Oh, Feministing, I just can’t with this:
http://feministing.com/2013/01/09/the-personal-is-political-reflections-on-my-feminism-at-25/
We’ve all been 25-year-old revolutionary badasses on our personal journey of self-discovery. So exciting! I too was a rapscallion, renegade erotic vagrant, and I’m thankful the Internet was too rickety back then to record my “Self-definition is a feminist priority!” rants for time and eternity.
Listen. Self-definition isn’t a feminist priority, it’s a personal priority. The well-being and fate of women, as a class, all over the world, is a feminist priority. Feminism is not a fun, personal tool. It is not a vibrator, it is a political movement. And any woman who can dismiss the entire second wave for its “sheer irrelevancy…to any of my life,” has skipped the required fucking reading.
Is legal contraception and abortion irrelevant to any woman’s life? Domestic violence and sexual harassment laws; are these quaint artifacts from a bygone era? How about protection from workplace discrimination and the death of job ads reading “Help Wanted: Male”?
None of the above has anything to do with second wave feminism? None of it involves the “autonomy and liberation” you’re so into? No hat tip to the foremothers? No “Hey, thanks for your hard work” before you shimmy away with jazz hands? Just arrogant, ignorant smuggery, with a reassurance that you “can’t police other feminists”? Because everything is everything and we all choose our choices?
The last paragraph reads: “As I prepare to explore 25 more years of feminism I hope that I can continue to humble myself to the experiences of others.”
Continue to? She hasn’t started. At this rate, the light leaving from “started” will not reach her for another hundred million years. No, no, no. FAIL. Sit down.
Posted by bugbrennan on January 10, 2013 at 11:44 am
She hasn’t started, and she has no desire to start, because she has already decided that a whole movement (you know, WOMEN’S LIBERATION) is irrelevant to her bad bitch reclamation movement. What en entitled asshole.
Posted by FCM on January 10, 2013 at 5:07 pm
jessica valenti had a realization once she had a complicated pregnancy that nearly killed her — pregnancy can kill you. for some unknown reason, her *personal experience* led her to research this phenomenon whereupon she discovered some information and eventually concluded that we all need to support [blah blah charity that supports supporting somewhat mitigating the harm of that] urgently!!!! and she passed the torch to younger feminists at that point (she left feministing, coincidentally at the exact moment she unearthed and digested “data” which surely indicated that what radfems were saying this whole time was right).
“young feminist” is almost a contradiction in terms, especially when you have relatively uncomplicated access to reproductive medical services, (i mean harm reduction) but at some point they will come upon something that cannot be reconciled with their worldview that radfems are wrong (and this seems to be the majority or totality of their worldview doesnt it?). and that is the point at which they will pass the torch (as valenti did — and those were her words) to younger feminists, who havent learned yet either. the only reasonable conclusion of course is that these are not feminists at all. i read them to keep abreast of “what fresh hell is this” and they always deliver.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 10, 2013 at 5:15 pm
The cycle continues apace: “Young feminist” talks merrily out of her butt; something “personal” happens to show her that feminism is more serious/consequential than “badass bitchery”; YF gets whalloped with cognitive dissonance and passes the torch rather than take a hit to her pride and start working from the whalloped place.
Posted by FCM on January 10, 2013 at 5:44 pm
yes.
also, watching other women being fed into the patriarchal meatgrinder has to be one of the greatest sources of pain and demoralization for women around the world — but if we say we feel badly for them, or acknowledge it at all, even amongst ourselves in our own spaces its taken as slut shaming and vicitim blaming…
and did you read valentis account of what she went through in the hospital? she showed signs of liver failure and terminal preeclampsia — she was going to die, in other words — and she and her husband just laughed about it and minimized it bc “she didnt feel sick.” ok i get why *she* might laugh and minimize, seeing as how she was about do die and all, like act however you want, but what was HER HUSBANDS excuse for laughing and minimizing? i was nearly overcome with contempt for this dood when i read that. these are the doods the fun fems are having to put up with day in and day out: the queens own husband and number one nigel was unable to show concern when the woman he allegedly loved got a terminal diagnosis. sidestepping the entire issue that she was placed in that position by him, and his penis, and the pregnancy was likely unplanned. name the agent JUST ONCE, please! and stop telling us we are slut shaming you to point out that your nigels are turds. jesus.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 10, 2013 at 5:47 pm
I did read it, and it was appalling for all those reasons. I also think it’s very interesting that Valenti hasn’t written anything at all re: how her baby daughter is doing.
