My philosophy is feminist, -- my pussy just wants to be pounded

[KoPilot]

My final suggestion here is that the "Free Speech" on the Lit masthead should be modified to read "Free Speech - as long as you only post what people want to hear".

The great thing about Stella is that you can crack your skull open butting heads with her and in another thread you can actually agree and get along. There's really no need to bring in the constitutional law drama into it.

And "free speech" doesn't mean you're protected from snark or insults or dissent, it just means you can throw it all right back if you want.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Ah, feminism, the f-word - always good for some toe curling stuff... I mean, I can get that visviva2's generalisation about leatherwomen is triggering, but the real gem is this post by query, of course. Isn't it? "Can't we just all get along????"

Yes.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Not sure where to start, either.

There's this, of course. You may not want my anecdotal evidence but perhaps from thousands of other women it might make you take notice?

And not long ago I wrote this because I, too, had the same delusion that maybe we didn't need feminism any more.

This is probably the reason the above mentioned post didn't get more of a reaction. It's hard to even know were to start.
Thanks for the links - I think you started at the perfect place and I notice as I'm getting older, it's getting harder and harder to laugh.

I'm not ready to throw them under the bus when BDSM people want to blame all censorship there and all things bad. I'm not going to throw them under the bus because they made submissive femmes feel challenged and uncomfortable about being submissive femmes. I should make a T shirt - I survived Mom's disapproval and so can you!

Since when does the world owe everyone unquestioning validation, since when does the struggle to claim your real self come with NO cost? Only the most privileged of people are floored when they're not handed a blue ribbon for their me-ness.

This!

Dude. Duuuude. You are horribly offended, yep everyone understands that.

This is indeed a free speech site, but there is no rule that says you get a sparkly tiara every time you post here.

But...how did you get that crown!

 

[Bramblethorn]

This video is not available in Canada.

Tunnelbear is your friend.

 

[Keroin]

Thanks for the links

My pleasure!

...I notice as I'm getting older, it's getting harder and harder to laugh.

Word.

 

[intothewoods]

Not sure whether to laugh or cry. Not sure where to start, either.

There's this, of course. You may not want my anecdotal evidence but perhaps from thousands of other women it might make you take notice?

And not long ago I wrote this because I, too, had the same delusion that maybe we didn't need feminism any more.

I never thought we didn't need feminism anymore but it feels like things are bad right now and I don't know if there's been a shift backwards or if the internet has just given a voice to every asshole around or what. In the 90s we joked about political correctness, but I didn't hear one iota of the shit I keep hearing and reading. The shit that people spew out there these days is testing my dedication to free speech, and it takes a lot to do that!

In addition to not getting a tiara when you express yourself, you also don't get the right to shut down the response.

 

[KoPilot]

I never thought we didn't need feminism anymore but it feels like things are bad right now and I don't know if there's been a shift backwards or if the internet has just given a voice to every asshole around or what. In the 90s we joked about political correctness, but I didn't hear one iota of the shit I keep hearing and reading. The shit that people spew out there these days is testing my dedication to free speech, and it takes a lot to do that!

In addition to not getting a tiara when you express yourself, you also don't get the right to shut down the response.

If media representation is any coalmine canary, then yes, we're going through a nasty backlash right now. (Women currently make up only 11% of film protagonists these days, while just a few years ago they made up a whopping 16%.)

Here's a bunch more stats from the study "It's a (Man's) Celluloid World".

Also very interesting that in the 90's this stuff was "more" acceptable to joke about-- according to FBI stats, the number of reported rapes was at their highest in the 90's.

 

[intothewoods]

If media representation is any coalmine canary, then yes, we're going through a nasty backlash right now. (Women currently make up only 11% of film protagonists these days, while just a few years ago they made up a whopping 16%.)

Here's a bunch more stats from the study "It's a (Man's) Celluloid World".

Also very interesting that in the 90's this stuff was "more" acceptable to joke about-- according to FBI stats, the number of reported rapes was at their highest in the 90's.

No, no, I'm saying the opposite. That we made fun of how politically correct everyone was. Now, understand I was a student then, in what felt like the safety of university/grad school. Again, I never thought we (feminists) should just pack it up and go home, but you heard a lot of that at the time and I admit I entertained the conversation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No, no, I'm saying the opposite. That we made fun of how politically correct everyone was. Now, understand I was a student then, in what felt like the safety of university/grad school. Again, I never thought we (feminists) should just pack it up and go home, but you heard a lot of that at the time and I admit I entertained the conversation.

I know several young women who have recently posted on facebook that they suddenly understand why feminism is necessary.

Now that they are out of college...

 

[Allyourbase]

Whoa, this thread grows damn time difference.

Which Califia story was it? Doc and Fluff?

I bet it was Doc And Fluff-- that shit's both bleak and Second Wave as hell.

It also includes some F/F brutality, along with every other brand of brutality-- all in fairly small doses, mind you.

I looked it up again. It was 'The Hustler'.

On its own, though, now that I think of it, it's a pretty damn romantic story. Distopian, but it has something to it. The thing with the leather jacket. Made me feel all tear-eyed.

Sliced to pieces with some feminist post-structuralist whathaveyounot analysis to put some spotlight onto the black eyes, though, it's a bit much, I guess.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Google says its in the "Macho Sluts" compilation... I have the book, and i don't remember much about it at all!

 

[Allyourbase]

Google says its in the "Macho Sluts" compilation... I have the book, and i don't remember much about it at all!

Yeah, it's in there. I have a copy as well.

It's situated in a future where a kind of feminism-meets-totalitarianism-gone-wrong is calling the shots. The protagonist was made streetwise by someone in leather, and has a history of getting into trouble for 'pornographic sexual activity'. "Now that equal relationships between the sexes are possible, being queer is effete and sort of ungrateful." Let alone s/m. In the end they fill their mentor's shoes.

Y'know what's hilarious... I just took Macho Sluts from my book case, and while reading a bit in The Hustler, I stumbled across a character named Stella. Seriously. And I mean this quote:

"Don't mind Stella," I said from the booth, taking a quick pee. "She's got her period."

(No joke!) (WTF???)

 

[KoPilot]

No, no, I'm saying the opposite. That we made fun of how politically correct everyone was. Now, understand I was a student then, in what felt like the safety of university/grad school. Again, I never thought we (feminists) should just pack it up and go home, but you heard a lot of that at the time and I admit I entertained the conversation.

Ahh ok.

Admittedly, I'm still confused about the 90's from a feminist history pov. The 90's was a really great time for a lot of good female media characterization from what I can remember, but I also seem to recall that it was another one of those "we don't need feminism anymore" periods?

I'm just talking out of my ass at this point, though the rape stats are interesting (read: freaky).

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yeah, it's in there. I have a copy as well.

It's situated in a future where a kind of feminism-meets-totalitarianism-gone-wrong is calling the shots. The protagonist was made streetwise by someone in leather, and has a history of getting into trouble for 'pornographic sexual activity'. "Now that equal relationships between the sexes are possible, being queer is effete and sort of ungrateful." Let alone s/m. In the end they fill their mentor's shoes.

