In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

A red "Keep Calm" poster with the caption KEEP CALM AND STAY ON TOPIC

Spillover #7

Moderator Team

A red "Keep Calm" poster with the caption KEEP CALM AND STAY ON TOPICNew month = new #spillover thread. Some reminders:

  1. #spillover is part of our comment moderation system for keeping other threads on-topic. It is intended as a constructive space for tangential discussions which are off-topic on other threads. This is part of our blog netiquette, which has the general goal of making it as simple as possible for commentors to find discussions focussed on topics of particular interest without entirely stifling worthwhile tangents of sorta-related or general interest. #spillover is also a space for those ongoing/endless disagreements and 101 issues that just keep on popping up.
  2. Commentors are encouraged to respect the topic of each post and be proactive regarding inevitable thread-drift in long threads: we hope that commentors will cheerfully volunteer to take off-topic responses into #spillover so that each post’s discussion gets room to breathe and tangents can be indulged in a room of their own.

More detailed outline/guidelines were laid out on Spillover #1.
The Moderator Team will enforce topicality where necessary, and off-topic commentors who ignore invitations from others to take their tangents to #spillover are one of the reasons commentors might consider sending the moderators a giraffe alert.

203 thoughts on Spillover #7

  1. Hai, ON Nerd. šŸ˜€

    Sorry if I came off as a know-it-all, haha. ON is one of my fields of interest, so I get really excited on the rare occasions when it has some kind of practical value.
    I donā€™t know about Danish, although Iā€™ve heard Danish is pretty easy for English speakers. Icelandic is supposed to be tough to speak, but I didnā€™t find ON super difficult to pick up, at least for reading knowledge (although I already had OE, soā€¦YMMV). I seem to remember seeing a course for ON (of course, this will only give you reading knowledge) that is online and free.

    No, not at all just enthusiastic. šŸ˜€ What I can’t believe is how many people don’t even know who the Norse were, or who Odin is! I figured a bunch more people would at least know Loki after The Avengers, but nope.

    Blarg, you understand old English? I’ve looked at that, it seems to almost be Gaelic. Do you speak more than one extant language? I really feel like I have a poor affinity for languages, though when in Austria my aunty said she thought I’d pick it up quickly because I *try*. I did terribly in school because I was able to get 100% for as long as I could work out the answers by logic from the questions but had absolutely no comprehension.

    I actually have a whole bunch of languages I’d like to learn, and one of them is Thai so I have tried some online stuff and good god, why does it have to be so hard?? I was thinking I really need to try and learn Spanish fluently first, being relatively easy and in very common usage.

    If I could plug myself in and learn languages my main priorities have always been German (Austrian -non-biological- father), Thai (practice muay thai, wish I could talk properly to this cool guy I know), Māori (being Māori myself, and how the language has been so crushed over here), Spanish and Japanese just because they’re pretty. šŸ˜›

    I think Scandinavian languages always went in the too-hard basket. I am in awe of the cool multilingual people I’ve met from up there though. *sigh*

    I actually love the idea of learning old Norse but I have a massive tendency to get enthusiastic about too many things and burn myself out. šŸ˜›

    If you are really very interested in ON mythology, you should also see if you can get your hands on Ursula Dronkeā€™s edition of the Eddas; if you are near a big Uni library, they should have it. Dronkeā€™s is printed in side-by-sideā€“meaning, next to each strophe (ā€œstanzaā€) printed in ON there is the same strophe printed in modern English. Itā€™s super helpful and a good way to pick up the language.
    I am now totally derailing, but I *love* this stuff, and feel free to email me if you want to talk more.

    That’s an awesome idea. I am currently at uni and our library’s fairly good, so I bet we have it. I am super duper not-spiritual in general, but I have this feeling of affinity with the Norse despite identifying more closely with my Māori and Scottish roots and knowing I certainly wouldn’t like being FAAB in Norse culture. šŸ˜›

    What country are you in? I’m in New Zealand.

    I tend to write excessively long posts, sorry. Do you have a blog or something? I don’t really have anything remotely anonymous for lurkers.

  3. Did I read this right? Did Hugo Fucking Schwyzer just claim he didn’t have affairs with any of his students? I thought it was a matter of public record that he had? (I haven’t followed much at all about this creep.)

      1. He seems to contradict himself – talking about the student having a crush on him then dumping him when she found out what a sleaze he was (surprise), but he also says he had other affairs, “none of them with students” which seems to imply she was the only one. I could be misreading it, of course, though Hugo telling porkies doesn’t sound like it’d be a first.

        1. I think he meant he hasn’t had any affairs with students “recently,” because he says elsewhere, IIRC, that back in the day he had “affairs” (if that’s what you call them) with two dozen of them. (!)

        4. Mac,
          Thank you for the imagery. I think I may need to wash my face and eyes and/or brain now.

        5. How in the hell did he even have the time?!?

          Wasn’t there a sordid tale of boning four students in one weekend once?

    2. I encountered he-who-must-not-be-named’s (henceforth “hwmnbn”) website a year or two before the “Hwmnbn is a Male Feminist Hero” post here, and he described having affairs with a number of students, including students in his classes.

      He also claimed that he had seen the light — that shtupping students in his own classes might be seen as inappropriate — and would henceforth restrict himself to students who were not in his classes.

      He also claimed that all of these students were better off for having had an affair with him, although reading between the lines I got the impression that none of them would have anything to do with him after their affairs.

      I haven’t gone back to his website to see if he’s revised his story, for obvious reasons. I have no idea whether the article I read represents the truth or not, since he strikes me as someone who will say/write whatever suits his purposes at the time, without regard to truth or falsehood.

      More generally, I see him as simply a more embarrassingly blatant example of a whole class of “feminist men” and “non-patriarchal” men who are happy to mouth feminist or new-age cliches as long as they continue to enjoy their special privileges (incl. freedom from criticism) as males. It’s one (but only one) reason I refuse to call or even see myself as a “feminist man.”

      1. He also claimed that all of these students were better off for having had an affair with him, although reading between the lines I got the impression that none of them would have anything to do with him after their affairs

        I suppose one could say they are better off in that they have learned to stay away from douchey entitled professors, but it seems an inadequate return on time spent.
        Also, one would like to see a good statistical analysis of the current well-being of students who had an affair with youknowwho versus those who had not.

    3. BTW, I make the practice of not using hwmnbn’s name because, in the past, threads (pretty much anywhere) that did ended up getting invaded by pro-hwmnbn True Believers. I assumed there was sort of a Taboo on his name (cf. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows chapter 20.) Probably just people googling the name, but it was kind of creepy.

      So far, Feministe doesn’t seem to have been invaded yet (are the protective enchantments holding up?)

        1. So he quit the internet, did a poor me interview, then wrote a 2nd goodbye forever internet meanies, avowed no more interviews, then tried to kill himself and did a phone interview on it a day or 2 later.

          All within the span of 5 days tops.

          This has got to be the most manipulative behavior I have ever seen. He blames all of it on the mean feminists who wouldn’t let his past abuse of women go.

          His new explanation of how he almost killed a woman reads like an exotic story, and is so gross I stopped reading half way. It’s amazing to me how he can recall the sexual details but not the rest.

        2. At the risk of sounding like a mean and heartless harpie, he apparently also managed to pull of an attempted suicide and 5150 hold in that time span as well. And that’s according to him, still, not the rumor mill.

          It all does sound rather improbable in a soap opera like way, doesn’t it?

        3. I know. He ends the phone interview after his suicide attempt with- Mental illness is a b—-.

          Honestly, dude. Just stop talking.

        4. If only, Pheeno. Because he needed to never start talking at all. And the compulsive need of his to keep talking. And talking. And talking? Needs to have had a lid put on it a couple twenty years ago.

          Meanwhile, I do feel a somewhat irresistible urge to chuck tomatoes at the guy. With his protestations of, take me seriously! I’m a changed man! And a feminist! Who still engages in the same compulsively destructive, abusive, and self-obsessed behavior he claims to have abandoned in favor of greater enlightenment and feminism.

          Yuck

        5. I just can’t shake the feeling that his suicide attempt was a calculated move to guilt his wife into staying with him, while at the same time boosting his internet sympathy votes.

          I dunno. This is what happens when you don’t screen male feminists before giving them access to women. You get this guy.

        6. Keep the wife sympathetic, and keep the attention coming from others. Double win!

          That it must be done by doubling down on over the top salacious behaviors is also seen as a win by him, apparently. Double yuck.

        7. I feel a certain “told you so” bitterness around the latest chapter in the douche-dude saga. His true character has been pretty well apparent for at least a good five years now. I’m sure plenty other WOC would agree with me since it seems like he was mostly just shitting on us back then.

        10. @Lolagirl

          Thank you so much for posting that link. It is a relief to see this spelled out and shared on the page. The more I think about this the angrier I get, not at HS but at his enablers and apologists. Sisterhood my ass.

          …I started to frantically search for the apologies, the accountability, the mea culpas. I searched in vain because I am not interested in his apologies or his accountability…No, I wanted to find the apologies from every editor in a major publication that gave him a paid gig so that he could become the ā€œHugo Schwyzer brandā€ (LOL again, he called sexting and dick pics ā€œoff brandā€). I wanted the media that celebrated all the page clicks his filthy faux feminism brought in to publicly acknowledge their role in creating the toxicity that enabled his rise to fame…
          The women, and it is no coincidence he systematically picked on Women of Color, whose lives he insulted and put down deserved this apology…
          Flavia Tamara Dzodan

      1. Thanks for posting that linking. That’s some straight bullshit. She takes no responsible for the role she played in promoting his “brand”.

