Author: has written 27 posts for this blog.

Joint admin account for moderation matters.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

90 Responses

  1. TMK
    TMK January 11, 2014 at 1:24 am |

    As asked by tigtog there, about rape and gender:

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2014/01/07/sex-cookies-2-0-episode-6-rape-myths-vs-guns/#comment-766002

    @ldouglas

    For another, reading that one quote you keep bringing up, it seems the statement “about half of rape victims in the last 12 months were men” is entirely accurate. Also, from what I know, men are even less likely to report than women.

    This is not much of a concern here. It is not a research of police database, they surveyed general population (it also means they did not catch most prison rapes in last year category) and asked question. These questions are actually available in Appendix C. The question that resulted in mentioned result reads:

    had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}?
    • {if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning that they made you put your penis into their anus?

    (on a side note, going back to Fat Steve question, there is a question, second one, that seems to me to fall under sexual coercion category. Well, looking at it, i think i would not include it as rape, either)

    @Pheeno

    Except, NDN women rape is four times higher than the national average and that is not included in stats. So….when you actually include us as citizens of the US, the numbers change. Even more so when you factor in how many go unreported, or don’t get reported because no one knows what jurisdiction it occurred in, or a game warden shows up instead of the police and has no idea how to investigate.

    Actually, table 2.3 on page 20 includes breakdown by race, with category >American Indians or Alaska Native<. Also, reporting rates do not influnece results of this survey, as it surveyed general population.

    @trees

    Yes absolutely, the numbers are untrustworthy to begin with.

    Really? Are you saying that big cdc survey is untrustworthy? Why do you say so? What is trustworthy, then, if not this?

    1. TMK
      TMK January 11, 2014 at 1:27 am |

      @Miranda

      Hi. So maybe I suck with numbers, but I am really confused by this whole argument, and I looked at the graph for a long time last night. The twelve-month numbers suggest the 50:50 split, but the “lifetime” numbers clearly indicate something that is way more skewed than 50:50. Can anyone cleverer than me explain what is going on here? Is it possible that the “lifetime” rates are higher for women for a very good reason: for example, maybe under 18s were NOT surveyed and women have a higher rate of rape in that category, hence far more reporting lifetime?

      I’m really inclined not to just throw out the lifetime numbers under the presumption that “Eh meany poopy pants authors just don’t want to believe men are victims by rape,” unless someone can explain to me why we can assume that for the lifetime stats and not for the 12 month stats?

      Ha! As i wrote above, this is very interesting thing, so excuse me for what will be overly long reply!

      You are right that this is very unusual, should not happen and demands an explanation. Let me get this straight from the beginning: i do not know an answer. But I encountered a hypothesis or three, and have my thoughts on it.

      So, yes, the gender split should be constant unless something is skewing it. What could it be?

      1. In recent years, there is a huge rise of rape of males, or equally huge drop of rape of females.

      The second thing is actually reality, as rape of fameles rates sharply dropped in the 90s (or both). But what happened to rape of males in the same timeframe? Perhaps it also dropped, so it wont explain anything? I dont know. Ally posted some older research that had similar gender split, so perhaps it is false way, and the drop was among all genders.

      2. Men tend to process the incidents in different way. Namely, they more often repress and forget the abuse.

      This would explain the discrepancy, and has some arguments for it, from the differences in average coping strategies by gender, to such things as higher tendency of males not to recall old abuse incidents we know happened (from police data).

      I think there were other possible explanations, but i remember only those two. At first i was leaning towards the first one, then when i read the rape statistics (and the drop mentioned above), i had sort of epiphany that the first explanation is correct, but then due to things i mentioned i again think the second is more likely.

      As for your thought, specifically, i dont remember what the age cutoff was for the survey. I think 13 years. Or was it the UK one, NATSAL? No, i think it was NATSAL, and this one did not specify assaults that happened above specified age (lifetime, obviously, i dont think they surveyed minors)

      Btw, funny thing, once i found a similar report about Baltic Region, and my country had boy victimization (or prostitution?) five times higher than girls. Needless to say, i was somewhat surprised. I am still meaning to write the researcher asking for possible explanation, because, seriously, that is weird and makes no sense (and it was only my country out of 6 surveyed)

      1. Ally S
        Ally S January 11, 2014 at 11:52 am |

        1. In recent years, there is a huge rise of rape of males, or equally huge drop of rape of females.

        Although this report technically counts all forms of sexual assault (not just rape), I think it’s a good indication that sexual assault in general is decreasing at almost equal rates for men and women.

        2. Men tend to process the incidents in different way. Namely, they more often repress and forget the abuse.

        But that seems to happen quite often with female victims as well. The main gender difference I’ve seen is not that men are more often to repress/forget it but rather that they have different ways of understanding their abuse. And if that’s true, then it’s not a methodological issue at all because the CDC study screened for sexual assault via behavior-specific questions, not questions like “Have you ever been raped?”

        This would explain the discrepancy, and has some arguments for it, from the differences in average coping strategies by gender, to such things as higher tendency of males not to recall old abuse incidents we know happened (from police data).

        “Old” is an important word here. If we’re talking about studies on gender differences in child sexual abuse disclosure, they aren’t applicable to the CDC study, whose respondent age cutoff is 18. That means, for the 12-month figures, the lowest possible respondent age is 17. Yet we know that quite a few CSA survivors are younger than 17, so unless those studies supposedly explaining the discrepancy surveyed mostly 17-year-olds, they can’t be applied to the 12-month figures.

        1. Ally S
          Ally S January 11, 2014 at 12:28 pm |

          By the way, just to make things clear, the “Ally” that TMK is referring to is Ally Fogg, not me! =P

    2. TMK
      TMK January 11, 2014 at 1:31 am |

      @Esti

      I think the reason the lifetime and 12-month numbers appear at odds is that there is a much higher rate of repeat victimization among men. Most sexual assault of men take place in prison; the prison population is much smaller than the general population, and inmates are much more likely to experience sexual assaults on multiple occasions and thus be counted in each 12-month figure.

      That would be interesting thing to research, regardless of all this, but i think it is not the prison rape that this survey captured, since 80% of the made to penetrate category was victim of female perpetrator (which i guess is too high number for female prison guards to account for it)

      Btw, since we are talking about misconceptions, AFAIK, prison rape is mostly guard-perpetrated, not inmate on inmate.

      @Fat Steve

      This is a load of MRA bullshit

      No. What is bullshit is your constant rape apologism, mister i dont know how penetration looks like so i cannot call forcing someone to penetrate rape. Not legitimate enough for you, i guess?

      TMK’s anti-woman comment about ‘accidents’:

      And you are so bloody oblivious you cannot even read with comprehension. In my comment I used accidents for both male and female victims. But of course it is anti-woman comment, beause, something.

      1. Kerandria
        Kerandria January 11, 2014 at 4:15 am |

        Tomek, is that you?

        1. DannyChameleon
          DannyChameleon January 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm |

          It really could be.

        2. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 11, 2014 at 12:17 pm |

          Tomek, is that you?

          Is TMK Tomek? I WNDR….

      2. Miranda
        Miranda January 11, 2014 at 8:51 am |

        TMK, let me explain what this looks like to me so maybe it becomes clearer why people are giving you push back. You are using HALF of ONE study to argue that the statistics that most people have been accustomed to for years regarding female vs. male victims are wrong. Honestly, I’m not overwhelmingly convinced by your evidence yet, since I don’t see a plausible explanation yet for why we should favor lifetime over the 12 month estimates, although I admit to not being well-versed in the literature and i suppose other evidence could convince me. Moreover, this is the kind of argument that MRAs will get into, and so people already are going to find it irritating and tedious. This isn’t me saying you are right or wrong for making this argument, just trying to point out why people are going to be cross with you.

    3. Ally S
      Ally S January 11, 2014 at 11:29 am |

      I wrote these two entries about the CDC study as a response to anti-feminists, if anyone is interested in reading them. (If it’s inappropriate to share them here for some reason, I apologize.)

      Part 1: http://mellowness.dreamwidth.org/14991.html

      Part 2: http://mellowness.dreamwidth.org/28533.html

      1. ldouglas
        ldouglas January 11, 2014 at 4:40 pm |

        Interesting posts overall, but I wanted to mention that this:

        However, the population sample also had some advantages. In particular, it included an even distribution of racial minorities among both men and women (e.g. white women were nearly just as common as white men). If rape weren’t a gendered crime, one would expect race to have no effect on the percentage female or male victims. Yet, as it turns out, women across all races listed are significantly more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than men across all races listed. So, if we look at each racial category separately for both men and women, we will find that women are overwhelmingly more likely to be attacked.

        isn’t how statistics work.

        1. Ally S
          Ally S January 11, 2014 at 5:39 pm |

          You’re right – that conclusion I made doesn’t make any sense now that I look at it again. And it’s pretty embarrassing, given that I was trying argue against a certain bad usage of statistics. X_X

          But I do think the racial distribution of victims across gender is still meaningful. Perhaps it suggests that, regardless of whether men are victimized as often as women, women are more likely to be impacted by racist violence than men. That could be a flawed way to look at the racial distribution as well, but maybe it’s worth considering.

  2. pheenobarbidoll
    pheenobarbidoll January 11, 2014 at 11:35 am |

    The numbers in regards to NDN rapes are untrustworthy because of the political zoo surrounding rape. 90 percent of our rapists are non Indian, and Tribal police have no jurisdiction over them. Reports are sent to federal offices, which are “lost” and government agencies don’t receive reports for non Indian rapes of NDN women on NDN territory from tribal police. So you’re looking at a large number of rapes that never get counted in the stats. Only a very small number of these rapes are reported because the reports are either not sent in to the feds, or not investigated by the feds when they are sent in, or a report is never even written down because no one is sure of the jurisdiction. So a woman can call the police and have the tribal cops show up who take a report and send it in, only to have it lost, no one can show up because no one knows who has jurisdiction, a game warden can show up and not even write a report. That’s how the numbers are unreliable. No one actually knows just how high the percentage of rape is on reservations. Estimates are very conservative. And general population surveys are almost worthless because it can only be conducted on some reservations, poorer and more remote areas do not get surveyed, and NDNS do not trust outsiders asking questions. And then you get to deal with those who are NDN, but not federally recognized tribes. And none of that even touches on the problem of coerced prostitution. See the problem yet?

    1. Kerandria
      Kerandria January 11, 2014 at 9:04 pm |

      I.. fuck. Thank you for sharing all of this, pheeno. I appreciate so much that you do. I know that sounds wretchedly trite, but.. thank you.

    2. ldouglas
      ldouglas January 12, 2014 at 4:04 am |

      Right, I get that. My question- and I apologize if this was unclear- was in response to this:

      Except, NDN women rape is four times higher than the national average and that is not included in stats. So….when you actually include us as citizens of the US, the numbers change.

      Given the above, I was wondering if there was any reason to believe the rape rate among NDN men wasn’t similarly much higher than average, which would mean the overall numbers wouldn’t change.

      1. pheenobarbidoll
        pheenobarbidoll January 20, 2014 at 10:53 pm |

        Rape- 14% for women, 2% for men. These numbers are only from 6 tribes though, so..

        1. pheenobarbidoll
          pheenobarbidoll January 20, 2014 at 10:56 pm |

          Its also since the age of 18. NDN men aren’t prostituted in as high numbers either. NDN women have expressed that since they’re going to be raped anyway, they might as well make money from it.

        2. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 21, 2014 at 8:46 pm |

          Rape- 14% for women, 2% for men. These numbers are only from 6 tribes though, so..

          That would totally go against the theory that ldouglas is putting forward that men and women are equally as likely to be victims of rape.

        3. trees
          trees January 21, 2014 at 9:03 pm |

          That would totally go against the theory that ldouglas is putting forward that men and women are equally as likely to be victims of rape.

          This is the absolute opposite of my anecdotal experience; is there any evidence (that doesn’t involve funny-style math) to support this assertion?

      2. Fat Steve
        Fat Steve January 21, 2014 at 9:05 pm |

        Pheeno, that comment wasn’t directed at you, (though obviously I quoted you,) more at ldouglas. Just pointing out that this was only brought to spillover because ldouglas and TMK had insisted that rape victims were 50/50 men and women., yet there has still been no evidence given to substantiate that claim.

  3. macavitykitsune
    macavitykitsune January 20, 2014 at 9:39 pm |

    TW: racism, acid attacks, jokes about acid attacks

    Melissa McEwan decides to joke about “extreme facials” involving acid.

    Yeah, tell me more about that “advanced feminism”, you raging asshole.

    1. ldouglas
      ldouglas January 20, 2014 at 10:15 pm |

      Christ. I wish feminists would stop closing ranks around her.

    2. Donna L
      Donna L January 20, 2014 at 11:10 pm |

      I’m confused. Melissa McEwan has her own private blog separate from Shakesville? I had no idea. And that comment was allowed to stay up there and not deleted? This is for real?

      1. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune January 20, 2014 at 11:34 pm |

        As far as I can tell, if it’s a fake it’s a fucking amazing one.

        And that comment was allowed to stay up there and not deleted? This is for real?

        The fact that you’re shocked that a single critical comment could stay up at a site for four hours says more about what Shakesville is (and maybe what you know Shakesville is, unconsciously) than all of your defense of it in threads past.

        1. Donna L
          Donna L January 21, 2014 at 12:08 am |

          I have no idea if it’s real or not — if it’s a parody of one of her conversations with Deeky, then as you say, it’s amazingly accurate for the tone of them.

        2. shfree
          shfree January 21, 2014 at 3:45 pm |

          Oh for fuck’s sake. They chide just for the sake of chiding now? If at any point someone breathes the merest hint of slightly negative general emotion in the vague general direction of where Liss might be standing they are now suddenly worthy of being dressed down? I mean, someone has a sad about a polar bear sitting on rocks, and suddenly it’s a prejudice about the habitats of polar bears that needs correcting as well as a lecture on her tone. It really isn’t a safe place except for people she chooses to keep safe, and it seems to be based on her whims.

        3. shfree
          shfree January 21, 2014 at 3:46 pm |

          Damn it, I hate this nesting. This was supposed to go with the polar bears thing.

      2. BBBShrewHarpy
        BBBShrewHarpy January 21, 2014 at 12:18 am |

        Definitely a parody. Look at the earlier posts.

        1. tigtog
          tigtog January 21, 2014 at 1:51 am | *

          I notice that the WHOIS on melissamcewan.net gives an address in Indiana, while the WHOIS for shakesville.com gives a ‘private registration’ result. Why would someone who’s been as continually harassed (by rightwingers and ultra-conservative Catholics since the John Edwards campaign primarily) as Melissa, and who’s learnt her privacy lessons thoroughly as a result, not go private on the registration for this domain as well? Interestingly, the WHOIS for melissamcewan.com does also give a ‘private registration’ result, even though there’s no content there.

          It smells to me more of somebody trying to give out the location of her physical address in a particularly underhanded way. I’m willing to be proved wrong, but that’s what my spidey sense is telling me right now.

        2. Donna L
          Donna L January 21, 2014 at 2:40 am |

          If it is, it’s damn good. But some of it is just so over the top with the LOLs and the scatological humor that I’m beginning to agree with tigtog.

        3. trees
          trees January 21, 2014 at 11:43 am |

          Definitely a parody. Look at the earlier posts.

          Has this been confirmed? At Shakesville under “Twitter Updates”, I see that yesterday she posted a facial related selfie for DeekyMD.

        4. Donna L
          Donna L January 21, 2014 at 12:47 pm |

          I don’t know how one would confirm that it’s real or not. I don’t see any link to it at Shakesville, and I’m not sure why she would have a separate website to post her dialogues with Deeky, since she posts them at Shakesville all the time. I vote for parody. I mean, come on:

          QCoFM
          This is my space. It is not your space. You are a guest here. My house—my rules. If you don’t like them, you are not welcome to protest; you are encouraged to move along and find a space more aptly suited to accommodate your preferences, or, better yet, start your own.

          At this bus stop in the blogosphere, I’m Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain. And I don’t abide bullshit.

        5. XtinaS
          XtinaS January 21, 2014 at 12:57 pm |

          I asked her in Twitter, so, we shall see.

        6. pheenobarbidoll
          pheenobarbidoll January 21, 2014 at 1:04 pm |

          The earlier posts are pretty mundane for a parody. Travelling, food pictures, the kinda stuff that isnt parody material when its just basic itinerary. We stopped here, saw this, ate that…not much parody going on.

        7. XtinaS
          XtinaS January 21, 2014 at 1:05 pm |

          Crossposting from elsewhere:

          (a) Comments at http://www.melissamcewan.net/2011/07/mind-your-b-zwax.html#disqus_thread show her Disqus userpic and “Mod” status.
          (b) Hovering over her name in that comment shows her full profile, which includes shakesville.com things.
          (c) A comment in a thread in shakesville.com shows that this is, indeed, the same person.

          So at a stretch, someone has hacked her account 5 days ago and she hasn’t yet noticed.

          Why indeed would she have an entirely separate account for “joking” convos that are sort of incredibly -ist all over the place? I’m sure I have no clue.

        8. Donna L
          Donna L January 21, 2014 at 1:31 pm |

          Well, as I said elsehwere, if it is real, then I am speechless at the “acid” conversation. I notice that the horrified comment is still there. So if the site is hers, then she obviously doesn’t monitor it the way she does Shakesville.

        9. XtinaS
          XtinaS January 21, 2014 at 1:40 pm |

          Yeeep, definitely not a parody:

          http://www.melissamcewan.net/2014/01/facials.html#comment-1210743984

          “Of course I realize that there are really people who hurt women by throwing acid at their faces. But acid-based facials are also a real thing, and a real thing that women (and men, especially gay men) are exhorted to use in pursuit of youthfulness.”

          …welp.

        10. Donna L
          Donna L January 21, 2014 at 2:43 pm |

          So she’s saying that the subtext of that conversation was actually a criticism of that sort of thing, and was intended to highlight the pressures that cause people to do it? Well.

        11. XtinaS
          XtinaS January 21, 2014 at 2:50 pm |

          OBviously.

          Meanwhile, back at SV:

          http://www.shakesville.com/2014/01/photo-of-day_14.html#disqus_thread

          Fun times, fun times.

        12. Donna L
          Donna L January 21, 2014 at 3:00 pm |

          Don’t you understand how hurtful a comment like “polar bears belong on ice” can be to rock-dwelling polar bears who might be reading this blog?

        13. Echo Zen
          Echo Zen January 21, 2014 at 3:37 pm |

          I think this is the first time I’ve wondered if a blogger has officially jumped the shark, or nuked the fridge…

        14. pheenobarbidoll
          pheenobarbidoll January 21, 2014 at 4:49 pm |

          Doncha love nitpickers who, while agreeing with the comment overall, has to be contrary about one sentence in it then fucking argue about it before stating they agree with the overall comment so dont know why there’s arguing? God I can’t stomach that kind of crap.

        15. Ally S
          Ally S January 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm |

          Meanwhile, back at SV:

          http://www.shakesville.com/2014/01/photo-of-day_14.html#disqus_thread

          Fun times, fun times.

          Yeah…shit like this is why I left Shakesville (aside from MM’s problematic views).

    3. anna_k
      anna_k January 20, 2014 at 11:21 pm |

      Wow. That is so terrible :/

      More generally, I don’t get the “advanced feminism” thing, either. I stopped seriously reading her site, and thinking of her as honestly intersectional, by about her third post on the British royal family that read like 19th-century imperialist propaganda (PLZ tell me more about the selfless charity and kindness of the people ruling my current country, who only stopped *formally* exploiting my country of origin for gain very much within living memory, white US person!).

      Reading this sort of thing, I’m glad I got out of there a while ago now.

    4. Ally S
      Ally S January 20, 2014 at 11:57 pm |

      Quite an “ally.”

      1. PrettyAmiable
        PrettyAmiable January 21, 2014 at 12:56 pm |

        Hahaha pun intended?

        1. Ally S
          Ally S January 21, 2014 at 1:05 pm |

          Nope. At least I didn’t capitalize “ally.” =P Maybe I should just use Alli instead or something…

    5. PrettyAmiable
      PrettyAmiable January 21, 2014 at 12:51 pm |

      I’m a little skeptical (and I’m not a consistent Shakesville reader for many of the reasons highlighted here in the past), but for a person who is so hard on her commentariat, I’d be surprised to hear that Melissa is actually behind that writing. Regardless, whoever wrote that is a complete scumbag. I wonder if anyone has raised the issue to her for accountability?

    6. Sharon M
      Sharon M January 30, 2014 at 12:23 pm |

      TW: racism, acid attacks, jokes about acid attacks

      Melissa McEwan decides to joke about “extreme facials” involving acid.

      Yeah, tell me more about that “advanced feminism”, you raging asshole.

      I’m the one who left the “F-You” comment and I’m feeling skeevy about it. I try to comment as if we’re talking face to face, and irl, I wouldn’t be dropping the F bomb.
      OTH: on line and irl, I do talk like that to anti choice, sexist, racist et. al people. A few years ago I confronted the 40 days of life protesters at my local Planned Parenthood. “For everyday you’re here, I’m giving money in your name!” I then made good on my threat and cussed them out.
      Damn it felt good to confront them.

  4. judithshakestown
    judithshakestown January 21, 2014 at 1:35 pm |

    It’s totes real. MM has gone so far off the rails she has now become a parody of herself.

    1. Donna L
      Donna L January 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm |

      I must admit that your new blog is extremely funny.

      1. Donna L
        Donna L January 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm |

        As well as completely offensive, of course.

        1. judithshakestown
          judithshakestown January 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm |

          It’s not offensive, it’s insultuous.

        2. Echo Zen
          Echo Zen January 21, 2014 at 4:47 pm |

          Oh, yeah? Well, you’re in need of some serious moral spankitude!

      2. trees
        trees January 21, 2014 at 5:49 pm |

        Yes, very, very funny.
        I particularly enjoyed your content notes: in the Virginia Woolf post you use [CN: quality writing], and in another post you have [edited by moderator to add CN: gmail discrimination]
        I literally LOL; well done.

    2. macavitykitsune
      macavitykitsune January 21, 2014 at 7:29 pm |

      I…I love you.

    3. XtinaS
      XtinaS January 21, 2014 at 7:35 pm |

      Your blog. Your blog is the most best.

      1. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune January 21, 2014 at 7:41 pm |

        Now you’re invisiblising and deaudibilitating people who are triggered by malconstructed superlatives!

        I’m taking the rest of the year off to recover emotionally from seeing that sentence.

        1. XtinaS
          XtinaS January 21, 2014 at 7:53 pm |

          MEA MACSIMA CULPA

          (…that pun, I feel as though I should either apologise for it or frame it.)

        2. macavitykitsune
          macavitykitsune January 21, 2014 at 7:56 pm |

          Both. Both is good.

        3. XtinaS
          XtinaS January 21, 2014 at 8:00 pm |

          This is the best I got:

    4. PrettyAmiable
      PrettyAmiable January 21, 2014 at 7:51 pm |

      Can I throw out what I think may be an unpopular/wet rag opinion? (CN: wet rag, in the spirit of things)

      I really can’t read through the comments on SV because I’m not a fan of the moderators’ approach to it. The safe space for polar bears shit from the thread above is just unreal.

      …But doesn’t this seem especially mean? And bullying? She sucks, right? But I haven’t really seen a lot of parody sites of people who are actual perpetrators of kyriarchy celebrated like this. It just seems a little over the line to me.

      Like I said, I’m kind of guessing this isn’t going to be a popular post, but all of this feels like we’re picking on the fat kid in gym class, or something.

      1. macavitykitsune
        macavitykitsune January 21, 2014 at 8:05 pm |

        You’re right, and that’s why I wouldn’t do it myself. But eh, I dunno. I think she’s a big enough asshole that I don’t really care.

      2. trees
        trees January 21, 2014 at 8:07 pm |

        @PrettyAmiable

        I have no personal stake in this matter since I’ve never been a regular reader of Shakesville, and of what I have read, I generally enjoyed. Would you elaborate on your point of view a bit further? Are you saying the parody is out of proportion and/or that it is mean-spirited? I thought the “hater” sites were a way for folks who had been manipulated and silenced to express themselves. I would love to hear more of your take on things.

      3. ldouglas
        ldouglas January 21, 2014 at 8:17 pm |

        I disagree. She is, in fact, a kyriarchy-perpetrator, she just lays claim to the title of feminist while she does it. She’s incredibly racist and abusive.

      4. Donna L
        Donna L January 21, 2014 at 8:19 pm |

        I understand what you’re saying. After all, I’ve been Melissa’s biggest (and only!) defender here. And I’m sure I’ll continue reading certain things on it, and occasionally commenting. (Note that Shakesville was probably the first or one of the first mainstream blogs to deal with the Grantland situation, so Melissa still gets some things right.)

        But right now, I’m in such a state of shock from learning that the “acid peel” conversation (complete with disgusting photo) is real, and from reading Melissa’s embarrassing explanation of it (“we were really criticizing acid peels and the pressures that lead people to have them!”) that at least for the time being, I have no problem at all with finding some humor in the situation.

        1. Donna L
          Donna L January 21, 2014 at 8:28 pm |

          “you’re” = Pretty Amiable. “it” = Shakesville. I confess, by the way, that I have also started reading the Shaker Kool-Aid site on a regular basis. I find it entertaining; what can I say?

          [CN: animal injuries] So the acid peel thread may not be the straw that broke the camel’s back for me, but it’s made quite an impression. I do wonder if she deliberately didn’t put on Shakesville because she was afraid of the reaction.

          Finally, ldouglas, I don’t want to start another lengthy discussion, but I do wish there were pm’s here so I could ask you about her racism — all I remember hearing about was her position that Scottish people are victims of racism or the equivalent. If anything else was mentioned, I missed it.

        2. Fat Steve
          Fat Steve January 21, 2014 at 8:55 pm |

          Finally, ldouglas, I don’t want to start another lengthy discussion, but I do wish there were pm’s here so I could ask you about her racism — all I remember hearing about was her position that Scottish people are victims of racism or the equivalent. If anything else was mentioned, I missed it.

          Someone posted that link on here the last time Shakesville came up. It was an unbelievable article about how the film Brave was racist because it dealt in (admittedly positive) Scottish stereotypes. It was remarkable in that it seemed to not be only unable to grasp how racism actually worked, it also seemed to not even understand that there are negative Scottish stereotypes, which are typical of any minority group (laziness, parsimony, alcohol abuse.)

        3. Ally S
          Ally S January 21, 2014 at 10:22 pm |

          Finally, ldouglas, I don’t want to start another lengthy discussion, but I do wish there were pm’s here so I could ask you about her racism — all I remember hearing about was her position that Scottish people are victims of racism or the equivalent. If anything else was mentioned, I missed it.

          Not ldouglas, but I just want to say that, a few years ago, MM made a post featuring a rap album cover she made up for fun. It was intended to mock the trolls that spammed her inbox. But a black woman of color objected to the image and said it was a form of appropriation because MM is white. I can’t remember everything clearly, but I certainly don’t remember the argument in the comments going smoothly. That’s the only incident I remember besides the Brave one.

      5. Computer Soldier Porygon
        Computer Soldier Porygon January 21, 2014 at 8:26 pm |

        “But I haven’t really seen a lot of parody sites of people who are actual perpetrators of kyriarchy celebrated like this. ”

        Me neither, but there’s something that really bothers me more about a Perfect Advanced Feminist Safe Space feeling/being so awful (and unsafe and shitty for many many people!) and, hey, I mean, it’s not the noblest of emotions but it feels good to me to be a jerk about it and laugh at it.

      6. Ally S
        Ally S January 21, 2014 at 8:35 pm |

        …But doesn’t this seem especially mean? And bullying? She sucks, right? But I haven’t really seen a lot of parody sites of people who are actual perpetrators of kyriarchy celebrated like this. It just seems a little over the line to me.

        Perhaps the reason there aren’t many parody sites like it is that MM has a unique status as a perpetrator of kyriarchy who claims to manage a safe space. Not many perpetrators of kyriarchy are like her.

        It is certainly a harsh and critical parody blog, but I don’t think it’s reached bullying status – I mean, unlike the other parody blogs, the author doesn’t mock MM for any of her health problems and whatnot (AFAICT).

      7. PrettyAmiable
        PrettyAmiable January 21, 2014 at 9:30 pm |

        Totally hearing all of you. Frankly, I’m typically most irritated by the silencing that happens there. It does seem like you have to be ready to jump through a huge number of hoops in order to be able to comment about how you experience oppression, and I don’t really think it’s appropriate to chide anyone who is finally getting a chance to speak up (the way I did above).

        The chemical shit is beyond the pale. I work in a super conservative environment where all the -isms are the norm, and not one of my coworkers would ever think it’s okay to say that kind of shit. I think that’s why I’m having such difficulty believing she thought it was okay to say that – because what the honest-to-god fuck.

        Would you elaborate on your point of view a bit further? Are you saying the parody is out of proportion and/or that it is mean-spirited?

        Irrespective of the chemical peel shit (which is disgusting, and I somehow missed that it was definitely attributed to her), it seemed to me that her approach is deeply informed by her own shitty set of life experiences. I think I’m typically willing to look past shitty approach if I think someone’s heart is in the right place – but honestly, I just reflected on how infantilizing my thoughts were, and how it reminds me of what that troll said on the other thread about how abusers should be given a pass for their abuse if they themselves are victims.

        It does still feel a little icky to me, but there are really good reasons to feel otherwise. Also, I can’t claim a moral high road when I’m happy to call her an asshole.

        1. PrettyAmiable
          PrettyAmiable January 21, 2014 at 9:32 pm |

          tl;dr: I’m sorry. And thanks, all, for being receptive to my earlier comment!

      8. judithshakestown
        judithshakestown January 21, 2014 at 10:09 pm |

        prettyamiable, in all honesty, I appreciate you sharing your “unpopular/wet blanket opinion.” It might not be totally unpopular. I am worried about it a little bit–let’s face it, if I weren’t actually a mostly well-meaning person with a high proclivity for guilt feelings, then I may never have been drawn to MM’s blog in the first place.

        There is a lot I could say about my own ambivalence toward starting a parody blog in this particular case, but let me just say this.

        [Okay, first, pausing to say that I just saw your following comments and apology--don't apologize!]

        I think that MM’s candor about her disabilities and abuse history is laudable. I also think it attracts a lot of people who can identify and who are really looking for an understanding community where they can talk openly about their own experiences. This is also good. I feel though that attracting that kind of audience, especially if you are going to actively cultivate a community around that audience, comes with a lot of responsibility. And I have seen MM treat her readers with a lot of unkindness.

        I have no doubt that MM thinks she is doing right by her readers by providing them with content notes and moderating with a heavy hand. But I think that the responsibility extends further than this. And by this I don’t mean that MM has an obligation to give more of herself to the blog or that she shouldn’t set emotional boundaries for herself, rather I mean that she really does have a responsibility, in my view, to treat her readers with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. B/c her subject matter is going to attract some people who are vulnerable in particular ways. And there are a lot of parallels in the relationship MM sets up between herself and her readers to emotionally abusive relationships.

        I don’t think this means I therefore have a license to be mean to MM and bully her. And tbh, I don’t really think of her as part of my audience. Rather, I think 1) people who have been gaslighted or manipulated, etc. need to know that they are not crazy, and part of that I think is to help illustrate what is so crazy about that space and give people a space to laugh about it. 2) I think parody is especially useful in cases where many arguments are rendered essentially futile b/c the opposition simply denies them by employing a whole host of logical fallacies

        the rest of it, making fun of her language and writing, etc. is probably petty and catty, and I can’t really make any good excuses for it, except to say that I honestly don’t think that she’s a horrible writer. Some of it–and increasingly a lot of it–is fluff or otherwise lazy. But here’s the thing, I will let so much slide, I am so not easily offended. But if you are going to manipulate and guilt people into paying you to write and if you are going to claim moral superiority forever and always amen and treat everyone as though they should have known this one true truth about sj and how you treat people and etc. then I am going to pick on you for the littlest things.

        Do you think that she also thrives on being hated? It’s hard to tell, and I’m not completely sure.

        Ah, so many other things, but this is WAY TOO LONG ALREADY. Amen.

        1. judithshakestown
          judithshakestown January 21, 2014 at 10:18 pm |

          Oh, I forgot to add, part of what you said made me think of it, PA, that it’s hard because I do also feel really sorry for MM. And I don’t mean that in a patronizing shitty kind of way, but there are some really crappy ways of relating to people going on on that blog. And, for me, it’s taken me a long time to recognize some of those patterns in my own life and my own actions and try to root them out and relate to people in a healthier way. I’m sure there are a billion other ways in which I can still improve my relationships with others and become a healthier person. So what I feel bad for MM for is that these bad patterns/pathologies are so laid out to bare in front of so many people and that there is so much stuff going on–stubbornness and backlash against the backlash, that I don’t know if she can even make the space to see or work on those unhealthy patterns. /armchair psychoanalysis

        2. Judith Shakestown
          Judith Shakestown January 21, 2014 at 10:51 pm |

          Ah, PA, my other comment is in moderation, but hopefully it goes through soon so it all make sense. The gist is, thanks and yes I worry about it too, however, etc. :)

      9. Sharon M
        Sharon M January 29, 2014 at 8:56 pm |

        …But doesn’t this seem especially mean? And bullying? She sucks, right? But I haven’t really seen a lot of parody sites of people who are actual perpetrators of kyriarchy celebrated like this. It just seems a little over the line to me.

        Like I said, I’m kind of guessing this isn’t going to be a popular post, but all of this feels like we’re picking on the fat kid in gym class, or something.

        You bring up a good point. That’s not the purpose of the anti Shakesville blogs. Any sexist, fat hating et. al. b.s. against McEwan would be quashed, afaik. FWiW, I try to be fair in my comments,. I don’t want to find fault where there is none if that makes sense?

    5. JetGirl
      JetGirl January 21, 2014 at 9:13 pm |

      (CN: Possible admiration) Great parody.

  5. XtinaS
    XtinaS January 21, 2014 at 7:59 pm |

    In this case, said picking-on target engages in and encourages incredibly abusive behaviours, and I have very few fucks to give about someone like that.

    1. XtinaS
      XtinaS January 21, 2014 at 7:59 pm |

      (Buh. This was supposed to be a response to PrettyAmiable, above.)

  6. pheenobarbidoll
    pheenobarbidoll January 21, 2014 at 11:09 pm |

    So much anger.http://crooksandliars.com/2014/01/michigan-goper-herd-all-indians-detroit. And not just at the racist words, but also at that reverend who said the guys comments were an insult to African Americans but just a slight to Indians. Saying Indians should be herded into Detroit, fenced in and thrown corn IS MORE THAN A SLIGHT YOU JACKASS.

    1. Ledasmom
      Ledasmom January 22, 2014 at 11:40 am |

      And then Patterson claimed the New Yorker had an “agenda”. I’m not entirely sure in what possible light his comments about blankets and corn could be seen as anything other than vile. What an asshole.

      1. pheenobarbidoll
        pheenobarbidoll January 22, 2014 at 12:15 pm |

        I know. His own words show what he is. No need for any spin, the hate is Self evident.

    2. ldouglas
      ldouglas January 22, 2014 at 3:08 pm |

      Saying Indians should be herded into Detroit, fenced in and thrown corn IS MORE THAN A SLIGHT YOU JACKASS.

      Corn and blankets.

      1. PrettyAmiable
        PrettyAmiable January 22, 2014 at 7:54 pm |

        Yeah. Corn is racist. Blankets is frankly a fucking threat.

    3. trees
      trees January 22, 2014 at 9:28 pm |

      The minister’s reasoning is nonsensical, he says:

      These remarks are repulsive and racist. Not just because the City of Detroit is over 80% African American, but because it is also a direct slight to the American Indian who occupied the land before Detroit was Detroit and Oakland County was Oakland County.

      The genocidal threat was lost on him.

      1. pheenobarbidoll
        pheenobarbidoll January 22, 2014 at 11:19 pm |

        Colonization fail.

  7. suckerpunch
    suckerpunch January 29, 2014 at 8:59 pm |

    Judith you rock!

  8. Sharon M
    Sharon M January 30, 2014 at 1:01 pm |

    [content note: Jonestown, suicide, murder]
    For what it’s worth (and I think I’ve said this before) the term Drink the Kool Aid is makes light of the death of over 900 people,** The Peoples Temple started off with good intentions: a class free, anti racist, anti sexist society. Contrary to what people believe, the majority of them didn’t commit suicide.

    Last November 18th was the 35th anniversary of Jonestown, which up until 9/11, was the largest mass murder of Americans.
    I posted a diary on the Daily Kos on the anniversary, and sadly it was the only one.
    The murder of JFK was seen as more important judging by the number of diaries on the Kos.

    Please correct someone when they use that term.
    There is an excellent site that features Jonestown survivors, as well as the complete list (with photo I.D) of the victims. If anyone would like to read it, let me know

    **1/3 of them children and infants.
    **including Congressman Leo Ryan (D) who among other things had himself arrested to investigate the reports of abuse at Folsom Prison. Show me a Congressperson who would do that now.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.