Y'know what's hilarious... I just took Macho Sluts from my book case, and while reading a bit in The Hustler, I stumbled across a character named Stella. Seriously. And I mean this quote:

"Don't mind Stella," I said from the booth, taking a quick pee. "She's got her period."

(No joke!) (WTF???)

The name was Stella looong before I ever came across Pat Califia!

She was totally willing to interrogate the text. What she was saying was nothing new, Ursula Le Guine and Joanna Russ both pointed out that women could be as power-hungry and abusive as anyone else, given the chance. But I admired her for doing so in a porn context! She's one of my heroes-- the female part of (his, now) life, anyway.

 

[intothewoods]

Ahh ok.

Admittedly, I'm still confused about the 90's from a feminist history pov. The 90's was a really great time for a lot of good female media characterization from what I can remember, but I also seem to recall that it was another one of those "we don't need feminism anymore" periods?

I'm just talking out of my ass at this point, though the rape stats are interesting (read: freaky).

I remember a lot of those "we don't need feminism anymore" conversations and I didn't feel like there were rape jokes every time I turned around. Or people threatening to rape female comedians for complaining about rape jokes. And then there's the fucked up shit people write about the president. I feel like the sense of violence is heightened.

I remember arguments about Monica Lewinsky, and feminists defending Clinton and calling her a slut. I thought about how gender affects workplace relationships. Remember the college that required students to get verbal consent before sex? I remember arguing about that. I remember talking a lot about false accusations of date rape and how often does that happen really, etc.

 

[visviva2]

A voice from the grave, or the "dark side" of Stella_Omega

This is a voice from the grave as I previously said my posting here was dead and that I was not going to post in this thread again. This is not an indication that I want to reincarnate and continue posting here --- I do not.

And I don’t intend to say any more about directly about the recent problems I had here due to my earlier posts. I do refer to those events but only to illustrate my topic here, which is the "dark side" of Stella_Omega.

Thinking over what happened to me here recently it has become clear to me that there are some very important larger issues involved which go well beyond me or my personal experience. I believe these issues potentially affect anyone posting here or elsewhere on the BDSM board.

I must apologise that this is a very long post, so if you believe Stella_Omega’s claim that I’m just a “troll” then it’s probably not worth your while to waste a lot of valuable time by reading on. I suggest you might prefer to finish that novel you’ve been meaning to get back to -- or go for a long walk!

I'd also like to point out that so far as this post mentions myself and my experiences (here or elsewhere) I am not trying to just focus attention on myself, as has been claimed. I refer you to the well known feminist slogan: The personal is political.

If you’re still reading, I assume you want to hear what I’ve got to say. The length of this post is because it takes time to explain complex issues. If what I had to say was something flimsy and superficial I could do so in a few lines, or at most a paragraph or two. The issues raised here are not superficial.

Anyone who even casually reads messages on this board would be aware of the ubiquitous nature of posts by Stella_Omega. She not only seems to post to every new thread that is created on this board, but also comments in many if not all threads on an almost daily basis.

The statistics are --- my total posts before this one (mostly a bunch of recent posts as a response to being attacked here): 20.

Stella_Omega’s posts as of writing: 37, 259.

Of course, anyone has to right to post as often as they like if they have the time, and I’m not suggesting there is anything inherently wrong in Stella_Omega’s prolific postings.

But it is undeniable that by posting so frequently Stella_Omega has been able to exert an enormous influence on what happens on this board. I recognise that her commentry is often insightful, and even if you don’t always agree with what she says, it’s usually interesting and thought-provoking.

Stella (as I’m going to refer to her from here on) makes important and valuable contributions to this board by energising and stimulating discussion here. This in itself is a positive thing, and as a consesequence Stella has attracted a lot of attention and is widely respected. I’m sure she has many fans here.

Until recently I was one of them.

I said as much in some of my previous posts on this thread. My view of Stella then was that she was an objective arbiter and, on occasion, a mentor to those new and less experienced. And that of course is a good thing. It’s great when those who are more experienced give advice and provide information that might otherwise not be available. I don’t have any problem with this and Stella’s comments are usually constructive and often full of quirky but undeniable wisdom.

In one post I wrote during the recent controversy over some comments I made here I even said that I thought Stella “had a good heart”. By that I meant that I saw her as a decent and caring person.

Unfortunately, I now regret saying that. And I withdraw that comment.

I’m sure some will think this is just because I was criticised here and subjected to a certain amount of abuse. That is not the case.

Naturally, I’m not very happy about the way I was treated here recently, but I’ve already said what I have to say about that. I’m not seeking to go on and on about what is now over.

Rather, what I want to talk about here is that based on my experience of various political campaigns (including feminist causes) over many decades I can see there are dark forces of intolerance at work here, and that this is not a safe place to post if you say anything Stella or her supporters disagree with.

I’ve been around in radical politics since the 1960s when I was at university. At that time we were campaigning against the Vietnam war, against apartheid in South Africa, and for social change such as Women’s Lib. I was also active in student politics.

So I have plenty of experience of dealing with criticism, and even quite abusive attacks from those who opposed what I stood for. I’m not at all bothered by ignorant and misguided criticism based on false assumptions and deliberate misrepresentation. Been there. Done that.

What I am concerned about, and the subject of this post, is that while in the wider world political enemies will obviously be critical of what they don’t agree with, it should be possible to post here without being attacked.

I don’t mean that any criticism is not allowed. There is always room for comment and discussion, and even robust debate. Saying someone is an idiot or the like in the heat of an argument is ok. Disagreeing with someone’s ideas is only natural. By all means say so. All that’s perfectly fine.

However, what I mean by the “dark side” of Stella is that once I got on the wrong side (so to speak) of her because I said something she didn’t like, I found there was another much more sinister dimension to the Stella I thought I knew.

It's a mean and intolerant dimension, and because of her respected position on this board I think it is concerning that someone who should use her influence for the good of all (and gives the impression she is doing exactly that) is actually prepared to do whatever she can to shut down any discussion she does not want to take place.

I’m not going to go over (again) in great detail the nature of the discussion I tried to initiate. Instead I want to look at the way in which Stella responded to what I still believe was a legitimate point, and how this demonstrates a destructive and disturbing aspect of the way she chose to use her influence here, both in general terms and as OP of this thread.

Naturally, many here will reject what I have to say. Stella’s many fans and supporters will no doubt rush to defend her. I expect more abuse (and worse) for daring to raise this issue. So be it. It doesn’t really bother me whether I’m universally admired here, or whether everyone agrees with me.

However, I think it’s important to point out that despite Stella’s generally positive image here (which she has certainly earned, to a large extent) it should concern all of you that she would use the power this position gives to effectively control what can be discussed here and what cannot.

The point at which my original admiration for Stella and my positive feelings towards her (as in saying she “had a good heart”) was really shaken when she was so quick to label me a troll.

As we all know, there are people (generally and derisively known as trolls) who only try to attact attention to themselves and/or cause disturbances which detract from the board’s function as a place for safe and productive discussion. I certainly agree that such people don’t deserve to be tolerated and should be ignored or discouraged.

However, throwing this label around anytime you disagree with someone, or don’t want to hear what they have to say, is an abuse. It’s all too easy to use this label as a means of marginalising people who only want to make a contribution.

What this incident reminded me of was the type of opposition we encountered when I took an active part in working for the feminist cause back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Naturally, the right wing fascists were totally opposed to anything promoted by the left. To a certain extent their views were shared by those conservative groups (including some women) who were genuinelly concerned to keep the status quo.

Other problems came from the other end of the political spectrum - the ultra-left. In those days these were mainly Stalinists and Maoists. It doesn’t really matter about the label, as it was the tactics they used that I’m talking about here.

Rather than oppose feminism, they pretended to support it. But their real aim was to take over the movement, and impose their own agenda.

Actually we didn’t have many problems with the right because although they strongly opposed us we rarely had anything to do with those groups. The real problems were caused by the ultra-left. They always made a point of getting involved in what we were trying to do, and continually clashed with us about tactics.

I was definitely on the left (and still am) but I was never open to ultra-leftist extremism. I don’t support violence and my conflicts with opposition from the right or left has almost always been expressed verbally or in writing. I can only recall one time when a Maoist thug objected to what I was saying at a student meeting and tried to physically attack me. Fortunately, others restrained him.

Interestingly, I was promoting dialogue, and he believed we should use violent tactics to make our point. So Stella picked the wrong person if she thought she could intimidate me. I know what it means to encounter various forms of extremist tactics designed to make it impossible to conduct reasoned argument or dialogue, and I reject this approach totally.

Back then the tactics of the ultra-left were inspired by those used so effectively by Stalin and Mao to crush dissent in the Soviet Union and China. We called these people left-wing fascists.

The reason they’re all fascists is that regardless of the notional left or right-wing affiliation they all use similar tactics to silence dissent and keep power. Just as Hitler used concentration camps and mass murder to impose his regime, Stalin used show trials and the gulag to the same effect. Millions died. Similar policies were used by Mao, Pol Pot and others.

Having observed how effectively dissent was shut down in this way, neo-fascists have adopted the same tactics (even if the methods used are not quite so drastic). Squash dissent and smash your real or imagined enemies.

I’m sure by now you’re wondering “what the hell has all this got to do with Stella?” I totally recognise that Stella’s actions (or inaction) and her capacity to do harm (even if she wanted to) are not remotely in the same category as the infamous dictators mentioned above.

My point is that the tactics she used here, or encouraged and supported others in using, are tactics which mimic those commonly used by many fascist regimes in the past. Despite predictable denials, the connection is obvious.

I’m not suggesting that Stella, or anyone else here, believes in a fascist ideology as such. I’m sure they will vehemently deny this, and I accept their denials on this specific point.

What I AM suggesting is that even only unconsciously they have adopted a fascist approach to promoting their undoubtedly sincere and passionate beliefs. It’s very common for extremist groups or individuals to react in this way. Because they think their attitudes are so totally and absolutely correct, it follows (to them) that anyone disagreeing or attacking their ideas is an “enemy”. And their response is to then set out to discredit and destroy what they perceive as a dangerous threat.

The problem is not just with the tactics they adopt, but their intolerant worldview means that anyone casting doubt on their beliefs, or making any criticism of them or their actions, is considered as the “enemy” and anyone in that category can expect to be attacked. To be a “target” as Stella herself put it.

Regardless of the vast difference in scale, or even intent, between the world’s most infamous fascist dictators and modern extremist groups and individuals, the thinking is the same. And the tactics employed are the same.

First, accuse anyone you want to silence of some imaginary crime - in Stalinist terms it might be “enemy of the people” (translation: “someone who dosen’t support our agenda”). In Stella’s world there are other terms such as being a “troll”... If someone is a troll, then they are by definition a bad person and we should unite against them. We certainly shouldn’t be concerned if such people are silenced because who wants a “troll” around anyway?

I’m not a “troll”.

Secondly, the fascist tactic is to discredit those you are attacking by accusing them of something that is clearly even more unacceptable. That way any attempt they make to defend themselves will be undermined as no-one will support them. This means they are not just a “troll” but exhibit some socially or morally unacceptable attitude as well. In my case I was labelled as “homophobic”. It was not Stella who used this term initially, it was Dyslexicea - but Stella totally approved.

These are NOT the actions of the independent arbiter Stella likes to present herself to be, and they’re not the actions of someone who as OP should be defending open and free discussion on this thread.

Please note that I am not attacking Stella as a person, or making abusive comments based on the simple fact that I disagree with her. I am using her own actions and words to demonstrate that someone who has a lot of respect is prepared to act in a way that supports and encourages left-wing fascist attitudes and tactics by some who post here,

What I describe as left-wing fascisim is a deliberate system of denigrating and discrediting your opponents (meaning anyone who disagrees with you) so that others who otherwise would criticise such tactics feel that they cannot support the person under attack. The intention is to isolate them, deprive them of support and discouraging any counter-attack

I’m sure many of you are thinking that at the very least it’s a bit of a stretch to make out that that Stella has tendencies towards (or at least supports) left-wing fascism.

My response is that if someone is opposed to left-wing fascism they would instinctively be repelled by the use of such tactics. They would not use such tactics themselves, or support others who did.

The comment which caused all my problems here was that I was “quite surprised to learn” what I’d heard (from someone directly involved) that groups of “radical lesbians” had treated other women “brutally”. Note that I never said the “groups of radical lesbians” she encountered were typical of ALL radical lesbians. And if I already believed this was typical behavior why would I have been “surprised”... Meaning that this was NOT what I would have expected. So my comments were NOT meant to be an attack on any group as a whole. Claims by Dyslexica to that effect (“stereotypical bullshit”) were simply false.

Stella also claimed that I “really DID sound like I was attacking each and every leatherwoman”. How can this be justified by my reference to one person’s experience? Was she with every “radical lesbian” in the U.S. (which is where the events took place). Or every leatherwoman in the world (even more totally unbelievable). How can one woman’s experience (which is obviously limited to only a certain number of people) be made out to apply to “each and every leatherwoman”. I never mentioned the word ALL -- only ONE person’s (obviously very limited) experience!

Since this thread is about feminism I don’t see why discussing brutality against women (no matter by who) is not a legitimate topic. Is Stella’s refusal to accept that lesbians might mistreat other women a feminist position? I think that ANY violence against women is unacceptable. Why is this not able to be mentioned here?

Obviously, it’s because in this instance it was lesbians who were responsible. Not ALL lesbians (radical or otherwise). But Stella took immediate offence anyway, and that's where it started...

Later (in a subsequent post) Dyslexicea claimed my post “was nothing to do with feminism” (see my comments above), that I was “homophobic” (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever), and she disputed my claim that I had lesbian friends...

As I previously pointed out, I am not homophobic and I don’t believe that making some reference to violence against women by a group of lesbians is being homophobic. Note there was no concern at all expressed about the violence, only an unfounded claim that I was homophobic.

The refusal to believe I had lesbian friends was also based on no evidence at all. Since Dyslexicea knows nothing about me or my background how is she able to make such a judgement?

Just to clarify, the reason I do know many lesbians is because I’ve been active in the local bdsm scene for over 20 years. At one point I was co-convenor (with a lesbian sub friend of mine - NOT the person referred to in relation to the violence by SOME radical lesbians) of a bdsm discussion group which met once a month for several years. Through these (and other) activities I got to know a very large and diverse range of people --- including some lesbians.

I gave up running this group about five years ago and I’m no longer active in the local bdsm scene for various reasons. Mainly because I’m not able to commit the time required. My current research work is mainly in Asia, and I spend a lot of time there. For example, I’ll be back in Asia next month and away until August. So it became impossible to continue such a regular commitment, and the discussion group no longer exists.

But I still have a lot of contacts, including lesbians. If someone doubts a statement they should ask for an explantion before they claim it is untrue.

I really don’t want to go back to complaining about Dyslexicea’s totally unfounded comments and I’m not going to even mention some of her other false claims. I’ve only mentioned some of what was said here so I can show what Stella’s response was to all this nonsense.

Did she say that obviously unfounded accusations had no place in her thread? Did she suggest I should be given a chance to defend myself before such obvious attempts to discredit me were allowed to pass unchallenged?

No. Stella’s response was: “I totally agree with everything you’ve said here”.

This comment shows that Stella specifically agrees with even the most obviously unfounded attempts to discredit anyone who says anything she does not like. And anyone who sides with her can say whatever they like on her thread, even if it’s a pack of offensive, malicious lies.

I’m a believer in dialogue, debate and discussion. Fascists do NOT believe in this process at all. They want to impose their beliefs, and if you resist or disagree they think it’s ok to try and destroy you or discredit you. They are intolerant of all opposing or differing views. This is the basis for my claims against Stella.

It’s also relevant to this thread because to my mind, feminism is (at heart) about accepting that women, and by extension anyone else, should be able to make their own choices and follow their own path. I fought for the feminist cause because I have always believed that women had the right to choose whatever role or lifestyle they wanted, whether lesbian, submissive, Dominant, housewife, scientist or anything else.

And this is exactly the point that Stella was making when she established this thread. If you go and look you will see that’s where this thread started.

I agree with this philosophy, so I felt I could contribute something here. Not that the only post I got to make was anything very profound. I was not able to add anything further because when my contribution was displeasing to Stella she tried to shut me down. When I resisted being shut down she labelled me a “troll” and said various things which were obviously intended to discredit my point of view.

For example she tried to put me in a position where I was supposed to admit that I had a “problem”... Her words were “I’m glad...you understand what your problem is”.

I don't have a problem.

She also called me “passive agressive” (untrue) and said that my complaints about Dyslexicia’s abusive post were “null and void.” Why? She added that “some women have personal and immediate reasons for hating male guts, and who are you to tell them how to frame their anger...”

So, I am the one with the “problem”, I’m “passive agressive”, as far as she’s concerned anyone is allowed to respond to posts in her thread they don’t agree with by using insults, and if someone hates males I have no right to suggest that this anger should not be freely expressed on the Lit boards.

In other words, Stella supports attempts to denigrate and abuse someone (like me) another poster disagrees with, and she supports this response “totally”.

This is a classic neo-fascist response that I have encountered over the years from those who do NOT believe any view that threatens their own worldview should be allowed. It is not just a question of rejecting opposing views or arguing against them. Fascists want to make it impossible for those with opposing views to express their ideas. This is what Stella set out to do.

I’m 100% certain that Stella will deny this. Probably by further attacking me and what I have said here. But her actions so far prove that what I’m saying is true.

If she really supports open debate then uncomfortable topics will not be off limits. If she is really open to dialogue she would not need or even want to try and discredit me. She would simply put forward an alternative argument that in her opinion proved what I’m saying was incorrect.

This did not happen.

Even if, as I fully expect, Stella and her supporters claim she did not do what I’m saying, just read what she wrote! It’s most likely she or they will attempt to rewrite history. They will blame me for posting as I did, and say that she is a paragon of virtue. Of course they will!

However, if she had disagreed with what I said but supported my right to say it, fine. If she had challenged me to explain why I said what I did, fine. If she had debated with me about the issue and put her contrary point of view, fine. All this is exactly what this board should be about.

However, she did none of these things. That’s the proof of where Stella is REALLY coming from. She failed to act in any way as someone who supports open debate, but rather she acted as someone who wants to shut down any debate she does not want to have - and to discredit me and (if possible) drive me off the board as well.

I know many will think I’m making too much of this whole episode. Just suck it up, they’ll say. If you don’t like it fight back, they’ll say. However, I’m not really interested in maintaining a presence here. I have better things to do. As I mentioned previously, I’m currently writing two books and I have to go back to Asia in a few weeks for some meetings and further research.

I really can’t be bothered writing more about this topic. If I can’t have genuine discussion and debate without being maligned, abused and misrepresented, then I have no interest in engaging in an ongoing verbal battle here.

No matter what response there is to this post I will not be saying anything further. That’s why this post is so long. I’m trying to set out what I have to say as fully as possible as I intend to leave it at that. No doubt I will have forgotten a few points or got some detail or other wrong, but I hope the issues I'm raised are clear.

Many will not support this critique anyway, no matter what I say. But I decided to put my views on record. Ultimately, it’s entirely up to you what you want to believe.

If you don’t say anything that Stella disapproves of, I’m sure she’ll continue to write in her usual excentric but very readable style, and you’ll continue to view her contribution here largely positively. But beware that a fascist mentality is just beneath the surface. It can arise at any time.

Before you dismiss this post as “trolling” or an over-the-top “rant” please consider that all extremists sincerely believe their actions are perfectly ok because their *cause* is justfied, In other words, the end justfies the means.

Just because someone claims to be “defending” an important issue like feminism does not justify the use of tactics that otherwise I’m sure they themselves would find distasteful. These tactics do not in my view represent what is best about feminism, and do not advance the feminist cause. Think about this.

In any case, I have a long history of defending feminism and a lot of other radical issues, and I don’t need approval from Stella or anyone else. I'm proud of my position. I can defend myself, and I will.

I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me that I’m not allowed to mention that there are still issues (such as violence against women) which need to be discussed -- even if the perpetrators are not only other women but “radical lesbians” (apparently a protected species around here).

Obviously I’m not saying that ALL lesbians (whether radical or “feminist” or of any other persiasion) are involved in such activity. I didn’t say that. I realise it’s a very small minority. But it happens.

To make out that I’m attacking “each and every leatherwoman” (in Stella’s words) is not only idiotic, it’s deeply disturbing in the context of what I have tried to describe above. It's Stella's attitude that needs to be questioned, not mine!

OK, that’s what I’ve got to say. Like it or lump it. END of story.

Just a short postscript on another issue: I strongly recommend you look into the life and work of Emma Goldman (1869-1940). Born in Russia, she emigrated to the U.S. in 1885 and lived in New York City. She was a pioneering feminist and in 1906 established the arnarchist-feminist journal “Mother Earth”. During the “anarchist scare” of 1919 she was deported back to Russia. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the remainder of her life:

Initially supportive of that country's Bolshevik revolution, Goldman quickly voiced her opposition to the Soviet use of violence and the repression of independent voices. In 1923, she wrote a book about her experiences, "My Disillusionment in Russia". While living in England, Canada, and France, she wrote an autobiography called "Living My Life". After the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, she traveled to Spain to support the anarchist revolution there. She died in Toronto on May 14, 1940, aged 70.

 

[Allyourbase]

Edit:

You know what? Nevermind.

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[LazyAssReader]

This is a voice from the grave as I previously said my posting here was dead and that I was not going to post in this thread again. This is not an indication that I want to reincarnate and continue posting here --- I do not.

And I don’t intend to say any more about directly about the recent problems I had here due to my earlier posts. I do refer to those events but only to illustrate my topic here, which is the "dark side" of Stella_Omega.

Thinking over what happened to me here recently it has become clear to me that there are some very important larger issues involved which go well beyond me or my personal experience. I believe these issues potentially affect anyone posting here or elsewhere on the BDSM board.

I must apologise that this is a very long post, so if you believe Stella_Omega’s claim that I’m just a “troll” then it’s probably not worth your while to waste a lot of valuable time by reading on. I suggest you might prefer to finish that novel you’ve been meaning to get back to -- or go for a long walk!

I'd also like to point out that so far as this post mentions myself and my experiences (here or elsewhere) I am not trying to just focus attention on myself, as has been claimed. I refer you to the well known feminist slogan: The personal is political.

If you’re still reading, I assume you want to hear what I’ve got to say. The length of this post is because it takes time to explain complex issues. If what I had to say was something flimsy and superficial I could do so in a few lines, or at most a paragraph or two. The issues raised here are not superficial.

Anyone who even casually reads messages on this board would be aware of the ubiquitous nature of posts by Stella_Omega. She not only seems to post to every new thread that is created on this board, but also comments in many if not all threads on an almost daily basis.

The statistics are --- my total posts before this one (mostly a bunch of recent posts as a response to being attacked here): 20.

Stella_Omega’s posts as of writing: 37, 259.

Of course, anyone has to right to post as often as they like if they have the time, and I’m not suggesting there is anything inherently wrong in Stella_Omega’s prolific postings.

But it is undeniable that by posting so frequently Stella_Omega has been able to exert an enormous influence on what happens on this board. I recognise that her commentry is often insightful, and even if you don’t always agree with what she says, it’s usually interesting and thought-provoking.

Stella (as I’m going to refer to her from here on) makes important and valuable contributions to this board by energising and stimulating discussion here. This in itself is a positive thing, and as a consesequence Stella has attracted a lot of attention and is widely respected. I’m sure she has many fans here.

Until recently I was one of them.

I said as much in some of my previous posts on this thread. My view of Stella then was that she was an objective arbiter and, on occasion, a mentor to those new and less experienced. And that of course is a good thing. It’s great when those who are more experienced give advice and provide information that might otherwise not be available. I don’t have any problem with this and Stella’s comments are usually constructive and often full of quirky but undeniable wisdom.

In one post I wrote during the recent controversy over some comments I made here I even said that I thought Stella “had a good heart”. By that I meant that I saw her as a decent and caring person.

Unfortunately, I now regret saying that. And I withdraw that comment.

I’m sure some will think this is just because I was criticised here and subjected to a certain amount of abuse. That is not the case.

Naturally, I’m not very happy about the way I was treated here recently, but I’ve already said what I have to say about that. I’m not seeking to go on and on about what is now over.

Rather, what I want to talk about here is that based on my experience of various political campaigns (including feminist causes) over many decades I can see there are dark forces of intolerance at work here, and that this is not a safe place to post if you say anything Stella or her supporters disagree with.

I’ve been around in radical politics since the 1960s when I was at university. At that time we were campaigning against the Vietnam war, against apartheid in South Africa, and for social change such as Women’s Lib. I was also active in student politics.

So I have plenty of experience of dealing with criticism, and even quite abusive attacks from those who opposed what I stood for. I’m not at all bothered by ignorant and misguided criticism based on false assumptions and deliberate misrepresentation. Been there. Done that.

What I am concerned about, and the subject of this post, is that while in the wider world political enemies will obviously be critical of what they don’t agree with, it should be possible to post here without being attacked.

I don’t mean that any criticism is not allowed. There is always room for comment and discussion, and even robust debate. Saying someone is an idiot or the like in the heat of an argument is ok. Disagreeing with someone’s ideas is only natural. By all means say so. All that’s perfectly fine.

However, what I mean by the “dark side” of Stella is that once I got on the wrong side (so to speak) of her because I said something she didn’t like, I found there was another much more sinister dimension to the Stella I thought I knew.

It's a mean and intolerant dimension, and because of her respected position on this board I think it is concerning that someone who should use her influence for the good of all (and gives the impression she is doing exactly that) is actually prepared to do whatever she can to shut down any discussion she does want to take place.

I’m not going to go over (again) in great detail the nature of the discussion I tried to initiate. Instead I want to look at the way in which Stella responded to what I still believe was a legitimate point, and how this demonstrates a destructive and disturbing aspect of the way she chose to use her influence here, both in general terms and as OP of this thread.

Naturally, many here will reject what I have to say. Stella’s many fans and supporters will no doubt rush to defend her. I expect more abuse (and worse) for daring to raise this issue. So be it. It doesn’t really bother me whether I’m universally admired here, or whether everyone agrees with me.

However, I think it’s important to point out that despite Stella’s generally positive image here (which she has certainly earned, to a large extent) it should concern all of you that she would use the power this position gives to effectively control what can be discussed here and what cannot.

The point at which my original admiration for Stella and my positive feelings towards her (as in saying she “had a good heart”) was really shaken when she was so quick to label me a troll.

As we all know, there are people (generally and derisively known as trolls) who only try to attact attention to themselves and/or cause disturbances which detract from the board’s function as a place for safe and productive discussion. I certainly agree that such people don’t deserve to be tolerated and should be ignored or discouraged.

However, throwing this label around anytime you disagree with someone, or don’t want to hear what they have to say, is an abuse. It’s all too easy to use this label as a means of marginalising people who only want to make a contribution.

What this incident reminded me of was the type of opposition we encountered when I took an active part in working for the feminist cause back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Naturally, the right wing fascists were totally opposed to anything promoted by the left. To a certain extent their views were shared by those conservative groups (including some women) who were genuinelly concerned to keep the status quo.

Other problems came from the other end of the political spectrum - the ultra-left. In those days these were mainly Stalinists and Maoists. It doesn’t really matter about the label, as it was the tactics they used that I’m talking about here.

Rather than oppose feminism, they pretended to support it. But their real aim was to take over the movement, and impose their own agenda.

Actually we didn’t have many problems with the right because although they strongly opposed us we rarely had anything to do with those groups. The real problems were caused by the ultra-left. They always made a point of getting involved in what we were trying to do, and continually clashed with us about tactics.

I was definitely on the left (and still am) but I was never open to ultra-leftist extremism. I don’t support violence and my conflicts with opposition from the right or left has almost always been expressed verbally or in writing. I can only recall one time when a Maoist thug objected to what I was saying at a student meeting and tried to physically attack me. Fortunately, others restrained him.

Interestingly, I was promoting dialogue, and he believed we should use violent tactics to make our point. So Stella picked the wrong person if she thought she could intimidate me. I know what it means to encounter various forms of extremist tactics designed to make it impossible to conduct reasoned argument or dialogue, and I reject this approach totally.

Back then the tactics of the ultra-left were inspired by those used so effectively by Stalin and Mao to crush dissent in the Soviet Union and China. We called these people left-wing fascists.

The reason they’re all fascists is that regardless of the notional left or right-wing affiliation they all use similar tactics to silence dissent and keep power. Just as Hitler used concentration camps and mass murder to impose his regime, Stalin used show trials and the gulag to the same effect. Millions died. Similar policies were used by Mao, Pol Pot and others.

Having observed how effectively dissent was shut down in this way, neo-fascists have adopted the same tactics (even if the methods used are not quite so drastic). Squash dissent and smash your real or imagined enemies.

I’m sure by now you’re wondering “what the hell has all this got to do with Stella?” I totally recognise that Stella’s actions (or inaction) and her capacity to do harm (even if she wanted to) are not remotely in the same category as the infamous dictators mentioned above.

My point is that the tactics she used here, or encouraged and supported others in using, are tactics which mimic those commonly used by many fascist regimes in the past. Despite predictable denials, the connection is obvious.

I’m not suggesting that Stella, or anyone else here, believes in a fascist ideology as such. I’m sure they will vehemently deny this, and I accept their denials on this specific point.

What I AM suggesting is that even only unconsciously they have adopted a fascist approach to promoting their undoubtedly sincere and passionate beliefs. It’s very common for extremist groups or individuals to react in this way. Because they think their attitudes are so totally and absolutely correct, it follows (to them) that anyone disagreeing or attacking their ideas is an “enemy”. And their response is to then set out to discredit and destroy what they perceive as a dangerous threat.

The problem is not just with the tactics they adopt, but their intolerant worldview means that anyone casting doubt on their beliefs, or making any criticism of them or their actions, is considered as the “enemy” and anyone in that category can expect to be attacked. To be a “target” as Stella herself put it.

Regardless of the vast difference in scale, or even intent, between the world’s most infamous fascist dictators and modern extremist groups and individuals, the thinking is the same. And the tactics employed are the same.

First, accuse anyone you want to silence of some imaginary crime - in Stalinist terms it might be “enemy of the people” (translation: “someone who dosen’t support our agenda”). In Stella’s world there are other terms such as being a “troll”... If someone is a troll, then they are by definition a bad person and we should unite against them. We certainly shouldn’t be concerned if such people are silenced because who wants a “troll” around anyway?

I’m not a “troll”.

Secondly, the fascist tactic is to discredit those you are attacking by accusing them of something that is clearly even more unacceptable. That way any attempt they make to defend themselves will be undermined as no-one will support them. This means they are not just a “troll” but exhibit some socially or morally unacceptable attitude as well. In my case I was labelled as “homophobic”. It was not Stella who used this term initially, it was Dyslexicea - but Stella totally approved.

These are NOT the actions of the independent arbiter Stella likes to present herself to be, and they’re not the actions of someone who as OP should be defending open and free discussion on this thread.

Please note that I am not attacking Stella as a person, or making abusive comments based on the simple fact that I disagree with her. I am using her own actions and words to demonstrate that someone who has a lot of respect is prepared to act in a way that supports and encourages left-wing fascist attitudes and tactics by some who post here,

What I describe as left-wing fascisim is a deliberate system of denigrating and discrediting your opponents (meaning anyone who disagrees with you) so that others who otherwise would criticise such tactics feel that they cannot support the person under attack. The intention is to isolate them, deprive them of support and discouraging any counter-attack

I’m sure many of you are thinking that at the very least it’s a bit of a stretch to make out that that Stella has tendencies towards (or at least supports) left-wing fascism.

My response is that if someone is opposed to left-wing fascism they would instinctively be repelled by the use of such tactics. They would not use such tactics themselves, or support others who did.

The comment which caused all my problems here was that I was “quite surprised to learn” what I’d heard (from someone directly involved) that groups of “radical lesbians” had treated other women “brutally”. Note that I never said the “groups of radical lesbians” she encountered were typical of ALL radical lesbians. And if I already believed this was typical behavior why would I have been “surprised”... Meaning that this was NOT what I would have expected. So my comments were NOT meant to be an attack on any group as a whole. Claims by Dyslexica to that effect (“stereotypical bullshit”) were simply false.

Stella also claimed that I “really DID sound like I was attacking each and every leatherwoman”. How can this be justified by my reference to one person’s experience? Was she with every “radical lesbian” in the U.S. (which is where the events took place). Or every leatherwoman in the world (even more totally unbelievable). How can one woman’s experience (which is obviously limited to only a certain number of people) be made out to apply to “each and every leatherwoman”. I never mentioned the word ALL -- only ONE person’s (obviously very limited) experience!

Since this thread is about feminism I don’t see why discussing brutality against women (no matter by who) is not a legitimate topic. Is Stella’s refusal to accept that lesbians might mistreat other women a feminist position? I think that ANY violence against women is unacceptable. Why is this not able to be mentioned here?

Obviously, it’s because in this instance it was lesbians who were responsible. Not ALL lesbians (radical or otherwise). But Stella took immediate offence anyway, and that's where it started...

Later (in a subsequent post) Dyslexicea claimed my post “was nothing to do with feminism” (see my comments above), that I was “homophobic” (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever), and she disputed my claim that I had lesbian friends...

As I previously pointed out, I am not homophobic and I don’t believe that making some reference to violence against women by a group of lesbians is being homophobic. Note there was no concern at all expressed about the violence, only an unfounded claim that I was homophobic.

The refusal to believe I had lesbian friends was also based on no evidence at all. Since Dyslexicea knows nothing about me or my background how is she able to make such a judgement?

Just to clarify, the reason I do know many lesbians is because I’ve been active in the local bdsm scene for over 20 years. At one point I was co-convenor (with a lesbian sub friend of mine - NOT the person referred to in relation to the violence by SOME radical lesbians) of a bdsm discussion group which met once a month for several years. Through these (and other) activities I got to know a very large and diverse range of people --- including some lesbians.

I gave up running this group about five years ago and I’m no longer active in the local bdsm scene for various reasons. Mainly because I’m not able to commit the time required. My current research work is mainly in Asia, and I spend a lot of time there. For example, I’ll be back in Asia next month and away until August. So it became impossible to continue such a regular commitment, and the discussion group no longer exists.

But I still have a lot of contacts, including lesbians. If someone doubts a statement they should ask for an explantion before they claim it is untrue.

I really don’t want to go back to complaining about Dyslexicea’s totally unfounded comments and I’m not going to even mention some of her other false claims. I’ve only mentioned some of what was said here so I can show what Stella’s response was to all this nonsense.

Did she say that obviously unfounded accusations had no place in her thread? Did she suggest I should be given a chance to defend myself before such obvious attempts to discredit me were allowed to pass unchallenged?

No. Stella’s response was: “I totally agree with everything you’ve said here”.

This comment shows that Stella specifically agrees with even the most obviously unfounded attempts to discredit anyone who says anything she does not like. And anyone who sides with her can say whatever they like on her thread, even if it’s a pack of offensive, malicious lies.

I’m a believer in dialogue, debate and discussion. Fascists do NOT believe in this process at all. They want to impose their beliefs, and if you resist or disagree they think it’s ok to try and destroy you or discredit you. They are intolerant of all opposing or differing views. This is the basis for my claims against Stella.

It’s also relevant to this thread because to my mind, feminism is (at heart) about accepting that women, and by extension anyone else, should be able to make their own choices and follow their own path. I fought for the feminist cause because I have always believed that women had the right to choose whatever role or lifestyle they wanted, whether lesbian, submissive, Dominant, housewife, scientist or anything else.

And this is exactly the point that Stella was making when she established this thread. If you go and look you will see that’s where this thread started.

I agree with this philosophy, so I felt I could contribute something here. Not that the only post I got to make was anything very profound. I was not able to add anything further because when my contribution was displeasing to Stella she tried to shut me down. When I resisted being shut down she labelled me a “troll” and said various things which were obviously intended to discredit my point of view.

For example she tried to put me in a position where I was supposed to admit that I had a “problem”... Her words were “I’m glad...you understand what your problem is”.

I don't have a problem.

She also called me “passive agressive” (untrue) and said that my complaints about Dyslexicia’s abusive post were “null and void.” Why? She added that “some women have personal and immediate reasons for hating male guts, and who are you to tell them how to frame their anger...”

So, I am the one with the “problem”, I’m “passive agressive”, as far as she’s concerned anyone is allowed to respond to posts in her thread they don’t agree with by using insults, and if someone hates males I have no right to suggest that this anger should not be freely expressed on the Lit boards.

In other words, Stella supports attempts to denigrate and abuse someone (like me) another poster disagrees with, and she supports this response “totally”.

This is a classic neo-fascist response that I have encountered over the years from those who do NOT believe any view that threatens their own worldview should be allowed. It is not just a question of rejecting opposing views or arguing against them. Fascists want to make it impossible for those with opposing views to express their ideas. This is what Stella set out to do.

I’m 100% certain that Stella will deny this. Probably by further attacking me and what I have said here. But her actions so far prove that what I’m saying is true.

If she really supports open debate then uncomfortable topics will not be off limits. If she is really open to dialogue she would not need or even want to try and discredit me. She would simply put forward an alternative argument that in her opinion proved what I’m saying was incorrect.

This did not happen.

Even if, as I fully expect, Stella and her supporters claim she did not do what I’m saying, just read what she wrote! It’s most likely she or they will attempt to rewrite history. They will blame me for posting as I did, and say that she is a paragon of virtue. Of course they will!

However, if she had disagreed with what I said but supported my right to say it, fine. If she had challenged me to explain why I said what I did, fine. If she had debated with me about the issue and put her contrary point of view, fine. All this is exactly what this board should be about.

However, she did none of these things. That’s the proof of where Stella is REALLY coming from. She failed to act in any way as someone who supports open debate, but rather she acted as someone who wants to shut down any debate she does not want to have - and to discredit me and (if possible) drive me off the board as well.

I know many will think I’m making too much of this whole episode. Just suck it up, they’ll say. If you don’t like it fight back, they’ll say. However, I’m not really interested in maintaining a presence here. I have better things to do. As I mentioned previously, I’m currently writing two books and I have to go back to Asia in a few weeks for some meetings and further research.

I really can’t be bothered writing more about this topic. If I can’t have genuine discussion and debate without being maligned, abused and misrepresented, then I have no interest in engaging in an ongoing verbal battle here.

No matter what response there is to this post I will not be saying anything further. That’s why this post is so long. I’m trying to set out what I have to say as fully as possible as I intend to leave it at that. No doubt I will have forgotten a few points or got some detail or other wrong, but I hope the issues I'm raised are clear.

Many will not support this critique anyway, no matter what I say. But I decided to put my views on record. Ultimately, it’s entirely up to you what you want to believe.

If you don’t say anything that Stella disapproves of, I’m sure she’ll continue to write in her usual excentric but very readable style, and you’ll continue to view her contribution here largely positively. But beware that a fascist mentality is just beneath the surface. It can arise at any time.

Before you dismiss this post as “trolling” or an over-the-top “rant” please consider that all extremists sincerely believe their actions are perfectly ok because their *cause* is justfied, In other words, the end justfies the means.

Just because someone claims to be “defending” an important issue like feminism does not justify the use of tactics that otherwise I’m sure they themselves would find distasteful. These tactics do not in my view represent what is best about feminism, and do not advance the feminist cause. Think about this.

In any case, I have a long history of defending feminism and a lot of other radical issues, and I don’t need approval from Stella or anyone else. I'm proud of my position. I can defend myself, and I will.

I don't believe anyone has the right to tell me that I’m not allowed to mention that there are still issues (such as violence against women) which need to be discussed -- even if the perpetrators are not only other women but “radical lesbians” (apparently a protected species around here).

Obviously I’m not saying that ALL lesbians (whether radical or “feminist” or of any other persiasion) are involved in such activity. I didn’t say that. I realise it’s a very small minority. But it happens.

To make out that I’m attacking “each and every leatherwoman” (in Stella’s words) is not only idiotic, it’s deeply disturbing in the context of what I have tried to describe above. It's Stella's attitude that needs to be questioned, not mine!

OK, that’s what I’ve got to say. Like it or lump it. END of story.

Just a short postscript on another issue: I strongly recommend you look into the life and work of Emma Goldman (1869-1940). Born in Russia, she emigrated to the U.S. in 1885 and lived in New York City. She was a pioneering feminist and in 1906 established the arnarchist-feminist journal “Mother Earth”. During the “anarchist scare” of 1919 she was deported back to Russia. Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about the remainder of her life:

Initially supportive of that country's Bolshevik revolution, Goldman quickly voiced her opposition to the Soviet use of violence and the repression of independent voices. In 1923, she wrote a book about her experiences, "My Disillusionment in Russia". While living in England, Canada, and France, she wrote an autobiography called "Living My Life". After the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, she traveled to Spain to support the anarchist revolution there. She died in Toronto on May 14, 1940, aged 70.

Very interresting

 

[Keroin]

I never thought we didn't need feminism anymore but it feels like things are bad right now and I don't know if there's been a shift backwards or if the internet has just given a voice to every asshole around or what. In the 90s we joked about political correctness, but I didn't hear one iota of the shit I keep hearing and reading. The shit that people spew out there these days is testing my dedication to free speech, and it takes a lot to do that!

Funny, I was just talking about this with a friend last week. She's a hydraulic engineer and has worked in this very male-saturated field for a long time. She said the sexism was really bad when she first started, slowly got much better, and now is getting bad again. She said, "It's not so much that I'm offended, it's more shock that I'm actually hearing and seeing these things again. I thought we were evolving past that."

I've been sensing this odd shift, too. There's definitely been a resurgence of sexism but this time it seems more women (and men) are speaking out against it. And now speaking out against it doesn't always get you labelled with some horrible slur the way it used to.

 

[Keroin]

This is a voice from the grave...<snip>

Lesson I learned the hard way: Nothing that happens on this board is ever as important as you think it is.

I suggest following your own advice. Go for a walk, finish that novel you've been reading, and as someone else here once told me when I was new and overreacting...chill.

 

[Allyourbase]

O.k. where was I

Yeah same :V

Here, have some Cliff Pervocracy:

http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-meanings-of-bdsm.html

Hey, I haven't thanked you for that yet! Thanks.

The name was Stella looong before I ever came across Pat Califia!

She was totally willing to interrogate the text. What she was saying was nothing new, Ursula Le Guine and Joanna Russ both pointed out that women could be as power-hungry and abusive as anyone else, given the chance. But I admired her for doing so in a porn context! She's one of my heroes-- the female part of (his, now) life, anyway.

Can't imagine how it's been for her (to me Pat's mostly been a 'him' actually, but I'm a young-ish-person, missed most of the 'she'-time) to write this kind of criticism. I reckon some people weren't very happy with that. Necessary though, I think.

 

[KoPilot]

Visviva2, If you hung around long enough, you'd actually find that lots of people disagree with her all the damn time. (Like I said at the top of the page.)

I'm one of the biggest proponents of "I can't tell you how to feel your feelings" but jesus.

Stop being so dramatic. Nobody cares.

Moving on...

 

[KoPilot]

Funny, I was just talking about this with a friend last week. She's a hydraulic engineer and has worked in this very male-saturated field for a long time. She said the sexism was really bad when she first started, slowly got much better, and now is getting bad again. She said, "It's not so much that I'm offended, it's more shock that I'm actually hearing and seeing these things again. I thought we were evolving past that."

I've been sensing this odd shift, too. There's definitely been a resurgence of sexism but this time it seems more women (and men) are speaking out against it. And now speaking out against it doesn't always get you labelled with some horrible slur the way it used to.

Yeah it really does seem that there is this big slow shift going on. Heteronormative masculinity feels particularly insecure these days (and I'd say lots of women are scared for it too-- what ever should they do if all the dominant manly men get replaced by wimpy, short, manginas??). There's a lot of rhetoric in the news and in advertising and in opinion pieces that implies some kind of critical mass crisis. Look at geek culture-- HUGE backlash against this threat of women taking over "traditionally" men's spaces.

Then this happened too:

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/p480x480/600402_559004784142951_1949698364_n.jpg

And now you've got folks suddenly pretending that the right side is how things always were. You tell them that pink was a boy's color 100 years ago and they don't even hear you.

 

[Allyourbase]

Then this happened too:

And now you've got folks suddenly pretending that the right side is how things always were. You tell them that pink was a boy's color 100 years ago and they don't even hear you.

Oh god, the toys...

*bites hand*

I hate the toys of today.

Anecdote time!

I was in a toy store looking for marbles. (And yes, I was going to use them for something I found on Fetlife.) I had to ask, because I couldn't find them. They were in the section called 'boy's toys'. (On a personal level, that made me grin.) It was especially ironic because there some of those marbles had Disney princesses on them.

/randomstory

 

[Stella_Omega]

O.k. where was I



Hey, I haven't thanked you for that yet! Thanks.



Can't imagine how it's been for her (to me Pat's mostly been a 'him' actually, but I'm a young-ish-person, missed most of the 'she'-time) to write this kind of criticism. I reckon some people weren't very happy with that. Necessary though, I think.

I know, it's a question I would love to ask him (It's a 'him now, no doubt about that)

But back then, there seemed to be some real relish to those stories. One big problem in the late 80's and 90's was that there was a serious lesbian mainstream, and no 'normal' lesbian was supposed to be butch, or femme. There was a lot of criticism for presenting as any sort of polarised gender.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The statistics are --- my total posts before this one (mostly a bunch of recent posts as a response to being attacked here): 20.

Stella_Omega’s posts as of writing: 37, 259.

Put another way: since Stella's been on here since 2005, that's 13 posts per day, split across multiple boards.

But it is undeniable that by posting so frequently Stella_Omega has been able to exert an enormous influence on what happens on this board.

I'll deny it. She has the same ability to influence the board as any other non-moderator: she can post stuff and people can decide whether to agree with it, disagree, or stick her on ignore. I can assure you I don't look at anybody's post count when making that decision and I doubt anybody else does either.

If you post something and a whole bunch of people including Stella disagree with you, it may be worth considering the possibility that what you posted was wrong. I'm not saying that all the responses you got were perfectly polite, but before making too much of that point you might want to read up on the problems with tone arguments.

(To see the limits of Stella's ability to influence discussion, you only have to look at this thread.)

My point is that the tactics she used here, or encouraged and supported others in using, are tactics which mimic those commonly used by many fascist regimes in the past.

...except for the "based in coercion and violence" aspect, which is pretty central to the nature of fascism.

Regardless of the vast difference in scale, or even intent, between the world’s most infamous fascist dictators and modern extremist groups and individuals, the thinking is the same. And the tactics employed are the same.

"Well, you know who else was a vegetarian? HITLER."

First, accuse anyone you want to silence of some imaginary crime

...like fascism, for instance.

I’m not a “troll”.

This might be a good moment to point out the concept of "concern trolling".

I tend to avoid calling people "trolls" because it's difficult to ascertain intent. But when you start warning us all about Stella's fascist tendencies - not on your own account, but because of "very important larger issues involved which go well beyond me or my personal experience" and "potentially affect anyone posting here or elsewhere on the BDSM board", that does start to smell awfully like concern trolling.

If you are not concern trolling, then I recommend being aware that this is a real problem in a lot of feminist discussion, as is derailing.

Feminism & individual feminists have their failings, and feminists talk about those problems. (Quite a bit, actually! We had a good discussion a month or two back about whether Germaine Greer still has a useful contribution to make.)

But a lot of folk like to use those failings as an excuse to derail every discussion about feminism. It's depressingly common. If you show up in a forum where people don't know you well, and your opening contribution to a feminism-related thread just happens to be focussed on the time feminists excluded you from their discussion and how badly radical lesbians treat their women, you are inevitably going to get a suspicious and hostile reaction.

Put another way: what you're doing here is essentially the feminism version of "Hi, I am a businessman from Nigeria looking for a partner in a honest and profitable business venture". Even if it happens to be absolutely true and your intentions are pure, you should not expect a positive reaction when using that as your opening line.

This is a classic neo-fascist response that I have encountered over the years from those who do NOT believe any view that threatens their own worldview should be allowed. It is not just a question of rejecting opposing views or arguing against them. Fascists want to make it impossible for those with opposing views to express their ideas. This is what Stella set out to do.

And yet you're still able to post a 4650-word essay on the subject. If Stella is trying to silence you, she's not being very effective about it.