Misogyny-apology by any other identity would smell banned.

The LJ user in question is worried that I might fuckin' be spreading fucking lies about said user, even though no one reads my journalishness and I never really write in it, realllllllly. So, for the record, captainvanille did not peruse my profile and copy-paste it  as her own to co-opt my churlish eccentric identity. Apparently, the way LJ works is if you add someone as a person of interest, you can check off shared interests from their list, thus she would have presumably not had the context of the profile and gleaned its original intent by displaying it the way in which I chose to present said profile. The end. Now we can all bump donuts and make up. Except that would be gay. And rad-fems hate transsexuals and homos and baked goods, don't forget, so really, forget I said anything, ever, or even have a journal, or was ever born.

Some LJ weirdo named captainvanille
just copied my entire original profile word-for-word, then listed me as a friend. What the fuck? Something about something being the sincerest form of flattery, blah blah blah, FUCKING THIEF.

While I'm flattered that someone has noticed the awesomeness that is Ah-Oh-Ka, can you please copy and paste someone else's entire original profile as your own? Thanks.

I am back from my vacation away from reading feminist blogs, as I tend to do after reaching some kind of misogyny breaking point.

The stark contrast between today's material on womensspace (please read that one first) and a post today at Pandagon leaves me so bereft of hope that I am not sure I will reenter a readership phase. I don't know how other people do it.

My comment is in moderation at womensspace, but just in case it doesn't get posted, my reaction to Heart's post is here:

Most people are horrified that porn breeds copycat boys like this. I am even more horrified that they get away with it most probably because judges and juries watch porn, too.

Hating women is part of EVERYONE’S desensitization process. After I inadvertently stopped watching TV (and that wasn’t even porn!) and got resensitized to reality (to which I owe my feminist awakening), I was unable to watch shows I enjoyed before, even shows like Law and Order: SVU.

I checked CNN.com last night to have their highly popular video of a 13-year-old girl being video-raped by a man at the store sticking his cell phone up her skirt. Who is sicker, the video rapist, CNN employees who rebroadcast her video rape, or that there is an audience who wants to see/get off on seeing that happen to her? It was one of the most popular videos. If it was really about getting the guy caught, they could have easily cut half the video frame out to only show stills of the man, and not what he was doing, or the girl it was happening to.

Porn only makes a fraction of men rapists, but it makes all citizens incompetent jurors and judges. They are merely molded consumers of sadism who find life imitating art to still be enough like their favorite consumable art. And this sentencing is the result. Is there a way to protest their inadequate sentences as a human rights violation?

Also, I love how today wommensspace has this article up, while Pandagon has this:

http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/11/07/dapper-don-wildmon-to-pentagon-protect-soldiers-from-porn/

Sometimes I wonder why they’re on your blogroll, Heart. The striking contrast between the articles you both chose to post today is not a frivolous difference among feminists–it’s very telling. Read the comments and you’ll see that they hate women and should not be called feminists. I mean, I’m pretty sure Bill Maher is against rape like they are, but we wouldn’t call him a feminist, now would we?

Or am I missing something? Is it the whole, feminists-are-so-marginalized-by-the-mainstream-we-can’t-afford-to-accuse-people-of-not-being-real-feminists?

It looks like men calling women "stupid fucking cunts" while everyone rushes to his defense--including his brainless girlfriend-- is still par for the course these days.

His partner in comedy crime and former writer/producer of The Sarah Silverman Program, Dan Harmon, apparently defended Justin's use of the word "cunt" as well. Makes me pretty wary of these so-called anti-bigotry shows. Seems to me like they've been using All in the Family as a free pass for their real sentiments rather than satirizing people who hold these sentiments.

I still don't know where we are with the radfem/sex-positive war, but the latest Pandagon article seemed strangely sympathetic to my viewpoint, though I don't know if that's the typical pro-pornie's stance.

It's scary to grow up in this generation where men think porn and sex are the same thing. I've had casual sex I loved and casual sex that made me wish I could afford therapy, because even though every act done was the same in both cases, it was different with the guy who was pornified (which I knew immediately, even before his porn habit was later verified). It made the acts something else: something that was being done to me to make me inferior and violated and humiliated and hated and worthless. What he was getting out of it was not what I was getting out of it. But it was bizarre, because if viewed by a third party, it would have looked identical to the good sex. Any sexual act is neutral in theory, but porn has created a cover for men to act out the misogyny it imbues under acceptable pretenses of sexuality. That way when women complain, they are unfairly accused of prudery. Or the guys explain that men and women are just DIFFERENT, you see, so when women's libidos' recoil from the non-sex men insist is Real Sex, the reactions serve to justify his mainstream sexist notions of female sexuality. Cycle continues.

The only thing that has ever gotten in the way of my high libido and enjoyment of sex is men who had a relationship with porn. The healthiest porn we can imagine wouldn't be porn anymore, but erotica. Even then, though it would cease to be an industry predicated on exploiting abused women and depicting abuse of women, it would be an industry best described as the outsourcing of imagination. And outsourcing my imagination to the average pornographer (erotica-peddler, in this scenario) makes about as much sense as paying Kid Rock to be my fashion consultant.

I love 30 Rock, but I'm not excited about Tina Fey being some emblem of women, women's power, or a woman's perspective, because she seems to be more reliably misogynistic than male celebs in the spotlight! I'd love to simply chalk it up to her personal insecurity in such a volatile business (IBTP), but surely she must have some sense that some of what she does is sick and wrong. Then again, she is a sex-positive feminist, so we know how that goes.

For example, she went on Howard Stern (really) and got very into trashing Paris Hilton in misogynistic ways--for her sexuality and her looks. She said, "She looks like a tranny in person!" (Really.)

I did not get the universal popularity of the movie Mean Girls, either. It claimed to be feminist in some way, like in the scene where she tells the fighting girls to stop calling each other sluts because it legitimizes men doing so (and this perspective jibes with her misogynistic Hilton-bashings how?!). However, the whole vapid-asses-who-are-cool-making-up-the-most-powerful-clique dynamic is not a female-centric phenomenon, so she actually reinforces a sexist stereotype of all girls being catty bitches rather deconstructing it as a gender neutral event that is unfortunately perceived as otherwise due to confirmational bias. She seemed to get off on gendering Mean High School Bullies in this misogynistic way though. She has said, "That's what the girls in my high school were like." Well, no shit? What does that have to do with them being girls, specifically? Nothing, but she makes it out that way.

She makes fun of conservatives a lot on 30 Rock, but it's almost always conservative women, and it's at the expense of their looks. Condi Rice jokes were about her teeth, Ann Coulter jokes about her age. She didn't do this with any men on the show (silly jokes at the expense of a male NBC news anchor were about him being a party animal)--not even conservative men in the public eye.

In interviews she talks about inherent differences between men and women, like how men are biologically "more visual than women are." I adore her show, but she's a misogynist and I wish she'd stop presenting herself as a feminist. Unless she specifies that she's in the sex-positive camp all the time, of course, which would be the closest thing radfems can get today to making their case in the public spotlight: by letting misogynist women show pro-pornies for what they are.

Ginmar fantasizes about these sex-positive "feminists" dying under a bus, choking on their own blood. Ha, me too! Some of these sex-pozzers are the poorest excuses for women's advocates I've ever seen. They certainly don't represent me and my wishes for myself or my mother or my children in a future world. Wolves in sheep's clothing, they are, because who cares if you have a vagina if you're a misogynist?

They hate women who have a greater capacity for incisive, abstract analysis because they so want the patriarchal cookie. They can't fathom a woman who doesn't kowtow to patriarchal pressures like they feel they must, especially with all the additional harassment from identifying as feminist, so it makes them feel intimidated that free women with a deeper critical perspective from a broader historical context can exist. Thus radfems must be strawradfems for them to be able to exist at all in Misogynist Feminist Lady Land (sex-pozzers' distorted hypocrisy and hate-mongering). Instead of buckling under feelings of personal inadequacy that result from reflecting upon their own conditioning, they reflexively, ego-defensively resort to unbelievable sexism themselves. I don't care how many times they post about reproductive rights, they don't get to say, "as long as I'm not A, B, or C, I'm not sexist." Many of their fundamental beliefs sell women out, but radfems are the ones at fault for holding that wretched mirror up to them--the one that makes them develop the itching, burning feeling of cognitive dissonance?

My computer wasn't working, and I'm sorry I missed this whole Ginmar/radfem-bashing ordeal. I came into feminism too late in life, and I found out unhappily that most feminists were not the answer I was looking for. It was worse than demoralizing, but hooray for ginmar for standing up to the crushing tide of woman-hatred from all possible fronts! More of us need to be vocal, on the net or otherwise, without the fear of having both women and men jump on our backs and down our throats and up our asses for likely being the only one in the room who disagrees merely because we have thought about it the most.

I was born in the 80s, so maybe I was spoiled growing up feeling an inherent sense of self-worth by riding the coat tails of great women who came before me--not the least of whom were our own mothers, who needed lots of courage to bring girls into the world after being treated as garbage in their own lives.

If we should be so gracious for the hard work of women before us, why is "feminism" such a taboo word among girls?

The F-word, on the odd occasion it would actually crop up, made me cringe as this embarrassing relic that lame older folks would try to use as an attempt to connect themselves to me, to try to share some sort of low self-esteem kinship with them.  Sense of self issues were salient, because the older I got, the more my personality evolved into that which I was more acutely aware of as something I should value. I knew I was just plain awesome and novel and creative and strove to be intellectually subversive in my obsessive pursuit of Truth, and I was always praised for being visible as uniquely talented at all those things; I was not an awesome girl, not good at philosophy and physics and relishing my lifelong competitive streak because I'm a girl who likes philosophy, a girl who questions academia and comes up with new ideas rather than parroting information back to people, not a girl who could cut through the BS and get to the heart of a logical fallacies purported by academic contentions, a girl who found physics easy, intuitive, and fascinating, a girl who likes to win and often does because she bothers to put herself out there and try. My self-aggrandizement was diminished by older, uninteresting women who tried to belittle my presence by making it about me being a girl a girl a girl when I was not accustomed to being reduced to my genitalia instead of my awesomeness; ironically, it's because younger women had the luxury of only first being reduced to their gender by a random older feminist woman that the F-word becomes a turn-off rather than merely uninteresting. "I know I'm amazing, so don't you keep calling me out as this supposedly inferior being just because you suck at everything!" I felt like these mythical feminist creatures, who reared their heads very infrequently, only spoke when they wanted to drag others down in the mud with them. It's an uncomfortable feeling, which leads to the archaic "feminist" label being introduced as an interpersonal generational assault, which is annoying at best, or plants a seed of resentment at worst.

Luckily (or perhaps unluckily), going to college and being in the working world for a year knocked that interpretation right out of me. How long will it take for the others to come around?