you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Drag

As usual, Justice Walks is doing some very fine woman-centered radical feminist writing here on the issue of drag.  However, she has specifically e-mailed me asking whether I’d be up for hosting a discussion of drag here on my blog, given the general unsatisfactory-ness of the discussion over at Twisty’s.    I agree that that discussion has been  unsatisfactory, but I just took a look at the newest comments over there, and possibly the thread has taken a turn in a good direction, such that this thread may not still be necessary.  I’m posting this anyway, since I told Justice Walks that I would and Justice Walks rocks!  I’d love to hear what you women have to say about drag, and I will not allow any discussion here to be diverted; the discussion, as is true of all discussions here, will remain woman-centered.

[Edited to add, evidently Justice Walks and delphyne got run out of Twisty’s place on a rail.  Well, you know what?  That’s fine, nothing new there, radical feminists continually get run out on a rail for standing for women.  What it isn’t over there is, it isn’t radical feminism, not in any way, shape or form.  What fricking fiasco.– Heart]

Discussion

239 thoughts on “Drag

  1. Thanks heart, I was also following that thread on the forums, and although I should have expected it, I wasn’t prepared for the strength of the po-mos, or how quickly the site was co-opted.

    Back in the early 90s, I thought queer/po-mo political stuff was just academic theory etc, in academic journals and textbook discourse etc, and not being academic, I didn’t really pay much attention to it (beyond nodding along to the radfem critique of it).

    But in the 10-15 years since, it has permeated so deeply and strongly throughout main(male)stream culture, its like religious doctrine, it dominates popular movies, fiction and entertainment. To then see it stated as a genuine “radical feminist” position on a radfem labelled site, was mind-boggling to me.

    I really need a reality-check – have I missed something?

    Posted by Rain | July 18, 2007, 6:44 am
  2. I thought Militant Grammarian’s analysis of drag being an release valve for the pressures of an oppressive, hierarchical society was very perceptive.

    What I found disheartening in that discussion though was when actual examples of drag performers’ sexism and racism were pointed out, those particular performers were still being defended as if finding bigotry acceptable was just some kind of difference of opinion.

    I agree Rain that it is astonishing to see postmodernist (anti-feminist) arguments being touted as radical feminist. I’m pretty sure Judith Butler wouldn’t call herself a radical feminist so I don’t know why her supporters would try to take that label. It does appears that radical feminism is now going the way of plain feminism in that the social rules say it can mean anything anybody says it is. That redefinition smacks of sexism: in the same way that women aren’t supposed to have boundaries or be firm in their beliefs, both feminism and radical feminism are constantly under attack from people who want to dilute or obfuscate the message – there’s no respect for anything concrete and thought through.

    Posted by delphyne | July 18, 2007, 11:44 am
  3. Apparently, Rain, it’s considered ‘radical’ just to be willing to associate yourself with feminism at all now. I’m going to move toward calling myself female/woman-centered, just so people don’t get the wrong idea when I say I’m a feminist and think I’m one of those pro-male ones.

    I couldn’t believe how opposed people were to the idea that we’d come further along with regard to race issues than we have to sex issues. And yet, aside from Angelina Jolie, society pretty much accepts that blackface (or yellow-, or red-, or brown-) is inherently offensive, while drag, which has been around much longer, is allowed to persist. You can hear “bitch” on daytime TV, but never “kyke,” “spic,” or “chink.” My co-workers can, within earshot of my boss and without fear of any retribution, blather on to me about what “you girls” are like, but not about “you black people,” both of which are equally applicable to me.

    Ridiculous.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 18, 2007, 11:45 am
  4. Twisty herself is pomo/queer/pro-trans so that “forum” is a setup from the beginning. No more radfem than any of hundreds if not thousands of feminism-undermining and feminism-denying blogs on the net.

    Weird that Twist has a whole blog category called “men hate you” and yet she herself denies that “men” and “women” even exist, except as theoretical whimsies that the pomos get to play with or deny as suits their purposes at the time.

    There couldn’t be a better way to hide *actual* radical feminism, or its existence.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 18, 2007, 11:59 am
  5. Ugh, I take it back that that thread took a turn for the better. The last thing I read was BDL saying she agrees maybe it’s important to consider the reasons drag is comparable with blackface. Now I see that you, Justice Walks, have been told to fracking “calm down”!

    Yeah, RIGHT.

    See, as I said early in that thread, it’s attitudes like those displayed there which are the reason “white feminism” so called is in the toilet. Somebody in that thread suggested that Shirley Q. Liquor just doesn’t realize how offensive he is! Oh, please!

    One thing that didn’t come up in that thread that I think is worth talking about is, participating in men making fun of women can feel, to some women, like they are being accepted by men in men’s bonding-by-making-fun-of-women fraternity. For a moment, they feel sort of like, they aren’t women, and it is sort of a relief. Of course, really, this is like slaking thirst with salt water.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 4:40 pm
  6. It got worse, Heart. Some of the posts were moved to another forum at the bottom of the main forum out of the way:

    http://easypersiflage. com/blameforum/index.php?topic=882.0

    Justicewalks has left there, I asked for my membership to be revoked which they said they wouldn’t do, then I went back today and I’d been banned for “abuse” (anybody can look at my posting history to see how abusive or otherwise I’ve been). Mind you I did say the whole thing was pro-trans feminists versus radicals. Ho hum.

    Posted by delphyne | July 18, 2007, 4:48 pm
  7. All right, delphyne, why are your comments ending up in moderation? Erk.

    delphyne banned from a “radical feminist” board for “abuse.” Right. What a mess, what a joke, and I am so sorry. I updated my post up there and will go read and see what happened, if I can stand it.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 4:57 pm
  8. “that Shirley Q. Liquor just doesn’t really how offensive he is”

    Hey, Chuck Knipp. That’s what his daddy named him so might as well go with that since he’s so into the patriarchy thing.

    Posted by Rich | July 18, 2007, 4:58 pm
  9. In other words, people born as white males, whatever the fuck they decide they “really are,” have to earn the right to be called their fantasy names and not be laughed at for stealing them from Lord of the Rings or whatnot.

    At least in my book.

    Dr. Raewyn Connell my ass.

    Posted by Rich | July 18, 2007, 5:06 pm
  10. Ohmygod. How dare you, Justice Walks, start comments with the words, “Here we go again!” and “Oh boy”!

    What do you think that is? A radical feminist board or something?

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 5:07 pm
  11. Yeah, I wonder who complained about your posts, delphyne and Justice Walks. You are such meanies, both of you.

    How completely disappointing is that thread.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 5:12 pm
  12. It’s just a really weird place – most of the moderators don’t seem to have much idea of radical feminism. Fair enough I guess but they keep trying to shut the radical position down. It was news to me that my posts were supposedly “silencing” people. Gotta say I’m feeling pretty damned silenced now. I mean that diatribe from Curiouser (including berating me for leaving which was a bit odd considering she’d found my posts so offensive – you’d think she’d be glad I was going) was just bizarre. I think I’ve addressed her once to thank her for something, yet there was all that abuse.

    Sorry to vent here Heart, but it is political. They are silencing radical feminists and changing the meaning of it to suit themselves.

    Posted by delphyne | July 18, 2007, 5:29 pm
  13. Ha, delphyne! I knew they’d have done the same to you. I was just awaiting confirmation. I signed on today in order to respond to a few (much appreciated!) private messages of support, only to find I’d been banned, also for “abuse.” Anyone looking to contact me via a forum in which I’m free to respond can reach me at justicewalks (at) gmail (dot) com.

    What’s funny to me is that there were almost as many people making public (let alone private) declarations of how much they’d learned from me, because of or in spite of my “vitriol,” yet their feelings about their personal development and education were entirely dismissed. Only the people who claimed to be so scared of literary anger that they were unable to learn anything from it were coddled and catered to. Whatever. You can buy your peaceful oblivion at the cost of my silence and banishment, but I’m not going to help you ease your deserved guilt about it by toning down my anger.

    One thing that didn’t come up in that thread that I think is worth talking about is, participating in men making fun of women can feel, to some women, like they are being accepted by men in men’s bonding-by-making-fun-of-women fraternity.

    This is very insightful. I’m going to mull this around in my mind for a bit before I comment on this.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 18, 2007, 5:36 pm
  14. Vent away, there’s no other way to figure out what the heck is going on over there, delphyne. I’m just sorry this happened to you– yours is one of the most seasoned, intelligent, eloquent radical feminist voices on the internet.

    Sigh.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 5:38 pm
  15. It was news to me that my posts were supposedly “silencing” people.

    You know, I think what they mean by “silencing” is that some whiny drivel someone was intending to post had been rendered moot and irrelevant by something you said.

    It’s like, “Well, I was going to say that I think John Travolta makes a better fat woman than Rosie O’Donnell, but now that delphyne and justicewalks have said that it’s ALWAYS offensive in the patriarchy for men to falsely present themselves as women, I feel silenced!” The basic premise seems to be that everyone’s opinion is equally radical and equally feminist, and that to suggest otherwise is to deny women the agency of defining themselves, which is silencing them.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 18, 2007, 5:52 pm
  16. Well, what it reminds me of is, Amp and all the white liberal boys over at Alas tweaking out for years, basically, because radical feminists got too angry over issues like rape or domestic violence and banning radical feminists left and right, then cooing over the newest radfem on the block hoping everybody would forget all the radfems who had just been banned, and the whole issue was “civility.” We radfems just weren’t “civil” and “courteous” enough and this caused pain to Amp and his crew’s sensitive psyches. When the truth is, white liberal males can afford to be “civil” and “courteous” about rape and domestic violence and so on, can’t they. In a way women can’t be and have integrity about it, especially when some white male is yelling, “Calm down!”

    This isn’t really so different.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 6:11 pm
  17. I get the feeling that the mods on Twisty’s board are male-centric, if not actually born male or that they are females who claim an identity of ‘man’. That’s what it feels like to me over there. Not one has given me any clues that they are pro-female, female centric and none even evidenced that they have a solid base in feminism 101 let alone radical feminism.

    I’m not surprised that women get shafted and silenced there. They do not want feminist discourse.

    I think that the idea that Stillwater and I came up with while at the Hullaballoo, to have a banner for ‘safe space for womyn’, or something worded to that effect, is needed. Start brainstorming for a logo and a title, something that will say that we, as womyn, are safe to speak on that site. Maybe the logo will be clickable and it will show a list of safe sites.

    We definitely should an indicator, a sign that points to feminist sites are that are not actually pro-male born sites in sheep’s clothing.

    Maybe sometime in this next week I’ll have a post about making the logo and those interested can flesh out ideas. I’ll let people know here when the post is up.

    Regarding the banished womyn, I read your comments and imo the mods and the males who post there didn’t want to actually discuss the layers of misogyny, the layers of hatred that males have for womyn, including males who try to tell us that posing as us, presenting as us, claiming to be us is flattery or that reinforcing gender stereotypes centered around the forced sex roles is no biggie.

    Posted by uppitybiscuit | July 18, 2007, 6:11 pm
  18. Thank you, Heart, that’s very kind of you.

    I can’t believe they banned you justicewalks! I thought my shots across the bows of the postmodern anti-radfem moderators would mean I wouldn’t be allowed to stick around there, but they never actually managed to come up with an example of you attacking a fellow member. And actually the real attacks on that thread were on us (apart from me having a go at the moderators but even that wasn’t abuse, it was criticism).

    I’m sure you’re right about what silencing means to them – I hadn’t thought about it in that way – John Travolta, heh. I don’t think they think that every opinion is equal though, because they certainly don’t think ours are valid. It does appear that they are using complaints from women who happen to agree with them in order to legitimise shutting us down. And those people who complained about us were pretty sure of the moderators’ support otherwise Curioser wouldn’t have told you to “calm down” or said to me “fuck you”. I’d bet she’s not getting banned for abuse.

    I’m so annoyed. This trans thing is completely messing up radical feminism. The pro-porn contigent call themselves feminists, the pro-trans contigent call themselves radical feminists. Time to be a women’s liberationist.

    Posted by delphyne | July 18, 2007, 6:17 pm
  19. Justicewalks: only to find I’d been banned

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 6:31 pm
  20. The thing is, we really did go off at times at Alas. I didn’t once see either of you, delphyne or Justicewalks, go off. Not once. If anything, I thought you were way too kind and generous about pretty much everything.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 6:38 pm
  21. Gee Uppity, you must be special, you ended up in the spam queue!

    I figured it out actually. I had the word “Twisty” blacklisted, because of that fake Twisty who was a prolife troll who was posting here a while back. So I fixed that and now everybody hopefully will not end up spammed for writing “Twisty.”
    :/

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 6:41 pm
  22. Dang, and I thought I had been so brilliant that I had tripped the meter.

    Posted by uppitybiscuit | July 18, 2007, 6:44 pm
  23. Uppity: if not actually born male or that they are females who claim an identity of ‘man’.

    I feel like a lot of the people there don’t actually claim this identity but they are, in fact, male-identified. I think that’s why there are periodically these really messed up discussions about certain things, too, i.e., the threads about mothers, threads which attack female persons instead of the men who benefit from what is forced on female persons.

    I think it’s less painful for certain women to *be* male-identified in the world. I understand it for sure. To be female is to be targeted, attacked and hated, full stop.

    GREAT idea re the safe-for-womyn logo for blogs, Uppity (and Stillwater). I love it! Let’s do that!

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 6:45 pm
  24. Mod in the thread delphyne linked to about “moderating” the drag thread: Please use care when addressing other members of this community. We want to have an environment in which everyone can flourish.

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Everyone but delphyne and justicewalks, evidently! And on a “radical feminist” board!

    As to this, “don’t assume I’m white,” right. Like, “don’t assume I’m male” which that moderator also alluded to!

    Ugh. Really, really disappointing.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 6:51 pm
  25. They’ll just come up with a “safe 4 ALL womyn” logo. You know, be inclusive and make someone else look like a jerk, two birds with one stone.

    Sorry, glass is half full, glass is half full…

    Posted by Rich | July 18, 2007, 6:52 pm
  26. One of the first run-ins I had on that board was requesting that men identified themselves. The moderators did not like that at all and immediately swooped in. I agree with you Uppity that some of the moderators there are male, even if they are calling themselves women.

    Disappointing is right, Heart. I feel quite down about the whole thing.

    Posted by delphyne | July 18, 2007, 6:58 pm
  27. Rich, you are right. It will have to be a “safe for females” logo if we don’t want it co-opted.

    I’m just waiting to hear the arguments that drag queens who know they’re drag queens in their hearts are an oppressed class that deserves feminist sympathy, while the offensive drag queens aren’t real drag queens at all.

    Speaking safe places, I mentioned to Heart that I’d like (in light of a suggestion that was posed to me back on the IBTP board) to start a small invitation-only female-centered feminist message board for those of us who’d like to discuss women’s liberation without the constant admonition not to dismiss those women who’d rather have a man than freedom. However, I am probably the least savvy person on the internet about these things, and would have no idea how to go about it. If anyone would be interested in helping me set up such a forum, please email me at justicewalks (at) gmail (dot) com with some suggestions for decent lay-term instruction.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 18, 2007, 7:20 pm
  28. Hi, jw, delphyne, heart!

    Yeah, I’ve been just lurking over there, haven’t been banned yet that i know of.

    Heart, I posted a comment in this thread when there were only 2 comments yet, but it didn’t seem to get through.

    I come back in the house and here’s 26 replies! 😀

    I thought maybe you pulled it because I named Twisty as a pomo / queer / trans ideologue, and that she’d stacked her mods collection accordingly.

    All she’s done is to relegate herself to the mediocrity of all the other of anti-radfem pro-trans, pomo, queer politics “feminist” blogs and forums.

    I checked that forum a few times today.

    There’s nothing left but health, recipe, and personal “support” chatter.

    Totally boy-safe, totally boring.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 18, 2007, 7:56 pm
  29. Hi JW,

    I created this a few months ago when the tranny uproar was going on over at Twisty’s.

    But it’s a blog, not a forum.

    http://femalesfirst.blogspot.com/

    Nevertheless, if we want a forum of the sort from which Twisty has just banned radfems, no problem, we just need to get a domain name & install the software as she has done.

    I’ll shout the cost of the domain reg and hosting if there are other gyns here who will take shifts to filter hate-spam as Heart does here.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 18, 2007, 8:01 pm
  30. I found it, Mary Sunshine, on page 2 of my bazillion pages of spam. :/ But that shouldn’t happen now that I fixed the problem.

    Mary Sunshine: Weird that Twist has a whole blog category called “men hate you” and yet she herself denies that “men” and “women” even exist, except as theoretical whimsies that the pomos get to play with or deny as suits their purposes at the time.

    There couldn’t be a better way to hide *actual* radical feminism, or its existence.

    So true. 😦

    So much of what Twisty and her commenters say is right on, re porn, re prostitution, re sm, all of that is so great a lot of the time, so you feel sort of shocked or jarred when you find yourself face to face with sentiments like, “Well, I don’t think drag kings are part of dewd nation.” Or “It’s not MEN, it’s PATRIARCHY,” you know, that ethereal thing that’s like jello stuck to the wall that we can’t really nail and we can’t really attach to any real humans as in pointing out who is doing what to whom and who is the victim and who isn’t. If it’s men we like, whether husbands/sons/drag queens/trans persons, then they aren’t part of “dewd” nation, (even though 99 percent of all of the above in all likelihood participate in prostituting women via pornography and don’t particularly have any problem with SM, etc., and all benefit from all of the above, and so they are *of course* part of dewd nation.) I mean, honestly, does anybody really think drag queens don’t use pornography, think it’s okay, whatever? Using reasoning related to the “it’s just satire” reasoning? For just one of a million reasons it is wrong to think that because a guy is a drag queen he’s not part of dewd nation.

    But I remember coming across a discussion on Feministe where piny was trashing char (co-moderator of my boards, and, btw, Justice Walks, you are certainly free to moderate a private forum on my Margins boards, just say the word, you’ve got it, and you can do all the inviting to it, it will be all yours. There are a number of invisible private forums like that on my boards), anyway, piny was trashing char for her position as to transgender issues and Twisty was in there and was, if not participating in the attacks on char, definitely not defending her. It was really upsetting and happened before IBTP became so well-known, but it was sure one reason I’ve walked fairly wide circles around that place always.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 8:11 pm
  31. Mary, that’s a great blog idea! I think you should blog there! The blogosphere needs you!

    And again, you are all free to join me at my boards:

    http://www.womensspace.org/cgi-bin/dcboard.cgi

    The Margins. They’ve been quiet ever since I started this blog, but they are available and have been female-only for years and years.

    I can make you womyn moderators and then it won’t be extra work for me, either. We can have private forums, moderated, whatever you want.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 8:14 pm
  32. When a male-mirrored hierarchy is utilized, disaster is bound to happen to the oppressed.

    Posted by Kitty Glendower | July 18, 2007, 8:16 pm
  33. Hi Heart,

    Yeah, I thought of your forums, but I’ve had trouble there being able to log in.
    😦

    I have I think already 3 usernames over there, but none of them will let me in.

    That may be why the forums that you have are under-used.

    Yes! let’s get them going.

    Tell me what I can do to help, and I’ll do it.
    🙂

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 18, 2007, 8:19 pm
  34. Hi Kitty,

    No kidding.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 18, 2007, 8:20 pm
  35. Ugh, that’s bizarre, Mary Sunshine! What happens when you try to log in?
    :/

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 8:21 pm
  36. WOW !!!

    It let me in now.

    ??!!

    I’ll take it …

    Let’s hear it for time moving onward.
    🙂

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 18, 2007, 8:29 pm
  37. 🙂

    If you or anybody else wants to moderate a forum there, including a private forum, say the word, it’s yours.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 8:32 pm
  38. I will moderate if you need a moderator.

    Posted by Kitty Glendower | July 18, 2007, 8:33 pm
  39. Yer on, Kitty. 🙂

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 8:36 pm
  40. It would be good to see the boards come to life again– a lot of the regulars prefer the boards and sort of got abandoned when I started blogging.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 8:41 pm
  41. Heart, yes!

    As time goes on, if you point me to the “instruction manual” I will do whatever you think would be useful with respect to the boards.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 18, 2007, 9:21 pm
  42. I had no idea you had message boards, Heart! Of course I’ll help to moderate your boards.

    I’m quite excited about all this.😀

    Posted by justicewalks | July 18, 2007, 9:22 pm
  43. Oh good!

    Justicewalks, you should go register and I will approve you right away. I’ll send you and Mary and Kitty an e-mail with links and then you can all tell me where you’d like to moderate or if you want a new forum, a private forum, by invitation, etc.

    It’s pretty easy, actually, not much to it. If you can blog/comment to a blog, you can do it. 🙂

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 18, 2007, 9:28 pm
  44. Here’s a link to a post that I just wrote on Heart’s Boards:

    http://www.womensspace.org/Feminism1/627.html

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 18, 2007, 9:53 pm
  45. I really like the idea of a ‘safe space for womyn’ banner and would be happy to display it on my blog.

    Posted by Arantxa | July 18, 2007, 9:58 pm
  46. hey good stuff! don’t mind me, I’m just TZI and miss everything! I had a site for about for about 4 years with forums, but decommissioned it about a year ago. Coz I took it off search engines it became very private and quiet and just fizzled out, and then I got busy with day-jobs etc. Still have the domain name though, radfemspeak dot net, and free hosting package.