        “Months after you stopped working together, things got profoundly fucked up, but it doesn’t entirely invalidate the exchange of ideas and the discussions that stemmed from his work. ”

        ’cause things were just dandy until quite recently.

  4. God save us all, heā€™s getting ready to write a book. Goodbye 2 was a frigginā€™ trailer.

    He has visions of prestigious reviewers praising his ā€œunflinching honesty in the face of his all too human flawsā€¦ā€

    (Giraffe’s remark)

    You know, the sad thing is that’s probably exactly what they’ll say. Not the feminist critics maybe, but the sort of tale that was linked to seems to be exactly what people lap up today and shower with praise. Some people just want a voyereustic account of people being disgusting, or of people being the victim of disgusting people.

    (I have no beef with people who are telling their own accounts of being the victim of a crime, but that’s not the case with him.)

    1. Interesting, although the title includes a bit of hyperbole. There’s nothing “secret” about the origin or history of the Protocols; the forgery was exposed as long ago as 1920, if not earlier.

    1. Wait; are you suggesting that A4 was supposed to know that Natalia isn’t straight? He is supposed to be an expert on her sexual orientation? I think that when someone puts up a lengthy post about homophobia in Russia, arguing for an extremely narrow definition of that term, and nowhere identifies herself in the post as being LGBT or as having any kind of personal stake in the issue, it’s entirely legitimate for people to assume that they’re straight.

      If A4 was wrong in that assumption, he was wrong. But I don’t see why he owes Natalia an apology.

      1. No? Emphasis is on “assuming”, not on “straight”. In absence of knowing someone’s orientation, I usually ask, I don’t just declare that they’re straight and wait to be corrected. (Insofar as A4 waited to be corrected.)

        1. Quoth A4 on the 19th of March, 2013:

          “I’m a man, and [snip]”

          Now, we’ll grant you that gender is not necessarily fixed, and what was true five months ago may no longer be, but it’s the one piece of evidence we could dig up for or against.

    2. Natalia hasn’t said that she isn’t straight. She said she has a personal stake in the issue–something straight people with gay relatives or friends often say.

      I respect her right to not want to go into details, but if you don’t tell people your sexual orientation, you can hardly expect people to know it.

      1. I respect her right to not want to go into details, but if you donā€™t tell people your sexual orientation, you can hardly expect people to know it.

        While I agree with this, I find it hilarious that A4 waggles their fingers at people all the time for assyooooooming anything about them, like race, but is perfectly happy to then turn around and accuse someone of being straight simply based on their trying to provide a little non-US perspective on homophobia. (Which I still don’t think was homophobic, since I know exactly what she’s talking about, tbh, from an Indian context.)

        1. It is ironic, given A4’s tendancy to not give solid answers re: many things, but I have to admit I assumed Natalia was straight at first as well, though I recognize she was bringing a valuable insight into Russian LGBT issues regardless of orientation.

          Writing about queer issues while using your real name while you’re not out but don’t feel comfortable proclaiming your straightness just seems like… a dangerous move, and one that will stifle your ability to talk about the issue personally. It might have been a better idea to use a pseudonym entirely.

          And as an aside, I loathe when people go off demanding apologies for others. I always percieve it as…condescending? infantalizing? It’s an irritating action in itself.

        2. I don’t see how it would work if Natalia had tried to write this article pseudonymously. She already has a history here of writing about Russian issues, and it’s well known already that she is herself Russian. A pseudonymous article, written by a Russian women, posted here at Feministe, without anyone suspecting or coming to the pretty much irrefutable conclusion that it is, in fact, Natalia writing it? That sounds impossible to pull off, quite frankly.

        3. I have to admit I assumed Natalia was straight at first as well, though I recognize she was bringing a valuable insight into Russian LGBT issues regardless of orientation.

          Well, I don’t know that she isn’t straight, though I’ve got some recollection that says she isn’t (but my memory’s spotty, who knows). I find it hilarious, though (by which I mean not remotely funny), that A4 was essentially asking a Russian resident to come out while she was writing an article about how dangerous it was to come out in Russia. I mean, I hesitate to assume about everyone on this site, but I was twenty-one the year it finally became legal for me to even say that I had any interest in homosexual sex/relationships, and even that was only if I went to the capital of my country. I would also bet a significant amount that A4 has not spent a chunk of their life living where homosexuality is illegal, personally. So, you know, people who have no idea what it’s like to live as an adult where even talking about being not-straight essentially requiring Natalia to prove her orientation in order to not be a “nice straight lady”? Are being beyond asshole if you ask me.

          Also, what Lola said. And I don’t demand apologies for others usually, but I don’t care either way.

      2. It’s not whether Natalia is or is not straight, it’s the part where A4 went “yall have fun listening to the nice straight lady”, without knowing a thing about her orientation… and yet, as mac said, will be Extremely Offended if anyone assumes anything about them.

    3. I would agree with you Donna, if Natalia had not began her article with the following:

      First of all, this is a personal blog post of mine ā€“ I am not speaking for my employers or colleagues here ā€“ and it is not meant for Russians under 18 to read. I have to make this clear, or face possible repercussions. Yep, just putting that out there!

      I think one could very well, after applying one’s good reading comprehension skills, keeping the context spelled out by the author in mind while reading her article, and then reading between the lines a bit given the Natalia’s initial disclaimers and realize that perhaps there is more to the story than she stated outright. You know, because it is personal for her, and she may face negative reprecussions in her home country for what she writes and says.

      Or one could just go off half-cocked and not do any of these things at all. Oh, and one could also then ignore others even after they attempt to correct that certain misapprehension one is making about the article writer and her intentions.

      Or not, one supposes. And be gracious about it when things are set clear for one.

    5. I’m pretty sure it’s been discussed numerous times here Natalia’s married and has a son. I don’t see what’s so crazy about assuming that she at least has the privileges of a “straight lady.”

      Also, my crazy little belief is that people are wrong on the Internet about the private lives of people we only know from text, and that’s okay.

      It’s okay to make a mistake and be corrected.

      We have two people on this very thread who admitted to making assumptions. As long as it’s not one that’s out of left field and totally irrational, if it’s not right then set the record straight and move on, or deal with it obliquely like Natalia did.

      1. Well, being married to a man and procreating with him is not the final word on straightness.

        Just saying.

      2. Iā€™m pretty sure itā€™s been discussed numerous times here Nataliaā€™s married and has a son. I donā€™t see whatā€™s so crazy about assuming that she at least has the privileges of a ā€œstraight lady.ā€

        Oh, right, because what would any thread be without a generous dose of “those bisexuals and their straight privilege”.

        Not saying she is one, just getting really fucking tired of bi erasure just because of a heterosexual relationship.

        1. That’s why I said “privileges of a ‘straight lady.'” instead of “straight lady.” Because if bisexuals didn’t exist, then being in an opposite sex marriage would mean you’re straight.

          And yeah. In a homophobic society. Someone who is bisexual but is in an opposite sex committed relationship with children, where no one even has to know they’re bisexual, is a heck of a lot more privileged than someone who is gay or lesbian and is, or wants to be in a same sex relationship. The second person is going to have to deal with a lot more shit and homophobia and physical danger.

        2. I, err, Tony, you have posted a lot words and strung them into sentences, yet they fail at coming together into something that makes logical sense.

          That you think a bisexual married woman is somehow privileged over other LGBTQ folks is nonsensical. Maybe, and only for the sake of discussion, there may be some shelter for that woman as long as she stays closeted in her m/f pretense of a hetero relationship. But as soon as she may step out of that shelter of a pretense? You seriously think that is a place of privilege over other LGBTQ? Really???

          Because that right there is some serious oppression Olympics bullshit. Words fail to describe how irretrievably offensive and stupid your pov to actually be, Tony.

          FFS

        3. Thatā€™s why I said ā€œprivileges of a ā€˜straight lady.ā€™ā€ instead of ā€œstraight lady.ā€

          Right, because bi people in opposite-sex relationships don’t have to deal with being closeted, being erased, being shat on for being traitors to the LG community, being treated like a sex toy or assumed to be up for threesomes, called cheaters, assumed to be incapable of commitment, assumed to be perverted, assumed to be pedophiles, or required to bury their sexual orientation in order to retain relationships. And, even aside from all that, if they come out and do everything right, they still have to deal with shitlords like you telling them how their lives are exactly like straight people and they’ve got all these privileges. I mean, sure, they’re dealing with less homophobia, but to say that that’s the same as having “straight lady privileges” is such a load of shit that you really should apply to work at a fertiliser plant. Or, you know, supply it.

        4. Lolagirl,

          The idea that every single LGBTQ person in the world has the exact same level of oppression is just absurd. Pointing out that you can have different circumstances within the LGBTQ identities and that in some contexts you can face a lot more oppression based on those circumstances should be common sense.

          mac,
          I never said their lives are “exactly like straight people” or that they didn’t face shit from being closeted or stereotyped if they’re out in the open. But that’s not the same thing as not being allowed to marry, not being able to have a relationship at all if you’re closeted, not being able to be open about your relationship without slurs, threats, and fears of violence, being accused of not perpetuating the race by reproduction, being lured on “dates” by fascists and then beaten and tortured, being killed or beaten for saying you are gay, or being abused by the cops that are supposed to protect you.

          And all this is based on the *conjecture* that Natalia is bi. What we know about her suggests her experience is very different from the typical LGBT person who faces the worst of Russia’s homophobia. I think that’s fair, that’s enough for A4 to suggest that she doesn’t have a personal stake in it. She corrected him, and that’s fine.

          I just think you’re being too harsh on A4.

          Maybe you have some previous vendetta going on, but it seems like having a whole spillover thread dedicated to trashing him for not taking into account a non-obvious possibility when there’s no evidence from Natalia that she’s still mad at him over this, or any dispute from A4 to Natalia’s correction of him, is pointless.

          But whatever. I’m out of this now.

        5. I honestly don’t think my comment you’re responding to is about A4. A4 has issues, fuck knows, but bi erasure’s never been one of them.

          But thatā€™s not the same thing as not being allowed to marry, not being able to have a relationship at all if youā€™re closeted

          There’s this notion that bi people are somehow not affected by marriage inequality just because they’re able to marry someone of the opposite gender*, which I’d really like to push back against. It’s as ridiculous as saying that closeted trans folk aren’t oppressed by transphobia, or white-passing folk have nothing to fear from systemic racism.

          Anyway, I’m curious as to why I’m being singled out for “having a vendetta against” A4 when I didn’t start the thread, and in fact attempted to explain my POV more politely than others on the thread.

        7. Because no lesbians have ever been in heterosexual marriages ever.

          No, but lesbians in het marriages are oppressed by being in the closet. Unlike bisexuals in het marriages, who get straight privilege by being in the closet.

          Don’t ask me how that works.

        8. That you think a bisexual married woman is somehow privileged over other LGBTQ folks is nonsensical. Maybe, and only for the sake of discussion, there may be some shelter for that woman as long as she stays closeted in her m/f pretense of a hetero relationship. But as soon as she may step out of that shelter of a pretense? You seriously think that is a place of privilege over other LGBTQ? Really???

          I think it’s pretty fucking offensive that you assume that a bisexual person being in a committed relationship with someone of the opposite sex is necessarily living a ‘pretense.’

        9. there may be some shelter for that woman as long as she stays closeted in her m/f pretense of a hetero relationship.

          You do know that bisexual people can be monogamous, right? And that it’s no more a “pretense” for a bisexual person to be in a straight relationship than a same-sex/queer one? I agree with amblingalong that that was pretty offensive.

        10. Woah, back up everyone.

          Being in a monogamous, hetero relationship does not unmake someone bisexual. We’re all clear on that, aren’t we? All I meant with my comment is that Tony was going on about a bisexual woman being privileged over other LGBTQ people because she appears to be in a hetero relationship. I pointed out that was bullshit. Because it is, because hetero married relationship does not change the fact that she is still bisexual. And the potential for that bisexual woman still facing a shitstorm for being who she is very real, regardless of her being married to a man and appearing to most, if not all, as being hetero and thus privileged (Tony’s words, not mine.)

        11. All I meant with my comment is that Tony was going on about a bisexual woman being privileged over other LGBTQ people because she appears to be in a hetero relationship. I pointed out that was bullshit.

          I really don’t think that’s bullshit at all. I’m a bisexual woman in a monogamish relationship with a man, and I think it’s obvious that I am privileged through my hetero relationship in many ways over other LGBTQ people. I’m not saying that bisexuals in hetero relationships have no problems, but the fact is I’m in this relationship, we could get married, anywhere, and we can go anywhere in this country and hold hands and not worry for a second that we’ll even get side-eyed. It’s a very privileged position.

        12. All I meant with my comment is that Tony was going on about a bisexual woman being privileged over other LGBTQ people because she appears to be in a hetero relationship. I pointed out that was bullshit.

          Eh. I think bisexuals in het marriages (or marriages presumed to be het at any rate) are privileged over those of us bis who are married to people of the same gender. (Lol, oversimplification of terms, because we’re both genderqueer, but wev.) However, I disagree with Tony’s position that bisexuals in het-seeming relationships have “straight lady privileges”. I think it boils down to the same thing as being white-passing or a closeted trans person, frankly. Sure, you’re being shat on somewhat less than someone who’s “open”, but to say that white-passing people or closeted trans folk aren’t in a world of pain and risk is incredibly ridiculous.

          So I guess I sort of fall between you and Tony on the opinion spectrum.

        13. Eh. I think bisexuals in het marriages (or marriages presumed to be het at any rate) are privileged over those of us bis who are married to people of the same gender. (Lol, oversimplification of terms, because weā€™re both genderqueer, but wev.) However, I disagree with Tonyā€™s position that bisexuals in het-seeming relationships have ā€œstraight lady privilegesā€. I think it boils down to the same thing as being white-passing or a closeted trans person, frankly. Sure, youā€™re being shat on somewhat less than someone whoā€™s ā€œopenā€, but to say that white-passing people or closeted trans folk arenā€™t in a world of pain and risk is incredibly ridiculous.

          So I guess I sort of fall between you and Tony on the opinion spectrum.

          Although I identify as “Jewish,” the fact that others identify me as “white” affords me an innumerable amount of privilege. Even if I was in ‘a world of pain’ over my lack of a Jewish identity, that still doesn’t nullify the privilege I get because I have a similar amount of melanin in my skin to the average white person.

        14. Even if I was in ā€˜a world of painā€™ over my lack of a Jewish identity, that still doesnā€™t nullify the privilege I get because I have a similar amount of melanin in my skin to the average white person.

          Yes. I said as much. In a sentence you quoted, even. Right here:

          I think bisexuals in het marriages (or marriages presumed to be het at any rate) are privileged over those of us bis who are married to people of the same gender.

    6. I feel so popular.

      Here you go crowd:

      I have a penis. I’m a man by anyone’s standards. I have manly entitlement issue for sure.

      But I’ve been identifying with female coded behaviors since the age of five. Wearing girl’s clothes sometimes, hanging out with girls in school, reading books with girl protagonists, taking after school cooking and sewing with girls whenever I could.

      That wasn’t really ideal while going to an Orthodox Jewish private school for ten hours a day for 13 years or growing up in an Orthodox Jewish community (where actually, yeah, being gay, or at least “being active” as my principal put it, was reasonable grounds for expulsion and other fun punishments. You shoulda been there when my principal called me into his office because one of the teachers had been on the craigslist m4m section and saw my stupidly and illegally posted face picture and ad for hot muscular gay action. I managed to convince him it was a prank being perpetrated against me so luckily I didn’t get expelled)

      I came out in ninth grade, and spent the rest of high school being the only gay person anyone around me new. Many of them thought I was pretending to be gay for attention. Such wonderful attention.

      I couldn’t really explore any cross gender identification because of the strict rules about cross dressing. Except on Purim, when you’re allowed to cross dress. I first did drag on Purim my senior year, against my parents wishes of course. I continued to do drag in college at various times until the stripper/slutty drag culture started to feel gross to me. I dressed up conservatively as a woman for graduation because I though “Who ever heard of a drag queen graduation from college?”

      Recently I’ve been occasionally wearing women’s clothing when going out in public for no discernible reason to myself other than that I felt like it.

      I often feel most comfortable when blurring gender lines in my public performance and I’ve often been harassed for it.

      I hope I’ve spilled enough sacrificial blood for you all in this post. May your judgment be satisfying and feel complete.

      And no, I’m not going to apologize to Natalia. That post was crap, and her discussion of homophobia was crappy and incredibly simplistic and full of apologetics and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how homophobia is rooted in upholding a naturalized heterosexual matrix of desire and that every culture will find it’s own variants and think that they are not homophobic but just this other thing and pretend it doesn’t have anything to do with icky icky icky gay sex. She’s frequently talked about her famous husband in the past and showed a really shallow understanding of homophobia.

      You guys are gross.

      Except for DonnaL, who is kind of astoundingly consistently level-headed and awesome.

      1. homophobia is rooted in upholding a naturalized heterosexual matrix of desire and that every culture will find itā€™s own variants and think that they are not homophobic but just this other thing and pretend it doesnā€™t have anything to do with icky icky icky gay sex

        Blah blah blah if someone says homophobia works differently in different cultures they are saying that other cultures are not homophobic, because all cultures in the history of ever must be exactly like the US in how they practice homophobia because heads up asses, American universalisation, etc, etc.

        In small words: homophobia functions from a primary drive of wanting to stamp out sexual diversity (as a subset of any kind of diversity/divergence) in several cultures. In others, it functions from a primary drive of wanting to enforce conformity to a specific religious structure. In yet others, it functions from a primary drive of ensuring procreation. This does not mean that any of these drives are not homophobic; what it means is that they are differently homophobic. Indian homophobia is relatively recent a phenomenon, was largely pastede on yey by the Anglos (thanks colonialism!) and rests not on a religious foundation, since there is no scriptural bar on homosexual relations in Hinduism*, but on a desire to force people into conformity. On the other hand, religiosity drives homophobia in North America to an extent that nothing else does. ALL THESE THINGS ARE HOMOPHOBIC. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to pretend that my culture is exactly like yours, functions exactly like yours and thinks exactly like yours just because you can’t get your head out your ass and your perspective out of your country for three seconds in a row.

        Also, I didn’t ask for your gender identification this time. I just pointed out that for being the NOO ASSUMPTIONNNS crusader on Feministe, you’re pretty happy to do it yourself. I’m not calling out your gender, I’m calling out your hypocrisy.

        *yes I recognise there are other religions in India, but going into all that might be too much nuance for you Murkans. Be happy to talk about it at length if anyone wants to know.

        1. And I should add that all these variations on homophobia do absolutely uphold your assertion that they all stem from the artificial elevation/naturalisation of heterosexual sex/desire/pairing; I don’t want to give you the impression I disagree with that. What I’m talking about is the angle through which that homophobia is filtered, and its primary manifestation(s). Basically, praxis, not ideology. And I’m sure you’ll take my perspective relatively seriously, as someone you can’t accuse of being a nice straight lady just because I don’t toe the Murkan gay male party line about everything sexuality.

        4. if someone says homophobia works differently in different cultures they are [not] saying that other cultures are not homophobic,

          I assume, mac, that there was supposed to be a “not” in there, as indicated, given your other statements to the effect that:


          This does not mean that any of these drives are not homophobic; what it means is that they are differently homophobic.

          Although all of this is sort of beside the point, really, because Natalia did specifically state that she doesn’t believe that the Russian government (or the people in charge of it) are homophobic.

          This is an assertion which does, in fact, depend upon an extremely and preposterously narrow interpretation of what “homophobia” means. A4 was hardly the only person who took issue with it. Even if one accepts that these people have gay friends (just like Ronnie and Nancy did), and are promoting and exploiting homophobia for reasons of political expediency, that still falls within any reasonable definition of homophobia. I don’t care what country or culture you’re in. Of course, I don’t buy for a second that Putin isn’t a homophobe (personally or otherwise). The expression of disgust on his face every time he mentions LGBT people hardly needs translation.

          Also, I’ve certainly had my differences with A4, but this is getting rather silly. It’s rather farfetched to try to paint A4, given hir history of living in two marginalized cultures both of which have always been viewed as alien by mainstream society, as being some sort of Ugly American — excuse me, “Murkan” — who’s completely oblivious to cultural difference and nuance.

        5. Yes, there was supposed to be a not! Damn it.

          This is an assertion which does, in fact, depend upon an extremely and preposterously narrow interpretation of what ā€œhomophobiaā€ means. A4 was hardly the only person who took issue with it.

          I took issue with it too.

          Itā€™s rather farfetched to try to paint A4, given hir history of living in two marginalized cultures both of which have always been viewed as alien by mainstream society, as being some sort of Ugly American ā€” excuse me, ā€œMurkanā€ ā€” whoā€™s completely oblivious to cultural difference and nuance.

          Is it? I mean, A4 was quite happily erasing how several people on that thread have experienced homophobia. But I guess it doesn’t matter that I have experienced how Indian and North American homophobia take different forms, because that’s just not as relevant as A4’s assertion that all people should say that homophobia everywhere must work the same way or those people are “apologetics” for homophobia. Cool. I’ll just take my lived experience from India somewhere else, because it ran up against the casual abstract theorising of someone who happens to be a religious minority who lives all the way across the world, and how could twenty-three years of living in a country and being immersed in its culture stand against that?

        6. In any case, this has turned into a pile-on, and I really don’t want to argue with you, Donna, so I’m going to bow out. Suffice to say that you and I are in agreement re: homophobia in Russia.

        7. I don’t want to argue with you, either, Mac. It’s just that I don’t really think that A4 is actually saying that “all people should say that homophobia everywhere must work the same way or those people are ‘apolog[ists]’ for homophobia.” The only person zie accused of engaging in apologism was Natalia.

          And it is getting to be kind of a pile-on on A4, which makes me very uncomfortable, regardless of the substance. On which I suspect that you and A4 actually don’t disagree very much at all. I saw the “you’re gross” as an angry response to being attacked, rather than something zie really meant.

      2. (a) At what point have I ever cared about your gender or presentation?

        (b) The issue I commented about isn’t the homophobia, it’s the “nice straight lady” part, like somehow you know this thing about Natalia at all.

        (c) Also, macavityktisune’s comment at 6:12 PM, above.

      3. Oh step down off that crucifix, will ya, A4.

        Really? We’re gross? For pointing out out your logic fail, and your personal inconsistency in zealously applying the high standards to which you hold everyone else to yourself?

        Alrighty then. Hypocrite pot meet kettle.

        1. Oh step down off that crucifix, will ya, A4.

          Kind of a weirdly inappropriate way to insult someone Jewish, I think. Why go there, given that it’s hardly the only way to express the sentiment?

          (And no, that particular insult is not entirely secular and divorced from its origins.)

        2. Donna, not attempting to insult A4 here. Just pointing out that he’s being waaaayy over the top in his reaction. Especially given his past inclination to get all HDU! whenever other people have assumed stuff like other’s race, or sex, or LQBTQ status, and so on.

          Yet he has no xo pundit on or self-awareness when he himself does exactly what he repeatedly takes other to task for doing.

          I apologize for my Writing about queer issues while using your real name while youā€™re not out but donā€™t feel comfortable proclaiming your straightness just seems likeā€¦ a dangerous move, and one that will stifle your ability to talk about the issue personally. It might have been a better idea to use a pseudonym entirely.

          I apologize for my Catholic upbringing affecting how I phrase stuff. That saying is commonly used in my part of the world when someone is being silly and appears to be reveling in a persecution complex. Which is what A4 appears to be doing above. Also, it was an attempt at a bit of levity, not a pile on or religious dig. Since I’m basically an atheist at this point in my life, uhh, no.

        3. What happened there?!

          Sorry, I have no idea how part of someone else’s comment ended up in mine, I blame autocorrect.

          Weird, and embarrassing. I apologize.

  7. rests not on a religious foundation, since there is no scriptural bar on homosexual relations in Hinduism*

    Doesn’t stop the Christians…

    1. And your notion that Indian Christians have enough power to overwhelm the poor peaceful Hindutva fundies (without the backup of a colonial power boosting them) and turn India into a gay rights hell all by their lonesomes is pretty cute, Steve.

      1. I read his comment as saying that Christianity doesn’t have a scriptural basis for homophobia, but that hasn’t stopped Christianity from being (or being used to support, depending on how you feel about no true Scotsmen) homophobic.

        2. ā€¦.and that would make more sense, lol. Sorry, Steve.

          Lol…I knew immediately after sending that I worded it imperfectly, but I never imagined that interpretation!

  8. Honestly people, I am literally not reading anything else written on Spillover #7.

    You’re writing with your sharpest knives and expect me to cut myself on them, for fear that you will use something even sharper if I don’t.

    You don’t have enough insight to make it worth it.

    1. …These are so not their sharpest knives. I’m serious, I’ve seen them be way sharper. I know mine are barbed at times.

      I apologize to both you and Natalia for my part in the speculation/conversation on you two’s personal details. I’m sure it seemed rude/creepy as heck to come into a thread and see people talking about it, and a bit like seeing people talk behind your back.

      That said, I think we can all agree it’s wise to try to keep from letting one’s assumptions seem to be definite conclusions in one’s mind.

    2. I understand that you’re extremely upset about the way all of this has gone down, and without taking sides on this, I hope you don’t mind that I’m going to say something else critical right now. I’ve been following the whole thing from afar, but on the knife thing, I must comment.

      As someone who has been attacked with and extremely traumatized by a knife–from a past lover, mind you, this was not some kind of drill–I’m squicked by the knife imagery here. Trust me, hurt feelings over the internet, however deeply rooted in -isms and other complications they might be, is *not actually* like people forcing you to cut yourself with a knife, at all, in anyway–at least not in my experience! I understand that you’re being hyperbolic and that you’re upset, but I’m also not appreciating the way that something that actually happened to others, including me, is being co-opted to describe mean/oppressive internet behavior. I find this especially problematic because the *only time* you really see things like “attacked with knives!” is in these hyperbolic uses, which meant that when it actually happened to me, I was left feeling like I had absolutely no discourse to resort to in order to describe what had happened. I once wrote a poem about it, and my peer reviewer told me that it sounded too fantastic and lurid to possibly be true and was therefore offensive. This thing that actually happened to me.

      I hope this isn’t invalidating anyone’s feelings, which I understand are running very high for good reason, but actually all the violent imagery here–spilling sacrificial blood! barbed knives!–feels wrong on some level to me. I may have a lot of privileges in some areas, but I’ve also been through quite a bit of very nasty physical violence, and sometimes I wonder if there is a kind of privilege in being able to say “You’re sharpening your knives, you evil internet feminists!” or “I’ve spilled so much blood!” (not actually having spilled blood–if you have, A4, I take this line of thinking back) and not thinking of actual knives or blood loss at all, even for a minute.

      I’ve also been thinking about the way that “noble physical suffering” (as in, also non-sexual and its sacrificial nobility successfully eclipsing or negotiating the humiliation!) is often heavily gendered and is often a discourse that is far more easy for men to take part in, but I fear that I’m letting my Medievalist training get in the way here, so I’ll demure on that point.

      Anyway, feminists will frequently object to people who use “rape!” to describe bad feelings or things that are not actually rape, yet for some reasons other instances of poorly or unrepresented violence get a pass on this.

      I hope it’s okay that I’m bringing this up now. I’ve debated for a while about whether or not I should post this, as I don’t want to seem callous or insensitive.

  9. Random thought: am I the only one who occasionally wishes that the child with a shotgun wasn’t the Feministe logo?

      1. I don’t think anyone would go through the trouble of modifying their popgun to have a cutaway trigger guard.

    3. Random thought: am I the only one who occasionally wishes that the child with a shotgun wasnā€™t the Feministe logo?

      Pretty sure there’s no such logo.

        1. Are you using some obscure kind of sarcasm or something? Its absolutely a shotgun.

          It’s clearly just a cartoon. But if you’re so sure, feel free to take it out hunting with you and let me know.

        4. Okay. You were trying to be clever somehow. Thatā€™s what I figured.

          The word is ‘pedantic,’ and I was merely aping amblingalong’s comments from a previous thread, I wasn’t making a serious argument, just pointing out by example how annoying this sort of pedantry is.

        5. That logicā€¦I canā€™t even begin.

          Sorry, Willemina, when I’m not being facetious, my feelings about it echo exactly yours when you said:

          Iā€™m not 100% on it, I like the imagery but the setting is a bit strange.

        6. The word is ā€˜pedantic,ā€™ and I was merely aping amblingalongā€™s comments from a previous thread, I wasnā€™t making a serious argument, just pointing out by example how annoying this sort of pedantry is.

          Yeah no. Mimicking someone else’s annoying behavior so that you can get people to complain about it or call it out, and then be “look, other people think it’s annoying too!” is a pretty crappy thing to do.

        7. Yeah no. Mimicking someone elseā€™s annoying behavior so that you can get people to complain about it or call it out, and then be ā€œlook, other people think itā€™s annoying too!ā€ is a pretty crappy thing to do.

          Well, I apologize for being crappy. He who is completely free of crap can cast the first roll of toilet paper.

        8. Mock it all you like, Steve. I conversate with people with the expectation that they’re being sincere, not making me party to some social experiment or attempt to prove a point about a conversation I’ve never been in.

        9. @Barnacle, totally agreed. Not really understanding why Steve was saying something obviously wrong was not that much fun. Especially as I have no idea what ambling did that started it.

        10. Thank you Steve for yet again imparting upon us a valuable lesson in how annoying it is when you act the goat.

        12. @Barnacle, totally agreed. Not really understanding why Steve was saying something obviously wrong was not that much fun. Especially as I have no idea what ambling did that started it.

          Ugh, as soon as you asked, I explained my reasoning. As soon as Barnacle complained I apologized. But I’m not going to sit here and beg for forgiveness for letting an argument I had with ambling on another thread ‘spill over’ on to the ‘SPILLOVER’ thread.

          …and Willemina, I never touched that goat.

        13. But Iā€™m not going to sit here and beg for forgiveness for letting an argument I had with ambling on another thread ā€˜spill overā€™ on to the ā€˜SPILLOVERā€™ thread.

          And I don’t think anyone’s wanting you to sit around and beg. That would be boring.

          Just so long as you recognize that it’s a crap thing to do and try not to do it again. Believe me, I recognize the temptation to do what you did (and probably most of us do) but it doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t do it, because it’s kind of a slap in the face to learn that no, that person didn’t really talk to you, or listen to what you were saying, they were just guiding you through hoops to prove a point to someone else.

          And while I also recognize the draw of making an apology tempered with humor (it’s easier on one’s pride, after all) it usually makes it sound insincere/dodging, which is how I read it.

        2. Ur cute Steve.

          Back on track, Mossberg makes a pistol grip tactical that looks basically identical to the one in the logo, sans cutaway trigger guard and receiver coloring.

          I’m not 100% on it, I like the imagery but the setting is a bit strange. Plus the way she’s waving it I’m worried she’ll get broken in half when the thing eventually goes off (trigger guards are there for a reason kiddo).

        3. Oh, huh.

          I thought it was a crowbar because there aren’t many shotguns a small child could wave around with one arm. Not that crowbars are much lighter, I suppose.

      1. Just skimmed over that thread and wow… has there been 100% turnover in the vocal members of Feministe’s commentariat since 2007? I know I’ve been lurking, and commenting every so often under pseuds, since 2006, and I kind of knew that we had an entirely new “cast,” but that really drives it home.

        3. Interesting. The only names I recognize are Angel H. and Lauren (I think). All the others were gone by the time I started reading and commenting here in the fall of 2011. And it’s been a while since I’ve seen Zuzu, too.

        5. You have a good memory. If that was the thread about “mamas,” I think I posted in it a couple of times about broadening the scope of that term. But I think that was the first time I ever posted, and then I went away again, until late in 2011. Largely because I saw Feministe as having a hostile (or at best unwelcoming) environment for trans people. It certainly had that reputation for a very long time.

        6. I was around back then, but through transitioning to different computers and life changes I changed my screen name.

      2. Pretty sure I was around back then, but then as now tended to think of a useful or at least potentially entertaining addition to a thread long after everyone else had moved on – the comment equivalent of esprit d’escalier.

  10. Yet another post from Hugo talking about taking medical leave from PCC and trying to shake out the last bit of sympathy. At last some of his most ardent supporters have finally seen him for who he is. At least a dozen students have posted telling him that they no longer believe or trust him.

    1. HS really needs somebody to step in and just keep him away from the internet. He’s hurting not just himself but his family.

      Are there specialist interveners who can lock a self-sabotaging internet-obsessed person away from their normal blogs/forums/social-media outlets, at least for a while, until they get used to a lower level of engagement? I know how I would lock those outlets down if I were given access to a person’s own computer, but it’s the getting access bit that would be tricky. It would probably require some sort of court order to allow such an intervention to occur.

      1. I know how I would lock those outlets down if I were given access to a personā€™s own computer

        With a really big hammer?

      2. He said that during his leave from PCC, he’ll be receiving psychiatric care. I don’t know what that would entail for him specifically, whether it’s inpatient or outpatient; but if it’s the former, I would imagine he’d have limited access to a computer. If his alcohol/drug addiction also resurfaces and he relapses and needs to get into rehab, he definitely won’t have it. I’m no stranger to mental health issues and while I’ve never had inpatient treatment, I have been in addiction treatment centers and laptops, iPhones, cell phones, any kind of internet access was prohibited, except for near the very end before being discharged and even then with permission from staff.

        I think that would be not only appropriate, but actually essential in his case, if he’s to get better.

    2. A lot of those student posts (not all, but particularly the ones that said the ‘felt like a fool’) read to me as if they were written by the same person

  11. Is misandry a go-into-moderation trigger word on here? (it’s not that I can’t understand why, I’m just trying to see if I should avoid saying it without good reason in the future)

  12. In response to Sally Archer’s drivel on the Manitoba rapes article:

    I’m a member of a polytheistic religion with many goddesses… that sprung from an intensely patriarchal culture.

    So, nope. Religion didn’t create patriarchy. Nor will changing religion end it.

    1. I was trying to think of a word to describe what she wrote, as well as what’s on her website. Drivel sounds about right. (Plus a lot of adjectives, maybe.)

    2. So, nope. Religion didnā€™t create patriarchy. Nor will changing religion end it.

      No, but I’d certainly argue that religion and patriarchy co-reinforce.

    3. I’ve never thought of goddesses as un-patriarchal, though. You can have an intensely sexist religion that still venerates some (impossible, unattainable) types of women, as long as you make sure the real women know their place. :p

  13. creepy that we as a society are apparently quite unconcerned about people who commit suicide in order to leave their loved ones their life insurance (even if thatā€™s illegal)

    mac, I’m not sure how insurance laws work in Canada, but generally in the US life insurance policies have an exclusion clause for suicide in the first 2 years. Also, how does one determine if an existing life insurance policy was a deciding factor in the suicide, and should the attempt fail are we up for going back to the time when suicide was a felony?

    And sorry, but creepy, unconcerned, and suicide really don’t belong in the same sentence. I’m definitely not concerned about those darn dead people pulling a fast one on their insurers by ending their lives. I am concerned about a) what led to the suicide, and b) the impact on the survivors.

    This is kind of a raw topic for me so please excuse any misreading, a trigger or two got flipped there.

    1. should the attempt fail are we up for going back to the time when suicide was a felony

      Sorry, I should have clarified; I’m thinking mainly of India, where (attempted) suicide is still a felony. I’m not sure what the laws are in Canada, tbh.

      I am concerned about a) what led to the suicide, and b) the impact on the survivors.

      So am I. And I know (of) a hell of a lot of people who committed suicide specifically to give their families relief/life insurance money. You can find the relevant info by googling “Farmer suicides south India” (or maybe Karnataka or Tamil Nadu, since those were the hardest hit). It seems to me that the people talking out one side of their mouths about how terribad the hypothetical sales of kidneys are are often the ones who are happier giving dead farmers’ wives and kids relief money rather than, y’know, giving them a loan that would have gotten them out of the situation that led to that suicide to begin with.

      I’m sorry my comment triggered you; I should have specified that I was thinking of Indian contexts, not Canadian.

        1. Yep, it is. They’re trying to get rid of it (may have recently succeeded? I’ve been avoiding the news somewhat), because human dignity, but there’s colonialism for ya. The Brits set that law up, and the goddamn Indian penal code is a dinosaur.

        2. The idea of sending someone to prison who tried to kill themselves is unbelievable. It’s wrong on so many levels, and, I imagine, not a very effective deterrent to suicide. It seems like it might result in further attempts.

        3. It’s beyond disgusting. Thankfully, the cops, not being entirely monsters, rarely actually arrest people. Usually that’s done at the urging of “friends” or “family” who think, for some godawful reason, that jail would be a nice place for someone who just tried to kill themselves… I don’t know.

      2. Thanks for the clarification mac. The contextual difference between the two societies is very wide, and what I could make it through of the farmer suicide stories was heartbreaking.

        1. It’s an awful, awful thing. And so damn preventable. And, at least in Tamil Nadu, partially the consequence of two dickish state leaders being unable to agree on how much water from the Kaveri river each state gets. I can’t be non-partisan on that issue, so I’ll just stay silent, but the whole damn thing breaks my heart.

          If you can stomach the subject at all, I’d recommend watching a Bollywood movie called Peepli Live (Hindi/English). It’s really on the nose and respectful, while revealing the filthy underbelly of just how much society doesn’t give a shit.

        2. And I would argue that refusing financial help while alive, but providing a “suicide relief payment” for widows/orphans, is pretty much state-sanctioned encouragement to suicide. It’s fucking disgusting. It’s not like everyone doesn’t know which regions are struggling and how much.

  14. I’m going to write this here, as I don’t want to derail an ongoing conversation. Speaking as someone from just south of the poverty line the dialogue of “opting out” is barely comprehensible. When you add mental illness into the mix, it might as well be martian.

    1. Agreed, pretty much. Though depending on how far below the poverty line things are, it can be different (where two partners working simply means losing an amount of welfare aid equivilent to the one partner’s new income, when one takes into account daycare costs) as well as then having the strain on domestic things as well.

      I suppose what it comes down to is some really poor people can’t afford to opt in, and some people above that can’t opt out, and it’s only the really privileged who have a choice at all.

  15. I’m going to respond to Tony here, since their post was meant to go here anyway (original comment is here)

    I donā€™t know. Iā€™m probably more sympathetic to capitalism here than most, but I really donā€™t think that overthrowing it would necessarily lead to a better world. All the alternatives Iā€™ve seen are horrendously thought out.

    It seems like a bit of a red herring to redirect all discussion of the gendered impact of workplace pressures onto the capitalist system because it kind of implies that it doesnā€™t exist as a distinct issue, and that feminist workplace concerns should be mostly subsumed under Marxist revolutionary agitation, and that I just donā€™t agree with.

    Look, I loathe the “communism/anarchism/free market/voluntary extinctionism/insert-extreme-solution-here will solve sexism/racism/child abuse/everything!” theme as much as anyone. It’s disturbing, and frankly delusional, to think that any political system or solution will solve humankind’s problems or change it’s basic nature (shitty).

    It also doesn’t change the fact that capitalism is hurting a lot of women in the world, a lot of PoC, a lot of everyone except a very small amount of people. It’s going to keep hurting people as long as it exists, because that’s pretty much inherent in it. With capitalism, the more money you have, the more political power you have, the more you make things favorable to your profits, the more you can get away with hurting people.

    Even if we went and made some happy communal eco-farm thing and went and worked on it today and opted out of capitalism today (which you can’t really do, but let’s play pretend) yeah there would still be sexism. If only women in the group decided to do weaving, then weaving would be considered a shit job, “anyone can do that” “it’s not real work” etc. People would still look at people that look different and decide that different = not as human.

    But we wouldn’t have women burning to death while making clothes in awful fucking conditions because the corporations don’t want to follow safety regulations so they can shave a few cents off so that they can be sold for “Always! Low! Prices!” of $5.99 or some completely bullshit cost that doesn’t reflect their true cost.

    We [speaking strictly of U.S corportations] wouldn’t have commodified a fucking smile to the point that people from other countries are often freaked out and irritated by our shopkeepers and service people. Because smiling and looking friendly even when you have carpal tunnel and your wrist hurts so much you want to die helps! drive! sales!

    We wouldn’t have every aspect of human biology and psychology exploited to make us drool over the prospect of a new THICKBURGER with a ridiculous amount of meat (go ahead and look up the commercials used to sell these things; if they’re not harmful depicions of women then I don’t know what the fuck is) or told everywhere we turn that our emotional well-being is dependant on having a new pair of shoes in 3 different colors.

    “Horrendously thought out”? Are you kidding me? Who thought out capitalism? No one! It evolved over thousands of years. Its current incarnation began brewing in the last 500 and wound up where it is out of a natural culmination of greed, the willingness to exploit humans, and money = power working to strengthen money = power. Don’t sit there and demand that every anarcho-communist you meet on the internet give you a great blueprint for their desired society for anarcho-communism to be considered valid by you.

    In all honesty, there are a lot of problems with anti-capitalist ideals, and my ideal at least, probably isn’t feasible with current world population levels. I’m a rural person. My ideals of a non-capitalist community are necessarily rooted in my experience, of towns of around 2,000 people. How you could apply non-capitalism to that and have it work is a lot easier to see then trying to figure out
    how NYC and Chicago could adapt to such a system. But you know, there are also a lot of problems with capitalism, and I don’t see anyone (*cough* except the anti-capitalists*cough*) throwing it out as “ridiculous” because it’s flawed.

    You want to hear about someone building it, it being small and attractive, and people flocking to it?
    It’s been done.

    Not exactly how I’d do it maybe, but there you have it.

    1. Great post, Barnacle. I’m sorry that I didn’t see this for several days. I think we’re actually simpatico in many ways.

      When I criticize poorly thought out alternatives to capitalism, I mean those that try to overthrow capitalism and set try to set up something else on a society wide level.

      I understand why people do that because setting up your own community no matter how good is not going to save women in the garment industry in Bangladesh from burning to death or dying in building collapses. You can only do that by changing the existing system.

      The fact that capitalism wasn’t thought out before hand is not really an excuse for these types of proposals to be poorly thought out. Because they’re trying to fundamentally alter what took 800 years to grow up in however many years their program takes to implement. I don’t think that’s possible. Hence my support for reformism / the fact that I care who gets appointed to the Federal Reserve, who wins elections etc. because that’ll make an impact on someone’s life even if the system keeps going.

      As my comment and subsequent comments suggested though, I’m in agreement with you that it can be done in a smaller scale, just as capitalism itself started on a small scale. Regardless however, it has to be a purposeful act, a constructive project with goals and not just another label for dropping out.

  16. You know, I have an admirable willpower and all, but it’s never easy to shut up when people are talking about you:

    Indeed. In a small way Barnacle in her reactions above is echoing the mistakes we at Feministe made at the time of the Clarisse debacle.

    Especially when they’re misgendering you. “her” my ass ą² _ą²  Let it be known all ye who want to gossip about me in posts I’ve been advised to stay out of: I am neutrois and my preferred pronouns are they/their/them. “Mixter” if you feel the need to address me by sarcastic honorifics.

    That said, my comment to White Rabbit went through before I saw the “go away Barnacle” mod note. I wasn’t being intentionally disobedient.

    1. That said, my comment to White Rabbit went through before I saw the ā€œgo away Barnacleā€ mod note. I wasnā€™t being intentionally disobedient.

      Understood. Since the thread was moving so fast that you might not have looked up at my previous mod note, I wanted to make very sure that you got the message to take some cool-off time.

    2. Apologies, Barnacle. I thought you identified as a woman.

      I actually identify with your reaction to Jill’s post. At the time of Clarisse’s interview I remember thinking (about Schwyzzy) “What a dick. Why would anyone want to listen to him? Now can we all move on please?”, having not had any exposure to him or his writings prior to Clarisse’s piece. I count myself among those who didn’t really listen to the WoC at the time. They were saying on the Clarisse and subsequent threads that it wasn’t just that he was a dick about women in general but had been particularly dismissive of WoC and, to pile things even higher on the shit mound, had been encouraged in his dismissive attitude to WoC by the support of some pretty mainstream feminists, and could we not call this out?

      Your comments come across as the “yeah, don’t know him, but he’s clearly a dick, let’s move on now” rather than acknowledging the complicity through silence that Jill is owning with her post.

      1. I actually identify with your reaction to Jillā€™s post. At the time of Clarisseā€™s interview I remember thinking (about Schwyzzy) ā€œWhat a dick. Why would anyone want to listen to him? Now can we all move on please?ā€, having not had any exposure to him or his writings prior to Clarisseā€™s piece. I count myself among those who didnā€™t really listen to the WoC at the time. They were saying on the Clarisse and subsequent threads that it wasnā€™t just that he was a dick about women in general but had been particularly dismissive of WoC and, to pile things even higher on the shit mound, had been encouraged in his dismissive attitude to WoC by the support of some pretty mainstream feminists, and could we not call this out?

        Your comments come across as the ā€œyeah, donā€™t know him, but heā€™s clearly a dick, letā€™s move on nowā€ rather than acknowledging the complicity through silence that Jill is owning with her post.

        I thought he came across as incredibly narcissistic in the interview and stopped reading it almost immediately, jumping to the comments section, which, while highly critical, had not, as yet, mentioned the attempted murder. Reading the comments section, I had to go back and read the interview and immediately thought, as you did in your ‘move on now’ thought, he was just a ‘dick’ to be ignored (my comment actually used the word ‘tool.’)

        You are correct though. People like him aren’t being ignored by others who are in positions of power, so why should they be ignored by people with legitimate grievances?

  17. TW for transphobia and everything that goes along with TERFs:

    After the thread talking about TERFs advocating for male infanticide, I had to check Radfemhub out for myself and OH MY GOD YOU GUYS WEREN’T KIDDING.

    Holy assmagnets.

    1. Nope, we weren’t kidding. As hard as it is to believe. And that’s not the only place like that. Unfortunately. Plus, of course, there’s at least one well-known anti-trans self-identified radical feminist who openly advocates the death of trans women. (Assuming they get past the infanticide.)

  18. This article does a pretty comprehensive takedown of homophobia and pedophiliac creepiness in Orson Scott Card’s works. Holy shit this assbag is a creepy creepy creepy creepy human being.

  19. Aaand now Kristin Rawls is commenting at nearly 1 tweet/minute in the most defensive way possible. Ask me how I know! (Answer: She’s been CCing me in almost every single tweet. Jeez.)

    1. I know, it’s totally eating up my feed and now it seems to be all about the use of the term ‘pile-on’ and not about anything more substantive and it’s really boring and annoying

        1. Now she’s at least admitting that maybe she “overreacted” a little and that maybe you didn’t actually mean that Jill is a saint who’s being martyred. As if what you said was in any way ambiguous. Apparently when you used the terms “pile-on” and “saint,” even though it seemed clear to me what you meant, her eyes misted over with fury and that’s all she saw.

          XtinaS is doing a great job explaining what happened, along with some other woman I don’t know.

        2. Yeah, I might pick up the thread again later, but I uh had to get work done. *cough*

          Not to mention, I don’t think KR had any idea what she was on about, after a while. I’ve argued on Twitter before, but this is the first time I’ve seen an argument go aaalll ooover the place like that. o_O

        3. She has now said that she’s written an apology, which is in the moderation queue. So maybe what you said to her did help.

  20. In light of the bullshit and the “anti-racists” and the cliques that have basically overtaken the discussions that were happening on the other thread, I’d like to respectfully request a different thread be opened to further discussion, ideally one restricted to WOC, or at least POC (though I will understand if that’s not doable). Not to be douchey to the white folks on the thread who Get It, but I’m just really about done and it’s damn hard to focus on shit when there’s racist crap in half the non-POC-made comments. Thanks.

    2. It really is a wise idea. I’d say WoC should be the cutoff (rather than including men,) as they are the affected group. I myself made a specific decision not to respond to/disagree with any of the posts by WoC, but even having stuck to that, a comment I made to a white commenter (one who ended up pissing a lot of WoC off,) threatened to derail. So, even those of us who are trying to, as mac says, ‘Get it,’ can unintentionally be stepping on the voices of WoC.

      Quite frankly It could have happened on that thread if people were more aware of what the WoC who post here now were saying. Having said that, I do appreciate that the white women who no longer regularly post rushing in here to criticize Jill were also defending women of color who are not here to put their point across, like bfp, who used to regularly comment and was no slouch at defending herself.

  21. So, a complete digression. We often talk about the turnover in commenters here being surprising. But I realized earlier today that I don’t really know if its out of the ordinary at all. I don’t mean other mainstream feminist sites or even other political sites–I mean sites in general. I commented on a fairy-tale site for a few years…and then stopped. I commented on the late, lamented, Fametracker discussion boards for a year or two…and then they shut down. Is the turnover at Feministe unusual? Does anybody have a sense of what turnover for commenters on a website usually is?

    1. I think it would be surprising if there weren’t a lot of turnover during a five-year period, for any site under any circumstances. I’ve been commenting at Shakesville since shortly before I started commenting regularly here, and I would guess that there’s been as much turnover there as here. Whenever I look at the list of members (past and present) on the mhb message boards, I remark to myself on the long list of people who used to comment regularly who’ve drifted away. People’s lives and interests and needs change; it isn’t necessarily a product of dissatisfaction with the place itself. There is a small handful of members who’ve been there for 10 years, since the beginning (and even longer if you consider its predecessor, which was a Yahoo email group), but not really so many. I no longer comment there myself more than 20% as much as I used to.

    2. I have no idea. My impression is definitely that there is a high turnover of regulars (and bloggers) on Feministe – but then there are folks like me who have been reading for years but only comment in little spurts and keep involvement pretty light/shallow.

      As far as other sites, I dunno. I can only speak for myself. There are sites I get into for awhile and then leave and that kind of thing seems common to those spaces. But I’ve also been a very regular member of a particular forum since 2005, and there are many other people who have stuck around for around that long and even longer. I don’t know what makes the difference, but that forum has certain strictly enforced rules for posting and has a large section just for ~socializing and talking bullshit which I think does a lot to foster friendships/sense of community and makes people want to hang around for a long time.

    3. Not out of the ordinary at all. I’ve been a member of various boards or blogs since the early 00s, and most have had a pretty transient base. I actively commented on one board for about five or six years before I quit (it was a fan site dedicated to a semi-retired singer-songwriter and the board itself was largely inactive). I think that was the longest I’ve ever been an commenter anyway, and I did leave because there was a lot of unchecked racism and sexism. But yeah, I’ve also left places because I’d outgrown them or my politics or tastes changed.

      I think it’s also good to note that just because someone isn’t actively commenting anymore doesn’t mean that they aren’t reading. I only comment here sporadically (and I haven’t for some time), but I read most of what’s written here. I don’t comment because I don’t usually have anything to say that hasn’t already been said, and many times said better than I could have. I see 500+ comments on the first thread and think, okay, that’s everybody, but I’m sure it doesn’t even come close. (I have no idea what Feminist’s average traffic is like.)

    4. Anecdotally I’d say no, it’s pretty normal.

      There are plenty of blogs (including this one) where I’ve drifted in and out over the years. I don’t think there’s anything I’ve been commenting on for more than 4 years, and never consistently – I tend to take months off when I lose interest/life comes up.

      The turnover in bloggers does seem a little high to me, but I could be wrong.

  22. Just dropping in from the #solidarity thread to say to Donna:
    please don’t take my last comment there as directed at you in a mean way; I just wanted to echo the call you were making to taking things to spillover or end them, and to push attention back to the WoC there. And piny’s “creepy” comment was vile.

      1. It’s probably because they [the prodigal oldbies] weren’t around to learn what spillover is, to be honest, or how to go over to these threads and start up a discussion.

        I could say a few snarky things about that, but I’ll hold my tongue…

  23. I wanted to thank all of the thoughtful WOC commenters on the HS threads. I was around for the Clarisse interview and the follow-up discussions and have been reviewing my contributions there. While I had not even the slightest fucking clue who he was prior to that post, it seems my focus at the time has primarily been related to why we had given this murderous creep a platform and combating the ableism from commenters. Even if I was unaware of the epic bullshit he put various WOC bloggers through at the time by virtue of my delayed entry to the online feminist community, there were commenters there who highlighted the bfp incident in particular, and I had no reason not to investigate then (other than privilege/implicit racism). I’m sorry I didn’t do better.

    I know you aren’t commenting for my edification, but I’ve been reading through the comments since the post went up and appreciate your words. I do hope there’s another thread for WOC to discuss, because it’s such a shame what a shitshow that post became. I’ll continue reading the other thread, but with what happened there, I figured you might not want another white voice in the mix, further derailing the discussion.

  24. So this has been on my mind and it’s kind of marginally related to the #solidarityisforwhite women thread and old commenters showing up there… I don’t know a good place for it, and that thread has been derailed enough, so hopefully here works.

    I’ve been lurking here for years and what I noticed is that there’s a cycle that some type of clusterfuck happens in the comments, and then people start talking about “this place” or “this space” being toxic, etc. But the thing is, it’s a blog. It’s not in and of itself an entity that has the power of being toxic, or driving people away. So, really, isn’t it the bloggers and the commenters that are the source of hostility?

    I started thinking about it after all those old commenters showed up and that bad old dynamic was just recreated immediately. And it’s really disturbing to me how this conversation happens (used to be more regularly – it is much better here now, I think) and everyone who talks the loudest about how bad “this space” is just completely withdraws from any accountability for making it what it is. Like, sometimes people say “this space is toxic for WOCs. We haven’t done a good job…blah blah.” But there’s that level of removal – “we,” not “I.”

    Anyway, I don’t comment often enough to really be a part of community here, but I do think about those dynamics and that was just really unacceptable. I know they aren’t going to show up in spillover because they no longer have any investment in changing the dynamics here, but if nothing else comes out of this mess, I hope that folks can really start owning how they interact here and how that contributes to the toxicity, especially for WOCs. I know I am thinking about it.

  25. I’m okay with the fact that #solidarityisforwhitewomenonly third thread is WoC only, since the topic is stemming specifically about the exclusion of WoC and ignoring of the way they were treated but if in the future we’re going to have more WoC-only threads…

    I mean, I’m okay with it if Feministe wants to have WoC-only threads in the future, and have that be an exclusively women’s place. I guess I’m just wondering, do we want exclusive space for WoC to speak, or do we want exclusive space for PoC that are women or FAAB to speak?

    Is this being intentionally made a space where non-binary PoC won’t feel welcome to speak, or is unintentional?

    ‘Cause if it’s intentional, cool, keep on trucking. But if it’s not meant to be that way, then it does need to be known that some FAAB PoC won’t feel like the “WoC only” includes them, and may not even want to be included under something that says “WoC”. I don’t. I don’t want something to be labelled as a women’s-only-space and be invited in. I am not a woman.

    I can understand why cis males would be excluded, since they have the dominant discourse in society and plenty of places to be heard, but a lot of non-binary and trans* PoC do not have their privilege. That’s what made me think our voices may be wanted in the threads as well.

    I know this is for the WoC of Feministe to decide, and not non-binary PoC, so don’t think I am arguing that we have to be let in or anything. I’m just bringing up these points because they occurred to me and might be useful.

    1. I mean, Iā€™m okay with it if Feministe wants to have WoC-only threads in the future

      Eh, I thought it was a one-time measure personally. (I know WOC-only threads were suggested, but I’d rather those were POC-only, if they have to be exclusive at all.)

    2. Though I was under the impression that “WOC” (in the content of this meltdown) meant WOC and non-binary POC, and I wouldn’t have participated on that thread if I felt it was solely for binary cis women of colour (hell, I felt weird enough there as it is, as I explained). Clearly I was alone in that, and wrong.

      I’d like to change my position to either include non-binary POC or all POC period (since the regular POC here are actually pretty okay on the sexism angle most of the time), if there are going to be regular WOC-only threads (though, as I said on that thread, I firmly consider this to be a one-time thing at this point, since I don’t much care for continuous division of spaces, particularly when it means marginalised people fall through the cracks in the process, like you, Barnacle.

      1. Iā€™d like to change my position to either include non-binary POC or all POC period (since the regular POC here are actually pretty okay on the sexism angle most of the time), if there are going to be regular WOC-only threads…

        Non-binary definitely yes. POC in general, not so much. How is the inclusion of men of color functionally different from including white women? You run the risk of having men speaking on behalf of “their women” and marginalizing women’s voices. Also, since I haven’t noticed it being talked about anywhere on this site, I wanted to mention that #BlackPowerIsForBlackMen is also a thing.

        That said, it feels funny having exclusive threads in general, and particularly on a predominately white site. Though, I do understand that this was done by the request of a few people.

        1. Well, there are two issues here, right?

          1) On the issue of WOC being excluded/marginalized in feminist spaces, that seems like a place where there should be WOC-only spaces.

          2) On the issue of racist shit getting a pass in feminism, in general, that’s absolutely a space where POC in general should be included, because a lot of the racist shit in white mainstream feminism hurts men/nonbinary people of color too.

          Obviously 1) and 2) overlap in a lot of places, and aren’t entirely distinct, but I do think there’s enough of a difference to make a forum-by-forum judgement.

        2. On the issue of racist shit getting a pass in feminism, in general, thatā€™s absolutely a space where POC in general should be included, because a lot of the racist shit in white mainstream feminism hurts men/nonbinary people of color too.

          Sure, but it can quickly turn into a conversation between white women and men of color, with both groups claiming to represent the interests of WOC. Also, gender and race oppression intersect in ways that so often get overlooked. The voices of WOC get silenced/ignored.

        3. I don’t see how a conversation including only POC could turn into a conversation between men of color and white women.

        4. I donā€™t see how a conversation including only POC could turn into a conversation between men of color and white women.

          I was focusing on open conversations since I’m not so into exclusive spaces. Although, I’d imagine there would still be the concern about men dominating the conversation in hypothetical POC-only threads. Also, there is a way that men of color can sometimes talk about race in feminism with the White Woman who isn’t there at the WOC who is before them. The conjunction of race/gender along with the voices of WOC get ignored.

        5. Sure, which is why I think we need WOC-only spaces too. But I also think it’s foolish to say men of color aren’t affected by racism in the feminist community (I can think of a shit examples off the top of my head) and I like the idea of some sort of, for lack of a less charged word, solidarity around race, even while recognizing that there are WOC-specific issues as well.

          If the WOC here don’t feel like the MOC are being good allies then I’ll withdraw this whole line of posts.

        6. Sure, which is why I think we need WOC-only spaces too.

          Okay, do you think yourself (man) in a position to tell me (woman) what I need? This is the dynamic I’m talking about. I get that some other WOC here want exclusive spaces. That’s fine, it’s just not for me as I want to be welcoming to people on the margins. I don’t expect to find race-exclusive spaces on a site moderated by white people and frequented mostly by white people. However fraught, I prefer open forums as I enjoy divergent perspectives. (mind you, this is with the assumption that people are thoughtful and don’t act like jackasses)

          But I also think itā€™s foolish to say men of color arenā€™t affected by racism in the feminist community (I can think of a shit examples off the top of my head) and I like the idea of some sort of, for lack of a less charged word, solidarity around race, even while recognizing that there are WOC-specific issues as well.

          Where did I say “men of color arenā€™t affected by racism in the feminist community”?

          If the WOC here donā€™t feel like the MOC are being good allies then Iā€™ll withdraw this whole line of posts.

          ?? Confused. My focus is on process and demonstrated action. I have no interest in black/white declarations.

        7. …also wanted to say:

          …I like the idea of some sort of, for lack of a less charged word, solidarity around race…

          I certainly wholeheartedly agree with this point, it’s just that in practice race solidarity is no more free of complications than gender solidarity. I’m simply saying that we too must address internal issues.

    3. Iā€™m okay with the fact that #solidarityisforwhitewomenonly third thread is WoC only, since the topic is stemming specifically about the exclusion of WoC and ignoring of the way they were treated but if in the future weā€™re going to have more WoC-only threadsā€¦

      I mean, Iā€™m okay with it if Feministe wants to have WoC-only threads in the future, and have that be an exclusively womenā€™s place. I guess Iā€™m just wondering, do we want exclusive space for WoC to speak, or do we want exclusive space for PoC that are women or FAAB to speak?

      I don’t think anyone is suggesting a WoC only thread on, say, abortion or gay marriage. This is one specific instance where voices were being crowded out in a top that related directly to women of colour.

    4. If I’ve understood these points you’ve raised Barnacle Strumpet and macavitykitsune, the issue would seem to be how to designate threads where standard Dominant Discourse on #_Topic of OP is explicitly not welcomed, while at the same time making sure ALL the people who have investment in said #_Topic are included. Is that correct?

      I’m thinking the need for Designated Threads arises from the two biggie recurrent issues: A) that racism and other isms are consistently introduced in threads & B) threads consistently veer off into some variation of White People’s Concerns (or het people’s, or cis, or binary-identifying or occasionally even What About Teh Menz). Threads centered on an instance of marginalization of WOC (for example) should NOT be places where interrogations of “whether that was racist” are allowed, or NWL get to go on about “how much they’ve learned!” or WP otherwise center their own discourse.

      Shutting out that noise by explicitly excluding discourse from the people most likely to bring it seems like it would be especially useful since Feministe does not have a large 24/7 mod team. But your comments point to limitations to that approach, especially since it might not be immediately apparent which interested people are being inadvertently excluded.

      From your experiences here, do you think explicit notes about what kinds of *comments* are, and are NOT, on topic for a particular post, could also serve that same purpose? That way you could (in theory) proscribe some of the most harmful conversations, without worrying that you are creating an inadvertently exclusionary space for people who are invested in that #_Topic.

  26. OK, I’m not a WoC so I’m commenting here, but I’m really not getting what went down between Jill and Hugo Isn’t the First…

    HITF sent Jill emails about a situation at HITF’s school, and Jill didn’t understand the emails and respond; is that what happened? Or did the dude contact Jill also? Or was he affiliated with the site in some way? I’m quite confused at this point.

    1. The full story is Jill’s to tell, but this clarification can be made immediately: the dude was never associated in any way with Feministe [eta for even more clarification] – he has never commented or posted here.

    2. Hugo Was Not The First, I just want to say I’m sorry for what you’re going through. The gag order must be unspeakably frustrating. I don’t know what to say except that I believe you and I really hope you have a support network IRL.

  27. I’ve been accused of being a stalker here and to be honest, I am not sure what the appropriate action to take is.

    I have been a victim of stalking myself and it us not pleasant, to say the least. I do not want to make anyone uncomfortable by posting on this site, or feel unsafe. The term “stalk” may seem to have been metaphorical in use, but I doubt things like rape/abuse/stalking are joked about on a feminist website.

    If you are making someone feel stalked, what is the best option to take? To leave the website, seems the obvious answer, but I think my usage of this website actually pre-dates pheeno’s, so is there still in obligation on me to leave?

    1. I would prefer you cease following me on threads and replying just because you see an opportunity to bring up a past disagreement. I ignored the last time you did it, but that didn’t work. So now I’m letting it be known that it IS uncomfortable and is absolutely starting to creep me out. I have had internet stalkers too and this is how it started. It’s not cool, it makes me uncomfortable and makes me worry that I need to start worrying about it.

      1. If not mentioning it again will make you more comfortable, then I will cease mentioning it.

        If it’s any comfort, I wasn’t “posting simply to talk about a past disagreement”. It was meant as a throwaway humorous line at the end of a relatively long comment on what you said about fanfiction writers.

        All that aside, my intentions have not been to stalk you or make you feel stalked or creeped out. My stalker was in RL meatspace, and I have had the fortune to not have experienced online stalking, and to be honest, it’s not talked about very much even in feminst spaces, so I’m not aware of what may be triggers for victims of it.

        I do apologize if I triggered you. I know how creepy and awful being stalked can be. If there are any other triggers or behaviours I need to keep in mind, I am very open to hearing them.

Comments are currently closed.