Now Collecting: Hugo Schwyzer Apologists

whitefeministcollectionagency:

Over the last few years Hugo Schwyzer has been trolling feminist spaces writing about feminist issues or his own personal experiences. More often than not writing articles that are manipulative, abusive and invasive to the other people in his life. Beyond his own writing on white feminists sites like xoJane, Jezebel and others, Hugo has become notorious for specifically searching out and harassing women of color that speak out about his behavior. While one would think that seeing him attack women of color who are visible online, there has been a backlash against those women who are critical of him from white feminists that want to continually give him the benefit of the doubt.

I’m not interested in going into the specifics about him and his behavior because this is to focus on the reaction from white feminists who want to excuse his actions as an abuser and what I would consider a sexual predator who has used his position of power as a tenured professor and male feminist blogger to harass women, primarily women of color, who speak out against him. Flavia Dzodan has written extensively about him,  and has given permission for me to use her tweets / work (here and here) in this post.

(Tweets in order of being posted, so ignore the time stamps)

image

image

image

image

The racist narrative that Hugo sold to white feminism used women of color as scapegoats for his behavior instead of owning up to that behavior and his abuse of them has continued even as he has had a self defined manic break down on twitter this weekend. Viewing his twitter feed, that won’t be linked to because the dude really deserves no attention, you see him “apologizing” for his behavior while blaming his mental state as the reason for his abuse completely. What is even more alarming is that while he is having a breakdown for everyone to see he not only refused to quit talking when many people on twitter asked him to but he yet again named specific women of color, including Flavia, who he said he just wanted to “shut the fuck up.”

From this outburst not only were many women forced to make their accounts private but he recreated the same vicious racist attacks on the women he named, and others, who became targets for being critical of his pattern of abuse. Make no mistake; Hugo Schwyzer is an abusive manipulative predator. His continual need to focus rage on women of color and not on white women who have been just as critical shows that he is also racist. This also shows he knows where his supportive base is and the women he can get away with targeting

The reaction from white feminist sites and activists to continually let him have the benefit of the doubt while many voices spoke out against him shows the complete lack of care and humanity most white feminists give to women of color in feminist spaces. White feminists like Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte have been unsurprisingly silent during the last few weeks (and forever) while Hugo quit the internet, but had an interview that only took 5 minutes to set up while he waited by the phone for attention, and now his very public break down. The same goes for every site that Hugo has written for, unless they want to capitalize on what is happening, but never to critique to condemn his actions.

The silence of the most influential white feminists while other white feminists are attacking and attempting to silence women of color who have spoken out against him continue to show how seeped in white supremacy feminism is. Mental disabilities are not an excuse for abuse and becoming reformed over your past indiscretions does not give you the ability to enter a space as a person with privilege when people do not want you there. The continual attacks on women of color over the past few years should have been enough to prove he doesn’t belong in feminism or be given any more chances at redemption.

White feminists have the obligation to create an intersectional approach to feminism that supports all women and identities, not just their own. This is the harm that is caused when white feminists do not account for and challenge their own racism and white supremacy. 

We should be supporting Flavia Dzodan, Amadi of amaditalks, Sydette aka BlackAmazon (with a storify of her own thoughts) and other women of color who have been attacked online not only by Hugo but the white feminists who continue to support him.

(via fatbodypolitics)

alexandraerin:

princex-misdreavus:

fatflagrantfeminist:

feministinthekitchen:

A Q&A with the gender-studies professor turned blog pariah, by Kat Stoeffel:

Feminist blogger Hugo Schwyzer quit the Internet yesterday. Writing on his personal website, the Pasadena City College professor of history and gender studies said that he needed a hiatus in order to prioritize his “fragile” mental health and his relationship to his wife and his children, but his anguish was underscored by intellectual defeat. “I’m done,” he wrote. “I surrender the field to the critics who wanted me gone from feminist spaces.”

Schwyzer has been a divisive figure in the lady blogosphere since he was treated to a glowing interview on Feministe in late 2011. In response, commenters and other bloggers dug up Schwyzer’s old blog posts (since deleted), in which he confessed to trying to kill himself and his ex-girlfriend with fumes from a gas stove during a period of drug and alcohol addiction fifteen years ago. Feminist bloggers took issue not just with his past (which included sleeping with many of his students), but with how they believed Schwyzer capitalized on his bad-boy redemption story. A number of anti-Schwyzer groups cropped up. But Schwyzer kept plugging along — filing earnest, male takes on topics du jour for Jezebel and, later, the Atlantic, and feeding the attendant Twitter snark — for more than a year. I believed he could not be discouraged, until this week.

In an e-mail to several dozen of his “friends and interlocutors and adversaries,” mostly women bloggers, Schwyzer elaborated:

In the end, the question was a simple one: am I doing more good for gender justice by continuing to write, or will I do more good by falling silent. The consensus seemed to be split. What wasn’t split was the cost to my marriage and my own mental health. When I give the critics the power to drive me to suicide, the onus is on me to pull away.

As is often the case when someone pointedly leaves a room, Schwyzer seemed to be standing by, waiting for people to wonder where he’d gone. I e-mailed to say that I’d be interested in speaking about what it means when a self-described feminist is driven from a feminist space, if it wouldn’t further aggravate his condition. He called me back in about five minutes.

That was fast!
I’m just sitting here going through e-mails from people who are trying to see what’s going on, mostly assuage a lot of people’s anxiety.

Your readers, you mean?
Readers, and people who are not readers but are in the community. People who write for, say, xoJane or the Gloss. Some of my old colleagues at Jezebel. When somebody who has a career, however controversial, just up and says “I’m done,” that’s something a lot of people fantasize [about] and fear.

What precipitated your exit?
I dealt with depression and alcoholism for many years; I’ve written about this many times. I’ve been fifteen years sober, but a lot of the depression came from being online. When I’ve been taken down, there’s virtually nothing in my defense, and anyone who does come to my defense gets slapped down. Google me. Here, I’ll do it …

Don’t do it!
I stupidly did it.

People might think that you have enough power that you don’t need anyone to come to your defense.
Yes, I’ve got tenure. But there is emotional fragility. All of us who write online want validation to some degree. We’re ready to take criticism when it’s balanced by affirmation. I just felt that it was very one-sided. After I wrote about Manic Pixie Dream Girls, this guy Chris tweeted, “the number one job of male feminists is to never let Hugo Schwyzer get another freelancing gig.” It got 120 retweets and 140 favorites in an hour. I mean, that wildly overestimates the job, right? And it was just really hurtful. I was like, I don’t want to go through this anymore. I feel like a little kid trying to get attention.

I was surprised to see you leave now, because I remember you attracting much more criticism last year.
It goes back a long time, to a year and a half ago when there was an interview with me on Feministe, sort of setting me up as the white-male-feminist poster child — something I never asked for, by the way. I didn’t run for office. When people ask me, “Who is the voice of male feminism?” Jay Smooth, Michael Kimmel, Ta-Nehisi Coates — those are the names I go to. I’m not even in their league.

I had just gotten hired by Jezebel for a weekly column, and a huge discussion broke out: Do we want this guy, a professor who fucked his students, who tried to kill a woman, not to mention straight, white, and middle class, to be the voice of male feminism?

One reason you became a punching bag is that there just are not many men writing feminist columns online. Why is that?
Look at me. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be me? If you look at the men who are writing about feminism, they toe the line very carefully. It’s almost like they take their cues from the women around them. Men are afraid of women’s anger. It’s very hard for men to stand up to women’s anger. I did for a long time until finally my mental health had to be a priority. I just got out of the hospital. I’m not shy about that. I’m sober, but I checked myself into a psych ward for a week, when I became a danger to myself.

What are you going to do now?
Work on getting mentally healthy. I need to get my meds right. Second, I need to get my marriage right. There’s some bad shit that went down. I had an affair, which is very off-brand for me.

Off-brand … as in out of character?
In that I’m supposed to be reformed. The affair was with someone in the same circles that you and I move in, so I have to protect her. But there’s a lot of gossiping. It may reach you. Don’t be surprised.

Affair, history, and poster-child status aside: Do you think a man’s personal life should permanently disqualify him from writing on a topic or participating in a social movement?
Should I be leading a private rape survivor group? Absolutely not. But we’re talking about the Internet. There’s this false notion in feminism that the Internet is supposed to be a safe space. There’s this confusion of the therapeutic and the public space. Is the Internet a safe space? No. Your therapist’s office is a safe space. Your local women’s center is a safe space. I do believe I can have a voice online in leading a movement about this, but that distinction has to be drawn.

The ideas in your columns aren’t nearly as controversial — especially since you started writing at The Atlantic — as your mere existence, it seems.
Very rarely does someone come after my writing. I write what’s easy to read. I am trying to write for a mainstream audience. Just to give you an idea: Before all this, I was setting up a meeting with Joanna Coles to get some gigs at Cosmo, because I believe a mainstream audience is ready for my perspective.

How is your voice different than the feminist perspective women are already providing in these outlets?
I’m talking about and challenging men. People were angry, thinking I am the big, white man explaining women to women. I admit that at times I may have unintentionally done that. But my hope was to challenge men and explain men to women, especially women who second guess themselves in personal relationships.

Why not write about men for a male audience?
I have. I wrote for the Good Men Project. I left when it turned increasingly anti-feminist. Unfortunately, if you look at what men’s magazines are today, I don’t fit with Esquire, Men’s Health. It would be my dream to get the seed capital to do a really different kind of men’s magazine, that isn’t all about stereos and hip new bands and microbrews. We’re done with that.

People talk a lot about getting men involved in feminism. As the rare guy who cared about it publicly, could anything have been done to keep you at it longer?
I think I survived a long time. Male feminist writing needs a community around it, and a willingness to accept that it is a niche. Some editorial guidelines, because it becomes a little bit about blackface. I wrote a really good piece about vibrators that were going to be used on women. It did really well but it kept coming up, this idea that “You can’t write that, because you’re a man.” Even if you’re right. I was right! I was pretty right. The male feminist writer needs to be included in the collegial atmosphere. Writers need to talk to each other.

Would you consider writing about anything besides feminism?
I think eventually, when I come back, I’m going to have to find something else to write about. I do more harm than good. It’s hard to find someone who will edit and publish me. XoJane won’t. Jane Pratt told me that I was too controversial to publish. Jane Pratt! She’ll publish anything. I just need to get my sanity together.

But you do think feminism benefits from male writers.
I think we need good, brave, male voices who can take criticism and aren’t simply parroting the party line. I took Feminism 101. I know how to use all the big words. Look, intersectionality, I used it correctly in a sentence. I mean, fuck that. We need better than that.

is THIS supposed to make me feel bad for him? i just hate him more?
like, he clearly doesn’t see his wife as a person outside of being his wife, or the woman he cheated on her with. “off-brand” NOT REALLY? YOU’RE A RAPIST, ATTEMPTED MURDERING ENTITLED NARCISSIST? WHO HAS AFFAIRS WITH STUDENTS?

I ACTUALLY HATE THIS MAN

"Off brand". That’s how he describes having an affair. It didn’t fit with the image he cultivates. It doesn’t fit the narrative of him as redeemed and his misdeeds belonging to a different Hugo Schwyzer from his “pre-sobriety past". 

His critics have been saying all along that it’s not his past that worries us nearly as much as how it informs his present actions, and the way he consistently tries to draw a firm, bright line between the past and present and act as if they have no bearing on each other suggests at the very best a dangerous naivete.

But as comments like this reveal, it’s not even that. He’s not naive, he’s calculating. The myth of redemption and ascribing all that bad stuff to “Pre-Sobriety Hugo” is a marketing strategy. It’s a spin. 

Notice how he discloses the affair to the interviewer not in the spirit of honesty or coming clean, but because he believes they will hear about it anyway… he has nothing to gain by hiding it and it will likely look worse if he does.

He’s still spinning, in other words. Still maintaining the brand.

Pre-sobriety Hugo has never been the problem. It’s not that he’s cis/straight/white/male that is a problem, per se, either… it’s that coming from such a privileged place makes him say things with a straight face like “It’s very hard for men to stand up to women’s anger.” Or that feminism is a cold pool that isn’t healthy to immerse oneself in for too long. Or that when men have sex with women against their will, they should accept part of their blame themselves.

And when we try to draw a line connecting these behaviors to the way he’s treated students before and during sobriety and to the most egregious activities of his drug-fueled past, he pretends that the problem is who he used to be.

In his case, redemption isn’t real change, it’s just an excuse… a dangerous excuse. 

He’s still an awful person who does awful things.  Thank goodness he’s being defended by prominent White Feminists!


(I did particularly like how he blamed those overly-emotional women for his problems.  Stay classy, Hugo!)

(Source: catracism, via telegantmess)

midwestmountainmama:

if ur gonna post about helen thomas and NOT mention the role the internet had in completely dismantling her career (and the way she was soundly abandoned by leftist media) i will not be impressed, but i will be even LESS impressed if you claim her as a “feminist icon” when it was the *F*eminists who kicked her career to dust the hardest.

(via telegantmess)

image

theprophetlilith:

popelizbet:

except feminism’s racism, transmisogyny, ableism, and other oppressions, which feminism has to own and fix instead of blaming it on patriarchy.

^^^^^

(Source: beeewalsh, via audscratprophetlilith)

Tags: feminism

sourcedumal:

Susan B Anthony said she’d rather cut off her own arm before she let the Negroes get the vote before white women.

White women actively sided with white supremacist politicians in order to get women’s sufferage.

All while using BLACK WOMEN to spread their message of ‘equality for women’

But I’m supposed to believe that white feminists give a damn about women of color?

(via lavenderpanda)

[Trigger Warning for Sexual Child Exploitation of Trans Child]


If you’re not outraged by this, you’re not understanding the problem, including the hypocrisy.

Feminists Who Believe in Accepting “Male” and “Female” At Face Value

are basically saying that they trust men and patriarchy/kyriarchy when it comes to science.  Which, given the numerous criticisms of science, especially biology, coming from feminists (like Anne Fausto-Sterling and Emily Martin to name just two prominent examples) is touchingly and ignorantly naïve at best and a cynical use of the power of patriarchy/kyriarchy to oppress the ‘right’ people at worst.

If your feminist response to the existence of trans people, intersex people, etc is to defer to science, you’re a pretty shitty feminist imnsho.

[tw: ableism, rape, murder; cw: radfems being radfems]

telegantmess:

lucypaw:

taleth:

taleth:

home-of-amazons:

hedonisticparadise:

taleth:

isn’t radical feminism against the oppressive tools of the police force and the prison-industrial complex?

so why do so many feminists feel empowered by jailing women for trying to make a living? or are we now policing specific behaviours of women that we don’t like?

Are you fucking retarded? We want johns and pimps jailed, not prostitutes. Sex work is dehumanisation, plain and simple.

It’s a good idea to read an opposing viewpoint’s perspective before you make yourself look this stupid, OP.

Generally I don’t go out of my way to respond to people who go about shouting “retard” to anyone who disagrees with their silly little political theory. There are, surprise surprise, actual disabled people on tumblr who don’t exactly like that term, considering its use has been used to justify rape, sterilization and murder.

But you wouldn’t care about those women, right?

Or actual sex workers.

Two months before the demonstration outside the Voice, feminist icon Gloria Steinem held court in the brothels of India as part of a humanitarian junket sponsored by the NoVo Foundation, one of the largest private women’s charities in the United States. NoVo’s money is Warren Buffett’s money: $1 billion, transferred by the second wealthiest American to his son Peter, who chairs the effort along with his wife, Jennifer. Steinem accompanied Peter and Jennifer Buffett on a tour of Sonagachi, Calcutta’s biggest red light district. Steinem came away from her visit with an astounding proposal: What would really benefit the women who worked there—whom she described to the Calcutta Telegraph as “prostituted,” characterizing their condition as “slavery”—would be to end sexual health services and peer education programs in brothels, programs that have been recognized by the United States Agency for International Development as best-practices HIV/AIDS interventions. Steinem described the women leading those health and education programs as “traffickers” and those who support them “the trafficking lobby.” 

So Steinem goes and sees these poor women being exploited, and her resolution is to…destroy all their support systems. Not actually do anything to help them, just you know. Cut programs.

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or diminishing their access to healthcare and education.

amos is the executive director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW). According to promotional copy from the speaker’s bureau that represents her, Ramos is at the forefront of “one of the most ignored and tragic social justice issues that affects our world.” She takes credit (with some exaggeration) for shutting down Craigslist’s “Erotic Services” listings, where anyone with an email address used to be able to post an ad offering sexual services to anyone with an Internet connection. After the demise of Erotic Services, which followed years of lobbying by law enforcement agencies and the National Association of Attorneys General, many sex workers opted for Craigslist’s main competitor, Backpage.com, which saw a tremendous spike in new sex work ads. (The site, once owned by Village Voice Media, was recently split from the alt-weekly side of the business, partly due to the controversy over its content.)

Ramos’ Craigslist fight, like the Backpage campaign that followed, drove up the cost of doing business for some sex workers. After opponents used the media and congressional hearings to dubiously link Craigslist to violence and exploitation in the sex trade, Craigslist began charging $5 per post for its Erotic Services ads, arguing that credit card numbers would help police locate advertisers who had been victimized. For sex workers who could not afford the fees, the next best choice was to take on the additional physical and legal risks of soliciting on the streets. All the buzz threw a spotlight on both sites, giving cops an excuse to step up stings that put Craigslist and Backpage advertisers in jail. Now Ramos is agitating for an encore.

So Ramos sees women trying to get by and post ads to make money, and she goes instead and shuts down their main avenue of subsistence. Sure, makes sense!

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or sending them into worse poverty.

This next quote is long, but I mean, unless you’re “”“retarded”“” you’ll be able to read it all, right?

How Sex Work Became “Sexual Exploitation”

Feminist fights over prostitution and pornography are old news. But anti−sex work feminism has come a long way from the magazine store picket lines of the 1970s and the campus anti-porn revivals of the 1990s. “Pornography is the theory, and rape is the practice,” wrote feminist author and activist Robin Morgan in 1980. She is still around today, hosting a radio show on D.C.’s 1580 AM for the Women’s Media Center. “Prostitution is paid rape,” claims Melissa Farley, who has been fighting against sex workers since the 1990s and now produces reports for anti-prostitution organizations such as Demand Abolition. While these women once focused on ending sexual “objectification” in magazines and red light districts, today they are waging a global war that pits one class of women against another.

One architect of this shift is attorney Jessica Neuwirth, a founder of the women’s rights organization Equality Now. In a 2008 interview with Barnard College sociologist Elizabeth Bernstein, Neuwirth described the change as a move away from “an earlier wave of consciousness about exploitation that took both pornography and prostitution almost together as a kind of commercial sexual exploitation of women.” The rewrite was necessary, Bernstein explained in the journal Theory and Society, because the outright prohibition of porn and prostitution was not popular, putting feminists at odds with liberal allies such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “They got battered down by ACLU types,” Neuwirth told Bernstein. “By re-situating these issues in terms of the ‘traffic in women’ overseas and as a violation of international commitments to women’s human rights,” Bernstein explained, “they were able to wage the same sexual battles unopposed.”

These battles were now being fought in the name of combating “sexual exploitation,” “sex trafficking,” and “sex slavery.” The activism has shifted to the realm of international law. In 2000 anti−sex work feminists attempted to push their redefinition of sex work into the U.N. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. Norma Ramos and her allies wanted the protocol, which is intended to formally define trafficking across U.N. programs and to promote collaboration among U.N. member states in order to protect the rights of people who are trafficked, to define all prostitution as “trafficking.” According to the Paulo Longo Research Initiative scholar Jo Doezema’s 2010 book Sex Slaves and Discourse Masters, sex workers were supported by the U.N. special rapporteur on violence against women, who rejected the prostitution/trafficking equivalence. Sex workers also opposed the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women’s substitute proposal, which described commercial sex as “sexual exploitation.”

CATW went on a media offensive, seeking to discredit their opponents, even enlisting Sen. Jesse Helms to the cause. It worked. The protocol was approved and is now signed by 117 countries, defining sex for pay as “sexual exploitation.” The protocol has given feminists legal and moral cover to target sex work under the banner of fighting trafficking. 

“People have been very successful in using this term sexual exploitation in pushing legislation,” says Ann Jordan, former director of the Program on Human Trafficking and Forced Labor at American University’s Washington College of Law and an attorney who has defended the rights of trafficked persons. “Many of the people they talk to never ask them what they mean by it.” But while sex work opponents have been successful in passing laws against “sexual exploitation,” Jordan says, “they are not enforceable because no one knows what this means.”

It’s funny, because like these heads of organizations, you regurgitate the same tired catchphrases over and over again like a parrot. 

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or deliberately confusing people through language.

On the domestic front, anti−sex work activists scored one of their biggest wins with the 2005 reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPRA). TVPRA earmarked $50 million for law enforcement agencies to “develop and execute programs targeted at reducing male demand and to investigate and prosecute buyers of commercial sex acts.” Although ostensibly aimed at supporting victims of forced labor, TVPRA provides money for efforts to discourage men from hiring sex workers, including quasi-legal and legal activities such as escorting, pornography, stripping, and phone sex, as well as for investigating the people they attempt to hire.

So essentially what TVPRA is doing is… taking money out of women’s hands. No matter how you try to spin it, silly feminists, you’re reducing the money that sex workers are getting, which is forcing them to starve or sell off their possessions in order to live from day to day. You know that right?

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or sending them into worse poverty.

What happens when people in the sex trade—the people these laws supposedly are meant to protect—push back? Anti-trafficking activists often respond by denying their existence. At the June anti-Backpage protest, I watched Norma Ramos’ staff distribute fliers to passers-by cautioning them against the very term sex work, a phrase that “completely masks the physical, psychological, and sexual violence inflicted on prostituted persons,” although they had to acknowledge “it is a term that women in prostitution themselves use and prefer.” 

So… radical feminism is about “We know you better than you know yourselves. You couldn’t possibly advocate for yourself, and your silly little attempts at doing so are just from false consciousness. Trust us, we really know what’s going on. You should just let us speak for you.”

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or removing their autonomy.

If this semantic debate seems a bit arcane for placards and fliers, the purpose was revealed 15 feet further down the sidewalk, where members of the Sex Workers Outreach Project New York (SWOP-NYC), a volunteer-based, grassroots group dedicated to improving the lives of sex workers, held a quiet counter-protest. SWOP members—current and former sex workers among them—greeted New Yorkers on their way through Greenwich Village with smiles and fliers, inviting them to throw their support behind the people who had real expertise on the sex industry. That day the police repeatedly instructed SWOP members to stay half a block away from Ramos’ people. They made no such demands of Ramos.

Interesting how these feminists tell actual sex workers to shut up to their faces when they protest against being spoken for.

With a police force.

Oh wait, what was that that silly hedonisticparadise was saying about not using the police force on women? Shit, I guess you have to rewrite them as pimps! Quick, give them the fur coat and gold cane! 

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. Or silencing them.

 “Putting in an earbud and picking up her pink-and-black Kate Spade-encased iPhone to dial a local police officer, Powell says urgently, ‘We have to report her now.’ ” But when the cops set up a sting operation against the advertiser, the story continues, “she said she was in fact an adult—and didn’t want help from the police or anyone else.” 

Some activists view calling the cops to “rescue” people from the sex trade as the model of a successful human rights intervention. They don’t count their victories by the number of people they help; they count them by arrests.

She wanted the sex worker to be arrested. The sex worker said, no, I have my own autonomy.

Bolded: B-b-but didn’t that little heddy say that that’s not what radical feminists do?!??!?! how can one feminist be saying one thing about all feminists but another feminist be saying things about some feminists! I wonder who could possibly be wrong!?!?!??!

But it’s not about punishing sex workers. It’s about sending them outright to jail for trying to keep themselves from being starved to death. Not enough bootstraps!!!

hese tactics are part of a rise in what Elizabeth Bern­stein calls “carceral feminism”; Harvard law professor Janet Halley calls it “governance feminism.” Feminists once offered a powerful critique of the criminal justice system, but that argument has faded as they have found power within it. Not surprisingly, they have found conservative allies along the way.

In redefining sex work as an issue of bad men doing bad things to enslaved young women, anti-prostitution activists have recast themselves as liberators instead of scolds, while simultaneously making their message more attractive to the social conservatives who have at times distrusted them. The conservative Heritage Foundation has taken up the cause of “fighting sex trafficking,” though mostly as a way to beat up on the Obama administration and the United Nations for not adopting even more punitive policy. The Protect Innocence Initiative, a partnership between the anti-prostitution Shared Hope International and the American Center for Law & Justice (the right’s answer to the ACLU), gave a presentation at the Values Voters Summit in Washington last September touting the 40 bills it has persuaded state legislators to introduce since December 2011. The title: “Can You Protect Your Children From the Commercial Sex Industry?” Shared Hope International’s director, former Rep. Linda Smith (R-Wash.), explained to the Values Voters audience that they should “put this issue in its proper position” alongside the anti-abortion cause.

Hahaha, radical feminists have aligned themselves with conservatives. 

I’ve been saying this for years, that radical feminists just act like conservatives, they just slap a nice label in a cute little bow to pretend they’re the White Saviours instead of, well, those in support of patriarchy.

 Hughes banged her own curious “women’s rights” drum in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a 2004 Washington Post op-ed, co-written with second-wave feminist Phyllis Chesler, in which the duo criticized feminists for not seeing that conservatives “could be better allies on some issues than the liberal left has been.”

Oh wait. 

Now they’re outright saying it.

But demanding cops protect women by “going after the johns” doesn’t exempt sex workers from arrest. A 2012 examination of prostitution-related felonies in Chicago conducted by the Chicago Reporter revealed that of 1,266 convictions during the past four years, 97 percent of the charges were made against sex workers, with a 68 percent increase between 2008 and 2011. This is during the same years that CAASE lobbied for the Illinois Safe Children Act, meant to end the arrest of who the bill describes as “prostituted persons” and to instead target “traffickers” and buyers through wiretaps and stings. Since the Act’s passage in 2010, only three buyers have been charged with a felony. These feminist-supported, headline-grabbing stunts subject young women to the humiliation of jail, legal procedures, and tracking through various law enforcement databases, sometimes for the rest of their lives.

“It’s fascinating that women who claim to be feminists” are so willing to use the law in this way, says Ann Jordan. Supporting anti-prostitution enforcement requires them to call in the muscle of “all these institutions that have oppressed women forever,” she notes. “But they are willing to use the law to coerce a particular kind of behavior from women.”

But wait!? Wasn’t heddy just saying that this wasn’t the case? That sex workers aren’t punished?

I guess the facts aren’t in your favour here.

But this isn’t about punishing sex workers. It’s about sending them to jail to be beaten and abused and raped, and deprived of their ability to support themselves.

When somebody like [New York Times columnist] Nicholas Kristof writes an article about shutting down Backpage or applauding law enforcement efforts, it creates this picture that the answer is criminalization and punishment, and then people think we need to arrest more people, and that’s incredibly detrimental. And unfortunately, when there is more money and a mandate for arrests, that will often result in sex workers who may or may not have been forced into sex work being arrested.”

Sex-worker activists have long voiced this concern, not to protect the sex industry (as anti-prostitution campaigners claim) but to protect themselves from the violence of arrest and the violence that results from widespread social stigma and discrimination. Defenders of sex workers’ rights want to stop those arrests, while the feminists who should be their natural allies are pushing for more.

But this isn’t about punishing sex workers. Or sending them to jail.

Except it is. It literally is. So I guess hedonisticshitweasel is wrong here. And deliberately lying about it’s agenda. 

This next one is so fucking gross, that I can’t even make any comments. Feminists dehumanize murdered women to further their anti-sex worker agenda. It was established earlier in the article that feminists have allied themselves with NOW-NYC - the conservative women’s group.

‘Sack of Bones on Gilgo Beach’

Between 2010 and 2011, the remains of 10 people, many identified as sex workers, were found on Long Island’s Gilgo Beach. New York sex workers, including SWOP members, responded by reaching out to the families of the victims, attending vigils, and providing support to one another. Networks such as these are strong among sex workers, who cannot rely on cops, courts, or other institutions most people can turn to in times of crisis.

NOW-NYC’s response to these murders, still unsolved, came in a letter from its president, Sonia Ossorio, to the New York Daily News. Against the backdrop of NOW’s campaign to increase stings and raids in the sex trade, Ossorio complained that the paper was out of bounds for running a column questioning the public good in keeping prostitution illegal. She closed her letter by invoking the murdered women who “ended up as sacks of bones on Gilgo Beach.” For Ossorio, these women’s deaths are a justification for prohibition rather than a wake-up call to the dangers that prohibition creates.

It is not sex work that exposes sex workers to violence; it is our willingness to abandon sex workers to violence in an attempt to control their behavior. Prohibition makes prostitution more dangerous than it would otherwise be by pushing it underground and stripping sex workers of legal protection. The fight over that policy is about more than just strains between generations of feminism. It is about an unholy marriage of feminism with the conservatism and police power that many feminists claim to stand against. 

Advocates for sex workers are making some headway in calling that alliance to account. In 2011, for the first time, sex-worker activists participated in the U.N. Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights (UPR), a review of all member states’ human rights records conducted each four years. It was also the first year that the U.S. government’s record on human rights was up for U.N. review.

Activist Darby Hickey, a transgender woman who has been involved in the sex trade and is currently an analyst at the Best Practices Policy Project, which defends sex worker rights, participated in the U.N. evaluation. Its findings reinforced what sex workers have been reporting for decades: American sex workers are vulnerable to discrimination and violence not simply because of their work but because of the ways institutions exclude and harm them. The United States signed on to UPR recommendations that “no one should face violence or discrimination in access to public services based on sexual orientation or their status as a person in prostitution.”

“Now we’ll see what they do with that,” Hickey says, “and what steps they take to address violence from law enforcement and systemic violence.” When it comes to criminalization and the prison system, Hickey says, “there’s a general recognition that we’re going in the wrong direction, but around prostitution it’s going in the opposite direction, where people are saying, ‘Arrest more people; increase penalties.’ ” Just as the war on drugs is in many ways a war on black people, Hickey says, the war on prostitution is a war on sex workers.

If we are going to call attacks on reproductive and sexual rights a “war on women,” then let’s talk about a war on women that has actual prisoners and a body count. It’s a war on the women engaged in sex work, waged by women who will not hesitate to use their opponents’ corpses as political props but refuse to listen to them while they are still alive and still here to fight. 

But it’s not about punishing sex workers.

Except that it, really really blatantly is.

And you’re a bunch of… fucking assholes to even try to lie about what you’re really aiming for.

I thought you said I hadn’t researched my opinion? Otherwise I wouldn’t have asked my original question. Tumblr feminists…

remember that thing where radical feminists feel 100% ok with calling people ‘retarded’ and nobody in the radical feminist community did anything about it

ever

at all

0%

That awkward moment when feminists who are always talking about ending patriarchy end up being its biggest supporters.

I have said it before, and will continue until it stops: these radfems are not being opposed because they are feminist, or because they are radical, or because they are women. They are being opposed because they intentionally use institutional power to enforce their purity narrative. This is a behavior that is regressive, patriarchal and authoritarian.

They are radical if I’m the tooth fairy.

That’s definitely why I oppose them.  I’m against patriarchal, authoritarian people.  Plus, purity narratives don’t change things.  There are radical feminists who don’t engage in this but they seem to be few and far between any more.

I do sometimes wonder if the reason they claim the root of all oppression is misogyny is because that’s where they put all their efforts to oppress other people.  Mind you, it doesn’t stop them from also engaging in other forms of oppression but they seem to consciously do the misogyny while unconsciously doing the others.

I am infinitely suspicious of any cis person who is “porn critical”, “BDSM critical” and “sex critical” (regardless of how they define those terms)

genderbitch:

lucypaw:

genderbitch:

appropriately-inappropriate:

genderbitch:

Because invariably, regardless of any other oppressions you may navigate or how well you might do with trans people normally, you’ll somehow still manage to spew transmisogyny in your critique and sometimes even wider cissexism as well, no matter how hypocritical it may end up being to do so.

Double points of suspicion if you’re white, cis, abled and class privileged above working.  Centuple (100x) points if you’re a self identified radical feminist in addition. 

Okay, I’ll bite.

Are you sure you don’t want to bite on some of your sock puppet accounts that you pretended were separate people to stalk someone? :o

Why are you suspicious of someone who is porn critical when the evidence and survivor testimony clearly explains that porn is inherently inegalitarian in terms of labour (something that seems very near and dear to your heart recently) and which benefits from kyriarchy in that the most marginalized and desperate are often the ones who are taken advantage of the most due to a lack of support systems? 

This was explained in the post. Because invariably, any cis person who is porn critical will inject transmisogyny into otherwise valid criticisms of the porn industry and the fucked up way it functions.

Why are you suspicious of someone who is BDSM-critical when there are kink.com alumni who have gone on record as saying that their experiences were traumatic and negative? When even a cursory jaunt through Fetlife shows a bunch of openly misogynistic individuals who are operating in a legal grey area with minimal oversight and community policing? When more and more people are experimenting and joining the scene at younger and younger ages, with less situational awareness; as anyone could tell you, that’s a recipe for being taken advantage of. 

Same as above.

Why are you suspicious of someone who is sex-negative, when sex (specifically the presumption of access to cis women and, to a lesser extent, trans* women)

See, you already oopsed. You just spouted transmisogyny by ignoring the intersection of transness and womanhood and how that would actually boost a presumption of access to the bodies of individuals in a sexual manner, creating higher percentages of people affected by the consequences of that presumption.

The raw numbers are lower because there are far less trans women than cis women. Any knowledge of statistics would steer you away from using raw numbers alone, however.

Anyways, you managed to prove the point of my post and justify suspicions of cis people talking about those three topics WITHIN three paragraphs.

That’s pretty impressive. You couldn’t even make it past three paragraphs without justifying the suspicion by spouting transmisogyny. 

funds a multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry, enables a multi-billion dollar sex industry (porn, stripping, massage/escort/outcall) that has established links to human trafficking? When “sex positivity” uses the term “slut shaming” to refer to the harassment of a pregnant fourteen year old rape survivor. 

I’ll redirect you both above to what I originally said the purpose of the post was and also to your own proving of my point more immediately above as you injected transmisogyny into otherwise valid* critique of various sex related industries.

*Insofar as I haven’t been able to detect any prescriptive nonsense specifically fucking over sex workers themselves or directing blame at them or ignoring complexities involved in some of their situations. If it’s there and I didn’t catch it then I apologize to any sex worker folks that follow me and had to see you engaging in that behavior without me striking it down.

I mean, I’d like to hear why you think any of those things are ethically defensible; especially the two industries linked to the commercialization of sexuality.

Actually I’d really like to hear how you managed to take a post talking about the justified suspicion of cisgender people who critique things that absolutely should be critiqued but end up filling up their critique with transmisogyny (and other isms) as somehow meaning that the sex industry is defensible.

My guess, since you managed to spout transmisogyny in this very post, is an attempt at a strawman to deflect from the fact that it is absolutely worth being suspicious of you since you’re a denial filled transmisogynist at your best and a vile stalking compulsive liar who creates sockpuppet accounts to stalk trans women on the internet at your worst.

But please, let me know, ptsdreamy/ohnozombees/inappropriately appropriate/whatever other sockpuppets you may have that you pretend aren’t you even to the point of pretending to communicate with them through asks.

I agree with your questioning but wanted to point out something more:

The ‘sex-critical’ point from IA-A is especially silly if you  think in analogy to other things.  Like, let’s take being ‘eating-critical’.  Who wouldn’t be against eating when it: Enables a multi-billion dollar food industry that has ties to trafficing?  Means using (over)eating to fat-shame people regardless of their weigh or why they’re fat?  I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

Why does sex merit such special criticism?  Why BDSM?  Why porn?  They’re not the only things that deserve criticism from feminists and yet it seems this is pretty much all certain feminists care about.  Obviously, it can’t be that they think that the major problems for women are sex-related, right?  Right?

Haven’t people actually specifically attack eating and food choices for the problems of the food industry though? Mostly when it comes to POC and fat folks and especially fat POC?

It’s not a good counterexample if people actually do it.

Ehr, my point was not to provide a counterexample but to show that the three “-critical” things are not special with the sex-critical examples being almost directly transferable to eating.  Oppression, even oppression of women, is not just based around sex, porn, and BDSM.  So, why are these the things that are singled out as if they are somehow unusual?  Why do (radical) feminists spend whole conferences concentrating on these to the exclusion of other issues (except for maybe swipes at trans people)?  Why is the sex-related stuff so much more important to address?

(Source: punlich, via punlich)

I am infinitely suspicious of any cis person who is “porn critical”, “BDSM critical” and “sex critical” (regardless of how they define those terms)

genderbitch:

appropriately-inappropriate:

genderbitch:

Because invariably, regardless of any other oppressions you may navigate or how well you might do with trans people normally, you’ll somehow still manage to spew transmisogyny in your critique and sometimes even wider cissexism as well, no matter how hypocritical it may end up being to do so.

Double points of suspicion if you’re white, cis, abled and class privileged above working.  Centuple (100x) points if you’re a self identified radical feminist in addition. 

Okay, I’ll bite.

Are you sure you don’t want to bite on some of your sock puppet accounts that you pretended were separate people to stalk someone? :o

Why are you suspicious of someone who is porn critical when the evidence and survivor testimony clearly explains that porn is inherently inegalitarian in terms of labour (something that seems very near and dear to your heart recently) and which benefits from kyriarchy in that the most marginalized and desperate are often the ones who are taken advantage of the most due to a lack of support systems? 

This was explained in the post. Because invariably, any cis person who is porn critical will inject transmisogyny into otherwise valid criticisms of the porn industry and the fucked up way it functions.

Why are you suspicious of someone who is BDSM-critical when there are kink.com alumni who have gone on record as saying that their experiences were traumatic and negative? When even a cursory jaunt through Fetlife shows a bunch of openly misogynistic individuals who are operating in a legal grey area with minimal oversight and community policing? When more and more people are experimenting and joining the scene at younger and younger ages, with less situational awareness; as anyone could tell you, that’s a recipe for being taken advantage of. 

Same as above.

Why are you suspicious of someone who is sex-negative, when sex (specifically the presumption of access to cis women and, to a lesser extent, trans* women)

See, you already oopsed. You just spouted transmisogyny by ignoring the intersection of transness and womanhood and how that would actually boost a presumption of access to the bodies of individuals in a sexual manner, creating higher percentages of people affected by the consequences of that presumption.

The raw numbers are lower because there are far less trans women than cis women. Any knowledge of statistics would steer you away from using raw numbers alone, however.

Anyways, you managed to prove the point of my post and justify suspicions of cis people talking about those three topics WITHIN three paragraphs.

That’s pretty impressive. You couldn’t even make it past three paragraphs without justifying the suspicion by spouting transmisogyny. 

funds a multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry, enables a multi-billion dollar sex industry (porn, stripping, massage/escort/outcall) that has established links to human trafficking? When “sex positivity” uses the term “slut shaming” to refer to the harassment of a pregnant fourteen year old rape survivor. 

I’ll redirect you both above to what I originally said the purpose of the post was and also to your own proving of my point more immediately above as you injected transmisogyny into otherwise valid* critique of various sex related industries.

*Insofar as I haven’t been able to detect any prescriptive nonsense specifically fucking over sex workers themselves or directing blame at them or ignoring complexities involved in some of their situations. If it’s there and I didn’t catch it then I apologize to any sex worker folks that follow me and had to see you engaging in that behavior without me striking it down.

I mean, I’d like to hear why you think any of those things are ethically defensible; especially the two industries linked to the commercialization of sexuality.

Actually I’d really like to hear how you managed to take a post talking about the justified suspicion of cisgender people who critique things that absolutely should be critiqued but end up filling up their critique with transmisogyny (and other isms) as somehow meaning that the sex industry is defensible.

My guess, since you managed to spout transmisogyny in this very post, is an attempt at a strawman to deflect from the fact that it is absolutely worth being suspicious of you since you’re a denial filled transmisogynist at your best and a vile stalking compulsive liar who creates sockpuppet accounts to stalk trans women on the internet at your worst.

But please, let me know, ptsdreamy/ohnozombees/inappropriately appropriate/whatever other sockpuppets you may have that you pretend aren’t you even to the point of pretending to communicate with them through asks.

I agree with your questioning but wanted to point out something more:

The ‘sex-critical’ point from IA-A is especially silly if you  think in analogy to other things.  Like, let’s take being ‘eating-critical’.  Who wouldn’t be against eating when it: Enables a multi-billion dollar food industry that has ties to trafficing?  Means using (over)eating to fat-shame people regardless of their weigh or why they’re fat?  I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

Why does sex merit such special criticism?  Why BDSM?  Why porn?  They’re not the only things that deserve criticism from feminists and yet it seems this is pretty much all certain feminists care about.  Obviously, it can’t be that they think that the major problems for women are sex-related, right?  Right?

(Source: punlich, via punlich)

lavenderpanda:

lookatthisfuckinradfem:

A friend just showed me this amazing game.

Oh my god lmao

This is amazing and fun!

(Source: lookatthisfuckingoppressor)

Transphobic Lies: Trans People Don’t Respect Women/Care About Women’s Issues/Aren’t Feminist

Transphobes tell many lies as part of their transphobia, but one of the ones that annoys me most is the claim by transphobic (radical) feminists that trans people don’t respect women, care about women’s issues and/or aren’t feminist.

First, it’s true in part.  Some trans people aren’t feminists.  With good reason.  They’ve been actively hounded out by the same transphobic (radical) feminists.  Blaming the victim is a classic tactic, and it’s one these transphobes engage in gleefully when they claim that trans people aren’t feminist when they’ve made it clear that no trans person can be feminist under their definition of feminism.  Plus, llet’s be honest.  While feminism has some lovely ideals, as practiced, it tends to be dominated by, well, privileged people who seem more attached to the possibilities for fame, influence, and money.  Feminism in the anglophone world has consistently failed the women and men who most need its ideals to be realised.


Second, let’s talk about what ‘respecting women’ and/or ‘caring about women’s issues’.  Transphobes actually mean ‘respecting my cissexist privilege to deny your gender and force you into the sex/gender binary just like patriarchy does’ and ‘caring about my issues which includes excluding you as the gender you are’ which I think explains the whole lie right there.  It’s no secret that transphobic (radical) feminists are only really concerned about them being respected as women (note how they lack any respect for trans people and will use transphobic slurs and intentionally misgender trans people) and about issues that involve them either ‘leading’ even though they are not the ones directly suffering (ie, setting the terms of what the feminist solution is;  sex work is the most famous example) or that solve their particular problems.  This is just another example where they couch themselves in righteousness and declare that in not accepting transphobic exclusion or inclusion in, for instance, women’s spaces means that trans people neither respect nor care about women’s issues.

All this serves a purpose, of course.  They’re trying to convince others that they are being assaulted and victimised by trans people.  They’re trying to claim that they are the victims here, not the trans people who they conspire with patriarchy/kyriarchy to hurt.  The idea is to infect people with the belief that trans people are bullies who hate women even though a good number of them are women or are treated as women.  It’s insidious, it’s vicious, it’s a lie.

image

ktempest:

Right now on the Diane Rehm show there is a discussion of Betty Friedan’s “The Feminine Mystique” and guest Michelle Bernard (founder and president of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics and Public Policy) is laying down some TRUTH about the absence of WOC in the book and subsequent discussion. 

“Black women were completely left out of the book… many African American women looked at the word feminism and the title of the book and the contents of the book as almost being frivolous. And being sometimes about white women whining about something that African American women never had the option to whine about.”

Diane is having a hard time grokking her point. One of the other guests pointed out that the book comes out of Betty’s background in academia and spoke specifically to the women in her circle — college educated, mostly young and white — and the societal messages aimed at that group. She does admit that this leaves out other kinds of women.

This is on right now, but will probably be available to stream here. Worth a listen.

Also, I need Michelle Bernard in my life at all times. She seems awesome.

(via audscratprophetlilith)

You know what I’d love to see?

telegantmess:

TDoR lists that include trans* people that die from medical negligence, suicide, poverty, lack of medical care and all of the other cumulative effects of being trans* in a cis oriented society.

Those may not be physical violence, but they are violence nonetheless. And those lives deserve to be remembered and counted.

Relevant for today.

genderbitch:

taleth:

friendlyangryfeminist:

What I Mean When I Say I’m Sex Negative

  • that sex positive feminism has little room for survivors of assault
  • that sex positive feminism has little interest in helping people who don’t want their sex-life to be a coping mechanism from trauma
  • that sex positive feminism prioritizes individual pleasure over critical thinking skills
  • that sex positive feminism should be critiqued!
  • that not all “kinks” are okay 
  • that people are allowed to not be interested in hearing about your sex life
  • that people are allowed to not enjoy sex
  • that people are allowed to be scared of sex
  • that no one needs to have or enjoy sex to prove how empowered they are

What I Don’t Mean

  • I’m going to yell at individual adults who have consensual sex.
  • I’m anti-sex
  • I’m anti-kink
  • I’m against coping mechanisms and survival

wow here I was thinking sex-negative feminism was anti-porn, anti-heterosexuality (and anti-AMAB people to the detriment to CAMABs; I don’t care about men tho), anti-sex work, anti-kink

but it’s been re-defined now?

We’ve always been at war with Eurasia, right?

That awkward moment when cis women who don’t practice sex work or porn work “reclaim” a term used most heavily against trans women and transmisogny facing dmab trans folks, sex workers and porn workers.

Much as I agree with the criticisms of “sex-positive” in the OP, the “reclamation” makes me want to throw things.

(Source: spookycyborg, via punlich)