you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Et tu, Amanda?

To add insult to injury, Playboy has named Pandagon one of its favorite reads.  When Reclusive Leftist wondered about Pam and Amanda’s apparent giddiness over being “chosen,” Amanda responded that she thought it was “hysterical.” 

I don’t think it’s hysterical.  I think it sucks.  This is what Playboy said:

“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.”

I think the operative words there are “pro-sex,” (meaning pro-pornography) and “blowhard moralists” (to include, or, nay, to equal, anti-pornography feminists.)  They like ya, Amanda and Pam,  because what you do is helpful to them in a way that they need feminists to be helpful to them.   I note that they didn’t choose my blog–  if they had, of course, it would have been as a joke or intended to tarnish my reputation or cause me significant troll problems.  I note that they didn’t choose Twisty’s blog either.  I think Twisty is pretty funny and her intellect is pretty frightening.  I think nobody tops her for attitude.    I also think Twisty would qualify — to Playboy — as  a “blowhard moralist.”  She opposes pornography, SM, and all the fun stuff fun feminists support.  She’s also a lesbian, and not remotely the fun kind of the male imagination.   So she isn’t at all helpful to the likes of Playboy. 

Responding to criticism about the way Pandagon had responded to this dubious honor, Amanda spoke of the glories of bridge-building, to wit:

I can’t even wrap my mind around the idea that crossing bridges is a bad idea.

Yeah?  Maybe a better focus for those impulses and energies might be to attend to the bridges which were bombed out during burqua-gate?  What makes more sense from a feminist perspective:  to build broken bridges to feminists of color or to walk across the red carpet pornographers are more than willing to roll out for any feminist willing to walk across it?




50 thoughts on “Et tu, Amanda?

  1. Playboy chose Pandagon because it is so tame and lame on feminist issues and if I thought Hugh had even glanced at my blog I would be boiling it in bleach. When he tells Pandagon to HOP like a good little Bunny, remember to ask ‘how high?’

    You’ve been conned Amanda congratulations and well done

    Posted by sparklematrix | October 10, 2006, 7:51 pm
  2. Ok, I think I just got dizzy from rolling my eyes one too many times. Excuse me while I go throw up from the vertigo.

    Oooooh Playboy…how exciting! That’s fluffy bunny feminism for ya.

    Posted by Sophia | October 10, 2006, 7:55 pm
  3. Ehhh. This is a far cry from Amptoon’s sellout, which I think you nailed on the head.

    But over at Pandagon, I see an independence of thought; I see plenty of stuff there that’s as objectionable from Playboy’s pov as the stuff they do like. I’m more intrigued by the thought that they needed to note any feminist blogs at all.

    In my view, if someone’s reactions are sharply detailed in consistent ever-always opposition to — let’s call it X — then that person is as defined by X as the supporter is.

    It’s the person orthogonal to X — whereby maybe sometimes they seem in opposition and othertimes in collusion — who is truly independent of X.

    I’m far more distressed by Alas’s blog and have removed that one from my reading list since any perusal of their site boosts ratings of the rest of it.

    Posted by anon | October 10, 2006, 8:06 pm
  4. After following all the discussion at bitchlab, black amazon, brownfemipower, sunrunner, the silence of our friends, fetch me my axe,etc. I finally got it and was able to understand some stuff that completely baffled me before. I am referencing the “burka” thing.
    Most of what Amanda does is bash right wingers. After reading Dworken’s Right Wing Women, I understand the stupidity of that kind of bashing. What I did not understand is white priviledge and the attitude of “saving the brown person” and how white feminists do not see the racism and classism in themselves. It is not about women’s equality with men, but about liberation from a power structure that engulfs us, as we try to understand it. I am not exempting myself from this white women’s attitude, but I did notice how my local women’s centre became a white middle class NGO.
    It really saddens me that Amanda is so thrilled by her acceptance by Playboy. I guess she has made it now. Assimilation is a hard thing to fight, especially when it comes with such ego boosting recognition. Who knows, she might get a job with them explaining the position of all women in the universe. Oh well, isn’t it grand. Meanwhile…

    Posted by rhondda | October 10, 2006, 8:57 pm
  5. Yeah, as delphyne, Sam, or one of the other radfems said on Reclusive Leftist, what’s next, a special feature in Playboy, “Women of the Feminist Blogosphere.”



    Posted by womensspace | October 10, 2006, 9:11 pm
  6. I don’t know what I am more disappointed by Alas’s direct sell out or Amanda’s apathy to the whole thing.

