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

Speaking of Gloria Steinem and Satire

piny

…And porn…

Pandagon has apparently received some praise from an unsavory source:

Playboy says this about Pandagon (tee-hee):
“The don’t-give-a-fuck spirit of blogging is alive and well at Pandagon, where three fierce, funny, pro-sex feminists disguise their almost frightening intellect with thick layers of attitude. Their favorite targets are blowhard moralists.”

Amanda has reacted to said praise with her customary flippancy, and certain bloggers have reacted to her flippancy rather harshly. I am actually a little gratified, since one of them managed to make my point for me. I give you AradhanaDevindra, whom no one will ever accuse of being a music snob. This is what she has to say about the chortling response to Playboy:

You know what Amanda, by baiting playboy pornstubators on – you’re basically ‘writing for free’ for playboy.

But that’s pretty much what your run of the mill site has been all along. You’ve been writing for self-congratulatory egomaniacs who can feel okay to jack off to porn.

So, since playboy loves you soooooo much, would you actually write an article for them given the opportunity?

Do give me the privilege of hearing an answer to that one.

In other words, Amanda is to blame for Playboy’s attempt to attach itself, remora-like, to the cool feminist kids.

More from AradhanaDevindra, about the details of Amanda’s riff on the honor:

It’s not irony or sarcasm that Amanda responds to playboy pornstubators, she actually baits them on, EXPECTING and HOPING for traffic from playboy.

QUOTE: And in honor the fact that Pandagon managed to get on Playboy’s top ten blogs list, but especially in honor of the interesting discussion last night, an appropriate video on the list “This Is Hardcore” by Pulp. For visitors from Playboy, I highly recommend this video. ’s hot.*

Oh, yeah, she clarifies what she means by hot, which could be read as a ‘gay joke’, as we all know playboy purchasers are mostly straight men:

QUOTE Amanda: *If you dig skinny, sarcastic English singers who write angry lyrics about how they’re not impressed with their abundant opportunities for pornographic fantasy style sex that’s got no possibilities of anything real behind it.

This is the thing, if I, or any other stripe of feminist knew that something like playboy – an ‘institution’ unto itself, was linking to me I would fucking protest it asap. I would have an anti-plaboy banner up asap, instead of ENCOURAGE readership. I would dedicate an entire post to the shitty history of playboy – it’s not that hard to find anti-playboy material you know.

Right. And “Common People” is an ode to Paris Hilton. And “Anorexic Beauty” is a mash note to Kate Moss. Anti-playboy material? You mean, like “This is Hardcore?” Here are the lyrics, which Amanda was thoughtful enough to post. She shouldn’t have had to, mind, since you really shouldn’t presume to interpret a reference to lyrics you can’t be arsed to look up and read, but it apparently didn’t make any difference.

Now. Whose fault is it that AradhanaDevindra can’t understand “This is Hardcore?” Whose fault is it that she is capable of missing bitter sarcasm in a Pulp song? Whose fault is it that the really pretty obvious meaning of the song* went flying over her head? Is it Amanda’s fault for linking the song? Or does the responsibility for AradhanaDevindra’s self-serving and irresponsible reading rest solely with AradhanaDevindra?

I’m asking seriously, because I can’t see anyone else smiling in here. Just how stupid must we presume our audience to be? Pandagon is asking for it if a magazine run by a delusional sexist who has spent half a century dismissing feminist criticisms is able to dismiss the feminist critique that saturates the blog? Their ability to understand feminism or perceive it has some bearing on Pandagon’s right to say that it is feminist? If a bunch of anti-feminist men reduce Pandagon to tits and ass, that’s the sum of its contribution to feminism? Pandagon has no right to respond with anything but, “HOW DARE YOU APPROVE OF ME?! Oh, I cover myself in SHAME!” No tee-heeing? At Hugh Hefner, of all people?

Fuck that. Don’t bother saying you’re sorry, and don’t ever change, any of you.

Which brings me to part two, or, What is Pam, Fun-Feminist Chopped Liver? Why is a post about Pandagon’s response to a Playboy nod to everyone at Pandagon–one which links to Pam, the blogger who broke the story and was arguably least biting, first–entitled “Et tu, Amanda?” And why doesn’t Aradhana–or, for that matter, an ovewhelming majority of the commenters on both critical blog posts–seem aware that Amanda is not the only woman blogging at Pandagon?

*Which I’m almost absolutely sure is not, “Yay! Porn!”

79 thoughts on Speaking of Gloria Steinem and Satire

  5. Jarvis Cocker makes me horny. This is definitely wrong for some reason.

    I’m not familiar with Pulp for political or music-related reasons, believe me.