Posted by FCM on January 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm
i saw something (maybe on valentis twitter?) where she reported that her daughter called her apparently comically-frequent glasses of wine “mommy’s juice.” hello. i was glad to see that the child is apparently verbal, since with the very premature birth, her developmental ability was unknown at the time valenti wrote any of that on her blog.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 10, 2013 at 6:04 pm
That’s good; I’m so glad she’s OK.
Posted by smash on January 10, 2013 at 9:00 pm
OP over at feministing says: “Only a handful of other people might understand why feminism, for me, means the freeing of black minds, the rights of twerkers, and the redefining of the term bad bitch. And that’s okay. But I can’t police other feminists who don’t share those goals or have knowledge about my experiences, because they’re mine.”
I looked up “twerkers”, and apparently it refers to women who get drunk and hook up while other people are in the room.
Gah. This is not feminism!
I want to say the issue is b/c she is 25, but we have some super smart radical sisters who are teenagers, or slightly older.
I grieve for women who are taught that this is what feminism is. It makes complete sense though– create a feminism that threatens nothing, and pretend women’s rights are thereby sorted.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 10, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Twerkers. It sounds like a newfangled way to do crystal meth.
Posted by smash on January 10, 2013 at 11:23 pm
Phona, I quoted your piece at Feministing and the commented back. I am really sorry they don’t get it. I hope you don’t mind that I spread the word. http://feministing.com/2013/01/10/daily-feminist-cheat-sheet-2/
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 12:06 am
It’s ok, smash.
I wouldn’t have posted it there, but I know you meant well and I appreciate that you liked my post enough to share it.
Posted by bugbrennan on January 11, 2013 at 1:29 am
Phona, thanks again for saying this. I cannot imagine living in a world where everything is about one’s personal perception of things, and one’s activism is about molding the world to fit one’s personal desire. It sounds dreadful and lonely, and disconnects women from one another. You could not have built a more perfect doomsday machine than postmodernism to ensure that women don’t see each other as women, as members of an oppressed class. It’s a damn shame.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 1:34 am
You’ve much more elegantly said what I was trying to say. Thank you.
Posted by bugbrennan on January 11, 2013 at 1:42 am
Speaking of elegance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjqG9n3uEwI
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 1:45 am
very jaunty! (Mah FRANS)
Posted by bugbrennan on January 11, 2013 at 1:49 am
Also, those Feministing women misapprehend what “the personal is political” means. “The personal is political” means that Women were told (by Men) that certain topics (rape, abortion, reproductive health, “domestic” violence, shall I go on?) were personal problems and thus not worthy subjects of discussion, let alone political organizing. But when we started talking to each other (hello consciousness raising), we realized we all had the same problems, because we are all members of the same oppressed class – WOMEN; hence, political.
“The personal is political” does not mean “whatever is personally special to me is political.”
Oh and by the way, the Feministing author specifically says “I’ve abandoned most of what I learned about second wave feminism for the sheer irrelevancy of it to any of my life.”
Um….right, this is why we don’t believe you.
Posted by smash on January 11, 2013 at 1:53 am
Phona thanks for understanding that I meant well. I thought your words were a perfect response to the article and I shared it hoping others would appreciate it.
It isn’t a one-off thing; I do try to comment over there when I can.
I should have thought about the fact that many aren’t ready to hear such truths. Please continue to speak them.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 1:54 am
Yes. Exactly. This misapprehension of “the personal is political”– born of personal privilege and systemic ignorance of women’s history — causes stagnation, time-suckage, and disconnection. For women.
Posted by smash on January 11, 2013 at 1:54 am
“The personal is political” does not mean “whatever is personally special to me is political.”
Well said.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 1:59 am
Aw, Smash. I love you. For that audience, I’d have framed my thoughts differently…but you know, maybe someone will read what I wrote — or read something else you post there — and think about things in a new way. Maybe someone will write to me, and *I’ll* think about things in a new way. It’s good.
Also, it’s fun to get 3,000 hits when one never thought more than 100 people would see the piece in question, and when one wrote said piece whilst not wearing any pants.
Someone wrote to accuse me of “horizontal violence,” which sounded like a BDSM thing but turns out to be a pompous, academic word for “bullying.” Adventures in vocab!
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 2:02 am
That is my and bugbrennan’s special song. Enjoy it with us!
I’M SPECIAL/SO SPECIAL/GOTTA HAVE SOME OF YOUR ATTENTION/GIVE IT TO MEEEEEEE!
Posted by bugbrennan on January 11, 2013 at 2:13 am
YES! Down with time-suckage!!
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 2:15 am
Unless it involves cats on the Internet!
Posted by bugbrennan on January 11, 2013 at 2:16 am
THEN UP WITH TIME SUCKAGE
Posted by WordWoman on January 11, 2013 at 2:50 am
The other misunderstanding about “the personal is political” is that if each one of us independently makes the right changes in our personal lives, that is what is needed to change things politically. The clearest example I have is not feminist, it’s about changing to cf lightbulbs and carrying canvas bags to the grocery. If everyone does this type of thing, we will save the environment. NOT! Along with this goes guilt about never doing enough. A blame the victim kind of thing.
With feminism, it’s that if each woman raises her sons to understand sexism (for instance), misogyny will cease. Guilt gets heaped on women, when men act badly, it’s all the women’s fault.
Now in both these cases, a woman might change her lightbulbs, try to raise ons with more awareness. But that doesn’t make a dent in the system, really. I think that guilt/individualism mentality is rampant in the U.S. It’s meant to take the focus off the “man behind the curtain.” There’s no systemic problem, just a collection of individuals. Not!
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 3:00 am
It’s true. We’re not a collection of independent individuals changing the world one personal decision at a time — grocery bags; raising sons, etc. Individuals don’t have the kind of power they (especially Americans) imagine they have, nor do they deserve the guilt that ensues when they “fail.” Real change is systemic and involves changing a power dynamic so ingrained we can hardly see it for what it is because to look closely is so painful.
Posted by Masha Sabina on January 11, 2013 at 4:15 am
O hai new fav blog! I knew there was a reason I was enduring the endless cranium-reaming of feministing – it was to find the excellent deconstruction of funfems, via smash… Yay
Posted by Kelly on January 11, 2013 at 1:04 pm
I think it’s important to note the author is Black – Black women were often marginalized, excluded, and ignored during the Second Wave. I do think her post was incredibly simplistic and too individualistic for me, but I cannot dent that 2nd Wave wasn’t ideal for women of colour.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Hi, Kelly ~ You’re absolutely right, and it’s important. I found a lot of great resources regarding Black women’s feminist work and history on Cathy Brennan’s blog: http://bugbrennan.com/the-political-struggle-of-black-women/
The second wave also marginalized dykes (Lavender Menace, etc).
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 1:48 pm
O hai, Masha
I was surprised to see myself on Feministing, and I’m delighted to have you here.
Posted by bugbrennan on January 11, 2013 at 2:53 pm
I LOVE OUR SPECIAL SONG> CAUSE I AM SPECIAL. AND SO ARE YOU.
Posted by bugbrennan on January 11, 2013 at 2:56 pm
http://bugbrennan.com/feminism-is-for-everybody/
Angela Davis, Audre Lorde, Patricia Hill Collins: http://ressourcesfeministes.wordpress.com/ressources/
Intersectionality: http://www.uk.sagepub.com/upm-data/13299_Chapter_16_Web_Byte_Patricia_Hill_Collins.pdf
Posted by jenniferslevin on January 11, 2013 at 3:00 pm
I’ve been having some trouble with the YF’s myself. There seems to be so much narcissism, so much focus on defensive “self care” as if being a person in the world is a radical act. The problem is that they think every thought they have is radical, that liking sex is radical, that having a mental illness is radical, that being different and quirky is radical. As if no one had ever been a person before. It drives me batty.
Posted by Nora Munro on January 11, 2013 at 3:14 pm
I’d like to echo Masha — ohai! Nice to meet you!
Sending me here may be the first thing Feministing has done that didn’t make me want to jab them repeatedly with a plastic spork.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 3:23 pm
Hi, Nora — pleased to meet you.
Sometimes I enjoy Feministing; sometimes not. It’s like my 102-year-old great-grandfather said (in heavily Greek-accented English) about life itself: “Sometimes, is to like. Sometimes, is not to like. Is buffet. You try, you skip, you take some more; you go home and feed some to dog and then you have nap.”
He was the Hellenic Yoda.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Well said, Jennifer…thank you. Sometimes it feels (especially when we’re young) that we’re inventing everything (sex, drugs, music, political discourse, neuroatypicalness, etc) for the first time; imbuing it with meaning no one else has. One of the toughest things about growing up is realizing that the old saw about the seven original plots has much truth to it. It FEELS like you’re the first person to make these discoveries/connections, but you are not. You are one member of the human family, one tiny link affixing one cog to another, and you live in a society where real change is systemic, not individual. You can bring a little special snowflakiness to the proceedings, but you yourself are not a special snowflake. None of us is. And realizing that frees us from the weight of imaginary exceptionalism and guilt.
Posted by jenniferslevin on January 11, 2013 at 3:49 pm
“Imaginary exceptionalism.” That is the phrase I’ve been looking for.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 3:53 pm
I love Audre Lorde so very much.
Posted by bugbrennan on January 11, 2013 at 3:56 pm
She loves you too.
Posted by Jessica on January 11, 2013 at 5:17 pm
I find this post very problematic. While I did not abandon any of what I learned from the second wave, I have found greater sense of connection and consciousness-raising from scholars explore what many white, second-wave feminists did not. I think what Bowen is saying is that HER “personal,” and the personal of many other young, diverse fems, is not being reflected in the dominant feminist “political.”
Unfortunately, I think you misunderstood, disregarded and attempted to silence Bowen and other YF through condescension with this post. The feminist movement, like many other movements, has been othering women of color, trans women, immigrants, domestic workers, indigenous women, and many other groups since its foundation. Not that I am trying to disregard the work it’s done in issues of the aforementioned groups. But this is something that needs to be recognized and explored by ALL WAVES. If we can’t self-reflect and self-evaluate within our own movement then we will stay stagnant and that is a shameful place to be as self-identified revolutionaries.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 5:21 pm
No silencing going on here. This is my personal blog, containing my own thoughts and analysis. Everyone else has their own space for same.
As a dyke, I understand all about second-wave “othering.” Karla Jay’s “Tales Of The Lavender Menace” is a great exploration of that.
Posted by bugbrennan on January 11, 2013 at 5:26 pm
Jessica, it is not “silencing” to read something someone has written and to then critique it. “Silencing” occurs, for example, when third wave and post modern theorists bash lesbian feminists, who may want space away from men, as Feminazis or Man Haters. Something isn’t “silencing” because it hurts your feelings.
I will also note that the Feministing post exhibited that she was in a “stagnant ” and “shameful place” when she wrote “I’ve abandoned most of what I learned about second wave feminism for the sheer irrelevancy of it to any of my life.”
Posted by Nora Munro on January 11, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Your great-grandfather sounds greatly wise.
I tend to feel the same way about Feministing — when they’re right, they’re right, and when they’re wrong, well … Sporks. The whole “there’s a wrong way to be a feminist (and we’ll tell you what it is)” angle makes me feel especially jabby.
(I say this in all humility, knowing that when I was 25, I was probably insufferable and deserved a few good spork-jabbings too).
Posted by Jessica on January 11, 2013 at 5:51 pm
I am not against critiquing. In fact I think it’s necessary and beneficial in every situation (i.e. critiquing Quentin Tarantino for the racial politics in his movie ‘Django Unchained’ or critiquing other fems for their thoughts/publications). Nor am I against personal blogging and thought sharing. What I AM AGAINST is a stream of comments and a conversation that exists in a space that is clearly inhibiting the act of taking Bowen’s piece and using it as a way to evaluate ourselves and our movement WHILE addressing the –perhaps ungrateful– comments about the hard work and of the second wave. Attacking, personally, YF is not going to advance anything, in this conversation or in our work.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Nora, he was great
Surviving years of hand-to-hand bayonet combat in WWI gifted him with an incisive bullshit detector and an ability to distill great truths into simple epigrams. He was also an impressive ouzo drinker.
I love the word “spork.”
I love it even more as a verb.
Posted by bugbrennan on January 11, 2013 at 6:01 pm
Jessica, that’s a mouthful of doublespeak. Also, it’s a mouthful of I don’t know what you are trying to say.
The piece on Feministing was, in the opinion of some people, crap. This piece critiques that. Discussion ensues. All is well! Discussion is good! Women speaking is good!
The only one here that seems intent on silencing or shaming is you. No one has attacked anyone personally. It’s not a personal attack to say “hey, this thing you said was derp and here is why.” A personal attack is saying “you are a scumbag and smell like grapes.”
BTW, I am sure you are a nice person.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 6:03 pm
There’s no personal attack; I have nothing personal against the author of the piece and I did not post my response on Feministing. I do have a fundamental disagreement with her ideas, though, as do other commenters here, and that’s what we’re discussing.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 6:03 pm
What you said, bugbrennan
Posted by Jessica on January 11, 2013 at 6:21 pm
I’m specifically pointing to the comments about Jessica Valenti and her daughter. Attacking ‘twerkers’ and stating that it sounds like a new way to do Crystal Meth (without realizing that this is also a sex-negative comment and a wrong definition of twerkers). You don’t need to define what a personal attack is for me. And, I will repeat: “I am not against critiquing. In fact I think it’s necessary and beneficial in every situation.” And I am OBVIOUSLY not against a conversation of women. If you feel silenced and shamed by my comments that implore us to use Bowen’s piece as a learning experience, then I would encourage you explore why you feel silenced and shamed. Is it because my posts are in direct contrast to yours? It is because you are afraid to evaluate the second wave in terms of the third (fourth?) wave? Just some thoughts.
Posted by smash on January 11, 2013 at 6:39 pm
Hey Jessica, I’m not sure what this means “What I AM AGAINST is a stream of comments and a conversation that exists in a space that is clearly inhibiting the act of taking Bowen’s piece and using it as a way to evaluate ourselves and our movement WHILE addressing the –perhaps ungrateful– comments about the hard work and of the second wave.”
I don’t mean that question in a snarky way. I’m just not really sure what you are getting at.
Posted by smash on January 11, 2013 at 6:42 pm
This post was meant for folks who were already radical feminists, and I stepped out of line posting it on feministing. If I had thought it through, I would have recognized that phonaesthetica would have phrased her objections differently if she knew I was going to share her piece for a wider audience.
That being said, all of her points still stand.
Dismissing feminists who have come before us on such a widely-read blog as feministing is incredibly disrespectful and short-sighted. It’s not only about “respecting one’s elders”—it’s an amnesic approach that will lead feminism to repeat the mistakes of the past, and greatly truncate young feminist knowledge of what feminism means and where it is going. Ms. Sesali Bowen’s description of the second wave’s “sheer irrelevancy to my life” shows a contempt for her foresisters and the gains they fought for. That contempt deserves to be critiqued. Certainly there are problems with each “wave”, but their contributions should not be brushed over and disregarded on a feminist blog in the way they were in this post.
Additionally, Phonaesthetica was correct to point out that self-definition is not the point of feminism. Self-definition does not address power structures– it is personalized feel-good therapy. It is important to point this out. Feminism is about the liberation of women. If we aren’t fighting for that, we aren’t challenging anything. What’s worse, the watered-down version of feminism that Ms. Sesali Bowen espouses makes it seem as though feminism is challenging to patriarchy, which makes it *even harder* for us to get on with the job of fighting systems of power.
There are not just “many ways of doing feminism”. There is work towards freeing women, and then there are other movements with other goals. I think this is what phona meant when she paraphrased the article as saying, “Because everything is everything and we all choose our choices”. If we don’t define feminism as a particular movement with women’s liberation as the goal, then anything and everything can be considered feminism, and we no longer accomplish anything– apart from feeling good about every choice we make, I suppose (which is, again, not feminism).
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 6:55 pm
Sex-negative? A wrong definition of twerkers?
You’re making me lol. Time for you to go now, though.
Posted by Kelly on January 11, 2013 at 6:57 pm
I don’t see any of this as silencing, honestly. Was Smash harsher than I would have been? Maybe, but if you’re going to make a public post, you will get feedback, some of it harsh. The OP made a critical error in saying second wave was irrelevant without context – it came off as disrespectful and lacking nuance. Quite frankly, the whole post was lacking nuance and context and depth – I suspect, if we all had tea, that much would be better understood and there would be less of a problem. Feminism and women’s experiences are so complex and multi-faceted that flip blog posts will always have this problem, imo. I gotta say the biggest surprise I had was the zomg-you-all-suck post that followed from Maya. I was like… 0.o huh?
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 7:21 pm
I think that “sex-negative” is as hilarious as it gets when it comes to pompous insults. Just FYI. Especially given my, uh, enthusiastic proclivities. Libel!
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 7:30 pm
Smash! I, too, researched teh Twerking and this definition from Urban Dictionary popped up immediately:
“The rhythmic grating of the lower fleshy extremities in a lascivious manner with the intent to elicit sexual arousal or laughter in one’s intended audience….A conjunction of twitch and jerk; transitive verb.”
I want to be the lead bassist in a band called Lower Fleshy Extremities.
Posted by LiaS on January 11, 2013 at 8:34 pm
Maya really, actually, for real just wrote this and means it, “Not sure where Sesali dismissed the entire second wave, or advocated an apolitical “choose your choice” feminism, but hey, reading comprehension can be hard.”
Maya also writes, “And please do let me know if rad fems ever decide to seriously consider the importance of intersectionality and join us here in the third (fourth?) wave.”
Why would radfems stop their successful challenges and changes to national and international laws (see: Scandinavia) to start Slutwalking our way to VAWA’s rejection? Contained, polite Slutwalk India accomplished nothing, but Indian women rising in righteous anger and demanding political change on the realistic threat of continued civil chaos is rippling through the world.
She can keep her ineffective feel-good feminism, I’m going to keep sticking with the real movers and shakers who are making real differences in the lives of millions of women.
Posted by smash on January 11, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Jessica,
Radical feminists are not surprised to be called “sex negative” by those feminists who think that any and all sex is worthy of pursuit just in case there is “consent”. But the descriptor is inaccurate. Rather, we analyze the context within which this consent occurs—that is, rape culture, compulsory heterosexuality, and the rampant sexualization of women’s (and girls’) bodies through porn and media. This analysis does change the way we understand “consent”, and since we include an understanding of power, who has it, and who doesn’t, we know we’re on the right track.
Please keep in mind that the accusation of “sex negative” directly mirrors other accusations made towards feminists, namely that we are “frigid” and “ugly hairy feminists” or “man haters”; in other words, our feminism isn’t appropriately pleasing to Men. I assure you that radical feminists don’t give one whit whether men find us appealing or not, and find the question entirely irrelevant to the conversation. Not only that, but we suspect that if male privilege is not challenged by our feminism, we’re probably doing it wrong.
The rights of “twerkers” is not what feminism is about. Feminism is about liberation for women. Call us “sex negative” all you like, but that doesn’t detract from the truth of what we are saying.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 9:02 pm
Smash, thank you for articulating the truth so well.
Posted by jenniferslevin on January 11, 2013 at 9:07 pm
I want to start a band called The Rights of Twerkers.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 9:07 pm
Hi, LiaS, and thank you for reading. Glad to have you here, and you make a great point re: radfems in India.
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 11, 2013 at 9:14 pm
We need an opening act called, like, The Frotteurs.
Posted by Lydia on January 12, 2013 at 2:02 am
Do a search in google images for “twerking.” It will tell you everything you need to know.
Yep, that’s what I’ve been fighting for these 30 years. The “right” to be turned into a piece of ass.
When will these Third Wavers understand: getting attention from the people in power (men) is not and never will be the same as actually having power? As in, controlling the material conditions of one’s life?
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 12, 2013 at 3:35 am
OK, y’all, I solved it. The twerking tutorial!
“Who better to learn from than a white girl in a performance fleece?”
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 12, 2013 at 3:46 am
Well said, Lydia…thank you.
False power is worse than no power at all.
Posted by FCM on January 12, 2013 at 3:47 am
haha! i like that vidder. shes funny!
Posted by Bedelia Bloodyknuckle on January 12, 2013 at 5:16 pm
I am in my early 20′s and I feel more pity for these 25+ libfems. *sigh*
Posted by phonaesthetica on January 13, 2013 at 1:30 am
Political differences notwithstanding, I think we can all gather together as one human family under the booty poppin’ AWESOMENESS of this (courtesy of bugbrennan):
Posted by smash on January 13, 2013 at 1:30 am
Great vid!