    I was extremely ‘offended’ by the burqa-gate episode and her lack of a sincere apology. But this??? This is sheer stupidity and it doesn’t take an anti-porn feminist to see how fucking obvious playboy’s sexism is and it doesn’t take an anti-porn feminist to see WHY PLAYBOY wants you on their side.

    Disgusting, truly disgusting.

    Posted by AradhanaDevindra | October 10, 2006, 9:41 pm
  7. ‘Disguise their almost frightening intellect’…I’m sorry but is this suppose to be complimentary, because that sounds condescending…Playboy can’t even help condescending to women on their side, so what would they have to say about us… *snort*

    Posted by anashi | October 10, 2006, 10:52 pm
  8. Even the rankings are condescending: playboy ranked them most left-wing and least influential of the ten blogs, But hey they are the most fun!

    Posted by saltyC | October 10, 2006, 11:20 pm
  9. [Imagined reponse of Amanda:]
    “oooh goody, male approval!”

    [Stormy ponders:]
    What school of feminism is that from?
    Oh that’s right, it’s not.
    Puppet of the Patriarchy school perhaps.

    Posted by stormcloud | October 11, 2006, 12:08 am
  10. Well, I could only sympathize with Violet of Reclusive Leftist when she commented, “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.”

    Because a feminist brain will do that when faced with these conundrums. I know mine did.

    Bottom line is if Playboy likes your feminist blog, you can pretty much close down shop and forget about it. I know Playboy likes to ply itself as “empowering” for women and posture as if they really do support feminism, but seriously, if what you were writing was the least bit threatening to them they would not hand you one kudo. Not a one. Not even an ironic one. Not even a least influential one. Not even a mention because they know that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

    Posted by Sophia | October 11, 2006, 12:24 am
  11. You know what else is disturbing? Playboy endorsing the fact that they’re fun feminists. YOu know, because the real ones are such a damned drag.

    Posted by ginmar | October 11, 2006, 1:11 am
  12. You know what this whole thing is about? It’s about playboy just using another venue to get in on the cool factor. Let’s face it – with it’s publishing sales going down (but television sales going up), they need to seem like they are ‘in’ and ‘down’ with the cool crowd and also getting new playboy purchasers out of it.

    How much T n A is it possible to sell like this?

    Posted by AradhanaDevindra | October 11, 2006, 2:17 am
  13. You know what this whole thing is about? It’s about playboy just using another venue to get in on the cool factor. Let’s face it – with it’s publishing sales going down (but television sales going up), they need to seem like they are ‘in’ and ‘down’ with the cool crowd and also getting new playboy purchasers out of it.

    Posted by AradhanaDevindra | October 11, 2006, 3:12 am
  14. But you know, I also reached the point in that thread where I thought the personal indictment of Amanda was going too far.

    I disagree with Amanda about some things, and I wouldn’t have posted on the issue in the first place if I weren’t dismayed by the whole deal. I’m not afraid of disagreement. But we can disagree with each other without demonizing each other. I like Amanda, and I think she’s maturing in her feminism. I’ve certainly matured in my feminism since I was in my 20s.

    Posted by Violet Socks | October 11, 2006, 3:55 am
  15. I understand, Violet Socks. I don’t like to come down too hard on feminist women for any reason, or for that reason, on women, period, for any reason.

    But you know, I absolutely hate Playboy. I hate it with an absolute passion. I think Hugh Hefner is public enemy number one to women. All pornography is bad, but Playboy? It normalized the view that women were nothing more than the sum of the parts of their bodies which exist to sexually service men. It made pornography cute and fun and healthy and girl-next-door like. There’s so much I could say about this, but I know you know what I’m talking about. Those of us who grew up in the 50s, 60s, 70s, grew up in the shadow of Hefner’s woman-exploiting, objectifying, male supremacist empire building, colonizing. That’s what Gloria Steinem, becoming a Playboy bunny, was all about– exposing that shit, and those assholes, for what they were.

    So to see feminist women we think well of, women we are counting on, apparently flattered by the attentions of Playboy? Very, very hard to take. When I was 8 years old, I found a stack of Playboy magazines in the cubby of my upstairs bedroom. This was 1960. That stack of Playboy magazines caused all sorts of difficulties for me, but it also set me on a certain course, and that’s a long story, but my radical feminism was born in the horrors of the outworking of that course, and so I cannot feel at all charitable or kindly in the direction of Playboy. I hate it. I hate Hugh Hefner. I’m not a hating kind of a person but this man, and his work, I do hate for the way it has harmed millions and millions of women and girls and still does, right now.


    Posted by womensspace | October 11, 2006, 4:51 am
  16. Heart, I would sign my name to everything in your last comment. I’m about 10 years younger than you, but grew up under exactly the same shadow. That’s why to me Playboy and the whole Hefnerama deal is extremely offensive; it’s the normalization of women as porn-bunnies. And that’s why when the Pandagon bloggers were going “woo hoo!” I just freaked. Hence my post.

    But the thing for me is that having lived through the porn wars, I don’t want to do that again. Well, I didn’t want to do it in the first place. Whenever this issue comes up I expend a lot of mental energy trying to understand where these young third-wavers are coming from. I’ve actually discussed Playboy with Amanda before, and I know she thinks it’s awful and Hefner’s awful — she’s said so. I do not for a minute think Amanda is a bad feminist or, as some people seem to think, the anti-Christ. She’s a very young woman with very different experiences than ours, and I see her growing in her feminism.

    We’re not all going to agree — we know that. After 35 years as a feminist, I know we’re not all going to agree. That’s why what I try to do is disagree intelligently, but respectfully. I disagree with Amanda about some things. I don’t shy away from saying that. But she is not my enemy; she’s not OUR enemy. She’s a feminist of a somewhat different stripe, and I don’t see the value to our movement of allowing disagreement to blossom into all-out personal war.

    That might sound namby-pamby, but it’s actually a pretty challenging ethic that I try to follow in these issues. I think feminism is enriched by making every effort we can to engage in constructive dialogue, sharing our concerns with each other without resorting to the “you’re a patriarchy-blowing sellout” level of rhetoric.

    Posted by Violet Socks | October 11, 2006, 5:03 am
  17. Violet
    Whilst part of me agrees with the ‘nurture young feminists’ school of thought, it is also creating great damage to anti-porn feminism and feminism in general. In the longer term, I guess the damage will be along the lines of the faux-lesbian co-opted for the male gaze type of thing. Probably other damage to the cause as well, but I’ve only just downed my first cup of coffee.

    These young 3rd wavers were brought up in a porn-normalised culture of Pussy Cat Dolls etc, so perhaps they have more brainwashing to get over?

    I do try to attack the ideas and support of those ideas rather than directly insulting the feminist herself. Hopefully that was evident in my earlier comment?

    Posted by stormcloud | October 11, 2006, 9:24 am
  18. The other thing is, while I do think it’s right to cut other women, other feminists a lot of slack, it’s harder when *they* don’t cut women much slack. Amanda isn’t the only feminist who does this by far, but she definitely gets a lot of mileage out of making fun of and scathing religious women, making them out to be stupid, unintelligent. I guess I am still aggravated by the whole “godbag” thing I blogged about way back when I first started my blog, and I don’t want to resurrect old stuff, particularly, but Amanda responded to that in a way that I found to be not only dismissive but in a way that to me pandered, again, to leftist men and that SO grates. Leftist pornhound men invariably fancy themselves to be oh so smart and evolved and so on, when a lot of the time, they are as far as can be imagined from either, all they are is arrogant, smug and insecure.  If they can find a woman to pander to them, though, they are all over it for the relief it provides for their insecurity and then there is no restraint to the arrogance and smugness of their pornhound ways.

    If those of us who spend a lot of time, because of the kind of feminists we are, facing up to the, honestly, evil — EVIL — of pornography — and I’m thinking now of things I’ve written about, like the rape porn made in Iraq and Afghanistan featuring images of U.S. troops raping women in burquas, which porn was really popular, which troops were exchanging photos of Iraqis they had murdered for it — are to be patient and accepting of feminists who in our minds pander to men (and women) who make pornography, I think it’s only right to expect that they be patient and respectful and accepting of ALL women, in whatever situation those women find themselves, including religious women. It doesn’t work for me, really, to play entirely nice with women who build their reputations, in part, on disparaging women who aren’t feminists… YET. Like religious women. I’ve walked alongside a lot, lot, lot of women, straight out of fundamentalism and into feminism, into fighting for their own and other women’s lives. Despite the names they get called and the way they are disparaged by the fun kind of feminists, who don’t mind kissing up to pornhounds who, to my mind, are just rank haters, but who cannot for whatever reason understand that religious women are very often brilliant, highly educated, smart as hell, and when they call religious women names, well, they are usually calling subordinated, oppressed, subjugated women — because women in Christian fundamentlist groups ARE that — names. Why is that acceptable for feminists to do? I don’t think it is. I think either we care about all women, whoever they are, whatever they’re into at the moment, or we don’t, but if we don’t, if we build our cred on the backs of women subordinated in fundamentalist religion, for example, we shouldn’t necessarily expect that the benefit of the doubt, a pass, is coming to us.  It always seems to me that we are asked, as feminists, to be patient with one kind of woman in particular:  the woman who has sold  out to pornography and “sex positive” stuff so called.  I *AM* patient that way.  According to some of my peers I am way TOO patient that way.    The thing is, being patient with women into that kind of compromise is just SO helpful to male pornhounds, you know?  I don’t want to be helpful to them.  They suck.   I think all women ought to be patient with ALL women– including women caught up in fundie religion, because it is really hard for many of those women to get out, to get free, and calling them names reveals an real ignorance of that reality of those women’s lives.  (And that’s one reason burqa gate was so offensive to me, too.  Don’t use imagery of fundamentalist women or women in fundamentalist religious groups when all of the live long day you are calling them names.  It’s just too much hating on fundamentalist women for my blood, too much hating period.)


    Posted by womensspace | October 11, 2006, 12:06 pm
  19. Violet, the problem with putting Amanda’s support of pornography down to her youth is that many young feminists are anti-pornography. It does them a real disservice to argue that young feminists in general are pro-porn – an awful lot of them aren’t but they get shouted down by the pro-porn side.

    Here’s a blog of a young feminist who is taking action against Playboy. If she can see the harm porn does to women, why can’t Amanda? –

    Posted by delphyne | October 11, 2006, 12:53 pm
  20. Heart, I do think it (inadvertently) helps the porn hounds by being too soft on the pro-porn fems, and in the long term won’t overall, do feminism much good. I recall in the past that I have been (at least partially) rejected by some rad-fems, and instead of rejecting feminism or rad-fem, reviewed myself and where I stood, and ended up more focused, more radical. So I guess I’m saying the school of tuff luv won’t automatically alienate budding young fems necessarily. Perhaps even breed up a militia of super rad-fems! *smiley daydream*

    On the godbag issue, I apologise in advance, because I have, and am likely to in the future, put down any/all man-made religions. There is too much inherent misogyny at the base of most of these. My granny was very religious and did force bible study upon me (I rejected Christianity at age of 6, based on too many inconsistencies in the bible stories). And yet, I probably live by more ‘Christian principles’ than many two-faced regular church goers (another reason why I get pissed off with them). So I guess a disclaimer (based on BB’s); if it doesn’t apply to you, then it doesn’t apply to you.

    Posted by stormcloud | October 11, 2006, 1:23 pm
  21. I’m in my late 20’s, I’ve been a hard-lined anti-porn feminist since I was 23 – and I guess ‘activist’ about it for a few years now. Sam, oag and a few others are all ‘young’ feminists i.e. we should be calling ourselves ‘third-wavers’.

    I don’t like to define myself by this ‘ageist’ standard (i.e. first/second and third wave). I would rather be defined by my politics “socialist-third worldist-anti racist feminist with radical roots”.

    We need to identify with our politics, not with a chronology.

    I don’t think you need an ‘age’ to define an ideology or see through your own belief system.

    I never commented on Amanda’s total blow-up and condescension towards this woman who had an ‘incorrect’ sexual fantasy. She dedicated a two-part thread to just this alone. What a joke – yet, she can’t dedicate a simple anti-playboy logo to this? Just one snap shot? And as I have stated she deliberately has baited on the playboy crowd to post at her site (i.e. dedicating a video to them). The irony here being that she’ll dedicate a total tear-up of some woman’s fantasy – when she can’t comment on a ‘real and concrete’ INDUSTRY. Odd no? I can’t remember the name of the thread – something about a robin?

    additionally, where is she under this criticism? She doesn’t care.

    I’m sorry to appear so harsh – it’s a let down. It’s not amanda’s fault for ‘being nominated’ by playboy – it is her fault for not doing anything about it.

    Posted by AradhanaDevindra | October 11, 2006, 3:44 pm
  22. Violet: Amanda and other women her age are too young to really get it, so give her a pass? I and women my age are too old to know what we’re talking about, and probably never had sex without humming Rule Britannia and can barely remember what it’s all about? Lesbians? Feh. They never knew in the first place?

    Ok just who then? Just what age and stage of women is the right one.

    Posted by Pony | October 11, 2006, 4:18 pm
  23. To say that Amanda is too young not only puts down all the young anti-porn feminists who are doing fantastic largely unheralded work but plays the patriarchal game of whatever woman you are, whatever age, whatever stage, you’re not the right kind.

    Some have said well Amanda didn’t seek Playboy out. Bullshit. Any writer knows how that’s done. She’s been context blogging for Playboy for months, if not all her blog ‘career’. If you scan back over her blog (as much as you can stomache) you will see her articles have been, consistently, the editorial complement to the advertiser wank.

