Doubling Up The SmackChon: Coming Soon to Wordpress.com

Begging your patience, but I want to try something a bit different.

I am NOT shutting down this blog AT all...but I want to see if it will work in another venue. So I am in the process of getting an account with WordPress.com, and will open up a version of the SmackChron over there.

For a while I will be updating both the WP and this Blogger version, to see which one is superior. Note that I am NOT moving the blog, just hosting it in different locations to see what will happen.

The reason; I'm a bit jealous that Kevin at Slant Truth has gotten all these cool new widgets, like the one that automatically turns words into embedded links (Bitch Lab has that feature, too)..and I want to test them out myself.

When the WP version opens for business, I will give out the addy. And I will be updating BOTH of them for a short time while I decide which to finally choose.

So...pardon the construction here...just experimenting, as usual.

:-)

The (Renegade) Evolution of an Unapologetic "Pornstitute" (Who Just Plain Kicks ASS!!)

There are many women who are in the sex industry or women who simply defy the sexual double standards who would crumble from the weight of massive loathing, disgust, fear, and shame thrown at them like pure cow dung from feminists and conservatives (and conservative feminists, too) alike.

Thankfully for us, Miriam (aka Renegade Evolution) just isn't one of them; she believes in giving back in kind to those who would throw hate at her for being an openly and unabashedly sexual person...and her latest blog is one of the finest defense of sex positivism from an individualist female standpoint this side of Wendy McElroy.

One of her entries there ( "The Language of Radical Hate" ) contains a nice collage of all the "endearments" that she has had thrown at her by antiporn "feminists" when she attempts to defend herself as a pro-"pornstitution" woman. Some of these are simply mind-bending.

First, there is this on the issue of women producing porn)

"No. I think you expect me to take you seriously, so let me placate you by repeating what you have/will hear/heard from the others. On top of feminist reasons for opposing pornography, there is a greater humanitarian reason that stands for the sexuality of humans being treated as in-depth and whole, not just objectified jerk-off material. As for female pornographers, I would go as far as to say that they are more to blame and be held accountable, since they are traitors to their own sex and gender when they capitalize off of the objectification of feminine sexuality, homosexual or heterosexual.”

Funny, but I thought that sexual desire and "jerking-off" was in fact part of being human and in-depth....but I'm a man, I guess, so what do I know??

Then there is this series of responses when Miriam makes the mistake of revealing her desire for rougher sex:

“You call yourself a woman? You are a pig.”

“It’s people like you that are a disgrace to females everywhere.”

“You do not act the way a woman should, and at that, MEN shouldn't even do the things you do. You don't act like a human being, you act like an animal. You enjoy being degraded, you enjoy being a piece of meat, that is what makes you a disgrace. REAL women do not enjoy being called names and ejaculated upon, REAL women do not allow just any guy to enter her, and finally REAL women respect themselves and their bodies. None of these apply to you.”

“You should be ashamed, but "shame" is a word that is certainly foreign to someone like you.”

“You shouldn't ever be allowed to breed.”

My, my, my...you'd think that Miriam was calling for bombing the New York Times building from all that bile??? But Ann Coulter is antiporn and female, so she gets more respect from such "feminists" than an independent woman like Miriam??? Eeeeeeeee-yeah.

And dig the response when Miriam breaks out that she actually LIKES porn and sex, and chooses to strip:

"How clichéd and simplistic are you?”

“You make me ill. Everything about you is just wrong. You have this great mind & skill at writing and you choose to be a slut? Why? Do you have antisocial personality disorder or something? It sounds like it. You have an education, could work wherever you want, make good money, but you would rather take off your clothes for a bunch of idiots or let people fuck and objectify you on film? Not normal. Even your friends on your blogs are shocked and somewhat disgusted by you. They may not say it outright, but you can tell. They may be pro-sex or okay with sexually eager women, but you are beyond that. You’re a whore. You’re not strung out on drugs or short on money, you have things other people wish they had, except a soul and ANY sense of decency.”

WOW. Don't you just love teh sisterhood??? I especially loved the part how the shitthrowers not only deem themselves able to psychoanalyze Miriam for her "illness" of being a slut, but also determine her friends' reactions as well.


Oh, but there's plenty more in the original piece, including where Miriam is even accused of not just pandering to men, but BEING a man!!!

“By the way, this may be common knowledge, but I suspect that you're a man hiding behind a woman's given name. That would explain a few things, such as:- Why you feel that _______ responses to you are "uncivil" (how dare a woman talk to you like that!?)- Why you aren't hesitant to share your e-mail with strangers- Why you didn't think that ______ would be leery to give you her e-mail address by sending you a message, or...- Why you've attempted to trick _______ into giving you her e-mail address by e-mailing you- The bullshit you're making up to defend porn ("Oh, my precious!").”

Oh, yeah....never mind that antiporn activists share email addies all the time to promote their messages, but when SHE....uhhhh, HE...does it, it's nasty solicitation, or even stalking!!!!

Oh!!! The (w)horrrah!!!

Thankfully, Miriam just laughs her ass off at such insanity and keeps on keeping on being the woman she is.

Bottom line: Just go to her blog and learn how an unapologetically sexual woman should respond to the Puritan haters. She does it well, she does it right, and she does it with class and kick-ass.

Brava, my dear....way to layeth the smack down on those fools. I kneel down to you.

And while I'm down there.... ;-)

(She's racked in the Blogroll, too, in case you don't know.)

Sex Positive Radicalism 101 -- (Smack)Doggie Style

Since many of you who view this blog may not know or understand the underlying philosophy that underlays this little blog project; I will take time out from the Sex Wars and entertain you with a post that I placed at Bitch | Lab a few minutes ago. It was in response to Miz K sweetly and with much jest suggesting that my advocacy of porn and sex positivity as a litmus test for feminism was "annoying". Since I do happen to have a reputation to uphold; I sent this post in response (actually, it was broken down into three posts, but I am consolidating them here for brevity's sake. Hopefully, it will give you a inkling of the methods of my madness....or the other way around.

Just try and blow this one, Ms. Bitch. heheh :-P

Adapted from the "Erased" thread at Bitch | Lab, which can be found here.

Perhaps a clarification of my fundamental views on sexuality and feminism is needed so that people can understand why I can get really annoying…..errrrrrr, passionate at times about the issues:

I’m not an academic like B|L; I deal in the empirical world with regular working people. (Not that you don’t, Miz B; I’m just saying that I’m not academically trained.)

My belief as a sex radical and a socialist and a free-thinking feminist is that people should be given all of the resources and all of the leeway to make informed decisions about themselves and their bodies based on factual and non-judgemental information…and that the masses should be willing to accept that individual’s decision (whether it be based on an individual or part of a collective decision process) as long as that decision doesn’t negatively impact, injure, or irrepably harm others. To me, a free and equal person is more than able to make informed and capable decision; and whether you like that decision or not; as long as it doesn’t affect you personally, it shouldn’t be really any concern to you what (s)he does.

Now, there are limited conditions to that basic belief where I do think that government or the state can step in in the name of the common good and intervene in personal behaviors that may become ultimately destructive to others..but the burden of proof lies with the government or the other institution to prove that they are acting in the proper interest and that their actions are limited to the scope of the danger, and not just to increase government power for the mere sake of power itself.

Therefore, I have no problems with government inducing citizens to pay their fair share of taxes to fund infrastructure improvements or public health care or living wages or supporting legal and fair unions to improve the well being of the working class and the poor, because that represents a common, collective good of equality and social and economic justice.

On the contrary, I have a really BIG problem with using tax dollars financed through regressive taxation to fund a overbloated military and a repressive social structure (jailing citizens for “victimless crimes”; using prisoners and undocumented “illegals” for cheap labor to undercut wages and benefits for working people; repressive surveillance (sic??) used to snoop on people to use their personal failings against them; and other similar issues); as well as giving all sorts of benefits to the wealthiest portion of the population at the expense of the working class and poor majority.

[Note that I use the term "working class" in the traditional old-school Marxist sense of meaning anyone who depends solely upon their labor for their wages.]

In short, my belief in free will and self-determination has always been rooted in the ideas of fundamental Leftist notions of equality and social justice and redistribution of resources and popular control of the means and ends of production.

Similarly, as to my views on porn and sexual expression: I’m not arguing that porn is the utopia of ultimate personal sexual expression, or even that those who consume it regularly are the vangard of the new socialist (or feminist) revolution. Of course, all porn is not neccessarily asthetically pretty or promotes all love and peace and flowers; real live sex reflects the attitudes of those human beings who make it, and so does porn. (And like any other medium, porn is not immune from all the motivations and frailties of the profit motive; that more than anything else is the source of why so much of it really sucks (and not in the good way, either).)

Yes, most het porn is tuned to male fantasies of women; it is the collorary of romance novels and soap operas that are geared to women. (Ignoring, of course, gay male, bi, and lesbian porn or porn featuring transsexuals.) Yes, porn sells a certain hyperrealistic fantasy about a woman or man who is always ready to drop his or her drawers whenever (s)he desires sex (not to say that such women or men don’t or shouldn't exist, mind you; people who aren't afraid to follow their hardon or clit and enjoy sex to the fullest is definitely NOT a bad thing); that’s not that much different than lotteries which sell the opportunity for escape from middle-class drudgery into the level of the rich, if only for a while until the money eventually runs out. And yes indeed, porn can also be a reflection of the worst in people’s behaviors; it reflects the broader sexism and racism that exists in this unequal capitalist, racist, patriarchial society.

But just because sexist people may produce sexist porn to sell to other sexist people and make a small fortune on it at the expense of the talent (the male and female performers) who does all the “dirty work”, or that are some really nasty people who do exploit and abuse prostitutes or erotic dancers for their own purposes, does NOT neccessarily translate always into porn or sex work being solely the essence of patriarchy and "sexual slavery"; and that its total abolition through censorship and replacement with a “feminist” -made sexuality is the only solution to mitigate for the negative effects. Here is where I particularly and directly part company with the radfems and their “leftist” allies. Human choices are indeed conditioned by the societies they live in; but intimate human sexual desires are not so socially constructed that they would totally fade away if the societies were transformed radically.

Besides, porn and sex work can be and has been used just as much as a tool of progressive, feminist, positive transformation as it can be and has been used for reactionary purposes; and in this world where sex is still treated as nuclear waste outside of the narrow definition of procreation for religion or monogamous “intimacy” within marriage, it is more than important that we understand why porn and sex work remain so popular, even in spite of their illicitity. As important as sex education books and reproductive freedom is to the progressive development of human beings (especially considering the issue of world overpopulation and women’s rights); learning about and understanding the functioning of their sexual bodies and their desires is simply essential….and how can people effectivly understand others if they are so ignorant about their own bodies and feelings??

This is where the traditional Right’s (and the Puritan Left’s) crusades against sexual discovery and enlightenment (and physical acts such as masturbation or non-procreative sexual acts or preventative measures against unwanted pregnancy) really come into focus; it’s as if an orgasm or a man spilling his “seed” is considered to be such a cosmic threat to the social order that huge institutional weight must be sent down to enforce the overall Puritan social order.

Now, I do not deny one bit that being sexually assertive and open doesn’t have its risks and pitfalls by any means, especially for women. There are indeed men who will take the generosity and openness of sexually assertive women as a license to do all kinds of harm to them (including rape, assault, forced prostitution, and even murder). Plus, there is the usual “slut’/”whore”/”harlot” stigma that has always been attached for ages to women who defy the traditional sexual standards of the “good girl/woman/feminist” pedestal; thusly earning them all the typical abuse and slander for “bringing women down”. And there is the threat of STDs such as HIV/AIDS, herpes, gonnorrhea, chimydia (sic??) cervical cancer, and other health risks that go with unprotected sex that those who choose to act out on their sexual urges have to confront.

Given all of this, it is not too surprising that within feminism and the Left there has emerged a counter-Puritan-like movement similar to the Religious Right to condemn sexual experimentation and greater sexual openess as damaging and harmful to women, and to revive all the restrictions of older, more conservative sexual morality as protecting women from “the patriarchy”. Their motives are true and they mean well…but their tactics still do not allow for the basic fact that sexual media and other sexual institutions can be reformed and transformed for more progressive goals, that the primary sex institutions do serve a legitimate social need of venting sexual desires; and that total and complete abolition of sexual services would not in any way change the attitudes of men prone to reactionary beliefs about women and sexuality.

Plus…their open hostility and elitism and sheer disgust towards women and men who don’t share their absolutist views about the innate criminality and rapicity of male sexuality or the absolute equivalence of “pornstitution” with rape and violence, serves to divide and polarize and ultimately weaken progressive activism in general at a time when such activism needs to be more consolidated than ever. This isn’t to say that there is absolutely nothing true about antiporn activism or radical feminism; but their explotiation of certain realities to manipulate emotions and slander their critics (while collectively indicting and punishing innocent men as rapists merely because of their erections, or women who disagree with them as “sluts” and enablers of rape) ultimately does as much or more damage to the cause of women’s rights than any antifeminist Rightist could ever do.

The point of all this, Miz B, is that however I may place my defense of consensual sexual expression and media under the guise of “determinism/free will”, as you so put it; my more fundamental underpinning lies not in the mere defense of free choices, but the radical notion of sexuality being a progressive and a positive force for human empowerment and equality, and that people of the Left should not overpoliticize human sexual desire merely to proscribe human choices that do not coerce or physically harm others. In other words, sex and the erotic shouldn’t be taken too seriously that it becomes an obsession at the expense of more fundamental issues of institutional inequality, but should be taken seriously enough when it is used as a source and a media for enforcing inequality and injustice. Merely attaching sex media, sex work, and the study of sexual desire as the pinnacle of racism, sexism or capitalism, then promoting an essentialist model of “transformative” sexuality as an alternative that has no relation to the reality of women’s or men’s desires and actual behaviors is simply insufficient; one must interact and analyze the real world with real people as they exist; not in the utopias invented in some fantasy world of the future. (Although, such fantasy worlds can be genuine motivations and targets to push for.)

In the real world, men and women will dance, kiss, grind, grope, suck, lick, and fuck; that won’t change one bit one day, one month, or a thousand years after “the revolution”. Maybe it’s time for Leftists and progressives to acknowledge that fact and stop attempting to ape the Right in attempting to put down legitimate sexual urges and desires; and instead work to make sexual relationships and outreach more humane, more equal, more progressive, and more mutually pleasurable for all.

That, sister K, is my fundamental belief on sexuality. Call it “annoying” or call it whatever you wish; but it’s my story and I’m sticking with it.

-- Dedicated to Nina Hartley, Shauna O'Brien, Vicky Vette, Avy Scott, Susie Bright, Dr. Susan Block, The Real Violet Blue, Theresa "Darklady" Reed, Rachel Kramer Bussel, Tristan Taormino, Dr. Carol Queen, Dr. Betty Dodson, and all the other sexy and intellegent ladies who helped me to shape my sex-positive pro-feminist radicalism to the fullest.

Feminist Elitism (The Series): The Lynching Of Nubian

Oh, lookee here....just when I thought that the blogosphere was safe to venture out, here comes another hit-and-run on the White Elitist Feminist Ain't-Got-A-Freakin'-Klew Train...and one more time, it's Nubian of Blac(k)ademic who gets the "honors" of being the chosen victim.

The setup: Nubian agrees to do an inpromptu interview for Feministing in which she specifically clears up her ennui about the past couple of weeks, where she has been taking all sorts of potshots from White feminists who don't quite understand her beliefs that "woman of color" feminists need their own space away from the noise of traditional feminist space. (Remember: first there was the rumbling over her story about being accosted over whether Black skin burns easier; then there was the crackbacks over the last Women of Color Carnival where some White feminists were put off by her comments that they shouldn't complain about not being a part of the WOC space.

Some tidbits from the interview:

Do you feel that this is true of the blogging environment in general? Or do you feel that if you were a White woman or a White man, you’d receive a different kind of treatment?

Oh, no. I noticed this treatment is coming to a lot of women of color. For example, I was on Feministing, and Samhita wrote something about the Duke [rape] case and people were just hurling: “You’re the most unintelligent blogger on this site!” The attacks were about her character, and “you’re a horrible writer.” I’ve gotten called a horrible writer, whiney, and a token. I don’t see that kind of attacking towards White women bloggers or White male bloggers. People would disagree and say that they disagree. But they don’t say that you’re stupid and you’re unintelligent.

But I also think that this is possibly the blogging world in general. It’s the way it’s set up. It’s just so anonymous and you can write something and not have to have someone protest your argument in real time. So, you have the time and the media to be rude, or what they call “snarky.” [Laughs] Or whatever that word is. [Laughs]


Do you think this kind of attitude comes from all around, no matter what race the commenter is? Have you received “snarky” comments from people of color readers as well?

Not really. There’s this one guy who comments, and he’s always challenging what I say. I think he just does it because he’s this Black Nationalist that believes that women have their role and basically, Black women, and Black lesbians, shouldn’t say anything. So, his comments will call me out on what I say, but it’s still very respectful. It’s not condescending or rude. And maybe I’m biased in saying that, but I really haven’t gotten that negativity from readers who come out and say that they’re people of color.


Do you think these comments also reflect what you face in academia, and in your life in general?

Most definitely. When I started blogging, I noticed that the big popular feminist blogs are run by White women. They’ll have this discourse about the same issues—like abortion or sex-positive—or whatever everybody else is talking about. And so when someone comes out and challenges them and says, “Hey, you didn’t include a race analysis. Or you didn’t include a class analysis. Or what you’re missing out on…” My guess is they then feel offended, or say, “Who are you as a woman of color to come and tell me, a blogger, what I’m missing?” And that happens in academia as well. You’re supposed to know your place.


Do you have any examples from academia?

I took this class last year called “Black Women Feminism.” The title alone represented what was going to be discussed in the class. And there were quite a few White feminists in the class who wanted to control the conversation. There was a specific example where we were discussing what exactly Black feminism means. And this one White woman in the class said, “Well, as a White feminist, I feel that I should be able to call myself a Black feminist because the tenets of Black feminism center their analysis around the lived experiences of Black women in a White supremacist society.” And I challenged her, and I said, “No, but that’s not all of what it is. There’s a special lens through which you view your life that can only come from living your life as a Black woman.” Then it turned into this huge argument of what exactly is Black feminism, and who is allowed to be what. I felt like I couldn’t really say much because the argument got heated and if I raised my voice then I would take on the stereotype of this, you know, angry, loud Black woman. [Laughs]

I have to figure out how to navigate trying to get my voice heard, and trying to explain to some people that certain things apply to certain people. That doesn’t mean it’s exclusive or racist or anything like that. It’s just that some things, other people, no matter how much they want to [Laughs], will never be able to experience. Even if, out of respect, they allow certain people their own spaces. But it just turned into this argument of me coming out to look like I’m angry and loud and I don’t know what I’m talking about with all my emotions [Laughs] and not being capable of intellectual engagement.

[...]

There's so much more that she says in the full interview.

Now, you would think that that would be as simple as that. No controversies, no flaming, everyone agreeing to disagree.

You would be wrong.

Seems like the ambush was lying in wait, and about 3 comments in, the attack begins.

[From nubian in the original] I don’t see that kind of attacking towards White women bloggers or White male bloggers. People would disagree and say that they disagree. But they don’t say that you’re stupid and you’re unintelligent. [/nubian]

I have to call absolute, complete and utter bullshit on that one.

I could point you to a zillion examples but it seems pointless as they are so easy to find you'd have to be deliberately avoiding them to miss them.

Posted by: xyz | July 22, 2006 07:09 AM

----------------------------------------------------

What is "complete and utter bullshit" is that the only person to "get it" so far is a woman of color. It perfectly illustrates what Nubian is talking about.

When are we, white liberals, going to understand that the change we are looking for cannot be achieved by looking at issues narrowly? If we want wage equality, for example, the solution cannot be found without looking at how class and race play into wage inequities. We can't fight one type of discrimination without seeing how they are all interrelated. Let's not do what the blue states have done and say "things are black and white" and never allow any questions that complex or threaten our view of the world (and the privileges that go along with it).

True equality requires giving something up: our privilege. Until we're ready to do that, forget equal wages or any other equality.

Why are we (white people) so defensive? Why do we refuse to listen to what we are told (but should be able to see on our own)? Because we can't accept the personal responsibility that comes along with it. We don't want to take responsibility for a world of so many inequities and so much waste.

Nubian and Celina, until you are finally heard, I hope you will keep blogging/interviewing/writing.

Posted by: luci33 | July 22, 2006 12:33 PM

Actually, luci33 was NOT part of the ambush of nubian...she is listed only responding to xyz.

Then our old friend Alon Levy decides to add more kindling to the roast:

What is "complete and utter bullshit" is that the only person to "get it" so far is a woman of color. It perfectly illustrates what Nubian is talking about.

The problem is that (white) radical feminists have no trouble giving you examples of how people take race more seriously than gender, and of how men in general don't really listen to them, regardless of race or class. A few months ago there was a kerfuffle on, I think, the comment pages of The Countess about how men freely comment on women's writing style instead of on their substance.

Now, I don't really think that gender trumps race, or anything like that. Nor do I buy Nubian's claim that race trumps gender in a way, because everything she says in the interview about race has been said by other people about gender.

For example, let's consider the point about the racial wage gap. It's true, a lot more people talk about the fact that American women make 77 cents on the male dollar than do about the fact that African-Americans make about 79 cents on the white dollar (don't quote me on the latter figure - I calculated it from gender-differentiated figures).

But that's not necessarily because the blogosphere is insensitive to racial oppression. I've seen several times the figure that on average, an American with a black-sounding name has to send half again as many job applications to get called in for an interview as an equally qualified American with a white-sounding name. If I wanted to sell affirmative action to my readers, I'd concentrate on that figure a lot more than on the racial wage gap, simply because it's harder to contest.

Posted by: Alon Levy | July 22, 2006 01:48 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------

Later on, Alon elaborates:

Prairielily is right, I meant blacks have to send in 1.5 times as many applications as whites do in order to get an interview.

BlackAmazon, I'm not saying Nubian's wrong because other people have said the same thing. My criticism of her boils down to two things, really.

1. It's possible that she mistook plain assolishness for racism. If the same white idiot writes the same caustic comments on my blog and on Nubian's, it's possible she'll interpret it as a sign of racism whereas I won't. Of course, it's just as possible that she encountered real racism and that Steve Gilliard, who has attacked people who claim that the blogosphere is a whites-only club, was simply lucky not to encounter any.

2. The interview gets dangerously close to race-trumps-gender. I know that Nubian's had to deal with gender-trumps-race shit in the past, and I know the feminist movement has a race problem. But at the same time the civil rights movement has a gender problem.

Posted by: Alon Levy | July 22, 2006 05:43 PM

At this point, nubian comes forth to respond initially:

at first, before this interview was gonna go up, i almost cancelled it. it was done over 2 weeks ago, before i decided to throw in the towel.

alon, you are taking my words and saying something that i din't say. don't bring in that race trumps gender bullshit. did i ever say that? i could have talked about how most of the big white feminist bloggers are also straight---then you would have just pointed out that i'm complaning that straightness trumps queerness or whatever. you disgust me. instead of appreciating what i had to say, you just go an nitpick, manipulate and take the negatives out to once again, make kortney look like a racist, complaning, angry black woman. criticize me all you want, really, i don't care.

Posted by: nubian | July 22, 2006 06:36 PM

Which motivates this response by xyz:

Nubians' argument is argument is corrupt. Unforuntately that is the way things seem to go.

Stick to the facts, present issues clearly and you'll find that the majority of people will listen to you,(that's if you want them to).

Don't exagerate, don't bullshit, just make coherent arguments. It can be as simple as that if you want it to be.

Posted by: xyz | July 22, 2006 08:02 PM

Yeah....way for a White feminist to lecture a Black woman on her blogging abilities.

But hang on...here's where we inject the blowtorch....in the form of a post from a "msjane" with obvious issues with nubian from the WOC carnival:

Not to be "snarky" (I agree with you, I have no freakin clue what that means either)...but I'm sorry Nubian, I have just one word for you:

Hypocrite.

Here's a quote from this interview:

"I’ve gotten called a horrible writer, whiney, and a token. I don’t see that kind of attacking towards White women bloggers."

Really?

Here's you on July 10th attacking white feminist Winefreid Breines:

"the professor ignored the history of black womens activism that existed WAAAAAY before the white womens feminist movement.
how arrogant is it of her, to claim that women of color, specifically black women, started a movement after white women did. Isn't anyone else upset by this interview??
-- Posted by: nubian July 10, 2006


I think you just called her arrogant. In addition, you negated her individual experiences, as you complained others do with you, and you proposed an outrageous claim that black feminists came "way" before white feminists.

Here's you and Rossana complaining that white feminists talk about Reproductive Rights apparently just way too much for your liking:

"...the big popular feminist blogs are run by White women. They’ll have this discourse about the same issues—like abortion or whatever."

"Why is the anti-choice movement being talked about so extensively?


I don't agree with that position. I think it is very, very important. Enough to be talked about, enough for people on this very blog to march in Mississippi for. But as you said, everyone should be respectful of other people's experience and priorities. Why can't you do that?

It's very sad that you're so educated, young, interested in making a difference, bring to the table unique experiences of being black, female and gay, and you choose instead to create divisions and make mocking statements. When you made this comment I was floored:

"I’m tired of people writing, “I’m a White feminist and I’m learning so much from you.” And I want to write back and be like, “I’m not here to teach you!”"


That is so pompous, and very nasty. What a waste. We are all here to learn from each other. We are all teachers. Although some of us need to grow up first before we can teach.

Posted by: MsJane | July 22, 2006 10:47 PM

Which elicits this fire-breathing response from nubian:

msjane....

i am not here to teach white feminists about race and racism. i don't like being put into that position. it puts more responsibility on me and less on them--my goal in blogging was not to be someones teacher. sorry. yes we all learn from one another, but i think it is telling that i have been postioned as the "race teacher"--how is that fair? it isn't.

second, i did not attack the professor. her research was shoddy and i pointed it out.
people do not point out my shoddy arguemnts, mainly, because i go to great lengths to make sure they are logical and coherent. her argument wasn't.


mrsjane, really, what is sad is you. you just want to embarass me and like i said, everyone wants to just point out how racists i am to make themselves feel better. but honestly, you just make yourself look foolish.

Posted by: nubian | July 22, 2006 11:23 PM

Which is then followed by this reenforcement from BlackAmazon:

Ms jane first off show me why teh claim black feminists came before white feminists is outrageous with honest facts and examples and then maybe you can be rude and dismissive of nubian.

Also pull quoting one or two lines from thousand word essays that had to do with multi lyaered issues doesn't prove your point. Especially if one of them is a question. Rather than engage nubian in maybe answering or discussing you choose to stage a n underhanded un supported attack.

ANd its sad you are a condescending women who would rather try and instruct someone else on their responsibilities to you and others than actually adress the issues they have and are discussing.

Finally it is most intriguing to me that in a post about a FEMALE blogger whose unique experience illustrates something about the workings of the blogosphere almost any and every tactic is being used to avoid engaging and treating her experience with actual respect both intellectually and emotionally. INstead peopel want to get there " i knwo how we should be talking to each other" condescension and talk about anything but this diversionary tactics.

yet we're all here to learn form each other right

Posted by: BlackAmazon | July 22, 2006 11:32 PM

But now comes the post that brings the house down...from someone called "Eshew Obstration" (and I've bolded the money phrase):

Wow. This got really weird really quickly.

BlackAmazon, could you please explain to me in what way Winifred was arrogant?

I was thankful to Nubian for adding information to an informational article, but at the same time there was no evidence provided as to how Winifred was being arrogant.

To be fair, Nubian hasn't been blogging for very long. I wouldn't say that six months experience is anything to bow down and worship or even truly respect.

As far as her writing is concerned, I'm almost 110 percent sure that you, BlackAmazon, are in fact Nubian trying to ghost up support for her in this commentary. You both have the same atrocious writing style (misspelled words, incoherent grammar and shoddy support for your arguments). That has nothing to do with your politics, point of view, race, gender or sexual identity and everything to do with your writing style. A blogger, by nature should be prepared to defend their writing style and their arguments if they allow and encourage comments.

And I'm sorry that you are sick and tired of white women learning from your blogging, if education isn't part of the reason that you were inspired to blog, I'd like to know what is? When information is exchanged people are always teaching and learning, and for you to be frustrated that someone was learning from your thoughts, emotions and experiences is confusing at best. And, if I allow myself to dwell on the implications of your frustration it becomes rather insulting.

Are you be similarly frustrated when black women write you to tell you that you've educated them about your politics, beliefs and their historical implications?

If not, perhaps you are missplacing anger. I'm not a psychologist, however, so probably not.

Posted by: Eschew Obfuscation | July 23, 2006 12:55 AM

WOW. Just freakin' WOW. Just because of a few misspells and typos, and some irregular punctuation, BlackAmazon isn't really human....she's just nubian using her race to artificially inflate her standing and intimidate Whites into submission. After all, we all know that all those nig.....errrrrr, uppity Black women sound the same and are quite inferior to us experienced White feminists, now do we??

Uh-huh.

Eschew then attempts to crawfish himself away from his nuke shot a bit:

Oops my bad.

Upon rereading comments, BlackAmazon has a distinctly different (and in my opinion poorer) writing style than Nubian.

Sorry, they are probably not the same person.

However, if you're going to complain that people complain about your writing, it might be wise not to unintentionally make grammar or spelling mistakes. Then, you can't tell if referring to "Ms.Jane" as "Mrs.Jane" is an honest mistake or a bitchy passive agressive put down.

Posted by: Eshew Obfuscation | July 23, 2006 12:59 AM

Absolutely. Because only racist jackasses who are grammatically correct matter, eh.

Obviously, nubian seen this act far too many times before, and chooses to bail out:

I'm almost 110 percent sure that you, BlackAmazon, are in fact Nubian trying to ghost up support for her in this commentary.

wow.

now i'm being accused of lying and posting as an alternate identity, because no one could possibly REALLY support my ideas.

are you fucking kidding me?

where are the moderators of this blog? where are the readers who are suppossedly anti-racist feminist who are sitting and watching this spectacle take place?

can someone please remove this interview? i am ashamed that it is even on this blog.

Posted by: nubian | July 23, 2006 01:28 AM

And it gets even better (or worse)....I'll just freepost a series and let you read for yourself:

Nubian, is your friend 12?

Anyway...in response to your post:

I am not trying to embarass you. I was calling you out on your blatant misrepresentations.

I didn't recognize who you even were at first, then I remembered your posting from the other article. You attacked not just Winifred but me too. And I didn't write a book, or ask you to teach me anything, or claim that I'm a black feminist, or do anything to justify pissing you off. I was having a dialogue and you went in attacking.

You have to take some responsibility, and if you're under stress because of being black or gay, then find a way to deal with it. Do workshops, write a book, talk to people, network, or blog. But getting an attitude and saying you're not here to teach anyone is useless.

If you're not willing to listen, not willing to learn, and not willing to teach, then what good are you.

What else can you do other than say stuff like this:

"people do not point out my shoddy arguemnts... because i...make sure they are logical."

And this:

..."maybe I’m biased in saying that, but I haven’t gotten that negativity [condecending or rude] from readers who...say that they’re people of color."


When you make unbelievable statements like this, that you are mistake-free in your blogging and that no person of color on this planet has responded back to you in any negative way, that black people are apparently incapable of being rude,....you will have people wondering what planet you are on.

Posted by: MsJane | July 23, 2006 01:30 AM

-----------------------------------------------------

1.where the hell did i attack you msjane. because i disagreed with you? i never attacked you.

2.black people do not equal all people of color.

3. why are you so condescending and rude. my friend [BlackAmazon] is not 12. SHE IS A GROWN ASS WOMAN.

4. from my own personal experiences in blogging, yes i have gotten the majority of shit from self-identified white people (an example is from you and a number of other people on this blog and other blogs like it). i never stated that black people or other people of color are mistake-free. stop taking my words and twisting them around.

Posted by: nubian | July 23, 2006 01:41 AM

----------------------------------------------------------

Yes you did attack me. You falsely claimed that I was bragging that I started the thread when a blogger obviously wrote it. I never claimed that I did that. I was the first to post to it. A whole day in fact went by to my recollection. You didn't post to it and you didn't post to Jill Scott's thread either. No experiences to share or words of wisdom. Just complaining.

But you want the last word, so go ahead, get the last word. I won't perpetuate this by responding to all of your numbered points.

You already did enough damage by making me and EO agree on something!! aaahhh.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: MsJane | July 23, 2006 01:51 AM

---------------------------------------------------------------

You falsely claimed that I was bragging that I started the thread when a blogger obviously wrote it.

i didn't falesly claim anything. you explicitly stated that you started the discussion thread:

No one posted on this thread, so I went ahead and started the conversation. I opened it up to discussion - not competition.

does that ring a bell?
yeah have a nice day to you, too.

Posted by: nubian | July 23, 2006 01:58 AM

------------------------------------------------------

This has gotten really, really insulting on so many levels. EschewObfuscation, what the hell are you going at accusing BlackAmazon & nubian of being the same person? Two black women are saying the same thing and you can't wrap your head around it so you accuse nubian of being a sockpuppet? WTF???

Anybody who's reading this thread is getting an object lesson in what nubian and blackamazon and dozens and dozens of other women of color bloggers have been saying about trying to dialogue with white feminists.

Immediately throw your hands up and deny racism, deny its impact, deny that there's any double standard, and then put on your 3rd grade school teacher's hat and nitpick grammar and typos.

This is disgusting.

Posted by: kactus | July 23, 2006 02:30 AM

-----------------------------------------------------

Alon, you can actually follow the link and find the data. Read the title of the post, the second box (especially the first and third columns) and click on the 2005 Census data link at the bottom of the post?

Ms. Jane, I don't know what to say to you except you're a racist second wave feminist. There is so much wrong with what you said on that Breines interview thread it's not even funny and your misinterpretation of what was said there and on this thread is not even worth discussing. Read a book. Not on white feminism but on intersectionality. Perhaps the one I recommended above.

Posted by: nonwhiteperson | July 23, 2006 02:31 AM

------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and nubian I think this interview should stand, if only for the thread's validation of just about everything you've been saying. Don't let your words be stolen from you.

Posted by: kactus | July 23, 2006 02:32 AM

------------------------------------------------------

Kactus, where did I say or even imply that? Your defensiveness speaks volumes about your attitude and your skewed perception (I'd imagine). The reason that I was so sure that they were both the same person was because both posts
contained a number of unintentional grammar mistakes and both posts occured within 10 minutes of each other.

I then reread the suspect comments (like I said), and not less than 4 minutes later offered a retraction.

It had nothing to do with the fact that someone agreed with her and everything to do with the fact that the person that agreed with her featured grammar and spelling mistakes that I had thought I saw nubian make.

I see you've conveniently used this strawman to ignore the rest of my post which points to the combativeness and hypocrisy displayed by Nubian in the course of this discussion.

Of course, it's much easier to accuse me of racism (which couldn't be further from the truth).


Posted by: Eshew Obfuscation | July 23, 2006 02:59 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------

I see you've conveniently used this strawman to ignore the rest of my post which points to the combativeness and hypocrisy displayed by Nubian in the course of this discussion.

this will be the last thing i say here:
this has been no discussion. there has been little room offered for any discussion.

i am not a hypocrtite. no one here has actually logically pointed out any specious statements on my part. instead, they have presented themselves as hypocrites. funny how that works.

i think what's happening here, is exactly what i mentioned in this interview, i won't even go into further explanation.

peace

Posted by: nubian | July 23, 2006 03:37 AM

It does goes on and on (even Bitch | Lab gets her licks in..and she elaborates further in her own blog here)..but you get the general picture.

What strikes me most of all about this exchange is the utter hubris and arrogance of these folks who think that being so "liberal" allows them to lecture Black feminists on their blogging skills or whine about how they are being so "persecuted" by WOC feminists. It's kinda like the old "We've done so much for you nig---s, so why are you all up on us, when the Right is doing so much damage to you" mantra that is used so often by "liberals" to keep Blacks and other POCs in the Democratic/Liberal fold when the threat of a more radical critique is raised. It's as if they are really afraid that most Black women really do see through their nonsense and do see establishment feminism (both in its "liberal" and "radical" variations) as completely irrelevant to the actual needs of real-life working class women; so they get rather defensive about genuine criticism. But, I guess that they are so molded by their struggles against "patriarchy" that they fail to see the other privileges (race and class, among them) that they receive.

The main point of all this is that this simply proves nubian's main point about WOC feminists needing a free space of their own to work out their problems and issues; as well as the limits of mainstream "second wave/third wave" feminism in confronting direct issues of inequality not directly associated with gender. If White liberal feminists aren't willing to actually open their minds to what WOC like nubian have to say, then how in the living hell can they claim to speak for all other women...especially in a world where the majority of women are non-Whites??

In any case, the blogosphere needs more women like nubian and Blackamazon who are willing to call BS on the presumptions of White feminists to attempt to speak for their views. Silence them, and you don't just hurt WOCs; you hurt feminism and progressivism in general...and you give the Right just one more weapon in their arsenal that they just don't need.