You know, I swore to my dang self I wasn’t gonna get riled up about this bullshit anymore….

Posted: June 19, 2011 in Assholes, Blogging, Rants, Sex Work

But sometimes the pressure gauge hits the red line and I gotta say something….

So, Hugo has a post up in which he engages with a Radical Anti-Porn Feminist.  I went ahead and read it, cause frankly, Hugo’s views have come a long way and I for one am very pleased to see the change and progression.  I also read the comments, and spotted a whole lot of the same old dang crappy refrains and whatnot, so I, you know as a sex worker and harm reductionist, dared to open my yap….

And promptly got shotgun blasted with the Oh So Typical Assumptions and Patronizing Bullshit- you know, the kind I’ve only seen a ZILLION times before outta RAPF’s.  Sooo, yeah, I got a little Ranty McRedneck on poor delicate Meghan….

And well, you can see how it goes from there.  You gotta read the comments to get the full effect.

See, not only am I once again being accused of threatening overt and direct violence upon our poor little Meghan Victim Princess, I am also a sexist douchebag for calling her….

Cupcake.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but ain’t y’all seen me call people who torque me off, male or female, cupcake??  I mean, last time I checked, cupcakes themselves were tasty dessert snacks and had no gender or biological sex, and I am pretty sure I have called an equal number of males and females cupcake in my time.  But yep, there we go, I am an overtly and directly threatening sexist anti-cupcake barbarian.  ANd wooo, so scary.

Thing that I think is funny, is you know, the Meghan’s of the world, they pull this shit not because they are actually afraid of me, in that woo, scary physical violence way.  They are afraid because well, I just might be able to blow some holes in their precious theories and all that good shit that gets them everything from university credit to speaking gigs to funding to book deals.  That’s the actual fear, that their precious precious rightness might be sullied.  And it also NEVER FUCKING CEASES TO AMAZE ME how these pretentious snot ass skinsacks feel, why YES, ENTITLED to treat anyone and everyone who does not echochamber them like UTTER SHIT and be patronizing and all that other fucking crap then they have the goddamn ovaries to suggest those who are TAKING THAT shit are the rude and hostile ones.

I mean really, what the hell do they expect?  Is it not common sense to assume if you treat someone like shit, they just might treat ya like shit right back?

Rolls eyes.  I am so fuckin’ tired of snot ass spoiled ass special princesses who think they should get special goddamn rules and the kid glove treatment when they act like fuckin’ asshole TOOLS.  I mean for real…

I’d kinda like to see this special delicate flower in a room full of actual sex workers, you know?  I’m sure while the Meghan’s of the world are utterly convinced their shit don’t stink, a room full of actual sex workers would prolly be real quick to tell her why yes, it certainly does!

I hate snobs and cowards, and I think she qualifies as both.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. dead_vladimir says:

    I think what bugs me most is her assertion a man can’t teach gender studies or in particular women studies. If we accept this assertion that only a women can understand and impart the experience (which is sexist and well seems narrow minded0 then shouldn’t we look at the reverse? if only a woman can understand the female experience perhaps only a male can understand the male experience, so then by that logic , wouldn’t that disqualify any women from talking about the patriarchy or the male power structure, since not being male they can’t truly grasp it and perhaps fundamentally misunderstand it ?

    as for the commenters, I am suprised that you are suprised, this seems so typical

    • Ren says:

      Nod nod- in fact, if the title of the class is GENDER studies, well, it means GENDER STUDIES, as in, plural, and thusly. not just women. But yes, the point you make there, I like

  2. Roy Kay says:

    My comment on the contretemps, awaiting moderation:

    ————–
    I am rather curious why when Meghan calls for the state to suppress sex-work, this is NOT identified as being pro-violence (what does she thinks states do, make modest suggestions?); while when Ren describes her as “full of shit”, this is an act of violence. It IS and act of vulgarity; but why is “tone” being made an issue by people that routinely denounce “tone” as an issue.

    Let’s get real. Meghan is calling for an attack by the state which derivatively would hurt Ren and people like Ren. Ren has called for no such attack by the state on Meghan. Nor has she called for an attack on Meghan by anyone else.
    ————————-

    Really, Meghan and her cohorts, are simply using accusations of violence to disguise their own violent acts. It’s the delusion of the left that states somehow are “ruled by Pater Nosters”.

    • Ren says:

      Uh, the part she dragged out as threat from me was my statement that folk like her in room full of actual sex workers might inspire the sex workers to wanna pop ’em upside the head….

  3. Roy Kay says:

    Meanwhile, left on a sidetrack, which I am convinced is the RadFems intent, was:

    1) The thrust of Slut Walks, which is that sluts, and sex workers for that matter, are entitled to bodily integrity and ought not be subject to rape or any other attack.

    2) Rape as an issue is NOT the property of an select few who get to separate out “nice girls” from sluts and sex-workers.

  4. rootietoot says:

    Ok I am going to wait a couple of days before reading into this deeper. I am due to have PMS on Tuesday, so I’ll read it then. Reading it now might trigger it to come earlier and last longer, and I don’t want to do that to my husband.

  5. greenmorgaine says:

    Your riled up comments on radfem threads are appreciated! When I was not yet fully indoctrinated in internet radfem you brought to light how immature their stance on porn and sexwork is, and also forced me to notice how creepy it was that whenever someone’s opinion on a highly complex issue with no obvious solution strayed from dogma then that person was not a radical feminist and how dare they comment at all.

  6. Catlover says:

    Not exactly the same thing but drearily similar with the same kind of imputing phony arguments to men, to then get all uptight about: http://sowandsew.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/asking-for-it/ referenced in this piece of ghastliness http://pinkmelon.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=6710&page=1
    How is it that so many so-called ‘feminists’ seem incapable of understanding that sex is part of being alive and does not prevent being everything else to do with living? They give the impression that the moment a man recognizes a woman as sexual then he can’t see anything else about her, and that women by nature are not sexual beings just as men are, because they only relate sexually as subordinate ‘objects’ not capable of asserting any equal sexuality in their own right. That’s not ‘liberated’, that’s what the ‘liberationists’ were trying to liberate themselves from!

    If you want to be seen as a responsible adult human being, that means accepting responsibility for yourself and not expecting ‘protected little lady’ treatment. I was looking at something about feuds earlier (the male version of ‘honor killings’) It said that women are so exempt in the super-macho Balkan world that they can go up to a house to burn it down as part of the feud and no man inside would compromize his own honor to shoot them. Is that the kind of world these ‘feminists’ want?

    Just reference back to the slut thing, doesn’t carrying a gun or taking defense classes imply that those who have not are ‘asking for it’, in her weird logic? She has a phony fit about comparison with protecting a house. OK then, is she going to throw the same tantrum if she’s told to keep a handbag closed or not wave money around because she might be mugged?

    It’s a similar false argument that because a woman looks sexual, men think that denies her any right of refusal, and somehow this can ‘creep’ to apply to all women. A sexually attractive woman – and that includes clothing – attracts. It’s a curious case of changing the expression ‘asking for it’ from its usual meaning of ‘making yourself a vulnerable target’ to taking it literally. You can say that a man walking alone wearing a mini-skirt is ‘asking for it’ meaning he has a high risk of being beaten up, but say the same of a woman and that sort of [pseudo?]-feminist is taking it absolutely literally claiming it a general male excuse for rapists.

    There’s certainly some men around who think their ego entitles them to sex wherever they feel like it and maybe throwing money at it makes it OK. A certain M.Strauss-Kahn seems to fall into that category. Most men though are a lot more aware of the difference between buying sexual services like buying any other service, and stealing it. Most men are also far more aware than some of these ‘feminists’ appear to be, that sex is something a woman *does*, not something she *is*

    • Ren says:

      A very fundamental thing you seem to be missing here is this: People, male and female, should be allowed to dress as it please them. Yes, the world we are in now, sure enough, people will make assumptions about other based on how they are dressed (do see the scumbag post)…..HOWEVER, clothing , choice there in or lack there of, is NEVER a reason, an excuse, or an instigator when it comes to violence over all and rape. No article of clothing EVER made anyone rape some one. A rapist does the raping, plain and simple. And even if a woman is dressed sexy and seems receptive to attention in a sexual manner, that does NOT mean she is sexually interested in any and every man who MIGHT be interested in her. That is VERY important thing to remember- that right there- dressing sexy is NOT AND INVITE to ANYONE AND EVERYONE. Period. And once it is made evident that while a woman looks sexy and might be interested in sex with Person A, the SECOND she makes it evident in ANY MANNER she is not interested in sex with Person B. person be needs to respect that and move on. PERIOD.

      And OF COUSE women are sexual beings- but it was NOT women or feminists who first starting deriding them for it or making it a bad thing for them to express or explore that. Most of the sexual shaming that has been handed down upon women for eons has come from religious, political, social, and even medical institutions- which are now and have always been heavily Male Dominated structures.

  7. Roy, that comment was EPIC dude! Loved it. They seem to forget they are talking about THE POWER OF THE STATE, you know?

    I made a couple of snarky comments that won’t get in, but just letting you know I did my part.

    What a snotty, superior ACADEMIC she is… no idea what she is talking about, no experience in the real world at all, and went into $60,000 debt to learn all that, she says.

    See, SHE is the one who is all defensive and gets upset when she is asked to prove that she didn’t waste $60,000 simply learning to call women stupid whores. Sounds to me like she got a perfect PATRIARCHAL education and learned very well how to put sex workers down with the best of em.

    It’s also disturbing to me that she sounds no different than the fundamentalist Christians around here, except that she puts the Dalyite sheen on it.

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