    Back to the thread though, I honestly didn’t know all this background about Twisty, interesting – never went there that often – partly coz I find blogs so messy and time-consuming to read, partly coz I thought it was just a big vent-session and while thats fine as far as it goes, its still making men the focus.

    Posted by Rain | July 18, 2007, 10:01 pm
  47. Could see that one coming a mile away.

    Mary and Delphyne if you remember the way I have a proposition for you. Oh and also, some sad news. Pony had to be put down. She had become unmanageable. Well, breeding will out you know. Her sire was a jackass.

    Posted by Sis | July 18, 2007, 10:10 pm
  48. I have a little different take on what happened at Twisty’s forum.
    In the beginning, I thought some of the moderators were poorly chosen. Yet, who was there to moderate the moderators? Most of them were long time blamers, but a few were too new, too hypercritical, as well as hypocritical to be trusted with the job. One in particular started the disputes that she then moderated. She felt it was unreasonable to be expected to make a reasoned argument.

    When I saw how many people introduced themselves as new to feminism, and to Twisty’s blog, I had a feeling that there were going to be problems with excessive defensiveness.
    After the knock down drag outs we have had at the blog over the years, I wasn’t prepared to be expected to be responsible for guarding against the possibility that someone would take what I said personally. But that is what happened. Pissed me off, too. How the hell am I supposed to know how some unknown person is going feel about what I say or how I say it? I take full responsibility for what I say and how I say it. How anyone feels about it is beyond my control and not my responsibility.

    I felt bad for a minute because the whole thing started with a misunderstanding that I had with Aot. He was talking about trans people celebrating, while I was talking men in drag mocking and the similarities between blacks co-opting the minstrel show, gays co-opting the drag show, and women attempting to co-opt the stripper pole porn show. While I didn’t have anything to add, once that was sorted out, I stayed for a very valuable and educational discussion. Rather like the ones we sometimes have on the blog.
    As I said, I was concerned early on that newbies would be disconcerted by the vehemency of advanced blamers arguments. I thought they would either stay safely out of them or tell the person that they were being personally offensive. It never occurred to me that they would ask someone else to interceed for them. That, of course, is when things got ugly. The moderators acted like bullies, or authoritarian asshats, all the while claiming that they just wanted everyone to play nice. It was embarassing for everyone.
    So the forum is comfy for newbies and nigel apologists who want to make observations about whatever, not so comfy for the radfems who came to chew over the patriarchy, and argue about how to be honest with ourselves.

    So, that’s my take on it, speaking, as always, only for myself. It bloomed for about six weeks, and overnight it became all about underdrawers, makeup, and how you have sex with your nigel. I hope it will turn around before LMYC shows up, because that could get ugly.

    Justice and Delphyne, I did not know you were banned. That seems particularly odd after the mods declaring that you would not be.

    Posted by thebewilderness | July 18, 2007, 11:02 pm
  49. bewilderness, at first I thought the mods were just inexperienced, (I received a warning slap-on-the-wrist from the mods after just one post, about sounding ‘dangerously dismissive’), and a snarky private warning later – which I just thought was hilarious etc – but then I did a more detailed read of other threads and its very conservative everywhere, and most of the mods actively encourage it, whether they mean to or not.

    Justice, delphyne – I too am surprised, they publicly said they wouldn’t ban you?

    Posted by Rain | July 18, 2007, 11:20 pm
  50. I read that thread

    Jayzuz spector of Trotskyite-Lenist 1970s mind fucking.

    Who are those automatons?

    Posted by Sis | July 18, 2007, 11:24 pm
  51. Any language that takes the focus off a movement and puts it on an individual, such as Twistolution is doomed to fail. Same goes for any words credited to an individual over a phenomenon. Such language gears the intent away from movement centered to person centered. When it becomes person centered with followers, it becomes worship. When it becomes worshipping it becomes a cult, when it becomes a cult, the movement becomes officially subverted, hence, no longer an effect and thus counterproductive to the so-called original intent. However, being among the most cynical, I believe the original intent was narcissistic in nature and the movement simply a vehicle employed.

    One step forward, two steps back. Women as a group lose once again.

    Posted by Kitty Glendower | July 18, 2007, 11:36 pm
  52. Kitty,

    Yes. That’s what I have felt all along. The shrine to Twisty. Whenever you try to take it beyond that, you get pounded into the ground.

    I developed a lot of contempt for the whole thing back in January, when that whole tranny thing happened. Then the “pomo rules” thing kicked in, and it was thereafter all about being cute and hip and intellectually arrogant. And regularly genuflecting to Twisty.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 18, 2007, 11:48 pm
  53. I always felt uncomfortable there and tried to ignore it. Like the thing with Mandos being allowed to stick around forever and harass women. Like you say Heart, Twisty is right on about a lot of things but there is a gap. I have to keep reminding myself though that there are other things going on in her life so she may not think her blog is the most important thing. She has said a few times she never expected it to get that big. I got the idea that that’s what the forums were there for, to take some of the pressure off the blog from people who wanted more from it. For some reason though she’s got herself a bunch of very authoritiarian moderators. Then again there are people on her blog who only tonight frightened off feminist luminary DeAnander by criticising her puncuation so maybe it’s not much of a surprise.

    Anyhow I’m in for a radfem forum and would be happy to help with any admin.

    Posted by delphyne | July 18, 2007, 11:59 pm
  54. “Any language that takes the focus off a movement and puts it on an individual, such as Twistolution is doomed to fail. Same goes for any words credited to an individual over a phenomenon.”

    Yes! For example, the way that ALL feminists have to talk about “raunch” culture just because Ariel Levy made a mint off of coining the term. Only “raunch” is a loaded and classist term that is horribly ineffective when talking about pornography and prostitution. Of course, since Levy is best buds with Susie Bright, of course she’s going to use a term that insulates the rest of the industry from the “bad” stuff like Girls Gone Wild. But now everyone has to write “raunch culture” if they want to be published!

    Posted by Rich | July 19, 2007, 12:03 am
  55. Interesting.

    I recently got tarred and feathered at Pandagon, for admittedly trying to defend something relatively conservative (religion, not necessarily traditional religion), but I got jumped by (I counted) about 4-1 males to females, and the men in particular were arrogant assholes about it. Amanda, Sarah and other women basically stuck to the topic.

    At one point, I was challenged by one male for “inserting myself into atheist space” (it wasn’t officially named such, or I would NOT have), and I said it probably felt the same to him as it does to me when men insert themselves into FEMINIST space. OOPS. I said it, and the place literally went up in flames. Everyone, women and men, got into the act then, saying I was just “derailing” and the presence of “male feminists” (unicorns?) was GOOD and HOW DARE I????

    I was talking about form and function. I did not go to that thread to talk to men, feminist or otherwise. I went there to talk to women. The men all said “you must not think men can be feminists!” while slapping each others’ asses with figurative towels as they tried to top each other in insults and putdowns. I was informed that I was WAY OUT OF LINE to call attention to the fact that it was mostly men attacking me, and the superior fashion in which they did it. The dude above, who challenged me for being in atheist space, made sure to inform me he TAUGHT CLASSES IN GENDER! (A Professor! Starts with P, which rhymes with T and stands for TOOL.)

    The end of the thread (or as far as I read, in any event) degenerated into ALL MEN. What the hell happened? Wasn’t that a feminist blog once? Perhaps I assumed so, due to Amanda’s dynamic presence.

    Further, one of my posts was deleted because I asked why there were pro-life/anti-woman/born-again advertisements at the top of the page, yet I was being roasted for even bringing up matters of faith???? What’s up with that? There were continuous Google ads for something called THE TIMOTHY PLAN, as well as other pro-life ads. Ohhh, I get it. That’s money and that’s sacred. But didn’t anyone think that was a bit disingenuous?
    Umm, a little hypocritical to yell at me for saying the left should try to make alliances with progressive Christians, while running ads for a born-again anti-feminist insurance company, wouldn’t you say? Men can attack a lefty Christian feminist, but we aren’t supposed to wonder why misogynist bullshit like THE TIMOTHY PLAN is at the top of the fucking page? Right.

    I apologized for offending any atheists or agnostics with my remarks, which were fairly aggressive. But I was told that an apology was simply was not good enough. And the guys kept the thread going for days after my departure. DAYS. (It might still be going on, for all I know) One guy wrote a poem for me, based on the song DAISY DAISY, and of course, how I am CRAZEEE (how creative! I guess he saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in high school) and so on. Now, I ask you… can you imagine anything like that addressed to a man? Not hardly.

    I just can’t imagine guys running away with a thread over at Twisty’s, so that is some consolation.

    At least I know it would not happen here. Thanks, Heart.

    Posted by Daisy | July 19, 2007, 1:21 am
  56. I will donate the fee to pay for the host or whatever you call it. That’s all the responsibility I can take. Others can run it, edit it, unspam it, moderate it and design it.

    I’ll just pay for the kind of board that can’t be hacked. I mean it.

    Posted by Sis | July 19, 2007, 1:27 am
  57. I couldn’t believe the way they treated DeAnander, delphyne. That, to me, is silencing. To make some completely arbitrary complaint about the delivery of the message without bothering to address the content is so insulting and dismissive. It’s all supposed to be OK if it’s done in the name of protecting Twisty’s weary eyes from all but the most elite white male version of the written English language, though, I guess. What a noble cause.

    I believe LMYC was also banned a while back, so you don’t have to worry about her return to that forum, either, thebewilderness.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 19, 2007, 2:33 am
  58. I meant to add, I registered over on the forum, Heart, so, send me in!

    Posted by justicewalks | July 19, 2007, 2:37 am
  59. I’m still in moderation, so if it was that controversial, go ahead and delete it.

    Posted by Daisy | July 19, 2007, 3:42 am
  60. Wow. This is so scary. I’m really disturbed to know that justicewalks and delphyne were banned over at Twisty’s board.

    The moderator/dictator business has been increasingly problematic. One thoughtful observation by a woman who felt she related better to men and was *questioning* that was slapped down as woman-hating and she was directed to read the FAQs. It felt very doctrinaire to me, and I totally agree with the cult danger, though I wouldn’t say it has come to that yet.

    It’s very hard to do all this. I enjoy Heart’s blog and I enjoy Twisty’s. Very different takes, yet both part of who I am. Splintering off feels like failure to me since I believe we need solidarity more than anything. Is anything possible if we can’t get along?

    Posted by roamaround | July 19, 2007, 4:04 am
  61. No worries, Daisy, I have no idea, honestly, why some comments go into moderation and your comment is totally fine and really great, in fact. I’m just late getting to the computer tonight because I got home late, then as soon as I got in the door, my mom called, and I haven’t chatted with her for a while, so I had to chat with my mom, first things first, you know. 🙂

    Why did LMYC get banned?! Geez, she posted some amazing, really good stuff. De Anander is also awesome, although I *think* she might depart from most of us here with respect to transgender issues. That’s just a hunch I have, based on a radio interview invitation I got a while ago; the person who contacted me knew De Anander, wondered what my background was, there was some back and forth and then the interview was abruptly canceled. Which was actually totally fine, because I find interviews fairly nerve-wracking and draining and I have to feel like my reason for agreeing to them is a *really really good* reason, that the interview has potential to do a lot of good in some way. Anyway, I figured the interview was abruptly canceled, either (1) because I was once a fundie and this makes me suspect to some people; (2)because of my fairly outspoken, much-maligned-and-continually-continually-lied-about, ugh, position on transgender issues.

    Well, I am going to go to my boards and approve everybody’s registrations. Who wants to moderate which? You women need to tell me what you want to moderate, or whether you want to create a new forum and what the title should be and whether it should be public or private.

    No worries, Sis, my boards have existed since 2000 now and have never once been spammed. They have been trolled a couple of times, but as soon as I realized I’d approved a troll’s membership, I banned the person. Everybody has to be approved to participate on my boards, and people none of us recognize get vetted out before they are approved to minimize the possibility of troll invasions. I’ve also never allowed or had advertising of any kind on my boards. But I admit I can use any help anybody can give me with server costs, etc., thanks for that offer, Sis, much appreciated.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 19, 2007, 4:22 am
  62. Okay, I approved Rain and Justice Walks, Mary and Sis are already in there, whoever else wants to register, please do!

    And yeah, it sucks what’s happened, roamaround, bewilderness, Daisy, everybody. Really unfortunate.

    You know, the thing about Twisty as an icon-type person is imo and experience very complicated. In my view, that particular phenomenon is at least as much the responsibility of those who iconize Twisty as it is Twisty’s responsibility, because a weird dynamic sets in when someone gets iconized like that, and it really ends up beyond the control of the icon and the iconizers. Something like that happened to me in my old world, when I was publishing and speaking and so on. I swear I never wanted it, I never sought it, but it happened anyway, for a lot of reasons, and in the end it was really, really destructive to *all* of us– to me, to the women who made me an icon, everybody. It’s hard to stop that kind of thing once it’s set in motion; it takes on a life of its own, as it sort of has with respect to Twisty. People so want sheroes, you know? Somebody who seems to have it all together to look up to, somebody who seems to have everything all figured out.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 19, 2007, 4:38 am
  63. People so want sheroes, you know? Somebody who seems to have it all together to look up to, somebody who seems to have everything all figured out – Heart

    Have you read Joanna Russ’s “Magic Mommas and Trembling Sisters” ? A little dated now, but Joanna was talking about the women’s behaviour in feminist collectives, where one or more are set up as “Magic Mommas”, who can do no wrong, with tribes of ‘trembling sisters’ choosing sides to ‘gang up’ on. Also about how women-women conflict is quite different to male-male and male-female.

    Another book I read (escapes me right now) called these “horizontal heirarchies”, with very different characteristics to the well-known “vertical heirarchies” under patriarchy. I call it 8th-grader girls gym class politics🙂 Girls clump together into ‘friendship circles’, conflict is rarely one-to-one amongst girls — its many-on-one as a group dynamic.

    anyway, back to that drag thread which started this, being late as usual, I received a private apology from one of the mods, wanting to keep the discussion going?

    Posted by Rain | July 19, 2007, 5:51 am
  64. I saw this sort of thing kind of looming on the horizon when I first began reading the boards in earnest. I frequently saw what appeared to be basic 101 stuff sort of floating over some moderators heads.

    After some thought I went ahead and threw my own hat into the ring and volunteered to moderate, hoping that I could ‘head off’ some of the problems I was beginning to see. Unfortunately, it seemed that they came to a head far quicker than I had anticipated.

    I actually only read the threads in question yesterday and then seeing that Delphyne and Justicewalks were banned, well, it’s quite the dissapointment.

    Overall I agree that this was simply an extension of the trans politics although I can’t be certain of that. I suspect that the moderators really want to be helpful, but it’s a bit like putting a child in charge of a college classroom. I think that analogy is probably going to read far more harsh than what I intended (it’s actually about 3:30 am right now and I’m completely wiped out so please forgive me).

    In any case, I suspect that the mods are trying but are simply not familiar with the more advanced ideologies behind radical theory. I get the same feeling as you Delphyne, that being that maybe Twisty was hoping that the boards would take a bit of the overflow. My impression is that she’s simply swamped and the blog and boards are certainly not on the top of the importance list.

    Anyway, I think that utilizing the boards here is a wonderful idea. I’m going to check to see if I already have an account, if not, I’ll be signing up for one too.

    Heart, if you are in need of more moderators please let me know. I’d be more than happy to volunteer.

    Posted by bitingbeaver | July 19, 2007, 7:36 am
  65. “It’s very hard to do all this. I enjoy Heart’s blog and I enjoy Twisty’s. Very different takes, yet both part of who I am. Splintering off feels like failure to me since I believe we need solidarity more than anything. Is anything possible if we can’t get along?”

    Well justicewalks and I don’t have much choice in the matter so maybe that question is better directed to the IBTP moderators!

    Seriously, I don’t think anybody is asking you to choose sides at least not here. I certainly wouldn’t be offended if anybody here continued to post on those forums or at Twisty’s blog. I might be a bit irked if someone joined in the IBTP love-in they’ve got going in None of the Above whose subtext seems to be “now we’ve got rid of those nasty rad fems we can all be safe and happy again” but apart from that, I don’t have any feelings about it.

    In my opinion lots of things are possible even if we don’t always get along. The women’s movement has achieved great things, but I’m sure that our foresisters had as many disagreements both ideological and personal as we do. Women are human and we’re allowed to disagree with one another, strongly even. All political movements have differences in them, so I can never understand this idea that feminism should be different – that’s not just directed at you roamaround it actually appeared to be a strongly held belief of the moderators over there.

    Posted by delphyne | July 19, 2007, 11:00 am
  66. In my experience, yes we did have differences. Primarily from women who called themselves Marxist-Leninists, and another group who were Trotskyites. The latter were frightening, fascistic and just like what I get from Twisty’s mods.

    I don’t diss Twisty. But I too was banned after an altercation with a trans, following same with various trans.

    Posted by Sis | July 19, 2007, 12:24 pm
  67. Oh, gosh, Daisy (there I go starting sentences with those angry, combative transitional phrases again!), Pandagon is a lost cause.

    I once got flamed over there for pointing out the fact that old men coming to the conveniently belated realization that it might be wrong to coerce women into sex weren’t actually doing anything to transgress patriarchal norms. Of course men who can now use money, maturity, and status to get perfectly willing younger ‘tang can well afford to “denounce” the behavior of their younger selves (and even benefit from it, as the busy shuffle of mixing bowls and baking sheets over at Pandagon demonstrates).

    But Amanda didn’t want to be confronted with how self-serving it is for men to get all their raping out of the way in their youth before magnanimously opening their eyes to the immorality of it once they no longer need to rape in order to get sex. Amanda didn’t see the point of making note of that, as if the women men rape during the years of “youthful indiscretion” are somehow magically unraped when the rapists decide to “repent” in their old age, now that they’ve bought themselves a “marriage of equality” with some grateful mail order bride half their age (you should hear Pandagon’s men talking about their wives! It’s all “hot latina ass” this, and “excellent traditional Japanese meals” that. Unbelievable). She suggested that just my bringing it up at all was obviously intended to be “punitive” to those men (poor, poor dears), so I just left.

    What is it with these male-centered “feminists” that they think they know anything at all about the motives of radicals? I mean, really, it’s “punitive” to remind men that their pasts don’t just disappear when they start posting on “feminist” websites? It’s so ridiculous to me the way it’s deemed more important that men be publically considered ‘good’ people than that they actually be good people.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 19, 2007, 2:11 pm
  68. Geez, she posted some amazing, really good stuff. De Anander is also awesome, although I *think* she might depart from most of us here with respect to transgender issues.

    FTR, so do I. But I do want a thorough discussion and it rattles me that simply having one is often called transphobic, in and of itself.

    It’s hard to stop that kind of thing once it’s set in motion; it takes on a life of its own, as it sort of has with respect to Twisty. People so want sheroes, you know? Somebody who seems to have it all together to look up to, somebody who seems to have everything all figured out.

    Yes. Well said. I adore Twisty! It’s the cult of personality too, because we just don’t have many women who will tell guys to fuck off and really not care. Whenever one of them does, well, I just wanna send her kisses and flowers. 😀

    This whole thing upsets me!

    Have you read Joanna Russ’s “Magic Mommas and Trembling Sisters” ? A little dated now, but Joanna was talking about the women’s behaviour in feminist collectives, where one or more are set up as “Magic Mommas”, who can do no wrong, with tribes of ‘trembling sisters’ choosing sides to ‘gang up’ on. Also about how women-women conflict is quite different to male-male and male-female.

    A GREAT book! Don’t forget the whole title, Magic Mommas, Trembling Sisters, Puritans and Perverts.

    We all pick a role, I think.

    Posted by Daisy | July 19, 2007, 2:31 pm
  69. I developed a lot of contempt for the whole thing back in January, when that whole tranny thing happened. Then the “pomo rules” thing kicked in, and it was thereafter all about being cute and hip and intellectually arrogant. And regularly genuflecting to Twisty.

    Very insightful.

    Posted by Char | July 19, 2007, 2:36 pm
  70. Yes! For example, the way that ALL feminists have to talk about “raunch” culture just because Ariel Levy made a mint off of coining the term. Only “raunch” is a loaded and classist term that is horribly ineffective when talking about pornography and prostitution. Of course, since Levy is best buds with Susie Bright, of course she’s going to use a term that insulates the rest of the industry from the “bad” stuff like Girls Gone Wild. But now everyone has to write “raunch culture” if they want to be published!

    Huh? Can you say more?

    Posted by Char | July 19, 2007, 2:37 pm
  71. Justicewalks, thanks for your account!

    I just wonder if men can ever behave themselves in feminist space?? I know Rich can (hi Rich! I occasionally used to read your old board Feminist Warbird, since I loved Funnie’s posts!), but he doesn’t do the whole towel-snapping routine with other guys.

    In my observation, once men start backing up other men, it’s all sunk. If I want a men’s chorus, I will listen to the Oak Ridge Boys! :p

    Posted by Daisy | July 19, 2007, 2:39 pm
  72. justicewalks said, and I convulsed in laughter “…as the busy shuffle of mixing bowls and baking sheets over at Pandagon demonstrates)”

    Genuflect genuflect genuflect.

    Posted by Sis | July 19, 2007, 2:58 pm
  73. delphyne: I might be a bit irked if someone joined in the IBTP love-in they’ve got going in None of the Above whose subtext seems to be “now we’ve got rid of those nasty rad fems we can all be safe and happy again”

    HA. 🙂 Well, the love-in will be short lived and will shortly become abject boredom, frustration, and a fight looking to happen somewhere, anywhere. That’s my experience with these things over many years and many political movements. After a purge, the lights go out amongst the purge-instigators. People think they got rid of the problem, because they were too arrogant, politically naive and/or inexperienced to realize how much they themselves were the problem and how much everybody needed everybody, difficult as things were. You think you eliminated the enemy, but really, all you did was shoot yourself in the foot and ensure that in the future you will feel nostalgic about the old days and wish you’d have done things differently. Yes, that’s the voice of experience.

    Justicewalks: Of course men who can now use money, maturity, and status to get perfectly willing younger ‘tang can well afford to “denounce” the behavior of their younger selves (and even benefit from it, as the busy shuffle of mixing bowls and baking sheets over at Pandagon demonstrates).

    But Amanda didn’t want to be confronted with how self-serving it is for men to get all their raping out of the way in their youth before magnanimously opening their eyes to the immorality of it once they no longer need to rape in order to get sex.

    This is the voice that was banned! Damn, that’s good, Justicewalks, what a mouthful you’ve said there!

    That’s another thing I never got about Twisty though– the sort of alliances she seemed to make with Amanda, with flea, with piny, with guys like Norbizness, the latest seems to be Ilkya Damen, while steadfastly snubbing radical feminists, at least for the most part, like Amy’s Brain, like BB, like me. I never understood and still don’t whether that was meant to be strategic (because I don’t for one moment think Twisty is overwhelmed by numbers of commenters, etc., or that the numbers were a surprise or an accident, or that she doesn’t care about her blog/boards that much, that’s one place I disagree with some here), i.e., maybe Twisty wanted the alliances with kinder, gentler, het-er, penis-er, more man-approving feminists, to increase numbers in her own community and avoid the ::::: gasp ::::: radfem/lesbian separatist “ghetto” as she’s sort of referred to it before, or whether she really just plain isn’t a radical feminist at all herself. I mean, a person can disapprove of pornography, prostitution, sm, blow jobs, pink glitter, fundie religion, children, pregnancy and anal sex, and not be a radical feminist at all in any way shape or form. I know many women (and some men) who fit the above description who are anti-feminists. Radical feminism is much more than what a person does in the sack, is much more than opposing porn/prostitution. sm, is much more than opposing rape and male idiocy. But I don’t see Twisty talking at all about the “much more” that I think radical feminism is about.

    I *have* to read Joanna Russ! She’s one I’ve never read.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 19, 2007, 3:49 pm
  74. Hey, char. 🙂

    Posted by womensspace | July 19, 2007, 3:50 pm
  75. Daisy” But I do want a thorough discussion and it rattles me that simply having one is often called transphobic, in and of itself.

    Exactly. If you want to have the thorough discussion you will get clobbered. Guaranteed. And there’s a word for that.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 19, 2007, 3:52 pm
  76. Char, a friend of mine recently had an article on porn republished and the new book’s editors changed her usage of “commercializing sex” to “debasing sex.” The new editors (who are either neutral or pro-porn) did this because they just assume that anyone against porn is really against “raunch” culture and has some sort of belief in some kind of holy or mystical perfect sexuality that is the opposite of raunch, whatever raunch is. But her argument didn’t have *anything* to do with that, it was about capitalism and consent.

    Levy’s work has been profoundly significant when it comes mindshare and it is on some level about that holy or mystical sexuality, the kind that Joe Francis “ruins” and the kind that Susie Bright will hook you up with for $39.95.

    You can get an inkling of that from an interview she did with a shock-porn site (not a direct link):

    http://tinyurl.com/mquqs

    Or just from reading her intro to Dworkin’s Intercourse:

    https://womensspace.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/ariel-levy-writes-forward-to-new-release-of-dworkins-intercourse-boycott-this-book/

    Posted by Rich | July 19, 2007, 4:30 pm
  77. Heart, could you give me a link to whatever forum you are talking about? You mean here? I confess, I wasn’t on the net for a long time, so didn’t even know you had one.

    Posted by Daisy | July 19, 2007, 4:32 pm
  78. I registered, but don’t seem to be getting activation email?

    Posted by Daisy | July 19, 2007, 5:21 pm
  79. I’m quite aware that some people find me at fault for believing in a scrap of human goodness left in the world. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t know for absolute sure and neither do you. In lieu of real evidence that all men are absolute scum and with evidence some do care and try I will proceed as if they are not

    Posted by Amanda Marcotte | July 19, 2007, 5:26 pm
  80. I never said it is okay for men to rape as long as they repent but I do imagine our definition of rape might be a bit different

    Posted by Amanda Marcotte | July 19, 2007, 5:27 pm
  81. Or just from reading her intro to Dworkin’s Intercourse:

    I haven’t read it yet. Though I bought the new edition. Apparently, it’s cause quite a furor. I asked a friend of mine what she thought and she said “It’s cause quite a furor. I’m anxious to hear what you think.” So, I’m forced back onto my own resources and have to come up with my own opinion. Darn her. :b

    I’m not necessarily understanding what you’re saying, here. I’ll have to read more. I do get the theoretical divide between “bad” sex and “good” sex. But, I’m not sure from what you’re writing here, what the dividing line in this case is. Consent? Money? Something else? Or what “raunch” is supposed to mean in this context?

    Posted by Char | July 19, 2007, 5:45 pm
  82. Hi, Heart. 🙂

    Fuck. I cannot get those stupid italics tags right. Grrrrrrr. They’re different on the board and on the blog, aren’t they?

    Posted by Char | July 19, 2007, 5:46 pm
  83. I’m quite aware that some people find me at fault for believing in a scrap of human goodness left in the world. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t know for absolute sure and neither do you. In lieu of real evidence that all men are absolute scum and with evidence some do care and try I will proceed as if they are not.

    You really think that’s what folks are finding fault with?

    From my reading, I thought people were angry that they get horribly attacked on your blog by some clearly anti-feminist men and women with nary a peep from you or anybody else.

    Posted by Char | July 19, 2007, 5:48 pm
  84. Amanda, believing in a scrap of goodness isn’t the same as letting men bully or make fun of any woman on a blog.

    I have a male partner; I know some men can be nice. I just don’t need to talk to em online, I talk to em enough IRL.😀

    Posted by Daisy | July 19, 2007, 5:50 pm
  85. ” Or what “raunch” is supposed to mean in this context?”

    I’m not entirely sure what raunch is supposed to mean in *any* context, which is why it’s so unfortunate that it’s a buzzword that caught on to the extent that it has. Of course, that’s what buzzwords do, but I suppose it’s fairly easy to guess at various political reasons why it has (to the exclusion of alternatives). Those guesses might be entirely wrong, I’ll admit, but it’s easy.

    I don’t think that feminist complaints with porn hinge on the medium being “raunchy” though. And yet that’s where the mainstream debate is located now.

    Posted by Rich, absolute scum | July 19, 2007, 5:59 pm
  86. In lieu of real evidence that all men are absolute scum and with evidence some do care and try I will proceed as if they are not

    I never said it is okay for men to rape as long as they repent but I do imagine our definition of rape might be a bit different

    I do not consider the “conversion” of an ex-rapist to husband in a nookie-full “marriage of equality” with an obviously and publically fetishized woman to be “evidence that some do care;” I see it as the natural progression from the gung-ho patriarchal behavior of newly privileged youth to the reserved patriarchal behavior of those secure in their place as patriarchs. It is an inexperienced oppressor indeed who uses more stick than carrot.

    And, yes, based on the fact that you think the drugged woman who objected, from within her drugged stupor, to being poked by her husband was, in fact, not raped, yes, “our definition of rape [is] a bit different.” I believe women have a right to change their minds about engaging in sexual intercourse, even while under the influence of drugs, without being infantilized or otherwise dismissed for it.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 19, 2007, 6:01 pm
  87. I always hesitate to jump in, because I am NOT what one would call a “veteran blamer.” I’ve been very much out of the loop, and I’m still very tentative about my conclusions. But I’m wondering if maybe the desire to set people up as heroes/sheroes is just part of the patriarchal problem? I understand the longing to see, for once, an example of someone I’d even want to imitate–some real, true, solid vision of what I might become. And I also understand how deeply satisfying it is to be heard and to feel that I’ve helped another woman and that my being me has given them strength to be them. But it seems to me that we’re all different things at different times. I want to accept that another woman can be a strong leader for me at one time, and another time she might need my shoulder to lean on. I’d like to know that I can be the one giving wise counsel one day, and the next maybe I need to listen and learn from someone else. Isn’t this whole idea that some people are the anointed ones, the special ones, kind of a patriarchal thing? It’s like, so-and-so is a godly war hero, so he should be President and everything he says must be right! So-and-so has been ordained a priest, so therefore he knows God and we should all do what he says–even if he’s saying to bend over and take our pants down. It’s patriarchal religion that establishes an unchanging ruler God who is always right and then sets men up in his image. I don’t want to set anyone up that way. No matter how wonderful she is, she’s bound to disappoint if I expect her to fill that role. I’d rather love and admire other women for what they are–human, flexible, fallible, changeable, like me. I hope this isn’t too platitudinous. I want strong women to be able to disagree respectfully, and I hate the idea that anyone would be “banned” for that. It sounds like getting kicked out of a church, and I’ve had quite enough of that!

    Posted by anuna | July 19, 2007, 6:01 pm
  88. I see the conversation has moved along while I was thinking about that.

    I see it as the natural progression from the gung-ho patriarchal behavior of newly privileged youth to the reserved patriarchal behavior of those secure in their place as patriarchs.

    Wahoo, justicewalks!!

    Posted by anuna | July 19, 2007, 6:04 pm
  89. Amanda, please tell me you aren’t coming over here to call us all manhaters?

    Surely we can have a discussion that is a bit more nuanced?
    :/

    Yeah, char, carrots here, brackets over there. :p

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 19, 2007, 6:06 pm
  90. Daisy, some admin I am, but I don’t even know if you get an activation e-mail. But I do know I activated you so just log in, should work fine. 🙂

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 19, 2007, 6:08 pm
  91. I don’t disagree with you that there are some good men in the world Amanda (and would anybody here argue against that?) so the problem might be that we have different ideas of what constitutes a good man. I remember a monster thread about porn at your place where you defended men who used porn as still being friends of women because apparently they were able to separate out porn’s misogyny from its sexiness (quite a feat given that the sexiness in porn is the misoygny and degradation) and in particular I remember you criticising me becuase I took issue with a man who took pornographic photos of his girlfriend.

    It’s one of feminism’s less pleasant experiences to be attacked by another feminist who is taking the side of misogynistic men.

    Posted by delphyne | July 19, 2007, 6:12 pm
  92. Rich, absolute scum
    😀

    Posted by womensspace | July 19, 2007, 6:16 pm
  93. Wow, I can’t believe all that has happened here since my internet service was knocked out midday yesterday. The thread only had 3 comments on it last I saw!

    I’m sorry that things deteriorated so at Twisty’s, but really can’t say I’m surprised.

    Posted by Branjor | July 19, 2007, 6:31 pm
  94. Yes, I think it was in the same thread that Amanda called my comment lame. Well it may have been, but that seemed a little unnecessary to say to another feminist in service of the misogynists who are so comfortable homey on your site.

    Posted by Sis | July 19, 2007, 7:23 pm
  95. I did some reading about authoritarianism a while back, and a lot of these odd, to me, behaviors fell into place. Sixty percent of the population tests out as authoritarian. When we think of authoritarians we think of power abusers, arrogant asshats, and sometimes your basic pedant. But those are the minority of authoritarians. The majority are followers who want received wisdom from someone, or something, they can rely on for absolutes.
    So, like anuna, I think it is partly a heirarchical structure of the patriarchy problem in the way it expresses, I think it is also a human nature problem. If, indeed, that sixty percent authoritarianism is a reflection of nature, it’s no surprise that behavior policing is a major preoccupation of every group, in every culture.
    Until I understood the authoritarian mindset, I spent my life in a state of puzzlement over why, almost everyone I knew and strangers too, were constantly trying to help me conform to standards of behavior that had no discernable practical purpose, and sometimes seemed just plain silly.
    That is the struggle that I have seen play out on the blog, and now in the forum. I think it is interesting to note that often the ideology police on the blog had to be told by Twisty that they were the ones in error.
    When the conflict erupted between Pony(medea on crack) and a person whose name starts with V, but I can’t remember it, I think that Twisty was ready to pack it in. I think the forum made it possible for the commentariat to do their own thing, without everything said there being laid at her feet. It must have been a relief.
    I’m sorry if this has been too much about me and my feelings. I’m grieving a bit, I think.

    Posted by thebewilderness | July 19, 2007, 8:03 pm
  96. bewilderness, don’t apologize. It does all feel really bad, and must especially for you because you’ve been such a regular blamer. 😦

    I think you’re absolutely right about the authoritarian mindset. I think this is why people respond strangely to comments on blogs, i.e., we might be commenting along, offering our views, and people reading will basically just go off, there or on their own blogs, and say things like, “You don’t speak for feminism!” or “She thinks she speaks for feminism!” or “Who are you to decide who is a feminist and who isn’t!” And “That’s just your opinion!”

    Well, of course it is. :/ Of course, of course, of course, who ever says she is/was speaking for feminism or women everywhere, or deciding who is a feminist and who isn’t, isn’t it a foregone conclusion that each woman is having her individual say in posting to a blog or a message board? But time and time again we see people imputing all of this power to other people, or responding as though someone’s *comment* — someone’s *comment* to a blog! to a board — is some attempt at, what, taking over the blog, the board, feminism, the nation, the world, even though there is no indication anywhere that the person commenting ever meant to do anything but… comment. It’s what is called in noncoercive parenting circles “field dependence.” It has to do with deriving one’s sense of personhood or value or worth from membership in a certain “field” or community or group and being unable to function or be okay as an individual, separate from the “field,” with a unique set of ideas, views, beliefs, viewing differing ideas as a threat to one’s very personhood. Another way to say it, I think, is the way you’ve said it, that these are people with an authoritarian mindset, because field dependence is a consequence of authoritarian milieus, and there are many such people in the world, thanks to the authoritarianism of the past 30 years especially, in homes, in churches, in schools, in government, in communities, everywhere. 😦

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 19, 2007, 8:16 pm
  97. Yes. I tried her patience. But I think getting rid of me had been in her plan for some time. Others whose ban followed? Well I think that was a mistake because they made posts of substance. They were blamers who should be heard. But I think all that cleared the slate for her to have sites that better represented her stance.

    That’s her right to have her blog the way she wants it. She can’t be all things to all feminists. I’m better off for not being there and resenting the misogynists who are.

    Posted by Sis | July 19, 2007, 8:23 pm
  98. And I’m sorry that was so much about Twisty. I said I wasn’t going to do that and did and now I regret it. What the hell do I know?

    Posted by Sis | July 19, 2007, 8:28 pm
  99. You know, I think we all really appreciate Twisty. How could anyone not? When she’s on a roll, she is a riot, she can make me laugh like no other. We’re trying to make sense of something that for various reasons doesn’t really make sense. I don’t get it that anyone wants harsh on Twisty. So, I don’t think you should feel bad, Sis.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 19, 2007, 9:44 pm
  100. Hey, delphyne, sorry if my post came out wrong. I was really just lamenting the situation, not saying that I feel forced to take sides.

    I am so disappointed that you and justicewalks were banned. I’m kind of in shock. You find a few precious places that feel like home and then shit happens and it falls apart.

    I don’t agree that splintering into a million sects is a good thing, or even ok. If we want to change more than our minds, like maybe address some of the gross injustices perpetrated against women in this world, then we need some strength in numbers.

    Not that we all have to agree about everything, but we should be able to get along enough to focus on common goals.

    Lots of you have been through this before. I’m relatively new, but getting disillusioned fast.

    Posted by roamaround | July 19, 2007, 10:37 pm
  101. Maybe these people are trying to hack radical feminism like they hacked feminism and turned it into some weird men-loving anti-female sexist ideology.

    Posted by Kiuku | July 20, 2007, 2:10 am
  102. This is what you get on this so-called radical feminist board:

    “Although I am nine feet tall, my feelings are like little delicate Hummel statues and my skin is as tender as a flower petal. ”

    Every woman has a right to her own self determination, but that’s just funny.

    Posted by Kiuku | July 20, 2007, 2:15 am
  103. Ok forgive me for not commenting after I read everything. Inevitably there will be more stuff I can’t keep quiet about after reading through what happened.

    I’m sorry that they are silencing you (yes THEY are silencing YOU) with the age-old patriarchal “Don’t hurt anyone’s feelings” that only applies to women. When men are voicing their opinion, their outrage, their logic, they are never hurting feelings or in danger of hurting feelings. I’m sorry they shut you up that way. That should never happen anywhere near feminism. radical feminism? Give me a break.

    Posted by Kiuku | July 20, 2007, 2:22 am
  104. “Although I am nine feet tall, my feelings are like little delicate Hummel statues and my skin is as tender as a flower petal. ”

    I know Kiuku.

    In other words, one can pretend to look like they are empowered but the fact is, she is not.

    Nine feet tall, implies, I can hang with the menz, but tender as a flower petal, implies, but I am still a gurly girl. Therefore I can have it both ways, I can be one of the boys and desired by the boys.

    The reality, no you cannot have it both ways. DUH!. The menz win and you just sold your soul.

    Posted by Kitty Glendower | July 20, 2007, 2:41 am
  105. That was a quote from BDL, and she was trying to lighten the mood the way she usually does. Needless to say, she was misunderstood by those who see themselves as she was laughingly describing herself.
    That is part of the problem. Some of us are so used to each others ways and jokes, that when someone new charges in without context, misunderstandings start ‘splodin’ everywhere. The move to the forum created new conditions, where outlandish remarks were not recognized as such, and had to be explained and apologized for. We used to be able to just ask newbies to catch up. In the forum, we were all expected to behave like newbies. Obviously some of us were very bad at it.

    Posted by thebewilderness | July 20, 2007, 2:57 am
  106. Right on Kitty

    Thebewilderness: I don’t know about that.

    Posted by Kiuku | July 20, 2007, 3:08 am
  107. One thing I did find on Twisty’s forum was a link to a men’s magazine with an article (apparently written by a rapist) questioning whether it is “Ok” to “demand” anal sex and if anal sex was the “new oral”. The comments were also pretty disgusting, apparently written by rapists and rape apologists as well, describing the solution to a woman who did not want to be fucked while she slept: Ambien.

    And then that Amanda person apologizing for the men.

    Near the end of the “mens” article (which you can comment on) I found this telling example of todays’ feminist. She writes:

    “And for the record, I’m a feminist, I love men, I’m not a whore, I’m in my late 20s, and I’m comfortable saying that I’m not only pretty hot, but I’m also pretty hot in the sack. And I still just think this article is trite and sad.”

    I think we all need to do some serious trolling here.

    http://men.style.com/details/blogs/details/2007/07/is-it-ok-to-dem.html#comments

    Posted by Kiuku | July 20, 2007, 3:32 am
  108. I wonder if I’m banned from Twisty’s blog? LOL. Of course I am. I was taken out in the first round a half dozen moons ago when the subject was first brought up. I’m sure that doesn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone. I’m not exactly known to be polite and mannerly about the subject.

    I’m often scolded for the way I say things. But as y’all are finding out, it doesn’t much matter how politely one says things, now does it? We all end up in the same spot. That’s because the male-born are raised to believe that the female-born were put on this earth to serve them. So the only acceptable response from a woman is, “Yes, sir!” (Altho, “Yes, master!” may be substituted).

    You see, the male-born all dream of mommies without any authority. Once you start to see that, the rest will start to fall into place.

    As for Twisty, I love her sense of humor. She says a lot of good things and is often spot on. But it’s fairly obvious to me that she loathes being a woman and suffers a bit from penis-envy. Can’t say as I blame her. It’s hard to be a woman living under patriarchy. But I don’t see much liberation in sour grapes.

    Call me crazy, but I love being a woman. What I love even more is being a woman among women. I’m not exactly a poster child for femininity, so y’all know that’s not what I’m talking about. It’s the magic. Women are magic. There is magic in the way women dance, laugh, and sing. There is magic in the way women connect and bond. Its power is exhilarating. Magical. Electrifying.

    Men just don’t have the magic. I don’t know why. I don’t care why. All I know is that they don’t. So they can have their silly little patriarchy. I don’t want it. I want the magic.

    Posted by Luckynkl | July 20, 2007, 8:10 am
  109. “I’m sorry that they are silencing you (yes THEY are silencing YOU) with the age-old patriarchal “Don’t hurt anyone’s feelings” that only applies to women. When men are voicing their opinion, their outrage, their logic, they are never hurting feelings or in danger of hurting feelings. I’m sorry they shut you up that way. That should never happen anywhere near feminism. radical feminism? Give me a break.”

    Exactly, it’s supposed to be radical feminism – the most challenging type of feminism, challenging because it actually leads to change. Like Catherine MacKinnon says feminsim isn’t a therapy session. Which sounds really harsh but if we only use how people feel as the way to make our judgements (and it’s not like my or justicewalks’ feelings were being taken into consideration – I have felt really hurt by the way the moderators have treated me there and even more hurt when that abusive attack on me over there was allowed to stand) without also referencing logic or fact where does that leave the politics?

    Posted by delphyne | July 20, 2007, 10:31 am
  110. “And for the record, I’m a feminist, I love men, I’m not a whore, I’m in my late 20s, and I’m comfortable saying that I’m not only pretty hot, but I’m also pretty hot in the sack. And I still just think this article is trite and sad.”

    But, see, if you just tell them without apology that the article is misogynistic, they might not listen! So, here’s the plan, and it’s totally just as radical and feminist as telling them the truth: you bake them a few cookies, turn yourself into a pornstar before their very eyes with a little Playboy blurb about yourself, and then you soften the message. See? I mean, because, who wants to hear they’re a misogynist, right? That is just so harsh and might hurt someone’s feelings.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 20, 2007, 11:43 am
  111. I have felt really hurt by the way the moderators have treated me there and even more hurt when that abusive attack on me over there was allowed to stand) without also referencing logic or fact where does that leave the politics?

    Exactly, delphyne. You didn’t deserve that! And neither did Justicewalks. One reason I tended to stay away was, especially early on, because this didn’t happen more recently, but still, my comments would be held in moderation when there was absolutely nothing wrong with them — not even any cursing or swearing! — while not-feminist or anti-feminist stuff would continue to be posted and radfems would continue to be attacked. I couldn’t figure that out; if this is a radical feminist blog, why are the radfems’ comments held in moderation (because I was by far not the only one). Very disturbing.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 20, 2007, 12:22 pm
  112. All right, you wimmin need to get avatars! Look at all those spooky silhouettes next to your screen names!

    Maybe this is a big duh to everyone and it’s already been said and I missed it, but as I think about it, it does seem as though Twisty wanted the outspoken-about-transgender-issues out. Now that I think about it. Delphyne, Justicewalks, Lucky, and even holding my comments in moderation in times past. A number of the moderators over there, as I understand, *are* transgender persons and would certainly share in those sentiments.

    Heart

    Posted by Heart | July 20, 2007, 12:43 pm
  113. That was the only reason I could think that they would hold your comments in moderation, Heart – the trans issue.

    I was taking a guess when I said further up this thread that some of the moderators might be trans, do we actually know for sure that this is the case? I actually slightly regretted saying it because it’s only a feeling so I probably should have kept it to myself. What I am certain of is that a fair few of them are trans-identified and are much more immersed in trans and queer politics than radical feminst politics. One moderator actually agreed with me on that point that that was where the ideological difference lay.

    Posted by delphyne | July 20, 2007, 1:11 pm
  114. Wonder which one occasionally uses the addy Virago?

    Posted by Sis | July 20, 2007, 3:15 pm
  115. Heart, I too have registered at the Margins Board (but haven’t received an email back yet).

    I know I have been very quiet of late, and I really cannot believe that delphyne and JusticeWalks were turfed out of the Twisty Forum. I haven’t felt like commenting at the Twisty Blog for a long time (usually only reading the posts, not the comments).

    Anyway, I have an avatar, none of those scary shapes for me! I am a crazy, ranting duck.🙂

    Posted by CrankyCrone | July 20, 2007, 3:36 pm
  116. Thanks for that clarification, delphyne– I think you’re probably right, that some or many of the mods are trans-identified. We can’t know for sure who is transgender, although those of us who have been around the internetz for any length of time do tend to know who’s who.

    Cranky Crone, I approved you. 🙂

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 20, 2007, 4:52 pm
  117. When you say “trans-identified”–what do you mean? Not trans themselves—?

    As soon as I think I am ready to intelligently debate this issue, I come up against terms I never heard of, so maybe not ready yet. 😛

    Posted by Daisy | July 20, 2007, 5:03 pm
  118. Yeah, I figured it went without saying that the issue was a queer/trans vs radical feminist issue. The fact that the threads on which I was labelled “out of line” were the threads on men identifying themselves in the name of straightforwardness about privilege, “transphobia,” and drag queens, isn’t an accident.

    I think the mothers of sons thing was just thrown in at the behest of one poster. We’d already hashed the mother’s of sons thing out on the blog some time ago, in the DeAnza thread, with minimal intervention from Twisty, who only suggested that we ought not be mad at mothers for being hurt by and resistant to the fact that they may have inflicted rapists on the rest of us. Which, you know, is completely understandable. What Twisty DIDN’T do on that thread was ban people for bringing it up, despite the fact that some mothers might take offense.

    It’s amazing. There are now people complaining that I directly attacked a forum poster with some sarcastic comment I left on the blog, as if any one scale-eyed woman has a corner on the not-my-Nigel market. I mean, come on, if you automatically think a not-my-Nigel reference is meant to be a direct derogation of YOU and not the position, perhaps that says more about your own views and your own ego than it does about my sarcasm.

    Incidentally, not more than 5 comments after I made my sarcastic not-my-Nigel comment, a real-live not-my-Nigel-er came out of the woodwork to post her heartfelt refusal to lump her own bf in the rapists/apologists heap, because he drinks milk or something.

    I’m sure you’ll all be shocked to hear that the merry not-my-Nigel-er was NOT, in fact, the same scale-eyed woman I’d “directly attacked” with my comment!! *blink* You mean there are more than one not-my-Nigel-er? You mean that market isn’t cornered by one scale-eyed woman with a sympathetic son and a supersized ego?? You mean to tell me that the sarcastic not-my-Nigel comment could just as easily have been a parody of any number of male-identified, heterosocial women?? Well, go figure.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 20, 2007, 5:29 pm
  119. I think I just made that one up, Daisy.😛

    When I say trans-identified, I mean identifying with the struggles of trans people rather than the struggles of women as a class. For example someone taking that position would dispute that there was any such thing as a woman because trans people say that sex exists in their heads rather than in their bodies, if women disagree with this our opinions don’t matter; or they will notice that transgender undermines the system of gender whilst completely ignoring that feminism has been doing it for much longer and more effectively. I’d also say it was an active stance rather than one belonging to someone who just hasn’t done much thinking about the issue.

    It had never certainly crossed my radar until I joined the Ms Boards and also found a number of MTF trans people claiming to be lesbian feminists there.

    Posted by delphyne | July 20, 2007, 5:30 pm
  120. Darn! I wish I wasn’t so late on this thread. It’s incredibly unfortunate that anyone would be “run out on a rail” for having an alternative opinion.

    Sometimes I’m horribly discouraged by group dynamics. That probably silences women more than anything else ever could!

    Peace,

    ~Chani

    Posted by Chani | July 20, 2007, 5:59 pm
  121. Delphyne said:
    ***For example someone taking that position would dispute that there was any such thing as a woman because trans people say that sex exists in their heads rather than in their bodies, if women disagree with this our opinions don’t matter***

    Imagine how enraged the trans identified would be if that were turned around – “there is no such thing as trans because women say that trans exists in their heads rather than in their bodies, if trans disagree with that their opinions don’t matter.”

    They would be screaming “transphobic hate speech!” at the top of their lungs.

    Posted by Branjor | July 20, 2007, 8:01 pm
  122. Yes, the trans/queer people have done a very good job of making females identify as male/men. The patriarchy must be thrilled.

    The thing is though, switching genders doesn’t do anything about the physical realities of sex. Male-identified women are still just as responsible for reproduction as female-identified ones, for example. But because they’ve been so brainwashed that they don’t relate to the reproductive processes taking place within and happening to their own bodies, they are therefore unmoved to advocate for themselves as having bodies that reproduce. The result is a canon of “human” rights that make no mention of rape, pregnancy, or menstruation.

    I imagine if the transwomen get their way (and their more likely to get their way than we are to get ours), issues of rape may be added to the list of “human” rights concerns, while menstruation and pregnancy will remain unmentioned.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 20, 2007, 8:28 pm
  123. I wonder why my comments are going into moderation?

    Posted by justicewalks | July 20, 2007, 8:29 pm
  124. Yeah, justicewalks, I don’t get that either! One problem might be, your IP address is similar to some on my spam/blacklist list, and the way Akismet works is, it thinks anything with even *part* of what’s on that list is spam. So I took those IP addresses off, let’s see if that works.

    Argh.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 20, 2007, 9:37 pm
  125. “It’s amazing. There are now people complaining that I directly attacked a forum poster with some sarcastic comment I left on the blog, as if any one scale-eyed woman has a corner on the not-my-Nigel market. I mean, come on, if you automatically think a not-my-Nigel reference is meant to be a direct derogation of YOU and not the position, perhaps that says more about your own views and your own ego than it does about my sarcasm.”

    Yup, you were being likened to a stalker as well, just in case the boot hadn’t been put in sufficiently already. I guess as we are now banned we are fair game for the people who want to insult us whilst claiming that they are never aggressive.

    For anybody who is reading here and also the IBTP thread, it is possible to read a poster’s previous posts by clicking on their name and going into their profile. As the moderators are refusing to show where we specifically broke the rules people may want to see for themselves what actually happened.

    Posted by delphyne | July 20, 2007, 11:17 pm
  126. Delphyne you are constantly moderated too. The heck.

    I can’t bear to go over there. But, I’ll go over there. I’m so, so sorry– it is just absurd and preposterous and ludicrous as all hell.
    😦

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 20, 2007, 11:20 pm
  127. I just figured you had a Scottish troll with a similar IP address to mine Heart!

    There’s all sorts of stuff happening. I shouldn’t be watching the train wreck but somebody’s just started a BDSM thread, not to criticise it but to connect with like-minded “radical” feminists. I wonder if this, and the punctuation attacks on radfems at Twisty’s blog, are what she had in mind.

    Posted by delphyne | July 20, 2007, 11:29 pm
  128. Yup, you were being likened to a stalker as well, just in case the boot hadn’t been put in sufficiently already.

    Yeah, that’s gonna do the trick, delphyne, as far as that boot is concerned.

    You’ve got to be kidding me. It really is beyond offensive that they insist on equating the expression of radical feminist ideas with abuse (and stalking!!). And they have the gall not to recognize that for the silencing tactic that it is.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 21, 2007, 2:08 am
  129. Delphyne,
    I reported the BDSM troll, but the mods don’t seem to have a problem with it. I’m guessing Twisty is going to be pissed, since the only two subjects that are banned are what about the menz and BDSM. Both of which are in full bloom on the forum.
    For a minute there I though a discussion on moderating was going to break out, but your characterization of it as a train wreck is probably more accurate.

    Posted by thebewilderness | July 21, 2007, 2:47 am
  130. I’ve noticed the strength of BDSM on the forums too, tho’ it doesn’t appear to be popular (yet). In any event, I wont be participating anymore – misunderstood the ‘radical feminist’ sticker the first time round, and so inadvertently had my wrists slapped. Don’t tend to hang around where I’m not welcome.

    I agree with the trans-identification thing though, it was so strong and clear to me on that thread (but also others) — even though I missed the original blogfest on it. It really is the biggest backlash against feminism in recent times, when it has become so incredibly mainstream now – and I keep wondering *why*, so thanks heaps, to whoever said above about it being male-identified. I’d actually completely forgotten that.

    Thanks for the reality-check.

    I like the old bird flying analogy. Humans can never know what the experience of flying like a bird really is. It can be approximated with hang-glider apparatus, we can guess, pretend and use our imagination and prostheses and technology to approximate physical flying sensations, but we can never *be* birds, nor can we ever have the same sensory perception of the world or of flight through a bird’s eyes or body. Same with biological sex. Every single cell is sexed, from livers, kidneys, bone structure, blood, sensory and auditory cognition functions. Many of the blood enzymes are carried on the X, thats why so many sex-linked diseases are blood diseases – and blood chemistry is quite different, and much of it has little or nothing to do with sexual or reproductive characteristics. Other sex differences aren’t hard-wired or fixed either – but are more like left or right handedness – ie ‘soft-wired’ in higher animals like humans — Females are not anatomical bits & pieces designed just for reproduction, but total creatures, that go way beyond just the reproductive functional *bits* or specific organs of anatomy. Biological sex differences do exist, many are soft-wired and adaptable, and quite a large number of them go beyond sexual or reproductive functions (eg feet, ankles etc that are often fetishised in patriarchy, and why women had to ride side-saddle, as well as soft-wired cognitive brain functions like auditory & visual functions etc) But since male is defined to be ‘human’ then everything that doesn’t have a male biological counterpart must be ‘not-human’, and any ‘soft-wired’ non-sexual functions must become ‘hard-wired’ in the gender psychological construction, and sold as such – hence the biological scientific stupidity of the ‘brain-sex’ theory)

    Biological sex-differences just are. They don’t have an intrinisic value or morality, any more than the laws of physics and gravity do. Only humans (ie males) had to invent social status on them.

    Thats where socially constructed ‘gender’ comes in. An abstract concept loaded with emotion, and status and complex social value-judgements. Constructed in the minds of males, based on male experience of the world (because they cannot experience life as a female, any more than they can be a bird by imitating flight, they can only extrapolate or approximate by guessing) – “femininity” and “masculinity” are both based on male experience and sensory perceptions, and hence are just two forms of ‘masculinity’. The eternal binary-thinking – the white prince and the dark lord, his twin-brother, (eternally at war with each other, hawks and doves, harsh Gods being overthrown by their gentler Sons and Prophets), but one of them is always a little effeminate, androgynous, or even wholly feminised, and handed back to women as “you’re in there too, *somewhere*.

    All the peculiarly unique female experiences of life, the universe, and everything — are erased, completely if possible, or if they are biologically necessary, then made as invisible as possible, through minimisation and trivialisation, or fetishisation.

    One of the more recent ones of these gender mind-twistings has been with the splitting of mother/parenthood into 3 “mothers”. Now males and females both, can be “genetic” parents, and “social” parents. These two social roles can be valued in law and society as “equals”, because men can do it too. (Although it cracked me up, when I heard women selling their ova stating “its the same as sperm donation”… (I mean – please get your biological scientific facts right? When women can donate eggs via 5-minute wank, I will agree it is “equal” or equivalent) — but in the “gender” as social construction — it has to be socially, legally and psychologically engineered to be a one-to-one equivalent, ie an ‘equal-to-man’, process/function, equivalent to that of the male benchmark. Hence “masculinity” and “femininity” are one and the same thing.

    But only females can be “gestational” parents, and hence these women lose all their legal rights, and human rights, as they become non-human for at least the duration of their pregnancy. Same thing with lactation, men can’t do it, therefore, ergo, hence logically it must not be fully human, and must be gotten rid of, and if it can’t because its necessary, then it must be practiced in purdah, out-of-sight and out-of-mind.

    I have an old article on this titled ” But Just *WHOSE* Biology-is-Destiny around here anyway?” in which it was argued that the real biology-is-destiny argument, is actually for male biology as the ‘human’ Destiny, even to sexual response, sexuality, sexual identity and orientation eg lesbians as “equivalent” counterparts to gay males, therefore they are “equal”. Hence the adoption of ‘equal’ non-sexed language, eg ‘queer’ – erasing all aspects of ‘femaleness’ in their lesbianism. Lesbians become subsumed as the equivalent/equal of dickless gay men.

    Because ‘femininity’ is a male-defined gender, the infamous “Other” is actually himSelf, not women at all. Femininity however, is compulsory for females, but optional and even desirable in some males. Males who adopt ‘femininity’ must be seen as ‘women’ and ‘female’, and most importantly, it is absolutely critical, that they be seen as such by other women, not just men. They need to be socially validated as ‘equal’ to biologically-sexed females, and are very aggressive about this. It does seduce a lot of women in their support and identification, since women are so often desperate for any crumbs of ‘equality’ in any shape or form, so I guess in that context it is understandable.

    But understanding the problem is only half the solution (as the old cliche goes) – I wish I could get a handle on the other half of the solution!

    Rain

    Posted by Rain | July 21, 2007, 7:32 am
  131. Rain: Because ‘femininity’ is a male-defined gender, the infamous “Other” is actually himSelf, not women at all. Femininity however, is compulsory for females, but optional and even desirable in some males. Males who adopt ‘femininity’ must be seen as ‘women’ and ‘female’, and most importantly, it is absolutely critical, that they be seen as such by other women, not just men. They need to be socially validated as ‘equal’ to biologically-sexed females, and are very aggressive about this. It does seduce a lot of women in their support and identification, since women are so often desperate for any crumbs of ‘equality’ in any shape or form, so I guess in that context it is understandable.

    I know some of yall have issues with Piny, but I found this post (from Feministe) simply brilliant. IMHO, only someone who has gone “back and forth”, as Piny has, could have written it:

    Imagine being bisexual in a society where there simply is no such thing as dual orientation. (I know, it’s a stretch.) If your only choices were gay or straight, how would you be bisexual? How would you describe your desires, let alone pursue them?

    What if your orientation were a little more complex, something that couldn’t just be described as a preference for both? What would you say when people asked you if you were gay or straight? Would either term feel comfortable for you? What words would you use instead? Would you try to make one up? Might you sound a little bit strange to everyone else, a little vacillatory, a little precious, a little nuts? And what if you had to get a doctor’s approval to date?

    Gender is currently constructed exactly the same way. There are two choices. They aren’t merely the only approved choices. They’re the only options that most people will acknowledge under any circumstances. You’re either a man or a woman, period. (Of course, most of the time, your man- or womanhood is dependent upon a very short list of factors. “Transsexual” is almost as impossible an idea.) Words like “genderqueer,” “bigendered,” “androgynous,” “two-spirit,” “transgendered,” all become clumsy concepts not because the people insisting upon their validity are confused in themselves, but because they have no place to stand.

    Looked at this way, transgender is a way of coping, not strictly an identity in and of itself.

    Also:

    Gender is also tied up in our ideas of dignity, humanity, adulthood, sanity, beauty. Our gender is a big part of our social role. That’s why one of the easiest ways to insult someone is to deprive them of their gender. That’s why ridicule directed at transpeople and noncongruent people so often hinges on the idea that they are neither men nor women but freaks, or that they are not “really” the gender they prefer. That’s why “it” is so cruel. That’s why de-gendering is part and parcel of infantilization and abuse directed towards other populations. In any hierarchy, clarity is survival.

    I think that’s true.

    I’ve written before about how there sort of is no such thing as an androgynous persona. In a very similar way, there’s also no such thing as an androgynous body. There are bodies that are difficult to categorize, but that just means everyone tries much harder. It’s nearly impossible to simply have a body that doesn’t sit easily on either side.

    When I was ambiguous, I was never received as an ungendered person. Even when there was no consensus, almost everyone made a ruling and did their best to stick with it. Julia Serano describes the same reaction in Whipping Girl (which is currently under a pile of dirty laundry in my bedroom, I think): at a certain point in her physical transition, she would get re-gendered from minute to minute, but hardly anyone ever looked at her and read, “Maybe it’s not quite that simple.” The assumption was not only that she was a man or a woman, but that she was definitely a man or a woman. Most people think they’re very good at this whole gendering thing.

    So maybe a masculinized body really is an imperfect solution for some genderqueer individuals, even if the masculinization is partial or if it allows someone to still present as female should they so choose. Maybe it’s not any better a fit than “gay” is for a pansexual. Maybe genderqueer people really will exhibit higher levels of dissatisfaction in their new bodies, and maybe they will eventually seek a different appearance. Maybe their solution will involve re-transitioning. It doesn’t seem to me that this likelihood is a good reason to deny them whatever imperfect options they have, or that it’s even helpful to exert greater control over their process.

    Okay, while I have major issues with the med/surg establishment, boob jobs, etc I still understand this and basically agree with it. As I said, I find it brilliant.

    What to do with the people who don’t “fit”? That’s who transpeople are.

    I might say they shouldn’t do X, Y, Z, but you are talking to stereotypical Earth Mother Personified, as Heart is also (meant in a sisterly way). We are highly gendered people with our long Indian skirts and long hair. What about the people who aren’t identifiably one or the other? (At Feministe, Holly recently wrote about someone chased out of a public bathroom recently, who wasn’t even trans! She just looked like she didn’t belong in there.)

    I often mistake the gender of long-haired hippie children (children of hippies, with unisex names like Starshine), and found that even as a feminist, I regarded the children differently from moment to moment, when I learned they were male or female. I hate admitting that, but there it is. Meditating on this realization has been very educational for me.

    The title of this piece was aptly titled “my friends from school are meeting my friends from camp”–and that brought to mind a thought-problem of sorts: What if one group of people thought you were male, and another group female, and then the two groups meet each other, and discover that you are differently gendered in different settings? What should you do? What should you tell them you are? If you don’t say anything, they will, as Piny says, still come to their own conclusions.

    And if they do, how is that your fault?

    Again, I found this a brilliant piece, and it changed my mind about a lot of trans issues.

    Now, go ahead and disagree, but please be nice to me. 😛

    I would never discuss this over at IBTP.

    Posted by Daisy | July 21, 2007, 6:04 pm
  132. Rain: Femininity however, is compulsory for females, but optional and even desirable in some males. Males who adopt ‘femininity’ must be seen as ‘women’ and ‘female’, and most importantly, it is absolutely critical, that they be seen as such by other women, not just men.

    This is GREAT, Rain. Really perceptive. The invisible walls of gender are always permeable *downward* — males get to choose whether to be men or women and to have their choices honored, or men can force some men to be women and demand that it “stick” — but never upward. A female can decide to present as a man, can transition, can “ID” as a man, but she will never really have male privilege, not as men do.

    Rain, totally off topic: you had boards, you say years ago. Did you happen to encounter the infamous “Lynne,” (who might have been using the screen names “OneDown” or “Amma” back then?) I’m asking because she added the screen name “RainSong” to her long list of screen names and I’m wondering if, once again, she copped that “identity” from a woman, namely you, since your screen name is “Rain Singing.” At first I thought “oh no” when I saw that you’d registered, but all I had to do was read a sentence or two to know you were not “Lynne/RainSong” and she was probably the imposter. She has also called herself “womansspace,” copping *my* identity, off by just one letter, and in other venues she’s used the names “Minerva,” “Mimsy,” and at one point “Marie,” which again was an identity she copped from a woman. Very creepy and stalkerish and squickish.

    Sorry for the diversion, but I’m betting she did get the screen name “RainSong” from reading you.

    And I’d LOVE to see your article(s) on gender! You’ve written some great stuff there.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 21, 2007, 9:45 pm
  133. A female can decide to present as a man, can transition, can “ID” as a man, but she will never really have male privilege, not as men do.

    If this person is passing totally as a man, why wouldn’t they have male privilege? I have often wondered if that is one of the incentives for transition, to be honest.

    I’m sure it’s very nice to be assumed to be capable and intelligent for a change.

    Posted by Daisy | July 21, 2007, 9:51 pm
  134. I know some of yall have issues with Piny,

    Well, not really. Piny has consistently been a doo-doo head to some of us, though, which I always take issue with!

    but I found this post (from Feministe) simply brilliant.

    Daisy, I think you’re brilliant, but I don’t think what piny wrote is brilliant, no offense to you at all. I just think what you’ve pasted there is same old same old and I’ll explain why. I will be very honest and acknowledge that i resent having to respond to what piny wrote here– but I know you would not have known I’d feel that way, Daisy, and I’m not blaming you. I’m saying this because my patience for having to respond to piny’s and similar writings is exceedingly limited and so I won’t want to go too far down this particular bunny hole. This stuff is all over the internet, and I and others have responded to all of it here, in the (lengthy) threads we’ve had on gender, and I’d rather just not go there again in any depth. In part because by now, after discussing this stuff for seven years on the internet, I find it boring and depressing in its ubiquitousness.

    piny: Imagine being bisexual in a society where there simply is no such thing as dual orientation. (I know, it’s a stretch.) If your only choices were gay or straight, how would you be bisexual? How would you describe your desires, let alone pursue them?

    This presumes so, so SO many things. It presumes there are people who are, for one thing, “bisexual” in some essential way. It presumes that people are born gay, born straight, born bisexual, they can’t help themselves, they were born that way, and what a problem that would be to be “born” some way, and not be able to do anything about it, with the surrounding culture making no provision for the way you were born.

    I think we have a lot to learn about human desire and longing and sexuality, and I think we don’t know near what there is to now about that. But I also think it’s irrelevant. Piny’s framing is one with which I am centrally at odds, in other words. There’s no reason to believe anybody is born gay, born straight or born bisexual, any more than there is reason to believe people “just are” men or “just are” women (or boys or girls.) People are who they are. Under male heterosupremacy, gender (manhood, femininity) are forced on us, just as heterosexuality is forced on us. Come the revolution, none of it will be forced on us. That being so, let’s live and be who we are. Period.

    piny: What if your orientation were a little more complex, something that couldn’t just be described as a preference for both? What would you say when people asked you if you were gay or straight? Would either term feel comfortable for you? What words would you use instead? Would you try to make one up? Might you sound a little bit strange to everyone else, a little vacillatory, a little precious, a little nuts? And what if you had to get a doctor’s approval to date?

    See, this is the “logic” of essentialism. People are born a certain way, or they just “are” a certain way, for some reaon, they “have” an “orientation, and they can’t help it.

    If this is your (rhetorical “your”) framing, then piny’s politics and ideas make sense. (What doesn’ t make sense is the way piny and others call US “essentialists” when in fact, it is their ideas which are essentialist!) I don’t believe anybody is born with or just “has” an “orientation,” is born with or just “has” gender. We might feel ourselves to “have” gender or to “have” a certain sexual orientation, and that’s fine. What matters more than how we feel or think in our head is what we believe will make it possible for all of us — no matter how we think or feel in our head — to live and be in ways that are satisfying and nourishing and affirming in the world, meaning, we’ve got to bring the sucker called patriarchy/male heterosupremacy severely down. It’s not how we “feel” or these genders or orientations we think we “have” that are the problem. It’s how male heterosupremacy treats us because of it that is the problem.

    piny: Gender is currently constructed exactly the same way. There are two choices. T

    Here is where we centrally, fundamentally disagree. There are not two “choices.” Women don’t have any “choice.” There are two genders which are forced on human beings by male heterosupremacy/patriarchy. They are to be resisted as the mechanisms of subordination they are, not embraced as “choices” or options.

    hey aren’t merely the only approved choices. They’re the only options that most people will acknowledge under any circumstances. You’re either a man or a woman, period. (Of course, most of the time, your man- or womanhood is dependent upon a very short list of factors. “Transsexual” is almost as impossible an idea.) Words like “genderqueer,” “bigendered,” “androgynous,” “two-spirit,” “transgendered,” all become clumsy concepts not because the people insisting upon their validity are confused in themselves, but because they have no place to stand.

    Absent the imposition of and coercions around gender, all of the above presentations are perfectly fine and no words or “identifications” are necessary. So we work to eliminate gender coercion and gender, itself, as a subordinating mechanism. We don’t work to make it easier for people to accommodate what patriarchy requires of us. How is that subversive? :/

    Daisy: Looked at this way, transgender is a way of coping, not strictly an identity in and of itself.

    This is, in fact, the historic radical feminist position. Transgender is a way of coping, traditional feminine practices are a way of coping, traditional masculine practices are a way of coping. But all of this coping is necessary for one reason only: because we live under male heterosupremacy. Hence, the goal is not to enshrine the coping in these essentialist ways, i.e., “I ‘feel’ that I am” this that or the other. The idea is to end gender as a subordinating mechanism via feminist revolution so we don’t have to do all of this coping to survive!

    Daisy: What to do with the people who don’t “fit”? That’s who transpeople are.

    I think that’s who we all are. None of us “fit.” Britney Spears doesn’t “fit,” Marilyn Monroe didn’t “fit,” the wrestler who had the perfect masculine persona and presence and who just killed himself and his family didn’t “fit,” nobody “fits.” We “cope” by working really hard to “fit” — until we become radical feminists or male allies to radical feminists and say “fuck your fascist beauty/femininity/masculinity/”sexual orientation” standards, I’m who I am and tough shit if you don’t get it, can’t figure it out, I’m resisting what you are forcing on me.”

    I might say they shouldn’t do X, Y, Z, but you are talking to stereotypical Earth Mother Personified, as Heart is also (meant in a sisterly way). We are highly gendered people with our long Indian skirts and long hair.

    Ah, but you haven’t seen me in my black stetson hat, pinstriped trousers, and dyke boots. 😉

    Our complicity, or not, our coping, or not, with what is forced on us is not the issue. That’s for us to critique and analyze and pull apart in a million ways, from every direction. That’s what feminism is all about, really. It’s not about saying people “shouldn’t do X, Y, Z,” it’s about saying, “We do X, Y and Z– why’s that? Why do we feel as though we should do this? Why are we only comfortable when we do it? Why is it so hard to do something different? Why is this forced on us? Why do we find it difficult to leave it behind.” That’s what feminism is, that right there. Analysis. Critique. Including of what ALL of us and each of us feels comfortable doing. It’s not about telling people what to do. It’s about exploring why it is that we do what we do and how we can change the world so that we do not feel so hemmed in in certain ways, so that we do not find ourselves needing all of these coping mechanisms, like surgery, like boob jobs, like makeup, like diets, like long hair, like Indian skirts (actually, I buy mine from Afghan Women’s Crafts to support my Afghan sisters in some small way, :::preen::: :p), like Stetson hats, like pinstripe trousers, like binding our breasts, like shaving off our mustaches, shaving our leg hair, painting on mustaches, etc.

    Daisy: What about the people who aren’t identifiably one or the other? (At Feministe, Holly recently wrote about someone chased out of a public bathroom recently, who wasn’t even trans! She just looked like she didn’t belong in there.)

    There are many such wimmin right here who comment to my blog and boards. They are by far most seriously negatively impacted and affected by the views of people like piny, and they are also the real revolutionaries and pioneers. They will make revolution to the degree that they DO continue to live and present as they are in the world without being told they should “transition,” or they are “really” men or should “identify” as one of this big hurking laundry list of gender identifications created to accommodate the patriarchists who want everybody tidily boxed into “gender” roles. However a woman presents, including not being recognized as a woman, she IS a woman, born female, subordinated under male supremacy. The way to end that subordination is by presenting just as Holly presents and knowing oneself to be female, subordinated under male supremacy in many ways, including being forced to conform to gender stereotypes and punished for nonconformity (as all of us are.)

    The title of this piece was aptly titled “my friends from school are meeting my friends from camp”–and that brought to mind a thought-problem of sorts: What if one group of people thought you were male, and another group female, and then the two groups meet each other, and discover that you are differently gendered in different settings? What should you do? What should you tell them you are? If you don’t say anything, they will, as Piny says, still come to their own conclusions.

    And what would be wrong with that? Why not let them. You (generic “you”) just be who you are. We don’t *have* to “identify” any kind of way, gender wise, or sexual orientation wise. We were born female into a male supremacist world. We work to end what has been forced on us for that reason. All of these accommodations and complicities and coping mechanisms are understandable, we need to pick them apart from one end to the other, up, down, sideways, but the coping mechanisms themselves are just that– coping mechanisms. They don’t change anything, they are regressive, not progressive, they reify gender as subordination, they do not bring it to an end.

    I would never discuss this over at IBTP.

    I actually did some good writing about this in the drag thread over there which resulted ultimately in delphyne and justicewalks being banned. So messed up. Maybe I’ll go find that and bring it here so it doesn’t get lost.

    Anyhow. I really don’t want to go much farther than this into discussions of transsexuality/transgender/ideas about gender centered in queer and pomo ideologies. I think those ideologies are not revolutionary and will not make revolution for female persons; I think, again, they are regressive and often essentialist. I’m more directing that towards those lurking who might want to turn this into another 400-comment thread wrangling over “identities” and “orientations” and especially transgender issues and so on. We already did that here, and once was enough! For me. So I will moderate for a bit in a way that ensures that doesn’t happen.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 21, 2007, 10:24 pm
  135. If this person is passing totally as a man, why wouldn’t they have male privilege? I have often wondered if that is one of the incentives for transition, to be honest.

    I think we only need to look at the blog post and comments on the Lesbian 7 to gain some insights there. Transwomen will have male privilege only to the degree they are understood to be men, so at certain times, from time to time, they might enjoy male privilege; the moment they are outed as female persons, though, that will end. The technologies don’t currently exist, and will probably never exist, which allow for convincing surgical reassignment. You can cut off your boobs but your constructed penis is not going to be convincing. Even if it was, if you are a gay transman, you won’t be allowed into men-only gay venues in various places, and I’ll get a link for that. This is what I meant when I said transwomen would not enjoy male privilege as men do. They might enjoy male privilege compared with females, but they won’t enjoy male privilege the way those born male do– if only because of having lived all of their lives with the knowledge that they were female and not male. That is formative. That shapes a person’s understandings of herself in the world. It’s also why all the trans arguments about how “some females don’t have uteruses/can’t have babies/don’t menstruate” aren’t persuasive. The females who don’t have uteruses/can’t have babies/don’t menstruate are the females who don’t have uteruses/can’t have babies/don’t menstruate. They know *themselves* to be female from their earliest cognition, born female and therefore “less than” those born male. Which is again, formative. Changing one’s presentation, transitioning, all of that, doesn’t alter that. To grow up female is to know oneself to be a person of second-class status, viewed as less than human. Transitioning doesn’t erase that. And growing up male is nothing like that, and transitioning doesn’t change that, either.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 21, 2007, 11:00 pm
  136. Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I’ve read a lot of the trans-stuff all over the internet, and found much of it sexist and banal. What Piny wrote was like a breakthrough; the sun came out from behind the clouds! And I felt it was addressed directly to my own questions and issues with trans identities.

    This presumes so, so SO many things. It presumes there are people who are, for one thing, “bisexual” in some essential way. It presumes that people are born gay, born straight, born bisexual

    I didn’t get that at all, but rather that one simply “found oneself” that way.

    People are who they are.

    But what if no one could tell what you were, even YOU couldn’t tell? What to do? We don’t live in a world that makes that even possible.

    We don’t work to make it easier for people to accommodate what patriarchy requires of us.

    But we do. Day-care is an accommodation, birth control and abortion are accommodations. Rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters assume rape and DV will continue, at least for awhile. They therefore accommodate patriarchy, as bankruptcy accommodates capitalism.

    I think that’s who we all are. None of us “fit.”

    I totally get what you are saying, but I think most of us do. We can pass as one or the other without too much stress. I have never ever been called a HE. I could dress like a man, cut off my hair, and still never get called a he. My postmenopausal voice has dropped down to a near-baritone, haha, and STILL I am called “ma’am” on the phone, always. And I have even TRIED to sound like a man on the phone, especially to fool my friends, and they are like “who is this REALLY???”

    The transpeople I have known have always been “in the middle”, pressured to be one or the other, while for the rest of us, we have been in more-or-less default mode. I think not fitting one’s gender role to the point that you are alternately sirred and ma’amed (on the same day!) would be a tortured existence in our gendered world.

    Andrea Dworkin wrote that “transsexuals are in a state of emergency”–and I have to agree with that accessment.

    Ah, but you haven’t seen me in my black stetson hat and pinstriped trousers.

    yech! trousers! 😀

    Also, I was getting ready to post on the DRAG thread at IBTP, before all hell broke loose, that I didn’t like the “blackface” analogy. I think a better comparison is the young white kids who hang with black kids and dress in hip-hop clothes, talk black, date black, and grow up to be somebody like Eminem. The scorn and derision I have seen directed at those kids from other white people, is pretty severe: they are supposed to “know better”. How dare they act like black people, as if blackness and black culture are worthy of respect and emulation? It’s very subversive.

    I see a lot of the same thing directed at men who would act like, dress like (or transition to) women. How dare they act like this despised group, these inferiors??? As if being a woman was a good thing, worthy of imitation??

    That’s how I see it anyway.

    And I agree. No 400-post threads! I just wanted to go on record with my opinion, since I am posting here. I want to post in good faith. I don’t want it to come out later, that I disagree with many of you, and you think I was “stealth” or whatever. I think it’s important to be honest. I go to other blogs, and I am honest about being a radfem, I come here, I am honest about being in trans-sympathy. Thank you for indulging me.

    PS: OMG! Lynne stole your BLOG NAME!!!?! I must have missed this one.

    Posted by Daisy | July 21, 2007, 11:02 pm
  137. Even if it was, if you are a gay transman, you won’t be allowed into men-only gay venues in various places, and I’ll get a link for that.

    Interesting! And are they protesting them, too, the way they are protesting Michfest? Why aren’t we hearing more about THAT???

    (Never mind, I know why.)

    Posted by Daisy | July 21, 2007, 11:10 pm
  138. I didn’t get that at all, but rather that one simply “found oneself” that way.

    If you “find yourself” a certain way and it’s not a problem, then it’s not a problem. If you “find yourself” a certain way and it’s a problem, then you work to understand the nature of that problem and to address it politically, i.e., via feminism. Again, generic “you.” I was saying, I don’t share piny’s premises. We might “find ourselves” to be a certain way but I don’t think how we find ourselves to be is all that matters. I think feminism is about analyzing why it is that we find ourselves to be certain ways, not assuming there is anything “natural” or essential or absolute about the way we find ourselves to be. We can change, if we want to. We don’t *have* to be the way we “find ourselves” to be unless we want to be that way. Or, we can be however we are without assuming we can’t be any other way, or that others can’t be other than what they find themselves to be.

    But what if no one could tell what you were, even YOU couldn’t tell? What to do? We don’t live in a world that makes that even possible.

    Sure we do. I know many such female persons, lots of them are right here and on my boards, and many of them attend Michfest. If persons with piny’s views have their way, Michfest will no longer be a place in the world which makes it possible for these females I’m talking about, who can’t tell what they are, and nobody else can either, to be who they are and be celebrated for who they are, as female persons, at Michfest.

    Which is what the fight for a female-only Michfest is all about, or that is an important, central component of the fight.

    quoting me: We don’t work to make it easier for people to accommodate what patriarchy requires of us.

    But we do. Day-care is an accommodation, birth control and abortion are accommodations. Rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters assume rape and DV will continue, at least for awhile. They therefore accommodate patriarchy, as bankruptcy accommodates capitalism.

    Right, what I’m saying though, is that those are all, again, as you called them “coping mechanisms.” I’m saying they are unsatisfactory solutions to situations which require revolution.

    Bankruptcy is an accommodation; a bandaid solution to the problem of financial difficulty. We don’t view bankruptcy as revolutionary or subversive or transgressive. We view it as a necessary evil. The same for rape crisis centers and dv centers. They are not “transgressive” or “subversive” — they are accommodations and coping mechanisms for the problem of male brutality towards women. In the post patriarchy there will be no bankruptcy, no dv/rape crisis centers, no daycare, and very little need for abortion. There will also be, in my view, no gender, no bazillion gender roles, no “femininity”, no “masculinity.” If there is no patriarchy, no capitalism, no coercion, no dominance hierarchies, there is no need for all of these coping mechanisms.

    Quoting me: I think that’s who we all are. None of us “fit.”

    Daisy: I totally get what you are saying, but I think most of us do. We can pass as one or the other without too much stress. I have never ever been called a HE. I could dress like a man, cut off my hair, and still never get called a he. My postmenopausal voice has dropped down to a near-baritone, haha, and STILL I am called “ma’am” on the phone, always. And I have even TRIED to sound like a man on the phone, especially to fool my friends, and they are like “who is this REALLY???”

    The transpeople I have known have always been “in the middle”, pressured to be one or the other, while for the rest of us, we have been in more-or-less default mode. I think not fitting one’s gender role to the point that you are alternately sirred and ma’amed (on the same day!) would be a tortured existence in our gendered world.

    Yeah, I agree, but I don’t think it’s more difficult than being very fat, or stereotypically unattractive, or extremely thin, or old, or nonconforming in all sorts of other ways. We might not be called a man; instead we might be called a pig, or ugly, or an old hag, or a b****, or a c***, or any number of hateful epithets. These are no less tortured or torturous than being called a man if you’re a woman or a woman if you’re a man. If we are stereotypical beauties we get the treatment Britney Spears and Paris Hilton get. Anybody want that treatment? But that is the “prize” female persons get for their proximity to male standards of beauty– the prize of being hated and relentlessly vilified and demonized day in, day out, publicly, nationally, internationally, by all of those people who, every day, strive to look the way you look.

    It’s sick.

    I do not minimize the difficulties of being gender nonconforming. They are real. And gender nonconformity is critical to feminist revolution and so those who do refuse to conform must receive all the support we can provide as feminists. I don’t think it is supportive to say that a gender nonconforming female should transition, though, or isn’t a woman, or isn’t female, or is some other gender identification.

    Also, I was getting ready to post on the DRAG thread at IBTP, before all hell broke loose, that I didn’t like the “blackface” analogy. I think a better comparison is the young white kids who hang with black kids and dress in hip-hop clothes, talk black, date black, and grow up to be somebody like Eminem. The scorn and derision I have seen directed at those kids from other white people, is pretty severe: they are supposed to “know better”. How dare they act like black people, as if blackness and black culture are worthy of respect and emulation? It’s very subversive.

    I see a lot of the same thing directed at men who would act like, dress like (or transition to) women. How dare they act like this despised group, these inferiors??? As if being a woman was a good thing, worthy of imitation??

    That’s how I see it anyway.

    Yeah, men get persecuted for not being real men, but certainly no more than women get persecuted for actually *being* women. And whether a man is a “real man” or a drag queen or a transwoman, he undisputedly enjoys male privilege as no females do, or he has all of his life until the time of his transition, as no female person has.

    I don’t think white kids dressing like black people and following after eminem are in any way showing respect to black people or “black culture” (although they may think they are) and I sure don’t think there is anything “subversive” about what they are doing! I think the opposite, that what they are doing is totally entitled, privileged, and disrespectful. I think they are attempting to co-opt and rip off what is called (but really isn’t) “black culture” in a way that only those born to white privilege are allowed to do in a racist society. It doesn’t work the other way, you know? Black people can’t co-opt white culture and can’t “slum” as white people because they are black and subordinated on that basis. That is black persons reality. They don’t get to just pick from the banquet table of all available options as white people can, i.e., “Ah, today I think I’ll be a wigger! I think I’ll buy me some dreads. I’ll get my sag on. And tomorrow I’ll take all that shit off and enjoy the white privilege that is my birthright.” UGH. Black people can’t do that, they’ve got to deal with racism every single day. Just as women can’t “slum” as men, can’t “co-opt” masculinity, because we are female and subordinated on that basis. There’s this big banquet table laid out for men, today they are men with male privilege, tomorrow they can go “slumming” they can dress up in drag, they can laugh at drag queens, they can present as women, whatever, then take all that shit off and still earn 30 percent more money at their jobs than a female does, still not take care of the kids, still not get pregnant, still not worry about getting pregnant, not have to worry about rape, etc. This banquet table doesn’t exist for women. We are forced to comply with femininity and are punished when we don’t, and ALL of the time we have to deal with fears of rape, dv, we have to take care of the kids, we are paid less money, all of that. We can’t leave that “identity” behind EVER no matter how much we want to. For that, we need feminism.

    And I agree. No 400-post threads! I just wanted to go on record with my opinion, since I am posting here. I want to post in good faith. I don’t want it to come out later, that I disagree with many of you, and you think I was “stealth” or whatever. I think it’s important to be honest. I go to other blogs, and I am honest about being a radfem, I come here, I am honest about being in trans-sympathy. Thank you for indulging me.

    It’s all good. I’d like it if you didn’t participate in the regular radfem smackdowns in other venues, cause that might be an issue, but you don’t seem like that kind of person.

    PS: OMG! Lynne stole your BLOG NAME!!!?! I must have missed this one.

    You were spared. :/

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 21, 2007, 11:34 pm
  139. Rain, totally off topic: you had boards, you say years ago. Did you happen to encounter the infamous “Lynne,” (who might have been using the screen names “OneDown” or “Amma” back then?) I’m asking because she added the screen name “RainSong” to her long list of screen names and I’m wondering if, once again, she copped that “identity” from a woman, namely you, since your screen name is “Rain Singing.” At first I thought “oh no” when I saw that you’d registered, but all I had to do was read a sentence or two to know you were not “Lynne/RainSong” and she was probably the imposter.

    heart – I honestly don’t remember her, but the name is common enough, and there were some attempts to hijack it on my own site *grin*. I have had the nickname in real-life since I was a little kid, so when the ‘net came along, I just kept using it – but find its sometimes already taken on larger netspaces.

    Also, my old boards were southern hemisphere-centric (Australia-NZ-Southasia/Pacific etc), and we didn’t have very many north-americans or europeans, so name-hijacks on my own site weren’t successful. (Sometimes, its an advantage being geographically invisible in larger global cyberspace *grin*) It was also more a generic women’s forum, and many of the regulars were there to just talk to other women, but with a lot of radfem content. The main site however, with articles, news and contributions etc was from a radfem perspective. But, the trans-activists were the real biggies for me in terms of attempted take-overs. At first, I thought it was a minor irritation or a small matter for feminism. But as time went on, it just kept escalating — and like you heart saying above — I too have had enough after 10+ years.

    I still own the site & domain etc – just took all the content down when it started to fizzle out, and I got too busy time-wise to do much with it anyway. Basically, lost interest and energy. I have also lost the forum/board archives, but I can reload an old backup of the main site, so you can read some of the stuff, if you like?

    I also manage the Feminist Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Utopia boards for others at http:// forums . feministsf . net

    The article ” But just Whose Biology-is-Destiny, around here anyway?” is one of mine – and covers gender & sex-class, sexuality, sexual identity/orientation, reproduction etc. My other personal favourite is a ‘performance piece’ on Women & Food.

    My professional/technical background is biological sciences, and I often used to have an axe-to-grind when people get their science wrong — like that freaking ‘brain-sex’ theory? Drives me nuts..

    OK, I’ll get off my soap-box now.

    *hugs* – Rain

    Posted by Rain | July 21, 2007, 11:49 pm
  140. I said of black people: They don’t get to just pick from the banquet table of all available options as white people can, i.e., “Ah, today I think I’ll be a wigger! I think I’ll buy me some dreads. I’ll get my sag on. And tomorrow I’ll take all that shit off and enjoy the white privilege that is my birthright.” UGH. Black people can’t do that, they’ve got to deal with racism every single day.

    I meant to say including the racism inherent in the idea that eminem culture equals “black culture”.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 22, 2007, 12:04 am
  141. I said gay men’s bathhouses up there, I should have said gay leathermen parties.

    Tensions are rising over the exclusion of trans men from leatherman events with the approach of Inferno, the weeklong end-of-summer play party hosted by the Chicago Hellfire Club (CHC).

    “I think what’s needed regarding Hellfire is education,” says Vancouver-based trans leatherman Nate Solomon. “They’re not going to be suddenly swamped with 5,000 of us storming the doors.”

    Solomon, who is awaiting sex reassignment surgery, has played exclusively with men since transitioning and hopes to someday be able to attend Inferno.

    Similar to the ongoing exclusion of trans women from the annual Michigan Womyn’s Festival, the policy at Inferno has become a focal point for the larger issue of trans inclusion in the leathermen’s scene.

    “People have dropped out of CHC over this issue because CHC’s position is so fundamentally unjust,” says Toronto leatherman Trevor Jacques, who has attended Inferno many times.

    CHC is one of the oldest men’s SM clubs in the US, with 400 members from across the continent and an annual operating budget of US$300,000. During Inferno, an invitation-only event now in its 35th year, leathermen take over a midwestern motel for the week and the grounds are transformed into a fantasy SM play area.

    CHC has had a strict policy prohibiting trans men for 10 years now. CHC will not accept trans men even with valid government ID. The “dick at the door rule” that has kept trans women out of some women’s SM events prevails at this men’s event, but in the reverse: No dick, no party.

    Link

    Here is a response from a pro-transman-exclusion blogger:

    I have always respected Lesbian organizations and I for one have never once felt left out because they were for women only. If transexuals wanted to have their own organizations I would be fine with not being able to join them either. No foul in my book. No sir!

    The point is that the Chicago Hellfire Club is a private club that caters strictly to the hyper-masculine MALE Gay Leathermen BDSM Community, period those guys born with dicks OK. Seems simple to me. My own personal sexual preferences make it highly understandable. I do not want a women or a transman in my bed. Is gay man 101 that hard to get? What part of no women, no used to be women, no not even men dressed as women, do you not understand? This is about SEX and SEX Turn-Ons not your silly feelings getting being all hurt by rejection.

    When you talk politics or community support I am all for being all inclusive. If you want to argue about my sexuality and my sexual preferences it is none of your fucking business, fuck the hell off.

    The Chicago Hellfire Club has never claimed to be anything else but a mens only BDSM club nor have they ever made themselves a public entity seeking to represent the entire gay community or even the entire BDSM community. So what is the issue?

    BDSM is about trust and respect and honor. Why would you purposefully go to a Leather Event like Inferno to flaunt your disregard for those very BDSM principles and try and trick people into doing a scene with you when you are not a man? There is nothing, not one word in those principles about having to fucking include your tranny ass in my sexual turn ons! I for one do not get where you are coming from and by lying about yourself I would not support your “fight” to seek inclusion, in fact you would be very lucky if I did not include your face into the nearest wall.

    The fact you flat out disregarded these men and their wishes and came to a male only event (No matter what your fucking ID says YOU are still a TRANNY!) and were still treated with obvious respect says a lot about the values they have and a lot of the ones YOU DO NOT.

    I wish people would simply put as much effort into supporting the BDSM community through mutual respect by creating their own damn legacies and their own damn clubs instead of always wanting to do the quick and easy thing of yelling, kicking, litigating and screaming to be included in everyone else’s events. I get the feeling that is too much work for these idiots though.

    This trying to force inclusion into sexual events meant “for a certain group” that are not historically open to “whoever wants to go” does not make Trannies “real men” because they are in fact acting like a bunch of fucking bitches in my opinion. I am sure I am not the only person they have just pissed off.

    Then people wonder why those things tend to not be the same anymore or even remotely exciting to go to anymore… or and this is the real point… Why people such as myself cannot be bothered to go because quite frankly it is just not for me. Why spend money to go to a sex event with people I have no sexual interest in?

    Link

    So there ya go.

    Argh.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 22, 2007, 12:36 am
  142. Rain, totally off topic: you had boards, you say years ago. Did you happen to encounter the infamous “Lynne,” ………….Sorry for the diversion, but I’m betting she did get the screen name “RainSong” from reading you.

    And I’d LOVE to see your article(s) on gender! You’ve written some great stuff there. Heart

    Just a quick note – Before it gets too off-topic, I’ll post back on the forums instead. Rain

    Posted by Rain | July 22, 2007, 12:38 am
  143. I like how no one he wouldn’t want to fuck has ever had the money to attend one of his precious parties. Or no man was ever more manly than him and was willing to put his face into a fucking wall. Because statistically speaking, one might think both would be true.

    And I guess I’m supposed to shed a tear now that transmen aren’t allowed to be that guy’s dungeon slave.

    Boo hoo.

    Boo flippin’ hoo.

    Posted by Rich, absolutist scum | July 22, 2007, 1:23 am
  144. : P

    Can I say–strange bedfellows.

    Posted by Sis | July 22, 2007, 1:44 am
  145. I just wanted to say that what happened over on the forum to Delphyne and Justicewalks was a disgrace. I’m done there. I notice another incredibly articulate woman, DeAnander has had the boot sunk in on the blog for crimes against capitalisation. It’s great to find your blog Heart.

    Posted by su | July 22, 2007, 6:18 am
  146. Hang on, hang on.

    So allegedly the existence of some women only non trans spaces ‘means’ that radical feminism is inherently transphobic.

    Does that mean that because of the above gay male penis will be checked at the door bdsm club both male homosexuality and people who practice bdsm are inherently transphobic?

    Will gay men who attend the event and bdsm people who support the ban, themselves be banned from performing and speaking at ‘inclusive’ queer events?

    That’ll be interesting won’t it, when both Lesbians and gay men are being banned from inclusive queer events for protecting their own space elsewhere?

    Posted by v | July 22, 2007, 9:59 am
  147. Daisy said: “But what if no one could tell what you were, even YOU couldn’t tell? What to do? We don’t live in a world that makes that even possible.”

    Thats what we’re trying to do innit, make it possible. The womens liberation movement has spent the last century fighting for womens rights to not be feminine. A century ago women wore short trousers under their skirts in this effort. Half a century ago more women were wearing trousers, more women were staying unmarried and working in traditionally male jobs (the 2nd world war had a lot to do with both of these), thirty years ago women were making a political point of cutting their hair short, wearing trousers, refusing to wear make up or high heeled shoes or remove body hair, and this struggle is ongoing. Even our names! The rise of “Ms”, and women keeping their own name on marriage or even coming up with new ones. This struggle is not a new one that transpeople just recently started fighting. Women have been having this fight for a long time already. Women in this revolution have spent more than a century fighting for our rights to be who we are, for that to be possible.

    A lot of the stuff about trans annoys me, actually annoys me, on this level. Its as if none of it ever happened. Its like women have always been able to go without the femininity thing. So in that case, how come i dont feel comfortable and like its acceptable for me to go out in shorts with my hairy legs, or a vest top with my hairy pits, or wear a swimming costume without a neatly trimmed bikini line, how come people have the nerve to say to my face ive ‘let myself go’ when i dont bother with all the girly trimmings? I dont work at the moment, but when I was working, in low pay temp jobs mostly, dress codes for women required skirts, court shoes, and neat make up. Without fitting these gender requirements expected of me I wouldve been unable to do the work and take home the pay.

    I feel very much like the insistence of transpeople that women and men are essentially different in the way we dress, behave, ‘perform’, is trying to turn the clock back on how far we’ve come, the struggles of the women before us, and the struggles we are still participating in. It drives me crazy, stuff like the above, talking about being an out bisexual as if it is just as easy as falling out of bed (clue piny – its really not, bisexuality is not an accepted and encouraged sexuality in this world, just as polyamory is not, just as anything other than monogamous heterosexuality is not, and if you are gay, or you are lesbian, or you are bi, then theres whole stereotypes youre expected to fit or else. Does anyone seriously think that out bisexuality is as easy as implied there?).

    So, no, we dont live in a world that makes it possible to not be a masculine man or a feminine woman. What do we do? We make it possible.

    “The transpeople I have known have always been “in the middle”, pressured to be one or the other, while for the rest of us, we have been in more-or-less default mode.”

    I have not been in default mode. I have never fitted. I have never been ‘enough of a woman’, I have always struggled with myself and with the world because of this. The things I have done, still do, to try to be what I am not. Transpeople are not alone in feeling this way. Arent you overlooking the enormous number of women with eating disorders? The millions and millions women spend on make up and cosmetic surgery? Transpeople are not alone in feeling this way.

    What really really pisses me off is that all this crap about embracing gender roles (even if it is the opposite of the one you were ‘supposed’ to) is celebrated as revolutionary, and men who perform as women or women who perform as men are held up by the queer movement as being on the front lines of breaking down gender barriers, and yet i still hear from the same fucking people bullshit about crazy hairy legged dungaree wearing feminists. The hypocrisy is just unbelievable.

    Posted by v | July 22, 2007, 10:30 am
  148. Thanks for your support Su. I think that board is a terrible place. A man who disguises his identity (Inverarity with his pastel picture of a little girl in a short skirt in his avatar) has popped up to add his 2p worth to the discussion and interpret it as an “emotional” argument between women, completely ignoring the conflicting ideologies that were in play there. The fact that he can do that, and that he won’t be challenged, shows that it is an unfriendly place for women.

    Posted by delphyne | July 22, 2007, 3:32 pm
  149. Rock on, V. That was GREAT.😀

    V: So allegedly the existence of some women only non trans spaces ‘means’ that radical feminism is inherently transphobic.

    Does that mean that because of the above gay male penis will be checked at the door bdsm club both male homosexuality and people who practice bdsm are inherently transphobic?

    Will gay men who attend the event and bdsm people who support the ban, themselves be banned from performing and speaking at ‘inclusive’ queer events?

    That’ll be interesting won’t it, when both Lesbians and gay men are being banned from inclusive queer events for protecting their own space elsewhere?

    Pretty much!

    And then what will happen. Heterosexual men, primarily, (leaving aside for a moment all of these many “identifications”), will own all the definitions again, will own “Queer,” will make all the decisions, and so on. Which was the point all along (whether everybody in these movements was consciously thinking about that or not. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions.).

    I mean, you’ve got “dyke marches” which exclude dykes and dyke performers and include buttloads of male persons. You’ve got male persons wanting in to female spaces everywhere, suing when they don’t get their way, creating organizations for the purpose of opposing female spaces, identifying as “lesbians.” Now we’ve got females who identify as men or transmen wanting in to leatherman play parties. There’s nothing “queer” about this. A female person at an sm “play party” with a male person? That’s just het sex. A female entering a relationship with a male? That’s a heterosexual relationship, no matter how anybody “identifies.” If something floats someone’s boat, okay, that’s fine, but when did this stuff become revolutionary or progressive? Or “queer”? There’s nothing “queer” about any of it, it’s just same old same old. What’s interesting is, now anybody who says that gets the left foot of fellowship/sistership and we are all expected to pretend that it’s really the lesbians and the gay men who are phobic and bigoted and essentialists, with what amounts to het people and male-female couples the true “revolutionaries.”

    It’s Exhibit A of what we, as radical feminists, have been saying for 40 years now. Unfolded before us.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 22, 2007, 3:53 pm
  150. Thanks for your support Su. I think that board is a terrible place. A man who disguises his identity (Inverarity with his pastel picture of a little girl in a short skirt in his avatar) has popped up to add his 2p worth to the discussion and interpret it as an “emotional” argument between women, completely ignoring the conflicting ideologies that were in play there. The fact that he can do that, and that he won’t be challenged, shows that it is an unfriendly place for women.

    Yes, thanks, Su.

    I felt exactly the same way about Inverarity’s post, delphyne. I can’t say it surprises me at all that a man would side with the (male or just male-identified?) moderators on this one.

    Sasha hinted that the real issue wasn’t the words we posted to the boards, but the words in the PMs we sent to the moderators. I, for one, would be perfectly happy for any or all of the moderators with whom I’ve ever communicated via PM to post to the board our correspondence in full.

    I believe it would quickly reveal what the real issue is, which is moderators unschooled in feminism shutting down women who make them look bad.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 22, 2007, 5:30 pm
  151. I believe it would quickly reveal what the real issue is, which is moderators unschooled in feminism shutting down women who make them look bad.

    I’m betting you’re right, justicewalks.

    Variations on this theme happen all over the internet. A lot of the time it’s moderators or bloggers who can’t form a cogent argument for their own positions, shutting down feminist women who can.

    And welcome, su! I’m glad you found us, too.

    Heart

    Posted by Heart | July 22, 2007, 6:00 pm
  152. “Sasha hinted that the real issue wasn’t the words we posted to the boards, but the words in the PMs we sent to the moderators. I, for one, would be perfectly happy for any or all of the moderators with whom I’ve ever communicated via PM to post to the board our correspondence in full.”

    I’d say they are throwing out every reason they can think of and see what sticks. First it’s that we are being abusive other posters (although they can’t provide examples of posts that broke the rules because there aren’t any), then it’s what we said in PMs to moderators ( well I was fairly rude to a moderator in PM however she was using her moderating status to shut down a disagreement I and others were having with her and she was also personally abusive to me so she’d better ban herself too) and finally Phio Gistic seems to be arguing that we’ve been “transphobic”. So take your pick.

    What you can be sure of is they won’t be providing examples, its all smear and innuendo.

    Posted by delphyne | July 22, 2007, 6:17 pm
  153. Some people blame the patriarchy; I blame male supremacy.

    Patriarchy isn’t about “gender binaries” – it’s about male control.

    Males *define* masculine and feminine. Females never have and never will. As soon as females attempt to do that they (we) play right back into the hand of male control.

    Likewise, female refusal to recognize masculine and feminine categories will not eliminate or remove male supremacy. “Gender” is a red herring, a decoy.

    There will be males and females whether or not masculinity and femininity are defined as categories, and whether or not male supremacy exists.

    The above are basic tenets of radical feminism, and have been since before Twisty was out of elementary school.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 22, 2007, 7:24 pm
  154. I just wanted to post over here to let Justicewalks and Delphyne know that yet another woman who was hoping to learn from them, and their unpopular opinions, even those I didn’t agree with, or understand well enough to agree with yet, is really fracking disappointed by IBTP up and silencing them. For being angry. Because, of course, if women don’t play polite when they disagree with each other, they’re skeeery!

    Posted by Maevele | July 22, 2007, 7:27 pm
  155. and finally Phio Gistic seems to be arguing that we’ve been “transphobic”.

    Well, that took a lot longer than I thought it would.

    I see “transitioning” the same way I do eyebrow plucking and high-heel wearing. They are survival mechanisms, which, needless to say, aren’t radical or even feminist. Any strategy designed to help you live more comfortably within the hierarchy of male supremacy isn’t designed to eliminate that hierarchy.

    Now, I completely understand the patriarchal social obligations that may lead certain people to seek out and employ these survival strategies, but I don’t have to call it radical feminism to empathize. If that’s trans-“phobia” or “anti”-trans, so be it. I just want to make sure that I’m equally tarred high-heel-phobic and anti-eyebrow-plucking by that same token.

    These people act as if being “phobic” of or against (“anti”) these things means I’m actually against the existence of people who cope in these ways. No, I’m not against the people who cope by “transitioning” any more than I am against the people, myself included, who cope by wearing earrings or otherwise gussying themselves up. I am, however, strongly against the systems that make us feel compelled to do these sometimes harmful, always subordinating, things to themselves, and I realize that the only radical feminist thing to do is to dismantle the hierarchy, not play along.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 22, 2007, 9:28 pm
  156. Hey, I’m pleased to report that I am a member in goodstanding, with delphyne and justicewalks, of the officially BANNED! I’ve got incoming links in my dashboard from Twisty’s forum, which I clicked on to see where the link is coming from, only to get a message: “Sorry Heart! You have been banned!” Or something like that.

    How preposterous. I haven’t posted there for probably a week by now and I was totally pleasant and courteous. Maybe they banned me because of this thread on my blog.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 23, 2007, 2:14 am
  157. I never even knew there was a Twisty-forum until this: when I checked it out though there was a flash on the top or something that said contact them if you had been banned because there was some sort of meltdown of their software or something causing “innocents” to go out. Don’t know if that was BS, Damage Control, or the god’s honest truth or if had anything to do with anyone here, but…

    Posted by Rich, absolutia scummicus | July 23, 2007, 2:27 am
  158. Nah, if it’s that message that included something about Ilkya Damen, that’s been there for a while.

    The incoming links are from threads in which the “Banned People” are being discussed. Last time I checked (before I was banned!) most of the people commenting seemed to disagree with the bannings. But the thread wasn’t all that long, and who knows what’s happened since.

    Guess I won’t be going to the blamer meetup in Seattle on the 27th!
    :/

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 23, 2007, 2:31 am
  159. I e-mailed “forum@iblamethepatriarchy.com” and cc’d Twisty.

    We’ll see what they say, if anything.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 23, 2007, 2:38 am
  160. Hmmm. My e-mails came back undeliverable with the message that the address “forum@ibtp” doesn’t exist.

    So who knows.

    I e-mailed Twisty. I guess we’ll see what she says.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 23, 2007, 2:50 am
  161. “Nah, if it’s that message that included something about Ilkya Damen, that’s been there for a while.”

    OK, that’s what I saw.

    Posted by Rich, absoluteway umscay | July 23, 2007, 3:05 am
  162. Just use tacoATIblamethepatriarchyDOTcom

    Posted by Sis | July 23, 2007, 3:16 am
  163. Sis, that’s the e-mail address I used. Well, first I cc’d, then I sent my e-mail directly there when the forum e-mails came back.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 23, 2007, 3:21 am
  164. I hope Twisty isn’t sick. Had a relapse. If she’s not monitoring her board, I hope it’s because there’s no internet on the particular Mediterranean island she’s lounging around.

    Posted by Sis | July 23, 2007, 3:28 am
  165. Okay, I guess my banning was an accident.

    ?
    :/

    Posted by womensspace | July 23, 2007, 4:15 am
  166. Yeah, I’m hoping Twisty is on her holidays rather than anything more worrying.

    Posted by delphyne | July 23, 2007, 10:22 am
  167. Sis & Delphyne,

    My guess is that *if* it’s not her health, then she is considering archiving her blog or closing it to comments.

    She started the discussion boards, with volunteer mods, to relieve herself of the burden of blog threads that went on to 100+ comments, or that went up in flames.

    Now, the discussion boards are a source of controversy with respect to “moderation”. She may have just decided “enough already”.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 23, 2007, 12:30 pm
  168. The whole thing has taken on a life of it’s own. Her blog and those forums are the largest sites on the internet where radical feminism is discussed. It’s a lot for one person, because in the end it does appear to be down to her, to deal with.

    Posted by delphyne | July 23, 2007, 12:43 pm
  169. I’m sorry people have been banned, if they want to be there. I don’t, and I’m not getting drawn further into this. I’ll only post on women-centred boards, on women’s issue topics. I’m not devoting my limited energy and time to them.

    Posted by Sis | July 23, 2007, 2:03 pm
  170. Sis,

    I am taking the same approach.

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 23, 2007, 2:33 pm
  171. Yeh Mary you’ve got your hands full, I see, elsewhere, riding herd on the techphobes.🙂

    Posted by Sis | July 23, 2007, 3:28 pm
  172. Hi Heart, I just wanted to say thanks for hosting this discussion.

    I about fell out of my chair when I saw that BDSM nonsense. I can only imagine Twisty did/will do the same. I echo others here in hoping she’s okay, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see her can the forums. I’d be sad that it didn’t work out, but the way they are now… I mean, I’m expecting to see a pro-porn thread any minute.

    I joined your board, and although I’m not a black belt myself yet, I’m looking forward to an oasis from Feminism 101.

    Thanks again!

    Posted by funambulator | July 23, 2007, 10:59 pm
  173. Right I am going to let it go after this, but the irony of someone who has made the most gratuitously abusive posts over there by a long way (including a “fuck you” and demands for bannings) now leading the calls for ‘bridge-building” and making apologies, is killing me. I’m not sure how bannees are expected to build bridges but I’d love to see the IBTP forum solution to that problem.

    I feel like this whole thing has been a textbook example of horizontal hostility.

    Posted by delphyne | July 24, 2007, 12:01 pm
  174. They’re not interested in building bridges with the bannees. They’re interested in building bridges between themselves and the people who would demand to know why we were banned.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 24, 2007, 1:37 pm
  175. Heh.

    Sort of like “bipartisan” when you’re talking about Republicans and Democrats.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 24, 2007, 2:37 pm
  176. Delphyne,

    I just reported that post as abusive. Let’s see what happens now.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 24, 2007, 2:41 pm
  177. “They’re not interested in building bridges with the bannees. They’re interested in building bridges between themselves and the people who would demand to know why we were banned.”

    So why are they going on about apologies? Who needs to apologise? I thought we’d been designated the big eviiiill bullies who have to say sorry to everybody we hurt (even if we may have never even spoken to them on the forum) and then accept our banning as nothing less than we deserve, thank you mighty moderators. You don’t need to answer that jw, my head has already exploded.

    Mary, thanks. That post feels like the elephant in the room when people are complaining about abuse and demanding apologies as did some of the outrageous things they were saying about justicewalks.

    Posted by delphyne | July 24, 2007, 2:51 pm
  178. Huh. That over there is a mess. Honestly — not exaggerating — I cannot read over there. It’s really, really triggering to me, just messed up, defunct, abusive stuff going on. I’ve seen it before many times on the internet and I want no part of it, but it sucks that it’s at IBTP which is supposed to be a radical feminist place.

    Is “curiouser” curious gyrl? Because if so, that explains a lot. Curious gyrl has been gunning for radical feminists all over the internet, including in all of the usual anti-radfem spaces for a long time now.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 24, 2007, 3:55 pm
  179. IOW, as with most abusive moderating practices, it was nothing you said, JW, or delphyne, and we all know that, just saying, it was just that some of the mods wanted you out. It was a purge.

    As to apologies, that’s all just make nice. Having purged the ranks, they want everybody to think they are actually not the type of people who would purge the ranks of radfems.

    Freaking mess.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 24, 2007, 3:58 pm
  180. The worst thing is that this whole mess started because two moderators – Sasha and Militant Grammarian – were going after justicewalks and me and using their moderator power to shut down any radical feminist points we were making across a number of threads which was extremely annoying and frustrating. Somehow a couple of other posters have decided to put themselves front and centre as our supposed “victims” and Sasha and Militant Grammarian’s abuse of their moderatorly power has faded safely into the background.

    You’re not wrong about this being triggering Heart, it’s brought up a whole lot of stuff for me.

    Posted by delphyne | July 24, 2007, 4:20 pm
  181. *And* it’s a behaviour pattern that I have seen played out again and again over decades in feminist / radfem / radlez and lezsep groups.

    It blocks the road to freedom like an avalanche.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 24, 2007, 4:51 pm
  182. Yes, and, speaking of Militant Grammarian, she has been very noticeably absent from all of the subsequent discussion of this, as if she hadn’t hounded me from thread to thread looking for anything that might be taken as an affront. Sasha, at least, is still generous in the demonstration of her authoritarian streak, with not-so-subtle threats against LMA, who dared point out the abusiveness of a certain other poster’s comments.

    The one thing I regret is having allowed Sasha and Militant Grammarian to force my disagreements with them off into PM correspondence. I wish I’d held my ground and taken them on in the threads, the way they publically upbraided me. It would be much harder for them to lie and obfuscate if everything were available for public review. And I see that they’re continuing in that tradition of opacity with all of this, “please send a PM to moderators if you have a problem” BS, as well as with Sasha’s constant “merging” of threads, which, to me, looks like an attempt to minimize the scope of member discomfort with her strong-arming by reducing the number of threads dedicated to hashing it out.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 24, 2007, 5:01 pm
  183. Shit! I’m offline for a week and so I’ve been totally out of the loop.

    I just logged on and I posted in the thread about apologies. For the record, I want all to know that I had no clue about any bannings. If it’s in that thread somewhere before I posted, then that’s my bad because not only do I not read every thread at the message boards I visit, I don’t read every post in every thread, either.

    It’s a shame that Delphyne and JW were banned because they both have a lot knowledge to share. I know that I’ve learned a great deal from Delphyne, usually as I’ve been screaming and fighting the whole way in an attempt to stay in my comfort zone with my the-world-is-a-happy-and-safe-for-women-place beliefs. Maybe the mods there don’t want to feel the discomfort that’s part of learning the hard truths, either, and saved their comfort zones by silencing Delphyne and JW. Whatever the reason(s), their absence is a loss for that board.

    Posted by CoolAunt | July 24, 2007, 5:22 pm
  184. Thank the radfem stars for this blog!

    Heart I should have found you earlier!

    I too am beginning to see cracks in the radfem wall at IBTP forum: sex-pos ideas and defenses snaking there way in–and how do they get in? By people exploiting the radfem tenet that every woman deserves to be heard. Well, that only works so far. The reason radfems can be so angry and uncompromising is that they have *no* place to discuss their ideas. Nowhere! Uncle P or even sex-pos? Well they’ve got TV station after TV station, blog after blog, porno after porno, male after male, business after business-freggin enuff already! I say if you know your position or actions are conducive with patriarchy (even if you believe they are not a conditioned result of P) to do a big shush up favor for the rest of us. Not everything I do is good for elimination of P but I sure as hell don’t feel the need to wax poetic about it for the sake of my “voice being heard”–it’s indulgent. It also puts a big DEElaay on the furthering of radfem dialogs.

    Should The Twist decide to keep the forum going at its current speed I give it two months before it’s been infiltrated by sex-poz Gospel.
    (vent needed! vent ended!)

    So glad JW and delphyne have found a safe haven here–they are missed. Thank you Heart and the rest who have come in support.

    Posted by pisaquari | July 24, 2007, 5:45 pm
  185. Testing to see if I can post.

    Posted by buggle | July 24, 2007, 6:19 pm
  186. Ok, I think that worked.

    I’ve been on the IBTP forums trying to understand the bannings. I am so angry and shocked. I can’t believe that Twisty would even be ok with this-it’s just a few moderators who made the decision.

    I was wondering why so few people were supporting justicewalks and delphyne-but now I see they are all over here! It’s great to see all these supportive posts over here, I’ve been tearing my hair out trying to be civil over there, when really I’m just so pissed off.

    The grammar thing with DeAnander was INSANE! I mean, I get why people want posters to try to be decent about spelling and stuff, but it’s just over the top sometimes. Talk about intimidating other posters!!!

    I’m sad, because I felt so much relief being at IBTP, but it feels so weird now. Pooh😦

    Posted by buggle | July 24, 2007, 6:24 pm
  187. Hey, pisaquari and buggle, glad you’re here, and sorry for all the mess over there. I know what you mean. We say it’s “just” the internet, it’s “just” internet boards, it’s “just” a blog, but once we become comfortable in a place and once we appreciate the people there, things like this can be deeply upsetting and disturbing, can feel like an important loss. 😦

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 24, 2007, 6:30 pm
  188. Absolutely Heart. When the Ms. boards went down I was so sad (especially since it was because of the trans thing-and yes, I remember Lynne VERY well!).

    I spent some time at the BUST lounge but got frustrated by the majority’s stance on pron as being “not all bad.” And the whole “stripping is empowering” crap got old really fast. I was told I’d be “happier with the blamers” and I was! IBTP felt like a welcome refuge after years in the cold. What a huge relief to hear a bunch of feminists say “yeah, there is no pron that’s good for women.” And “BDSM eroticizes power differentials and is bad for women.”

    But now, there is a BDSM thread at IBTP. And the mods are letting it go, I’m not sure why. And radfems are being banned. The mods want to dictate our behavior to us. Bleh. I’ll keep posting there, and here, but I’m really disappointed.

    Thanks for allowing us all to come over and blab about it here!

    Posted by buggle | July 24, 2007, 6:38 pm
  189. CoolAunt,
    Most of the threads are stashed under ‘none of the above’. The one that JW and D were in is under ‘how to improve the boards’. I think it is worthwhile to review them, to see the various expressions of authoritarianism, and the puzzled response of the recalcitrants.
    I thought that Curiouser’s hypocrisy was right there for anyone to see, but once she got to the point of open outright abuse I reported her post. She seems, to me, to have a narcissism problem.

    Posted by thebewilderness | July 24, 2007, 7:50 pm
  190. Also, I forgot to wave madly at justicewalks and delphyne!! I’m so happy to see you in cyberspace.

    Posted by buggle | July 24, 2007, 7:55 pm
  191. Waving back, buggle! And waving at everyone who has come from IBTP! I’ve really appreciated all the posters who stood up for us and argued for people to be treated fairly.

    Posted by delphyne | July 24, 2007, 8:28 pm
  192. I held off commenting (more) about the thread, but I did want to mention that when I read some of those comments directed at delphyne and JW, I just couldn’t believe it. This one particularly:
    http://easypersiflage.com/blameforum/index.php?topic=882.msg11843#msg11843

    It is just a pack of lies, it really is. Knowing delphyne and her style, it really is beyond belief what Curiouser (and the others) said.

    And I meant to ask, what on earth is up with Curiouser using Ginmar’s ‘old’ avatar? Wierd shit.

    Posted by CrankyCrone | July 24, 2007, 9:12 pm
  193. “And I meant to ask, what on earth is up with Curiouser using Ginmar’s ‘old’ avatar? Wierd shit.”

    I assumed that was Ginmar participating over there (I didn’t read any of the posts really) when I first saw it.

    Posted by Rich | July 24, 2007, 9:16 pm
  194. *doing some rather excited waving right back, buggle and everyone else, if I do say so myself!*

    I have just been so heartened by everyone’s support, both here and on the forum. It really is inspiring; it’s the stuff of revolution.

    Posted by justicewalks | July 24, 2007, 9:29 pm
  195. Rich; Ginmar is registered there as Ginmar (sans avatar).

    Anyway, I am not going to bother going back to the BDSM-is-so-fabby-and-feminist forums. Bah!

    Posted by CrankyCrone | July 24, 2007, 9:38 pm
  196. Seriously. If so many of us are calling you on it, how can you pretend that it has nothing to do with you, that your comments and attitude are not part of the problem?

    This is classic bullying.

    Posted by Heart | July 24, 2007, 9:54 pm
  197. Oh, sorry, that’s from the link CrankyCrone posted to all the stuff being said to delphyne.

    Sheesh.

    Posted by womensspace | July 24, 2007, 9:56 pm
  198. You know it was really a dumb move them banning us. If they’d just let us leave as we were doing anyway it would have all blown over pretty quickly, but they couldn’t let us out of their authoritarian grasp and wanted the final word. Which meant of course they had to provide a good reason for banning two radical feminists and, as they didn’t have one, their authoritarianism and abuse of the small power they had is completely exposed (n.b. I don’t think all the moderators there are like this by any means).

    Sasha is now making snarky remarks over there and then telling the people who complain (with her moderator hat on) that they aren’t allowed to talk about it in public but instead report it to the moderators. I’m just kind of gob-smacked.

    Posted by delphyne | July 24, 2007, 10:23 pm
  199. There had been a number of comments that were “WTF?”, but that one took the prize. My jaw dropped.

    Classic was:
    “I would be happier if both you and justicewalks were willing to try to work things out with the rest of us, rather than continuing to insist on being ‘right’ and ‘having the last word.’ “

    Nothing like a good ‘us and them’ vibe going on — proving what was said earlier in this thread (they were out for a good ol’ fashioned culling; must remove those nasty radfems — bring on all the BDSM fun!)

    Posted by CrankyCrone | July 24, 2007, 10:30 pm
  200. Is this, gulp, going on your permanent record?

    Posted by Sis | July 25, 2007, 2:06 am
  201. I don’t have it in me right now to fight about the bannings so I simply and quietly deleted my account there.

    In truth, none of this surprises me. From the first day of posting at the board I saw many, many posts and threads that contained messages that were not at all feminist. And that doesn’t surprise me, either, since so many seem to believe that if a woman who calls herself a feminist does it or believes it, it’s feminist no matter how anti-woman and misogynistic it is. Without some strong feminist leaders acting as admins and mods, there to oversee and even to guide discussions, it’s not at all surprising that the views that are most acceptable to the malestream would be the most accepted views at the board while the words of radfems would be unwelcomed and eventually the radfems who post the words would be unwelcomed, too. In the words of Rush (one of their latest yet not greatest albums), “conform or be cast out.”

    Posted by CoolAunt | July 25, 2007, 4:53 pm
  202. I’m going to post the same thing on the drag/radfem debate at Twisty’s forum and at Heart’s blog since I feel a bit caught in the middle and, sophomoric as the term sounds, I don’t like to be two-faced.

    Frankly, I’m disappointed all around. It’s sadly familiar in my experience on the radical left to be pulled between two hardened partisan positions.

    As I’ve said, I’m not especially partisan on the trans/drag debate, so I’m very interested in hearing from all sides. I can’t get too excited about the renewed interest on the subject at Twisty’s since two of the most articulate and passionate posters, Justicewalks and delphyne, got banned for nebulous reasons.

    There are still no sufficient answers for why they got banned (when others have been more blatantly abusive), and it seems obvious that their critique of drag was not a welcome opinion among some moderators. For me to feel safe posting, such decisions should be fair and transparent. The eloquently veiled suggestion by Catherine Martell that if we don’t like it we can go elsewhere doesn’t do much to further my confidence in the fair-mindedness of the moderators at Twisty’s.

    I’m also not thrilled with the characterization at Heart’s (though I respect her enormously) that any divergent opinion is not “radical feminism.” Someone suggested looking up a definition of radical feminism to help figure things out. Hey, radical feminism is what we make it. Not to ignore the proud and complex history, but NOBODY HAS A MONOPOLY ON RADICAL FEMINISM!

    In order to further any radical agenda, we need to be able to take the gloves off now and then and fight things out. I’m all for civility in debate, but the bourgeois propriety advocated by people like Curiouser, over at Twisty obscures the fact that we are talking about REVOLUTION here! We can’t always be sweet and agreeable if we really want to get to the heart of contentious issues.

    I think radical women need to stay in the same room and keep fighting and keep talking and I’m not happy at all that we are being pulled apart here. Factionalism is a trap. I resent getting caught in the middle when what we desperately need to do is move forward together.

    Posted by roamaround | July 26, 2007, 3:41 am
  203. I’m also not thrilled with the characterization at Heart’s (though I respect her enormously) that any divergent opinion is not “radical feminism.”

    Where are you seeing this, roamaround?

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 26, 2007, 3:59 am
  204. I think radical women need to stay in the same room and keep fighting and keep talking and I’m not happy at all that we are being pulled apart here. Factionalism is a trap. I resent getting caught in the middle when what we desperately need to do is move forward together.

    While I completely agree with this and try to keep talking with other women as much and as well as I can, when good women have been kicked out of a community, well, that’s a problem? They *can’t* stay in the same room and keep fighting and keep talking with other women, and I’m not of a mind to keep talking with the people who banned them, lest I be next (which could well happen), not to mention, it just doesn’t feel right, kicking it with people who are apparently okay with justicewalks and delphyne being banned?

    The other thing is, radical women *do* need to stay in the same room and keep fighting and talking, but over at Twisty’s, it’s not radical women in the same room, there are men in there, too, (self-identified) radical men and radical women continuing to fight and talk while two totally radical women can’t join them. It’s always so wrong to me when men (who may not even be feminists, how do we know? We can’t based on their telling us) are permitted to continue to blab on after fine feminist women have been banned!

    roamaround, I’ve been through so many of this kind of debacle, I can’t even count them all, over the past 10 years. All we can do right now — my experience — is rest with the discomfort and tension, try as best we can to keep the door open from our side, and act with as much integrity as possible, be faithful to our own core values. Some things can’t be immediately fixed. Sometimes it takes months and years to fix things. Sometimes things sadly never get fixed despite our trying really hard to fix them.

    By way of encouragement, there are women here and on my boards with whom I get along really well, and you’d think we’d always been friends forever, but we’ve been through stuff just like this, except much WORSE, much more unrestrained and down and dirty, and we’ve been on the opposite sides, fighting with each other. Really hard. But years have passed, we’ve learned, grown, we’ve come to respect one another despite ourselves, and now that’s all in the past and we’ve moved on. It was really horrible at the time, and we really didn’t like each other then and didn’t trust each other and said horrible things to and about each other and yes, sometimes banned one another. But eventually we got through it. In the end, our commitment to each other, as radical feminist women, was more important to us than all of the things which came between us, however significant or important or petty or whatever.

    Sometimes, all you can do is the best you can do, and wait, see how things go.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 26, 2007, 4:10 am
  205. Hi Heart,

    Here’s part of what I meant by my comment above:

    “[Edited to add, evidently Justice Walks and delphyne got run out of Twisty’s place on a rail. Well, you know what? That’s fine, nothing new there, radical feminists continually get run out on a rail for standing for women. What it isn’t over there is, it isn’t radical feminism, not in any way, shape or form. What fricking fiasco.– Heart]”

    Also, the title of your latest post on the subject;

    “A Few Words About the Latest Round of Anti-Radical Feminist, Pro-Men’s Rights, Propaganda”

    which I assumed to be pointed at Twisty’s forum. Please do correct me if I’m wrong on this!

    Posted by roamaround | July 26, 2007, 4:14 am
  206. roamaround, I’m asking you specifically:

    Where are you seeing this?

    not with the intention of putting you on the spot, but because when things like this happen, the tall tales, stories, rumors, misunderstandings are phenomenal! Impressive! Gigantic! They can take on a life of their own and you end up hearing them stated and restated for the next decade in all their inaccurate, confused, glory. :/ Sometimes that is avoidable if we work doubly hard to make sure we’re responding to what someone actually said, not what someone said they said, or thought they said, or whatever.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 26, 2007, 4:19 am
  207. I totally agree that I am not willing to make nice when two posters got banned for no good reason!! I tried to make that clear that in my comment.

    Your experience on this is helpful, but it’s also disheartening to think that we can’t move forward any faster when so much injustice against women is out there.

    Posted by roamaround | July 26, 2007, 4:20 am
  208. Heart, my response to “where are you seeing this” is awaiting moderation.

    Posted by roamaround | July 26, 2007, 4:21 am
  209. Roamaround, where I say this:

    Edited to add, evidently Justice Walks and delphyne got run out of Twisty’s place on a rail. Well, you know what? That’s fine, nothing new there, radical feminists continually get run out on a rail for standing for women. What it isn’t over there is, it isn’t radical feminism, not in any way, shape or form. What fricking fiasco.– Heart

    I’m just saying, banning radical feminists from a radical feminist venue isn’t a radical feminist act! And what’s gone on around the bannings isn’t radical feminism as I understand it. Especially when people continue on who acknowledge they are not radical feminists, there are pro sm discussions and so on, and then radical feminists are banned. 😦 I don’t mean to say there are no radical feminists over at IBTP– of course, there are! I just meant that the act of banning radical feminists, especially when the banners are not radical feminists, is not radical feminism. :/

    As to the this:

    “A Few Words About the Latest Round of Anti-Radical Feminist, Pro-Men’s Rights, Propaganda”

    No way is that post about IBTP, Twisty! I guess I should post that up there. That’s about a cartoon/blog post written by Amp at Alas a blog and the resulting anti-radfem commentary at Alas and elsewhere. I sort of round aboutly linked to it when I first posted, then deleted the link because I really can’t stand to link to Alas even round aboutly. But I’ll go up and clarify so others don’t assume, as you did, that I was talking about IBTP!

