Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Little Valkyrie ([info]waltraute) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2010-09-18 12:28:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
This feminist blog which depends on your donations is not here to educate you!
Thanks to the anon at wank_report for the bulk of the writeup, with its singular virtues.

S.E. SMITH accuses Lady Gaga of appropriation:

It's been pointed out that she appropriates a lot of things from musical traditions created by people of colour and nonwhite people. That her work contains transmisogyny. That she appropriates the experiences of people with disabilities. These are all things that I don't think of as feminist acts—note that I am not saying that Lady Gaga is not feminist (because I don't think it's up to me to decide that), but rather that I am saying that her actions do not always mesh with the identity she has chosen to claim. The same could be said of many other people who identify as feminist, including myself, however. Let those in glass houses...

(bonus points for the excellent use of praeteritio here.)

A commenter asks for references and explanation. According to Snarky's Machine, late of the now-closed Shapely Prose, asking for sources is derailing and oppressive:

I can't be arsed to unpack and respond to your comment except to say you're trafficking in copious amounts of derailing for dummies. Your inability to "see" how Gaga misappropriates says everything about YOUR own privilege and inability to google "Grace Jones" and nothing else. If concepts are unfamiliar to you instead assuming the concepts themselves are wrong, you might want to hit up Professor Google. Because the argument, "you're wrong because I don't know what you're talking about." just does not cut it.

Comments defending that commenter get deleted (although some are reposted in the anon threads below). Mods claim to be "reviewing the situation" (i.e., pretending to do something about it). "Open thread" disappears after 20 minutes after irate commenters leave comments there. The current status is "please email the mods directly if you want to talk about comment policy", which couldn't possibly have a chilling effect--not at all.

Snarky's Machine has another reply to that initial commenter on Twitter:

Ha. I love how some weird ass creepy e-troll named whitney is stalking my feed and tattling cause I'm so mean. Who are these people.

People take refuge to complain in several threads in the sfd_anon community. (Which are now locked; possibly accessible if you're a member of the community.) Worth noting are the ones about how Bitch magazine aggressively solicits donations to support their journalism, which puts a special irony gloss on the "we're not here to educate you" rebuttal.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]witty
2010-09-19 12:37 am UTC (link)
Two things:

1) This is near-verbatim match to the thread about the same topic on FFA, here: http://community.livejournal.com/fail_fandomanon/2791.html?thread=11312871#t11312871 (Presumably, it went in FFA and W_R by the same anony hand.)

2) The SFD_anon links are all access denied.

It might be lulzier if #2 were resolved, via copious copypasta if by no other method. (I presume it's open membership, but a broken link is nobody's friend.) I do think "Magazines don't provide exposition, whaddya talk" is pretty lulzy myself, however, no matter that the topic of exposition is a sensitive one.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]waltraute
2010-09-19 12:44 am UTC (link)
Thanks for letting me know that the sfd_anon links are broken (I guess, from looking, that they lock full posts); I have the pages in cache, but I'm not sure that there's enough interest in this wank to justify going through and copypasting.

Eh, that was the hope, but you win some, you lose some. I do think there's something wanky about blowing up in that manner at posters on a blog that very actively solicits subscriptions, but YMMV.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]waltraute
2010-09-19 12:50 am UTC (link)
Here's a relevant comment, at least:

I am so glad I am not the only one who feels this way about Bitch! The comments moderator has been deleting my comments and others' comments.

I kept a copy of one of the comments I posted this morning. It was in response to another commenter who was airing a grievance about the draconian policing of comments on the Bitch blogs. Here is what I wrote, which got deleted about 20 minutes after I posted it:

Mark my words: Your comment, mine, and the one right above will all be erased within hours by the comments moderator or web editor, since we're not "staying on topic." Oh, the absolute horror! The sky is falling because we're not staying exactly on topic!!!

I completely agree with you. The comments moderation on these blogs reflects a shocking intolerance for feminist views that do not exactly align with the feminist views of blog authors and/or the comments moderator and/or the web editor. This intolerance caused me to cancel my monthly contribution to Bitch Media yesterday. (I was a member of the "beehive," getting a certain amount of money taken from my checking account each month to support Bitch Media.) After being laid off twice in one year, I certainly don't have room in my budget to lend support for folks who practice intolerance and bullying and have the nerve to cloak it as enforcement of some objective comments policy ostensibly intended to provide a safe place for discussion. It's safe only for those who agree.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it's akin to bullying.


responded to with:

"Staying on topic" = kissing the ass of the mods/author.

They have so much disdain for their readership. And if Snarky doesn't want to explain it over and over again, here's a hint: FUCKING STEP DOWN FROM A MAGAZINE STAFF AND POLICE YOUR OWN BLOG.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map