    Posted by Pony | October 11, 2006, 4:28 pm
  24. “Just what age and stage of women is the right one.”

    I applaude all the anti-porn fems that have been able to see through it so early on in their life. I do pull the age card at the young’uns that are pro-porn and defend porn like they’re the only ones who know about sex. (They seem to miss the point that one can enjoy sex but not porn, and that sex and porn are not interchangeable terms)

    But we all know that ‘old’ women are dismissed most of all. On the ‘grounds’ that they are ‘old and ugly and sooo jealous coz they can’t get laid’.

    Posted by stormcloud | October 11, 2006, 5:59 pm
  25. Pony, I think I’ll call you “PI Pony” for that detective work!

    Posted by stormcloud | October 11, 2006, 6:00 pm
  26. Give Amanda a pass? Sure I will. If she or any woman is in need of help, feminists will be there for her. If she is in trouble of any kind, we’ll be there. In a heartbeat. No questions asked. I have a website (not the one linked to here) that reaches out to Christian fundamentalist women in abusive relationships. It’s been a long time since I could remotely be considered one of them, but hell yeah, I’m reaching out to them. That’s bridge-building right there. Any woman who needs me, if I can be, I’m there.

    However, that doesn’t mean I don’t call them out. That doesn’t mean I won’t call out the women of the religious right when they say and do things that harm women. That doesn’t mean they get a pass politically. And so Amanda, in this pandering to Playboy, is getting called out.

    Posted by Sophia | October 11, 2006, 6:10 pm
  27. I have to say that I am a bit puzzled by the characterization of Amanda’s reaction as “giddy.” (I haven’t seen Pam wrote.) My take on what she wrote about it was that she thought it was goofy and ironic that Playboy put her blog on the list precisely because her views are not at all in alignment with Playboy’s. While one may argue that Amanda should be outraged by having been placed on the Playboy list, I personally enjoyed her strategy of blowing it off, laughing at it, and pointing out the irony.

    This is typical Playboy B.S. They have always, at least for the last couple of decades, tried to portray themselves as woman-friendly. That’s why they chose a feminist blog that seems (superficially) in alignment with their sexual libertarianism. In reality, there are vast differences between Playboy fun and feminist fun.

    Playboy’s decision to include Pandagon on its list of recommended blogs struck me as saying less about Pandagon and more about Playboy’s own hypocrisy.

    (And yes, I will cop to being an Amanda fan, but I don’t actually know Amanda. My fan-dom is based on the content of what she writes.

    Posted by The Happy Feminist | October 11, 2006, 7:26 pm
  28. Oops. Screwed up and posted twice. Apologies!

    Posted by The Happy Feminist | October 11, 2006, 7:28 pm
  29. I’ve never, ever been happier about the choices I’ve made regarding the blogs I link to and read.

    I’m shaking my head over ALL of this.

    Posted by frog | October 11, 2006, 8:52 pm
  30. Like Happy Feminist, I wouldn’t call Amanda’s reaction “giddy.”

    I’m also disturbed at what I see as (and tell me if I’m imagining it) the joy people are taking at getting an excuse to criticize Amanda. Does she do things that are sometimes problematic from a feminist POV? Sure. Don’t we all? I don’t think that invalidates her sincere feminism.

    Posted by The Grouch | October 11, 2006, 10:41 pm
  31. To elaborate further, Heart:

    1. I wouldn’t consider Amanda wholly “sex-positive.” She has been vocal about the pervasive misogyny of most porn and most sex work. If I could summarize her position (which I share), it would be as follows: In a patriarchal society, it can be very, very difficult to have non-oppressive and non-degrading sexual relationships. This difficulty comes up most frequently in sex work because it involves men’s commodification of women’s bodies. Theoretically we can imagine some gender-egalitarian utopia where prostitutes are both male and female, and ditto for customers, and maybe in that utopia prostitution would be okay, but we don’t live there.

    2. I’m having a little trouble discerning the difference between people’s reactions to Amanda’s personality and style and their reaction to substantive feminist matters. This comment about Playboy seems like it’s typical of her personality–to respond with irony and flippancy rather than outrage.

    Posted by The Grouch | October 11, 2006, 11:11 pm
  32. The initial reaction seemed giddy to me — yes, that was the word. Pam’s post (which is the one I linked to) was purely celebratory, and the ensuing comment thread was all high-fives. Then Amanda’s brief post went up, and she seemed excited about the national attention, admitted that she was both flattered and amused, etc.

    Subsequently, though, the giddiness was replaced by more thoughtful responses. Amanda wrote the worm post (in which she acknowledged that most porn is misogynist crap), and then linked to a video of a sarcastic song about the emptiness of pornification — that was the video she “dedicated” to her new Playboy readers.

    I like Amanda too. I tried in the comment thread at my place to distinguish between disappointment at Pandagon’s reaction to the Playboy endorsement, and wholesale criticism of Amanda as a feminist.

    Posted by Violet Socks | October 11, 2006, 11:15 pm
  33. Considering the fact that Amanda has regularly trashed Playboy and Hugh Heffner, and considering the fact that she’s been trashed as anti-sex and prudish for having the gall to take so-called sex libertines (read: CEO’s who love to sexually harass their subordinates, a la Dov Charney), I find this anger towards her misplaced. She and Pam weren’t giddy, they were taking a piss since the boring-ass fuckwits at Playboy can’t read.

    Posted by Sheelzebub | October 12, 2006, 1:04 pm
  34. In a patriarchal society, it can be very, very difficult to have non-oppressive and non-degrading sexual relationships. This difficulty comes up most frequently in sex work because it involves men’s commodification of women’s bodies.

    Yes, it would be “difficult” to have non-oppressive and non-degrading “sexual relationships” in porn because porn isn’t about “sexual relationships”, it’s about dominance and subordination of women.

    Yet, funnily enough, this never seems to lead you and your pals to conclude that, oh, maybe, just maybe, there’s something wrong with porn itself. Like, you know, there isn’t “good porn” and “bad porn”. There just — porn.

    I mean, do you really think that when actors in the movies get married, they’re, like, having a marriage? What would lead you to believe that people in porn are having “sexual relationships”?

    It’s the little fiction you hide behind so that you can believe that, you know, *some* people, maybe the people in the porn you use, really want to be in porn, really love it, really think it’s great, because, you know, it’s primarily about sexual relationships for them, not getting fucked for money.

    People aren’t having “sexual relationships” in porn. They’re getting fucked for money. The very definition of oppressive and degrading. So, yeah, it makes having equal “sexual relationships” somewhat “difficult.”

    Posted by Char | October 12, 2006, 3:00 pm
  35. I’ve made clear at Reclusive Leftist how I don’t think this Playboy thing is Amanda’s fault so much as the logical consequence of a series of pornstitution-supportive choices and statements she has made. I’ve never met Amanda nor made claims to explain her personality, but if you read my posts I think you’ll see me sticking relentlessly to explicating why her numerous, ongoing defenses of pornography and prostitution being applauded by pornographers and other sex capitalists should come as no big surprise.

    My point is the boring-ass fuckwits at Playboy can read, and if they’ve read the same words I’ve read then it’s no mystery to me why they made the decision to include Pandagon in their rag’s roundup.

    Posted by Sam | October 12, 2006, 4:24 pm
  36. Violet you obviously still have not read the worm THREAD, where there is MUCH from Amanda which makes her original statement disengenuous at best, and lying at worst.

    I think before you continue to commend her, as you have done repeatedly about a post/thread discussion which you have not read…

    You should read at least the interchanges between Amanda and Delphyne. Use your find word function to make it easier. I realize it’s time consuming, but in the interest of fairness, I think you should not make supportive comments of her until you read. You might also search through her other threads for her point of view about porn, her use of porn and raped women to get off, both herself and porn used by the guys she’s fucking. You might not change your mind, but at least then others reading you would know you made an informed judgement about her stance on porn/misogyny/porn peddlers (Hef et al), masturbating to pix of women raped and enslaved by the porn industry, and their “choice” to be sex slaves. Then you might read the San Fran Chronicle series about a sex slave, esp the part where she talks about how the johns all thought (pretended to think? is my take) that she and the others were there by “choice”.

    But at least read the exchanges between Delphyne and Amanda before you speak on this.

    Posted by Pony | October 12, 2006, 5:01 pm
  37. And:

    Read how what she says she does and believes and supports is polar opposite from the context of her posts.

    Posted by Pony | October 12, 2006, 5:03 pm
  38. The problem with flippancy is it’s often hard to tell what, exactly, people are being flip about. So, if one’s flippancy is misunderstood maybe that’s not the fault of the reader.

    I read Pam’s response, including her calling up Playboy’s HR rep to get a .pdf of the Playboy list so she could post it on her site, and I read the congratulatory comments. So, it seems to me, that most people thought being included on Playboy’s list was a good thing, and they also understood that Pam also thought it was a good thing. So, I’m not sure where the “fuck you” to Playboy is being expressed, exactly.

    I also don’t think that Playboy co-opting feminist work, if that’s what’s going on, is something that’s funny or is so inconsequential that being flip about it is the appropriate response. Is being the “fun” feminist so much more important than being the thoughtful and committed feminist? Or is it just that one’s first commitment is to being “fun”?

    Do you want to be on Playboy’s list or not? Do you find it fun and inoffensive or do you find it co-opting and offensive? A flip response implies that you find it basically inoffensive and definitely harmless and possibly a lot of fun. It doesn’t imply that you find it offensive and co-opting. I think that that’s what people are responding to.

    And, you know, if Amanda and Pam feel their comments have been misinterpreted, they should say so. The fact that they haven’t said so seems an endorsement of the view that they haven’t been misinterpreted.

    If you think being a “fun” feminist includes snickering about Playboy co-opting you, well then, say so. Directly and straight out. Don’t act foolish, get upset when people call you on your foolishness, and use the foolishness as a screen to avoid making a clear statement about what you *are* all about. That’s not feminism. That’s political spin-doctoring to reinforce a public “fun girl” facade that you hold more dear than actual political commitments.

    Posted by Char | October 12, 2006, 5:33 pm
  39. Uh, Char? I mean this as nicely as possible, but what the fuck are you talking about?

    People aren’t having “sexual relationships” in porn. They’re getting fucked for money. The very definition of oppressive and degrading. So, yeah, it makes having equal “sexual relationships” somewhat “difficult.”

    I didn’t say people had “sexual relationships” in porn. I said porn a) was usually oppressive and b) made things difficult for real life relationships outside of porn.

    Posted by The Grouch | October 12, 2006, 5:57 pm
  40. A flip response implies that you find it basically inoffensive and definitely harmless and possibly a lot of fun.

    Or it implies that you don’t want to spend your time writing a denunciation of Playboy’s co-option, because you’ve other things to be blogging about, and you don’t want to have Playboy dictate your choice of topic.

    Posted by The Grouch | October 12, 2006, 5:59 pm
  41. My point is the boring-ass fuckwits at Playboy can read, and if they’ve read the same words I’ve read then it’s no mystery to me why they made the decision to include Pandagon in their rag’s roundup.

    Oddly enough, some sex-positive/status-quo lovers have bashed Amanda as prudish and repressive from reading those same words. Hell, I’ve been informed that I’m pro-porn “fun” feminist (really??) and that I’m a right-wing, anti-sex repressive. Perhaps it’s time for the two sides to get together and peg us consistently once and for all.

    Posted by Sheelzebub | October 12, 2006, 7:35 pm
  42. “Or it implies that you don’t want to spend your time writing a denunciation of Playboy’s co-option, because you’ve other things to be blogging about, and you don’t want to have Playboy dictate your choice of topic.”
    Like photoshopping an old photograph with bunny ears, after the fact, and posting it for everyone to look at, right….

    Posted by AradhanaDevindra | October 12, 2006, 9:10 pm
  43. Sheezlebub, that not a group of, ahem, philosophers whose opinions I put much stock in, so when I say the following are hardly antagonistic to Playboy’s pussy-pushing mission I think most people know darn well where holding these positions puts Amanda regarding the issues of pornography and prostitution:

    -proudly calls herself a porn liberal and masturbates herself with captured images of prostitutes being prostituted.

    -defends the use of misogynist pornography by her friends because of course they don’t get off on humiliated and abused women desite watching misognist pornography that humiliates abused women.

    -accepts a gift trip to Happy Whoreville, Europe paid for by prostitution profits and tailored to librul folks willing to ignore the girls and women in prostituted slavery for the sake of a good time souvenir shopping.

    -takes the side of a white Playboy columnist making racist remarks against criticisms made by a nonwhite alt-media nobody named Aura Bogado with the same illogical “gut feeling” men use to justify believing each other over women.

    -acknowledges Chuck Traynor was an abusive fuck but insists Linda Boreman’s testimonies of being raped and tortured to make porn are untrustworthy so it’s better to just ignore the rerelease of Deep Throat because it’s water under the bridge and we can never really know the truth of what happened to Linda.

    -just a few days ago expressed the opinion that the frequent rapes of legal prostitutes are just a little less bad than those suffered by illegal prostitutes because they have access to health care to fix the damage men do to them.

    I have acknowledged that I have seen some of her opinions change over time, and that’s great. This probably wouldn’t be such as issue with me if I didn’t think Amanda was smarter than buying into this garbage as much as she does. As things stand, her stated opinions haven’t changed enough to make any difference to pornstituted women around the world, and the asswipes at Playboy recognize this and rewarded it.

    The unwillingness to see just how in alignment her opinions are with what pimps and pornographers are looking for in the ‘feminist’ women they love to cram down all women’s thoats to shut them up about their beloved fuckumentaries is what prompted me to write at Violet’s blog in the first place. This should be a moment for serious self-reflection on how a longtime misogynist, corporate cumglomerate could possibly endorse Pandagon, and the vehemence with which she thinks it’s “ironic” or some kind of mistake on Playboy’s part says to me that introspection isn’t happening.

    Posted by Sam | October 13, 2006, 12:54 am
  44. “what pimps and pornographers are looking for in the ‘feminist’ women they love to cram down all women’s thoats to shut them up “

    That is why I think, as an exception to the ‘no woman-bashing policy of feminists’ rule, that pro-porn fems shouldn’t be treated as ‘just’ sisters with a slightly different view, and not go after them.

    Those pro-porners who call themselves feminists, do massive damage to the anti-porn cause, as the pro-porn fems get held up by the porners as ammo against us.

    Gloves off.

    Posted by stormcloud | October 13, 2006, 8:03 am
  45. I didn’t say people had “sexual relationships” in porn. I said porn a) was usually oppressive and b) made things difficult for real life relationships outside of porn.

    Actually, no you didn’t. Although I graciously accept the correction/clarification.

    Posted by Char | October 13, 2006, 3:32 pm
  46. Or it implies that you don’t want to spend your time writing a denunciation of Playboy’s co-option, because you’ve other things to be blogging about, and you don’t want to have Playboy dictate your choice of topic. Yeah, what I said. You find it basically harmless and inoffensive. Ergo, not worth the time to respond substantively.

    Posted by Char | October 13, 2006, 3:33 pm
  47. Radical feminists have been responding for years to the tauntings that we were allied with right-wing religious wackos. Blogger Laurelin has a wonderful reply to these age-old accusations, but she was not the first to have to mine their internal dialogue for the words to explain how her beliefs and goals differed from anti-woman people and how her actions do not support their intentions.

    I think radical feminists in general tend to be on top of that kind of self-querying, not because they’re inherently more moral or curious than other social critics but because as the extreme minority opinion we feel the burden of proof heavily on us. When you’re on the fringes fighting the status quo you need to be able to answer for how more powerful groups could co-opt your movement. At a recent prostitution conference a pro-sex work woman questioned me about how anti-pornstitutionists could be aiding the Bush administration and I was prepared with an answer.

    After decades of radfems explaining themselves on this co-optation charge, the tipping point is approaching where people are asking how the pornstitution industries have managed to co-opt our entire fucking culture for their own money-making purposes. Criticisms of mainstream feminism’s non-response to the social environment’s hyperpornofication the past 10 years are starting to supplant criticisms of radfems allied with the religious right because in the past 10 years pornographers and pimp culture have become the dominant discourse in our hyperpornified society.

    I’m a young woman who has identified as a feminist for less than 10 years, but my still-developing eyes picked up that pornography, prostitution and pimping in 1996 were not glamorized to nearly the extent they are now in 2006. I look around at the ramped up infantilization, animalization, and sexualization of women in popular media and don’t see where the most popular feminist books and magazines since 1996 took this shit on as its flight was taking off. Looks more like they bought tickets to the capitalism-is-good-for-women destination. Since Amanda’s a young’un like me I don’t hold her personally responsible for that, but now that books like “Female Chauvinist Pigs” have brought the question of pro-porn feminist co-optation by pornographers and other prostitution profiteers to the stage it’s necessary for those feminists to find the words to explain how their beliefs and goals differ from that of the sexual capitalists trying to co-opt them.

    Posted by Sam | October 13, 2006, 6:26 pm
  48. I know I’m only a recovering male myself, but I cannot fathom why a woman posing is “anti-feminist”.

    If women own themselves as feminists would have us believe (and this is a sentiment with which I can only agree), whence comes the antipathy for how can they rent themselves for photography purposes?

    Posted by IndyDude77 | October 14, 2006, 2:27 am
  49. IndyDude77, I am thinking about how to respond to your question. Those of us who have been anti-porn for a while sometimes forget that in a pornified, anti-feminist culture, many have not heard feminists specifically explain why we are opposed to pornography. It’s definitely a valid question and I’m glad you asked it.


    Posted by womensspace | October 14, 2006, 5:50 pm


  1. Pingback: Feministe » Speaking of Gloria Steinem and Satire - October 12, 2006

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,600,142 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo