I sold Amptoons.com: Comments are now open.

Regarding the sale of Amptoons.com (which I posted about last month), Hugo writes:

Barry, you owe your readers a public forum where you can further explain your decision, and offer those who are stunned and hurt an opportunity to express that to you directly.

It’s the right thing to do, and it needs to happen right now.

Okay. Here’s the same post, this time with the comments open.

* * *

Announcement: I’m not the owner of “Amptoons.com” anymore. I sold it a couple of months ago.

Five months ago, I was facing two problems. First of all, I was in real financial trouble – we were paying all our bills, but by a slimmer margin each month, and if things had kept on going that way it was only a matter of time before we’d come up short. Plus, one person in the house hadn’t been able to pay his rent in a long time, while another seemed on the verge of being unemployed (although as it turned out, that was a false alarm).

Second of all, I kept on having to beg my host not to shut down “Alas” for using too much server time – and in fact, “Alas” was briefly shut down more than once, and I was forced to remove a lot of functionality in order to reduce server load. My host kept on telling me that I needed a dedicated server, but the cost of that is well beyond anything I could consider.

Then a buyer approached me offering to purchase amptoons.com, so he could use it to improve search engine rankings for his clients (how that all works isn’t something I have any knowledge of). He offered a substantial sum of money – not enough to erase my money worries, but enough to ease the pressure for a while. Plus he offered to provide a free dedicated server for “Alas.”

The contract took months to wrangle, but here’s the bottom line: The new owner has absolutely no control over the content of “Alas.” However, “Alas” plus my cartoonist pages are the only parts of amptoons.com I have any access to or control over. The buyer also has the right to put in one or two inconspicuous links on “Alas,” positioned in a way that would make it unlikely that anyone but search engine robots would follow the link.

I was assured by the buyer that he would never host porn sites on “amptoons.com.” And I wrote into the contract that his link on “Alas” could never be a direct link to a porn site. But beyond that, I have no ability to control what the buyer does with his pages – the deal is that he has absolutely no say in what’s on “Alas,” but we also agreed that I have no say over what he does with his own property. And – as a couple of “Alas” readers have noticed – some pages I don’t own include links to porn.

[Edited to add: A couple of readers have speculated that I didn't know that the new owner would link to porn on his pages. That's not true; I kept the links off of "Alas," but I knew that he would be putting links to porn on his own pages.]

I’m essentially in the same position as someone with a blog on “blogspot.com” – I don’t own the domain, and although I control what’s on my own blog, I don’t have any say over what’s posted on the domain other than my little piece of it.

I realize that some “Alas” readers will feel that I’ve sold out, or that this puts me beyond the pale. I’m genuinely sorry for that. For the record, I don’t feel I’ve been victimized (as one person suggested in email), nor do I feel like I’m a total sell-out. What I feel is this: I’ve made a compromise, one that I probably wouldn’t have made in a perfect world.

That’s all. And now, back to your regularly scheduled political rants.

* * *

New comments from Amp:

I warned the new owner that a likely result of this sale would be many other blogs delinking “Alas.” He said that didn’t matter to him and wouldn’t impede his profit; whatever his business model is based on, he isn’t concerned about that.

My views on porn: I’m not terribly pro-porn; most porn, like most mass media, seems sexist and harmful to me. The arguments that porn prevents rape or is in some way tremendously beneficial to society strike me as not at all supported by the evidence. On the other hand, I’m also not especially anti-porn, in that I don’t see porn as being particularly separate from or different than regular mass media, either in how sexist and racist it is, or in the harm it does. I’m convinced that there are other problems far, far more pressing than porn, and I think what I’ve written about over the years reflects that. If all porn disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, I think that sexism, misogyny, and the wage gap would continue uninterrupted.

As I understand it, from the questions I asked before selling “amptoons.com,” the practical outcome of what the new owner does is that when someone searches for “porn,” they’re more likely to find his clients’ sites than other clients’ sites. I’m not thrilled with that, but I also frankly don’t believe it makes the world a worse place if porn company A gets ranked above porn company B in porn searches. Nor do I believe that I could have prevented such manipulations from taking place by refusing to sell the domain.

For me, this compromise is similar to the compromise I’ve made in the past accepting pay for cartoons from small publications who depended on strip club and escort ads for their income; or for being a secretary for various firms on Wall Street (some of those firms do, in my view, far more harm than porn ever has).

I’m not saying what I did was great. It wasn’t. It was a compromise, one that I felt I had no choice but to accept. It’s not something I would have done if I thought I could afford not to do it. It’s a bad thing, disturbing to me, and understandably disturbing (or much worse than disturbing) to my anti-porn readers. I know that some people who formerly liked me will now have lost all respect for me. I understand that, and I regret their departure; at the same time, my respect for them is undiminished.

That said, I’ve never been big on the politics of personal purity. It’s hard to be sure, because I’ve written thousands of blog posts and comments, but I don’t think I’ve ever criticized another feminist for being insufficiently pure in their personal life, their porn use, their income source, or the ads on their blogs.

* * *

One criticism of me that I think is especially strong is that I should have announced the sale of amptoons.com before it happened, to give people a chance to comment and to give other bloggers the chance to delink. It was wrong of me not to do that, and I sincerely apologize for that.

“Alas” reader “Curious” has usefully posted many links to other bloggers criticizing me on this thread. Some of the bloggers are people who have, as “Achilles and Patroclus” says, “the same folks who have been berating Amp for being insufficiently feminist for literally years now”; but others are people who have been quite kind to me over the years, and who I don’t think are knee-jerk Amp-bashers.

* * *

Comments are open for discussion (very much including criticism), but the usual moderation policies apply. Also, I want to remind people that I’m not at the computer all the time, so it may be many hours before I read comments.

This thread is for feminists, feminist-friendly, and pro-feminist posters only.

This entry posted in Prostitution, Porn and Sex Work, Site and Admin Stuff. Bookmark the permalink. 

284 Responses to I sold Amptoons.com: Comments are now open.

  1. 201
    belledame222 says:

    that is to say: sure, perhaps Amp has more choices than others here, even if those choices are limited, also.

  2. 202
    belledame222 says:

    Gayle: weren’t you the one who tried to have me “purged” from Punkass? What is this, “she goes or I go?” At any rate, I’m not exactly having huge amounts of sympathy here, no. Obviously. Not for people who’ve repeatedly insinuated that I (among many, many other people whom I consider to be perfectly sane. smart, reasonable people, female, even feminists too, YES) am a “concern troll,” “derailing,” really a man and/or someone’s sock puppet, pro-Patriarchy and any other thing in the goddam world except gee, actually trying to engage the topic, albeit perhaps not in a way that is to the liking of some people. That does not, however, mean that Amp shares my feelings. Amp is, as I’ve said elsewhere, a much nicer person than I am.

    but then, he does have that dreaded XY chromosome, so clearly he was already deeply suspect.

    whatever. You know, the great thing about the belief that “everyone’s out to get me/us” is that eventually it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  3. 203
    belledame222 says:

    >I am convinced that there is a significant part of the universe than can only relate to others in anger. It’s not reasonable, but it’s pretty common and no small part of the reason why many small grievances beget serious conflagrations. It’s not that anger is never justified, but when it is the only thing that motivates you, you have a serious problem.>

    I think you’re onto something there.

    at any rate, tangentially, i have often wondered, wrt some people: okay, I’m really really really clear on what you’re -against.- What are you FOR? i mean, specifically.

  4. 204
    ms_xeno says:

    belledame, I think that’s a pointless question. I can’t imagine that the audience for male pron would be lucrative enough for the offer to have existed under those circumstances. Personally, I would have been bothered to the same degree. I don’t think that the view of sexuality offered by most pron films is terribly healthy for anyone in this culture, and that includes gay men.

    And Elaina points out that feminism is not for the weak and that halfway measures are as good as no measures. Also that Amp’s apologies don’t mean anything unless he (aparently) hands back all the money tomorrow and personally shows up at the house of every woman he’s wronged to kiss her feet.

    Though she doesn’t say so, I guess that means that Alas would have been better off just disappearing. It has a certain purist appeal, but OTOH, it explains why so many people who sympathise with the cause of justice don’t want to call themselves feminists. It’s as if to use the word, you must martyr yourself all the time, or at least pretend that you are martyring yourself all the time;And do it in a fashion that loudly one-ups the woman next to you. And there’s a “one-drop” rule. If you doubt and fail at any time and under any circumstances, you must relinquish your veils and be expelled to the outside world.

    When I read this sort of thing, it strikes me as a winnowing exercise. The person writing it needs, for her own consolation, to make it abundantly clear that her club is exclusive and the vast majority of those interested in it are pretenders who can never gain new membership. She has nothing to offer/withhold but her approval, so she has to make the most of it. It’s tempting to say that, fuck it, under those circumstances, I’m not a feminist and neither are the majority of feminist bloggers. It’s tempting, but I think I’ll keep the word for now. I don’t worship dieties, make dieties of my beliefs, or have any use for those who want to cast themselves as High Priestesses of when and how I have the right to employ those beliefs and to speak of them.

  5. 205
    belledame222 says:

    You know, I have been speculating myself recently as to what on earth could be motivating some people. For instance: the attacks on Amanda at Pandagon from this camp, one poster in particular on a thread I remember vividly for my own reasons: they are the same reasons why I’m not exactly Amanda’s #1 fan myself these days (really completely unrelated to pr0n, contrary to some peoples’ beliefs, I suspect, including perhaps Amanda’s; anyway). So, I have no dog in this one, really;

    but strictly from a realpolitik perspective, it did strike me as terribly ironic. Here’s a mainstream, quite popular feminist blogger who, over the past year? or so has actually been swinging -toward- your worldview. Isn’t there completely, no; but certainly, the -direction- has been in your favor, if you’re paying attention. Wouldn’t you think the -last- thing you’d want to do is run in there and ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK! specifically, “no, you are NOT one of us. no, you are NOT even in the middle; you are with THEM. go! go over there and be with THEM! you’re not sufficiently pure for us! Go.”

    and yet, that’s exactly what someone did; and then throw in the whole Playboy hooha (which may or may not have been what was so outraging girlfriend in the first place), but the net result, i suspect, is not exactly unpredictable to anyone with the sense God gave a doughnut.

    So, as you say: perhaps indeed the goal is really more to huddle together and stay “pure” than, you know, actually effect change, for a number of people. Maybe it’s not a totally -conscious- goal, but how else to explain? Or the people who write manifestos of YOU’RE NOT A FEMINIST IF:

    i mean, not even -radical- feminist, but FEMINIST,

    which is not only alienating but completely inaccurate; hello, there are many many other schools of feminism out there?

    I think I did get that through to one person, at least. That much.

    But, jeezus.

    “Go away! No! Bad! You don’t belong! YOU’RE NOT ONE OF US. You may THINK you are, but you’re not. You’re not pure enough…*sigh* I shouldn’t even have to tell you this, but: you didn’t use the wire scrub brush OR the organic bleach. How can we possibly trust you ever again? You’re TAINTED.”

    then, plaintively,

    “Where O where have all the feminists gone? Where are the feminists of yesteryear?…”

    AUGH

  6. 206
    belledame222 says:

    …but actually, this interests me,

    >Personally, I would have been bothered to the same degree. I don’t think that the view of sexuality offered by most pron films is terribly healthy for anyone in this culture, and that includes gay men.>

    because i *think* that what’s going on here, and what maybe a number of people don’t realize, is that while a lot of people don’t like porn, it’s not -just- that some people feel more strongly about it than others; some people have different -reasons-, i think, than others.

    If your feminism is of the sort that puts male sexual abuse/domination of women as the -root- of pretty much everything that’s wrong with the system, i.e. the Patriarchy (iow, many–not all, but probably most, these days–peoples’ definition of “radical feminism”); if you see “pornstitution” as one of the main expressions of said abuse/rape/domination (i.e. Class Man over Class Woman), then, of COURSE there’s nothing worse Amp could’ve done than sell to a pornographer. I asked rhetorically about whether Coca-Cola ads and so forth wouldn’t have been just as bad, and maybe for some people they would have done, even people who -also- think porn is generally pernicious for, say, the reasons you lay out here; but that would’ve required a different core belief system, see.

    That’s why I asked about gayboy pr0n. Not because I think Amp should’ve or even could’ve–you’re probably right that it wouldn’t have been sufficiently lucrative for the deal-offerer–just because, I’m always curious as to how male on male pr0n fits into -that- worldview. I know some people, MacKinnon, I think, maybe? just basically fit it, as well as lesbian pr0n, into the same one-size-fits-all paradigm: i.e. it replicates male-over-female power dynamics (the very act of filming, I think? the objectification? i need to go review, clearly). Others (does this include Jeffreys, I wonder?) go it one further and say that -all- male sexuality is gonna be patriarchal pretty much by default; at best, just…leave them to it, we want nothing to do with them, we radical “political” lesbians.

    Online, it’s been an interesting mishmosh of all these ideas already floating around. I’m always really intrigued by hetero, even partnered radical feminists who -mostly- talk a straight Dworkin/Jeffreys line, since back in the day (yes, MacKinnon is straight, too, but) there was a school, and there are some adherents to this even now (yes, I think Heart is among them) embracing what’s called “political lesbianism:” by Sheila Jeffreys’ definition, this means abstaining from men, period. actual sex with actual women is optional.

    at any rate, for whatever number of reasons, the overall heterocentricism of the debate has always frustrated me. not that i really, like, need to talk about gayboy pr0n right now. But whenever i’ve attempted any such line in the past with…certain people? predominating, the response has ranged from -crickets crickets- to yet more accusations of “derailing.” Like, you know, gay men, gay PEOPLE (at least any other sort than curiously-silent-on-the-notion-of-desire radicallesbians) are, well, pretty much besides the point.

    which is one of the -other- things that I’ve found vexing.

    But it makes perfect sense; of course if it all boils down to Class Man over Class Woman, then well, no, nothing else much matters as much as overthrowing Class Man; what men do among themselves is irrelevant at best; and as for the queer/transgender thing…well. yeah. that’s been my -other- real bone of contention here. I do love watching some people twist themselves into knots trying to explain that no, no, we’re NOT essentialists, we are the -opposite- of essentialists, we are trying to do -away- with gender, -they- are the ones upholding it…

    and o yah: “gender trumps race,” blahblah; well, that’s also in the template, really: if the original act of domination is rape, then of course everything else takes a backseat. doesn’t mean racism isn’t IMPORTANT, -also-, but…in the final analysis. If you buy this worldview lock stock & barrel. that does implicitly come with the territory. Class Men dominates Class Woman; the -primary-, original method is via sexuality (rape); the rest is gravy.

    I don’t buy it, but–and *nods to Bitch Lab*–I do think it’s important to at least know what it is I’m disagreeing with, more or less.

  7. 207
    belledame222 says:

    further props: Bitch Lab is the one who (online, not already an adherent of the theory) started actually reading radical feminist theory and writing about it.

    but just to back some of that up, soundbite version:

    http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,1519268,00.html

    >[Sheila] Jeffreys sees sexuality as the basis of the oppression of women by men, in much the same way as Marx saw capitalism as the scourge of the working class.>

    She’s not the only one, although she’s arguably one of the most “hardcore” of the older generation of radical feminists of this school. Dworkin’s another, although in some ways she was less stringent about some things:

    >Dworkin, as it happens, lived with a man, whom in 1998 she married.

    Not Jeffreys. She became a lesbian in 1973 because she felt it contradictory to give “her most precious energies to a man” when she was thoroughly committed to a women’s revolution. Six years later, she went further and wrote, with others, a pamphlet entitled Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism And Political Lesbianism. In it, feminists who sleep with men are described as collaborating with the enemy. It caused a huge ruction in the women’s movement, and is still cited as an example of early separatists “going way too far”.

    “We do think,” it said, “that all feminists can and should be lesbians. Our definition of a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men. It does not mean compulsory sexual activity with women.” Although many of the more radical feminists agreed, most went wild at being told they were “counter-revolutionary”…

    ***

    I’ve no doubt there are a lot of Jeffreys fans who take some of her more extreme pronouncements with a grain of salt: she’s just trying to provoke thought! And there are others who, I expect like Jeffreys herself, take what she’s saying pretty damn literally.

    btw, Twisty Faster of I Blame the Patriarchy once said something to the effect of she and Jeffreys are as “two hearts that beat as one.” something close to that. I think while reviewing that very book (“Beauty and Misogyny”). anyway: IBTP is obviously heavily influenced by Jeffreys’ thinking, albeit (I am sure) not -only- her.

  8. 208
    ms_xeno says:

    The reason I regard the issues you describe as “derailments,” belledame, is because they present a lose/lose situation for anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with whatever worldview you use those issues, or people, to advocate. If I agree with you, I’m diluting the focus on women, which generally, in the contexts discussed in the threads in question, I think ought to be the primary focus. If I disagree with you, than not only am I some kind of repressed transphobic sex-hater, or whatever, I’m also some kind of “political lesbian,’ or somebody who isn’t qualified to speak about the culture you’re talking about, etc etc.

    To hear the way you talk, you’d think that I was roaming the net daily, crashing each and every thread about same sex on same sex abuse and the like in order to spout Dworkin highlights and to acuse the people discussing their issues of not caring about women. Hell, I hardly ever comment in the threads here regarding gay male or transexual issues, because I prefer to sit back and listen and learn. So excuse me if I’d like the same consideration from others once in awhile.

    Also, I’m not ginmar. I have never once said that “gender trumps race.” So you can get that association the hell out of your head. I don’t think that ginmar is a saint, though I do think she was treated shabbily here at times by Amp and others. But there’s nothing to be done about that now. It also doesn’t mean that I think everything she ever said is right.

  9. 209
    VJ says:

    Various thoughts on the general proposition are posted with Wampum here:

    [http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2006/10/003130.html]

    I’m not going to repost them here as I actually have real work to do, real political work too, and I don’t have any need of ‘flame wars’ with this profoundly silly and wildly over extended thread. Folks, if we had half of the passion OR attention generated here over this small incident FOR preserving, say the Constitution or the Environment, we’d be a whole lot better off in general. I really don’t waste my time on such nonsense. Few can really afford to actually. Our time here is short. What are each of you doing RIGHT NOW to defeat fascism & tyranny Here & Now? That’s my only question. The rest is just posturing and posing. We’ve all had quite enough of that, right?

    In short I think it was & is Barry’s/ AMP’s decision to make, and the manner and the way he did so bent over backwards to take his audience into consideration. No other media outlet would have done so, none has gone so far as to open themselves up to open criticism for doing so either. And certainly not from ‘non paying customers’! Cheers, ‘VJ’

  10. 210
    belledame222 says:

    Okay, first of all, I wasn’t actually tweaking that you were one of the ones referring to my posts as “derailments,” ms. xeno. I mean, I wasn’t referring to you at all, intentionally, tbh. I did not associate you with ginmar or any of the people I had in mind. I was thinking more of, you know, well, people who…yeah, okay, there’s a personal beef here: treated me and others pretty shabbily. And trying to put in an a theoretical context, trying to understand at least -why- some people feel -so- passionately about whatever that it’s now okay to basically blackball people who don’t agree with them (and I am not referring to myself here either; I’ve seen an awful lot of crap, though, and a lot involving people I both respect and care about).

    actually there is no second of all. yeah; I…think there’s a crossed wire here or something. Look, I’m not trying to make people feel bad for not wanting to talk about lgbt whatever in any given thread, okay; that was not my intention. I’m just trying to explain why I feel frustrated at what has often felt -to me- like a…predominating discourse. And get at -why.-

  11. 211
    belledame222 says:

    But it’s like this: for me, queer issues are inextricably bound up with -my- feminism. So it’s extremely difficult for me to talk about something as broad as, say, “porn” and go, -nod-, o.k., we are talking about hetero porn from the viewpoint of straight women, y punto. It’s never been like that for me; it’s just not where I’m coming from.

    And like I say, I don’t blame people for -not saying anything,- of itself; what I -have- had a problem with is, you know, people jumping on my shit (not here) with, “concern troll” or, to the effect of it’s irrelevant, or blahblah. It’s -not- irrelevant; it’s my -life,- sometimes?

  12. 212
    belledame222 says:

    …I mean, well, I just blogged about this recently myself, but it’s like: I can’t count how many people have -leaped- to the conclusion that I’m DEFENDING THE MEN, because I, y’know, want to please men; because what else could -possibly- be motivating me? Or, yeah, brainwashed, sexbot (yes)…

    and it’s like, look, I can write about -men- (straight and otherwise) like this, when I do because it -just isn’t that weighted for me.- It feels…anthropological to me. (especially with straight men) And the only reason I do it at all, when I do, is because I am -trying- to at least -sort of- go along with the framing as it’s already been presented. And sure, I could sit back and learn and listen in the straight-women-threads, but it does get a little hard to take, when people keep talking as though their experience is UNIVERSAL. particularly when they use it to bash me and mine (as I see it); that was what got me embroiled in these thrashes in the first plae, you know, x number of months back. Radical feminist straight guy explaining earnestly why all BDSM is “patriarchal,” including in a queer context. Well, no; and just…no; it isn’t for you to say. Frankly.

    So yeah. I get that porn and such really push a lot of peoples’ buttons. I do. Because there’s all kinds of shit attached to it, personal experiences, and…it’s painful. -But I have my own buttons.- And I don’t like being mischaracterized and dismissed any more than anyone else. And I post as much as I do because frankly it feels like I might disappear if I don’t.

  13. 213
    belledame222 says:

    …sometimes.

    sigh.

    as for “all the threads on same-sex abuse:” my point is, relatively speaking, there just -aren’t that many.- In general, not just here. Like, at all. For a number of reasons. And why does it need to be segregated into its own place anyway?

  14. 214
    belledame222 says:

    Finally: wrt “gender trumps race.” Much as I had real problems with that, as well as the…author of that (for a number of reasons), here I actually was trying to just say: I recognize that that, too, is coming from somewhere, ideologically speaking. It doesn’t necessarily have to mean, “I don’t think racism matters at all.” It means, “I put this in the framework of Class Man over Class Woman; obviously gender/sexual oppression is weighted more.”

  15. 215
    belledame222 says:

    and: we may have had contretemps before, ms. x. (honestly I can’t keep track of them all at this point…) But believe me: I was not trying to passive-aggressively jab at you when I replied to you here; I was actually just mostly going off what I thought where you were probably coming from based on your last few responses in these threads. If I had a problem with you personally, I’d say so.

    I don’t have a problem with people I -disagree- with about any given thing; I have a problem with, well. Zealotry, basically.

  16. 216
    Q Grrl says:

    Well, I’m enough of an anarchist to believe that it is the community of posters that have made this blog important and visible, not just Amp’s considerable contributions. Up thread was this comment:

    If Amp moves this site, it might take a significant amount of time to build up that kind of page rank again, which would also mean that the well-researched articles and thoughtful commentary that appear here would also lose rank in the searches.

    And? This isn’t exactly highschool here, and no one’s voting for homecoming queen. Amp’s page rank is directly tied to the mostly feminist voices that have been voiced here over the last several years. It is the time, effort, and thought of many brilliant and brave women that has driven the popularity of this blog — that cannot be denied, and I don’t think it should be overlooked. Amp provided the platform; we provided the thought provoking and controversial filler.

    From my perspective Amp has made his deal with the Devil – and it’s his deal to make. But my words won’t support that deal.

  17. 217
    ms_xeno says:

    belledame:

    If your feminism is of the sort that puts male sexual abuse/domination of women as the -root- of pretty much everything that’s wrong with the system…

    I never said that it couldn’t be intertwined with other roots, you know. I never even said that there couldn’t be overlapping or interlocking systems of oppression. But I also don’t think that it’s so outrageous to suggest that, say, homophobia is directly related to sexism. Or that the hypermasculinity in straight pron films isn’t all that different from the hypermasculinity in gay male pron films. During some earlier dust-up, piny said something along the lines of “transgender sex workers are oppressed *because* they are women.” Except that I was never arguing with piny that those folks weren’t oppressed or that they couldn’t be percieved as women– even if it means I’m some other kind of woman. What I would point out now is that in a world where the strict dichotomy of masculine/feminine leaves no doubt as to whose rightfully in charge, it’s entirely possible for the dominant class to create more subordinates for its purposes than it had originally. So an oppressed transgender “sex worker’s” oppression still relates to the fact that the dominant class– the johns, looks at this “worker” and sees a “she–” someone whose correct role is that of servant, or object. How a biological woman sees that person is also important, but I don’t think it can have the same level of importance because –except in extraordinary cases– the bio woman isn’t there to exercise privilege in the most important context;That of “buyer” relating to “seller.”

    (This isn’t unique to feminism, of course, any more so than the martyr-to-the-cause syndrome is. The White men who preached their own superiority even as they sired mixed-race children are a prime example. They knew that those children would be a different class of people than their Black mothers, but nonetheless that they would be oppressed for the same reasons, and be equally useful to maintaining the system that kept them subordinate in the first place.)

    One more thing: It’s not any one side that has problems agreeing on the importance of a poster’s personal experiences in a debate– as opposed to theory, statistics, or outside sources. That’s an ongoing issue on all sides in most debates, and I don’t see it resting anytime soon.

  18. 218
    ms_xeno says:

    P.S.– Qgrrl, you’re always welcome at my journal if you feel like talking.

  19. 219
    Q Grrl says:

    Duh. I wondered where in the hell you’d gone.

  20. 220
    belledame222 says:

    Just quickly: that had been meant to be a general “you,” you know (“if your…”). I really need to watch that more carefully.

    “If one’s feminism is the sort that puts male sexual abuse/domination of women as the -root- of pretty much everything that’s wrong with the system…”

    I didn’t peg you as believing this; I do know that there are feminists who -do- believe this and are far less inclined to talk about “interlocking oppressions.”

    It’s funny; before I came to blog O’sphere I was far more inclined to the belief in “Patriarchy” per se, I think. altho’ i was probably coming at it from a more goddess-y, pre-existing matriarchies, in so much as i really thought it out at all (i never did buy one overarching Matriarchy) perspective than really thinking about the sex angle as such.

    these days i…well if nothing else i’ll say that i really have been challenged on many fronts, this past year or so’s worth of reading and arguing and rethinking and reading some more.

  21. 221
    belledame222 says:

    >But I also don’t think that it’s so outrageous to suggest that, say, homophobia is directly related to sexism. Or that the hypermasculinity in straight pron films isn’t all that different from the hypermasculinity in gay male pron films. >

    Oh, absolutely. I mean, there’s no question at all. In fact that’s the sort of thing I’d like to talk about -more.-

    But sometimes in these discussions what happens is–well like that first blow-up i was alluding to, months ago now: radical feminist dude is basically saying that as he’s seen it, (which is now being taken as the Voice of Experience), even “homosexual” BDSM players he’d seen, male and female (there can be no other), the more butch partner topped, the femmier one was on the bottom;

    and i was like: some femme tops i know (who are in it for pleasure, not business; the strong suggestion was that this, too, was an impossibility) would be -really interested- in hearing all about this. or f’r instance, the gayboy scene: “fem” is pretty damn eschewed all around. as you say, that is no doubt connected to the overaching sexism we’re all steeped in at some level; at the same time, it -does- play out somewhat differently, and to suggest, as this dude did, that it was -the same- as with straight folk was…

    well, putting aside BDSM per se: the problem was “speaking for.”

    But I think among people who are not obviously, you know, jerks, like so and so, there’s well one difference between two feminist camps, roughly; or lesbian-feminist vs. queer? -very- roughly:

    i think we pretty much all recognize that gender is a construct, and in a particularly loaded way, traditionally, at that. And that homophobia is connected to sexism, yes.

    The difference is, perhaps, in what you do with this. Some people are/were of the belief that it’d be better really to do away with these…gender signifiers altogether, or as much as possible. Other people like to embrace them but not uncritically; rather, consciously and playfully fuck around with them.

  22. 222
    belledame222 says:

    I should add, speaking of “speaking for;” I actually don’t know what your core beliefs are and probably should’ve simply asked first.

    but yes, i think there’s a way in which to believe in “patriarchy” without being as, ummm, single-mindedly prioritizing? as some people seem to be.

    bottom line point in all of this: i think the more one prioritizes this “primary” oppression, the more one probably was likely to have been really deeply upset by what Amp did here. ‘sall, really.

  23. 223
    piny says:

    During some earlier dust-up, piny said something along the lines of “transgender sex workers are oppressed *because* they are women.” Except that I was never arguing with piny that those folks weren’t oppressed or that they couldn’t be percieved as women– even if it means I’m some other kind of woman.

    I wasn’t calling you teh evol transphobe there, any more than BD is calling you teh evol heterosexist here. And I never contested that you were arguing that these people were oppressed, or that they were never perceived as women.

  24. 224
    piny says:

    But I also don’t think that it’s so outrageous to suggest that, say, homophobia is directly related to sexism. Or that the hypermasculinity in straight pron films isn’t all that different from the hypermasculinity in gay male pron films.

    Yeah, but the problem with these arguments is that they can and do remove both homophobia and gay people from the equation. It becomes a discussion about anything but them. It happens with transwomen, too: transphobia is a derail to the extent that it is described as anything other than an extension of misogyny; discrimination against transwomen is only ever described as a desire on the patriarchy’s part to make these unsatisfactory “men” into the underclass. So hatred specific to transpeople disappears, and any transpeople suffering under oppression of women disappear.

  25. 225
    parodie says:

    I don’t want to minimize how people feel hurt – but my initial reaction is that Alas is an awesome blog, a strong community, and frankly an amazing resource – and it is entirely free. Yet running something like this obviously takes time and money – perhaps we need a better model for online communities, if we want to be entirely free of all the negative aspects of “free” Internet sites. I wonder how many people who are agast at the same have ever contributed money, if that’s something they could afford to do. After all, chances are they buy books, or pay for cable, or buy magasines, etc… if they feel enough of a connection to the site to be upset by the sale of the domain, then perhaps their money should go where their mouth is.

    We need to realise that our beautiful free internet sites are free because of capitalism and (often) less-than-ethically-pristine companies. Porn money pays many people; so does gambling, and advertising.

    Whether it should is an entirely different question.

  26. 226
    Achilles and Patroclus says:

    Really interesting points, Piny. I’ve noticed the same thing.

    It’s also occurred to me that the specific ‘framing’ on issues of transphobia can be a little manipulative.

    So if a transwoman faces discrimination, then it must be because she’s being punished as a ‘failed man’ for being insufficiently masculine. Fair enough, but when a transman faces discrimination, does the same reasoning apply? No, of course not. If a transman faces discrimination, then (duh) she’s being punished for being biologically female or something.

    I don’t know if I’m explaining this well, and I am frustrated by my inability here, but it’s always sounded like a tautology to me . . . it’s like it all comes down to male and female and nothing else because it all comes down to male and female and nothing else.

    It’s a kind of blindness that doesn’t consider that someone who’s transgendered faces a different kind of oppression that is not exclusive of but is in addition to misogyny.

  27. 227
    ms_xeno says:

    piny:

    I wasn’t calling you teh evol transphobe there

    Have I mentioned that when I become wealthy enough to buy this domain, everyone who deliberately misspells “the” will be fined a quarter, which will go directly into my personal coffee fund and donut fund ? Anyway…

    No, I suppose that your comments fell into Amp’s ideal of attacking arguments, not posters, but that’s a technicality on certain charged subjects so far as I’m concerned. Particularly since I’ve already been on the losing side of some board struggles elsewhere in which it was a definite minus that I wasn’t interested in reading Jeffries or somebody similar and looking constantly for transsexual empires behind every @#$! lamppost. I had better things to do and besides, I didn’t notice that the transsexuals in those spaces could even agree on where they’d like to have lunch, much less on how to build an empire. Try to understand why your comments crawled up my nose in a major way, in that context. Please.

    It becomes a discussion about anything but them.

    And you don’t think that bio women ever feel this way ? Or that we might, just might, have some justification for feeling it ?

  28. 228
    piny says:

    Try to understand why your comments crawled up my nose in a major way, in that context. Please.

    I am trying. I am not equating you with, well, people we’re probably both thinking of but choose not to name. I never did. Do you understand why your comments seemed wrongheaded to me? Do you understand the points I was making, and why they have nothing to do with the extreme example of Jeffreys? Or are you still stuck on this idea that I’m painting you as the trannyhater, when that was never the argument at all?

    I don’t understand why you seem to think that I am or was attacking you:

    No, I suppose that your comments fell into Amp’s ideal of attacking arguments, not posters, but that’s a technicality on certain charged subjects so far as I’m concerned.

    And you don’t think that bio women ever feel this way ? Or that we might, just might, have some justification for feeling it ?

    I love rhetorical questions, don’t you? No, of course not. I’m saying that in this instance, queers are complaining about derails from the opposite angle for the same reason. And that we also have plenty of justification for feeling it. You’re reacting to a queer response to a particular lens on queer oppression as though it were a sexist derail. Why?

  29. 229
    piny says:

    And you don’t think that bio women ever feel this way ? Or that we might, just might, have some justification for feeling it ?

    And, Christ, talk about being unfair and inflammatory.

  30. 230
    ms_xeno says:

    I don’t know what else to tell you, piny. Other than that I usually avoid contributing to trans threads because I generally feel like a turtle without a shell in them. And that sometimes, it really bothers me that I don’t seem to have any moorings in even a discussion originally about bio women that ends up being steered elsewhere. Somehow, simultaneously, I’m supposed to remember that transpeople are perceived by the general public as being one gender or the other, and yet they might also not be any pre-ordained, traditional gender at all. Somehow I’m supposed to accept that when it comes to oppression we’re all in this together and yet I we’re not– as soon as the person who tells me that we are suddenly wants to map out all the reasons that I’m not qualified to even judge as to whether or not we are. Small wonder these discussions constantly make my teeth hurt.

  31. 231
    piny says:

    Other than that I usually avoid contributing to trans threads because I generally feel like a turtle without a shell in them.

    Yeah, I feel the same way about contributing to threads like the aforementioned, a lot of the time, particularly when they take place on blogs like this one. I’m not sure why that would excuse me if I decided to see you and Jeffreys et al. as an undifferentiated mass. My response to you was not a microcosm or some point in a larger struggle; I was talking about something you said.

    And that sometimes, it really bothers me that I don’t seem to have any moorings in even a discussion originally about bio women that ends up being steered elsewhere.

    Many of these discussions, though, are only originally about bio women because transwomen are ignored. It might or might not be fair to call a reference to transgendered people, transsexuals, or transwomen a derail; that has to do with the individual dimensions of the discussion. Sex work, unfortunately, is something that transwomen deal with both in terms of misogyny and transphobia; the same double-bind I mentioned earlier is often in play in terms of feminist treatment of them.

    Somehow, simultaneously, I’m supposed to remember that transpeople are perceived by the general public as being one gender or the other, and yet they might also not be any pre-ordained, traditional gender at all.

    How is this a contradiction?

    Somehow I’m supposed to accept that when it comes to oppression we’re all in this together and yet I we’re not– as soon as the person who tells me that we are suddenly wants to map out all the reasons that I’m not qualified to even judge as to whether or not we are. Small wonder these discussions constantly make my teeth hurt.

    Yes, there’s a lot of common ground between misogyny and transphobia and critiques thereof. No, they’re not the same thing. No, experiencing one does not mean you experience the other. These aren’t contradictions either.

  32. 232
    ms_xeno says:

    I am seriously bummed that Qgrrl left, because she always keeps her head in these discussions better than I do. I just stayed the hell out of the last Privilege thread and nodded my head with a lot of what she was saying.

    Anyway, piny, I don’t really have any suggestions about how we can make room for one another without excessive amounts of ire. A certain amount is inevitable, but I’d just as soon as pass on all ire all the time. It’s too draining. So if you have any suggestions, I’ll read them.

  33. 233
    Charles S says:

    ms_xeno,

    Agreed. Qgrrl leaving is the worst result of this so far. I’m not surprised, but I am sad.

  34. 234
    Ampersand says:

    I agree, as well.

  35. 235
    gayle says:

    Oh, yay!

    Belledame’s doing her patented hijack-the-thread-by-writing-consecutive- increasingly-off-topic-unnecessarily-long-posts troll maneuver again!

    Did I ask Marc to moderate your fervent attempts at derailing a rape pron discussion at his blog? Yes, I did –and with good cause. Trolling isn’t the same as disagreeing so don’t even attempt to equate the two and get away with it, BD.

    Amp,

    I’m sorry you think my comment to you was just snark. I think the Kos analogy is apt. And I think Kos is a much narrower and smaller place now than it was prior to his “woman’s studies set” and “hippy” comments. I’ve heard his numbers are still really good so he’s managed to bring in new readers. But its chalk full of yes-men and bullies now and IMHO his best bloggers are long gone.

  36. 236
    gayle says:

    So now you’re banning my direct responses to you and BD?

    Way to prove my point, Amp.

  37. 237
    Achilles and Patroclus says:

    Other than that I usually avoid contributing to trans threads because I generally feel like a turtle without a shell in them. And that sometimes, it really bothers me that I don’t seem to have any moorings in even a discussion originally about bio women that ends up being steered elsewhere. Somehow, simultaneously, I’m supposed to remember that transpeople are perceived by the general public as being one gender or the other, and yet they might also not be any pre-ordained, traditional gender at all. Somehow I’m supposed to accept that when it comes to oppression we’re all in this together and yet I we’re not– as soon as the person who tells me that we are suddenly wants to map out all the reasons that I’m not qualified to even judge as to whether or not we are.

    I just wanted to refer to this and mention that this is exactly how I felt as a gay man when I was first confronted with my male privilege in a feminist context.

    Confused. Attacked. Faced with a double standard.

    When it comes to oppression we’re all in this together and yet, we’re not. Suddenly, I’m the enemy, an oppressor. What the hell happened?

    Over time, what I came to understand is that there are different kinds of privilege and different kinds of oppression. There’s straight privilege, which I do not posses. There’s male privilege, which I do. There’s cisgendered privilege, monogamous privilege, etc., etc., etc.

    This is one of my primary issues with Radical Feminism. It seems . . . reductive to me. You’re either an oppressor or you’re not. You’re either oppressed, or you’re not. I don’t think it works that way.

    I exercise privilege in my day to day life. I suspect we all do. I suffer oppression. I suspect we all do. Becoming aware of both is one of my goals.

    I hope that was helpful, Ms Xeno.

  38. 238
    Ampersand says:

    Gayle wrote:

    So now you’re banning my direct responses to you and BD?

    Way to prove my point, Amp.

    From the moderation policies page:

    If your post is put into moderation: Probably you shouldn’t take it personally. The anti-spam program uses a big list of words that automatically get a comment put into the “needs approval” pile. (The words or bits of words that trigger auto-moderation can be totally unexpected and hard to predict. For a while, every time someone wrote a comment using the word “socialist” it was automatically put into moderation, because the word “cialist” was on the list!)

    Anyhow, once a comment is in moderation, it stays there until I approve it. And if I happen to be busy or asleep, that can unfortunately take a while . Sorry about that – but it really IS necessary. Blame the free market for creating spam.

    Way to prove my… oh, wait, I have no point. Never mind.

  39. 239
    Achilles and Patroclus says:

    I feel confident that I know ms. xeno well enough to say that I’m pretty sure that she already knows all about being both privileged and oppressed, and that’s not actually what she was talking about.

    Fair enough. I just mentioned it because, as I said, my initial reaction to being confronted with my privilege was so similar to her described reaction.

  40. 240
    belledame222 says:

    Okay, gayle. This is the third time you’ve accused me of “trolling.”

    do you know what a “tangent” is? “drift?” We were talking. As in, discussion. And your contribution is…?

    and once again: who the fuck -are- you, and where the hell do you get off? I really resent the attempt to paint me as some kind of sinister-agenda’d disruptor, feeble though the attempt may be.

    I mean, you have no link to a website; I have no personal context for you apart from your snarks at me; and, again, your contribution here is…?

  41. 241
    belledame222 says:

    and thanks, Achilles.

    just in general, this seems to be a theme across the ‘sphere right now: people who are/were already identifying with one marginalized group being called on possible let’s say unconsciousness in other areas. Burqagate for the most obvious example (to me) right now.

    It’s like: I think there’s this widespread if not quite articulated idea that “privileged” (in any sense)=”bad person,” or something like that. And if one is ever “caught” displaying a blind spot (and who the hell doesn’t have them? any of us?) well, that’s just, well shit! I Am A Bad Person! that’s what I must accept if I accept this! I can’t accept that! lash! defend!

    and as i keep saying: y’know, this is never what the whole “examination,” “consciousness raising” deal was supposed to be in the damn first place. Shame shame shame.

    And yeah, some people are gonna get angry, probably, but 1) it is possible to accept what someone is saying and still not accept the burden of their anger 2) one is hardly going to make people -less- angry by deny deny counter-attack defend twist shout etc.

    shrug.

  42. 242
    belledame222 says:

    >Somehow, simultaneously, I’m supposed to remember that transpeople are perceived by the general public as being one gender or the other, and yet they might also not be any pre-ordained, traditional gender at all. >

    Well, yes, in that transfolk aren’t a monolith; and neither are the “general public,” really.

  43. 243
    ms_xeno says:

    Yeah, bean. It’s okay, though. I don’t think that Achilles was trying to be superior. Achilles, this is usually the point where I’d bring in some kind of parallel about opressed classes and how they interact and change roles. But I can’t, because this is one case where analogies seem even more unequal to the job than they usually are. That’s because once I accept the notion of fluid gender roles, I start to feel as if the opressions themselves, or the role of either oppresser or oppressed become more fluid than they would be in any parallel I could draw. I obviously don’t know you well, but it seems to me that there’s a major divide between the way I’m going to look at oppression and the way you’re going to look at it for a simple reason: Everywhere I go, people can look at me and see I’m part of a subordinate class, at least where gender is concerned. Unless I go live on Paradise Island, which last I heard, was still only fictional. :p That’s not the case for you or many transsexuals. While you may fear “being found out” for being different in a number of ways than the dominant class, it’s not a given that the dominant class can pick up on these things just by looking at you.

    Oh, and I’m not a radical feminist. I tend to treat feminist thought like a buffet. I pick up a few things from everywhere and don’t try and digest it all at once.

    Shame shame shame.

    belledame, you’re giving me either too much or too little credit to assume that I’m bringing this all up out of shame. It has more to do with wanting to figure out how we can have interlocking discussions on interconnected issues in this space without either A) Constantly stepping on each other’s toes or B) Having every damn conversation so weighted down with disclaimers and qualifiers that the discussions become all disclaimers and qualifiers, and not about whatever the original points were supposed to be.

  44. 244
    piny says:

    That’s not the case for you or many transsexuals. While you may fear “being found out” for being different in a number of ways than the dominant class, it’s not a given that the dominant class can pick up on these things just by looking at you.

    …To add a few of those disclaimers and qualifiers: passability and privacy are very much affected by other factors, class being a big one. Transsexuals in general are not obviously transsexual, but many are and are visible because of transphobia. It isn’t quite accurate to say that it’s all about being found out, although that works pretty well for my life. That having been said, this is a very good point about the differences between the way misogyny operates and the way transphobia operates.

    There’s a very simple parallel, then: being gay or lesbian.

  45. 245
    belledame222 says:

    Yup.

    Weirdly enough, too, although I don’t see it as so much in operation here & now (21st century United States, I am currently writing from, and as a member of both the below-listed), I have also found a lot of parallels between “queer” and…Jewish.

    * “Passing” is a big issue; some people do/did it more successfully than others

    * “Cultural elite”

    * accusations of being both degenerate filthy gutter underscum and all-powerful wealthy sinister Elitists running everything -at the same time-

    * often associated with effeminacy, which in turn is associated with decadence, luxury/exploitation of the “salt of the earth” folks

    …and a few other things as well.

    just ruminating.

  46. 246
    belledame222 says:

    >t has more to do with wanting to figure out how we can have interlocking discussions on interconnected issues in this space without either A) Constantly stepping on each other’s toes or B) Having every damn conversation so weighted down with disclaimers and qualifiers that the discussions become all disclaimers and qualifiers, and not about whatever the original points were supposed to be.>

    …so, yeah, sure, i’d be for that as well…

  47. Pingback: The SmackDog Chronicles » Blog Archive » Intermission Special: The “Alas, a Porn Portal” Controversy

  48. 247
    Ben Metcalfe says:

    Hey, I just wanted to follow up the Dedicated Server issue – any news on this front?

    I hope you can get out of the contract…

    Bests
    Ben

  49. 248
    Daran says:

    I hope you can get out of the contract…

    I doubt it. Barry could sue, but I doubt he would get more of it than an court order against the buyer to comply with the contract. What damages has he suffered from the breech?

  50. 249
    Angry Scientist says:

    Maybe as a virtually unknown new blogger I shouldn’t care about this odd bailout, since I don’t depend on writing for my living, would’ve starved long ago if I dared, almost did just that when young and reckless, but that’s another story. What makes me care is what transpired concerning this allegedly representative of feminist blogs behind the backs of several really pissed off women who posted here. Ampersand, it makes me think your idea of feminism makes you feel independent of what women feel about your actions, as I observed on my blog about Hugh Hefner, also a man claiming feminist leanings while profiting on this peculiarity of our culture, using women sexually for money.

    I found some odd reversals reading this thread, particularly in responses to radfems and to John. If this is porn funding feminist discussion, why are many of the feminist posters jumping ship, breaking longstanding blog links? Offended is putting it mildly. They are furious, and in my view, rightly so. My view may not count for anything, as a male outsider, but I have to agree with John that this makes men who fight sexism look bad, or at least less credible. It reflects badly on men who make an effort to support the cause. It puts in question whether any man can be trusted as a reliable ally of feminism. This makes it my business, so I am here to register my protest. If you censor me, it will be on my blog, with a protest of that tactic tacked on. I’d hope you aren’t heavily censoring this thread, though I’m sure you hoped it’d die off already.

    Why did you do it, really? None of anybody’s business, seems to have been your attitude, though you profess regret now. Kinda late, better late than never? Yeah, well, maybe you are sincere, maybe not. Obviously you have to maintain that you are. It just strains credulity, if you look at it from my point of view. Here you are in money trouble. Who bails you out? Would you accept a bailout from a child pornographer? Oh wait, I guess you did. What goes on here? Does informed consent mean anything to you, or your loyal defenders? You didn’t think women posting here deserved to know until how long after it was a done deal, then were busted, then buried a cursory announcement by disallowing comments, then finally a man convinced you to open a thread for comments. Did I get the timetable wrong? Maybe you think women in the industry know what they’re getting into. My info says, most want to get out, feel trapped. Sounds like they didn’t know. Do you care, Amp? I don’t get it. People say this is a feminist blog being supported by porn? Fun feminist blog, maybe, the kind that think women in sex work gave consent, so no problem, right? Did they understand what they were getting into? I think that is a big issue you ought to face. Sounds like, this is a blog discussing feminism while supporting porn. You may have a legal right to sell your blog to anyone you wish, but hardly a moral high ground. No, I wouldn’t go so far as it say such a blog is a complete oxymoron, not really for me to judge, but that depends on how far it degenerates. This thread is a bad sign.

    Maybe the porn merchant hosting this blog is not hocking the worst of porn, but where do you draw the line? This is not rocket science. This is not erotic art this guy is selling. I don’t know what he is selling, because I’m not buying, but I can tell that much. If this is some kind of speech, it’s hate speech, saying women are sex objects for sale to gratify male lust. I think you could get out of this deal if you really want to. That might go a long way to convince your old friends you regret the mistake. I get the impression some are unconvinced, and likely to remain so, since you want to drop the subject as settled, over, nothing anyone can do about it now. If so, that may well be true, but the boycott may spread until it chokes you. The fate of one who gets a reputation as phony is rarely pretty. I got the impression some women feel scammed, while others expected you sooner or later to betray your real colors. You didn’t do yourself any favor by accepting this deal or by being devious about it, unless you really don’t care that women feel betrayed. Then, hey, no skin off your back, but you don’t want women to think you are that indifferent to the issues they are raising. What a trap you dug for yourself. I almost feel sorry for you, guy, but I’d never trust you, so I don’t. Another man betrays feminism for whatever reason, yawn, what else is new? Maybe this shouldn’t be a big deal for feminists, just like when the antiwar group Not in Our Name welcomed support from Mr. Progressive Larry Flynt? Thanks a lot, alleged ally. You are no ally of mine. I’ll answer if someone responds, but otherwise I’m an outsider, so I’ll leave you alone, except perhaps to raise some more hell on my blog.

  51. 250
    ms_xeno says:

    Hey, AS, you could have saved yourself and the rest of us a lot of time by just putting in a plug for your space, with something pithy like, “Hey, I’m a real feminist man who’ll never sell you out, Sisters.” Instead of recapping a bunch of stuff that everyone already knows, darkly insinuating –based on what ?– that you will be censored, and implying that this is due in part to the fact that Amp tried to make a full-time living as a blogger– which he has never done or claimed to do, so far as I know. Brilliant. I’ll be headed over to your space, pronto, since you are moral enough to give pron a boost just long enough to toot your own horn;Yeah, I can just smell the purity radiating from every pore. Where have you been all my life, Brother ?

  52. 251
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    Disingenuine. That’s the word that comes to mind when reading Angry Scientist – either that or the epitome of hiney-kissing. The fact is, not all feminists are in the same camp about pron, like it or not, and if the radical feminist contingency wishes to declare themselves as exclusive from those of us that are less decisive about the issue (come on folks, it’s far more complex than simple feminism here, we’re all sexual creatures and pron caters to that common denominator – at times legitimately, but, admittedly often times exploitatively of women). So yes, there is an issue that lingers at the bottom of this, but it still is up to the individual to choose what it means to them.

    Amp has made some mistakes in handling this, but I am confident and clear enough on the situation to understand that the most vocal opponents that have repeatedly condemned his actions are the ones who have a VERY CLEAR PERSONAL BIAS AGAINST AMP.

    This notion of shaming folks for not joining in on the hayday of folks who suddenly are having their own wet dreams satisfied by Amp slipping up in a way that they can get a lot of spin miles is hardly my idea of fun. I don’t care to associate myself with feminists that are exclusive, bigoted and all around asshat-like to others that don’t 100% tow their line of rhetoric any more than I want to hang out with a bunch of MRA’s.

    As for Angry Scientists take and writing, well it’s obvious he’s already part of that camp (as a lowly male apologist underling, rather than a companion) when you read some of what he’s written on his own blog. Hell, he even is into shaming the trans-community for the whole Michigan fest hub-bub. Lets see, where have we seen that rhetoric before….ohhhh yeah. Anyways… what the fuck ever. Sycophant. That’s right, if you get to shame us and pre-judge us for our politics, you sure as hell are going to get a target painted on you.

    So harsh though it may be, can I just say would (those of you radical fem) asshats (that do attempt to define for everyone) quit attempting to define feminism for the rest of us. Some of us who should be your fucking companions and colleagues in this fight are getting more than a little sick of your shit and your own very clear brand of oppression. My husband and male friends are feminists. I’m a feminist. Just because we don’t tow your line of thought doesn’t mean we aren’t fighting the good fight on many levels that we all feel is appropriate for us. Just because a male isn’t a god-damn sycophant doesn’t mean he isn’t genuinely wishing for equality among the sexes, and just because he slips up doesn’t make him lesser than you, it just makes him a fallible human LIKE YOU.

  53. 252
    Angry Scientist says:

    I tried to respond earlier, before Kim weighed in, but the comment problem prevented that. Odd that both responses accuse me of defining feminism. Men have neither the privilege nor the ability to do that. Betrayal is another matter, as is informed consent. Kim, Amp slipped up? Is that how you see this? Amazing. That you presume I must be dishonest and/or a sycophant is less amazing, almost expected, considering. I know some of the things I write are hard to believe. That’s not something I can afford to worry about. Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes. I don’t blog for fun, not remotely. I blog to blow the whistle on things that really piss me off. This was my response to ms_xeno, as I posted on my blog this Monday morning, not knowing when or if I could post it here.

    Hey, ms_xeno, if you are going to accuse me of distorted implications, perhaps you should refrain from making such about me. I know Amp is a cartoonist as well, and also that he was part of a larger household with trouble paying the bills. Maybe he could have managed it on his own. Who ever said Amp tried to make a full-time living as a blogger? I just said I wasn’t in any position to sell my writing, so I’m not in his shoes. That is beside the point, which is what I expected of any response from his side. You might call that bit of political posturing pithy, but I couldn’t make such claims as being a real feminist man, because that isn’t mine to define. I can say I fight sexism. I can say I have a free unknown blog of no financial value to anyone, so no analogy would cross my mind. I have kept my heretical observations to myself forever, but a certain man caused me to defy my fears by getting the goods on the military and trying to publicize it. So I decided to hell with consequences, I was going to say what I perceived. When I make mistakes, I have to learn from them.

    Speaking of which, I misused the word hocking. I meant to say hawking. I have this image in my mind of Amp hocking his blog to pron. I don’t get why amptoons is so concerned about showing up in searches for pron. Kinda late to worry about that now with that conflict of interest in the picture, not because of anything I said. However, point taken, I’ll avoid that spelling. Anyone coming to my blog for pron will find nothing they were looking for, perhaps a challenge if they bother to read. Also, since Amp had the honor to post this, as well as many other angry protests, I probably should not have expected to be censored. I have reason to believe he picked and chose. As I said to my first hostile commenter, I am above all a truth-seeker. I give credit where it is due, even when it might seem to contradict my point.

  54. I have been sitting here for the last 20 minutes or so trying to decide if I want to respond to what you have written, Angry Scientist, not because I am unsure whether it is worth it or not, but because, in all honesty, I don’t have the time to engage in much of a discussion and you seem to be someone spoiling for an argument–and I mean this in a good way; I do not think you are being provocative for provocation’s sake. Still, there is a lot in what you have written that resonates with me–not because I agree with you. I don’t. I think you are, ultimately, unfair to Amp, especially given that you are very new to this blog, as well as to blogging in general; but, more importantly, I think your self-righteousness renders impossible what might otherwise be a really important and really interesting discussion.

    What do I mean? It is very tempting as a man who is commited to feminist goals–I don’t care whether you call yourself feminist, pro-feminist or what–to divide men into “us” and “them.” Sometimes “we” are the ones who get it, while “they” are the ones who don’t; sometimes “we” are the ideologically pure ones, while “they” are the ones who have not yet really made the full commitment to feminism that “we” feel places us in a camp apart as “true” allies. I used to do this all the time, and it was, for me, absolutely about making myself feel better about being a man in a society where men oppress women. (I will not presume to psychologize you by suggesting that your motivations are anything similar to mine; I am offering my experience as, simply, my experience.) I was one of “the good guys;” I owned my privilege, took responsibility for it, and I did so before anyone else had to tell me about it, and that put me head and shoulders not only above the men who didn’t get it, but also above the men who did, or at least claimed to, but had not yet gotten as much of it as I had.

    The fact is, however, at the level of male privilege, that there is no “us” and “them.” You and I are no different from the pronographers whose search engine rankings are influenced–as I understand it pretty minutely–by the search engine optimization that the amptoons domain is now part of; what differentiates us, or any man from them, is what we do. And because we are human and fallible, and because our privilege is ubiquitous, and because the world is set up in such a way to make fighting that privilege on all fronts at all times in the ideologically pure way that we might like to fight, nearly impossible, we will fuck up, and sometimes we will fuck up in very big ways.

    Personally, I think what Amp did was a big fuck up–not so much the sale, because I was not in his shoes, do not know and, frankly, do not need to know, the financial details of what his situation was–but because he did not say anything sooner. Do I think male privilege was involved in his decision not to say anything sooner? Yes I do; not because I think Amp’s feminism has all along been the cynical front his accusers have been saying it is; but because he operated within a male privileged system, and it is worth considering how that system was at work not only within himself, not only in the context that created the financial offer he felt he had to accept, but also in the connections between those two “sites of privilege” (if that expression make sense). I am not the person to start that discussion here because, first, I don’t know Amp well enough, and I would not presume that such a discussion should take place on the basis of his blogging persona; second, because I don’t know that Amp owes any of us a view into the inner workings of his psyche (though I would be interested in reading, if he ever decides to write, a more thorough account–if there is one along the lines I am suggesting–of how he came to terms with the sale and its fallout); and, third, as I said, I don’t really have the time.

    What I can say is this: I understand and respect why a woman, on finding out that the amptoons domain name is now being used to help pron sites get better search engine rankings, might choose to disassociate herself from this blog; and I can also understand why she might choose to see Amp himself in a very different light. If purity in other people’s stance in opposition to pronography is that important to her–and I am not suggesting that such a position is at all unreasonable–then there is no reason for her to continue to take Amp seriously as an ally. I can also understand and respect why a man might choose to disassociate himself from this blog, if he does so because he doesn’t want his actions in any way to support pronography; but once he starts to play the “us” and “them” game, which pretty clearly seems to be the game, Angry Scientist, that you are playing, he is engaging in a kind of zealotry that ultimately reinforces the patriarchy he claims to be trying to dismantle.

    Okay, I am out of time. Please understand that, if I don’t respond, it is not because I am not interested, but rather that I am otherwise occupied.

  55. 254
    ms_xeno says:

    AS wrote:

    Hey, ms_xeno, if you are going to accuse me of distorted implications, perhaps you should refrain from making such about me.

    Oh, boo hoo. Let the full-0n martyr act really get rolling. Look, “Brother,” I sure as fuck didn’t wander over to your space looking for a fight. Until two days ago, I’d never heard of you, and I’m still reading nothing here that makes me give a damn about your space. If you dislike being misunderstood, try becoming a better writer. You could have spoken your piece –which as I said, is largely a rehash of what others have written out much more articulately — with twice the clarity and in half the space, had you really wanted to.

    Maybe he could have managed it on his own.

    Yeah. Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which piles up faster. He has already made it clear that “on his own” was not going to work anymore. But you need a paper dragon to slay to prove your own knightly virtues, so just keep repeating that over and over in hopes of making it true.

    That is beside the point, which is what I expected of any response from his side.

    Shit, dude. Give us a little more passive-aggressiveness, why don’t you ? Ohhh, you’re all so meeeeeeean to me and my sloppy, transparent, insinuations and bad writing, just because I think Amp is tainting feminism with pron and now here I am, pitching my space to a bunch of people I actually don’t even like and hypocritically tainting myself in the process. Bawwwwwwww…

    Fine, I get it. You’re the hero, we’re the jerks. Now that we’ve established your ability to dig yourself a hole, why don’t you take your shovel and go digging elsewhere ?

  56. 255
    curiousgyrl says:

    Mrs.Xeno–it is worth noting that linking, not commenting is the tainted pron promoting activity. At least, thats what I thought we figured out.

  57. 256
    Angry Scientist says:

    I didn’t come here to argue with professional trashers who presume to know what someone they don’t know from Adam feels or thinks. Mr. Newman at least thought about what I said. Sorry, guy, I have probably less time than you. I think that kind of discussion could only work on my blog, if you care to copy your post. Making fun of my writing style may seem like intelligent discourse to some, but I have to say, some kinds of BS don’t merit a response. I came here to protest what Amp did, and to challenge him to respond to my post. I’m looking for fights, this is true, but not with Amp’s defenders. I wouldn’t stoop to this level of dodging every issue I raise with crude distortions about me. This thread is not about me, and I couldn’t respond to this silly unfounded BS without going totally off topic. I’ll just say, it doesn’t surprise or bother me in the least I’m too weird for you to get where I’m coming from. You have lots of company. Hint, it’s not martyrdom.

    Would anyone care to discuss what informed consent means to them? A minor selling pictures of her body is no big deal? Amp could get a free blog like us peons you know. If he doesn’t care to respond to me, no big deal to me. I didn’t come here to defend my weird opinions that make no sense to character assassinators defending Amp by way of evasive insinuations based on nothing. I didn’t expect them to. I’d hoped for some discussion of the issues I raised, but it seems some would prefer to blindly bash me vainly hoping to leave a mark. You haven’t the slightest clue what motivates me to write. Martyrdom is sometimes the lot of the effective whistleblower, but my concern was about Uncle Sam or nutcases, not scurrilous attacks based on wild imaginations. FTR Kim and Xeno most of your responses I have no time to refute, but on my blog I might cite the most laughable clueless crude inventions about me. I’d rather not take that kind of bait. If you want a response, try answering one of the questions I raised, or convince your hero to. I’m not interested in responding in kind to garbage insinuations. My charges are well-founded. Besides, I don’t play those games.

    Also, I have to say the accusation of purity is particularly ludicrous. I’ve lurked on feminist boards and blogs enough to know radfems have plenty of internal discord, even on pron. For one thing, what does the word mean? Some religious fanatics consider sexuality evil, or at least distasteful. Where the line is drawn is not a settled matter, but I think one line feminists rarely cross is when a minor is the lure. Amptoons is owned by an outfit that crossed that line, whether Amp likes it or not. Personally I object more strenuously to that, or to violent pron, than to softer stuff. I do recognize the existence of erotica, which is hard to define, leaving a big gray area. I don’t think anything this merchant is selling would qualify. I think erotica requires some artistic or educational purpose. YMMV. The purpose of pron is rarely artistic, since then it wouldn’t be pron. My impression is that many of Amp’s accusers are new, who used to give him the benefit of the doubt, but he crossed one too many lines. This was the last straw, so boycott spreads.

    So, Amp, if this really bothers you, why don’t you revert to a free WordPress blog like us peons? BTW how much did it cost you to keep up this fancy blog? I know, none of my business. Maybe I could afford one of my own, but my purpose is not remotely artistic, just to have my say, no nice touches requiring custom software or extra bandwidth like this blog.

  58. 257
    Achilles and Patroclus says:

    I think one line feminists rarely cross is when a minor is the lure. Amptoons is owned by an outfit that crossed that line, whether Amp likes it or not.

    Are you saying that this link-farm outfit produces or promotes pornography involving minors?

    If this is true, legal action really ought to be taken.

    If this is not true, you shouldn’t claim it is.

  59. Angry Scientist:

    Mr. Newman at least thought about what I said.

    You, on the other hand, seem not to have thought very much about what I said. In your own words, you were “hop[ing] for some discussion of the issues [you] raised.” Yet, if, as you say, mine was the only response that took you seriously, it is telling, very telling, that you spend so much of the precious little time you have responding (with a very disturbing self-righteousness, I might add) to everyone else instead of taking on the issues I tried to raise, which I thought were connected to the ones you were trying to talk about.

    It makes your invitation to me to continue this discussion on your blog seem to have been the real point of posting here, i.e. driving traffic to your blog, and it certainly makes it look like the benefit of the doubt I gave you was unambiguously misplaced.

  60. 259
    ms_xeno says:

    Sure, curious. A link would formalize the degree of AS “sin,” but it’s a “sin,” nonetheless, by his own standards. He is using someone who uses pornography to promote his own space.

    AS:

    Sorry, guy, I have probably less time than you.

    [/civility monitor]

    Your long-winded, ill-informed postings would seem to establish which of us actually has more time on the posting, if not reading end of things.

    Also, I’m not a guy, you stupid sanctimonious ass. “ms” as in “ms.,” not “Microsoft,” for the love of– Oh, forget it. It’s been well established to most regular posters here that A) I’ve known Amp since we were both a couple of gawky, geeky teenagers (I used to post as “alsis,”) that B) Obviously that’s going to impact how I feel about what he’s done and that C) I’m probably somewhere between Kim (basement) and Sam (aka SM Berg) in my views about pornography. Read more carefully next time before you claim to be an all-knowing expert. Otherwise, back the fuck off. I don’t need you to vet my blogging habits and I sure as hell don’t need you to explain feminism to me.

    [civility monitor on:]

    For the record, I haven’t had any problem with Richard’s posts, or piny’s, or even with those of most of the people who left in the wake of the sell-out. They can at least claim some emotional and time investment in this space. AS, OTOH, can’t claim any such thing and that’s why his posts piss me the hell off.

  61. 260
    Sailorman says:

    Whack!
    Stab!
    Maul!
    Bludgeon!
    Wham!
    Kablooie!

    DIE, THREAD! YOU MUST DIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!!!

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    whew. I feel much better now.

  62. 261
    ms_xeno says:

    Yeah, whatever, Sailor. Take the extra punctuation back to the Gw*n St*f*n* thread, why don’t you ? Unless you feel like googling “Professional Trasher” for me so I can find out if the pay, hours and the 401K are to my liking.

  63. 262
    Tom Nolan says:

    mx_xeno

    “I used to post as “alsis””

    Well you’ve been keeping *that* very quiet, I must say.

  64. 263
    Sailorman says:

    ms,

    1) was mostly a joke
    2) wasn’t talking about you anyway
    3) to the degree it wasn’t a joke, it was just an annoyed reference to the probable reality that this issue (which seems pretty much “done”) will never, ever, ever, die in the eyes of some.

    peace.

  65. 264
    ms_xeno says:

    Maybe you should check in more often, Tom. I don’t go to everyone’s spaces and post updates every fifteen minutes, you know. But you’re right. It’s all part of my nefarious plan f0r– something. I don’t know what the plan actually is, but if I wait here long enough, AS will probably come back and explain it to me.

    It’s all right, Sailor. I was joking, too.

  66. 265
    piny says:

    For the record, I haven’t had any problem with Richard’s posts, or piny’s, or even with those of most of the people who left in the wake of the sell-out. They can at least claim some emotional and time investment in this space. AS, OTOH, can’t claim any such thing and that’s why his posts piss me the hell off.

    Welcome back.

    It didn’t even occur to me to leave for a long time, honestly, and not because of attachment; my family doesn’t do estrangement. We fight and fight and fight and fight and fight. We never stop speaking.

    I’m honestly not sure what I’m gonna do; I don’t think I feel comfortable linking here anymore. I do feel, though, like it’s important to have this discussion, so.

  67. 266
    Tom Nolan says:

    Actually, Ms_Xeno, I was wondering if you’d changed moniker because, having written “alsis38″, “alsis38.5″ and so on, you suddenly realized that “alsis40″ was looming up ahead and lost your nerve. Speaking as a forty-four year old I would certainly sympathize.

  68. 267
    ms_xeno says:

    Not really, Tom. It’s true that the changeovers got to be a bit of a drag. My birthdate is still readily available to anyone who looks at my LJ. But mostly I just wanted a blog name that went better with the name of my art webpage, which will hopefully be fully operational before Sydney celebrates her 40th birthday.

    :/

  69. 268
    Angry Scientist says:

    Alsis! I did lurk on Ms. for awhile, so I would heartily agree, I have more time per post, since yours outnumber mine at least 100 to 1. Thousands? I had no idea! Now it makes more sense why you don’t like me! You haven’t the patience to figure out my theories. I can understand that. You don’t need to tell me I’m no professional writer. I know that out of context it’s not easy to figure out what the hell I’m trying to say. Even reading my blog might not help. You probably shouldn’t bother. Why waste your time. I should’ve known it was you! I didn’t lurk that much, but you have a distinct style hard to forget.

    Anyway, just to say, I did find your posts interesting, most of the time. I understand my ways of expressing myself can be tiresome, and you think this subject beaten to death. Yeah, I’m late to the party. Sorry, I feel this affects me in a bad way and wanted to have my say. I have no particular beef with you, and the guy reference was directed at Richard. BTW Richard I disagree with your assessment. Sometimes responding to attacks is more important than anything else. Unfortunately, this was one of those times. I have work to do, so if you’re all bored with me, and Amp prefers to ignore my rants, I may not be around for awhile. Then again, who knows. FTR I’ve never claimed to be an expert on pron, forget all-knowing expert. The latter cannot exist, except possibly on certain limited specialties, such as the properties of machines.

    Alsis, sorry I rubbed you the wrong way. I know, that’s an understatement. I just have to say, I think I understand part of why we clash so much. I don’t hold it against you. I’m just weird that way. I find it ironic, and interesting. If you don’t believe me, I don’t hold that against you either. Why should you? We both know, it doesn’t matter, not at all. Won’t affect either of us, or the course of events. Sorry for boring you and pissing you off, since my writing isn’t up to your standards and you think I have no stake in this. Not directly, true, but indirectly, it’s another slap in the face women took from a man trusted as an ally. That’s why I felt it necessary to make a stand. That’s really all I’m trying to do here, sorry it took so long.

  70. 269
    Angry Scientist says:

    One more thing. I’m not sure whether teen sensation is meant to imply before the age of consent, but if not, I am in error in presuming the owner is promoting child porn. I also have less time for reading than I’d like, and it appears I misconstrued that. Since Amp has no control, it appears he has to trust the business sense of the owner not to promote anything illegal. This has little to do with my argument, as a matter of principle, but it’s true, I overreached if that teen sensation is of age.

  71. 270
    Agnostic says:

    “Teen” porn is a particularly disgusting brand of porn. They advertise as “18 to 19 year old” models, who usually pose looking like they’re several years younger.

    While they’re not illegal themselves, they surely promote the sexualization of young girls.

  72. 271
    Ampersand says:

    …Amp prefers to ignore my rants

    I guess you missed the post about me being on vacation.

    But yes, I do prefer to ignore your rants, and probably would have even if I had been here. That’s because you treat me as if you’re a flawless god who has never, ever made a mistake, whereas I’m subhuman scum who should be grateful that you deign to come to my blog to treat me like shit.

    Do you really think I’m being unreasonable in not responding to you, considering the utter contempt you treat me with?

  73. 272
    ms_xeno says:

    You haven’t the patience to figure out my theories.

    AS, you must be aware of how incredibly patronizing you sound when you write stuff like this. First of all, “your theories” are pretty common amongst a great number of feminists. I’ve seen them before. Some I’ve appreciated and some I’ve rejected, but I could do without your assertion that you’re bringing something unique and special to the table that a lesser mind like mine aparently can’t grasp.

    Also, I’d still like to know how you justify using this space to boost your own blog’s readership. You claim to be anti-pron, but you’re using a space which has a domain now owned by pron promoters. You haven’t been very receptive to Amp’s POV that he did what he felt was the best way to keep the space going. His assertion, over all, was that he wanted to keep the space as it was because the space as it was provided something that would have been lost otherwise. The compromises and mistakes he made all stemmed from wanting to preserve the current space and structure of Alas without causing severe problems in his offline living situation.

    Now, you have zero sympathy for this, it seems to me. Yet you expect people here to have sympathy for your own compromises, which are likewise borne of the belief that your POV is unique and important enough to be worth preserving and bringing outside its normal area.

    In short, you demand sympathy and forbearance for yourself that you don’t extend to the person who runs this space, or to anyone who still refuses to help you trash him.

    You already know the names and locations of the folks who’d probably be happy to have you on their team and on their blogrolls. So why did you come here in the first place, if not out of self-indulgence ? And why the hell are you stillhere ?

  74. 273
    Daran says:

    One more thing. I’m not sure whether teen sensation is meant to imply before the age of consent, but if not, I am in error in presuming the owner is promoting child porn. I also have less time for reading than I’d like, and it appears I misconstrued that. Since Amp has no control, it appears he has to trust the business sense of the owner not to promote anything illegal. This has little to do with my argument, as a matter of principle, but it’s true, I overreached if that teen sensation is of age.

    Nobody in the USA hosts or sells child pornography, not unless they want to end up hosted themselves in a Federal Prison. Most real child pornography is produced in the former Soviet Block, where laws are lax and police are bribable.

    ‘Teen’ in the lexicon of Western pornography means anyone who might conceivably pass for eighteen or nineteen, at least to those who’ve never seen a real teenager.

    Some ‘teens’ are nearly in their thirties.

  75. 274
    Angry Scientist says:

    Alsis, I’ve expected or demanded nothing at all. You made all that up. Why are you insisting on jumping to conclusions, as if you know all about my theories and motives without even reading my blog? I was speaking in broad terms, and impatience has nothing to do with lack of intelligence. I’m sure you could understand my theories, if you took the time, but you won’t. I’m only still here because you keep answering me. I explained why I was here. I have nothing else to say, except that I said all those presumably absurd things yesterday after I remembered you because I have some respect for your opinions. I’ll think about how I came across to you, and take it as a lesson. I did hope, stupid as it sounds, we could be a little friendly. My theories are not all about feminism; those are just interpretations of things I read, so I wouldn’t call them mine. I meant, my theories, not about feminism, which influence my perspective on feminism besides, you know, books and magazines and boards and blogs, things like that. I don’t expect you to be impressed, or read my blog, or anyone else, for that matter. You all made that up too. I stand by what I said, corrected by my errors. If that all adds up to nothing or less, I don’t care. Stop answering me, if you think it’s all nonsense, so I can stop correcting the record.

    Amp, anger and hostility are not the same, though I presume you take such a challenge as hostile. I reject that characterization; I merely renounce any alliance with you as a man claiming alliance with feminism. You don’t anger me like some men. You could answer my post, requesting I leave it at that. I’d honor that, regardless of whether I feel answered. IOW don’t bother unless you feel like it; you already said you don’t. Thanks for saying something, even if just to explain why you haven’t.

  76. 275
    Ampersand says:

    Amp, anger and hostility are not the same, though I presume you take such a challenge as hostile.

    In the last few weeks, I’ve seen dozens of angry responses to me that I don’t think were hostile. It’s certainly not the case that I take all challenges as hostile. I do think your words were hostile, though. If you didn’t intend them as hostile, maybe I misread you, but you should also consider the possibility that you wrote your post in a way that communicated hostility, regardless of your intent.

    I reject that characterization; I merely renounce any alliance with you as a man claiming alliance with feminism.

    Duly noted. Your personal purity has been maintained; congratulations. I’m sure that your rejection of an alliance that I never even claimed will have many real-world repercussions in which victims of sexism and misogyny, who otherwise would have gone wanting, will thereby be assisted.

  77. 276
    Ampersand says:

    Why are you insisting on jumping to conclusions, as if you know all about my theories and motives without even reading my blog?

    Didn’t Alsis say something earlier about a trans-bashing post on your blog? If my memory is correct, then she has indeed read your blog, and this comment is thus inaccurate.

    Not that it’s ever a requirement to read a comment-writer’s blog, anyway. If your comments here can’t be read on their own merits, without having to read your blog, then they aren’t doing their job.

  78. 277
    Sailorman says:

    Angry Scientist Writes:
    October 27th, 2006 at 9:47 am
    Alsis, I’ve expected or demanded nothing at all. You made all that up. Why are you insisting on jumping to conclusions, as if you know all about my theories and motives without even reading my blog?

    If you are going to use the language of “jumping to conclusions”, this is, in essence, a demand/request to read your blog. People are entitled to judge what you post as a standalone post. Hell, AFAIK you haven’t even linked to the parts of your own damn blog which are relevant. So someone is not only expected to read “your blog” but ALSO to find whatever happens to be hiding in your blog to support their point……. right. Like that’s gonna happen. If anyone takes the time, you should thank them.

    I’m sure you could understand my theories, if you took the time, but you won’t.

    When you say “take the time” you obviously mean “take the time to read your blog.” I’m sure he could understand them if YOU took the time to post them where he reads, ya know? Or took the time to explain them better?

    I don’t expect you to be impressed, or read my blog, or anyone else, for that matter.

    See the first quote in this post, as well as the implication of the second quote in this post. If you don’t expect anyone to read your blog, stop referring to your freakin’ blog already.

    You all made that up too. I stand by what I said, corrected by my errors. If that all adds up to nothing or less, I don’t care. Stop answering me, if you think it’s all nonsense, so I can stop correcting the record.

    Yes. Every single person made this up. That we all seem to generally agree on what you were (or were not) communicating is surely evidence of a vast conspiracy. In fact we are all secretly the same person. And we troll on your blog hourly. /sarcasm

    And if you “don’t care” then (as said above) why post? It’s AMP’S BLOG, so unlike you, he actually has a vested interest in “correcting the record” as you put it. You don’t–especially since you aren’t coming back under your own admission. Nobody here will think anything different of you of you stop posting, I don’t imagine.

    You are prolonging a conversation about ending a conversation. And you’re doing it in a manner which is, I must say, annoying as all hell. Please go away.

    p.s. If you find this post offensive, it’s not, because of a deeper implication vis a vis feminist theory. The explanation for why it’s not offensive is, of course, on my blog. Go find it yourself.

    p.p.s Actually, it’s not on my blog at all! heh.

  79. 278
    ms_xeno says:

    Actually, Amp, it was Kim (basement) that actually read the trans-bashing thing over there. I think I’ll pass on having a look, myself.

    What I find interesting is that over and over again, I wanted AS to explain his repeated use of this pron-promoting domain to promote his own site. Seems to me that it shouldn’t have been all that tough for him to clarify why it’s all right for him to fight the devil with the devil’s own instruments even as he insists it’s not all right for you. But, never mind. Not worth my energy anymore. I’m going outside. :/

  80. 279
    Johanna says:

    I didn’t bother to save the link, but there was a thing on Digg.com about google changing their algorithms so that page rank is no longer dependant on the number of links.

    Your buyer just got screwed. Hope the new owner doesn’t sell Alas! to somebody really nasty.

  81. Pingback: Creek Running North » On blog policy

  82. 280
    Julie, Herder of Cats says:

    I must have been pre-occupied when Amp sold the place and missed the firestorm of controversy. I’d seen this thread near the top of the recent posts lists several times and didn’t know what to make of it.

    This time I decided to look a bit deeper and now I’m even more confused. When I went digging around I saw that most of the cartoonists who are listed as “regular artists” are posting left-of-center and otherwise progressive ‘toons. Which I’d think of as a good thing.

    Given that, in my observation, the sale of the amptoons domain has increased the amount of progressive cartoon art, what, again, is wrong with the sale of the domain? I actually tried really hard to find something objectionable, but couldn’t. Could someone with an axe to grind please post a link to something here that is anti-feminist or at least not-completely-progressive?

  83. Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Update On The “Amptoons.Com” Domain Sale

  84. Pingback: I think I found a new subhead for my other blog « Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing