Why Misogyny is Never OK: NDP’s Pat Martin’s use of Sexist Slur on Twitter

*TRIGGER WARNING*

As most of my readers know, I am a leftist and I sympathize with left-wing groups and individuals, however, I try not to define myself by organizations or political parties. When I do vote in elections, however, I tend to vote for the New Democratic Party of Canada or the NDP. While I do not agree with all of their policies and perspectives, several MPs in that party are truly inspiring, honest and caring individuals. However, last night one MP from the NDP, Pat Martin, expressed his anger at the cuts to vital program funding for Aboriginal Canadian youth by sending out an angry message containing a sexist slur on twitter. Mr. Martin tweeted that the Conservative party of Canada was a bunch of “rat-faced whores.” In fact, his full tweet looked like this:

According to the Toronto Star, 

            “Martin’s night began by expressing anger over the role of Vic Toews’ involvement in Winnipeg’s Youth for Risk project for at-risk youth that has received $3 million in federal funding. He said the First Nations in the community were concerned that the “building was empty” and that the money for the “inner city youth went to ‘Youth For Christ’, who are Vic Toews’ donors and buddies.”

It is clear that Toew’s behaviour warrants outrage and dissent, however using blatant misogyny is neither an effective nor appropriate tool for opposing the Conservative Party. There many other words that come to mind that could effectively oppose the Conservatives, so why did Pat Martin choose “rat-faced whores?” Furthermore, why are NDP supporters and other members backing Martin and defending his words? Yes, we can despise the Conservatives but is it really constructive to use highly dehumanizing and patriarchal language that has and continues to be used against women and girls in order to make a point or oppose unjust policies?

Nevertheless, numerous NDP supporters and other leftists – mostly men, but some women – have been angrily messaging me on twitter, outraged with my outrage. People seem bewildered that I would “focus on something so stupid” instead of looking at why Mr. Martin was so upset with the Conservatives' Vic Toews. A man tweeted me with the Merrian-Webster definition of “whore” to inform me that, in fact, the term means “a person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.” I informed this man on twitter that the term “whore,” despite its formal definition has been and continues to be used to degrade, abuse, shame, vilify, and pathologize women and girls. Several other mansplanations were given to me, but a personal favourite was sent out by a charming young chap. After rejecting the dominant definition of ‘whore,’ this man informed me that I was “semantically singular” and “preposterous.” Well! let me tell you something – that had me set in my ways, I tell ya! What was I even thinking, trying to explain why I felt a man saying “rat-faced whore” in any context was absolutely fucked up? Another young fellow even reflected the awe-inspiring words of the lead “singer” of the faux-punk band NOFX, “blaming men will never change anything.” Yes, because of course, calling men out on their use of vile misogyny to express political opposition is “blaming men.” While various men and several women were excusing Mr. Martin’s 8^th grade boy’s locker-room patois, there was one male tweeter who seemed to get it. "David D." truthfully tweeted: It's entirely possible to tweet without regrettable or inappropriate language--or without bringing gendered insults into it.

Then there were others on Twitter expressing their belief that Pat Martin’s remark was “anti-sex work,” more than anything else. However, I would argue that women and girls are called “whores” for many, many reasons that do not depend at all on sexual activity or sex trade activity. The fact that several men and some women said that the term “whore” is and I quote, “an equal opportunity” term rather than a gendered term, is extremely troublesome to say the least. The attempt of those on the left and right to try and neutralize the political and gendered use of the term “whore” (as it is used today and historically) is incredibly irresponsible and harmful. If we pretend these terms have no meaning or are somehow apolitical, we trivialize the very realities of women and girls all over the world who are called "whores" and know how the word feels. “Whore” is often used in mainstream porn to degrade women and titillate misogynists, it is often used against women who have sex and women who don’t have sex. Women and girls are also called "whores" when they are being abused, bullied, and raped. 

The importance of language must be emphasized. The use of oppressive language is particularly important when it is employed by those in a place of power, specifically white, middle to upper class men in Canada’s House of Commons. 

If the NDP wants to continue supporting women’s rights in Canada they must stand up and reject the normative patriarchal sociocultural perception of women as less-than-human. They must do this by calling out other members when necessary. Blindly following everything that every member does in order to maintain a façade of party unity is irresponsible and reflects the Conservative’s approach to party politics. 

Today Mr. Martin deleted his Twitter account after sending out this apology.

However, this is not enough because Pat Martin did not directly address why his tweet was so problematic. I truly hope that he decides to offer an apology that is directed to women and girls.

Also, to Pat Martin I’d like to suggest that maybe it is time to wonder why the first thing that came to your mind whilst enraged was “rat-faced whores.” Are those the words of a progressive? How do such words reflect the Canadians that voted for you?

Finally, and this applies to all people of all political ideologies, in the words of Toni Morrison:

"Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge." 

Links - June 16, 2011

Links for June 16, 2011

Cherry Blossom Life "A Use For The Word Empowerment"

Gender Trender "Boys Just Want To Have Fun as Fake Lesbians"


Rad Fem Hub "Queering Women Invisible"

Nimbostratusparade "A Second Flush on Yesterday's Shitty News" (Prostitution Laws in Canada)

News


Anthony Weiner to Resign

Flaherty sells Canada in New York as low-tax jurisdiction for corporations

NDP and Health Activists Call For Asbestos Ban


Saudi Arabia Must Fulfill Its Promise To Let Women Drive

The American Media Machine and How I Learned to Conquer Television

All this week my ears have been ringing from the constant chattering of the American Media Machine that loves to hear itself speak. Even grocery shopping serves as a reminder of our Hollywood-sick and consumerist culture - I can't even pay for some overpriced produce without seeing "Kim Kardashian's New Butt Implants!" or "Arnold's Love Child." American television is a large, slightly terrifying force that and fills one with a stinking sense of emptiness. The emphasis on American rather than Canadian TV is purposeful. American TV truly dominates and it is significantly different from Canadian TV, particularly any news programs. Television itself, however, proves to be the cause of various bouts of dissatisfaction in the "First World" collective psyche. This should come as no surprise since the media is constantly sending messages to the public saying that we need more shit like boulder crushing pickups and chemical cleaners by a fictional bald dude for those tough stains.  


My television set was always used to occupy the silence, to act as a sort of auditory crutch. In fact, any program would do, as long as it was mildly entertaining. This habit started as a child, when I would watch a lot of television in my bedroom. A blue light could be seen blanketing me on a nightly basis as I slept, the noises making me feel a sense of security.

photo found here

By the time I moved out on my own, my self-esteem and self-worth was suffering more than usual as it was being engulfed by patriarchy and emotional sickness. By this time, of course, patriarchy was invisible to me. Television shows about how ugly and wrong women are and how to fix them with makeovers, plastic surgery and psychotic fitness routines were becoming daily "entertainers" in my life. Since these shows were constantly on, either for entertainment or for the sheer purpose of "background noise," my mind slowly became more fixated on fashion, ultra-femininity, male-approval, and thinness.  The things I never gave two shits about before in my life became somehow crucial issues in my life. I learned to criticize my body and the bodies of others, mostly other women; I learned my role as submissive female - feminine and fragile. The TV perpetuated and normalized ideas about beauty and unattainable happiness, with its redundant commercials that succeeded at turning me into a dainty yet terribly unhappy robot. But what keeps us going back?   


American television keeps its pizazz by using the sad or pathetic lives of others for entertainment for the rest of society who in turn feel better about themselves as a result. I plead guilty as charged to this, too, though this post at I Blame the Patriarchy really put it all into perspective. But I digress. Many a' eyes glaze over while watching celebrity family break ups and many are kept bloodshot from those late nights watching CNN; watching gunfire, bombs and the herding of humans while a white dude in an expensive suit gives his "analysis" of the events. But it is not just the images of Bin Laden's compound or the representations of violence in Libya, there are more subtle ways to titillate the masses. 




Thousands of people spend the days trying to keep up with the latest Western Imperialist Fashion that is meant to dictate their social standing and human worth based on the notion that the quest for perfection is only a transaction away. The fashion industry further perpetuates white-supremacist beauty standards, the rampant rise of eating disorders and exploitation of workers across the world. Yet, we are fed fashion as something humans, mostly women, need and should strive for. Nevertheless, when the news or the latest episode of "What not To Wear" (one of my old favourites) is not playing, advertisements are. Ads, as most people can agree with, are horribly annoying and intrusive, sometimes even catchy. Many people who are financially privileged enough, purchase items they do not need in hopes that they can achieve "happiness" - quotes used to indicate the various, diverse definitions of happiness and challenging Western view of the term. Happiness, perfection, satisfaction, freedom - all catch words that are promised to the masses by large companies through a small window of time between programming. Often, many people will mute their sets when the ads come on but many do not. Instead, some people claim they "tune out" the commercials - ignore them. What is interesting, however, is how we remember the commercials that we supposedly ignored and how we then make decisions to purchase one brand over another. It all comes back to the Media Machine controlling the way we view ourselves and the people around us. The Media Machine constructs a false reality based on white middle to upper-class Happiness newspeak that tells us how to live our lives in a way that fits snugly with the status quo. 


The status quo reinforces oppressive social environments and continues the traditions of patriarchy and capitalism by tricking the masses into believing they aren't satisfied or happy enough. But, do not fear readers, a way that has proven essential in beating a large chunk of the status quo into the ground is shutting off the TV. I know that not everyone is financially privileged enough to own a television, but many do and it is impacting the young people and the generations to come. The messages, through the reality television shows, pseudo-psychologist nonsense and racist police programs, ignored or not, are subconsciously taken into the brain as they are carefully constructed to appeal to people's deepest values, beliefs, emotions and lifestyles. The messages do not exist as mere fillers of silence, marketersdisproportionately male-dominated and thus provide "entertainment" based on patriarchal principles, like playing "women's shows" during the day, while they are allegedly in the home. Luckily, if we're not too emotionally deadened from watching reruns of Family Guy or Sex and the City, we can see through the heaping pile of televised dung and grab the remote.When you shut the television off and take in the silence curiosity will prevail again and struggle for an end to patriarchal and capitalist oppression will become much clearer. 

The Academy Awards: A Critique

photo found here

It's that time of year again! Well, almost that time of year, where the celebrities in celebrity-land celebrate each other's fame and wealth by handing out golden statues while simultaneously promoting white-supremacist and misogynistic values. The Academy Awards has been and likely will continue to be a patriarchal, racist, sexist and overall ridiculous event.

Before you jump up and down and tell me about how not even a handful of non-white people have won any awards or how a female director won an award last year, so all must be forgiven, let me explain myself.

A woman was awarded the Best Director title last year, the same year that a black woman won for Best Supporting Actress and a black man won for his screenplay for the film "Precious"

Now, this is great, yes? They are "leveling" out the playing field, right?

No, they're not. They simply decided, as far as I have observed, that on one particular show they would ease everyone's criticisms by awarding two women, one of them a black woman and a black man with their well-deserved awards. This way, the Academy can feel better when they continue to over-award white Americans and literally ignore everyone else’s talent and accomplishments.

It is interesting, also, that the year Denzel Washington and Halle Berry won, the Academy decided to make a dedication to Sydney Poitier, the first African American to win an Oscar. Coincidence? But they did not do this on a show where only white performers won, which is almost every show. Of course, this year is no different. There is still the patronizing “Foreign Film” category that lumps all non-Hollywood films into one group that is meant to distinguish films from Western-made films. The category is given a complete lack of care. For example, when the leading awards come out, everyone is excited…but no one even blinks when foreign films are mentioned.

My point is that the gross lack of female and non-white representation in this Award show is astonishing.

Let’s look at the reality, shall we?

Every single year the Academy, who is apparently some divine and awe-invoking group of white, upperclass cinephiles that make it their life work to award other upper class white people with fancy awards that cost ridiculous sums of money. The academy is praised and respected amongst Hollywood elites while crowds of non-celebrities huddle around their television sets and ooh and awe at the hungry starlets in their designer dresses. The whole event illustrates to the world that it is indeed stratified, horribly so by class, race and sex. The women are told to lose as much weight possible to fit into their small, custom-made designer dresses while the men stand idolly by looking stoic in their full-body suits. Clearly, a lady must dress accordingly while she watches her male counterparts steal most of the nominations, particularly for directing and writing.

The whole event is as traditionally gendered and classed as you can possibly imagine. Yet, the public gravitates towards this yearly spectacle as if it is the coming of Christ. They weep when their favourite elite celebrities weep during their acceptance speech. They cheer when their chosen white male director wins, or their favourite white female actress takes home a hunk of gold phallus. Magazines rush to publish photos of female attendees. The so-called fashion critics rush to call them fat, make fun of their choice of dress or mock them for their choice of date or lack thereof. A woman is to be escorted to the event, as she is unable to get there by herself. She is also unable to come up with her own dress -if she does then she’s ridiculed for weeks in the media. We are told prior to the show, on the so-called “red-carpet”, who designed what dress and why it matters so much. Shameless marketing ploys are big money on the red-carpet.  

Why does it matter? Why does any of this matter?

Why are we so horribly consumed with celebrities and their obscene lifestyles? Why do we praise and cheer the white supremacist hollywood cliques that perpetuate gender myths, gender roles, beauty standards, racism, sexism and classism? Why do we gather around and cry with our beloved hollywood stars? It is so horribly pathetic.

The whole show is one big pat on the back. The stars tell other stars how amazing their performances were, all the while ignoring important cinema by seperating non-hollywood film into “foreign film”, because clearly, the films aren’t acceptable enough compete directly with the Hollywood films. This is problematic in itself, not to mention the lack of recognition the category holds. The celebrities don’t care and neither does the academy. One would rather clap for the Black Swan or True Grit then give two shits about a film made in Sudan or Japan for example.

The exclusion does not stop there.

In the 81 years that the Academy Awards has existed, according to filmsite.org, only  18 African-American nominations have been given for Best Actor between 12 different actors. The only African-American actors that have been nominated more than once are Poitier, Freeman, Washington and Smith.  Overall, there has been only 20 different African-American actors and actresses nimnated for a top award. Only 13 awards have actually been WON by African-American actors and actresses in both leading and supporting roles and a mere 5 African-American performers have won an Oscar in a leading category. Only 4 have won best actor.

For 81 years, this is bloody pathetic.

To add to this, we often see non-white filmmakers and non-white films being ignored completely by the Academy.

For example, according to the same site:

There have been only a few Best Actor Oscar wins by ethnic/other minority (or non-English) performers:

Italian actor Roberto Benigni won the Best Actor Oscar for Life is Beautiful (1998) - he was the first male actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language film (his Best Actor Oscar win was only the second time a nominee won an acting Oscar for a foreign language film role - the earlier winner was Sophia Loren)

Ben Kingsley, with half-Indian (birth name Krishna Bhanji) and half-English descent, won the Best Actor Oscar for Gandhi (1982) - he became the firstSouth Asian performer to achieve such a feat

Puerto Rican-born Jose Ferrer won the Best Actor Oscar for his role in Cyrano de Bergerac (1950)

Anyone else noticing a pattern? Why is this being ignored by these so-called well intentioned Oscar-addicts?

Another obvious occurrence with these awards is giving out nominations for roles that include rich white historical figures. Think “The Kings Speech”, a story about a Monarch and his speech impediment. It is rich with wealthy white actors who are, without surprise, up for a bunch of awards this year. I am not debating that the film is not worthy of awards, I am merely stating that there is a disctinct pattern.

Women are also horribly misrepresented at these Awards. Rarely do we see a woman of colour take an award or even a nomination, instead, youthful, traditionally beautiful white women take home all the goods. Not only are many women ignored at these awards, but all of the women are poked, prodded at and judged because of how they present themselves at these award shows. They are pushed to lose even more weight and maintain a level of “class” at the show while the men dress alike and chat with their fellow performers. The women are always the main attraction for gossip hungry celebrity programs and media outlets. It’s really a shame. Only one woman of colour has taken home a lead actress award and that was Halle Berry. The rest of the best actress awards are dolled out to white women. No surprise.

It appears the majority of Oscar lovers are unwilling to challenge the realities of this award show. They are unwilling to challenge the cultural product that is the Academy Awards. It is a cultural product – it is part of the mass media, yet it often goes uncritiqued and unexamined. We tend to view the celebrities as separate from ourselves. We give them god-like status in society and weep when they do. It is all rather unfortunate that we can’t see through this façade and realize the sheer bigotry and subjectivity that goes into the “decision making” of the Academy.

Finally, a question - Is this show even about film? Is it really about creativity, or is it about a bunch of rich people getting together, congratulating each other and making some money? It’s hard not to be cynical when the whole thing is so bloody laughable. If anything were to encompass issues of sexism, racism, classism, ageism and the like, this event has it all. 

So, grab your popcorn kids because Febuary 27^th is the Academy Awards and there’s a whole lot of bullshit waiting to be watched and a whole lot of misgonazis waiting to dissect the women at the award shows and make everyone who isn’t white nearly invisible. 

Keeping the Invisible...Invisible: Academic Texts Ignoring Asexual, Intersex and Two-Spirit People

I love opening up a sociology text to the gender and sexuality section and realizing that asexuals, two-spirited individuals and intersex individuals are left out. However, the book has numerous special pages and sections dedicated just to trans politics, "post structural" ideas of gender and gay men's liberation. I guess the term "lesbian" must be passé now, too...why are women so hated? 


Anyway, 


You know what I did? I dropped the class.


I don't take part in classes that ignore groups of people part of sexual minorities and promote white male academic agendas like Foucault and co. 


Fuck. 

Criticism of Post-Modern/Post-Structural Ideas of Power in Feminist Pedagogy (or Teaching)

picture found here

Since I am back in school for the winter and spring, I have a lot of readings given to me. Today I started to go through my 550 page e-book of feminist theories, or Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories 

One of the definitions I had to look up for my next Gender and Pop Culture class was “Feminist Pedagogy” and pathetically enough, I didn’t know what the definition was prior to reading it. For anyone else who has no idea what “pedagogy” means, it is essentially any type of teaching and in this case, feminist teaching. Think of a really cool, but sadly fictional, teacher who incorporates social justice, democracy and open discussion to the classroom while trying to dismantle traditional patriarchal educational structures. That is basically what feminist pedagogy means.

But, I digress.

In the text, there is mention of how these teachers traditionally believe in redistributing power. This means students not having an authoritarian teacher, but rather an authoritative teacher. 

The text stated, however, that this has recently changed due to post-modern/post-structuralist academia:

“Subsequent scholarship on feminist pedagogy has reclaimed the authority of the teacher, declaring that teachers weaken their capacity to contribute to students’ learning if they retreat too far from their institutional and other forms of authority. Indeed, many scholars and teachers now argue that power is to be embraced, not shunned. This position is associated with post-structural theories that offer a complex understanding of power as circulating rather than possessed, productive as well as repressive, and, ultimately inescapable. From this perspective, feminist educators attempt to acknowledge their power and use it knowingly. Teachers will sometimes be confrontational. Classrooms will sometimes be risky."

(Lorraine Code, Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories, pp. 381-82).          

 

There are several issues here that I would like to address. Firstly, my mind is trying to untangle this idea of teachers weakening their capacity to contribute to students’ learning if they take on a less authoritarian role in the classroom. On one hand, I cannot picture a classroom of ten year olds sitting quietly and respecting their teacher because they just feel like it. I remember being ten years old, and I remember not listening to my teacher all the time, not because I disliked them, but because I was ten! If we are speaking about university or college classrooms, which the entry mentions is the most common institution to see feminist pedagogy, then how can one excerise the same authoritarian rule? Then again, I have had my fair share of “tough” profs who have a 'no crap policy'. I respect no-crap policies, but I don’t respect treating students as the “others”, if you will. 

As for children, most of us can agree that our younger counterparts need clear rules and direction as well as discipline. Note that when I use the term discipline, I am using it in a way that seperates it from punishment. Punishment sounds more like an inescapable defeat that happens when power is horribly unequal. Discipline occurs, at least in my understanding, when a child is aware of the rules but decides to break them anyway leading to the children suffering the predicted and routine consequences, ie. “time out” chairs. This, in my opinion, is authoritative – it provides guidance and direction through establishing clear rules and being respectful. In contrast, authoritarianism focuses mainly on punishment instead of the changing of problematic behaviours. It also pits the teacher as the “all mighty”, a figure to fear rather than respect.

This means that on one hand, I agree with a differential in power as a way to keep a calm environment with younger children, but have it carried out in a way that is not causing the child to be fearful. The post-modernists, at least according to this text, seem to believe that they are “reclaiming” power. This whole post-modernist cliché of “reclaiming really awful activities and words in order to somehow get rid of them” is really gathering dust. We are all familiar with the post-modern rhetoric of reclaiming woman-hating language like “cunt” or “bitch” and trying to make it sound empowering to a select group of white, class-privileged women in the West. These words, in my opinion, existed as a way to harm women. Why would one try and “reclaim” such words? Why not set the bar a little higher, PoMos, and actually challenge something for once. It seems, as you can read above, that many post-modernist thinkers have pretty low standards of what social change means. Believing that power is “circulating” rather than “possessed” is just silly. Go tell that to a marginalized group of people, let’s go with, I don’t know…women; tell the women of the world that in order to fight male power, they must become more like men by creating unequal power imbalances with others. By this I mean, trying to encourage women to take some power of men by regurgitating harmful masculinity, or wait for it to circulate, then use it against others as a way to find empowerment. The example can be used for various groups of people, how about talking to Jews about this idea of power as "circulating". I mean, are these people serious? Or is this all just an attempt to sound uber-abstract and academic?

 Men and women, according to this theory, share power, as it somehow “circulates” through classrooms, bedrooms and society at large until it rests into each person’s hand eventually. If this is wrong, please let me know! This is merely my critique of post modern theory. All will fall together in some strange, trying-to-sound-super-abstract kind of way that post-modernists believe. Power is possessed. Trying to deny this fact will cause a great deal of people to think you’re an ass-hat.  What this denial does is tell people who have been tradtionally systematically oppressed for thousands of years that power “circulates”, it’s not in the hands of  one or a group of people but rather it belongs to everyone, somehow. I guess they just forgot about all the non-white, non-western academic groups of people living around the world.

Moving onto the next little tidbit from this piece that asserts that power is “productive as well as repressive, and, ultimately inescapable.” First of all, and forgive me for my lack of abstract, learned-it-from-some-white-dude rhetoric regarding the mysteries of life, but how can something good encompass any repression or oppression for that matter? Or is "good" an abstract reality, too?

I realize that being productive can be repressive in circumstances, but this is no excuse for reigning terror over students or anyone else for that matter. This again is the sheer laziness of academic, post-modernist thinkers. Why are we to settle for repressive circumstances, simply because we see them as ultimately inescapable? I don’t know about you all, but I’m not content with just “dealing” with the current situation and “working” around it. It’s a pathetic excuse for wanting to, rather than abolish harmful power struggles, re-embrace them as if they were stolen somehow. It is not empowering to use the power you have against others. That is not fair, nor does it ever bring justice to anyone and it certainly doesn’t belong in a political movement dedicated to social justice, fairness, respect and egalitarianism. Post-modernists seem to over-complicate issues for themselves as a way to avoid their reality – I know that is a sweeping statement, but I’m just telling it like I see it. 

"It Gets Better" But Until Then, Let's Accept Bullying, Sexism & Homophobia As a Normal Part of Adolescence

I have been curious as to why so many people are ready to accept or demand so little in our society. Why are we willing to just wait things out, or see how they turn out, regardless of who gets hurt along the way? This is more than common amongst moderate groups, liberal groups, some crazy capitalist embracing "left" groups like libertarians and various others who may slightly care about what happens in their world. 


This thought came to me through a few different channels. The first was after I attempted to find like-minded individuals in my city by checking out a local meet-up forum where people get together and plan activities, whether leisure or politics. About 90% of the groups that I found were for upper-class outdoor enthusiasts that likely spend disturbing amounts of money to get a ski pass. Of course, there were knitting circles, new-age meditation groups and a few eco-groups, but nothing that is actively being organized and interested in getting their hands dirty in politics. 
I found a few that stated they were interested in political and social change, however, I noticed they had not organized for at least a year. Frustrated with my lack of luck, I dropped one of the only political organizers a tweet, but he has not been online. Clearly, I should just look offline, but there's no where to look in this oil thirsty, incredibly conservative and Christian city that I call home (for now). 


It is apparent, despite the huge environmental damage that my province takes part in, no one cares that much about social justice. This is not the city you will find picketers, protesters or unions marching outside of any place of work or government. On occasion you'll find a group of anti-racist anarchist marches rioting against the local skinheads. Luckily, the skinheads dismantled, for now.


At any rate, this is not a city for anyone who cares about anything that isn't a black, sticky, smelly and expensive substance called oil. 


Once this bachelors degree of mine is complete, perhaps i'll plan my escape, but until then I'd love to meet some like-minded friends. Pathetically, too, my university is politically deactivated for some reason. Texting frantically in class, drinking until one's liver is charred and playing pool with some of the BMW-driving suburban dood-bros are the top priorities of the majority of the student body. Maybe it's the times or perhaps it is this false sense of hope that some character in celebrity-land will save us all from ourselves. This brings me to the second channel: a post about the "It Gets Better Campaign" put together bymy favorite privileged, academic misogynist, Dan Savage. The post was written by Laurie Penny and is about Savage's campaign and Katy Perry's Fireworks video that attempts to deliver the same message.


It got me thinking that this campaign and similar spawns of it ultimately examines this idea that life will get easier and things will get better as long as you finish high school and move out! From first glance, it seems like a great idea; let's give kids a boost to feel confident in themselves in the hope that someday they will be treated like human beings. In some respects, it is a good campaign in that it helps some young people feel better. However, it does not address all young people and it does not address the society that fuels homophobia, sexism and hatred. It merely focuses on those with the privilege to move out on their own when they finish high school, assuming they even were able to get a high school education at all. 


Laurie Penny puts it perfectly in her critique, 

Firework", which Meyers insists is a solemn attempt to "articulate... what it means to be an underdog", was rather hastily dedicated to the It Gets Better project, set up this autumn to console gay teenagers considering suicide with the knowledge that their lives will improve. It Gets Better is a worthy and necessary initiative in a world where LGBT youth invariably face savage bullying at school, at home and in their communities.

The problem with this approach is that it entirely evades responsibility to change the situation, accepting homophobic hostility as something young people just have to suffer through until they're old enough to move somewhere with a passable scene. The notion that personal resilience is the only possible response to injustice is burnt into the retinas after a single viewing of "Firework". There is something distinctly counter-revolutionary about the exploding tits hypothesis of personal transformation.

The serious message that "Firework" seems to be sending is that you can't actually fight the social structures that put obstacles such as homophobia, body fascism or street crime in your way. All you can do is find the strength to battle against the odds, possibly with the help of a go-getting attitude and a pair of fantastic jugs -- you're not supposed to question why the odds are stacked against you in the first place. "Show 'em what you're worth".

Laurie is exactly right in that we as a society should be challenging such social structures instead of passively allowing them to wreak havoc on our lives.


 The campaign, to the rest of the world, sounds a lot like this to me: "It Gets Better" but until then, let's accept bullying, sexism & homophobia as a normal part of adolescence! 


What can come of such an apathetic and dare I say, lazy approach? 


Nothing much! Well, maybe some kids will feel hopeful, given that they are presented with the privileged opportunity of leaving high school and going off on their own. Dan Savage is coming, along with Katy Perry, from a very white-privileged and class-privileged perspective that speaks for some kids. 


But, don't get me wrong, I have no qualms with such campaigns existing. I get what they are trying to do, but as a radical social justice activist, i feel inclined to critique these campaigns. They are a positive step in the right direction, but my problem is with the fact that the campaign does not include all youth. It does not call youth to action, but rather, tells them to wait it out and accept such an intolerant and hateful society in the meantime. 


Have we lost our spirit? Our willingness to defeat, or attempt to defeat such hatred that is deeply ingrained in our society? Dan Savage certainly wouldn't be the one to ask, so i'll leave you all with a quote from Laurie Penny's piece, her final point on Katy Perry's boob-shooting-fireworks video: 


"Clearly, come the revolution, the boobs-on-fire brigade will be the first against the wall."

Feministing Fail: Examining radical politics by pushing a white-imperialist-male supremacist agenda

It appears feministing.com has done it again, and by that I mean they have further perpetuated ideas that sex ‘work’ is okay and we should all just accept such an abusive and patriarchal type of ‘work.’

I will post the article and bold my response throughout.

The article states:

Today marks the 7th annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers.

(Yes, I support ending violence against sex workers, but I’m interested in abolishing such a horrific institution that has been raping, murdering and objectifying women as a class for centuries)

To mark this important day, we’re featuring this guest post on the impact of violent language of anti-sex work groups (but what about the pimps and johns that beat and harm women, why are we not looking into the men committing the violence?) by Calum Bennachie & Jan Marie. The article was excerpted from “Research for Sex Work 12”, a journal published this month. Both the journal and the website amplify the voices of sex worker-led organizations around the world that speak out about violence from police, institutions, clients, and intimate partners, while challenging the myth that sex work is inherently violence against women. You can download the full journal, with eight more articles about sex work and violence, for free here.

Written by Calum Bennachie & Jan Marie

When most people discuss violence against sex workers, they talk about the physical violence that they perceive sex workers are exposed to by clients, by authorities, and by others. However, violence takes many forms, and what is often omitted from discussions of violence against sex workers is the verbal violence of anti-sex work groups. The language they use reflects not merely a dislike of sex work, but a hatred of sex workers, especially those who act contrary to what Ronald Weitzer calls the ‘oppression paradigm’ these abolitionist groups have adopted. Their language has several severe consequences, one of which is that it actively encourages violence against sex workers (Yes, abolition of exploitation; I am part of the group of women and men who think there is a fundamental problem with the idea that women should be bought and sold like merchandise for the sexual consumption of men)

Abolitionists often use a language of war, and their hatred towards sex workers, which does not show remorse, can almost be tasted. For example, it could be argued that their descriptions of sex workers’ vaginas are more women-hating than those in any mainstream pornography (“Language of war” what the hell does that mean? Groups that work against exploitation, example being radical feminists and other social justice activists do not have hatred or contempt towards women working in this industry. We believe they are fully capable of making choices and reserve our anger towards the johns that sustain such industries) Statements such as these make a major contribution to both popular and theoretical academic representations of sex work. They receive much attention and wide acceptance, which impacts on the lives of sex workers in relation to stigma, stereotypes, media representation, funding and implementation of interventions, and the construction of government policy. If everything they say is true, then obviously the sex industry is bad and all people who try to close it down are good (The sex industry is bad because it is built on the belief that women are holes, sex toys to be used, raped, abused and beat. We stand against this industry because we do not believe that men have unlimited access to the bodies of women and children. I realize the writer is speaking of the small group of women who “chose” this lifestyle, putting the millions of others in a horrible position. How does this affect those women, or all women as a class?) Within this belief system, it makes sense that those who support the industry should be punished and sex workers should be rescued out or punished for staying in (We support the Swedish model which holds the johns accountable and does not use hate-speech or think of women in the sex industry as “bad” or “immoral”, we do not believe they should be forced to think the same way we do)

This Is What They Say

The sex industry:

• Is ‘an institution of male violence and racial and economic privilege’ that objectifies and keeps women in their place to fulfill male desires. (Yes, it is. Please provide evidence against this, this is an institution that is racist, genocidal, gynocidal, and fundamentally male-supremacist in nature, as a radical feminist and radical social justice activist, I oppose such systems, however I do not oppose the women working in this industry)
• Is a ‘symptom’ of all that is wrong with masculinities. (No, it’s a symptom of capitalism, the idea that women are commodities, masculinity is merely affirmed in such an institution)
• Forces and traffics sex workers, especially migrant sex workers. (Well, if you knew ANYTHING about the extent of poor women migrating, you would not be so insensitive. Do you have any idea how many women are forced to migrate to wealthy nations because of globalization and U.S imperialism? Do you have an idea how many women have NO choice? But wait, you’re speaking about a small group of women who may think it’s empowering, this does not and will not give you a right to speak for women who are forced to migrate from their families just to survive)

Commercial sex:

• Is ‘rape that’s paid for’. (Who said this? Why are you categorizing all anti-exploitation feminists into one group? Where are your sources? How is one statement that you have blanketed over an entire group a legitimate argument for your cause?)

Sex workers:

• Enjoy rape and domination and accept pain and humiliation to get rewards and avoid further abuse (Who ever EVER said this? You could be very well making this up, as someone who works with radical activists and speaks to activists on a regular basis, I have NEVER heard someone say this. Please do not put such a disgusting image on radical activists – this is not how we think, this is not what we are about)
• Are predators who contribute to rape, battery, and violence against women and children (WHAT? Again, where are you getting this information? Exploitation abolitionists are not blaming or attacking women working in the sex industry. This is offensive and absolutely untrue)
• Are misled about the concept of having choice because they are victims of the system of male domination and individual males within that. (Women are fully capable of making choices, but this does not mean that all women made the same choices. For you to speak so broadly about an entire group of women working in the sex industry is leaving out women as a class, women living in other parts of the world who are forced to accept male domination and experience violence because of that male domination)
• Have permanent emotional scarring and other ongoing consequences such as changed appearance (Not all do, but some do, most definitely. Have you talked to many women, not just living in the West, that have post traumatic stress disorder? Have you heard from women who have experienced horrible trauma and emotion anguish? Most of them report this as this disorder is a very real and serious consequence for MANY women. You seem to think this is all a big fun show for women who choose it, assuming they did. You have made some broad assumptions that do not speak for women as a class. You are leaving out millions of women by being so classist.)
• Have vaginas that are receptacles to be masturbated into and are filthy with semen and lubricant (Excuse me? Where did you hear this one? Oh, right. You don’t know because you likely just made it up or heard it from one person and made a blanket assumption about all radical activists)

Harmful Consequences

There are five main consequences of this discourse of hate. First, sex workers who are confronted with these opinions are likely to doubt their self-worth and their self-agency (Again, no one has ever suggested women are incapable of making decisions. You seem to miss the fact that many women do not have the opportunity to make such decisions, sabotaging an entire group of women), and may put themselves in the position of victim, thus making it more likely they will become victims of violence. When subjected to violence, they are less likely to make complaints about it (Why is there violence anyway? What is sustaining such an institution that gives men a free pass to harm women? What do you believe is the cause of such a system of oppression? Why not work against the pimps and rapists? Because you'd rather attack women! )

Secondly, the discourse encourages hatred of sex workers, clients and all who support sex workers in any way (Yes, hatred for johns because they assume they have a right to women’s bodies because they are in a position of social and political power. I have to repeat again and again, no radical group has expressed hatred for women working in this industry) All cultures have approved objects of hatred. Often this hatred takes aim at whole classes of people. Speech denigrating particular groups has been described as a ‘psychic tax on those least able to pay’. As an example, it has been shown that negative comments about the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) communities (Have you ever considered communities that include women in lower socio-economic situations, intersex or other non-gender conforming people? What about them? What about the women in Thailand who can’t support their family in any other way, what about those women?) contribute to increases in physical and verbal violence against homosexual and transgender people (What about the violence radical lesbian feminists experience, or the complete ostracizing of radical lesbian feminists from queer spaces, not to mention intersex, gender non-comforning or asexual individuals, do they just not matter? You have a very white, privileged agenda, a very non-radical agenda.) This can be extended to sex workers as well.

Thirdly, conflating sex work with trafficking and violence against women has affected the funding of sex worker groups. For example, PEPFAR (the US government AIDS fund) will not fund organisations that support sex workers or promote the decriminalisation of sex work. As a result, this has led to groups that supply sex workers with condoms, or support the rights of sex workers, not receiving funds, thus endangering the lives of sex workers and putting them at risk of HIV infection. This policy also reinforces stereotypes, stigma, and discrimination against sex workers. (No one on my end has ever suggested that condom use shouldn’t be supported or that sex workers should be discriminated against)

Fourthly, male, gay, transgender and gender-fluid sex workers are made invisible (Really? What about the women made invisible every day, by people like you? Oh, but wait, looking out for men is all about radical feminism and radical politics, because transgender or gay men are less oppressed than radical lesbians or any other non-hetersexual group) The violence against these groups is ignored, and rarely appears in any of the papers they produce. In fact, male sex workers rarely appear in any of their publications, perhaps, because they assume male sex workers to be gay men. For example, Sheila Jeffreys calls gay men the cause of women’s subjugation, (Have you read any of Sheila’s work or are you like every other non-radical group that read a sentence of Sheila’s work and decided it was “too radical” or “transphobic” because it questioned the privilege of gay white men?) while male-to-female transgendered sex workers are referred to as ‘self-mutilating men’. Perhaps they count even less as human? (How about radical lesbian feminists and the hatred towards them as women and as feminist activists? But who gives a shit if they don’t fit into your white, academically privileged, class privileged queer spaces? )

Finally, and cumulatively, the discourse actively encourages violence against sex workers. The way something is defined can make a huge difference in how it is perceived and how it is interacted with. When one understands a group of people as ‘other’, different, dirty, filthy, stupid or malevolently manipulative, then one can support or condone the violence that occurs. Whether this is forced rescue, forced health checks, taking children away from their parents, or rape and murder.

Paying the Psychic Tax

Although anti-sex work authors claim to condemn violence against sex workers, through their choice of words and phrases they actively promote and encourage acts, which, in some cases, may lead to the abuse and death of sex workers. On the one hand they say they support and care for women, on the other they depict these women in such a way that violence can be justified. Taken together, the consequences of this verbal violence by abolitionist groups makes a major contribution to the abuse of sex workers globally, who are paying the ‘psychic tax’. These people are no different from the client who does not want to pay, the corrupt police officer who rapes, or the members of the public who throw bottles and rotten eggs at street workers. In fact they are worse, because they justify their violence as an act of caring.

We must challenge them, their language, and their publications at every opportunity, reveal their language of hate for what it is, and counter them with evidence-based facts that prove their claims to be false.

Since the rest is just more libertarian, white-supremacist, classist drivel that examines one set of prostituted women and ignores the millions of women and girls trafficked on a daily basis. This is disgusting, racist and pro-imperialist hate coming from people who want to sabotage radical politics in order to push a Westernized and incredibly harmful agenda that supports the rape, murder and co-modification of women. Feministing.com, shame on you.

She's a Radical Feminist: That's what you get, Julian Assange, All Radical Feminists deserve it, anyway... (According to Media Assholes)

I typed in "Radical feminist" today in Google News and I got a disgusting array of bullshit slung my way regarding the women accusing Julian Assange from Wikileaks of rape.

Here are some of the headlines

from AOL news: "she's either a CIA "honeytrap," a freaky radical feminist lying about ... of the notorious 4chan hacker community to hit her blog and Twitter site. ..."

Oh my GOD! freaky radical feminist. Of course she's a liar! She's a dirty, radical liar. No real woman is involved in radical politics, thus all of her accusations are FALSE.

Here's a gem called "That's what you get for fucking a feminist"

"One of the women involved in the claims is a radical feminist in Sweden who is ... also been known to write a blog called 'seven steps to legal revenge'. ..."

Insert doobro laughter!

What the hell is this? So, if you have sex with a feminist, a radical one, allegedly, than you should expect a rape charge. I mean, what else do these women do if not make up rape charges to get media attention? Clearly, radical feminists are unable to get raped or assaulted or harmed in anyway. Also, who cares? We don't like radical feminists, so they deserve whatever they get.

Here's my favourite

"Julian Assange's Accuser Supposedly Tied to the CIA"


Remember all the MRA bullshit about Steinem and the CIA? It's all a fucking conspiracy people! None of this is real, it's all the radical feminist and her dirty plots with the CIA against Mr Assange. She clearly can't be truthful or trusted, she's a dirty militant. At least that is what Glenn Beck said

"She is well-known in radical circles, and in college, was protege of the militant feminist academic holding the post on-campus of campus sexual equity ..."

DEAR LORD! She's radical circles. These radical circles plot militantly around charging men with rape so that they can...become...more left-wing...uh...and err...militant...SHE'S A LIAR!

I doubt he knows what the hell he's talking about either.

Feel free to message these rape-apologist assholes.

Fashion = Mass Consumption and Mass Consumption = Exploitation. Fashion =/= individuality. What is “individuality?”

photo found here

I have been pondering this idea of individuality or individualism under the capitalist system. The idea came to me after watching a news broadcast of shoppers fighting over television sets on Black Friday in the U.S.

What is individuality? Is it the way one dresses? Is it how we perceive our choices of outer decor to be ‘outlandish” or “rebellious?” According to every person living in the West born after 1970, including myself, this is the case for individuality or individual expression. We all know where this obsession with ourselves leads – oh, right…to everyone else in the world being exploited and hungry.

Most ideas of ‘style’, with an exception to a few subcultures that are counter-hegemonic, such as the punk subculture in the late 1970s and early 1980s, are based around capitalist principles. Think every single trend to come out of the fashion industry. Think every celebrity ‘trend’ that has come and gone.

We purchase decorations, ones that not only protect us from the elements, the original purpose of clothing, to adorn ourselves in ways we see as “unique.” We want to separate ourselves from our community. I’m not sure why, but we do. Most of the time, the uniqueness is only experienced in small groups of people, ex. the hallways in a high school.

Since the majority of our clothes, shoe-wear and other fashionable commodities are all mass produced, we need to really question our idea of ‘individualism.’ These clothes are being worn and no one is really making any “individual” statements about who they are as human beings, yet they believe they are doing so. We believe that the way we dress somehow affects who we are as human beings. To get rid of this preconceived notion is incredibly difficult; I’m having a tough time unlearning these habitual judgments.

But I digress, the promotion of consumption leads to more consumption – the fact that every single person believes that they dress or decorate themselves in a way that is “unique” is astonishing. I look back on my so-called ‘rebellious’ high school years, by ‘rebellious’ I mean of course, dressing in ways my parents did not approve of

Oh, how counter-hegemonic I was!

Not.

I still found myself, even through the early years of college, struggling with my identity and building my self-worth and self-image around material wealth. The reason this has come to my mind is because, as of late, I have decided to reject consumerism as much as I possibly can. Not simply because I’m sick of it, but because I’m sick of being in denial about the people and planet I have been hurting while taking part in the majority of it. This isn’t to say that I’m not buying ANY commodities, or shopping at any retail stores, this is almost impossible under capitalism. I am merely stating that I am taking a step back and re-examining where I buy things, how these things are made and what they mean. I am tired of basing my self-worth on such shallow notions of happiness and beauty. I am tired of being assessed by my clothing and appearance, rather than my personality and ideas.

Materials, essentially, mean nothing.

This is my latest revelation. Clothing, jewellery, hats, gadgets, cars and shoes do not define me as an individual. I can go to class wearing gold necklaces in an attempt to appear a certain way, but I won’t be any less of who I was before I put that necklace on. If I dye my hair pink, I’m not revolting against the government; the hair dye product was made by a company that does not care about human health or corporate integrity – oxymoron, I know. All I am affirming is my love and dedication to maintaining an unequal and unfair system.

So, where does this leave me? Well, slightly scared but still hopeful. Scared because I am trying to leave something that has been so prominent in defining who I am – fashion and consumption do not define me. Why must I attempt to tell the world who I am through a piece of material made in a sweatshop by a child or a woman who hasn’t slept in days? That illustrates a lot about me and my lack of regard for other human beings in order to build up my fantasy of individuality.

Why do we base this conception of “individualism” on the way we shop, or rather consume, materials? Since when did “being an individual” mean “being a greedy, self-absorbed consumer who is oblivious to any implications?”

I’m personally sick of being that kind of person. I have decided to free myself from the bondage of self-obsessed ‘fashion’ trends and literally wearing the sweat of women and children. This sweat does not make me “individual” or “unique” or even “rebellious” It makes me conform to everything the money hungry fat cats want. It makes me a tool of exploitation, a smiling, foolish tool. Why do we base our apparent individual identities on such inhumane collections of materials? No one needs 6 pairs of shoes or 3 cars. No one needs to smear makeup all over their face, every single day of the year, so they can appear “unique” or “beautiful.”

We are all unique. It says so in our very complex DNA. It says so in our ideas about the world and the way we treat other human beings.

So, you wear your fur coats to show how fashion-forward you are. But who perceives you this way? Who creates these myths of “beauty” and “fashion?” Oh, right…the white supremacist men that run the fashion industry. Of course, they have your best interests in mind. Indeed, the industry based on the dehumanisation and commodification of nearly everything really cares about their customers. They are fooling the public into believing anyone gives a hoot about some upper class, greedy clothing company’s standards of what’s hottt. After all, improving your outer appearance will ultimately make you more fulfilled, correct? It will somehow fill all the voids in your life. It will make you happy. This accumulation of materials will really show people how unique you must be. In the meantime, while you sift through fashion magazines that encourage women to starve and kill themselves and while you spend hours walking in a shopping mall to buy fur coats, take a chance to thank the animal that was slaughtered to suit your egotistical idea of “individuality.” Last time I checked expressing your individuality did not need money, nor did it need the accumulation of material wealth.

I refuse to allow myself to succumb to self-centered behaviour to improve my idea of who I am, or who I should become. None of these things matter. If you lost everything in a fire – what would you have? Just you and the people you love (one can hope) and in the West, that’s simply not enough anymore.

Why you should toss your copy of "Howl"

Image from NAMBLA's website, Ginsberg has his own special section.

Allen Ginsberg, his poetry is loved by every 18-25 year old in the world, but why? Because “it spoke for a generation, man” Get with the fucking program.

It’s like the whole thing with Kerouac’s On the Road, reading it was supposed to make me perceive life differently or something equally ridiculous. All the book it did was bore me to tears with its redundant pretentious dude-centric ramblings.

Of course, in high school, or in the early days of college to even suggest the book is not the greatest piece of literature on earth will get you looks of disgust. Same goes for Ginsberg, and his most loved work “Howl”

I don’t buy it.

I really don’t and I wouldn’t buy it.

At first the dislike I had was of his work, just was not my thing. I thought it was pretentious, dull and self-satisfying. The works of Ginsberg is basically reading the work of a hedonistic, privileged libertarian dude with no real grasp on any radical political position. My issue with Ginsberg is beyond his writing, I have a big beef with him as he supports an ‘organization’ that promotes raping children.

Well, you all know NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association ? You have most likely heard of it if you have watched South Park before.

I thought it was fake at first…I couldn’t believe it could exist. I was even more shocked when I found out that Ginsberg thought they were a decent group of people.

NAMBLA tries to be a recognized and legitimate organization. Now, this piece (which used to be a video I made on my old Youtube account) isn’t just about Ginsberg, it looks children, porn and sex - Exploitation.

Ginsberg made a point of speaking out for NAMBLA. Let me just quote a bit from his speech,

“Time magazine, following the FBI disinformation campaign, attacked NAMBLA as a group involved in the "systematic exploitation of the weak and immature by the powerful and disturbed." That struck me as a fitting description of Time magazine itself. NAMBLA's a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club. I joined NAMBLA in defence of free speech.”

First of all, NAMBLA does not care about children – why? Because children shouldn’t be raped by pedophiles, pedophiles should not pretend that 8 year old boys consent to being raped. That’s not free speech. That’s pedophilia, exploitation and abuse. Any decent person that cares about children’s rights over some dude’s apparent ‘right to free speech’ would be able to understand the difference.

This is so obvious for dudes like Ginsberg, free speech is paramount in their apparent oppression. Free speech, again, for who?

Ginsberg says, Youthful sexuality.

Seriously? Someone is actually assuming that children are somehow the same sexually as adults are, that they actually have the capacity to understand sex (especially sex with an old man) and fully consent to it like an adult?

I don’t think so.

Children are protected under the law for a reason. They are protected because they do not have the same capacity to consent. They are not able to make the same choices as an adults, especially those regarding intercourse with a forty-something year old man. To assume that someone actually has the right to take the still developing, prepubescent child and declare them ‘sexually prepared’ is ludicrous. To make speeches that encourage exploiting children is just sheer bullshit. If these dudes have read anything on childhood development they would know a thing or two about how the child’s brain develops and how their decision making abilities develop, too. They did not just throw the age of consent out there to oppress little kids from having sex with old men. This, like pornography, has nothing to do with free speech.

Ginsberg of course, thought anything that involved men having sex was a right of men, a freedom of speech. He was clearly for freedom, was he not? I guess we should become antagonistic towards efforts to protecting children, in order to protect pedophiles, who are obviously oppressed.

To even suggest that child-abusers are some oppressed group puts you on my shit list for life. As most liberals and libertarians do, Ginsberg goes on spouting off about ancient sculptures of naked children, as a way to justify NAMBLA’s existence. Dudes often turn to history to try and defend their views, pornographers and pimps tell us that Neanderthals drew naked women, so porn is legit. This idea that if something existed a long time ago, it is totally okay and society should embrace it.

This is what Ginsberg said,

“Most people like myself do not make carnal love to hairless boys and girls. Yet such erotic inclinations or fantasies are average”

Pedophiles are the ones who fantasise about having intercourse with children. You support a group and advocate for them to try and have some sort of legal ability to sexually abuse children. You believe you have some innate right to children’s bodies because of erotic inclinations. Sorry, Allen, this shit does not fly.

He continues in his speech,

“It is NAMBLA's mission to raise the subject, explore it, and provide a platform of debate.”

So he claims he doesn’t support raping children yet he supports a group that wants to rape children legally? Right. He goes on to say that police tie child pornography with violence (ya think?) and says that police will go snooping in people’s homes and “invading their privacy” because you know, the child who is being exploited on video for the sick pleasure of pedophiles isn’t having his or her privacy invaded.

This really speaks about the mentality of many liberal white dudes; this idea that the individuals’ satisfaction is a primary concern, whoever gets exploited on the way isn’t even a thought.

Ginsberg continues, “Often police intrusion into consensual intergenerational affections and affairs results in abuse of both parties.” Intergenerational? You mean underage children without capacity to make decisions about sexual relationships with older men? Nice attempt at science’ing up “pedophilia” with “intergenerational affections”

Also, the police intrude? I think the pedophiles intrude. Pedophiles and rapists intrude the space of others to satisfy their own selfish desires. How dare he even suggest that this type of relationship is not in anyway morbid? How can you even suggest that a child has the ability to fully consent to dominating older males?

It doesn’t end there, In Andrea Dworkin’s book Heartbreak, keep in mind this is important as Ginsberg and Dworkin used to be friends. Here is Andrea’s take,

"I take this from what Allen said directly to me, not from some inference I made. He was exceptionally aggressive about his right to fuck children and his constant pursuit of underage boys” (Dworkin 45). This is due to not only his proclamation at their godchild’s bar mitzvah that the friends of his godson “were old enough to fuck. They were twelve and thirteen. Ginsberg said that all sex was good, including forced sex,” his writings include passages such as: “Prepubescent boys and girls don’t have to be protected from big hairy you and me, they’ll get used to our lovemaking in 2 days provided the controlling adults will stop making those hysterical NOISES that make everything sexy sound like rape” (46, Ginsberg 108)".

that’s right from ginsberg himself, not some insane feminist scheme that I am pulling out of my ass, okay?

Her piece on Ginsberg was honest and real. This is what Ginsberg was about, his ‘freedom’ to fuck whoever he wanted, consensual or not. His idea of “taking down the establishment” is about is unique as Reagan’s approach to politics. So when some snooty literary dude raves about how brilliant and transgressive Ginsberg is, remind him of this post.