  6. Do you really think my post was harsh? I was just freaked out. When I wrote that post, Pam had just put up her announcement, followed by Amanda’s quick post. As I said in the comment thread:

    What I was posting about was Pam’s unalloyed joy (as I read it) in making the announcement and the subsequent high-fiving in the comment thread. I was utterly weirded out by that. Here I am thinking about creepy Hef and the Playboy Mansion and that whole creepy deal and remembering Gloria going undercover and now watching all these feminists go “woo hoo! we’re in Playboy!” and my brain just melted.

    This was before the worm-can opener post, before Amanda “dedicated” that song to Playboy, before she’d come to my blog and reiterated her disapproval of Hefner, before there had been any discussion in the blogworld that I could see at all.

    It was just: Playboy endorses feminist blog! Feminist bloggers seem happy about it! Violet’s brain melts!

    As I’ve said several times now, I like Amanda and Pam and Pandagon. (Jedmunds too, but I’m not as familiar with him.) I was just dismayed by their response to the Playboy endorsement, which to me seemed off-base given the history of the magazine. I thought it was worth talking about.

  7. As I’ve said several times now, I like Amanda and Pam and Pandagon. (Jedmunds too, but I’m not as familiar with him.) I was just dismayed by their response to the Playboy endorsement, which to me seemed off-base given the history of the magazine. I thought it was worth talking about.

    This is true; it’s unfair of me to conflate you and someone else posting on the same subject, or commenting on your blog. Perhaps not harsh but off-base itself? It didn’t occur to me that Pam and Amanda could be read as feeling unalloyed joy–any more than it would occur to me that Amanda would sincerely dedicate a song to the Hefster. So I’m having trouble reading the response as apparently sincere.

    I understand the freaked-out bit, though. I’d probably have a similar reaction to theirs if, say, James Dobson linked approvingly to a post of mine (“Um, okay, then!”), and at least a few commenters would respond with, “You know who he is, right? Right?” And I wouldn’t respond to that, with, Yes, you MORON.

  8. So I’m having trouble reading the response as apparently sincere.

    I mean, theirs to the award. I’m not saying you were in bad faith or anything.

  9. Pandagon is asking for it if a magazine run by a delusional sexist who has spent half a century dismissing feminist criticisms is able to dismiss the feminist critique that saturates the blog?

    Especially when that delusional sexist doesn’t even run the magazine anymore.

  10. Especially when that delusional sexist doesn’t even run the magazine anymore.

    Since he’s a founder and since I haven’t heard much about the magazine turning into a latter-day LiP, I have no problem using him as a symbol for the intellectual level Amanda should not be catering to.

  11. i’m clearly a ‘silver lining’ kind of person, cause when i heard about that i thought to myself – WOW, if even a small fraction of playboy’s readers visit pandagon and a smaller fraction of that actually start thinking about what they are writing about, that’s a lot of potential allies.

  12. You know, I’m really baffled by this. Are we never ever supposed to be flippant about PLAYBOY, for heaven’s sake?

    The response from some of the anti-porn crowd–with whom I sympathize–is freaking me the hell out. I agree with some of what Violet says, but some of the others are just caviling.

  13. I’m not seeing the irony in that Pulp song’s lyrics. Could you point it out where Jarvis doesn’t really mean the wank fantasy he wrote – apparently he got the idea from watching porn movies in hotel rooms. He thought they were a bit sad but apparently that didn’t stop him watching them, he just got an erection *and* an idea for a song. Whoopee!

    “Common People” may not be about Paris Hilton but it is about a woman Cocker knew at college who he decided was a spoilt rich b*tch because she didn’t fancy him and is as every bit misogynistic for that.

    Amanda said she didn’t see the problem in “crossing bridges” with Playboy. That doesn’t sound like someone to me who is scorning them.

  14. “In here it is pure” and you can’t see anything ironic? Yeah, your interpretation isn’t being informed by your desire to paint Amanda as antifeminist at all.

  15. Amanda said she didn’t see the problem in “crossing bridges” with Playboy. That doesn’t sound like someone to me who is scorning them.

    Should she be scorning them? Should she have written a post to all the Playboy-reading dudes out there, berating them for being patriarchy-supporting assholes and telling them never to visit her site again? How, exactly, would that have been productive?

    I don’t think she should pander to them, either. And she hasn’t. I guess I’m just confused about what exactly people would like Amanda to do here.

  16. Should she be scorning them? Should she have written a post to all the Playboy-reading dudes out there, berating them for being patriarchy-supporting assholes and telling them never to visit her site again? How, exactly, would that have been productive?

    And why would that have been any more productive than all the “Feminism 101” posts that we aren’t supposed to waste time on?

  17. You know what – I stand by what I have to say. I think the irony is lost on me – not the song, but the entire ‘tongue in cheek’ welcoming of playboy ‘readers’ to pandagon. Amanda’s even gotten a picture of herself in bunny ears. I don’t really care if this is supposed to be ‘funny’ – it’s just not my kind of ‘fun’.

    Maybe I shouldn’t hold other feminists to the same standards as I would myself. But I still stand by everything I said. I will admit to attempting to ‘prod’ Amanda into action – but that didn’t happen. If I had to do it again – I would do it the same way.

    And if you read my comments on womensspace you will know for a fact that I do not hold AMANDA accountable for ‘playboy’ choosing pandagon as it’s best reads. I do however, hold Amanda accountable for her inaction.

    If this was harper’s or utne or something else – maybe we’d all rejoice. But seriously, this isn’t the case and I guess I expected Amanda as one feminist to another to be ‘infuriated’ that something as misogynistic as playboy would chose my writing to further play the ‘pandering to liberal legitimacy and new ‘readership’ card’.

  19. Ok, so we get that you think her reaction was wrong. The question is, what should she have done? How should she have responded? What, in your eyes, would have been a more productive decision on her part?

  20. If you can’t see that “Hardcore” is sarcastic, there really is no hope. Listening to the entire album may help, because it’s a long lament about missing his wife. But probably not for those who are determined to see demons under every rock.

  21. Whatever it was, she should have been wearing sackcloth and ashes and had a hairy cooch when she did it, dammit!

  23. Cocker can hide behind his boo-hooing that it can’t be very nice being a porn star but guess what? – it didn’t stop him watching the porn and it didn’t stop him writing a song about it. He won both ways. It’s like rich people on their way to the opera throwing a few coins at a beggar outside and thinking “it can’t be very nice for that person to be poor”, then getting a warm glow about themselves for being so sensitive. It’s a pose. He’s just the same as the Playboy readers he just thinks he’s above them.

    Have you seen the “This is Hardcore” sleeve? It’s a picture of a naked pornified woman. She looks half dead (but still sexee luckily). Some feminists in the UK defaced the poster ads for it because of their sexism. Amanda on the other hand dedicates it to her Playboy readers, ironically of course, because she and her male friends are nothing like those Playboy readers, they may watch porn for sexual kicks but they are feminists so it can’t be a problem.

    I think Amanda is feminist, I just think she is wrong about this particular issue.

  24. Maybe I shouldn’t hold other feminists to the same standards as I would myself. But I still stand by everything I said. I will admit to attempting to ‘prod’ Amanda into action – but that didn’t happen. If I had to do it again – I would do it the same way.

    Nope! I get the feeling she laughed at you, too.

    And if you read my comments on womensspace you will know for a fact that I do not hold AMANDA accountable for ‘playboy’ choosing pandagon as it’s best reads. I do however, hold Amanda accountable for her inaction.

    Yes, but if you read your comments in Violet’s thread, it becomes clear that you do in fact blame Amanda for Playboy’s approval of her:

    It’s about T n A Amanda, and you haven’t been invited to the table because they ‘like you’, somewhere down the road they’ll use this against you. To do what Maxim does to women (recent feministing post about how they have an ‘ugly’ woman’s list) – to subject them into categories …. look hot girls are dumb, smart girls aren’t hot, come on boys you’ve gotta pick. And this is what capitalism does to women – it categorizes them, and you’ve just fallen into that trap. Further more, it’s good measure for playboy to have some ‘women’s’ content, it makes them look so fucking liberal and ‘woman-loving’.

    The sexuality of women in playboy is equivalent to that of doormats.

    Why didn’t playboy link to BB’s site? Or Ms. Musings? or any other feminist site? Simply because your stance on pornography and most feminist issues is so run of the mill, so tame in comparison to anything else.

    See? Amanda is responsible for Playboy’s interpretation of her blog. Like I said, fuck that.

  26. Wait, no. I meant to say, “You’re so cute when you’re mad!”

    (Gotta keep up the reputation as the bad feminist, ya know)

  27. Aradhana,

    I think one thing you are missing is that humor can be a weapon. Flippancy can take the wind out of an opponent’s sales and laughing at something can reduce its power. Humor can also often make people see one’s point in a way that earnest argumentation cannot.

    Humor is a weapon that Amanda frequently uses very effectively. Whether her flippant response to the Playboy thing was the most effective approach in this case can be argued I suppose. (Personally, I think that expressions of outrage would have just looked silly.) But I don’t think you can conclude that Amanda is endorsing Playboy’s views or pandering to Hugh Hefner or not saying enough about pornography just because she is laughing AT Playboy in this instance.

  28. Cocker can hide behind his boo-hooing that it can’t be very nice being a porn star but guess what? – it didn’t stop him watching the porn and it didn’t stop him writing a song about it.

    You’re making an ass out of yourself. Read the lyrics. It’s not about watching porn, either.

  29. You need to read what he said about this. Google Jarvis Cocker, This is Hardcore, sexist. Watching porn in hotel rooms was his inspiration.

    Lots of men feel pity for prostitutes. It doesn’t stop them using them though. It just helps them feel better about their abuse of them.

  30. Piny & Jill, how ’bout: you’re fantastic when you’re fired up!! Any way you say it, it’s so true.

  31. You know Piny, I don’t care if “amanda laughed at” me TOO…. She’s just another everyday internet persona – so I don’t really care. Just like I don’t ‘really care’ that you’ve devoted this thread to exposing my ‘error’ cause I still stand by what I say. In fact y’all can laugh at me all you want.

    Amanda did not take a stance Happy feminist. She is even quoted as saying ‘crossing bridges’ is never a bad thing – but, come on now – with playboy. I love humour – but maybe i tend to see it more by bloggers like sparkle matrix, phemisaurus, twisty and charlie girl. I think humour is great, I just don’t subscribe to the ‘bust’ type tactics myself.

    At this point, I am just really tired of all this. I shouldn’t expect other feminists to stand by antiporn stances. And I do particularly feel let down as I am sure many others do too.

    I’m out.

  32. She is even quoted as saying ‘crossing bridges’ is never a bad thing – but, come on now – with playboy.

    She was accused of building those bridges, which she did not.

  33. Oh, he watched porn, and that means that nothing he ever has to say again means anything. I recall that you admit you’ve seen porn. We can safely write you off forever now. Good thing, because I needed an excuse.

  34. PS to clarify – I know this will be used against me “She’s just another everyday internet persona – so I don’t really care” that she laughs at me.

    I do care though, when as a feminist you DO have some clout over other people’s opinions and you DO have an opportunity to make significant changes, but you don’t use them.

    So, yes, Amanda has clout – but no, I could care less if she thought I was a ridiculous asshat. I wouldn’t be an antiporn feminist if I really cared about being made fun of – most people do it all the time. I’m not a hairy legged prude for nothing you know.

  35. I don’t really care if this is supposed to be ‘funny’ – it’s just not my kind of ‘fun’.

    I’ll bet she probably found “Cooking with Feminists” on Colbert offensive too. Some people just have no sense of humor.

  36. “Oh, he watched porn, and that means that nothing he ever has to say again means anything. I recall that you admit you’ve seen porn. We can safely write you off forever now. Good thing, because I needed an excuse.”

    For goodness sake, is it really so hard for you to understand this? He’s not sincere. He’s a porn user, not an ex-porn user. He even used a pornified picture of a woman on his CD cover. Those aren’t the actions of a man who is against porn. The model on the cover was:

    “an 18 year-old Russian girl called Ksenia. She has a 32DD chest, is 5ft 4in tall and an up-and-coming glamour model. Her hobbies are swimming and tennis. Ksenia told FHM magazine: “The shoot was fun. Jarvis is very nice, very shy.” More recently, she was involved in a TV advert for Pretty Polly bras.”

    So he went along to leer. Good for him.

    I think you’d written me off already hadn’t you?

  37. Do you realize that you are arguing that insufficient or insufficiently sincere anti-porn tendencies on the part of the guy who wrote a song that depicts porn as soulless, pathetic, and dehumanizing are good reason to say that the feminist blogger referencing that song is doing so as an unironic compliment to Playboy readers?

    I think you’d written me off already hadn’t you?

    Which reminds me: you know what else was obnoxious? This idea that Amanda disappointed the people who’ve been calling her a “fun feminist” for years now.

  38. I’m not just arguing that Piny, I’m also arguing that Amanda is insufficiently insincere in her criticism of porn (she watches it after all) to render any of her jibes at Playboy readers completely harmless. She’s not threatening them, they aren’t threatening her, they are all connected in their mutual love and use of pornography.

    I’ve never called Amanda a fun feminist (I think it’s rather a nasty term) I’m also not disappointed in her, it doesn’t surprise me at all that Playboy would like her blog. I do know that there are people less cynical than me who read and posted at Pandagon and have been disappointed in Amanda, which is a pity for them.

    The reason I have had disagreements with Amanda recently is that she tried to promote herself as some kind of neutral arbiter in the pro porn/anti porn debate when it turns out she uses the stuff herself.

  39. no, actually I love Colbert.

    But this is what this is getting to sound like to me: “Anti-porn feminists are just humourless” and don’t get it, they aren’t into ‘funny british rock stars’, they aren’t into understanding ‘all important rock ballad lyrics’, they ‘don’t understand what satire is’.

    Fine, that’s all fine. I’ll be the first to admit to being guilty of being a hairy legged prude!!! No worries, we already know that we’ve got men in droves ready to tell us that already – so in which case – what’s your point? I’m not hip, I’m not cool, I’m hairy, I’m smelly – I know, what else?

    But what I have to say has already been said, and it all boils down to this – I would do it all over again cause I do hold Amanda to the same standards as my own.

    This was a disappointment and I’d be lying if it still wasn’t.

    Finito.

    You’ve made your point – pat yourself on the back.

  40. Well–and I’m not talking about VS’s post, but Heart’s–consider the source. This is par the course for her. She decided, when she first posted over at Alas, that the feminists Amp linked to were all “fun” feminists who really liked porn okay, which was utter bullshit. But you’d have to read the blogs to know that.

    Likewise, you’d have to read what Amanda has said about Playboy and Hugh Hefner to know how fucking ridiculous, misogynist, and pathetic she said they were. But well, you’d have to read her blog.

  41. “I’ll be the first to admit to being guilty of being a hairy legged prude!!!”

    I’ll be the second then.

  42. I think a lot of different criticisms are being conflated here. (And I know I am not being very humorous about this myself, but I’ve been thinking about this.) Possible criticisms of Amanda are:

    (1) She is pandering to Playboy. (I’d say that’s just flatly wrong.)

    (2) Her “porn-liberalism” is the same as Playboy’s. (I’d say that’s also wrong.)

    (3) She did not react in the most effective way to Playboy’s praise of her. (As I said above, I think flippancy is an effective reaction and in this instance perhaps more effective than outrage.)

    (4) Her stance on porn is wrong. (Feminists’ ideas about porn run the gamut. The problem is I don’t think it’s right to use the Playboy issue to attack Amanda’s stance on porn. The issues are the issues and can be discussed on their merits.)

  43. Oh for god’s sake. The song, the album, and the album cover were all commentary on the emptiness of porn, the commodification of sex, certainly not the glorification of it. I found this interview comment in about 5 seconds:

    This is what’s got me down a bit today,” he begins. “There’s been a bit of controversy about the cover of the album [an apparently naked woman, arched, pained and distant]. They’ve been saying it’s demeaning to women. Apparently, the Independent On Sunday made a big deal about it, to the extent that their editorial said: ‘Don’t buy their record!’ But the idea with that picture was that, initially, it would be attractive: you’d look at the picture and realise it’s a semi-clad woman. But then her look is vacant, it almost looks as if she could be dead; or a dummy. So it was supposed to be something that would draw you in and then kind of repel you a bit. That was on purpose.”

    If you want to object to the idea that a man can comment critically on porn, that’s your perogative, but it sure sounds like you’re intentionally missing the point.

  44. I think you are right in your assessment Happy Feminist, but is it extremely utterly wrong of me to assume that Amanda should be responding to all this on her own?

    We’re repeatedly being told that no ‘blog’ owners ‘owe’ us any response, but I can’t take Amanda’s position/satire seriously when everyone BUT Amanda is responding to these criticisms.

    It’s as if all her fans come to the ‘rescue’ but she’s got nothing to say for it herself. Then we have sheelzebub saying “Read all of her blog”…. Can’t be done. If I’m not going to go back through 3 yrs of archives to get a picture of Amanda’s view on playboy specifically, I don’t think that many new readers will either. And that is why I think it was important for Amanda to take a stance when it was announced.

    And I have said before, I am guilty of upholding her to the same standard. I can’t and shouldn’t extend my expectations on someone else. What else can I say at this point, really?

    And I don’t think my critique is so horrendous that I (or other critiques) of her do not deserve a response. It’s the least you can do. I do however, feel sorry (yes, I said it) that everyone else who does love her dearly is responding on her behalf.

    I like pandagon, I think it’s fun, I think it’s a good read and I think it’s entertaining. But as a reader I guess I expected more.

    But if I don’t (or others) do not deserve a response – that’s fine. It’s Amanda’s blog, she can address whoever she wants in whatever manner she wants and she doesn’t have to reply to anyone.

    That’s fine.

  45. But this is what this is getting to sound like to me: “Anti-porn feminists are just humourless” and don’t get it, they aren’t into ‘funny british rock stars’, they aren’t into understanding ‘all important rock ballad lyrics’, they ‘don’t understand what satire is’.

    Fine, that’s all fine. I’ll be the first to admit to being guilty of being a hairy legged prude!!! No worries, we already know that we’ve got men in droves ready to tell us that already – so in which case – what’s your point? I’m not hip, I’m not cool, I’m hairy, I’m smelly – I know, what else?

    First of all, shove your “I’m not pandering to conventional beauty norms!” scarecrow. No one’s casting aspersions on your leg hair, and you opponents aren’t exactly vying for the red scrunchie.

    Second, I was not merely calling you out for your lack of reading comprehension, but complaining about the logic that would hold Amanda responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. Feel free to find Jarvis Cocker misogynist. Just don’t equate him with Bert Parks.

    I think you are right in your assessment Happy Feminist, but is it extremely utterly wrong of me to assume that Amanda should be responding to all this on her own?

    We’re repeatedly being told that no ‘blog’ owners ‘owe’ us any response, but I can’t take Amanda’s position/satire seriously when everyone BUT Amanda is responding to these criticisms.

    Yes, that is wrong and unfair, not to mention dishonest. I’m not her minion; I’m a blogger who thinks you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  46. No one’s casting aspersions on your leg hair

    Certainly not! As body hair is the source of all feminism, your conspicuous mention of your leg hair is a sign that you are a true Feminist and a Correct Thinker.

  47. I’m not just arguing that Piny, I’m also arguing that Amanda is insufficiently insincere in her criticism of porn (she watches it after all) to render any of her jibes at Playboy readers completely harmless. She’s not threatening them, they aren’t threatening her, they are all connected in their mutual love and use of pornography.

    Yes, and my point: that’s insane. And, no. She does not love them, but they don’t get that, but that is not her fault.

  48. Certainly not! As body hair is the source of all feminism, your conspicuous mention of your leg hair is a sign that you are a true Feminist and a Correct Thinker.

    Wow, you really are ruining it for everybody today, aren’t you?

  49. “So it was supposed to be something that would draw you in and then kind of repel you a bit. That was on purpose.”

    This is just saying what I’ve been saying. It’s about titillation. So what if it’s seedy and empty? Lots of porn users get off on exactly that. In fact it’s pretty much the content of porn except most porn makers do it unselfconsciously.

    “If you want to object to the idea that a man can comment critically on porn, that’s your perogative, but it sure sounds like you’re intentionally missing the point.”

    Do you know what I’d like to see? Instead of intellectual masturbation (because that’s what it was) – men to stop using porn. They can critique it all they want, but if they are still wanking to it and still making pornified imagery of women, they are contributing to the problem.

  50. This is just saying what I’ve been saying. It’s about titillation. So what if it’s seedy and empty? Lots of porn users get off on exactly that. In fact it’s pretty much the content of porn except most porn makers do it unselfconsciously.

    No, you’re saying that there’s no real revulsion involved. Which is exactly what she was not saying.

  51. “No, you’re saying that there’s no real revulsion involved.”

    Oh I think there can be a lot of revulsion involved in watching porn as well as many other of the more obvious feelings. In fact seeing revolting things done to women is pretty popular amongst porn users. Do I really need to list them?

  52. Shorter AradhanaDevindha:

    I don’t care! I’m leaving! And I’ll post a few more times just so you notice I’m leaving!

    Making repeated comments is not a great way to show that you’re “out” of the conversation.

  53. So Jarvis Cocker is to blame as well if people misread his album cover? If that’s so, then surely he can explain why when Iooked at his album, I saw a pony instead of a naked woman. I want my money back.

  54. Once again, it is insane to write as though this is indicative of Amanda’s desire to flatter Playboy readers. That having been said: revulsion is when you are turned off, driven away. You are describing people who are turned on; those things you describe might involve violating social taboos on disgusting practices, but they don’t turn the men off. The commenter you are erroneously responding to, on the other hand, is arguing that these images draw you in and then make you uncomfortable. Not excited.

  57. This is the best debate I have ever read. Granted, not everyone out there is a big Pulp fan like I am, but you have to really bust your ass to think that the song “This Is Hardcore”, or the album is somehow promoting porn. More sane people that are anti-porn should be cringing to read this, since it is evidence that there is a certain kind of literalism to anti-porn attitudes that I used to think was a strawman. I still kind of think it is; no way are most anti-porn feminists so antagonistic that they strive to turn an album lamenting lost love into some sort of porn cheerleading.

    That is art, folks. Good on you if you have never bounced around in the dating world after a break-up, wondering if you will ever connect emotionally again with someone. But at this point, I am wondering if there is any entertaiment that is not sullied by the ever present tension between human desire to be intimate and the human desire to repel it.

  60. “but you have to really bust your ass to think that the song “This Is Hardcore”, or the album is somehow promoting porn”

    Not really, it’s called normalisation. It’s like all those magazines that have articles about the dangers of plastic surgery at the front and then ads for nose jobs and breast enlargement at the back. Porn wasn’t even considered a decent topic for conversation until very recently unless you were a perv, a teenage boy or a radical feminist. Now, as we all know, it’s mainstream and it’s cool to like it (and very uncool not to). Pulp were riding the beginning of that wave.

    Porn isn’t the human desire to be intimate Amanda, it’s the male desire to sexually dominate women (not innate I hasten to add before I get jumped on for making a generalisation about men). But we’ve had this conversation before so I’m off too.

  63. God forbid we take context into account, because then our already strained interpretations might fall apart even more. For instance, if you take the context of me dedicating a song to Playboy readers into account, then it’s uncontestable that I was mocking them. That fucks up the thesis, so it must go.

    Normalization my patootie. Criticizing something on a rock album is often a backdoor way to get people to question assumptions. Humor is effective, too, but of course, mocking the Sacred Playboy is out for “anti-porn” feminists, too.

  64. And yes, porn is not the desire to be intimate. Which is why Cocker CONTRASTS it with actual intimacy. Jesus H. Fucking Christ, is everything “bad” or “good” in your world, no mixed feelings about anything? Wanna cook for me? I often can’t tell how I feel about this dish or that, much less have a predetermined script on how to deal with conflicting feelings about sexual desire.

  65. Porn isn’t the human desire to be intimate Amanda, it’s the male desire to sexually dominate women (not innate I hasten to add before I get jumped on for making a generalisation about men).

    Fine, then I will jump on you here for making a generalization about porn. Sexually explicit films (i.e pornographic films) do not, in of themselves, have to constitute the desire of men to sexually dominate women.

  66. problem: feminist flame wars and pissing contests

    solution: next time someone questions your “feminist” qualifications, dedicate a post in their honor recognizing one of the women from the new blog ” a woman was lynched today” which highlights women murdered every day in the US by men – simply bc they were women. domestic abuse, assult, murder and rape. it links to the news report of their hometown paper detailing the murder.

    why: bring the focus back to the goal and cut through the superficial bullshit and get back to business

    just a thought. might accomplish more. i would think we could all agree that domestic assault, and a concentrated effort to prevent more killings, is more important than this bullshit.

    we aren’t being distracted by society, we are distracting ourselves with this. no wonder women are still beaten to death every day in the US, we can’t stop attacking each other long enough to unite and make some positive change.

  67. Don’t get into tautological arguments; that’s like a never-ending spiral of hell. Porn is about men dominating women, therefore porn that doesn’t have men dominating women is not porn and yet is, depending on if you engage in icky masturbation while looking at it. I jerk off a dildo while looking through Blue Boy magazine, so I don’t confuse myself.

  68. I know it’s a little late for me to be jumping on this thread, but–I think the critiques of Pandagon may be raising some valid points, but it’s too bad they got mixed up in, or even overshadowed by, personal attacks. It does seem to me valid and fair to ask if Playboy is using Pandagon as a fig leaf, so to speak, so they can continue the posture of championing an “enlightened” attitude towards sex, rather than just being a purveyor of banal, middlebrow misogyny. The figleaf theory is supported by Playboy’s depiction of Pandagon as a scourge of “humorless moralists.”

    As for the idea that some Playboy “readers” might become feminists if they start going to Pandagon–Playboy might be the most pathetic publication in history. The objectification is just part of a larger glorification of every mindless product of mass society, provided it’s presented in a glossy picture. I think the people reading the magazine are too stupid and insecure to hold much promise.

    Again, I don’t think personal attacks are going to be very helpful here, and I think it’s unfortunate that when Amanda tries to have an honest conversation about pron, she gets accused of “loving” it. And I certainly don’t think that Pandagon was founded in the hopes of one day attracting the admiring attention of Playboy. But I think it probably is legitimate to ask if Playboy is using Pandagon, and if there should have been a stronger negative response. I am a little “disappointed,” just because I would have loved to have seen Amanda really slag Playboy’s readers. I think it would have been great fun to read (but then I’m a bit of an a-hole).

  69. Suppose some hard-core right wing website wrote about their favorite liberal sites and said something like “the bloggers at Pandagon argue their left-wing case well and have fun doing it”. Exactly what would be the big deal here? Yeah, of course, one might do a bit of self-examining to determine whether there was something wrong with the blog that caused those right-wingers to love it. But if there was nothing wrong, I would think that many people would react by laughing at it, or even saying thanks for the compliment, and moving on.

    And the funny thing is, this situation isn’t even THAT. Playboy, after all, is soft-core porn. It has been deconstructed and criticized by feminists for 50 years. It has also been deconstructed and criticized by anti-feminists and the moralistic right for 50 years. Playboy isn’t anyone’s idea of a feminist magazine, but it isn’t women-hating misogynistic rape porn either. It’s cheesecake nudity along with a stupid, male-dominant women-are-playthings attitude that is prevalent in a lot of mass culture. It’s a beer commercial, only the babes show their boobs.

    So Playboy says Pandagon’s a great website. Amanda and Pam, who have fun with everything, have a little fun with it. They could have also ignored it, or said nothing about it, or welcomed all the Playboy readers, or whatever. Any reaction would have been just fine. And you know why? Because getting endorsed by Playboy is simply not that big a deal. You don’t have to like Playboy– you certainly don’t have to like Hugh Hefner– but Playboy is simply not the antichrist. And in any event, those people who are criticizing Amanda are confusing getting endorsed by someone who you disagree with and endorsing someone who you disagree with.

  71. we aren’t being distracted by society, we are distracting ourselves with this. no wonder women are still beaten to death every day in the US, we can’t stop attacking each other long enough to unite and make some positive change.

    I have much sympathy with this viewpoint, right up until the part where I remember that (1) actually, some of the participants in this discussion ARE also working to make “some positive change” and (2) men only have, what, a several-millenia-or-more headstart on the whole unified front business? Do you suppose they were born with that? Patriarchy wasn’t built in a day and an egalitarian society won’t be, either. One only hopes it will look radically different from what we have now when it’s done.

    And then there’s the purely catty part of me that can’t help loving all the people who jump into discussions of what they condemn as trivial bullshit, purely for the purpose of condemning it as trivial bullshit. What was that train you just missed? Was that the northbound Positive Change Express?

  72. I know it’s a little late for me to be jumping on this thread, but–I think the critiques of Pandagon may be raising some valid points, but it’s too bad they got mixed up in, or even overshadowed by, personal attacks. It does seem to me valid and fair to ask if Playboy is using Pandagon as a fig leaf, so to speak, so they can continue the posture of championing an “enlightened” attitude towards sex, rather than just being a purveyor of banal, middlebrow misogyny. The figleaf theory is supported by Playboy’s depiction of Pandagon as a scourge of “humorless moralists.”

    I think this is blowing the mention of my website in their magazine out of propotion. Really, I think it’s best to think about how Playboy the entity probably has little bearing on this list—I will bet $20 it’s just one writer on staff who put it together. At this point, they use the fig leaf manuever in their sleep, as it were. But the amount of examination that’s been brought to this makes it sound like I posed naked for them or got a column for them, instead of a single mention in a list that 75% of their readers will ignore.

  73. BTW, I *did* slag Playboy’s readers. That I did it in my way, which is by cheekily dedicating a song to them, setting them up to be confused or sort of embarrassed, doesn’t make it less so. I figured my audience would get why that was funny and Playboy readers wouldn’t, which just made it even funnier to me.

  74. Don’t get into tautological arguments

    Damnit! I have been waiting through 70+ comments to make a terrible pun about porn and the word fallacious.

  75. “Just how stupid must we presume our audience to be?”

    Hmm…I think we have the answer to that now, based on the responses to Amanda. I would say that her critics labor under a lack of recognition of economic reality, an inappropriate sense of ownership, and a weird sense of entitlement.

  76. The Anti-Idolitarian Rottweiler’s writers have said they really liked Trish Wilson a lot. Gosh, someone better tell her that she’s obviously fucking up if such a conservative site says they like her. VS didn’t come off this way, and some of the other bloggers who were critical didn’t come off this way. But there were a few folks who were obviously scoring points.

    I’m not “pro-porn” by any stretch–not with the way things are right now. The so-called sex-pos folks don’t like me at all. And I still had a good laugh at Playboy’s expense when I followed the links. The only thing I thought when I saw that post was “What a bunch of fucking morons.” Not, “Oh! Amanda and Pam endorse pornography, fucking sellouts!”

  77. Heraclitus in comment 68 pretty much captures my feeling about the whole thing exactly. Especially:

    But I think it probably is legitimate to ask if Playboy is using Pandagon, and if there should have been a stronger negative response. I am a little “disappointed,” just because I would have loved to have seen Amanda really slag Playboy’s readers. I think it would have been great fun to read (but then I’m a bit of an a-hole).

    But of course to Amanda’s credit she did subsequently dedicate the song to Playboy, which was her way of giving them the finger.

    FWIW I was completely unprepared for the personal attacks on Amanda, not least because my own blog readers are also for the most part Pandagon readers and there’s never been an anti-Amanda vibe at my place. In retrospect I should have realized that would happen, but obviously I’m an idiot.

    I continue to hold out the hope that we’ll be able to discuss these issues intelligently with each other. I mean, shit, I read both Amanda and Twisty regularly, and like both and occasionally disagree with both. No reason it has to turn into a fucking bloodbath.

  79. This is just saying what I’ve been saying. It’s about titillation. So what if it’s seedy and empty? Lots of porn users get off on exactly that. In fact it’s pretty much the content of porn except most porn makers do it unselfconsciously.

    Is the entire concept that someone would create commentary art on the topic of pornography by making an image that first attracts and then, upon examination, foregrounds the ugly and repulsive aspects of porn completely beyond you? Are you really totally unfamiliar with the idea that part of what makes art ‘art’ is complexity and ambiguity of interpretation?

    Taking what is usually subtext and unconscious in porn and making it obivous and conscious is precisely what this image is about. It may or may not still be porn, but it is not ‘just’ porn.

    Except that I’m talking to Delphyne, so all porn is just porn and all of it just the same as the rest.

    Amanda: More sane people that are anti-porn should be cringing to read this, since it is evidence that there is a certain kind of literalism to anti-porn attitudes that I used to think was a strawman.

    This is why I was saying that I thought Delphyne was a troll for a while over at Pandagon. I, too, had previously assumed that people like her only existed in the fever dreams of the real patriarchy foot-soldiers..

    evil_fizz: Damnit! I have been waiting through 70+ comments to make a terrible pun about porn and the word fallacious.

    Is it comonly assumed that a witch’s broom is some sort of Freudian symbol or compensation, but this is, of course, a fallacy.

Comments are currently closed.