Skip to content

Open Thread- “The Whole Summer Edition”

July 24, 2010

  1. May 25, 2010 7:57 pm

    Before I sign off completely for the summer, I would like to reflect a little on my blogging. I know most people do their one layer deep reflecting around the New Year, but, alas, I am not most people, nor is Margie. Speaking of which, she may be already indulging in the summer smoothies. Nevertheless, I must reflect. Yes, we have our critics. Yes, yes we do. They are some nasty asses too. If I could bother I would point out the little quibbles such as accusing of things while calling us bitches, cows, needing to die in a fire, and so on. Or proving our point by wanting us to die, of course be raped first. So on and so on. And the Trannies. Who can leave the trannies out before a nice long summer holiday? Trannies are MEN! How I have grown tired, so tired, of HETEROSEXUAL couples going through their whims and appropriating insanity. White people always have to appropriate shit, even CRAZY SHIT! If your ass was born a female and you are fucking with a male at birth, you two are in a heterosexual relationship. More than likely, you both are so damn ugly and/or awkward that trannyism was the only way you two could connect. (Having said that I do recognize pretty privilege and how horrible it must be to be ugly and socially inept.) It does not matter if he dresses in frocks and you take steroids, you two are just two more of the same ol shit. When you both are in your fifties you will be voting Republican, wearing traditional garb and shouting about illegal aliens, —so save the drama. Yet, I must concede. I have been entertained to a certain extent. What has been the most entertaining you ask? Well, the pure pleasure I’ve gotten when our blog had snow that threw more than one MRA into a rage. Actually, it tripped up a few so-called “I am so fucking liberal that I can talk shit about everyone and call even the most radical a bigot.” Yes, who knew computer generated snow was going to be our most powerful weapon? Who knew? LMAO! I mean, what? We can’t talk shit to you idiots and still enjoy a little bit of the white stuff? Does that make us too much human for you to seethe with rage without pause? LMAO!

    • May 25, 2010 9:56 pm

      One of my friends called me today to discuss a convo she had with a so-called radfem regarding a trans male. Something about feeling badly and something else about not wanting to hurt her (trans mans) feelings.

      I feel the same way you do, so does my friend, about the trannies. A man with an inverted dick is NOT a woman.

      I remember the snow, I remember laughing my ass off about it because it pissed off the men so much. I have to say, more than anything, that I appreciate AROOO for being a male free and for the most part racist white woman free zone. I appreciate that AROOO, unlike anywhere else or any other alleged feminist blog, keeps it’s priorities straight, no pun intended. AROOO exists because it’s bloggers are pro-women, and AROOO is the ONLY blog I have yet to encounter that is pro-woman, pro-lesbian, and pro-black female. Most blogs are trash run by racist white women whose lives don’t matter otherwise. Yes I said it, no google that shit.

      I also have to say that AROOO provides people with an opportunity to learn and grow. 🙂 I know it’s worked for me.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      May 26, 2010 4:09 am

      Really, the whole summer? Wow, well I hope you have a good break you deserve it.

      When you both are in your fifties you will be voting Republican, wearing traditional garb and shouting about illegal aliens, —so save the drama.
      LOL. What really gets me is the ones where they are both trans, and so a female masquerading as male is partnered to a male masquerading as female. No matter which way you look at it, it’s straight straight straight!

    • May 27, 2010 7:02 am

      Enjoy your summer Kitty. I’ll miss your “voice.”

  2. Mary Sunshine permalink
    May 25, 2010 8:46 pm

    Happy summer, Kitty & Margie


    I’m doing my joy-of-gardening thing now. Corn, sunflowers, tomatoes, broccoli, zucchini, wheat, parsley, green beans, peas, coriander, and dill – all on one modest sized balcony. But I have all the sun in the world. Everything is growing exhuberantly.

    Shine on, shine on, Summer Sun.

  3. May 26, 2010 5:36 am

    Your balcony garden sounds wonderful, Mary. It never would have even occurred to me that you could grow wheat in a pot. All we’re trying to grow are peppers and basil, and the going is rough, I tell you.

    It is interesting, Kitty, the things that have pissed people off. What are these folks going to do without an easy source of outrage fodder for at least three months?

    For me, though, what has stood out most about my blogging stint are the theft of my ideas, the blatant promotion of racist-sexism, the opportunism (ie, women who NEVER comment here stepping in to say something only as soon as they can take a swipe at us or some other blogger they don’t like, defend a racist-misogynist white woman, etc.), the zealous adhesion to reactionary, rather than revolutionary, beliefs, and the simultaneous squelching of the truth. It has really been eye-opening.

    • May 26, 2010 4:11 pm

      My herbs are doing very well! I’m growing them indoors and today saw a new bean, a good sized one @ that, which I originally thought was a broken stem. So far only the green beans and the basil have really caught on. But I’m hoping they all start to sprout.

  4. May 26, 2010 6:38 pm

    What’s the proper amount of time to wait before making this thread about my feelings of loss that I won’t get to read new posts for three months?

    Oh wait this isn’t the Miss Manners blog?

    *mopes off in a cloud of self-concern*

    • Mary Sunshine permalink
      May 26, 2010 6:54 pm

      Hey Joan, we’ll just have to trudge off down the roads to find other black-centred radfem separatist blogs. I think we may find one or two as we go along.

      Anyway, we can just keep using this thread to continue blathering on about anything and everything. Unless Arooo just decides to put it on no commenting.

  5. May 26, 2010 6:40 pm

    P.S. If anybody deserves a summer break, it’s you two. Also, I hadn’t known that the snow made people blow a gasket. That is the funniest fucking thing I’ve heard all week.


  6. pseudoadrienne permalink
    May 26, 2010 11:29 pm

    Take it easy during your well earned summer break, enjoy your gardens, and thank you for this inspirational forum. This blog’s message of *real* empowerment (and liberation) for womankind is one of the very few that I have come across in the blogosphere that was not corrupted by patriarchy or faux-feminism. Thank you 🙂

  7. Level Best permalink
    May 27, 2010 2:21 pm

    I will miss you both; have a summery blast. I do hope this thread will stay available for commenters, as you have some nifty ones. 🙂

  8. Edna permalink
    May 27, 2010 6:55 pm

    Have a restful and refreshing summer, and thank you so much for this year’s work.

  9. temple permalink
    June 2, 2010 12:41 am

    “For me, though, what has stood out most about my blogging stint are the theft of my ideas”

    Not even a little surprised by this . It’ s happened before. Too bad because your writing is the most brutal & beautiful truth I’ve had the pleasure of reading.

  10. maria permalink
    June 2, 2010 2:37 am

    I hope you both have the best summer yet! Thanks for AROOO- it has been so nice to see the standard set so high.

  11. June 4, 2010 4:01 pm

    People should stop lying and claiming they have feminist children when all they have are some brats that correct other brats about the use of the word gay. When questioned more, all they care about is not hurting the feelings of gay men. Don’t fucking tell me your children are feminist if they don’t even understand how a woman can be “gay.” And no it is not being feminist if your little brat “chooses” to dress “girly-girl” when she was born female. FUCK YOU!

    • June 5, 2010 4:30 am

      God, people are always so concerned about the faggots, yet they don’t want to do anything at all about the misogyny underlying their oppression. They want to uplift faggots (who are already better off than women, what with being men) and leave women in their lowly position. It’s nothing new, of course. Plenty of societies and institutions have esteemed faggots at women’s expense.

      And I will never understand how it is that feminist efforts toward the freeing of women to make anti-male-supremacist choices have been twisted into a celebration of male-supremacist “choices.” I mean, the whole point of arguing that women should have the choice to wear pants, reject marriage, refuse to bear children, etc. was that wearing dresses, getting married and popping out babies WEREN’T choices – they were mandates. And even in places where women do have some leeway, wearing dresses, getting married, and popping out babies are still encouraged and rewarded, while rejecting those behaviors are punished. Choosing to be rewarded is not the same thing as choosing to wear a dress, even when it’s wearing the dress that garners the reward. Oh, how I wish folks could wrap their minds around that.

      I think, though, that most women just refuse to maintain a constant analysis of privilege. When they’re in the unprivileged position, then it’s all hard-tack anti-oppression talk. When they’re in the privileged position (like when they’re feminine, when they’re mothers, when they’re married, when they’re white, when they’re well-off), then all of a sudden, the hard-tack approach isn’t “nuanced” enough. Then we have to talk about how their being female counteracts their idyllic blond-haired, blue-eyed, professionally coiffed, stay-at-home-supervising-the-maid-baking-apple-pies married motherhood. And we’re not allowed to talk about their position being privileged and *encouraged* over dark-black, nappy-haired, femininity-rejecting dykehood, which is outright vilified and punished – and not just in the privacy of an expensive house in a gated community the way the well-off married white motherhood might be.

    • joankelly6000 permalink
      June 6, 2010 9:04 am

      I thought that feminism meant “if I don’t feel 100% approved of at all times by those I think owe me approval, I’m being oppressed. Even if I’m doing white male supremacy’s bidding in all manner of ways and shouting its virtues from the rooftops.” No? I must be missing something.

    • joankelly6000 permalink
      June 6, 2010 9:00 am

      I love when you end with FUCK YOU! I just feel like the pleasure of saying that often gets poo-poo’ed in any kind of discourse, as not discourse-y enough, but god damn if it doesn’t totally fucking hit the spot in so many cases.

    • joankelly6000 permalink
      June 10, 2010 9:03 pm

      Also, especially rich, is a woman who calls other women fucking bitches, encourages others to do so, goes on ad nauseum about “slut shaming” and “body policing” and yet –

      puts a guest post on her blog wherein you’re-an-ugly-whore stuff gets a pass at first and then a “well I have mixed feelings about it because of my own justifications on using fucking bitch in a previous post,” but DON’T YOU DARE USE THE WORD FAGGOT Or SISSIES in an immediate smackdown of a otherwise-on-the-same-side-as-the-original-post-er commenter.

      and this on a thread ostensibly about black women getting the shaft, which they do!

      I’m probably an a-hole for even bringing it up, it just…boggles and I also hold grudges.

  12. June 5, 2010 5:19 am

    And, also, while I’m on the subject of privilege, I’d like to note that privilege is POLITICAL. That is, privilege is about power. Economic power, social power, ideological power. So, saying that, for example, motherhood is privileged over nulliparity is an analysis of the economic, social, and ideological power that male-supremacy gives to women who adhere to their values.

    Now, I do understand that motherhood is often a route to poverty, so allow me to elaborate on the economic power male-supremacy lends to mothers. While mothers may often be poor, mothers are certainly not the ONLY women who are poor. Yet most lip-service (and, rarely, actual action) given to alleviation of poverty focuses solely on poverty as a result of motherhood. It’s about making sure that children and their caretakers are afforded comforts that child-free women cannot access. In the US, pregnant women are granted health care that is unavailable to equally poor non-pregnant women. Mothers of young children are allowed to avail of funds for food nulliparous women can’t access. When my sister and I were small, the milk, cheese, juice, and cereal my mother got from WIC was enjoyed by an entire household – great-grandmother, aunts, cousins. There was so much milk, my great-grandmother always had at least 2 gallons of it in the freezer, in addition to the jugs in the fridge. The power to divert funds and energies that ought to go to poor women regardless of whether they have children toward only women with children is most certainly political power.