    But you know, even if I straight up said, “XYZ is not radical feminism!” Or, “XYZ is not a radical feminist,” well, that would just be me, saying that, you know? We are a grass roots movement. Just like I might say that and believe it, other radical feminists would disagree, and we’d have to just accept one another with all of our disagreements. What I’m saying is, there is no hierarchy, no mechanism in radical feminism by way of which anybody can get thrown out or shunned or whatever, by anybody else, It’s just a bunch of women, with opinions, like belly buttons, everybody has em.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 26, 2007, 4:35 am
  210. Your experience on this is helpful, but it’s also disheartening to think that we can’t move forward any faster when so much injustice against women is out there.

    But, we’ll keep fighting injustice regardless, you know? Being mad at each other won’t keep us from doing that.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 26, 2007, 4:38 am
  211. “I think radical women need to stay in the same room and keep fighting and keep talking and I’m not happy at all that we are being pulled apart here. Factionalism is a trap. I resent getting caught in the middle when what we desperately need to do is move forward together.”

    I’m going ask again, how can we, Roamaround? Justicewalks and I got banned from there after a campaign by a couple of moderators to shut down all the radical feminist points we were making e.g. that men and women are situated differently in the patriarchy thus men need to identify themselves on a radical feminist board; that the deconstruction of intercourse and the degradation it can entail to women is a fundamental question in radical feminist politics; that women should refuse to give birth to or bring up sons (a radical feminist position I hadn’t heard put quite that way before or am even sure I agree with but one that still raises a good question – what does it mean that women give birth to our oppressors?); and finally on the drag thread that drag is anti-woman and that the arguments being used to support it were queer/postmodernist, not radical feminist and that it isn’t radical to try and treat racism as a completely separate issue from women’s rights.

    Is there any possiblity that you might give us the benefit of the doubt in this and consider that we might possibly be right? The postmodernist positions that are being argued over there come from Judith Butler whose work in turn is on sexist white male philosphers such as Foucault, Lacan and Derrida. Radical feminism on the other hand is based on the work of women theorists and the lived experiences of women and analysis of the same. It used to be that the positions were quite separate, mainly because postmodernism comes from the academy and nobody’s career is advanced by throwing in their lot with the radical feminists, but now that feminism and radical feminism are reemerging at grassroots level the positions are being blurred. Who wouldn’t want to be a radical feminist, it’s an interesting place to be? However if it’s not woman-centred then as far as I’m concerned (and please note the reason I have to insert that qualifier is that a woman speaking unequivocally brings everybody’s wrath upon her head, and maybe even banning, even though it’s just one opinion from someone whose only power is over herself and maybe a limited influence on those around her) it’s not radical feminism.

    Posted by delphyne | July 26, 2007, 11:06 am
  212. Anyhow I probably dont belong at IBTP because my punctuation is appalling.

    Posted by delphyne | July 26, 2007, 11:09 am
  213. Delphyne said:
    ***what does it mean that women give birth to our oppressors?***

    I think it should mean more problems for our oppressors than it does for women.

    Posted by Branjor | July 26, 2007, 4:09 pm
  214. Ok, I registered at Margins forums and we’ll see how that works out.🙂

    I wonder if Amanda’s “I believe there’s goodness in everyone” extends to the poster Phoenician in the Time of the Romans, who has made multiple rape-apologist if not actual rape-supportive posts, and who has stated that he enjoys porn that features women being terrorized.

    Posted by Miranda | July 26, 2007, 5:21 pm
  215. “I’m going ask again, how can we, Roamaround? Justicewalks and I got banned from there after a campaign by a couple of moderators to shut down all the radical feminist points we were making…”

    Delphyne, I have not let up on that point for one minute since you got banned! I am frustrated in general by the split that occurred, but my primary issue is the way that you were treated unfairly by the moderators at IBTP. I don’t know how I can make that any clearer. I’ve joined the demand that you be asked back and I’ve argued against the flimsy justifications for your banning.

    “What I’m saying is, there is no hierarchy, no mechanism in radical feminism by way of which anybody can get thrown out or shunned or whatever, by anybody else, It’s just a bunch of women, with opinions, like belly buttons, everybody has em.”

    Heart, I see where you’re coming from now. Thanks for the explanation.

    Posted by roamaround | July 26, 2007, 6:13 pm
  216. Yes I do realise that roamaround and really, thank you. I do appreciate you challenging the moderators over what they did. I suppose what I’m struggling with is when you say you don’t like factionalism or splits I’m kind of wondering where justicewalks and I fit into all that. Do we watch everybody else carry on down the radical feminist road together whilst us two get left behind?

    Posted by delphyne | July 26, 2007, 6:21 pm
  217. Amanda is right, Miranda.

    After Phoenician in a Time of Whatever has raped a teen and filmed it to sell, he’ll help her grandmother across the street. Simple ethics for the simple minded.

    Posted by Sis | July 26, 2007, 6:35 pm
  218. “…when you say you don’t like factionalism or splits I’m kind of wondering where justicewalks and I fit into all that. Do we watch everybody else carry on down the radical feminist road together whilst us two get left behind?”

    I know! It is so unfair! That’s why the kiss and make up talk at IBTP now is so offensive. I don’t like factionalism and splits, but I won’t be a scab either. If a woman gets treated unfairly somewhere and those in power refuse to make amends, I call a strike.

    But the problem is not unlike what faces so many workers (since I’ve started this analogy) when those who haven’t been affected say, “Well it wasn’t me, so why should I make a fuss about it?” Then you don’t have enough strength in numbers to make a change. That’s also the problem with splintering feminisms.

    (I blame capitalist brainwashing. No wonder we can’t get universal healthcare in the US. We just step right over the fallen and ignore the problem until it happens to us. And that’s called, “Being responsible?” Aaargh!)

    Posted by roamaround | July 26, 2007, 9:03 pm
  219. roamaround,
    You make the heart of this old shop steward tingle with delight!

    Posted by thebewilderness | July 26, 2007, 10:05 pm
  220. You’ve warmed this ex-trade unionist’s cockles too, Roamaround.

    I just need to say this to the moderators from IBTP who have been reading this thread: I apologise for speculating that any of you were men (I did actually say that I regretted saying it further up thread). It wasn’t intended as an insult, I was trying to process what had actually happened over their and why moderators were so hostile to radical feminist positions whilst at the same time being so supportive of trans and I was feeling angry too about what had happened so I was less careful about what I said than I normally would be. So although it wasn’t intended as an insult, it was insulting, so once again I apologise to any of you I hurt by writing that.

    Posted by delphyne | July 27, 2007, 4:59 pm
  221. I don’t think splintering feminisms is a problem? Because we’re grassroots, and that’s where our power is. If we disagree with one another, we’re all still grass, growing. 🙂 We’re all still doing what makes sense to us to do for women. I don’t like to see women get mad at each other, and I HATE to see women mistreat women for sure. But I know of no way to keep that from happening; therefore, we just keep on keeping on when it does, I think.

    I haven’t been reading at IBTP, so I don’t know what the latest is. But I did read over at a blog that was new to me yesterday, really a great lesbian feminist blog. There was a Michfest thread and darned if immediately when it started, a transperson didn’t show up — same one who has showed up all over the place, one of many, however — to immediately trash me in particular, radical feminists/Festies in general.

    Do these persons have jobs? Do they DO anything, ever? Besides sit at their computers and do google searches on “Michfest” and “Gendercator” and “transphobia,” and then spam every last forum and blog they can find where women dare to discuss these issues in a woman-centered way?

    Because I saw that same person in force, and in spades, last time I was at IBTP, stirring up all sorts of shit in an apparently courteous manner, but there was NOTHING courteous, or woman-centered, or feminist, about what that person was doing. These are people *obsessed* with silencing those of us who are not fucking going to be silenced EVER by those who do not give a shit about female persons.

    I’ve seen SO MUCH of this clobbering, demonizing, of radical feminists — straight up lies — on the internet all over the place for years. The same people responsible for that stirred shit over at IBTP and the fallout is here, again, for female-centered persons to deal with. Males, anti-feminists, male apologists beat women up, cause heartache, hurt women, and guess who cleans up their goddamn messes EVERY time. Female persons. Males beat women up, females clean up the mess.

    One tires. Give me my wimmin’s land, I am so ready.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 27, 2007, 5:14 pm
  222. And one more thing. Nobody is going to post here on the issues of transgender ANY more if I do not personally know them. Nobody. There are way too many dishonest people in the world who have no problem exploiting the decency, integrity and good will of those of us who have those things in abundance, and expect that other women will too, and so we make space and place for them.

    That’s done. No more people, coming in here, posting comment after comment full of disingenuous crap so far as transgender goes. They can run their mouths all over the internet so far as I am concerned, whatever. Here is one place they will not be heard or read. Until I can trust them. Never again.

    Burn me once, shame on me. Burn me twice, screw you.

    Heart, pissed at the moment, but I’ll be aaaaiiiiiiiight🙂

    Posted by womensspace | July 27, 2007, 5:16 pm
  223. And while I am being crabby, WHY do delphyne’s comments CONSTANTLY get moderated.

    ARGH.

    Heart
    🙂

    Posted by womensspace | July 27, 2007, 5:21 pm
  224. Do you remember all the times on IBTP when you disagreed with mAndrea, but she is just so honest, and her snark so charming, that you thoroughly enjoyed arguing with her?
    Banned for sarcasm, temporarily. Secretly, of course.

    There is a Delphyne newly registered, may I ask if that is our Delphyne?

    Posted by thebewilderness | July 28, 2007, 2:32 am
  225. Hi BW,

    It’s not. I pm’ed her and she said that she is not the same one who used to post on the IBTP blog.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 28, 2007, 7:38 am
  226. No it’s not me, and it sucks big time that the day after I deleted my account there somebody takes my name. I wouldn’t have deleted it if I’d realised that would happen. Why the moderators allowed it instead of asking them to choose another name so as to avoid confusion is pretty obvious though – they are completely lacking in respect for the people they are moderating and are happy for swipes to be taken at people they don’t like. I’ve never come across a delphyne on the internet before and it strikes me as just as a bit of a goddamned coincidence that someone picked it up as quickly as that. They should try and disguise their grudges a bit better. If I changed my name to Sasha here I’d be an asshole but it’s completely fine for them to allow a new, improved, non radical (probably) Delphyne to run around there even after all the trouble.

    It’s rotten that they are behaving in the exact same way to mAndrea, the only difference being that she blamed herself instead of realising she was being harassed.

    Posted by delphyne | July 28, 2007, 10:22 am
  227. Has anyone e-mailed Twisty?

    Posted by womensspace | July 28, 2007, 1:03 pm
  228. You know, I just can’t read over there. It is *really* triggering. MAndrea is being basically abused and bullied, she tries to respond to that intelligently and calmly, and she’s bullied even more. Including by someone she likes and has just complimented who accuses her of “divide and conquer” with the moderators!

    It’s, “the beatings will continue until the morale improves” over there and it kills me that there are women still trying to deal honestly with the moderators there.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 28, 2007, 1:13 pm
  229. “I don’t think splintering feminisms is a problem? Because we’re grassroots, and that’s where our power is. If we disagree with one another, we’re all still grass, growing.”

    Hey Heart. Thanks for your thoughts.

    I agree that diversity of theories and opinions is healthy, if sometimes contentious and painful. What IS a problem is when our power gets diluted and we can’t effect any ACTION because we are divided amongst ourselves. There is work to be done outside of our minds, in the streets where women are dying. More on this in a sec.

    First I want to apologize for mischaracterizing your view on radical feminism at IBTP. I took away from some comments here that anything other that a particular radfem orthodoxy can’t be radical feminism, but I see now that I was wrong. I have a lot to learn, and thanks for your patience.

    I just can’t bring myself to wade too deeply into the trans debate, not because I don’t see that women’s spaces like Mich fest are worth it, but just because it seems like such a fringe issue. I know I will get jumped on for that, and maybe rightly so, I could be wrong. I’m open to hearing others’ thoughts.

    Here’s my perspective: I teach in a high school in a big, leftist city in the middle of what is perceived as the lesbian/queer friendly neighborhood. The reality is that girls get harassed and abused in that school and in schools, workplaces and streets everywhere every day.

    There is rampant sexism among students, faculty and staff reflected in curriculum, in the way classes are conducted and in the way teachers are treated. Girls get publicly shamed by peers for being too sexual and for not being sexual enough. Gangs use rape as induction, and authorities look the other way. Girls from many parts of the world face forced marriage, domestic slavery and denial of education and other civil liberties.

    There are around 700 girls. There is one trans student.

    I am against oppression wherever it occurs, and I have defended the trans student on several occasions. She knows I am an ally. I do however think that there has to be some prioritizing based on critical mass! The oppression 700 is going to take up more of my energy than the oppression of one. And I don’t like the idea that the issues surrounding that one can derail the efforts to unite and make changes to liberate the many.

    We need action. We need someone to counter the Catholic Charities who are in the schools telling the girls that abortion is evil. We need groups to come in and talk (in several languages) about domestic violence to both boys and girls. We need lawyers to help girls who are facing forced marriage. We need female gang specialists who can intervene with the girls.

    I can’t do this by myself. I tried. I need allies! If my allies are all torn up over trans issues, we have another generation of girls (and boys) making no progress in improving the status of women in society.

    That’s where I’m coming from.

    Posted by roamaround | July 28, 2007, 1:20 pm
  230. I can’t read the IBTP boards anymore. The moderators are on an out-of-control power trip. It’s sort of sociologically interesting if you can take a step back, but I’m afraid the conclusion I draw is that the more I know about people the more I like my dog and cat.

    Posted by roamaround | July 28, 2007, 1:32 pm
  231. “Has anyone e-mailed Twisty?”

    Is there any point? I e-mailed Twisty right at the beginning of all this before I got banned when the moderators were shutting down radical feminist points and thus discussion of any of those points. Twisty didn’t respond directly to what I’d said but instead put up a public notice about the moderators being allowed to hold whatever opinions they chose. I wasn’t criticising the moderators for their opinions, I was criticising them for not allowing anybody else (radical feminists) to voice our opinions without being harassed and the use of moderator status to shut down anybody who disagreed with them.

    Nobody in all this seems to have picked up on my point I made over there that those moderators moderate in packs, there’s never just one of them on a contentious thread, there will always be at least two and often three or four. It’s happening to mAndrea right this minute on the thread where she talks about banning. Do they really have no idea how intimidating that is? The thing is (and I’m speaking in anger here so maybe my opinion will change) I think they do.

    It is upsetting to see people still trying to talk to the moderators as if they have good intentions (although I’m sure a few of them do) but how many bad decisions do they have to make before their motives come into question?

    And you know, everybody is going on about how new this board is and how the moderators have to find their way, but it isn’t like there isn’t a moderating style already in place – Twisty’s. She allowed radicals to express radical feminist opinions at her blog without trying to micromanage us, and most of the bannings were of trolls, Sis and Lucky excepted – which is actually really depressing so maybe Twisty isn’t such a great example but her approach is still a million times better than what is going on over there.

    Posted by delphyne | July 28, 2007, 1:37 pm
  232. There *is* someone over there watching and leaving a trail of breadcrumbs.

    The two boards serve different purposes. There’s a school of hard knocks that a lot of women will graduate from. And you know what? Even if *most* don’t graduate, I foresee a day that *most* of the women of radfem/separatist persuasion will have *most* if not all of what we want.

    Not the whole planet. But a significant enough chunk of it that it will significantly if not mortally wound the patriarchy.

    It may not happen in *some* of our lifetimes, but happen it will. I can see the global space / time / psychic dynamics.

    The critical mass that Justice and I talk about.

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | July 28, 2007, 2:31 pm
  233. roamaround, I didn’t even know you mischaracterized my own views on the IBTP forum! It’s all good, no worries.

    When I read comments like yours, I admit I enter into a sort of blurry cognitive dissonance thing. I mean… I know I am not spending so much energy on transgender issues that it keeps me from, for example, working to support and help Heather Jones, publicizing events like the Gendercator showing and the showing of the film about the Lesbian 7, trying to obtain AIDS medications for poor Vineet and Neeru :”””” (, running my boards, writing for my blog, writing for oob, and running for President?

    I think as women most of us can do a whole bunch of things at the same time, not because it’s innate or something like that but because we’ve been forced to in various ways.

    It’s very possible I’m just not following you, but why would it be that my being at odds with people over at IBTP or anywhere would prevent my being as much a support as I can be, if only to encourage and affirm you? I can’t be there at your school working to support, protect and defend your girls, but I can sure encourage and support you, continue to blog about everything you talked about there, continue to write about it, continue to publicize events if you want me to, and so on.

    How would arguments over transgender between radfems equal fewer allies for you? I am trying but am not understanding?

    The other thing is, in every movement, every political movement, there are issues which are watershed issues. The issue might *appear* to only pertain to a small number of persons in the movement, but the ramifications of the issues that small number of persons or their conflicts raise will determine the direction, ultimately, or course, of the entire movement. A real watershed is like a ridge, and you have different water systems flowing down from the ridge, creating different rivers ultimately. The water at the top where the ridge is appears to be one body, but in fact the water flows into two separate basins. And that’s what these watershed issues in a political movement are and do, too. Although the issue might not look critical or central to those unaware of all of the ins and outs and history and so on, they are very critical. The fights that take place, the conflicts, are not ordinary fights or conflicts; they are actually struggles which have to do with what people, what vision, and what beliefs will guide and shape and lead the movement into its future. Transgender issues are such a watershed for feminism. That’s why the struggles and fights around transgender are so intense, apparently all out of proportion to the numbers of people who are involved in, or affected by, them.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 28, 2007, 5:32 pm
  234. Uh oh. I think I wasn’t clear on a few things so please bear with me while I try to get my foot out of my mouth!

    First. Heart said: “roamaround, I didn’t even know you mischaracterized my own views on the IBTP forum! It’s all good, no worries.”

    The only thing I ever said about this blog over at Twisty’s is what I simultaneously posted here in which I said something about nobody has a monopoly on radical feminism. I appreciated your feedback on that Heart, and I understand your perspective now. I just wanted to set that straight. I am not posting at Twisty’s board anymore in protest, so I said it here.

    Also, I never meant to imply that you, Heart, or anyone here does less for women because you are debating the trans issue. What I lament is that I feel alienated from so many posters at Twisty’s since they participated in the silencing of Justicewalks and delphyne, I believe directly because of conflicting stands on that issue. I feel that I lost a lot of potential allies there for other issues I care about.

    “How would arguments over transgender between radfems equal fewer allies for you? I am trying but am not understanding?”

    Well maybe I’m missing something myself because it seems obvious to me that energy spent and divisions created over any issue necessarily equates to less unity and energy for other feminist issues. I’m not criticizing anyone for fighting any battle, but I just feel frustrated.

    I was venting that frustation, Heart, not directing anything toward you. I guess I should remember that you might logically take it that way since it is your blog!

    You’re right about the watershed issue. I know it’s important in that sense, it’s just that so little feminist activism is actually happening in the streets, in schools, in workplaces, etc. and I wish there was more unity of purpose. That’s all.

    Posted by roamaround | July 28, 2007, 9:20 pm
  235. Yeah, roamaround. Sounds like you’re really sad and frustrated and understandably so. Thanks for working so hard to mediate and clarify and reassure, and all. I guess we all feel frustrated by the immensity of the work and how few are committed to it. 😦

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 28, 2007, 11:11 pm
  236. I wish the moderators over there would cut it out with their pseudo-psychoanalysis – BDL with her “infantile rage” diagnosis and Sasha with her “their parents rewarded that behaviour”. Because if they don’t stop I’m going to do it right back to them and and I’m not sure they’d like it that much.

    They never provided a single example of this “abuse” we’re supposed to be guilty of except a post made by justicewalks on the blog (not the forum) which is not part of their jurisdiction *after* she’d been banned which could be taken as a swipe, although some of the moderators themselves are no stranger to swipes.

    My suggestion is people maybe could leave this be. If Twisty wants to sort it out and she’s aware of it she will, but I’m thinking she’ll back her moderators.

    Posted by delphyne | July 29, 2007, 4:58 pm
  237. Based on what she writes in her own blog, Sasha is quintessentially anti-child, and monumentally judgmental towards parents other than herself. (Which is the way boneheaded arrogance works; everybody else is wrong and should do it her way.) It makes a sort of morbid sense that she’d stoop to the grotesque disrespect of going after the parents of grown women (!) rather than taking responsibility for her own absurd (and inexcusable) behaviors.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | July 29, 2007, 8:23 pm
  238. Or at the very least she could focus on the actual behaviour she had a problem with, although whatever it was that got us banned has never actually been pointed out, rather than making silly speculations.

    I missed that that was one of those “Your mum” types of insult, Heart. It just seemed such a nonsensical thing to say.

    Posted by delphyne | July 29, 2007, 9:57 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,563,471 hits

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

Archives

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

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos