to some privacy.
Punk, Ren is aware of the fact that quite a few radfems don't like her. I don't think she's ever tried to whitewash that.
She (and I) think you're probably Witchy because you sound like Witchy.
Incidentally, notice how I talk to you like you're an adult as well as a real person? That gets results with reasonable people - people like Ren and I. Running around screaming names and abuse at people just doesn't work quite as well. It's great as a two year old because you don't know any better, but you at least imply you're an adult. Maybe you should shift your tone accordingly? You're not a two-year old with some leeway to lay on the floor and kick your legs, nor is this high school where you get to be the popular mean girl.
If you don't intend to engage Ren (or I on my blog) as a means to get results, why are you even here? If you want to get results, try a dialogue. This is where you actually pay attention to what the person you'd like to scream at is saying, and respond to that, not some sock puppet you invented in your head to stand in for real people you clearly hate.
oh my god, "punk," could you -possibly- be any more of a loser? put down the damn shovel already, for pity's sake.
"Some of your conduct online has been unacceptable to some people."
Here's the problem with using that argument on Ren's blog. Ren allows comments that oppose her point of view and that call her out for her behavior on line. I know because I've done it. Ren allows those comments, responds to those comments and has a record of apologizing when she's gone too far.
Which is far better behavior than we've seen in recent days all over the blogosphere. Any one of us can screw up online and piss people off. That's human. I don't expect perfection from bloggers and neither should you.
However, when a blogger specifically apologizes for a statement, it is totally deceptive for others to keep repeating it without including that apology.
Punk doesn't actually deny being Witchy, does she?
I have just posted about this and I was absolutely livid to hear about what Sam has been doing.
"Some of your conduct online has been unacceptable to some people."
Oh yeah, this.
Some of your behavior has been unacceptable to some people, Punk, or do you not consider trans women to be people? To not have the right to find you unacceptable?
Don't forget about the Sam Berg question, either - why is she allowed to say whatever she wants about Ren and other sex workers, no matter how misogynist her statements but Ren has to be taken to task repeatedly for one statement that she's repeatedly apologized for and explained the context behind.
Or the other radfem bloggers who have posted their own revenge fantasies about pornography. Didn't Debs describe a perfect porn as killing everyone involved in it?
How about we throw the net wider - how Amy Winter hypocritically uses body shaming against trans women while simultaneously talking about how body shaming against overweight people is wrong? How Twisty spends so much energy attacking femininity? How Heart posts news that was first posted only a day or two earlier by a woman of color, even with the same examples, yet somehow never seems to give credit to those women of color?
Is there enough room in these comments to describe all the ways that many radfems who find Ren Ev's conduct to be "unacceptable" engage in unacceptable, even racist, ablist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic actions?
You don't have any moral superiority here.
Punk doesn't actually deny being Witchy, does she?
Notice that too, did you?
Oh, just get off the freakin' cross and spare us the whining, Witchy...ahhhh, I mean Punk; a simple "It wasn't me" would have sufficed.
Why would we speculate that Pink is indeed Witchy, you ask?? Oh, I don't know..the fact that the two styles of posts are exactly alike?? That Witchy has a history of invading other sex-pozzie blogs with drive-by crackbacks??? That she posted basically the same damn thing over at her blog??
Either that is indeed Witchy, or Punk's one hell of a sockpuppet.
Doesn't matter, anyway.....any reader who knows about the history of the whole story of the battle between Ren and the radfems knows who're the aggressors and who're the victims.
Anthony
The whole alleging to be in danger thing is smoke and mirrors. In danger of what? Of Ren? Ren will be sitting at a table in an auditorium full of people, with campus security either there or very easily accessible. Ren is speaking as a member of SWOP East, which is a legally incorporated 501c3 non profit that happens to have policies against violence. Obviously if we, SWOP East felt Ren were a danger to commit violence against another speaker just for the sake of it, she would not be speaking under our banner nor representing our org. No speaker from any position is in any danger of violence from either Ren, Myself or any other SWOP East member.
If speakers are withdrawing they are doing so for reasons other than the threat of violence and using the alleged threat to mask their own motives.
Jill Brenneman
Executive Director
SWOP East
Punk, you care about a debate in the US at William and Mary so much that you have posted this many lengthy posts for what reason?
Why would this matter so much to you?
I don't know who you are nor do I care but it does strike as really odd someone from the UK would care this much about a debate on another continent 5 or so time zones away to invest this much time in challenging Ren unless they had a personal vendetta against Ren. It isn't as though you came to my blog to challenge me or to SWOP East's blogs and websites to challenge the org.
Punk your actions speak much louder than your words. Your level of concern and bandwidth expended on this issue is out of proportion to the circumstances. Sister Sarah in eighth grade was right. I would get to use my Shakespeare as an adult. Punk, The lady doth protest too much,
Muy extraño
Priceless:
http://laurelin.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/silencing-is/
did she or did she not just describe the behavior of several of her own allies????
"Priceless:
http://laurelin.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/silencing-is/
Keywords here:
"Silencing is
using sexualised language to humiliate feminists who are critiquing your pleasures
Silencing is not
the same as having one’s actions critiqued by feminists."
OK, so "feminists" (and we can guess who that means according to the definitions of Laurelin and company) can be silenced, but cannot be the ones doing the silencing, by definition.
Some pigs really are more equal, I guess.
Just a bit. Like:
"using sexualised language to humiliate feminists who are critiquing your pleasures, or disingenuously aligning them with the right wing for the same reason."
For example:
"hot, bi-sexee, and will fuck and suck anything for money" or "hanging from poles like painted negroes in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts".
Or this:
"spreading taunts, hatred and abuse at those who would speak against you, or those whom you perceive to be speaking against you."
For example:
"‘Transwomen’ are usually white and male. It is wholly offensive of any white male person to lump his self in with black women and prostituted women, and to appropriate the language of civil rights - ‘marginalized’ - in order to increase the sexual excitement he derives from inhabiting those identities. But then, neither black women, prostituted women or prostituted black women would expect white males to understand this."
Or this:
"approving these tactics, compliance with them, cowardice."
For example:
http://laurelin.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/silencing-is/
Or this:
"drowning out the speech of others with your self-importance, mockery and jeering at dissenters, misrepresenting their views."
For example:
http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/im-no-longer-female-apparently/#comment-30644
Or this:
"assuming the ultimate priority of one’s own speech."
For example:
http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/im-no-longer-female-apparently/
Oh, yeah, and we shouldn't forget how one of them threatened to out you if you kept talking about them.
Some of your conduct online has been unacceptable to some people.
Whereas the radical feminists who trash Ren always conduct themselves perfectly, eh? What was that about a bloodstained rug? What was that about Ren deserving to be raped? Fuck off. *Your* conduct online is unacceptable to *me*.
Here is my response. I hope helps you a bit with the West Coast attention.
Callie
dear Laurelin:
"silencing" is neither "humiliating" nor "critique." "silencing" is "using one's influence unfairly to make the other person stop speaking." and, you're still talking. So is Sam, who made the decision not to go debate Ren her very own self. ergo, you're not "silenced."
I know this is difficult. In other news, "fisking" is not a lecherous pornsick male's fantasy involving an airport metal detector and a radical damsel I mean feminist; "wanking" on the Internets in the context of "stupid people thrashing again" is not "literally spoojing on the keyboard, again with fantasies of hapless radical feminists."
And the London Underground is not a political movement.
Jeez, Ren, I missed all of this. :(
I'm glad it's sorting out, but what a shit of a thing to have to deal with in the first place.
You think being disinvited was silencing?
Just wait until S-1959 passes...
Where one woman's truth-sayer becomes another woman's "homegrown terrorist" to be thrown in the slammer.
Post a Comment