    This power extends, of course, from the ideological power of motherhood over nulliparity. Motherhood is glorified and often quite literally deified. Males, as nations and institutions, have actively elevated motherhood as the ideal female state, to be aspired to and rewarded socially even when it is not rewarded financially.

    The social power derived from the ideological power should be obvious. Pregnant women are often given choice foods in poorer societies, or special parking spaces, special seats on the bus or train in richer ones. Mothers are granted all manner of leniency when it comes to requesting time off from work. A mother asking for time off to care for a sick child (especially male) or husband is met with far more understanding than a lesbian asking for time off to care for a sick lover. In one job I had, a mother was allowed additional breaks for breast-pumping as well, which time was not made up; she left when everyone else did. Child-free women are not as “American as baseball and apple pie,” but mothers are.

    And as with all privilege, those who tap into this power, even as they rebel against its limitations, are part of the system of oppression against those who take no part. That is, they are the oppressors of those who would focus on female poverty, instead of just mothers’ poverty, who would focus on daughters instead of on their heterosexual mothers, etc.

    Whew! Back to work for me. 😛

  13. June 5, 2010 9:01 am

    One more thing, though. Even in feminism, mothers have political power over lesbians and other women who don’t have children. Mainstream – that is, male-approved – feminism is about “family planning,” contraceptives for women who may eventually choose to have children in the future, abortions for women who already have children or may have them in the future, child-support, raising “feminist” sons, day care, etc. The power to direct the focus of even so marginal a cause as feminism is most certainly political power. Who, after all, are the women most likely to oppose separatism? Child-free lesbians aren’t.

    • Valerie M permalink
      July 6, 2010 8:38 pm

      Thanks for these comments Margaret. Sometimes personal circumstances can cloud this issue. As someone who allowed herself to be pressured into motherhood, it’s been devastating to my freedom, health and happiness. But every word you say here is true and it’s important to keep sight of that.

    • July 8, 2010 3:50 am

      Thank you for commenting, as well, Valerie. So many mothers would rather be coddled, their privilege denied, than to just face the issue head-on. And there are so many places on the internet where they can enjoy exactly that. It’s hard to counter the effects of male-identification in “feminisms,” but it is definitely encouraging when a few women are willing to see beyond their own personal circumstances and gain a broader perspective on women’s lot as a whole.

      It’s not about blaming women for occupying privileged positions over other women. It’s about understanding that males do privilege certain roles and behaviors over others, and seeing *why* these roles/behaviors are privileged so that we can make the male-forbidden choices that would lead to our freedom.

  14. Mary Sunshine permalink
    June 5, 2010 9:28 am

    {{{ Margaret }}} You’re B-A-C-K !


    Early morning delight.

    Soothsayer you are, you soothe my soul.

  15. June 7, 2010 7:25 pm

    I support Helen Thomas. The Israeli-Jews have become bullies. Perhaps they should not go back to wherever or even get out of Palestine, but if they must remain in Palestine, it must be as a neighbor and not as a tyrant.

    • June 7, 2010 8:03 pm

      ITOTALLY co-sign that Kitty! Enjoy your holiday!

    • June 7, 2010 9:14 pm

      Thanks, I will be on the road in about a day or two and be completely away from the net.

      The full WHCA statement follows:

      Helen Thomas’ comments were indefensible and the White House Correspondents Association board firmly dissociates itself from them. Many in our profession who have known Helen for years were saddened by the comments, which were especially unfortunate in light of her role as a trail blazer on the White House beat.

      While Helen has not been a member of the WHCA for many years, her special status in the briefing room has helped solidify her as the dean of the White House press corps so we feel the need to speak out strongly on this matter.

      We want to emphasize that the role of the WHCA is to represent the White House press corps in its dealings with the White House on coverage-related issues. We do not police the speech of our members or colleagues. We are not involved at all in issuing White House credentials, that is the purview of the White House itself.

      But the incident does revive the issue of whether it is appropriate for an opinion columnist to have a front row seat in the WH briefing room. That is an issue under the jurisdiction of this board. We are actively seeking input from our association members on this important matter, and we have scheduled a special meeting of the WHCA board on Thursday to decide on the seating issue.

      In other words: We maintain group think.

      1-Adam-12, there is a free thinker, quick, quick, distance ourselves from her.

      It will really get spooky when she suddenly dies of “natural causes.”

    • June 7, 2010 9:19 pm

      Like how that male choir leader Obama was fucking died of natural causes caused by a bullet to his head.

    • joankelly6000 permalink
      June 8, 2010 3:10 am

      I don’t understand why what she said is qualitatively different from what a lot of lefties say about Israel anyway. She said it in an ol’-lady kind of crass way maybe, but she’s 89! Since when are old ladies not allowed to blurt shit out that’s true without having to fancy it up? That’s the main fucking thing I’m looking forward to in my old age!

      Also, when was Obama having sex with a male choir leader?? I’m not scandalized or disbelieving, just want the gossip. That’s what my life has expanded to – daydreams about old age and mining the universe for gossip.

    • June 8, 2010 4:48 am

      The really terrible thing is that it’s not even just the Israeli Jews that have dropped off the deep end. It’s ridiculous that no one can say anything against their genocidal polices without being blacklisted.

      I completely agree with Thomas. Yes, they should get the hell out of “Israel” and go back to Europe, or immigrate to America, since American krackers like them so goddamn much. They shouldn’t be allowed to remain in even “neighborly” occupation over Palestine.

    • June 8, 2010 5:02 am

      And of course the rabbi who cried like a towel boy because Helen Thomas dared to say what she said has a racist history of his own. Just like a typical cracker he feels totally free making fun of others, in this case Mexicans.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      June 8, 2010 10:44 pm

      That’s rich.

  16. June 8, 2010 5:09 am

    An interesting comment:

    Jelperman says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    I know this is long, but I think your article deserves a better response than the usual one-liners and troll comments. Simply put, I think you have made a couple of rather glaring leaps in logic and in doing so, you have thrown in with a baying mob of hooligans who have despised Helen Thomas for years in part because of her political views and mainly because of her ethnic background. A quick Google search of her name shows the kind of racist garbage that has been dumped on her for years -and not just from mouth-breathing bloggers, but mainstream publications (like the paranoid racism in Tom Shales’ attacks in The Washington Post). Your column is unfair to Thomas and I’ll tell you why:

    Anyone who watched the video knows that Thomas wasn’t just saying that Jews should leave Palestine and go back to Poland and Germany. She also included “and America and everywhere else”.

    What did she have in mind? Probably the large number of recent Jewish emigres from Europe and the U.S. who make it a point to “settle” in Afrikaaner-style segregated colonies in the West Bank, displacing Palestinian families who have lived there for centuries. People like Baruch Goldstein, who was born and raised in New York, moved to a squatter colony in the West Bank, and murdered dozens of Muslims in cold blood. And the others in the West Bank who consider Goldstein a folk hero. And the American-Israelis (caught on video by Max Blumenthal) who spewed the most vile racist and homophobic garbage about Barack Obama and called for his assassination. Notice if you will, the American accents of these miscreants. It’s not just Americans though -there are plenty Eastern Europeans like racist goon Avigdor Lieberman who engage in this sort of thuggery, and I’ll wager it’s these miscreants whom Thomas suggested should leave occupied Palestinian territory. Like I said, I think you are unfair to her.

    Case in point: I don’t know what’s worse: selectively quoting Helen Thomas to make her appear as a crypto-Nazi, or quoting former Israeli dungeon keeper Jeffrey Goldberg who claims -like Sgt Schultz in Hogan’s Heroes- that he heard “Nossing, NOSSING!” as inmates were tortured in the Ketziot prison.

    Not that it matters. Helen Thomas is gone and her reputation is ruined. But let’s be clear: No one “lost” Helen Thomas; she was thrown under the bus.

    PS: The idea that Israel is held to a higher standard than every other country is so absurd that it’s almost comical. When Cuban pilots killed four members of Brothers to the Rescue in 1996, the reaction was swift and harsh: the Cubans were accused of “cowardice” (Madeleine Albright’s words), the UN condemned the attack and the families of the people killed were allowed to sue for damages and collect from frozen Cuban assets in the U.S. In other words, Castro’s Cuba is held to a higher standard than Israel.

  17. June 8, 2010 5:38 am

    Of course Cuba’s held to a higher standard. The wealthy white Cuban ex-pats who lost land and assets wouldn’t have it any other way. White folks, whether Jew or Cuban, get their way.

  18. June 8, 2010 7:18 pm

    Yet, Elton John can play at a birthday party for a man who utilizes underage forced into prostitution girls in the Dominican Republic and no one blinks an eye. Or if they bother to blink an eye, it is to assign some righteous ulterior motive to Elton John that one day we may or may not learn. Yet, Helen Thomas is indefensible. FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING HYPOCRITES! Funny how it is always some righteous motive involved when it comes to a man who frequents prostitutes but no excuse whatever so ever when it is a no nonsense woman. FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU!
    Elton John played at Rush Limbaugh party because the bastard don’t give a god damn about females. Oh but I bet his ass wouldn’t dare play at Helen Thomas’ party. ASSHOLE.

  19. June 8, 2010 7:19 pm

    Oh gawd, I should be packing.

  20. citywood permalink
    June 9, 2010 4:38 am

    A bit late to the commenting but just wanted to say that I get a lot out of your blog and you’ve made me rethink stuff. It is so nice to find a feminist blog that doesn’t appeal to male or white supremacists and their apologists! There are radical feminist spaces that are so white centred and they don’t even notice it (I guess talking about black and other non-white women is enough, doesn’t matter how they do or that they/we aren’t participating). And then there are woc and black feminist bloggers that apologize for men and think woc don’t/shouldn’t have an opinion on the sex industry because ??? even though it is highly misogynist/racist/imperialist/capitalist/etc. (And now I feel guilty for writing that because I’m not talking about the ones with the real power.)

    Have a good trip Kitty. Are there not going to be (many) updates over the summer then? Hope it’s a good one – I might have to follow you and cut down on my internet time and actually enjoy the weather! (I wonder what your detractors will do without you though.)

  21. June 9, 2010 1:52 pm

    I’ve been mia, in transition putting somethings in order yadda yah.

    Just wanted to say to AROOO and everyone commenting have a great and safe summer. Xoxo and see ya in the fall!

  22. June 30, 2010 6:29 am

    Well, I didn’t think Helen Thomas was out of line at all.

    Have a great trip/summer!

  23. July 3, 2010 2:17 am

    I know I’ve said it before, but I’ve learned you can’t repeat the truth too often, so here it goes again. Being “against porn” doesn’t make straight white western women radical, although it certainly differentiates the mainstream feminists from the reformist feminists. For one thing, it isn’t pornography that is at the root of women’s oppression. Plenty of women are oppressed by males who have never seen pornography, although these women tend to be poor and nonwhite and therefore beneath the radars of the straight white women who think they’re so radical for being “anti-porn.”

    And I’ve also never seen any of these straight white women denounce the news and documentary shows that regularly broadcast images of the naked/brutalized bodies of black women as being part of the pornography they’re so “against,” either. I think this stems from the fact that white women are so often members of the prurient audience this brand of pornography titillates, and straight white women have so absolutely bought into white men’s notion of white women as agency-less innocents, that they refuse to acknowledge their own complicity in the racist-sexism that oppresses nonwhite, especially black, women, even when they’re able to see the ways that their complicity is self-defeating (which is rare enough).

    While I’m on the subject of white women oppressing black women, and other nonwhite women, allow me to relay an anecdote. I’m now living in a place where there aren’t any black people outside of a few very recent and generally temporary transplants. They work in various NGOs, embassies, and the like. Skin-whitening creams are EXTREMELY popular here, and most of the ads are specific that the target complexion is a pinkish-white, rather than any sort of beige-white, even though the natural skin-tone of the native population ranges from deep brown to light beige. It’s well-known that the vast majority of these creams contain mercury and other carcinogens, in addition to chemicals that corrode and burn the skin. One ad in particular promises to damage the skin “from ebony to ivory.” The model for the ad is, of course, a pale blond white woman. There is a small inset in the corner of a rural African woman, whose skin is the reviled “ebony” in the tag-line.

    Now, there’s no way I could be convinced that the black woman in the inset was paid to have her picture so negatively associated with this product. It looks like they just took an unprotected picture from the internet. The white woman, on the other hand, I do think was paid. And, so, she took money to promote a cancer-causing, skin-corroding product to nonwhite women, in an ad that simultaneously degrades black women, to a population that doesn’t even have any black women. Of course, it doesn’t harm white women at all when they promote these sorts of concoctions. It’ll be the nonwhite native women who’ll get chemical burns and cancer. And it’s black women who suffer in the role of antithesis to pinkish-white femaleness, even where there aren’t any actual black women in the population.

    Now, while I’m sure there are white women who think this sort of thing victimizes only the white woman and that there’s no way this is one of the many ways white women act as oppressors of nonwhite women, we’ll agree to disagree that those women are racist-misogynists who gain adoration at the expense of black women’s vilification and the poisoning of other nonwhite women.

  24. joankelly6000 permalink
    July 4, 2010 6:41 pm

    god that skin whitening – the poison itself, the poisonous ads, the enslavement of a black female body in selling it (last time I checked, unpaid and involuntary labor is slavery), the prevalence of it in a population that doesn’t even have black women to begin with but requires black women to make its point and make its sale… I don’t know if there are parts of the US where skin-whitening creams are marketed, I just haven’t seen it myself. I know a lot of shit goes on that I don’t see (and that such creams would never be marketed to my eyes in the first place), but my point actually is that I’m still surprised by what can surprise me. By how much simple, murderous evil goes on in the “beauty” industry, by how openly hateful it is and how successfully that hatred internalizes itself in the bodies who are most hated. It’s unbearable. And it is everywhere, all the time, regardless of whether it is showing up in skin-whitening ads in the US or not.

    “For one thing, it isn’t pornography that is at the root of women’s oppression.”

    Agreed, and while I do think there is actual harm that goes on in the making of and watching of pornography itself (and have not ever seen you argue otherwise), sometimes it does feel to me like some feminists think men would be less woman-hating if there were no pornography. But of course as you point out, they could only believe this about white men, and that it would benefit mostly white western women, since most porn is made and consumed in the west. Meanwhile they’re still wrong – porn may indeed “train” both males and females in some of the less nuanced forms of white-female-hating (most women in porn are white as well), but female people were still hated and harmed long before Deep Throat came out or Jenna Jameson got her own E! True Hollywood Story.

  25. July 4, 2010 9:52 pm

    White women not understanding racism while making misogyny all about white women.

    To use the white man’s definition of racism and subsequently the white man’s activism against racism to ask what about the white women is to value white men’s ways.

    How so many white women insist on becoming equally visible at the expense of black women and still believe themselves not to be racists is incomprehensible.

  26. July 4, 2010 10:20 pm

    God, why did I read that, Kitty? I start getting palpitations every time I see white women allude to the Imus “scandal.” They always always always pretend as if the word ‘whore’ pronounced like ‘ho’ isn’t specifically a slur against black women. As in ‘video ho’, ‘crack ho’, ‘bitches(z) and hos’, ‘gold-digging ho’, etc. It’s from misogynist rap music, and the women being slandered in misogynist rap music are black women. “Nappy-headed hos” isn’t racist ONLY because of the “nappy-headed” part. And it’s not sexist ONLY because of the “hos’ part. When, after all, was the last time you heard anybody say anything at all about the texture of black men’s hair??? I’ve NEVER heard a black male public figure called nappy-headed (and, no, comments about Don King’s “wild” hair are not the same thing as him being called nappy-headed) because most people aren’t so concerned about the attractiveness of black men’s hair. When Chris Rock did his inane documentary, it was about black WOMEN and their relationship to their hair. Black males, like males of every other ethnicity, aren’t expected to be concerned about hair.

    But I can think of PLENTY of black women who have been insulted with regard to their hair.

    • July 4, 2010 10:38 pm

      They always always always pretend as if the word ‘whore’ pronounced like ‘ho’ isn’t specifically a slur against black women.

      To own ho in that incident as something inclusive of all women, including white women is again a tactic to put the spotlight on the suffering of white women at the expense of black women. If the team was not all-black it was damn near all-black. And if the team was not all black, the nappy-headed part made it clear without a doubt what part of the team was being targeted by Imus and his ilk. However, since white women for the life of them can never ever voice concern about sexism (and/or racist-sexism) pelted at black women alone, any inkling to have a white lead in must be found and utilized or the topic cannot be approached. It is a massive failure of ever thinking about any other women other than white women.

    • July 4, 2010 10:45 pm

      And not to mention every time Dr. Socks and her commenters bring up the racism/sexism thing there is an insinuation that white women are being cheated out of something! As if black women are taking from them. WTF!

    • July 5, 2010 4:31 am

      YES! That’s exactly it. I’ve never been able to understand white women’s sheer ANGER at the fact that the few people who gave a shit did focus on the fact that the black women were called “nappy-headed hos,” rather than on the fact that the black women were called “hos.” Why couldn’t they have been grateful that for ONCE, SOMEBODY was being chastised for sexism against black women? Is it not already rare enough, unlikely enough to ever happen again, without white women – who call themselves feminists! – decrying the fact that black women specifically were being somewhat defended? And I say somewhat because I’m perfectly aware that it wasn’t concern for black women per se that got Imus the reaction he got. But whatever the rationale, it was as good as black women have ever gotten.

      WHAT do white women lose if anybody specifically wants to talk about the fact that a nearly all-BLACK team was slandered because of the fact that they were BLACK??? WHY do the few white women caught in the cross-fire have to be the topic of discussion before it’s considered a feminist issue?

      It just makes me so angry.

    • July 4, 2010 11:10 pm

      Well, the thing is sexism against black women (in any but an all-black society) isn’t ever *not* racist-sexism, since black women aren’t ever *not* female and black AT THE SAME TIME. So, this is why white women never say anything about the sexism aimed at black women. I never saw any so-called feminists say ANYTHING when Cynthia McKinney was being dragged through the dirt about HER hair. But let a team with 3 white women out of 20 some odd black women get called “nappy-headed hos” and all of a sudden white women are concerned about these sorts of things. If it’s happening to black women alone? Nothing to see here, just racism, nothing to do with women. If a few white girls get caught in the cross-fire, then something must be done about the sexism! But not the fact that the sexism is itself racist.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      July 7, 2010 1:02 am

      I have a hunch that they think of racism, no matter who it is directed toward, as the problem and realm of black men, and black women’s problems of secondary concern *through* black men. That they are being racist-sexist (thinking of black women as mere possessions of black men) in their ignoring of racist-sexism just shows how big the problem really is in ‘feminism’.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      July 7, 2010 3:06 pm

      Isn’t there a certain word pattern that gets you sent to spam here? Or maybe I used too many odd symbols.

      Sorry about that.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      July 7, 2010 3:07 pm

      What the hell is going on with that comment wordpress!

      Am I the only one who sees that as a very thin column of words?

    • July 8, 2010 4:58 am

      Also racist-sexist is the fact that they only apply this logic to black women. Whenever Asian women suffer from sexism specifically regarding their being Asian (allusions to prostitution, slanted genitalia, etc.) white women don’t seem to consider it irrelevant. It’s only when the racist-sexism affects black women that all of a sudden racism has nothing to do with sexism.

      I think this is retaliation for the Civil Rights movement in the US. Black women must suffer under feminism because we’re thought to have benefited from black men’s efforts for their own rights.

      This is racism because poor women aren’t punished in feminism for whatever gains might be attributed to Marxism. Women in industrialized societies aren’t punished in feminism for whatever gains might be attributed to the Industrial Revolution. Protestant women aren’t punished for whatever rights women might have gained in the split from Catholicism. Jewish women aren’t punished for having been freed from concentration camps alongside Jewish males. I could go on and on.

  27. July 5, 2010 5:04 am

    If I were to move myself totally out of a radical way of thinking and limit myself to the current acceptable standard of anti-racist thought (that most certainly centers around males), the second comment still does not pass an anti-racism test.

    • gxm17 says:
    Anti-porcine speciesism? Why aren’t the animal rights activists up in arms?
    July 2nd, 2010 at 2:00 pm EST

    What gxm17 is saying here is, if blacks (which I would assume to mean both males and females even though Gibson’s desire is understood to be male specific) have a problem with Mel Gibson’s use of a “rape by a pack of niggers,” then it would only be logical for the Anti-Porcine activists to step in too. Because you see, to fight against racism is equivalent to other isms such as animal rights. In other words: “If those blacks are going to get up in arms and express outrage then PETA might as well express outrage as well. Can’t have those uppity negroes putting their rights before our pets.” Unlike the fight against sexism against white women. The comment suggests that fight should be front and center of all fights.

    Yet, I am quite sure it was not his/her intentions to suggest that blacks are analogous to animals. /sarcasm.

    This is when I have an urge to use one of those expressions often thrown around on wannabe hipster blogs: The Fail, It Burns!

    • July 5, 2010 5:08 am

      Express the desire to put females front and center instead of some females and you will not hear another word from me.

    • July 5, 2010 5:25 am

      You know, I didn’t even understand that comment. But, yeah, they’re basically saying that the accusation of racism is so absurd as to be comparable to a complaint of anti-porcine speciesism.

  28. July 5, 2010 5:20 am

    Margie, remember that time I tallied how much it would cost for my daughter and I to stay the whole summer in the English countryside? I often think about that, especially now after I just calculated our receipts from our recent jaunt that was miles and miles away from the English countryside. Remember the amount? An amount I will never have. That was a good laugh.

    • July 5, 2010 6:38 am

      Yes it was. I just had another chuckle myself. I hadn’t thought about that in so long.

      You know I’m planning a bit of a trip soon, too, and I don’t even want to think about how much it’s going to cost – especially since I don’t even really want to go.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      July 6, 2010 2:08 am

      Well, if you are going for hilarious reviews (warning the ending of this was bizarre), voila:
      xttp:// Of course, it was written by a gay man, so I expect the reason he had a problem with the schtick is because he’s not interested in sex with women, rather than the male-centrism and the misogyny. There is also no mention of the fact that all of these ‘older male writers of a certain generation’ are white, with white characters.

      That was really funny, by the way. Thanks, I needed the laugh.
      My mother made me watch the second one with her but she almost kicked me out cause I wouldn’t keep my sarcasm to myself.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      July 6, 2010 2:09 am

      (replete with falsetto ‘oh Edward’ swoons).

  29. atheistwoman permalink
    July 6, 2010 2:10 am

    Also, if Margie and Kitty had a talk-show, I would watch it.

  30. July 7, 2010 12:01 am

    Margie and I are discussing a date we will begin posting again. Perhaps August 1, 2010. Or a week or ten days before. We will keep you posted.

  31. July 7, 2010 3:44 pm

    The nested comments are getting too thin. I am going to look at setting and see if there is anything I can do.

  32. July 8, 2010 8:56 am

    I would like to say a special thank you to Margaret and Kitty, as well as the other women here, about something. When I was about 20 years old, I tried to come out of the closet. My mother’s reaction, or more specifically, my need for her approval, sent me scurrying back in.

    Blogs like this one, and the unwavering support for lesbians that is found here, are one of the many resources I needed to help me negotiate the process of coming out (among many other reasons for reading it). Although most people have actually been fine, coming out was terrifying and if it weren’t for the commitment against lesbophobia at places like AROOO, I don’t know if I could have done it.

    I am proud to say I am a lesbian woman. In fact, it has quickly become my favourite thing about myself. Thank you to everyone here for helping make that possible.

    • July 9, 2010 3:17 am

      Congratulations, Valerie! I can’t even begin to express how happy I am for you. I hope you’ve found lesbian companionship and community. There’s nothing better than being surrounded by lesbians in all their raw femaleness.

      If you ever want to talk about it, email me.

    • July 9, 2010 6:04 pm

      Thanks so much Margaret! I will definitely email you this weekend if you’re cool with that.

  33. atheistwoman permalink
    July 8, 2010 1:43 pm

    Also racist-sexist is the fact that they only apply this logic to black women. Whenever Asian women suffer from sexism specifically regarding their being Asian (allusions to prostitution, slanted genitalia, etc.) white women don’t seem to consider it irrelevant. It’s only when the racist-sexism affects black women that all of a sudden racism has nothing to do with sexism.

    I think this is retaliation for the Civil Rights movement in the US. Black women must suffer under feminism because we’re thought to have benefited from black men’s efforts for their own rights.

    This is racism because poor women aren’t punished in feminism for whatever gains might be attributed to Marxism. Women in industrialized societies aren’t punished in feminism for whatever gains might be attributed to the Industrial Revolution. Protestant women aren’t punished for whatever rights women might have gained in the split from Catholicism. Jewish women aren’t punished for having been freed from concentration camps alongside Jewish males. I could go on and on.

    Likely because all those women (that you listed in the last part) are imaginably white. The contortions that white women will go through to resent black women would be surprising if people weren’t so perpetually childish and stupid. Black women are still getting the shit end of the stick, and these white women are acting like MRAs, if possible with even less logical arguments. Black rights only ‘take away’ from women and ‘feminism’ if you can’t picture women as being black–more racist-sexism.

    • atheistwoman permalink
      July 8, 2010 1:50 pm

      slanted genitalia

      There are some things things produced by the brains of men I could have gone through life not knowing. I could have done this very happily…

  34. July 9, 2010 9:46 pm

    While everyone is in a clamor worrying about a little bad ass career criminal who got shot by a bad ass career police officer (Although I think the police are brutal I am 100% against the feds making a case against this officer. In this country there is still a thing called double jeopardy! The very thought scares me to death for me and/or anyone in my family or friends who may possibly face charges one day for something. I don’t trust the police, and I don’t trust the FEDs even more!), the serial killer known as the Grim Sleeper who targeted poor black women have been caught. As I read some of the interviews reporters have had with the serial killer’s neighbors, I see comments such as “Lonnie was such a good and kind man” develop a pattern. Although in the past he has been known to rant against “prostitutes” and “crack hos” and have shown others naked Polaroid’s of women (pictures that looked like women from the neighborhood and the surrounding areas) and frequent prostitutes and then complain about them after wards, no one seem to think ol’ Lonnie could have been a murderer. There was no reason to suspect Lonnie because there was nothing suspicious about all of his misogyny. Misogyny is just that, misogyny, because I guess a man who is kind to women was more than likely the killer. /sarcasm. Now I know hindsight is 20/20, but come on, no one thought the way he felt about women could have possibility been enough to be suspicious of him. Some of the women were found dead not 500 feet from his house, not to mention he drove the very car the only living witness described and she brought the police within three houses from his.

    10 poor black women have been murdered. CRICKETS!

    One black man has been murdered by a white man and everyone is up in arms!

    • atheistwoman permalink
      July 10, 2010 12:50 am

      But Lonnie was so nice! And hello, crack-hos are crack-hos, who doesn’t go on about crack-hos. I wonder if the up-in-armedness would alter if Oscar had been murdered by a civilian or vice versa, if they had all been murdered by the police.

      If I am going all hypothetical, I’d be willing to bet that if they were 10 murdered white women there would be a media frenzy. And I’m sure people would be calling it to attention that he must be ‘racist’ for ‘targeting’ white women. I doubt they would get that it was sexist, just that he had targeted their sacred-white-womanhood-how-dare-he. But no one would point out that a black man or even a white man targeting black women is racist-sexist. There would be no nationwide discussion on the serious problem of racist-sexism, etc.

      And Kitty I am with you in not trusting the feds or the police.
      Also, I was surprised that someone actually used “gang-banger” in a news article. Seriously?
      Also, also, Lonnie’s nice-guy man of the people persona makes me sick.

    • joankelly6000 permalink
      July 10, 2010 5:29 am

      Police killed an unarmed black woman in my neighborhood a few years ago. I found out at least a year after the killing had come and gone, and only then because she was mentioned in an article that was about homeless people and mental illness. I don’t begrudge anybody not-wanting police to keep killing any black people. But there was no photo of her beautiful smiling face in the paper, and no news stories, and no protests, and the only verdict was: she was never even really here in the first place, so why would anyone notice once she was gone?

      And I’m not even saying this next part to be mean about those who have spoken out about the Grim Sleeper killings, and there have been people speaking out, even though most of those killed were black women (by which I mean, it’s unusual that people are therefore speaking out) – but – whether or not any or none or all of the dead women and girls were prostitutes, their lives weren’t a “cause” while they were here, and the black women and girls who are street prostitutes right now or crack whores or simply poor, they aren’t anybody’s cause right now either.

      I shouldn’t say “not anybody’s,” I should just say – those women and girls deserved better than being killed by that fucker, but why is it an indignation that they’re dead but not an indignation that they weren’t considered really alive in the first place by so many people, including and especially any men who stuck their dicks in them before old Lonnie got them?

      “We are all Oscar Grant.” When is it going to be “We are all crack whores?” “Dead or alive, we are all crack whores,” when is that going to be an activist rallying cry?

    • joankelly6000 permalink
      July 10, 2010 7:59 am

      And shortly after I left the above comment, I saw this post, which is exactly what I’ve been feeling since the verdict except it’s about one specific black woman:

      I did not watch the videos, nor am I ever going to. It makes me think of what you said the other day, Margie, about the pornography of violence against black female bodies in news stories. I know this is different in that these videos are *intended* to be pornographically entertaining, rather than matter of factly consumed as such in “regular” news or documentaries like you mentioned.

      The only other thing I want to say is – I hate that even I, feeling how I do, still have the knee-jerk reflex to all but apologize for feeling this way in response to the Oscar Grant thing. Because it IS in response. Yes I did feel these ways before he got killed and before the cop got prosecuted but every time bunches of men and women make a big deal about a black man’s death or suffering, I don’t know how I’m supposed to NOT notice how rare if ever it happens on behalf of black women. But me and anyone else who talks about that, it’s like we have to say “but of course it’s right to care about Oscar Grant.” As if there’s anything about saying “black women matter, how come hardly anyone makes a fuss about them being hurt or killed? ” that automatically implies “I’m-happy-such-and-such-black-man-got-killed” unless I issue the disclaimer? Ugh.

  35. atheistwoman permalink
    July 10, 2010 12:52 am

    Like, there is hypocrite, and then there is huge flashing ‘kick-me-written-on-my-back’ hypocrite. And he is the latter.

  36. atheistwoman permalink
    July 11, 2010 6:41 pm

    We were talking about twilight somewhere, but it’s left my head. Oh well, this was related, anyway. And funny.

  37. atheistwoman permalink
    July 11, 2010 7:01 pm

    Actually I just had to share this with the world. And now I will shut up.

  38. Nicky permalink
    July 12, 2010 5:27 pm

    if ya get a chance. You should check this story out on the NYtimes where some woman is asking, should she out a transgender person, she is dating.

  39. July 20, 2010 7:47 am

    Hope you’re both having a smashing summer break. It is more than well-deserved.

  40. joankelly6000 permalink
    July 22, 2010 2:44 am

    Thanks for those links, Kitty. I didn’t really understand what all was going on – I heard on the news or read a snippet about Sherrod being fired for talking about it being hard to just set aside understandable resentment of white people, and some experience she had with confronting those feelings when wielding very limited power over some white person or people years ago.

    I frankly thought it was an amazing thing to talk about out loud, a brave thing, to talk about struggling with your own heart and conscience in a situation where, by all rights, you didn’t really owe anybody a fucking thing. It fucking irritates me that it’s even pointed out that “she made this speech x amount of time ago, and she was talking about a decision she made in the 80’s, not when she was working for the government.” She was saying something legitimate, and it would be just as legitimate today as in nineteen eighty-whatever.

    Also, is it August 1st yet?

  41. July 22, 2010 5:03 pm

    It goes to show how extreme white male supremacy continues to be – a Black woman can’t even express having negative feelings about it.

  42. Mary Sunshine permalink
    July 22, 2010 8:01 pm

    The Sydney Morning Herald’s report on it:

  43. July 22, 2010 9:55 pm

    I wish I would remember to check the follow up comment notification box. Then I would not have to keep visiting a site to see if someone responded.

  44. July 23, 2010 12:09 pm

    I think we may need another month. August 1 is coming up too fast.

  45. joankelly6000 permalink
    July 23, 2010 9:38 pm

    Well, you did say you were taking the summer off, and August is still summer, so even if greediness-for-posts-on-AROOO was a legitimate complaint, I’d have no standing.

  46. July 24, 2010 3:48 am

    The past weeks have been so thoroughly enjoyable that I’m not sure if I ever want to return to blogging. I’m quite sure August 1 is too soon, though.

    • joankelly6000 permalink
      July 28, 2010 12:18 am

      Much as I would permanently miss your blogging Margie, I can’t begrudge you the enjoyment of not-blogging.

      I feel up and down about it myself lately. I’m still to some extent dazzled by the internet – by the ability to connect with women I would otherwise never get to hear from or love. But I also know that when I’m offline and away from the negative stuff that sometimes creeps into my online activities, it’s sometimes hard to remember why it is I’m bothering in the first place.

      In any case, I’m glad you’re having a good time away from the blog too. xoxo

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: