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?