"There are a lot of lies being told about me right now."
Join the crowd...but go to the back of the line, there are a lot of people way ahead of you.
"I’m used to that because it comes with the pro-woman activism that kooky kid called life dropped into my lap like an unexploded bomb, but it’s rather concentrated at the moment. Most of it is nonsense, like that I’m trying to get the pro-sex work group kicked off campus (I’m not) or that I’m afraid to debate sex workers (I’m not) or that I said RenEv made threats personally to me (she didn’t and I didn’t say she did), but there is one very serious bit of business tucked into the ever-heaping distortions that I feel must be addressed."
Funny, I'm used to it too, as a woman who does sex work but doesn't sing the right tune. But you know, it's my choice that I take responsbility for, rather than it just falling in my lap like that...isn't it not tragic by comparison? And isn't it concentrated, for all of us? Now, let us address this part "Ren making threats"...you deny saying that you said I threatened you personally...which your are correct! I never did threaten you! Yet, why then, did the organizers of the event say you, oh, pretty much flat out, called them on the phone as soon as you heard I would be there and claimed that I had said I wanted to push you under a truck? Sorry, their collective word has way more credit with me these days than yours. Why have you, all about bloglandia, spoken at length about my threats? And woo, ever-heaping distortions? You've got a lot of nerve. I think, you know, if you'd said from the beginning something like "Ren gives me the creeps, I think she's creepy. I find her too creepy/sinister/"porny" whatever to want to be in the same room with her" a lot of people, all around, would have nodded sagely and said: "You know, I can dig that." But...no...there had to be mass drama staring diva Sam! I mean, what, were they literally supposed to change the rotation pattern of the earth for you? That's what it's starting to sound like.
But yes, let's address things!
True enough, Sam never emailed me personally. Never said she did. Couldn't even manage a thank you when G'berg's security was fubar a week or so back and I was nice enough to mention it. But how thin does she think the bs gets before people see right through it? Humm, all things considered, hard to say. But sure enough, she did, by her own admission and words over there at Witchy's Academy of Charm threaten some woman named Miriam...Hummm, who orginally commented under and had in her bio information awhile back the name "Miriam"? That's right. Who had an LJ that was combed and inspected while "file gathering" by "several rad fems" where the user name, plain as day, was Miriam? Right once again...Me! Stormy was more than happy to point that out on occasion when the G'berg thing all went down. Apparently, around that time, someone who had the misfortune of also being named Miriam attempted to join G'berg. I kept the full monty, as it were, to myself because guess what? This other Miriam wanted no part of this....but enough bullshit is enough, and she no longer cares. Not only did Sam think this Miriam was me (as her own words will show), she attacked this Miriam verbally, then refused (and still refuses apparently) to own up to her mistake and is lying about it.
Roll the print!
Now, some history for you. Pony-who as you can see from the very Punkass threads that Sam listed, has attacked me a few times...in such ways as insulting my appearance and alledging I said a whole bunch of shit I never said. I demanded proof on her part that I had said these things, she never could provide this proof because, gee, I never said any such things! Proof? Certain Special Radical Feminists don't need no stinkin' proof! She then tried to get me to "kennel the dogs", but sorry, I was, even at that time, sick of certain Rad Fems lying about shit and distorting and spinning truth, much like they are doing now. Pony, a member of G'berg, posted the following in their Super Secret Forums:
"I believe Ren Ev is porn marketing. There are many ways to market. What she’s doing is called astro turfing. I wrote about it in that other thread. This type of marketing gets those people who don’t like ads, but don’t get that ads can take many forms, and one of the most successful is to make the AD seem like a program, or an article, or a blog. She’s a front, something like BitchPhD is. That’s another type of advertising. Ren Ev’s being paid to popularize porn. No marketing initiative would ignore that type of marketing and the big porn market is now being managed by Time Warner and it’s peers with all their marketing engine. This astro turfing is far the most effective nowadays, when people are sick of ads, marketers can still use methods like this to slide by. All those people who are drawn to REs blog, daily grow more and more accustomed to seeing her as just another performer. She’s popularizing it. Taking the sting ot of it. Apparently she wrote about ass to mouth recently. No problem. Just use listerine. And they listen to her. She’s marketing. She’s archived by google. She comes up on searches for words and subject matter used in everyday searches. And that’s the point of her blog." -Pony
This information was left in a comment, in my blog, on a post I made on my disgust with the Weelock Slide Show. When the whole world blew up because I refuted the claim (I mean, if it's true, I'd sure as hell like my damn check from the porn overlords already). Concerned g'berg parties requested that I remove the statement...so I did, both from the post and from the comment thread where it was orginally left. But since we're going for truth here, it, like other zombies, will be brought forth from the grave! There were many accusations about me attempting to gain a false G'berg Membership, hacking the site, so on so forth (which never happened), the initial threat made against me was made by Stormy, and guess what...all that is there for the reading- right here. Humm, also something about my name being Miriam in there too. Now, as much as I hate to do this, I am sick of this fucking shit, and sick of the lies, and sick of the spin, so alas, I feel I have to say it. I do recall that the comment with Pony's statement in it was left on my blog by soulhuntre, and he was told of it by a female friend who was a member of G'berg. Was she the same person who wrote this blog? I have no fucking idea. I hate to mention him because I think, personally, it's a shitty thing to do, but SH is a big boy and can handle himself, plus, with his sense of humor, he might find it funny. Now of course there was much speculation about me being this person, or an ally of mine being this person...because surely no woman on g'berg would ever leave, get disgusted with it, so on and oh, be nice to me...right? Please do see the Witcy Thread linked just above for a few women who did just that.
But anyway, let us return to Sam, and her threat towards Miriam...the Full Story!
You can read at Witchy's what Sam said to Miriam, the actual threat (frankly I'm amused she posted it herself), the part she wants you to see for spin value and all, but here's another key, very important part...
Hi Sam,
----- here, previous member of GBerg and formerly known as --------.
I understand there are lots of bad feelings going around the blogosphere
lately and I understand and accept that you and others at GBerg may not
particularly care for me these days. Nonetheless, I do hope you take
this email seriously as I assure you what am about to say is absolutely true.
While I have digressed to angry, oh, I don't know, perhaps insults and
sarcasm on my blog regarding certain rad fem bloggers, I have never
lied and I have never spoken ill of you, Sam.
This morning I received a very worried email from "Miriam," in
response to an email I guess you sent her yesterday (below.) This "Miriam" is
actually a woman who has commented only occasionally at my blogs and we have
exchanged the occasional email on certain feminist topics. Apparently
she attempted to join GBerg sometime last year but I believe she has never
posted there to date. Perhaps that is how you came by her email?
She was very upset by your email -- who wouldn't be, I suppose -- as
she is not up on all the Blog War Drama and had no clue what you were
referring to.
Putting 2 and 2 together I think you are assuming this "Miriam" is
Renegade Evolution, as I learned on that gigantic thread at Witchy's that Ren
used to go by the name Miriam also.
I assure you, the woman you emailed yesterday is NOT Renegade
Evolution, nor has any relationship with any feminist bloggers other than myself. She doesn't even have a blog.
I told her I would email you in attempt to clear this up as she is
pretty shaken by this.
I think well of you enough, Sam, to feel you would never intentionally
hurt/upset a woman in this way and I do believe you sent this email to "my Miriam" in error.
(As far as what other drama/issues surround you and other Bloggers,
that is
your business and I would rather not discuss that.)
I ask you please not contact "my Miriam" further -- except maybe with a
brief email explaining you mistook her for someone else and not to
worry?
I will keep this information between you and I and "my Miriam", as I
have no desire to be drawn into any more blog drama than I have been in the
past.
If you wish to contact Ren, you can find her email addy on her blog, I
think.
Thank you, (name removed for privacy of someone who wanted no part of this)
Hi -----,
If she's not the same Miriam then I apologize.
sincere warm wishes to you,
Sam
Right then. What, exactly, does that play out like for anyone with a brain? Sam, threatening some woman she FULLY BELIEVED was ME...and now she's trying to spin it. Sorry, the record is way too scratched for that, Sam. Now I know the laws and rules of this oppressive and dasterdly society stacked against you in this mortal coil seem to be beyond your grasp, but let me explain something very simply for you. An analogy (woo anal) if you will:
Say I don't like Jack. I think, maybe, though I can't prove it, that Jack snuck in my window and went through my panty drawer. So I pick up a gun and shoot at Jack...only, I didn't hit Jack, I hit Bill, who looks/sounds/resembles/was standing near Jack in some manner. I am still responsible for threatening to harm Jack, and shooting Bill. So see Sam, you threatened two women, one just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That makes you no less responsible (there's that word you hate) for threatening me, however, or threatening her. The real deal. Looks like you just won the protector of women lottery there, doesn't it?
And yep, sure enough, this info was given to me by someone because your lies and spin have just become too thick. Gonna out her too? Like you did to Constance, and this other Miriam (I never used her name), and you treatened to do to me? Hell, keep it up and maybe we can get a class action law suit for harassment, defimation, slander and menacing together! Yep, she wanted to keep it all on the d/l, sure enough, and it was tough for her not to, but gee, sometimes even people other than me figure enough is enough.
Listen, Sam, and all her little friends...I never attempted to join g'berg, never hacked it, blah blah blah. When your super secret shit is showing up in goddamn Google Cache, maybe it's not that the world is out to get you, but rather your security sucks and people are finding it when doing searches on other topics related to them....like happened a few weeks ago and I was nice enough to inform you of it. And this whole "oh, we're so oppressed and you are the oppressors and hence we can lie, spin, defame, threaten and whatever else because since we're so oppressed we're not responsible for anything" tripe? It's real old, in fact, it's rotten. And come to think of it, not very feminist either. After all, if women are to be viewed as equals and treated as equals and given rights and autonomy as equals, they have to act like fucking adults and take some responsibility for their actions! Try it sometime!
Now then, keep spinning and denying if you want, but you scared the fuck out of this other woman, and it's pretty obvious from your own words there that you thought you were threatening me. But see, I'm not scared of you. Not your view points, not how well you can debate, and not your threats. Now, you can keep your soft spots for us "fucked up women" or whatever, but stop lying, denying, threatening and pretending you are some great victim when your hands are actually quite dirty. All this poor beset upon Sam crap (and it's exactly that) might be something your boot-lickers buy, but the rest of us do not live in a world where the sun rises and sets with the Greek Epic of Sam Berg and all nod along with every notion, idea, or lie that she espouses.
And sure, I know no one in the elite chosen one coterie of Genderberg will ever own up, condemn, or see the actual bullshit here (lalalalalala who can't hear what again? They're so oppressed, something other than themselves made them do it! lalalalala)...
But that is the actual truth.
And you know, Daisy is right...if y'all are the warrior women who are going to be facing down the Patriarchy (what, with their guns and stuff)...but an assertive, aggressive 5'2" whore scares the hell out of you? We're screwed.
Sincerely-
Ren
"I can declare myself the god-emperor of Rome, but it doesn't make it so"
Update! Can they read, or are they just that fuckin' pathetic? "Busted" indeed.
Let us refute these stupid, selective alligations!
-On BB's site, I suggest ONE performer, who had been in the industry, might have choosen money over her own safety, yet what happened to her was horrible.
-I didn't ask anyone to do anything for me. Evil mind control powers, hummm, don't have those.
-Delphyne...the mental gymnastics are amazing, really. You get a 9.58 from the Russian judge. You asked, and if you look closely at the WW cluster fuck, I offered to email V the info I had, but you were all so busy bitching and slamming up a storm, I guess everyone missed that. And really, considering the lies Sam lets fly on her forum, why would I go out of my way to help her? You want to know who the email orginated from? I'm sure all you'll have to do is wait 24 hours or so and Sam will out, condemn, and possibly threaten her too. Then spin it to "Oh, I'm so oppressed!"
-Aranxta, hey cupcake? I ever outed or threatened to out anyone? No. Honors such as those rest on your side of the fence. And superhero? Shit, I thought I was the villain!
Waa waa waa my ass hurts, but shit, I'm not responsible for it in the least!!!! Busted indeed. And sad. That of course, would be directed at you all. Somebody kick the stereo, it's playing the same old tired whiny tune, and I'm sure we can expect another solo from the diva herself.

107 comments:
(I mean, if it's true, I'd sure as hell like my damn check from the porn overlords already).
And I wanna hear more about this new Illuminati as applied to...Bitch PhD???? WHAT is she selling? They lost me with that one.
Sam, Witchy, Heart, Pony, etc: the black helicopter crowd of feminism.
I'm patenting that! All who steal it, must link! :P
See??? This is exactly what I meant when I mentioned being scared of ever needing help from these people. Going off half-cocked (oh noes! teh cock!) on someone with the same fucking common username? Going off on anyone - at all - in a threatening enough manner to scare her? I know I shouldn't be astounded by anything anymore, but damn. They care deeply for women.
Argh. I'm going to go saw some copper in frustration.
What irks me about this (among other things, natch) is how an innocent woman was frightened by Sam's threat -- and that Sam, for all her feminism and what I would THINK would be concern for such a woman -- never contacted this woman again to allay her fears nor offered her an apology.
Futher, as Maggie has posted on her blog (don't know the link but she apparently runs with the GBerg crowd), Sam has been instantly forgiven for her choice of words to this innocent woman -- yet, you Ren, are still being held to the Infamous Truck quote (which by the way, was never an active "threat" at all as in "I WILL PUSH you ..." but a passive statement "I HOPE you fall ..."
Sheesh.)
This whole thing makes me angry.
You betcha I'm referaining from letting loose a whole slew of expletive laden comments at this crowd -- and with good reason.
--Kim, aka Bastante Kim, or way back in the day, as the dreaded Kaka Mak.
Way to go girl! I've been lurking on your site for quite some time and have thought you may be a bit paranoid or overly sensitive. Whoa, was I wrong. You did yourself proud.
Well, it all goes back to that beset upon heroine of the woman tribe crap I mentioned that they all seem to be infected with. They can do whatever and say whatever they want then WOOOO, OPPRESSED so they can act like they have all the responsibility of a two year old who spills some milk. It's irresponsible, it's juvinile, it's dangeous, and further more...it's fucking pathetic. Sam, Witchy, Maggie, The crew over at Hearts...pfft. Whatever. I mean, if we're to believe Sam (like that will EVER fucking happen) when all this shit went down, there were no less than THREE "porny" people involved, aware, whatever, with the name Miriam, who were ALL accosting, talking about, pissed at Genderberg. Riiiight. And this "we're the defenders of women and will SMASH the patriarchy crap?" WHAT THE FUCK EVER. We have Sam scaring the crap out of and threatening some woman who had nothing to do with anything while trying most likely to threaten me..(or, perhaps, this OTHER SUPER SECERET MIRIAM...either way, threats are threats, and if she didn't think that gee, I might get the impression that it might be me she was talking about...what with the OTHER THREAT, very similiar and all, made to me BY HER BUDDY, Stormy, who knew I went by Miriam- she is- point blank, an idiot, who intimidated (or tried to) at least two women....
Yet...wooo...that creepy little rough sex lovin' sadist who swears a lot and threatened...or didn't...or did....or didn't but she's just so bad Jesus cries at night whore Ren is such an unhinged lunatic that poor wittle defenseless downtrodden Sam just CAN'T, CAN'T be in a debate with her...and thus is was a set up, the organizers were plotting, and they should remburse her and appoligize, dammit! DIVA DIVA! Fuck, I wanna know if Sam can sing like Celine at this point. And we're supposed to buy that these delicate flowers can BRING DOWN THE PATRIARCHY???
Please. Taking down the pat isn't going to me womb mojo and womyn loving womyn and getting intimidated by agressive, mouthy sex wprkers with fake boobs or tut-tuting a sex positives. Guns, blood, money, political power, and humm, VIOLENCE might be necessary. Yeah, so sure, bring me back from the dead centuries from now when they're ready for that...could be my alleged sadism and insanity and violence COULD be helpful....
It would be absolutely laughable if there weren't real threats involved here, against real women, some far less "guilty" than others...
And for Mags, who just wishes we would leave them alone blah blah blah....here's a theory: Trouble, lies, slander....don't start none, won't be none, and quit fucking calling us out. Don't throw your guns unless you want a response...how hard is THAT to grasp?
God, Goddess and all the little dieties know I'd rather be fucking (for money on film or for free and fun) or wanking off to rough porn than dealing with this fucking weepy ass I'm So Oppresed bullshit...
But this was just too fucking much.
Jenny- Heh, any paranoia I have, I have with reason...
but as Min mentioned a few posts back...I know where the bodies are burried. And zombies are COOL!
First, Ren, I'm glad you're setting the record straight.
Second, there is not a chance in hell that the "players" of that group, who are drunk on their power (despite their illusions of being powerless), are going to hear this, though I'm sure some individuals who read them will. "Ends justify the means" people, they are, and they don't really care about women. What they care about is the buzz they get from being part of a group of like-minded women and from the illusion that they are accomplishing anything useful.
Third, I am beginning to think that Witchy and Sam and those others have got to be plants from the Right - and if they're not, then they're doing the Right's work, nevertheless. Because they are derailing the feminist movement very nicely. I don't mean to say that you defending yourself is derailing anything, but it's interesting to me that whenever we seem to be making progress in addressing any particular issue or even acknowledging it, this group throws out the lies and the hate and gets us all roiled up in bullshit. So now Sam and her cronies have done everything they can to ruin an educational moment, one that by Karla's and your and Jill's assessment was pretty positive. Those others need to try to poison that, I guess. You are exactly right that it's about being a Diva and needing the Drama.
(And I know you don't identify as a feminist, but I see you as part of my feminist movement, if that makes any kind of sense.)
Boy, but these ladies sure could give Richard Nixon master classes in cover-up and paranoia, can they???
So let me read this right: Sam makes a direct physical threat at "Miriam", blasting nuke emails at anyone within shouting distance of the GenderBorg Collective. A totally independent and unrelated "Miriam" receives one of Sam's nukes, and promptly freaks out. A concerned friend sends a respectful letter to Sam explaining the mix-up and politely asks for an apology and a redaction....and that piffy response of "If you are not the 'Miriam" I was addressing, then I apologize" was the best she could get?!?!?!
And of course, Sam's gonna get a free pass for this from the rest of the Collective, because when it comes to smearing and smacking their critics, they can do no wrong....and innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire is, I suppose, an unfortunate but acceptable byproduct in the Global War on Evol Radfem-Hating Sluts.
BTW, Kim: the reason why Bitch PhD is on the GenderBorg's shit list is because she was once a writer or something for Suicide Girls, the original "alt dot porn" website that was recently revealed to be not so "alt" and women-centered at all. Of course, if Bitch PhD had wrote for Tristan Taormino, it still would have made little difference; she still would be targeted as a deviant and a heretic for not towing the GenderBorg line.
Never thought that I'd say this ever, but maybe "feminazi" might be slightly more than just a general smear against feminists by that fat-ass bigoted Oxycontin addict named Limbaugh. This group fits that description to the letter.
And no, if you are reading this, GenderBorgians, I will not take that back. Just bite me.
Anthony
PF: Later in the week I'm gonna design a flag for feminist expatria (as Jill B has joined me there) come on by, we have cookies and beer!
And this amuses me...I actually giggled:
"Gawd, look at the language that RenEv uses, so totally pornified:
wank worthy fantasy
cerebral wanking tissues ready"
-Stormy
Wooooo how crass and naughty! Clutch those pearls any tighter and they will revert to sand! Nice ladies don't TALK like that...
Well, for fucksake...I guess in the interests of not offending anyones delicate ears, I can't quote Ice T again, can I?
Hummm....say it loud. I'm pornified, and I'm proud!
Heh, someone wanna do a compare and contrast between my vile porno degrading talk and....oh, The Heroine of the Womyn???
My question is, why is Genderberg so secretive and "protective"? This is the stated purpose of the website, "Genderberg is intended to be a website resource for prostitution, pornography, trafficking and sexual exploitation activists and researchers like myself, S.M. Berg.
I've been writing and speaking about these issues for a few years so I finally made a place to collect the letters, articles, and various bits of anti-pornstitution activism I've done (the S.M. Berg section) and have seen done by others (news, resources, and the forums.)
With the contributions of other feminist activists, the Genderberg forums have developed into an online community that supports and encourages individual and collective actions to raise awareness about the very victim-full crime of prostitution.
Please take what you can use from this website and use it."
How is one to fulfill the purpose of the website when only certain pre-approved people can actually become members? Is it really meant to make a site that is "safe for women" or is it to hide their own ugliness and hatred?
I'm miriam-acus!
What irks me about this (among other things, natch) is how an innocent woman was frightened by Sam's threat -- and that Sam, for all her feminism and what I would THINK would be concern for such a woman -- never contacted this woman again to allay her fears nor offered her an apology.
Futher, as Maggie has posted on her blog (don't know the link but she apparently runs with the GBerg crowd), Sam has been instantly forgiven for her choice of words to this innocent woman -- yet, you Ren, are still being held to the Infamous Truck quote (which by the way, was never an active "threat" at all as in "I WILL PUSH you ..." but a passive statement "I HOPE you fall ..."
Sheesh.)
Double standard, that's all it is, plain and simple. These people are so fucking transparent it's not even funny.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... they make me feel gross.
"I am beginning to think that Witchy and Sam and those others have got to be plants from the Right - and if they're not, then they're doing the Right's work, nevertheless. Because they are derailing the feminist movement very nicely."
Excellently put, PlainsFeminist.
Very good and important point.
Ironic, isn't it -- and very sad.
I'll read this later, it's a short day for me at work, but I do absolutely greatly appreciate your use of "rebuttal". Thank you so very much.
And now I feel guilty, because I am very pro free speech, and part of me feels like I just stepped on a rose.
You rock. Best wishes.
I'm still puzzled where your pornified language comes in. Whenever you're talking issues (most of the time)I don't get the porny-thing at all, an occasional 4 letter word but I do that...The only time the language gets raunchy is when you're talking about porn, and well...yeah, duh. So where is this saucy talk they seem to keep dwelling on? Or are my delicate Southern sensibilities just filtering it out?
BTW...your rant? made me make a bowl of popcorn and read it again.
uh, okay. So, now she's saying she -wasn't- concerned about you threatening her. So...what the fuck was her problem, then, exactly? The organizers changed the program on her, and that's TERRIBLY UPSETTING? Life must be -interesting- for her, I gotta say.
and oh goodie, pony's back.
but yeah, seriously, she's like the Lyndon LaRouche of the radical feminist set.
When your super secret shit is showing up in goddamn Google Cache,
wait. wait. WAIT.
...
then
-falls on floor laughing-
oh god oh god. All that dwama about zomg SPIES and...?
jesus christ. hateful, batshit AND dumb, what a combination.
"I have a gub."
o jesus...
Jenny- The stated reason for the genderberg security is to protect sexual abuse/rape survivors who comment there from undue stress or a violation of thier privacy...which hey, cool, that's the nice thing to do...
Except when you and your asslickers run around threatening to out other people.
I mean seriously...if I have all these evil minions and malicious intent blah blah blah and I really wanted to hurt these people or bring them down, do they think I couldn't have paid off a hacker to do just that?
But, nope, because I am not a chicken shit scab who believes in actually threatening/outing people then pretends to be the poor helpless victim. They should be thankful for that.
Re: the update:
OK...so now I guess that the GenderBorg party line at the moment now is that the woman who did set up the Radical Feminist Terrorism blog (and who leaked the original post about Ren's "porn marketing skills) is either: (1) a paid employee of Ren's who lied her way into the Genderberg forums for Ren's dasterdly motives; or (2) Ren herself lying through her teeth again.
Uh. huh.
And, not a word about what they did to The Other Miriam, either. Figures.
Anyone for black helicopters and Illuminati/Bilderburger conspiracies???
Also...with all those sockpuppets at her side (Witchy, Heart, Laurelin), why can't Sam just publish her own damn blog and tell her own story her own damn self without the proxies releasing her faxes??? Not even Jim Rome's "Clones" showed that much closed worship.
Anthony
Yeah, I am, as has been noted, a fan of private spaces in general, never said otherwise, I don't believe.
But um if your cache shows up -right there in google-,
a) you may want to be a little more careful about promising how sooper seekrit safe you are to the people participating
b) maybe next time you could, you know, check for that sort of thing, before starting a witch hunt for the ZOMG LEAKER. i mean in this case apparently there -was- someone, but um.
c) and what Ren said. dude, if you believe in privacy then you believe in privacy; it isn't "something we grant to the people we approve of and can take away at a moment's notice if we decide they're now the Enemy." That's not "safe." That's the opposite of "safe." That's, like, a cult.
Jenny –
Actually, Genderberg didn't used to be quite so super-secret. It used to be that all but one "inner sanctum" forum was readable by the public, albeit, only members could actually post there. As they got more and more paranoid, they closed more and more forums to public view, until now almost the entire site is closed off and only one forum is for public consumption.
Its the increasing paranoia of Sam and company, I guess.
(1) a paid employee of Ren's who lied her way into the Genderberg forums for Ren's dasterdly motives; or (2) Ren herself lying through her teeth again.
oh dear weeping dicksplitting CHRIST on a skateboard. Paid, now? PAID?? because they're, what is it now, so VERY DANGEROUS AND IMPORTANT.
utterly delusional.
I think they are just precious. Really :)
It's like when you get a declawed cat all riled up and they his and swat with that ineffectual little paw.
I don't feel bad for them really - this is what they live for. They will get years of emotional mileage out of how the big conspiracy is out to get the,
I do like the "it's not libel if we only tell lies among ourselves and a bunch of strangers we let into a forum". Brilliant analysis, that.
p.s. And before anyone gets bent, my cat likes to be riled up.
Oh this is just rich! I have to say it now. How stupid are these people? I can’t believe that one of their own with a brain hasn’t jumped up and slapped the shit out of them or sent them back to remedial reading comprehension for this idiocy. Oh, wait, it seems that those with such intelligence left the hive before their brains also eroded into weeping piles of paranoid mush. Andrea, Kim, that truly was the smart, safe and sane thing to do.
I also love how no matter how many “Miriams” there are, no one wants to note that Sam actually threatened at least one of them.
The stupid and the denial both burn like acid. Oh, and Delphyne’s doing a great job of ignoring you Ren, like she swore she was going to do.
They’re like the Manson Family, with laptops instead of guns and knives.
Here’s how I see it:
Sam is an unstable, paranoid lying drama queen who is so fucked in the head she probably can’t even remove herself from the victim role at this point and should probably seek psychological treatment.
Maggie is like a young Scientologist who has seen the light, taken up the faith, and all the secrecy and indoctrination necessary to be a good little zealot and soldier. She sounds like something out of a war movie: “Trained and programmed to respond without thought or free will, Maggie, Rad Fem super weapon!”
Laurelin: I just want to know which one of the others is tying her up and administering hot wax to her nightly. I think the slave training and negative/positive reinforcement has worked, but her domme is a real asshole.
Witchy? She came here looking for a conversion, and when Ren rebuked that holy roller, she got pissy and even more passive aggressive than usual.
Stormy? Not well at all. She accuses Ren of being obsessed with Sam- when Ren has done a lot to avoid Sam but Sam keeps shoving shit and lies in her face, but hell, Stormy can’t comment anywhere on anything without mentioning or alluding to Ren. Oh, and there was that threat thing.
Heart, well, Heart is the only one I feel even remotely sympathetic for. She tries so hard to do good and be sweet, yet strong and powerful. I guess you can take the fundie and put her in feminism, but the fundie proper and prim church lady who can never speak what she really thinks and is forever in fear of being chastised or disciplined always stays at the core.
Satsuma, Arantxa and other occupants of the asylum? I’m not sure they hail from the planet we call earth.
And the rest of the sheep/cheerleaders are hardly worth mentioning.
Oh, and Ren. Yeah, she’s creepy and digs some weird shit, but she’s also a whole lot smarter than her detractors here, and a much better writer. She’s also more honest. They can call her as brainwashed, haha, pot, meet kettle, looking good in black, by the pat and pornified and whatever else they want, but the bottom line is, crude language and anal gangbangs aside, Ren is far more ethical than any of them. She’s never threatened anyone, after all, and that’s the important part. The problem with them is they’ve all isolated themselves and listened to the gospel of Dworkin so long that they’ve forgotten how to see other people as humans, see disagreement as part of the human condition, and appear to be waiting for an ark of some sort to deliver them from evil. They also don’t recognize that a lot of people amid their own ranks are the really scary ones who do actually threaten other people and silence and cause harm. That’s not feminism or any other social or political movement, it’s a cult. When will the kool-aid be served?
Oh, and as for the “superhero” comment? I bet Arantxa is her real name too.
min, get outta my brain. Couldn't have said it better...
They are also bemoaning that "we" just can't leave those poor little radfems alone, as true to our "sadistic" nature.
Well, who the fuck started it, again, as usual??? The rad camp.
They scare me more than any penis having carbon based life form ever has.
Ren:
I lurk sometimes, and I do think you can be mean, you do have a tag "suck my strap on in hell", but in this case, I think you're actually being way too nice. There is never any proof of anything, is there? You do back up everything, and never see proof of your horrible deeds and intent ever, or when you do, you own it. I've looked and looked, and I can't see where you threatened Maggie Hayes anywhere.
And I hate porn.
OMGoddess.....check out this latest delusion from Heart, attempting to use Karla Mantilla's contribution to the debate to their advantage:
I’m moderating this thread strictly and won’t allow it to be pissed upon in any way, shape or form. At RE’s the male pornhounds — including a fairly scary hardcore sm pornographer — are there full force; some of the threads about this over there are about 90 percent men. I’m also going to be careful about approving men’s comments here, even friendly fire. Every woman here supports Sam and her decision and has said so very strongly, including Karla. I think we are in solidarity and it’s important that we stand in solidarity.
That "fairly scary hard core sm pornographer", I guess, refers to Ernest Greene, maybe???
Yeah, right, Heart(less)....just reading the damn threads will show that not only is the thread NOT 90% male, but that outside of me and iacb, all of the debators here are WOMEN. Of course, they must be closet MEN hiding their dicks somewhere, then.
And of course, since no man can ever be trusted ever again -- not even, I guess, men like Jimmy Ho or Richard Leader or even Bob Probert who back their viewpoint 100% -- only the REAL womyn antiporn activist collective hive members will be allowed to praise the GenderBorg Dwama Queen and her subjects....errrrrrrr....give comments on the situation.
Oh..and get your damn blogs straight, Heart(less).....Ernest is a co-contributor to the Blog of Pro-Porn Activism, which is a group effort of Ren, Ernest, Trinity, IACB, and yours truly. (And even that doesn't come close to being "90% male.) He is only a commentator, like everyone else here, to this blog...which remains Ren Ev's alone.
Plain. Damn. Lunatics.
Anthony
AK: Saw that yesterday. oddly enough, I left a comment over there saying how Karla seemed really civil and all- nothing else- and not published....
but yeah, men who comment here regularly, or even semi-regularly: You, IACB, Soulhuntre, Ernest, & occassionally, Byrd. A few other dudes stop in from time to time. As opposed to...er, all the women, like, oh, on this thread? Right here?
Spin spin spin!
You know, I miss my days as a (semi) pornographer. For a minute, I thought they were talking about me :)
Remember, fight sexism... distrust all men!
On the subject of hacking, I notice that GB runs on phpNuke.
'Almost all of the people who have ever written into us to the effect of "oh no my site was hacked!" were running phpNuke.' -- JDW, sysadmin at nearlyfreespeech.net, (webhost for FCB).
I always hide my dick . . . in my closet with the other toys.
yeah, and we all think byrd is a total douchebag.
so, is Rich still commenting over there?
"so, is Rich still commenting over there?"
That was a rather spectacular meltdown he had a month ago. I have to wonder if that rather blatant display of the sins he's so loudly pointed the finger at other men for earned him an flack from the sisterhood. Or do they overlook it, when that tactic is played against the evol trans?
So let me read this right: Sam makes a direct physical threat at "Miriam", blasting nuke emails at anyone within shouting distance of the GenderBorg Collective. A totally independent and unrelated "Miriam" receives one of Sam's nukes, and promptly freaks out. A concerned friend sends a respectful letter to Sam explaining the mix-up and politely asks for an apology and a redaction....and that piffy response of "If you are not the 'Miriam" I was addressing, then I apologize" was the best she could get?!?!?
Totally confused about all this dwama now, but it reads like she didn't even address that to "Miriam," but rather the friend who was acting as a go-between. Mighty white of her there. But yeah, I mean, she's gracious as fuck, is our Sam, we've seen this.
and, wait, sorry, -three- Miriams? Wha? Huh? And...what?
And I mean: dude. If you were trying to infiltrate the Sooper Seekrit place, wouldn't you be smart enough to -not- use a name that you've already used in public?
oh, right, the people whose reasoning this is are, well, not the brightest bagels in the box themselves, are they.
so, wait, what: this other Miriam, how exactly was it that Sam was going to "out" her? Are you saying that Miriam included her last name when applying to this group? Because, goddam, that would REALLY suck. No wonder she'd be freaked in that case.
"rebuttal"
I don't know. Now I'm thinking of anal sex again, and it's totally your fault. You dirty pervert.
AK: Yeah, the "scary sm pornographer" was line was hilarious. It certainly exposes Heart's church lady mentality, though. As BD put it, she never really left the religious right.
The whole "Ren lets MEN comment over there" complaint. Whatever – separatism isn't the real world – if it works in their moon world, hey, good for them. Heart actually has been able to corner the hard-line lesbian separatist corner of the blogosphere for a while, but I'm amazed that nobody from that crowd has ever called her on the fact that there is a Mr Seelhoff, and she's hardly a lesbian or a separatist.
Min: Largely agree with your assessments of that crowd, except for Heart. Not only do I not feel even slight sympathy for her, I actually feel she's probably the worst of all – a total cult leader, manipulator, and instigator. Her good and reasonable side barely hides a totally fucked-up and nuts side, and a lot of women have been taken in by the former only to be totally burned by the latter later on. I, of course, have always been on her bad side and can testify personally that she can be an utterly nasty piece of work based on direct arguments I've had with her.
As for Satsuma, I've actually got to thank her in a backhanded way. I'm one of those evol pro-porners who's long said that cultural feminism is basically a reactionary, far-right-wing ideology, and damned if Satsuma doesn't give a textbook example. With the possible exception of a brief critique of porn as "racist", everything else she has to say comes across like it was written by some kind of Eagle Forum Lesbian Caucus.
min, I like that casting job... I'd go to see that play, but I wouldn't want to live in that world.
Anthony, re the 90% male thing... the thing is, many of us (like me, or so I've been accused) have already become "male" through "male-identified" views (translation: views that don't correspond with ours). So they're probably accurate there, by that def'n.
Heart{less) for the win:
Yes, I know what you mean, Arantxa and I know that they are spiteful towards Sam. But, in light of what they’ve said here, in the future they cannot claim (1) that radical feminists refuse to debate them so far as pornography goes; (2) that they all showed up for a debate and no radical feminist came; (3) that radical feminists mistreat them in debates. (4) that radical feminists are afraid to debate them; (5) that radical feminists cannot hold their own in debate. Posting their comments here creates a record of what has happened, a history. Whatever ends up gone in the future, for whatever reason, if posts or blogs are deleted, the record here remains and will not change.
Simply....DAMN. LOL
Only the GenderBorg Collective could take a rout and spin it into a decisive victory. Forget David Petraus or Karl Rove....Dubya should immediately hire Cheryl Seelhoff to massage the media for his "terror" campaigns.
It isn't just men who have their delusions.
Anthony
Wow, having read all that now.... You rock.
If you ever feel like it, I would be curious as to your thoughts regarding "equity" versus "gender" feminism.
I'm a guy that in the early seventies had an amazing english teacher and since then I've identified as a feminist. But I cannot see the feminism I knew back then as the feminism I see today at so many blogs which really seem more like "victim feminism" and "bullying feminism".
The feminists I tend to agree more with are Cathy Young, the Wendy Kaminer/Nadine Strossen free speech feminists, the Wendy McElroy, Daphne Patai, and even Christina Hoff Summers equity feminists, and definitely not the twisties, marcottes, sam berg strains.
Most of the feminists I agree with are often called anti-feminists by the "victim/bullying feminists"
Anony:
You said the magic word: McElroy.
Ugh..I'm not quite so down with Wendy McElroy due to her other libertarian Right ideas...and I don't quite agree with those "gendered" vs. "equality" feminist divisions because they tend to paint all progressive feminists with the antiporn brush. But, on the issue of women's sexual autonomy, I'm with her 100%....even though I think that there are some feminists on the Left who do reject the GenderBorg line totally.
Anthony
I think that a lot of what these Genderberg people are saying is very dismissive and belittling to women. I’m an 18 year old woman and I just started reading the feminist blogs. The story on Feministe about the t-shirts led me both here and to Buried Alive, and I’ve sort of been reading both sides since then. I really had no idea feminism had so many subgroups! But I’ve noticed a few things as someone new to the feminist blogs, and I guess younger than a lot of these blog authors.
I sort of feel like many of these radical feminists say they are blaming men for hate and violence towards women but are really blaming and hating other women and aren’t admitting it, maybe they don’t even recognize it. It seems like they are blaming women like Ren, or other sex workers, or women into BDSM for things they observe out of men or that have happened to them, but never really take into consideration those other women’s feelings or that they’ve stopped blaming the really guilty people. They also seem really dismissive of women my age. I feel like they think I’m too stupid to think and choose for myself what I want out of life, or out of sex, or even what to wear. They also scare me. I’m not afraid of men, but I feel like after reading all those entries about rape and abuse that there is something wrong with me if I’m not. I feel like every time my boyfriend calls me I should wonder or ask if he’s raped anyone today, or if he plans to rape me, or if he’s been watching snuff porn or molesting underage girls.
I also feel like that if you don’t agree with them, you are automatically written off as a traitor and not a woman, and that they feel like anyone outside their group is bent on corrupting people. They really seem like that towards Ren, whom I’ve been reading also, and I think she’s bright, funny, and fearless, but I can’t say as I would ever want to have the kind of sex she has or do porn or stripping or get implants just because Ren likes those things. I don’t know much about porn, but what she does sounds really scary and mean to me, but just because I wouldn’t want to do it or it doesn’t express my sexuality doesn’t mean Ren is bad or wrong for doing it and exercising her sexuality. She’s not actually telling or forcing anyone to do what she does.
I guess I feel like the radical side feels like everyone has to be just like them or they aren’t good enough and don’t matter, where as this side is more accepting and inclusive, which seems strange to me because so many people think Ren and Belledame, those are the names I saw the most, are such horrible people. I don’t understand it, because I thought feminism was supposed to be for all women, even porn actresses and people who like fetish stuff. Why isn’t it?
Sorry for rambling-
Jeri
Yeah, what Jeri said.
Fundies are fundies are fundies, you know?
Jeri, for a newbie, you pretty much just summed it up, really.
AK- ...weeeeeellll, it's not really a secret that I hang more to the right than you do, correct? Heh.
Quoeth Ren:
AK- ...weeeeeellll, it's not really a secret that I hang more to the right than you do, correct? Heh.
No, it ain't, Ren...and I don't hold that against 'ya in any way, either. Any more than you are willing to stand my more Left-leaning views.
Unlike the GenderBorg, we sex poxxies are capable of accepting diversity of opinion. Genuine respect for each other tends to allow that.
Besides, having the same damn opinion all the damn time...isn't that like, well, interbreeding???
Anthony
Jeri....EXACTLY.
Whomever brought you up, did it the right way.
The main point is NOT that everyone have to be like Ren or even love her personal lifestyle....or even adapt it as their own. It's simply that she is an adult living human being who is more than capable of assessing the benefits and risks of her actions, and making the choices she make. Once we deny those basic aspects of personal autonomy and diversity, we are one step closer to a totalitarian society where others control our lives and thoughts. I'd rather not live in that kind of society, thank you very much.
Anthony
I also feel like that if you don’t agree with them, you are automatically written off as a traitor and not a woman, and that they feel like anyone outside their group is bent on corrupting people.
Exactly. And that's how you build a cult, but it isn't how you build a movement.
Well I don't want to hijack the thread. I don't agree with a lot of the libertarian line, but what attracts me to the libertarian feminists is that it seems they have a set of principles and you can derive their philosophy from those principles. What I encounter at so many modern feminist blogs is basically gossip and judgment that I don't think is so far removed from sewing circles and Church ladies. It seems to serve more as a way for keeping people in line, than as a way to advance any sort of human rights. There is tons of disagreement (shave or don't shave, makeup or no makeup, barbie is sexist or barbie is a heroine....) amongst these women, mainly because they either don't have a foundation of principles, or it's all so vague that literally anything can be empowering, or oppressive.
And of course, what I like about the libertarian feminists is what I feel is a more honest and realistic view of "patriarchy" and men and women, and their encouragement of free speech, and against speech codes.
Jeri, you hit the nail on the head. :(
Regarding Heart's comments:
1) Sam Berg refused to debate. Karla isn't all radical feminists.
2) Sam Berg didn't come, because she refused to debate.
3) Karla Mantilla being polite doesn't make up for all of the trashing in debates (online or off), in books, in articles, in blogs that many radical feminists choose to engage in. We certainly can say that radical feminists mistreat us. Karla's politeness also doesn't make up for her hateful and even borderline libelous writings about trans women, either.
4) But we can say that some radical feminists are afraid to debate, because Sam Berg didn't show up. Karla's not all radical feminists.
5)Or at least, that some radical feminists can hold their own in some debates. I would love to see if Karla could debate trans issues with such equanimity and apparent acknowledgement of her opponents' humanity.
In other words, Heart, don't try to make one woman stand in as a proxy for all radical feminists. Don't make one debate stand in as a proxy for all possible debates. Don't pretend that Karla's behavior at one debate erases everything horrible radical feminists have said about or done to other women.
yeah, there's really a lot more to feminism(s) than McElroy or Hoff Sommers (ergh) vs. Dworkin/Jeffreys/etc.
I dig Dorothy Allison and Molly Ivins (R.I.P.) and Rebecca Walker, and, well, any number of the folks on my blogroll, say...'course, a lot of them are getting thoroughly fed up with the term and the mainstream feminists, but in many cases it has very little to do with any of these assclowns and more with, o, racism, ableism, femme-bashing, careerism...
With the possible exception of a brief critique of porn as "racist", everything else [Satsuma] has to say comes across like it was written by some kind of Eagle Forum Lesbian Caucus.
She reads like the bastard child of Sheila Jeffreys and Tony Robbins.
"The POWER of Positive Clear-Eyed-Gazing! Let it work for YOU!"
o.o., i see.
Throughout May and June the moderators at Genderberg worked like
demons to try and figure out which of the 100 or so members was the
leak. We ask every member a series of questions before approving them
and we were going member by member to try and restore some of the lost
sense of security that made one prostituted woman feel she had to
leave GB. By early July we pooled our research and figured out that
the leak was someone who registered as “Miriam” with a bunch of hooey
about being anti-pornography and caring about prostituted women. I
deleted “Miriam” from the memberlist and sent her the following email…
[…]
Now ask yourself why RenEv thinks my email to Miriam threatening to
reveal that I know Miriam wrote the Radical Feminist Terrorism blog
was somehow a threat to reveal personal information about RenEv.
-blinks at it-
hokay, thus the three Miriams.
Well, I'm sure Sam's not spinning like mad now, or y'know, what's that word, -lying-, so never mind that bit now. Just all a terrible misunderstanding, to be sure. I'm sure the confusion over "but, the 'Miriam' referred to here apparently was trying to -get in-, so how does it come to pass that this email was sent to someone who'd just been purged?" is y'know, well, it's none of my business really.
I'm still giggling at the whole
"We ask every member a series of questions before approving them
and we were going member by member to try and restore some of the lost
sense of security"
um, dude, maybe you should start by -making sure your newnimproved Super! Secret! Safe! Forums aren't readable by anyone who does a basic google search and clicks on the cache.
that, and not randomly hurling abuse at people before even making sure it's going out to the right person.
being alternately interrogated and screamed at sure does sound like my idea of a "safe space" though, all right.
Astonishing, following the links through Sam's posts and one finds that she is trying to make the case that a breach of security on genderberg is punishable under the Patriot Act.
There is such a lack of comprehension of proportion and boundaries by Sam and some of her colleagues. Their views of everything seem to be completely disproportionate to reality.
--wait wait wait wait a fucking minute. The letter exchange is from a third party (presumably -not- named Miriam) and Sam. Third Party is the one who suggests that Sam apparently was under the misapprehension that Miriam was RE. Sam does -not- say, "no, actually, wasn't thinking of RE, it was yet another Miriam, but thanks for the heads up anyway." What she says is, "If it isn't the same Miriam then I apologize."
That's it. That's all.
Sam, you lie like a rug and project like the Sundance Film Festival. I can't believe people who aren't already as twisted as you enable this shit. God.
The genderberg google thingy was why I requested my membership be deleted, way back when. I'm a bit surprised it's still going on... and that it's STILL not being acknowledged publically.
I can understand not wanting to advertise holes in the wall, but ignoring them while you accuse people of spying is a little odd.
I'm with Jeri on that one. I try to be fair to both sides, but I deeply resent the implication that I only hold the position on this issue that I do because I'm "young, fit, and want to boink."
Uh huh, it has nothing to do with the fact that looking at the two sides of this debate I see one side responding to every single criticism leveled against them while the other side actually seems offended that they would be expected to respond at all.
They're absolutely right about having the right not to respond, but they shouldn't have to wonder why young college students like me, whose professors tell us to think critically and look at all sides of an issue, aren't exactly impressed with their logic.
I am also perplexed by the common characterization of you all as presenting the sex industry as all happy and positive. The main thing I associate this movement with is outrage. Outrage that society feels it can treat people like crap based on actual or perceived sexuality in ways ranging from abuse within the industry to cases like the Deni ruling.
If there is any "sexual empowerment" in it for me, it is due to the fact that being outraged on behalf of someone else whom society feels free to deny rights to on the basis of "excessive sexuality" also forces me to look more critically at my own fears of how others will perceive my sexual expression. The sex worker rights movement has helped me greatly by challenging me to cut through all the sexual B.S. I was carrying around as a result of living in this patriarchal society, and for that I am grateful.
PS. I'm back.
I think. :)
Belle:
"The letter exchange is from a third party (presumably -not- named Miriam) and Sam. Third Party is the one who suggests that Sam apparently was under the misapprehension that Miriam was RE. Sam does -not- say, "no, actually, wasn't thinking of RE, it was yet another Miriam, but thanks for the heads up anyway." What she says is, "If it isn't the same Miriam then I apologize."
That's it. That's all.
Sam, you lie like a rug and project like the Sundance Film Festival. I can't believe people who aren't already as twisted as you enable this shit. God."
BINGO! I mean her attempt to pretend all this is anything other than what it READS like is really, really pathetic, and the fact that people are buying her spin job leads me to one of two conclusions:
1: Brainwashed.
2: Morons.
There WERE nukes in Iraq and Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman, either!
I am the god-emperor of Rome! Don't you believe me????
What I encounter at so many modern feminist blogs is basically gossip and judgment that I don't think is so far removed from sewing circles and Church ladies
The "theoretical" positions of the more notorious online radfems are so evidently inconsistent to anybody but their proponents and supporters that the only way to explain them is in terms of psychology, not in terms of reason. Such positions are reverse engineered. The paramount motivation in every case is an emotional reaction: "prostitution is disgusting" "transsexuals give me the creeps" "blowjobs? eurrggh!" etc. etc. The "theory" is pseudo-intellectual pretext and nothing more. As such it cannot be consistent with itself, never mind observable facts.
lisa harney,
I actually have had an equally civil discussion of transgender issues with mostly pro-trans inclusion people and a male-to-female transgendered person in the (as some would say) very belly of the beast: the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. While we all disagreed in the lengthy discussion, the tenor was absolutely civil and respectful, and we exchanged emails at the end.
This is the problem I see: I think all or certainly most of us are working toward a better world, especially one where the injustices that inhere in current gender relations are remedied. I think we do have disagreements, but they are with respect to strategies and tactics as to how to get there. So there is no reason to be mean or disrespectful—on any of our parts.
As far as transgender issues, I do have a different take, and I may be proved to be wrong. I don’t believe that being transgender is an inherent condition that people are born with, but I also don’t believe that being gay is either, and I identify as a lesbian. (I admit I am rather alone in that philosophy.) But should there be a definitive finding that there is a gene that codes for being gay, with various allele expressions determining, say, bisexuality, or some other confirmed biological entity that determines that a person is transgendered, I promise you I will be the first in line to say that I’m wrong, that the way I look at issues of gender is mistaken.
I have no way of knowing ultimately whether I’m “right” or “correct,” but it just makes sense to me that gender, and being gay/lesbian/queer/bi/transgender, has more to do with reactions to the injustices that are inherent in gender roles than it does with any predetermined biological condition. And, if I am correct in that assessment (again maybe I’m not, but just go along with me for a minute), then it does follow that we could evaluate the reactions or accommodations to heteronormative gender roles (being gay or transgender) as variously effective in terms of whether they reinscribe the problems they provide an individual solution for, or have a political effect that works do undermine the system of gender that is so problematic.
Now if it turns out that I am wrong, that “being” gay or “being” transgender are in fact somehow hardwired, then my whole analysis is indeed wrong. But as of now, no one knows the “facts” about being transgender or being gay.
So we have a difference of opinion, and probably a difference of underlying assumptions, which I think would be edifying to parse out. Nevertheless, please be assured that I absolutely wish no one any harm in any way. And, like you, I assume, I also want a world where every single human is treated with the respect and dignity that we all deserve, regardless of gender or other attributes.
I think that our disagreements can help us sharpen our own analyses and see where we may have flaws or unexamined assumptions. I do think that disagreeing with each other politically is never a good reason to be rude or disrespectful, from either “side.” I sincerely hope we can find a way to have interesting dialogues on these issues, refraining from name-calling and invective, because all that does is deflect from us learning from each other and increasing our understanding.
We may never agree, but I honestly believe that we all want the same outcome: a world where all people are equally empowered regardless of gender, race, class, sexual expression/orientation/sexuality, national origin, age, body size or type, etc,...where there is no rape, domestic violence, or sexual abuse, where every single person has access to safe and decent housing, adequate healthy food, a clean environment, excellent healthcare, comprehensive reproductive rights and reproductive justice, safe and dignified work environments—and enough time to experience and express our creativity and passion. We may disagree as to some of the details, but I believe that most of our disagreements regard tactics and strategies on how to get there.
And who of us really knows for sure that we have the “true” strategy that will get us there? So let’s be interested in why we disagree rather than assume bad faith and ill will. I am willing to if you are.
P.S. I do want to affirm what Jill and Ren have said as to the absolute civility and mutual respect during our discussion. I really enjoyed talking with them, both of whom are highly intelligent and articulate people. I would look forward to engaging with them in debate again if the opportunity presents.
Quoting Belle:
The letter exchange is from a third party (presumably -not- named Miriam) and Sam. Third Party is the one who suggests that Sam apparently was under the misapprehension that Miriam was RE. Sam does -not- say, "no, actually, wasn't thinking of RE, it was yet another Miriam, but thanks for the heads up anyway." What she says is, "If it isn't the same Miriam then I apologize."
That's it. That's all.
Oh, but it gets even better, Belle...remember that this was from a "Third Party" representing "The Other Miriam" because the latter couldn't respond due to her getting booted from the forum....precisely for being accused of being Ren/Miriam. The original email that Sam sent after booting "TOM" EXPLICITLY charges "Miriam" as being Ren Ev in disguise; indeed, it uses pretty much the very same rhetoric (verbatum) that Stormy would use later on in issuing her threat to Ren at Witchy's blog later on.
In other words, in Sam's mind; there were not any other "Miriams"; that WAS Ren Ev attempting to hack their forums.
The part about the "Radical Feminist Terrorist" blogger was probably more of a recent add-on by Sam to justify her charge that Ren set it up all along. Heck, I'm fully expecting Sam in her next edict to the GenderBorg Collective to charge directly that REN EV was the "RadFem Terrorist" herself....because no one else would be that sneaky to pull off such a heist.
So what if Ren never even visited their forums at all; or that "The Other Miriam" was simply an innocent victim to be sacrificed for the benefit of Sam's personal vendetta against Ren.....in the collective have mind, all's fair in fighting the "patriarchy"..or so I guess.
Strong Kool-Aid they drink over there....
Anthony
BTW, Ren....on some unrelated biz....can you please update the SmackChron link on your blogroll to link to the latest version??
Just change the "2dot3" in the URL to "2dot5", like so:
http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot5/index.php
Thanks a bunch.
Anthony
"one finds that she is trying to make the case that a breach of security on genderberg is punishable under the Patriot Act."
She won't need the Patriot Act soon - as her kind is already busy passing S-1959 - which will allow them to not only persecute you for online trashtalking, but legally PROSECUTE you for it. Yup, you can thank 2 kosher women for introducing and sponsoring this bill. As I've said before, fems just love Stalinesque censorship to silence the truth.
"only way to explain them is in terms of psychology, not in terms of reason. Such positions are reverse engineered. The paramount motivation in every case is an emotional reaction"
Indeed. Classic oxymoronic "chick logic."
Uhhh...knock it off, ByrdBrain.
First off, most of the main supporters of this act that you are spamming us with happen to be right-wing MEN, not feminist women.
Secondly, mind telling me what any of this has to do with the issue at hand...other than you using it as your typical wedge to slam ALL feminists with??
Thank you, but your help is neither appreciated nor needed. Go away.
Anthony
Karla, I do happen to believe that you could choose to act civil when engaged in a debate with trans*folk; most folks can feign politeness at the least.
Do I believe you actually see us as full human beings capable of knowing who we are and what we need?
No.
You essay, "Men In Ewe's Clothing", speaks just as loudly now as it did when I first read it as a questioning 14 year old. I got the same gut-wrenching, sick feeling in my heart that I get when I read about Fred Phelps or when my uncle talks about those n*****s leaving trash in his neighborhood.
Your essay, and the others like it on questioningtransgender, were one of the reasons I abandoned feminism for a few years. I thought, "how intelligent or useful is feminism if it sees those women who might be my sisters as nothing but rapists in drag?"
Even now, just going to that website makes me shake. I'm glad I didn't listen because if I had I would have denied my true feelings and either lived in the fog of depression for years to come or killed myself.
Luckily, I saw those essays as the bunk they are and listened to my heart and soul and I found a name that fit me and I began to tell my friends and family that I've only pretended to be a girl--that I'm really a man and they're going to have to accept that.
You say we just have a difference of opinion? BS. You say opinion, I say my life.
That's not the same as agreeing to disagree on whether broccoli or lima beans are tastier (which is a tie--they're both incredibly tasty).
You want to know the truth about trans*ism? Listen to us, the folks that are living and/or dieing as trans*folks. Instead of characterizing us as liars and rapists and traitors.
I don't assume bad faith because you're a feminist, a radfem, or a stranger. Based on your own words I know you don't see me and mine as worth actually listening to much less working with.
PS: The idea that trans*men don't redefine masculinity for themselves, that we all are just lazy to fight oppression and decide to take the easy way out and just want to become the oppressors instead of the oppressed? LOL! The idea that we are all stereotypically masculine is also quite hilarious btw.
Ten minutes in any major ftm forum and this is drastically proven wrong.
The thing is, Karla, and as a fellow lesbian (right?) I'd think you'd understand this: this is really not an equally pitched battle, here. It doesn't -matter- what you think about whether transgender is legit or not. -You don't have to do it.- Your opinion: -her life.- You know? I mean, doesn't it remind you at -all- of rightwingers going, "Well, I just don't agree with that lifestyle?"
drakyn,
Let me first extend my heartfelt apologies to you for increasing your pain at a time when things were already very difficult for you. I certainly never want my political philosophies to make people feel that their lives are more untenable than before. I honestly write what I write in the hopes that it will make people feel better, feel that there is nothing wrong with them if they feel that they don’t fit in, that they don’t fit their biological gender or sex. It is my hope that people would feel more free from thinking that way.
If in fact it makes you feel worse about yourself or your life, I sincerely urge you to disregard everything I say and do what helps you the most and what gives you the most relief from what has troubled you. One of the best criticisms I received about my writing was from someone who emailed me and said that, although my ideas make perfect logical sense, they just didn’t address the depth of feeling that this person had and that there is no real way to “logic” yourself out of a strongly felt feeling. I do respect that position and it does make me think…and yet I am such a highly logical person that I don’t know how to resolve things otherwise. I reiterate that I am open to people explaining to me why my ideas on this don’t make sense.
My thoughts have changed bit since I originally wrote this article (over 8 year ago)—the whole transgender debate was more new at the time. It was written more from a place of anger over the Michigan thing, but I have come to see things from a different view now. And I don’t think that transmen are “lazy” or “taking the easy way out” (although I have met those for whom that does seem to some extent true). And I certainly, absolutely don’t think that transgendered people are dangerous or rapists of any kind—I am well aware of the horrible disproportionate violence and murder rate for transgendered people (although I am also aware that it is always men who rape, physically attack, and murder transgendered people). I think now it is all rather complicated and each person has a slightly different take. But I do think the whole thing is about gender, the politics of gender, and how gender plays out in our lives.
belladame22,
I don’t think that just because I don’t agree with something politically it is fair to characterize that as reminiscent of right-wingers. And it’s not about lifestyle, it’s about political ideas. Surely we can disagree politically without being compared to right wingers? And there is absolutely nothing about the lifestyle that I have a problem with—it is just a political disagreement.
However, I do understand your saying that the battle is not equally pitched (although I wish it was less of a battle and more of a discussion) in the sense that oppression of transpeople is so fierce, omnipresent, and virulent. I don’t mean to argue against anyone’s life experience, but I think we tend to reify people’s experiences in ways so that if someone says, “that’s my experience,” then it can’t be looked at. It seems to me that what people are usually saying is that is their interpretation of their experience. I think we can at a minimum question other people’s interpretations of their experiences. (For example, many gay men aver that they were born gay, but I think that is their interpretation of their long-felt same sex attraction—I don’t believe that they have any unique insight into their own DNA. All they know is that they have felt that way since they were quite young, which to me isn’t evidence of it being biological, only that they felt same-sex attraction since they were young. I’m not questioning what they experienced; I just interpret it differently.)
So I ask, what does it mean to not feel you are in the right body in a society that has such rigid roles and expectations about gender? What does it mean to feel you are not in the right skin? I saw a TG boy on Oprah (don’t laugh), who not only felt s/he was really a girl (don’t know what pronoun was used at that time), but that s/he wanted to wash the dark color off hir skin (father was black, mother white—father was a kind of abusive jerk). Was this also child trans-raced, or responding to negative associations with hir father? I don’t question the feelings, but the interpretation as to what they mean. Of course, it could mean there really is some biologically based mix-up and some people are simply born into the wrong body, but it doesn’t seem likely to me for a variety of reasons. Again, I know and I acknowledge that I may be wrong (especially because I do have a fault/strength of being overly logical). I encourage people to show me where I am mistaken, how their interpretation does in fact make the best sense (or not—no one owes me any explanation at all if they don’t want to engage in dialogue with me and I fully respect that).
What I do think is not so great is when all conversation stops because someone says that some interpretation is their experience, and then everyone must simply agree with them or be told you are a bad person. It stifles debate and it, yes, (the dreaded s-word) silences people.
Yeah. I am sure DHS will get right onto tracking down how the Genderborg managed to get their dirty laundry into the Google cache.
"But as of now, no one knows the “facts” about being transgender or being gay"
That's because "being gay" isn't a single phenomenon, obviously. Some people are gay due to events in their lives. Others sleep with their own sex as a conscious, political act.
However many, many of them are simply literally "wired" that way. The best evidence is not that it is a one-to-one genetic "switch" but a complex interaction of genetics and hormonal levels during fetal growth.
Personally? I don't mind what folks believe about it. Just leave them alone to do it. Part of the reasons so many take sides on whether or not sexual preference is hardwired do so because somehow it deserves more protection if it is built in or something. I don't see why.
Whether someone "chose" it or not, they have the right to do so without interference.
I might just be really tired, but Drakyn said most of what I would have said.
I was rather frustrated with the anecdote in "Men in Ewes' Clothing" that asserted that a group of trans women exposed their penises in the showers, but all I could find anywhere else was that Tony Baretto - a trans man - had exposed his penis in the shower accidentally, and not as an act of protest - as you implied the trans women did.
You also used that anecdote to build an image of trans women as dangerous predators. You stated explicitly that transgender is extremely dangerous to women and feminism. You labeled us as the enemy. You mischaracterized our motives for transition and didn't bother to refer to our own words about our own lives.
I apologize for assuming you would not be as professional around trans people. I admit I based it on what you wrote about trans people, and not a little bitterness.
As for a difference of opinion - it's not really that simple. For me, it's my life. I attempted suicide before I transitioned because my body was so wrong to me. I didn't decide one day that I'd prefer to be female and go with that, just like I didn't decide one day that I'm attracted to women and not so much to men after years on estrogen. For me, it was a matter of life and death, and I have a hard time placing someone's opinion that I made a bad choice on an equal plane, and it's offensive when that happens. Much like when same-sex attraction is reduced to nothing more than a "lifestyle choice." Even if you feel lesbianism is a choice (and I've read your writing on that too, so I think I know what you mean here) you know that being a lesbian is more than a simple matter of lifestyle.
Throughout May and June the moderators at Genderberg worked like
demons to try and figure out which of the 100 or so members was the
leak.
They worked like demons?
Ooooookay.
Also, hi, Karla. Don't haev time to write much now, but don't think we should all pile onto Karla... it tends to shut down discussion.
I can understand not wanting to advertise holes in the wall, but ignoring them while you accuse people of spying is a little odd.
And for fuck's sake, it's pretty embarrassing that they can't fix that. It's so basic. ANyone running an online forum should have a basic understanding of how search engine indexing works. Shit, I wouldn't trust any "safe space" where the people in charge don't even know how to update their robots.txt file.
Okay one quick thing before bed...
Karla, you wrote:
I don’t mean to argue against anyone’s life experience, but I think we tend to reify people’s experiences in ways so that if someone says, “that’s my experience,” then it can’t be looked at. It seems to me that what people are usually saying is that is their interpretation of their experience. I think we can at a minimum question other people’s interpretations of their experiences. (For example, many gay men aver that they were born gay, but I think that is their interpretation of their long-felt same sex attraction—I don’t believe that they have any unique insight into their own DNA. All they know is that they have felt that way since they were quite young, which to me isn’t evidence of it being biological, only that they felt same-sex attraction since they were young. I’m not questioning what they experienced; I just interpret it differently.)
I can understand and appreciate your questions about people's interpretations, because I'm someone who admittedly likes to plumb the depths of "why" - often to the point of going down a bit of a rabbit hole and ending up at "why are we here" and getting all pomo and weird. I do like to think about what people's motivations and such might be... I find it fascinating actually.
But, with stuff where we're talking about, say, rights for transpeople, or sex workers, or gay/lesbian folks, I do keep coming back to, "So?" I mean, does it really MATTER if someone was born gay or not? They identify that way now, and they are persecuted for it. THAT is what matters to me. Sure, it's interesting to examine where that identity came from, etc., and we can still ask those questions and wonder about them while at the same time acknowledging that the answers have no bearing on the fact that real people's lives are being impacted in real ways right now, and we need to put a stop to the violence and hate that continues to go on.
Does that make sense?
"Secondly, mind telling me what any of this has to do with the issue at hand...other than you using it as your typical wedge to slam ALL feminists with??"
A lot. Just imagine what happens when people like "Sam" suddenly get Federal law behind them?
This blog would be deleted and Ren would be sitting in a cell right now. I'm a big believer in free thought - and this whole bruhaha has a helluva a lot to do with that.
It's too bad you're too short-sighted to ever see past your own pre-programmed agenda to larger bipartisan issues. I wonder if you just dropped it all and looked in the mirror - if there'd be anything left?
Byrd- actually, sam would probably be more likely the one in jail...what, with the secret cabal like nature of her site, the oaths and pledges of secrecy, the threats, the celebrations of vandalism and anarchy...
....plus I could probably afford a better lawyer and I pay taxes.
Karla: see, but it's unfairly weighted. You're just looking. They're -living.- You can't -reify- it; it's. just. their. life. And honestly, you're really not at all up to speed on gender theory from a queer/trans perspective if you really believe that everyone who's trans-ID'd is reifying "male" and "female" in some way that's -more- normative than, well, cultural feminism?
And it's such a frigging subjective experience. You know, "the personal is political?" "My body my choice?" Why does all this shit suddenly go out the window when it becomes "stuff I don't approve of?"
and, why is it such a big damn deal, when transpeople are already so damn marginalized, hm? It's that big a threat you need an entire website and policies to Keep The Un-Star-bellied Sneetches Out, really, really?
I mean, look, I'm gonna put it back in the "being a lesbian" context, mkay? Say I'm arguing with a really polite right-winger who's arguing that the problem as he sees it is this here insistence that gay people are "born that way," and that he's not -allowed- to disagree, no one is, and it's unfair to the ex-gays who disagree, they're being silenced.
Okay; but first of all, one, personally, like many other queer people, I actually do -not- believe necessarily that one is "born that way." What I think is: it's not hurting anyone else, and it's no one else's damn business.
at which point we start to get to the nitty: ah, but it IS hurting Society in some ineffable way, because handwave mumble happytalk "not that I have anything against you people, BUT this is why you don't get 'special rights,' i.e. the things I totally take for granted."
Any connection here at all? Bueller? anything?
And it’s not about lifestyle, it’s about political ideas. Surely we can disagree politically without being compared to right wingers? And there is absolutely nothing about the lifestyle that I have a problem with—it is just a political disagreement.
-shaking head- See, the thing is, the "lifestyle" argument IS about -politics.- It's -different- politics, but it's still politics.
And you know, they can certainly say the same thing, often do, when it comes to o i don't know, letting people into their church, teaching schools, getting married...you know, POLITICAL "debates" that get voted on.
I encourage people to show me where I am mistaken, how their interpretation does in fact make the best sense (or not—no one owes me any explanation at all if they don’t want to engage in dialogue with me and I fully respect that).
well, you know, that's right. And also: people don't really owe you an explanation/defense of their right to exist as they see fit. They just don't. And they wouldn't bother, except for the real world efforts that are made to make sure that they -don't- exist, one way or another, or at minimum are marginalized. And yeah, Lisa's right, I'm afraid: characterizing trans women as "men in ewe's clothing" contributes to that atmosphere.
So, it's like: first you demonize people; then you say, "okay, let's have a civilized and rational debate. Prove to me that your experience is what you say it is, and that you can back it up with scientific studies." And you know what: no. -They shouldn't have to.- NO one should. Why can't you see this?
Ren - No, you would - because she would cite your "threat of violence." And some cheesy flame war threat on the net like that could qualify as an offense under S-1959 punishable by imprisonment.
Or maybe you're right too. Maybe we'd all be in jail.
And I don't like that possibility any way you cut it.
The laws regarding free speech and violence are more than fine as is. There already are restraints on free speech regarding false slander, etc. And plenty of legislation against actual violence. So what more do we need?
Excess legislation at this point is just a masked attempt to silence "conspiracy theories" and anti-NW0 ideologies. And give the Feds a hella lot more latitude to gag free speech and silence dissent whenever desired.
I real first for me. I read, followed and went through every single link in one of your fem related posts. I don't think it's much of a secret that this blog is how I've managed to stay in touch with you, although the topics don't interest me much. I have not however, read the comments here. I'm tired. It's taken me pretty much all day (a day off I might add) to get through it. I know 2 minutes ago I was starting a very long post about my thoughs on the whole thing, and now I can feel those thoughts leaving me as fast as they appeared. part of my personal frustration has been keeping all the names straight while reading through WW's comments. We haven't talked much lately. You still have my gmail. I think I have yours. I should email you my phone number and we could talk. My head hurts and I'm tired. So much to say and do, so little time.
Karla,
Lisa and Drakyn have already said it all, I think, and their voices matter more as I'm not transsexual, but I really think you ought to consider the following:
For you, as you describe it, becoming lesbian was a way of living consistently with your principles. This can be deeply personally important, and I don't mean to belittle it in any way.
But for a lot of people, their sense of themselves as gay or lesbian just isn't about choosing a life more consonant with politics. Some people, as I'm sure you know, spend large portions of their lives *wishing* their sexuality were changeable, exposing themselves to abusive and violating treatment in the hopes that their sexuality is malleable enough that they can "become" straight.
With transgenderism, though it may not be as common or as popular to talk about, it can be similar. I know a transsexual woman who had been sent by her parents to some kind of camp as a child that was intended to convince her that she was not a woman. What exactly they did to her, I don't know... but it doesn't sound good.
Now, we might want to claim that there's a difference between the ways feminists would help us to change our sexualities and the ways patriarchy does. And I'm not going to say that is wrong. I doubt feminists would use Freud, or aversion therapy!
But it seems to me something ineradicable remains anyway. When people spend decades of their lives desperate to change and don't... well, there's something there, something that's more than just insufficient willpower or not enough commitment to the proper politics.
You may disagree with me, Karla, and if you do it saddens me, but your opinion is your own. Whether you do or not -- my opinion is that when the politics bump into some barrier, soem problem or issue that won't change or move, revision of some kind is necessary.
And that radical feminist interpretation of gender as entirely socially constructed is running up against the reality of trans people's lives. Over and over.
(condinuing from my previous)
I mean... isn't it the case that feminist c-r came about in the first place in part because the politics of Marxist/leftist groups was running headlong into *women's* experience, such that women felt they needed their own revolution, one that honored their own experiences? One that said "wait, your 'private sphere' is my body and my dignity?"
Karla writes:
"I don’t think that just because I don’t agree with something politically it is fair to characterize that as reminiscent of right-wingers. And it’s not about lifestyle, it’s about political ideas. Surely we can disagree politically without being compared to right wingers? And there is absolutely nothing about the lifestyle that I have a problem with—it is just a political disagreement."
Well, its such an easy mistake to make....
Particularly when cultural feminism has spokespersons like this.
Just because a movement calls itself left-wing or progressive doesn't automatically mean that it is. Just sayin.....
"Byrd- actually, sam would probably be more likely the one in jail...what, with the secret cabal like nature of her site, the oaths and pledges of secrecy, the threats, the celebrations of vandalism and anarchy...
....plus I could probably afford a better lawyer and I pay taxes."
I was thinking that myself – certainly people like Sam, Charliegrrl, and the like have a far more violent, excuse me, "direct action" streak than anybody I've seen on this side of the fence.
Still, S-1959, like the Patriot Act, is a bad thing for anybody with even slightly non-mainstream politics. Hopefully, like the Communications Decency Act of a decade ago, the courts will simply throw it out, but its bloody awful that Congress (including the Democrats) keeps passing bad, civil-liberties-destroying laws, and leaving it to the courts to sort out.
I am a transsexual, I am a man who was assigned female at birth and had to pretend to be a girl for a while, and there is nothing wrong with me or with being trans*. Duh, I figured this out ages ago; I never needed you or any other cis*person to tell me that.
I do not believe there is any one trans* experience; nor do I believe in any one cause of trans*ism (or sexual orientation for that matter).
Given my memories and feelings, I believe very strongly that my transsexuality is biological.
I am quite happy, gender wise. I'm on the feminine side of androgynous (if one wishes to think of it as a continuum) and I'm comfortable in my version of maleness and masculinity.
Now that I've socially transitioned, pretty much all of my issues are with the dissonance between what I expect to be there physically and what is there; but I've been dealing with that since I was a child and I should be able to get some of it fixed in the future, so I can deal for a little while longer.
And I've already disregarded your essay; I believe I said even as a teen I saw it as the crap it, and the rest on that website, are.
I'm glad folks like Lisa have come forward to deconstruct them; the gods know I tried and was too disgusted to write on even one essay (literally, I felt sick and the only websites I went on for a while afterwards were fluffy ones like fanfiction and fanart sites).
Did you know that, without fail, every time I see that website linked to in a trans* community I see trigger and/or general warnings about how horribly wrong everything is and to beware for it may make the reader feel ill?
And yeah, your essay may make logical sense to you, but it's still little more than a castle in the sky, a straw argument against straw dummies.
PS: Only men rape, murder, attack, etc. trans*folk? LOL.
--see, the important bit, Karla, isn't whether being gay OR transgendered is hardwired; the important part is that you apparently think that other people need to make the "correct" choice as opposed to the one THEY feel in their guts and hearts and have reasoned out with their very own reasoning bits.
Exactly the same as the anti-gay people who put emphasis on the "it IS a choice" business, not so much because they're really all that concerned about y'know the nature vs. nurture question, but because they think it gives them more leeway to tell other people what to do. Or, at minimum, engineer things to the best of their ability so that the other people can't exist in defiance of their theory of How Things Ought To Be.
that, and/or they deep down believe for -some- reason that if you open the floodgates and allow this, it's such a -seductive- choice that everyone will choose it, thus rendering Their People obsolete.
it's stupid when it comes from het people wailing that we'll all go extinct and the institution of marriage and blah blee, and it's equally stupid coming from lesbians who are paranoid that EVERYONE is going to turn into a man. Hi! Trans-supporting lesbian right here! Not remotely interested in transitioning myself!
Then again, I didn't "become a lesbian" because of my -principles;- I eventually concluded I was a lesbian because, you know, I was primarily sexually attracted to women, and it seemed pretty intractable, try as I might to change myself in order to fit someone else's idea of what I was supposed to be. *koff*
Women will gain in power, men will be put in jail for their sexual crimes, and pro-porn feminists will be challenged.
I still believe that a lot of pro-porn women were badly sexually abused as children. Women into S & M had terrible lives, and most of the time, these women have never had the help they need.
gosh, I can't wait to hear what the "challenge" is going to be. Will it involve Suduko, maybe?
and, uh, hi there, "into S&M," watch some porn, my life has been relatively rosy all things considered, never been sexually abused. sorry to disappoint.
also, what's a p---?
she's hilarious. clear-eyed gaze AHOY!
--crap, I'm bloodshot, I must've been thinking about cock again. I hate when that happens...
"--see, the important bit, Karla, isn't whether being gay OR transgendered is hardwired; the important part is that you apparently think that other people need to make the "correct" choice as opposed to the one THEY feel in their guts and hearts and have reasoned out with their very own reasoning bits."
Yeah, that. The issue isn't so much to me what the "correct" "political" "interpretation" of people's experiences is. The issue to me is that people who want to oppose some way of living tend to fall back on *defining* it as a choice, even when people say "hey, for me it wasn't!"
And that to me is a particularly pernicious bit of sleight of hand: well, since no one knows if this is a choice or not, and I want to "argue against" it on "political" grounds, I can tell everyone I flipped the coin and it came up "choice."
And if it did, that makes it perfectly legit for me to step in and say "Choose something else."
Which is the *exact* same thing that conservative homophobes are doing. And that's why people are saying you sound like the right wing, Karla.
Belle: wait, where is this bit you quoted saying "women into S&M had terrible lives"?
I'd like to respond to its author, if it's Karla, with the question of how she knows my life is (was?) terrible, without knowing me.
I'd think if she makes claims like that, she should have a way of backing it up. I'm a little curious how she can do that without knowing about my life.
And as far as any help I might need, the caring support of my therapist -- at a women's therapy center with a decidedly feminist bent -- is all the "help" I need, thanks.
"Belle: wait, where is this bit you quoted saying "women into S&M had terrible lives"?"
In all fairness, that's not from Karla, that's from Satsuma or one of the other Womensspace crazies.
IACB, thanks for clearing that up. I thought it was Karla, and my mind was well and truly boggled. For all that I think Karla is ignoring the fact that "politics" is actually about "living," she has been far more civil than that. I apologize for my misunderstanding, Karla. :)
But on the topic of "politics" vs "life experience" I'd just like to bring up -- well, feminist politics began as a response to bad things happening to women. Even radical feminist politics did not begin as a theory of how people ought to live. It began as a response to horror: to rape, to trafficking, to women forced into pornography.
(Yes, cue the snowballs in hell. I do think at least some women were forced into it. And that some still are: cf. Girls Gone Wild, etc.)
"Politics" is a thing that grew up as a response to those harms.
"Transgender politics," if we want to call trans folks' fights for their rights and dignity "politics" (which I notice Lisa and Drakyn *don't*), came about the same way. The theory, such as it exists, is an intellectual cashing out of the real-life things that are happening, a theoretical framework by which to understand and respond.
So when you "attack the theory," you're attacking not just some ivory-tower, everyone look at Juditth Butler being incomprehensible. "The theory" only makes sense as a response to the oppression.
If "politics" really were this floating thing disconnected from real lives, why would it be offensive at all to feminists that anyone "disagree with their politics?"
"Politics" is only worth having in the first place insofar as it is a response to things in the real world that hurt people.
"(Yes, cue the snowballs in hell. I do think at least some women were forced into it. And that some still are: cf. Girls Gone Wild, etc.)"
You must be over 30 and not hot.
Get wit zee program:
The raunchy contests and general debauchery were something that these women had prepared for, almost as though for a final exam. They'd logged hours at the gym, in tanning booths and at body wax salons. They'd save up money for breast implants and then timed the surgery so they'd be healed by spring break.
One word I heard again and again, oddly, was "confidence." As they psyched themselves up for wet T-shirt contests or debated whether a given guy was worth flirting with, a lot of women told me that they saw spring break as the proving ground for their attractiveness. "If I can be considered hot here, I'll be hot anywhere," a rather morose woman sitting on a bar stool in a bikini and high heels told me. "I'm here to get confident."
But the more women I talked to, the more it became clear that hotness was, for them, the largest factor in the equation of their self-worth. When they talked about what they wanted to do with their lives, they spoke not of jobs or grad school but of looking good, of having the right equipment and experience to ensure a place in the raunch-obsessed pop culture they'd come to see as the real world.
There is simply no substitute in our post-liberal culture now for the SHEER, RAW, COMMANDING POWER of being HOT (male or female).
Just ask Elvis or Paris Hilton..
So, no woman or man needs to be forced or coerced into this. Being hot comes with its own plentiful rewards.
ooo, I forgot to answer part of your comments Karla.
Yet again: calling someone a bigot or wrong when they are telling you how you must feel and why you did/do xyz is not silencing.
There is plenty of discussion in trans* forums about what it means to be trans*, gender roles, etc.
Like any other minority group, we should be able to discuss our identities and any dirty laundry ourselves; we don't need cissexual and/or cisgender saviors to come swooping in to save us from ourselves.
Sure cis* allies can participate in some of our conversations; but allies only and you sure ain't one of them.
And I don't live a gay lifestyle or a trans* one; I live a vegetarian lifestyle, a geeky one, but I don't know what it means to live a gay or a trans* lifestyle as both groups are so diverse.
PS: FYI, your "oh I tend to be so logical" sounds a lot like "why are you so illogical?" to my ears.
I am quite logical; I am a guy, but I have a body that is generally assigned female. Therefore, I am a guy who was assigned female at birth and had to pretend to be a girl for a while.
"--see, the important bit, Karla, isn't whether being gay OR transgendered is hardwired; the important part is that you apparently think that other people need to make the "correct" choice as opposed to the one THEY feel in their guts and hearts and have reasoned out with their very own reasoning bits."
Thank you Belle, you and the others here are right; it doesn't matter if it's nature, nurture, or both. WE are trans* and we have every right to be so. We have every right to do whatever to our own bodies that we feel will make us comfortable in them; whether thats changing our haircut and going by an androgynous name, having surgery and taking hormones, taking hormones for a while until the desired changes happen, or whatever.
"And that radical feminist interpretation of gender as entirely socially constructed is running up against the reality of trans people's lives. Over and over."
Thanks Trinity this is very true.
FYI, your "oh I tend to be so logical" sounds a lot like "why are you so illogical?" to my ears.
and particularly odd coming from someone who seems to be sympatica with the cultural feminist crowd/line, in that "logic" is often considered "pale and male" and a "tool of the patriarchy" (you know, as opposed to womens' mystical ways of -knowing-)...
and yeah, thing is wrt "silencing:" if you're still talking? it -ain't- -silencing.-
"You must be over 30 and not hot."
Hi Byrd! Are we having fun yet?
Forgive me if I'm missing something here, because there are a fuckton of comments and I haven't read blogs for about a week, but:
Karla, somewhere in here you said something about discomfort with gender roles being a part of trans experience.
So why, in your "logic", does someone like me, who does not identify her gender as male or female, not experience the sort of sex dysphoria that trans people do?
and yeah, thing is wrt "silencing:" if you're still talking? it -ain't- -silencing.-
I don't know if I buy that. Because if it were really that cut-and-dry, then every time someone complained about being silenced, it would mean she's NOT being silenced, by definition, because she's talking about it.
I don't know if I buy that. Because if it were really that cut-and-dry, then every time someone complained about being silenced, it would mean she's NOT being silenced, by definition, because she's talking about it.
I agree. You silence a person, not just by preventing them from speaking, but by diminishing their ability to be heard.
There are some very bad-faith definitions of 'silencing' going around. I'm not in the mood for scouring radfem blogs for the source right now, but I've seen sentiments like this expressed in a few places:
"Pro-porn arguments silence us because they make people less likely to take anti-porn arguments seriously."
In other words, if you lose a debate based on your own weak arguments, you've been "silenced", so the other side needs to shut up and let you win by default.
""Pro-porn arguments silence us because they make people less likely to take anti-porn arguments seriously."
In other words, if you lose a debate based on your own weak arguments, you've been "silenced", so the other side needs to shut up and let you win by default."
IACB, I don't doubt you here, but I'd really like to see a citation.
Post a Comment