Pro-Porn Patriarchs, Pimps, and their Protectors' Logical Phallusy: They insist Radical Feminists are out-of-touch when speaking and writing about the pornogaphy industry: What will they say about THIS INTERVIEW with a Black woman director in the industry?

image of Gail Dines' new book's cover is from here

VB: How do I say this nicely? Most of the guys behind the camera don’t like women.

DX: Really? As in homosexuals or misogynist or…
VB: Both, all of the above. There’s a very famous porn star who does all big booty product now and probably out of 100 girls, 80 of us have a story about him attacking us behind closed doors. Physically, like ripping our clothes off. So no, when you have personalities like that, how on earth can it be good?

DX: How do these guys stay working with everything going on off camera?
VB: What do you mean?

DX: As far as attitudes and attacking actresses?
VB: The girls deal with it. It’s very unfortunate, but the girls… they deal with it. They’re just adjusted to being run over. The industry has expanded and grown into something so toxic. Whenever a girl tells me she wants to do porn, I will spend hours trying to talk her out of it.  -- Vanessa Blue, a director in the pornography industry [source: here]

This post begins with the cover of a new book, an important book, on how pornography--corporate industry pornography, is influencing and has invaded our sexual and social lives. The book is by a white feminist anti-pornography activist, Gail Dines, who has done extensive research and interviews, and has spoken with countless women and men of all colors inside and outside the pornography industry to arrive at her conclusions presented clearly in her new book.

When feminist books come out on the subject of pornography, and they aren't kind to the pimps and profiteers, the pimp-protecting public comes out to declare that the author is an academic and doesn't know what she's talking about. They claim she's out-of-touch, lost in an Ivory Tower, unwilling to get dirty by being on the streets where women who work know what's really going on. Women of all colors work everywhere that work happens: they are probably the only demographic about whom this can be said. From historically and currently caring for the children of wealthy white people, to working in their own homes, to working in every industry, in every corporation, and in every field of intellectual investigation, women of color, collectively, more than any other demographic, are fully aware of what is going on in the world and who benefits and who doesn't.

So what would happen if a Black woman director of her own "adult" films, who has worked in the pornography industry for years, speaks out about that very same industry that (a very few) white academic feminists critique as being thoroughly racist and misogynistic, run by white male supremacist woman-haters who profit at the expense of women's humanity? Does she get written off because she works in the industry?

All that follows my introduction is conversation happening on Byron Hurt's Facebook page. Thank you, Byron. For those of you who don't know, Byron Hurt made an excellent documentary looking into the misogyny inside what has become the hip hop industry, run by white men to most profit white men who benefit from promoting heterosexist, racist, and misogynistic stereotypes. For more on that film, Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, here: http://www.bhurt.com/beyondBeatsAndRhymes.php.

Byron has an active Facebook page and started a conversation by promoting Gail Dines' new book, pictured above. Enlarged text and text put in bold was done by me, to draw attention to the hypocrisy and dishonesty of what Anthony Springer. Below you will see, yet again, how easily and effortlessly men do not listen to feminist women or take what they say to heart. Men across race and class get defensive and what they are defending is their male privileges and entitlements to not listen to women or regard their speech, points of view, analysis, and insights as just as valuable as their own. I could hypothetically ask, "I wonder what Anthony would do with the information given to him about the pornography industry from a woman who works inside it." Except we get to know the answer. We can know what he was told, if not what he heard. But what was communicated directly to him and was written up by him is forgotten by the time he types up his remarks on Byron's page going after a radical feminist, a Black woman named Aganju Axe who is against the racist and misogynistic harm of the pornography industry.

And I'll close my introductory comments by noting there's a VERY similar conversation going on at Ms. Magazine online. I've posted most of the content that I present below to that website as well, and am not sure if they'll accept it. Here is the link: http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/08/06/porn-pleasure-or-profit-ms-interviews-gail-dines-part-iii/

*          *          *

Byron Hurt
In light of Montana Fishbourne's announcement that she's decided to become a porn star, here is insightful analysis from Gail Dines on race and porn, excerpted from Dines' new book, "Pornland." Gail Dines, a friend and colleague, has written extensively on the pornography industries' impact on men and women. Check ou...t Racy Sex, Sexy Racism: Porn from the Dark Side at http://www.scribd.com/doc/31889259/An-excerpt-from-Pornland-Racy-Sex-Sexy-Racism-Porn-from-the-Dark-Side. Her book, "Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality" is now available at www.amazon.com.


Montana Fishburne: I'm A Role Model
www.huffingtonpost.com

Laurence Fishburne's budding porn star daughter Montana has taken to Twitter (via Dlisted) to call herself a role model for a future generation, to mock college degrees, to call the 'Jersey Shore' people trash and more. A few of her tweets from Thursday are photoshopped... together below, including "Ta...[the rest was cut off at Byron's Facebook page]
10 hours ago · Comment · LikeUnlike
Aganju Axe and Sarah Bryant like this.


Anthony SinSity Σ Springer
Interesting analysis. Unfortunately, it lacks any actual quotes from women who actually perform the work (unless my quick read missed something). Seems that'd be easier and a bit more conclusive than watching/reading descriptions and forming ones own conclusions. As one whose interviewed a handful of black porn stars, including some black female directors, I've never heard anybody say the industry doesn't have some racist elements. However, I think performer conclusions--which should have some weight in this discussion--deserve a fair hearing. But Dines never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Suzy Wright
I believe that her tweets have been debunked and it is not really her. But thank you for bringing this up, Byron. :)
9 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Chei Dutch
GAIL DINES!!! I Luv her! She was my professor at Wheelock College in Boston!..I feel so special..But this girl is walkin down the path of self distruction. She is clearly brainwashed into thinking money and sex will lead her to happiness. These men and some women in the pron industry r explointin her and its sad how they r gettin them at such a yough age now. its Sick! I feel sad for her father bcas i know his is embarassed, concerned and angry.
8 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Aganju Axe
‎"But Dines never lets the facts get in the way of a good story."

And men, academics and porn users never let their agendas get in the way of their so-called facts either.

As if being a man, an academic and supporter of porn use makes someone... qualified to know the facts. As if women's oppression can be understood even with male privilege, porn use and so-called academic objectivity.

Porn doesn't just effect the so-called actresses or women doing the "work" as sex pozi academics call it. It affects all women who live in a pornified rape culture. That means that porn like MacDonald's porn is everywhere and you don't have a choice whether you will be exposed to it. When I worked as a public librarian I've learned that I can't tell some asshole looking at porn on a public library computer to stop whether or not I have to pass by his PC and look at that sick hateful crap! When pornographers and their sex pozi supports position porn as harmless and about women's empowerment that's exactly how other capitalist industries allow their far reaching influence to go unchecked!

So questioning/quoting women in the actual industry who have decided to make money doing what sex pozi academics conveniently call "work" is only one side, and it’s a side they are pressed to remind us of because it supports their unoriginal BS thesis that some porn is good, some porn is bad but how dare you imagine a world without men buying womenh for sex? Because I use it and/or that's how some women make their and/or because it's my Phd thesis.

That's like questioning rappers and asking them how they feel about the capitalist music industry. But the difference is while people want to position rappers dripping in diamonds and throwing dollars at strippers as exploited by the music industry, women in porn are forced to appear empowered by getting fucked on camera. But that's how Patriarchy works! Conveniently sexist logic. Cherry pick a few women to represent the sex industry and deflect away from THE FACT that those at the top of the food chain are still rich, white and male. If we did that with any of other industry bedsides the sex industry Leftists would see right through the white male capitalist smoke and mirrors! But not with porn! Thanks to sex pozi academics!

Porn is hate speech. But people do make their living off of peddling hate including people at which the hate is directed. Just look at hip hop. But whereas we are told not to listen to what black men say about their ice and power as rappers, porn actresses should be heard as the only truly objective voice on the industry. Why? Because it's their bread and butter so they defend it. Why? Because porn, like any industry that pollutes (cigarettes don't just affect smokers) doesn't want anyone who isn't gaining from it's success to be heard. That means women like me should shut up and listen to the experts: The academics (who've done their so-called objective research). The porn actresses (who collect a check). The guy jerking off to gang bang MILS at the public library (because all women really want to get gang banged! That's what porn tells us! Lies about women. The truth about men…ALL MEN. Even the ones in the Ivory Tower! A phallic symbol BTW!).

Porn is everywhere and porn wants to be sex just like MacDonald's wants to be food. It's nauseating that these sex pozi academics are defending a capitalist industry as having only a few racist and even sexist elements in order to boost their Phd thesis, defend their porn use and exercise their male privilege.
8 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 5 people


Emir Lewis wow that lyrical beatdown that Ms. Axe put on Mr. Springer was almost as bad as what Lauryn did to Clef...

6 hours ago · LikeUnlike



Anthony SinSity Σ Springer Is that what that was?
6 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Linda Jean Russom
Hi Byron! Our girl Shira wrote a great article on Jezebel via Ms. about the book. Check it out here: http://jezebel.com/5614102/is-pornography-sexy-racism
6 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Aganju Axe
Dr. Springer's response proves my point: He only listens women who tell him what he wants to hear.
6 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 person


Anthony SinSity Σ Springer Negative. You've already proven yourself incapable or uninterested in reasoned and sound debate. I'm not going to hijack Byron's page by going back and forth with you though.
6 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 person


Sarah Bryant
I don't feel that Ms. Axe is uninterested in reasoned & sound debate. That's exactly what she's offering. She simply disagrees w/ you. You need not be threatened by it. If she agreed w/ you, it wouldn't be a "debate".
6 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Aganju Axe
I already knew you'd say that Dr. Springer PhD. Men and academics, especially pro-porn men and academics like yourself are the sole arbiters of "sound and reasoned debate" on the issue of the sex industry. If you respond as if your life and... dignity is on the line when it comes to the influence of porn culture and it is because you're a woman and we are talking or should be talking about and keeping the focus on women's dignity and experience, ALL women's dignity and experience not just the ones you agree with Dr. Springer to reinforce your thesis then you are incapable of "sound and reasoned debate."

My bad. Maybe I should go back to school. Then I'd be on your level of intellectual rigor and objectivity. The Miseducation of Aganju Axe. LOL.
6 hours ago · LikeUnlike


Emir Lewis ‎@ Aganju - maybe if you were a performer commenting on how uplifting your "acting" experience was, that would count that as sound & reasoned???
6 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 personAganju Axe likes this.

Aganju Axe ‎^^^Word up. No doubt.^^^
6 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Aganju Axe
Must be nice: Having a penis and a Phd? Male privilege AND academic authority on an area of study (the sex industry) that primarily oppresses women? It's like having a SWORD and a SHIELD to defend against any criticism by a woman you don't ...want to hear because it challenges your entitlements as a man.

Privilege is about being able to tune out any challenge to your entitlement. Being a male pro-porn scholar means you have the best of both worlds! Bravo @ such an awesome gig!
5 hours ago · LikeUnlike


Julian Real
To Anthony Springer - "As one whose interviewed a handful of black porn stars, including some black female directors, I've never heard anybody say the industry doesn't have some racist elements."

First, on racist-misogynist elements here. As... Pearl Cleage says, on matters of sexism and racism, it is for men/whites to maintain a posture of listening rather than a posture of defence. I recommend you reread Aganju's comments and analysis again, as it is damned sharp and on point, imo. And she's lived as a Black woman in this racist-misogynist society so soaked in pornography and other racist-misogynistic media that I believe you'd be wise to listen to her as much as you seem to listen to (if not fully hear) the women actors and directors you've interviewed in the pornography industry.

On the matter of racism and misogyny and the pornography industry:

Can you tell me what percentage of the 53 billion dollars annually earned by corporate pimps through the production and marketing of pornography is directed by Black women? I'll go out on a limb and say less than one thousandth of one percent. So whatever you heard from the people who you picked to speak to about a white male dominated globalised industry, doesn't speak much to the reality of most women in it. It'd be like you stating that you've interviewed some Black actors and directors in the non-pornographic film industry, and some reported to you that there's no much racism. So what? What does that have to do with all the racism that everyone else experiences?

Can you tell me you've seen one website or genre of industry/corporate-produced pornography--I'm not speaking here of some fringe site operated by Black women that is about as representative of the industry as Barack Obama is of the color of our presidents historically--that is neither overtly racist or overtly sexist? I'm not asking you to post it here, or to post it anywhere. I'm asking if you know of any. A simple yes or no will suffice: corporate-produced and mass-distributed pornography?

I know plenty of survivors of pornography and prostitution and you interviewing a few people tells me not a whole lot about them or their stories and experiences. That's what academics and social scientists call "anecdotal evidence". In this case it is being mediated through a man who has not been forthcoming in owning what his own levels of investment are in having visual access to images of exploited and raped women.

I know nothing about what you asked those people, how you asked it, and how free the women you spoke with were/are to really speak their minds. Do you get that trauma survivors don't just sit down for an interview and speak about the matters about which we hold the most shame and self-contempt? About which women of color have been told, repeatedly, ought to be a source of their shame and self-contempt? Do you know if they spoke the whole truth to you what the consequence to them might be? Do you know if they'd get beaten for saying anything negative to you? Do you know if word would get around in their circles to not hire them? If you say "I know they wouldn't be beaten for speaking the whole truth and I know there would be no negative economic impact to them", how do you know that?

As an ex-prostitute and close female friend of mine said: "Don't ask a girl or woman on the street [or in pornography] what she thinks of the business. Ask her twenty years after she's gotten out."

Because part of doing that work requires such intense levels of dissociation and denial about the impact of the trauma, physically and psychically, that she may not be able to give you a very complete answer while she's doing the work. In exactly the same way that anyone in any traumatic environment who is required, economically or interpersonally--such as by a pimp, to be there, will not be able to tell you the whole truth of their experience. That you assume otherwise about women in prostitution-pornography only tells me you are going to hear what you want to hear and not factor in what those women won't tell you directly. And that those silences may be saying more than what they express in words to you. And if you think they're being "completely honest" with you, how would you possibly know that? Through what means of apprehension? I'm not calling any woman you've spoken to a liar. I'm saying you're in no position to tell me when someone is able to tell you the whole truth about an industry that profits off of rape and pays women more to be serially sexually assaulted, or, at the very least, grossly exploited, in front of a camera than to do anything else in society.

Now, given that we're talking about a globalised political and economic phenomenon which necessarily involves trafficked and enslaved children and women, what case are you making for the industry's existence as something that might only be a little bit racist? Given that most females who are in either/both begin at age fourteen-- in the West, what are you saying about the health and welfare of and for those in it? Given that 1.3 million South Asian Indian children alone are enslaved and being used/abused by men, many from the West, and that one in three Indigenous North American women is raped in her lifetime, and that population of raped and sexually exploited people is disproportionately poor and homeless, and/or pimped and procured, what are you here to say about how unracist and non-misogynistic and non-classist the pornography industry is?

And might it likely be the case that Gail Dines, who has been speaking with women about this, women in and out of these industries, for decades, might know a good deal more about who is harmed and how and why, than do you?

For more see here:
http://www.apneaap.org/



and
http://www.awanbc.ca/

From the second website, above, a statement, by women of color who have escaped systems of sexist/racist/classist exploitation and abuse. I'll close with their words and will ask you, Anthony, what do you have to say to them about how your position on this matter helps achieve for them meaningful justice and freedom from rape and other gross sexual assault? And what do you have to say to the women and girls in India, whose bodies are being pimped, procured, trafficked, and enslaved, and photographed and distributed to male "consumers" right this minute? You want to make a case to me that those phenomena are unrelated? I welcome hearing you try to do so. I'd argue that to be humane, as a man, is to be fully accountable to Aganju, to the girls and women working in Apne Aap, and to the women of AWAN-Canada, and to every other woman who is negatively impacted by pornography and other systems of racist-sexist harm and exploitation. Here's a portion of their statement. Please let me know what you think and feel about this. (See next comment.)
4 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 person


Julian Real

Aboriginal Women's Statement on Legal Prostitution, Canada

We, the Aboriginal Women's Action Network, speak especially in the interests of the most vulnerable women - street prostitutes, of which a significant number are young Aboriginal wom...en and girls. We have a long, multi-generational history of colonization, marginalization, and displacement from our Homelands, and rampant abuses that has forced many of our sisters into prostitution. Aboriginal women are often either forced into prostitution, trafficked into prostitution or are facing that possibility. Given that the average age at which girls enter prostitution is fourteen, the majority with a history of unspeakable abuses, we are also speaking out for the Aboriginal children who are targeted by johns and pimps. Aboriginal girls are hunted down and prostituted, and the perpetrators go uncharged with child sexual assault and child rape. These predators, pervasive in our society, roam with impunity in our streets and take advantage of those Aboriginal children with the least protection. While we are speaking out for the women in the downtown eastside of Vancouver, we include women from First Nations Reserves, and other Aboriginal communities, most of whom have few resources and limited choices. We include them because AWAN members also originate from those communities, and AWAN members interact regularly with Native women from these communities.

The Aboriginal Women's Action Network opposes the legalization of prostitution, and any state regulation of prostitution that entrenches Aboriginal women and children in the so-called "sex trade." We hold that legalizing prostitution in Vancouver will not make it safer for those prostituted, but will merely increase their numbers. Contrary to current media coverage of the issue, the available evidence suggests that it would in fact be harmful, would expand prostitution and would promote trafficking, and would only serve to make prostitution safer and more profitable for the men who exploit and harm prostituted women and children. Although many well-meaning people think that decriminalization simply means protecting prostituted women from arrest, it also refers, dangerously, to the decriminalization of johns and pimps. In this way prostitution is normalized, johns multiply, and pimps and traffickers become legitimated entrepreneurs. Say "No" to this lack of concern for marginalized women and children, who in this industry are expected to serve simply as objects of consumption! The Aboriginal Women's Action Network opposes the legalization of brothels for the 2010 Olympics. We refuse to be commodities in the so-called "sex industry" or offer up our sisters and daughters to be used as disposable objects for sex tourists.

A harm-reduction model that claims to help prostituted women by moving them indoors to legal brothels, not only would not reduce the harm to them, but would disguise the real issues. There is no evidence that indoor prostitution is safer for the women involved. Rather, it is just as violent and traumatic. Prostitution is inherently violent, merely an extension of the violence that most prostituted women experience as children. We should aim not merely to reduce this harm, as if it is a necessary evil and/or inescapable, but strive to eliminate it altogether. Those promoting prostitution rarely address class, race, or ethnicity as factors that make women even more vulnerable. A treatise can be written about Aboriginal women's vulnerability based on race, socio-economic status and gender but suffice it to say that we are very over-represented in street-level prostitution. There may even be a class bias behind the belief that street prostitution is far worse than indoor forms. It is not the street per se or the laws for that matter, which are the source of the problem, but prostitution itself which depends on a sub-class of women or a degraded caste to be exploited. A major factor contributing to the absence of attention given to the women who have gone missing women in Vancouver is the lack of police response, and the insidious societal belief that these women were not worthy of protection, a message that is explicitly conveyed to the johns, giving them the go-ahead to act toward these women with impunity. If we want to protect the most vulnerable women, we could start by decriminalizing prostituted women, not the men who harm them. Although it is not mentioned in the local news, the Swedish model of dealing with prostitution provides an example we should seriously consider. It criminalizes only the buying of sex, not the selling, targeting the customer, pimp, procurer, and trafficker, rather than the prostituted woman, and provides an array of social services to aid women to leave prostitution. Given that the vast majority of prostituted women wish to leave prostitution, we should focus on finding ways to help them to do that rather than entrenching them further into prostitution by legalizing and institutionalizing it. Here in Vancouver, if we are to help those most in need, young Aboriginal women, it would help to think more long-term, to focus on healing and prevention. Let's not get tricked into a supposed fix which is not even a band-aid, but only deepens the wounds.
4 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 person


Anthony SinSity Σ Springer ‎@ Sarah,
Ms. Axe and I have already had this conversation. My statement comes from some experience speaking with her in the past. No more and no less. I don't mind debate, I welcome it. I stand by my statement and she knows why.
4 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Marion I. Lipshutz
Why would a woman who has more opportunities than most (even considering the reality of ongoing U.S. racism) do this? I'm not a psychologist, but I think there are lots of psychological issues here.
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Marion I. Lipshutz I'm either going to get Gail Dine's book when it's in paperback or on my Kindle. Very important issue and I'm glad that the book blurb that I saw implies that she is not advocating censorship, but rather critique and analysis, because I don't think censorship would work or even get to the roots of the problem.
3 hours ago · LikeUnlike

Aganju Axe
Of course you stand by your statement. Like most sexist males you are in awe of yourself and fancy your views original, objective and rigorous. Combine male ego, gender entitlement and academic authority and you really are The Man! This pas...t conversation

You refer to involved me telling you your views on porn were same shit different smell and textbook sex pozi BS and you acting like a typical sexist male about it because you "don't like labels". In Dr. Springer's mind he told me something brand new. Me calling it repackaged BS Id heard before meant I wasn't really listening or couldn't be getting it. Dr. Springer said he doesn't like labels. He claims he is not sex pozi although he makes the same arguments they do. He is not pro-porn. He just goes after any feminist that is anti-porn. His rigorous analysis? "Some porn is good, some is bad. The end." Wow. Now cant you see why I couldn't wrap my silly lil'feminist head around such unmatched intellectual genius? So original and compelling. If I wasn't impressed I must not be of sound mind. If I called it like I see it couldn't possibly because you were wrong. Never that. I know you don't like labels Dr Springer. People who get labeled SPOT ON usually don't.
2 hours ago · LikeUnlike


Julian Real
This same conversation is happening over at Ms. Magazine, with the pro-pornographer/pimp defenders in full gear.

Aganju, if Anthony cared enough about women to listen carefully to what you have been saying to him about himself, without defe...nding his ego, he might grow as a human being. The choice is his. He doesn't like labels except when he gets to use them: typical sexist male entitlement showing. If he doesn't want labels like "sexist male" it would do him a whole lot of good to start listening to you and other women who call him out on his sexism.

Anthony, the capacity to listen non-defensively is yours. What will you do with it? Continue spinning inside your close-minded male supremacist logic system, or break through and really hear and respect Aganju? Including here, publicly. I await your replies.
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike ·


Julian Real
To Marion - Gail doesn't promote censorship and in fact has people look at pornography so that they really know what the content is. What the content is, is this: sexxxualised racism and misogyny. "Industrial strength sex" as Gail puts it. ...And when has a globalised corporate entity earning billions annually ever shown one bit of concern for people over profits? What makes anyone thing the pornography industry would be the first? Particularly when it makes the psychic and emotional degradation of women into foreplay and the physical and sexual assault of women into a hot commodity that is orgasmic for consumers?
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike ·

Aganju Axe
Thanks for trying to reach Dr. Springer Julian but he has already and predictably blocked me. Welcoming debate my black azz. LOL. The only sound Dr. Springer wants to here is praise and awe at his views on porn which is really no voice of dissent at all. In other words, like the porn he supports Anthony Springer likes to see women gagged unless they consent to the greatness of his PhD, Pretty Huge....EGO!
about an hour ago · LikeUnlike


Julian Real
To Aganju, Byron, and everyone else reading this thread:

I want to repost part of what Anthony says above, and link that with what Anthony and a woman who calls herself Vanessa Blue says below, and note the disconnect.

Anthony's writing, from above:
As one whose interviewed a handful of black porn stars, including some black female directors, I've never heard anybody say the industry doesn't have some racist elements. However, I think performer conclusions--which should have some weight in this discussion--deserve a fair hearing.

I just found what follows from Anthony Springer online. It's an interview Anthony conducted. The story it tells is of a woman who knows everything anyone knows who has been dealing with the pornography industry and is honest, about exactly how dangerous it is for all women and how thoroughly soaked in misogyny it is, because the men who run it are woman-haters.

She speaks very clearly and repeatedly of various deep levels of the racism that is a foundational and ever-present aspect of the industry. How he concludes from listening to her that there are, sometimes, "some racist elements" in the industry is beyond me. She sure doesn't put it that way!

She also got incestuously dangerous advice from her grandfather on what to do with her life. She notes that she grew up watching porn. I'd ask her from what age? Because every child I know who was exposed to industry pornography at an early age has had their sexuality and sense of self harmed by the experience.

I am impressed by Vanessa Blue's capacity to endure, to leave environments that are overtly hostile to her, and how she has forged her own place, learning as she goes what she needs to know to have more control over her life. I wish she had had more options earlier on, wasn't exposed to pornography when young, didn't have a grandfather who loved pornography, and that displaced and disenfranchised women weren't sexually and economically coerced, by pimps, to accept abuse because the money is good. We may note the pimp always makes more than any woman performer or trafficked [and/or enslaved] person does.

From this website:
http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/interviews/id.999/title.vanessa-blue-my-blue-heaven-part-1

Interviews > Vanessa Blue: My Blue Heaven Part 1
by Anthony Springer Jr

posted January 21, 2008 12:00:00 AM CST | 0 comments

Anthony Springer wrote:

The adult entertainment industry is America’s nearly $100 billion dollar a year dirty little secret. Each year, established stars and novices earn their pay checks entertaining our most intimate fantasies and carnal desires. While the industry can be kind to guys who consistently perform—and perform well—the starlets that make the industry so profitable often end up battered, bruised and out of work faster than you can say “one minute man.”

In spite of all that, there are some ladies that have aspirations that go beyond performing in front of the camera. This is where Vanessa Blue comes in. After becoming fed up with the misogyny of the industry, she took matters into her own hands and began directing movies and building websites, namely her exclusive homepage [...].

Ms. Blue sat down with DX to talk about her grandparents influence on her career, why she discourages girls from getting into the game and how the industry isn’t as safe as many may think.

HipHopDX: Tell me a little about life before the industry.
Vanessa Blue: Life before the industry, wow. There was none. [Laughs] Life before the industry I was a regular girl. I was a dancer and I went to school to be an emergency medical te...chnician. From dancing, I met a girl named Persephone who became a very famous dominatrix and glamor model and she introduced me to fetish modeling. From there, I met another girl in the same club by the name of Kitten and she and I became very close. She creatively suggested that I try porn.

DX: What was your reaction at first?
VB: No. My reaction was no. I like doing fetish work, I was never really looking to do anything more than that. But one girl-girl scene I figured wouldn’t hurt anything and then came [director and producer] Ed Powers. Ed Powers was offering us a crazy amount of money. I did my research and I was like, “Alright, he’s never put a sista on the box cover in sixty series.” He’s never put one.

DX: Wow.
VB: So I hoped [that] he’s racist enough that he won’t put us on the cover… I was wrong. So we did the scene and he put us on the cover. After that, I figured I might as well finish what I started.

DX: How many movies followed?
VB: After that I did about 16 scenes. I didn’t like the way things were going, I didn’t like the way people were talking to me, I didn’t like the business… and I quit. I moved away to Nebraska for a few years. I danced at the only nudie bar in the whole state and I was the only black girl, so I did well. I stayed there for a few years and my grandparents kept talking to talking to me about it like, “What are you going to do with your life, you’re not really gonna sit here while people make money off your naked ass are you? You’re not gonna strip, this isn’t the end, don’t stop here.”

My grandparents are big into watching porn. My grandfather’s always talking about how much it made and what products sell and [he said] if you know so much, you’re a nerd already, you love computers, why don’t you go back and see what else you can do. Doesn’t mean you have to f**k but just go back and see what you can do. I came back and was roommates with Kitten for a while and I got back into the business again. I did maybe 50 scenes and I quit, again and I moved away to Las Vegas

When I don’t like a situation, I get out of it. I don’t wait for shit to get better, I go. So I came here and danced for a while at Cheetah’s until 9/11. Right after 9/11, there was no work. Literally, there was no work, nothing was happening. So I said, “Okay, I have a little bit of money saved up, just a little, and I’m gonna buy all the books I want cause I know I want a website, I know I’m a nerd.” There’s books on anything I want to know, I’m going to buy all the books I think I need. I’m going to lock myself in the house and I’m going to do nothing until I figure out how to build a website." I locked myself in the house for about three weeks, I didn’t eat, I didn’t sleep, I was really wild… but I figured it out.

DX: Going back a minute, you mentioned before that there were things happening on the set that you didn’t like, what was going on?
VB: I didn’t like the way the owners of the company would talk to you. Everybody in California believes there’s a certain body image that a woman needs to display in order to be viable or be on a box cover. We know now with all of today’s niches, that’s not true. Back then every thing was about being skinny, being lighter, not being so dark, not being so ghetto. Being a black girl, if you don’t have the immediate connections when you walk in, you’ll be relegated to ghetto product. You’ll never get out of it because you won’t know how to get out of it. You’ll get half your rate, you’ll get crappy work, you’ll get crappy sets. No one will care about anything. Literally, it’s a situation where there’s a mattress in the corner. The director comes in, tells the camera guy what to shoot, how many positions, and the director leaves the room. He goes out and smokes a blunt or talks on the phone or whatever he’s doing and the camera man is left to run the scene. How on earth can anybody care?

I didn’t like it. I said, “Okay, a monkey could direct better than half the people I see and they’re making more than me and I’m the one giving up my body.”

DX: Doing all the work
VB: Right. If I get sick and catch HIV, there’s nothing on the back end for me, nobody here is going to take care of me. So with that, I quit [laughs] and I said I’m not coming back unless it’s the way I want it.

[...]

DX: What made you want to get into directing movies?
VB: I always wanted to, from the first movie I ever saw. There was so much lacking and I love sex but if somebody’s literally counting down minutes when you screw to make you change positions, that’s not sex, it’s all mechanical.

I grew up watching porn. My favorite older actress is Georgina Spelvin. Everybody’s like Vanessa Del Rio, I’m like “unh uh”. This crazy white woman who looks like she’s channeling the devil when she f**ks and the only woman by comparison to this day who works, f**ks and is as hot and brings as much passion is Monique. An unsung hero… shero, who never gets the praise she deserves. But when you watch her perform it looks like she’s channeling the devil.


DX: It looks more realistic.
VB: Yeah. She’s really into what’s happening and I know that, you feel it. And you don’t feel that in today’s porn.

DX: Why do you think that is?
VB: How do I say this nicely? Most of the guys behind the camera don’t like women.

DX: Really? As in homosexuals or misogynist or…
VB: Both, all of the above. There’s a very famous porn star who does all big booty product now and probably out of 100 girls, 80 of us have a story about him attacking us behind closed doors. Physically, like ripping our clothes off. So no, when you have personalities like that, how on earth can it be good?

DX: How do these guys stay working with everything going on off camera?
VB: What do you mean?

DX: As far as attitudes and attacking actresses?
VB: The girls deal with it. It’s very unfortunate, but the girls… they deal with it. They’re just adjusted to being run over. The industry has expanded and grown into something so toxic. Whenever a girl tells me she wants to do porn, I will spend hours trying to talk her out of it.

DX: Why?
VB: Because it’s not what you think it is. Everybody comes in thinking Jenna [Jameson]. Jenna’s not who you think she is. Its like, how do you say you love Magic Johnson when you’ve never met him? You love an image. All you love is an image. He could be the greatest jerk you ever met in your life. And I guess once I got to California it was so many stars I looked up to, so many black celebrities and I met those cats at the club and they were like [in mock man voice] “What’s up biiiiit**? You trying to f**k? You wanna f**k me and my boys?” I’m like, “Oh my God I used to love you!” The girls get very disillusioned once they get here. But once you get here you can’t say no to the money, so you’ll take the abuse for the check.
24 minutes ago · LikeUnlike ·

Why Is Facebook Pro-RAPE? And What Is Mark Zuckerberg's Defence of Pro-Rape Facebook Pages and Groups?

image of Founder and CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, is from here

My own awareness of this matter was due to the following Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=418952528982#!/event.php?eid=106807292708162

I want to thank the organiser of that page and all its members for supporting this effort to hold Facebook accountable to its own policies and stated values and practices.

What appears next is a cross post from the blog Jezebel (to link back, please click on the title just below). Following that, are comments from me and others calling for direct action to various Facebook email addresses.

Facebook Allows "Pro-Rape, Anti-Consent" Group To Stay On The Site For Months

A group of students, both past and present, of the all-male St. Paul's College at Sydney University, decided to create a pro-rape Facebook page called "Define Statutory" that reportedly was allowed to stay up on the site for several months.

The site, which went up in August, was shut down recently, but Reverend David Russell, an outgoing master at Wesley College, tells the Sydney Morning Herald that the Facebook page is simply an encapsulation of the rape culture that has pervaded the campus for some time. "This is a story that has to be told," Russell says, "there is no question in my mind, women are seen as meat. That is the awful, ugly truth of it.''

The site has already been condemned by the University, the New South Wales Police sex crimes unit, and the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre, and New South Wales Minister for Women, Linda Burney, rightly tells ABC Australia that "The idea that a group of young men that are going to become leaders within our community - leaders in the law, leaders in medicine, leaders in business - studying at an elite college, at an elite university, think it's OK to post information like this encouraging rape on a website is absolutely abhorrent.

The question that remains, however, is why Facebook allowed a pro-rape group to exist on the service to begin with. This is a social networking site that refuses to let women post pictures of themselves breastfeeding, mind you, but it's okay to make a "hilarious" pro-rape group in the "Sports and Recreation" category? The group was public, by the way, accessible to anyone and visible to all. Interesting, isn't it, that in the eyes of Facebook, a woman shouldn't be allowed to show her breasts while feeding her child, but it's perfectly acceptable for men to make a highly public "sport" out of rape.

Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec of the New South Wales Police sex crimes squad tells the Herald that "this is the first occasion I have heard of a Facebook site being set up to promote, or publicise ... sexual assault or any other behaviour that is criminal behaviour.'' Something tells me that it won't be the last, unless Facebook starts paying as much attention to the rape culture brewing on the boards as they do to pictures of new mothers just trying to feed their kids.

Pro-Rape Facebook Group Condemned [The Australian Broadcasting Corporation]
Facebook And Sexual Violence, Assault [Sydney Morning Herald]
Facebook's Breastfeeding Ban [LATimes]

Read more: http://jezebel.com/5399911/facebook-allows-pro+rape-anti+consent-group-to-stay-on-the-site-for-months#ixzz0wyOzkwQo

My attention was brought to this matter because of this webpage calling for a protest of pro-rape Facebook pages and groups:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=418952528982#!/event.php?eid=106807292708162

*          *          *

I recommend sending letters/emails to Facebook with similar messages as the one below, to the following addresses:


privacy@facebook.com 
abuse@facebook.com 
appeal@facebook.com 
legal@facebook.com

To all Facebook rule and code enforcers, policy setters, and assessors of abuse and threats,

According to your own stated policies, this page and many other active pages on Facebook like it, violate your terms and policies.

This page: It isn't r.a.p.e.... It's SURPRISE SEX. (:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=131902836844892&v=info#!/pages/It-isnt-rape-Its-SURPRISE-SEX-/106823992684587?ref=ts

has been up since March 31, 2010. If that doesn't strike you as pro-rape, how about these comments by users on Facebook?

"i prefer rape with machetes"
"sneak attack rape is the way to go"
"hands up if you like rape".
raping and pillaging
raping bitches
it's not R A P E if you yell "surprise!"
It's not R A P E if you like it ;)
Its not ràpe if you yell surprise!

I am writing to ask you to take these and related pro-rape comments and pages down because they violate the terms of service, and you clearly stated policies.

Rape isn't a joke, it's a trauma, and for all the many survivors on Facebook, it is triggering to see their own trauma joked about in a social community.

You have trail-blazed a new way for people to be in contact, to stay in contact, to disseminate information no matter how banal, brilliant, or brutal.

Fortunately, you have expressed and reinforced a responsibility to maintain a safe and friendly environment that doesn't overtly infringe upon any of the rights of Facebook's staggering five hundred million users.

Within Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, within the Safety sub-category, you have listed three relevant responsibilities or statements:

You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence;

You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory;

You will not facilitate or encourage any violations of this Statement.

Moreover, in order to report a page, group, image or person, etc, it must meet a list of criteria which includes Racist/Hate speech, direct call for violence and/or excessive gore or violent content.

Many community members have borne witness to a series of pages, groups, etc, that are egregiously breaking these policies and in general, promoting reprehensible agendas that are threatening the proposed safe & friendly community that Facebook is supposed to be, including white supremacist groups, pro-racism groups, and pro-misogyny groups.

With particular attention to the Facebook group: It isn't r.a.p.e.... It's SURPRISE SEX. (:  I offer additional information:

Within that group exists a number of comments I will also bring to your attention in order to properly demonstrate the hostile and aggressive content within this group:

"i prefer the term struggle cuddle"

"Is surprise buttsecks in this same category?"

"IT'S SURPRISE SEX TIME! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D", "I actually prefer rape." These comments go on and on.

"Rape" is another group, with the following comments littered throughout the wall, "i prefer rape with machetes", "sneak attack rape is the way to go", "hands up if you like rape".

The following groups or pages should be moved by nature of their titles alone:
raping and pillaging
raping b*tches
it's not R A P E if you
yell "surprise!"
It's not R A P E if you like it ;)
Its not ràpe if
you yell surprise!
it isnt rape, its suprise sex :O.

Among those groups, pages, and public comments are thousands of callous, pro-hostility/sexual aggression Facebook users who find the promotion of rape and violence against women to be a course of humor primarily.

The reality, prevalence, and consequences of rape make it about as funny as genocide and mass starvation.

Here are some numbers and facts that aren't funny:

One in four women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime in the U.S.

One in THREE Native American women are raped primarily by white men who don't live where they live. White men come onto reservation land, or procure Native American women living on the street in urban areas.

One in four traditional college-age students will be sexually assaulted, with a female student's first year in college being the year she is most
vulnerable.

Every three minutes someone in the U.S is sexually assaulted.

At least 80% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police.

Only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail, and with our classist and racist judicial system, that means
white wealthy men rarely get time for raping anyone.

Over 80% of women with disabilities will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime.

Assuming you welcome and appreciate these populations of people being part of the Facebook community, why would you wish to support and endorse--by leaving up--Facebook pages which mock their assault and trauma and and create a grossly callous and contemptuous social environment, especially towards women generally?

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I appreciate you attending to this matter.

"Pakistan Floods Are Worst Disaster I've Ever Seen" -- UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon

photograph of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

What appears below this paragraph is from the Huffington Post. Click on title below to link back.

I'm glad people in prominent positions within organisations like the UN are speaking out about the current disaster in Pakistan. I don't like how Ban Ki-moon speaks about Pakistan's disaster survivors as if they are children in need of surrogate parents. This tends to be how international agency officials, representatives, and spokespeople (as well as dominant media) speak about people who are victimised en masse in places where rich people don't live. What flood-impacted people in Pakistan can use is our humanitarian assistance at their guidance and direction. They are adults who, with appropriate resources, can and will care for themselves, not be taken care of by anyone else. There are other problems with the article that follows. The press promoting the IMF as doing anything humane is a bitter joke, as noted in the last post here at A.R.P. with video featuring Dr. Vandana Shiva.

UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon: Pakistan Floods Are Worst
Disaster I've Ever Seen
AP/Huffington Post

First Posted: 08-15-10

Click here to learn how you can help the
Pakistan flood victims.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Sunday he has never seen anything like the flood disaster in Pakistan after  surveying the devastation and urged foreign donors to speed up
assistance to the 20 million people affected.

Ban's comments reflect the concern of the international community  about the unfolding disaster in Pakistan, which is battling al-Qaida and Taliban militants, has a weak and unpopular government, and an anemic
economy propped up by international assistance.

"This has been a heart-wrenching day for me," Ban said after flying over the hard-hit areas with President Asif Ali Zardari. "I will never forget the destruction and suffering I have witnessed today. In the past I have witnessed many natural disasters around the world, but nothing  like this."

Ban visited Myanmar after Cyclone Nargis devastated the country in  May 2008, killing an estimated 138,000 people. He also flew to China's Sichuan province just days after an earthquake killed nearly 90,000
people in March 2008.

Australia's ABC news reported that Ban was visibly shaken:

"The magnitude of the problem; the world has never seen such a disaster. It's much beyond anybody's imagination," he said.

"This is a long-term affair; this is a two-year campaign. We have to consider that and keep that in mind.

"For two years we've got to give them crops, fertilisers; we've got to give them seed; we've got to look after them, feed them, for two years, to bring them back to where they were. And they will still not be where they were."

The floods that began more than two weeks ago in Pakistan's mountainous northwest have now hit about one-quarter of the country, especially its agricultural heartland. While the death toll of 1,500 is relatively small, the scale of the flooding and number of people whose lives have been disrupted is staggering.

The world body has appealed for an initial $460 million to provide relief, but only 20 percent has been given.

Once the floods recede, billions more will be needed for reconstruction and getting people back to work in the already-poor nation of 170 million people. The International Monetary Fund has warned the floods could dent economic growth and fuel inflation.

"Waves of flood must be met with waves of support from the world," said Ban. "I'm here to urge the world to step up assistance," he said.

President Zardari has been criticized for his response to the disaster, especially for going ahead with a state visit to Europe just as the crisis was unfolding. Zardari has visited victims twice since returning, but images of him at a family owned chateau while in France are likely to hurt him for months to come.

In his first comments to the media since returning, he defended the government.

"The government has responded very responsibly," he said, saying the army, the police, the navy and officials were all working to relieve the suffering. "I would appeal to the press to understand the magnitude of the disaster."

Zardari said it would take up to two years for the country to recover.

Ban said visa restrictions had been eased for humanitarian workers and they now could get visas on arrival at Pakistan airports.

On Saturday, the prime minister said 20 million people had been made homeless in the disaster.

The monsoon rains that triggered the disaster are forecast to fall for several weeks yet, meaning the worst may not yet be over. Over the weekend, tens of thousand of people were forced to flee their homes when they were inundated by fresh floods from the swollen River Indus.

While local charities and international agencies have helped hundreds of thousands of people with food, water, shelter and medical treatment, the scale of the disaster has meant that many millions have received little or no assistance. The U.N. has voiced fears that disease in overcrowded and unsanitary relief camps may yet cause more deaths.

Earlier Sunday, survivors fought over food being handed out from a relief vehicle close to the town of Sukkur in hard-hit Sindh province, ripping at each others' clothes and causing such chaos that the distribution had to be abandoned, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene.

"The impatience of the people has deprived us of the little food that had come," said Shaukat Ali, a flood victim waiting for food.

Waters five feet (1.5 meters) deep washed through Derra Allah Yar, a city of 300,000 people on the border of Sindh and Baluchistan provinces, said government official Salim Khoso. About 200,000 had fled the city and Khoso said he did not know how they would be fed.

"We are here like beggars," said Mukhtar Ali, a 45-year-old accountant living on the side of a highway along with thousands of other people. "The last food we received was a small packet of rice yesterday and 15 of us shared that."

Dr. Vandana Shiva on how the World Bank and the IMF MASS PRODUCE WORLD HUNGER

The video above and what follows was found *here*, or you can get there by clicking on the title just below. What is touched on is what hundreds of millions of people experience, but not white Westerners, for the most part: poverty and indeptedness is enforced through international monetary policies designed to keep poor countries poor, and relatively rich countries rich. That means disproportionately poor people of color will die, and white wealthier people will not die--because of pro-globalising economic policy, not primarily due to Global Warming. It's that simple, and it's that horrible and inhumane.

Vandana Shiva Accuses World Bank of Creating Global Food Crisis

Aug 15th, 2010 Originally Posted by Rhonda Winter

Physicist and activist Dr. Vandana Shiva explains how the World Bank and the IMF are complicit in orchestrating the expanding food crisis across the globe. Through the structure of their debt relief, these organizations pushed developing countries to stop growing staple foods, and to instead grow cash crops and commodities, like flowers and lettuce, for export to volatile international markets. Deregulated trade helps financial markets create hunger and make huge profits. Shiva also stresses the importance of farming organically to help mitigate climate change and sustainably provide the food we need.

The Politics of Offensive Speech (and when publicly stating "I'm Sorry" isn't what's called for)

image of Don Imus is from here

Remember back when Don Imus made his disgustingly racist-misogynist comment? And Michael Richards went on a racist tirade on stage, caught on video? And Rosie O'Donnell, when co-hosting The View, did a racist "impression" of someone who is allegedly Chinese--but in fact was doing a really accurate impression of a racist white woman who thinks it's hilarious to do insensitive and insulting anti-East Asian, racist vocalisations? And remember back when Mel Gibson made his anti-Semitic and sexist comments when pulled over by the cops? It's obvious he hasn't learned a damned thing since then about how to not be a bigot and an abuser, and to be both in verbal outbursts, most recently hurled against his former romantic partner.

Well, once upon a time I didn't have my own blog. :(  However, I did have activist-blogger friends who welcomed me to post stuff I was writing to THEIR blogs!! :) So, here's one of those "old" pieces, which I had to dig up from underneath some heaps of cyber-debris.

With thanks to YC for originally editing and posting it.

4/11/2007
The Politics of Offensive Speech and Requisite
Apology of Individual Offenders
By Julian Real, copyright 2007

Given recent events, I offer this analysis to assist myself in sorting out what is going on when media celebrities (including Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, Rosie O'Donnell, and Don Imus) can spout racist/misogynist/anti-Semitic/homophobic slurs and comments and the primary, immediate response from the public is a demand for "a sincere apology" on the part of the perpetrator.

For this to occur, U.S. racist patriarchy much comprehend and treat hateful, harmful "speech acts" as qualitatively different forms of oppressive abuse than acts of physical aggression, such as queer-bashing, men's battery of women, and lynching and other violent acts against people of color by whites. That this distinction is both false and dangerous needs to be said out loud.

This false distinction of forms of oppressive harm serves white male supremacist interests and power, especially in the media, where one can't say "shit" over the airwaves but one can say "[insert here any racist/misogynist/anti-Semitic/homophobic expletive]." That "shit" is off-base, but racist misogyny along the lines of Don Imus's remarks is not, tells us quite a bit about the "standards and practices" corporate media are invested in containing and which can slide if the spouter shows a requisite amount of sorrowful remorse and sincere regret.

What the public needs to get is that these acts of oppressive harm exist--are promulgated, promoted, and usually praised, inside a system where race and gender are institutionalized hierarchies of power, with men over women, and whites over people of color. (It doesn't take much to conclude where in the political pile that leaves women of color.)

These are not "offenses" or "errors of judgment" or simple acts of "sloppy speech". These acts, like all acts arising out of oppressive (dangerous, demeaning, and deadly) systems, are not remedied by a tear, a plea, and a promise to do better.

They are crimes, and violations of human beings civil and human rights. When children or women are raped, is "an apology" sufficient to mitigate the harm done? Does a sincere "I'm sorry" heal the wound? To construe even this to be the case—and some talk shows do, means that the system of harm which produces and reproduces these criminal, human rights-violating acts is left unnoticed and unchallenged.

Instead we get individualistic broadcasted litmus testing of whether the white man is truly good or deep down dirty. His soul is being inspected through a libertarian lens that cannot see the forest-fire for the trees. In this view, only his speech is hot and must be cooled down, hopefully without hurting HIM—he is human, after all. Never mind the many injured HUMAN souls, who cannot recover because the harm he just expressed is experienced in a hundred different ways, daily, and they have never had the social standing he has enjoyed and will likely continue to enjoy.

Again, within this view, this way of perceiving reality, the most important matter "doesn't matter". The most important matter is that there are powerful systems of harm at work, manifesting in myriad ways. What is called "hate speech" is among them. But it takes placing the word "hate" hesitatingly before the word "speech" to even make it actionable under the law. And, curiously, "hate crimes" do not include rape.

The more this is examined, the more we see what we're not supposed to see—the white male supremacist atrocities behind the corporate media curtain. It is this political reality that needs to be identified as such, named, called out, and not made remedy-able by individual "I'm sorries."

To turn oppressive harm and damage to whole groups of people into "unfortunate or distasteful word choices" is to miss the brutal boat that is perpetually tossing too many oppressed people in toxic water, day after day. And the people being tossed overboard are not seen as individuals. They are otherized, stereotyped representatives of a subordinated group. Portrayed as either contemptuously submissive, or virulently dangerous, they are greeted and defeated (the oppressors hope) with lethal disdain by those in power.

The most powerful group of people in the U.S. are white men with corporate control. An apology from one of their more public employees does not touch the fact that these specific white men are in charge of what's going on. They call the shots as they fire the guns. Their press-people make the occasional public statement, agreeing with the public that "something bad happened here." Their staff decide what happens to our mass of emails and letters of protest. (Would you like to wager as guess as to what happens to them?) These white men, not the public, not the courts, dole out the consequences based on how much money they and their shareholders will lose should this get "really ugly." And the "really ugly" part isn't what the human rights violating celebrity did, but what the protesters do in response.

The ugliest part, the system itself, is never exposed and rarely even gets to glance at itself in a mirror. We are living in a land where atrocity is either not noticed, is verbally neutralized and denied, or is media-exploited to the point that it is CSI-style entertainment. The horrors of racism and rape are the story-lines of crime shows, the components of videogames made for teenagers, and the core content of industry pornography. Each of these interlinked spheres of media contain and replicate the values and aesthetics of misogynist-racist harm which are increasingly soaking into mainstream culture and everyday life.

We live in a land where we are all encouraged to be deeply deluded about what is actually going on. The Katrina disaster in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast flashed a momentary spotlight on often invisibilized Americans trying to live lives of dignity and purpose in a society that callously and disproportionately kills them, one way or another, by flood or (gun) fire. The real ugliness of our white male supremacist government was revealed as such, while still not being named by the corporate press.

Those disproportionately female poor, predominantly Black Southerners, suffered in condensed form, what the poor, women, and people of color suffer every day, in one form or another, worldwide.

I support all efforts to name reality in ways that make oppression visible, and its harm real—as actionable harm, while challenging and targeting those at the top of the ruling class who have the power to stop the harm.

Rufus and Martha Wainwright in Chicago: Hallelujah!

                This is a lovely photograph of Rufus and Martha Wainwright on either side of their mother,  Kate McGarrigle, who sadly passed away on 18 January 2010.

I always wanted an awesome sister and a gay brother, so no matter how you look at it, Martha and Rufus Wainwright have something I don't: each other. But they each have suffered a great loss, as their mother, the folk singer Kate McGarrigle, to whom each paid tribute on Friday, passed away earlier this year.

I have seen them together before, but always welcome seeing them perform on the same stage. The last time I saw them both together was in Montreal. Here is a lovely review by Megan Ritt, with photograph gallery by Meghan Brosnan, from here @ CoS: consequenceofsound.net. You can also click on the title below to link back. Thank you Megan and Meghan!

Rufus Wainwright and sister Martha mesmerize Chicago (8/13)

By Megan Ritt on August 15th, 2010 in Concert Reviews, Hot

2 Comments »

The marquee was bright; the walls were edged in gold; the tickets said “Broadway in Chicago”, for heavens’ sake. When Rufus Wainwright decides to put on a show, you know you’re in for something magical, but his current tour in support of All Days Are Nights: Songs for Lulu takes magical to a whole new level. “Mesmerizing” is the word most often bandied about by the crowd after the first half of his set—but wait! We’re getting ahead of ourselves, and no part of the show, which took place this past Friday at Chicago’s Bank of America Theater, could conscionably be skipped over.

Opening for Mr. Wainwright would be no easy feat for any musician, which may explain why Wainwright chose his little sister Martha for the job. Martha is best known as a folk singer, and I wondered how her music would jive with the audience, who came in want of high pageantry. But if you’ve grown up with someone, of course, it would be hard to be intimidated by him. Martha filled her role capably, comfortably, and dare I say, wonderfully. Her gorgeous, buttery alto poured from her throat, the folk-flavored female compliment to Rufus’ tenor. Like her brother, Martha slides effortlessly up and down the scales, one moment shouting, now quiet; one moment throaty but up to falsetto in an instant. She sings a fearless, bottomless brand of folk comparable to her brother’s music only in its limitlessness. One wishes to be a fly on the wall in their childhood home.

The crowd clearly adored Martha, whooping almost involuntarily throughout her set. Crowd favorites included opener “Bleeding All Over You”, which showcases Martha’s beautiful capability for heartbreak; “This Life”, during which Martha often closed her eyes and looked to the ceiling as if to invoke the gods of music, to a quite moving effect; and “Soudain Une Vallee”, for which her husband joined her on piano, from her recent record of Edith Piaf songs, Sans Fusils, Ni Souliers, A Paris. Martha’s Piaf is throaty, raw, nuanced—in a word, lovely. The crowd was so taken with this latter piece—and with an a cappella last song performed at the edge of the stage, hands wrung—that her Piaf record sold out at the show during intermission. Martha took the great, cavernous theater and made it feel like a small coffeehouse joint, like you were sitting five feet away, like she was the coolest girl you knew from college. Never have I had such a strong desire to sit over whiskeys with a musician.

After a brief intermission, the crowd was reminded of the particulars of Rufus’ set: He would play Lulu start to finish, and there was to be no clapping or interruptions of any kind during this song cycle portion of the program. The lights dimmed, and Rufus appeared stage left in his now-famous costume: the feathers, the jewels, the 15-foot train, all in black. He walked somberly, slowly to the piano and took his seat under a single spotlight. He paused, and then launched into the meandering, river-like piano intro of “Who Are You New York”. The somber black-and-white setting, lit from behind by Douglas Gordon’s art film of a heavily made-up eye opening and closing, threw both the high and low emotional points of the record into sharp relief.



A particular highlight of the set was Rufus’ stark love song to his sister, “Martha”, dealing with their beloved mother’s recent fatal illness. The somber setting and the bareness of his voice all alone on the wide-open stage made the song heartbreakingly plaintive; I cannot have been the only audience member moved to tears. Though the crowd forgot their instructions and clapped at the beginning of the set (possibly an after-effect of their boundless enthusiasm for Martha), Rufus took only a silent sip of water and kept playing; by the third song, the silence between pieces was an actual absence of sound. At one point, car horns could be heard outside the theater. The piano parts on the record are quite challenging at times, and Rufus leaned into the difficult ones, giving the audience a real sense of his effort. The Shakespearean sonnets took on a new drama in that setting, as did “What Would I Ever Do With A Rose”, with its slightly insidious piano part. I never before noticed the darkness of that piece until I heard it live under the spotlight. “Zebulon”, the closer of this set, was given new depth as well; one was struck by the degree to which Rufus laid his soul bare on that stage. This was high drama, living opera– performance art at its finest– and conceiving of and performing it surely took some moxie. Bravo, Mr. Wainwright, bravo.

After another brief intermission (cue the audience to say “mesmerizing”), Rufus took the stage again, this time dressed as himself, to a standing ovation. He played a mix of popular songs from his previous records, with Martha joining him on stage for a few. Highlights of this set (copious applause permitted) included “This Love Affair”, “Memphis Skyline”, and particular crowd favorite “The Art Teacher”, all from Want Two; and “Nuits de Miami” and “Complainte de la Butte”, both sung with Martha and in French (“since we’re in the Paris-Berlin-Moscow of the Midwest!” Rufus proclaimed to adoring Chicagoans). And yes—finally, for this long-time fan– he played a heartrending version of “Hallelujah”.

The crowd brought him back out for an encore, which ended with his late mother’s song for his father, a beautiful rendition of her “Walking Song”. The show lasted three hours, but we could have stayed all night. A mix of operatic drama and coffeehouse warmth, costume and charisma, light and dark, soft and loud, male and female, stark sadness and bright optimism: The Wainwrights surely know how to put on a show for the ages.

Photography by Meghan Brosnan.

Martha Wainwright setlist:
Bleeding All Over You
Comin’ Tonight
Four Black Sheep
This Life
Soudain Une Vallee (Edith Piaf cover)
(unknown)
Baby
(unknown song in French)

Rufus Wainwright first setlist (song cycle):
Who Are You New York
Sad With What I Have
Martha
Give Me What I Want and Give It to Me Now!
True Loves
Sonnet 43
Sonnet 20
Sonnet 10
The Dream
What Would I Ever Do with a Rose?
Les feux d’artifice t’appellent
Zebulon

Rufus Wainwright second setlist:
Beauty Mark
Grey Gardens
This Love Affair
Matinee Idol
Memphis Skyline
Art Teacher
Nuits de Miami (with Martha)
Complainte de la Butte (with Martha)
Hallelujah (with Martha)
Little Sister
Dinner at Eight
Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk

Encore:
Poses (with Martha)
Going to a Town
Walking Song (Kate McGarrigle cover)
——

Gallery by Meghan Brosnan

TAGGED AS: Martha Wainwright, Rufus Wainwright

2010 August Archives: Revisiting September of 2008: on whiteness and racism, manhood and sexism, heterosexism and radical social change

This image/poster is from here

In the autumn of 2008, I began to lay out some of the major themes of this blog: challenging profeminists and antifeminists who purport to be acting on behalf of justice and freedom; identifying the dangers of white privilege and white supremacy; and offering up perspectives on radicalism, rape, and white men's ageist sexism and misogynist racism in media.

I have been deeply dismayed and disheartened to learn that Ward Churchill, who I regard as a white man with a strongly pro-Indigenist politic and perspective, has since been identified as a batterer of at least one American Indian woman. This raises the on-going question of who we look to for leadership on matters of liberation from oppressive systems of dehumanisation and degradation. In my own experience, one definitive answer is "not white men". I find white men, on both structural and experiential levels (the two being intimately related) ill-prepared to lead anyone out of white male supremacist ways of being and systems which benefit them. The investment in them is too great, and white men believe themselves too great to not be leaders.

Here are some excerpts:

“[...] it is obvious to most of us that under socialism, and certainly under communism, social relations will be ruptured and go through lots of changes, in line with the necessities of building a new society.” [a comment from another website's discussion on socialism, by Linda D.]

The question, of course, is whose new society, and is there just one? If just one, is it based and constructed on the political philosophies and practices of white europeans and their descendants? If so, this is deeply problematic, which is to say, white supremacist. See, Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior (1994), by Marimba Ani for much more on this matter.

Although not strictly on the topic of LGBT community and its future, Ward Churchill does tackle this matter rather impressively. I shall first pull the passage from the above discussion I am responding to, posted by Dave:

The issue is a line that says that it is an open question whether or not a certain group of people will “cease to exist” under socialism or communism. This is wrong, and worthy of derision and scorn.

What follows is from the book Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader (2003), page 260. I believe it can apply to some degrees to many marginalised and oppressed ethnic/cultural groups, but here he is discussing Indigenous populations/nations. I will note that I consider Ward Churchill to be a U.S. white man, as am I, but in the passage below he speaks of himself as someone directly descended from American Indian nationalities. This is beside the point, in terms of accepting his analysis of marxism-leninism, however. His work is thoroughly researched, and not only academically.

Our very right to exist in a national sense, and usually as distinct cultures as well, has instead been denied as such. Always and everywhere, marxism-leninism has assigned itself a practical priority leading directly to the incorporation, subordination, and dissolution of native societies as such. This is quite revealing, considering that the term “genocide” was coined to describe not only policies leading to the outright physical liquidation of “ethnical, racial, religious or national” aggregates, but also policies designed to bring about the dissolution, destruction, and disappearance of these “identified human groups as such,” by other means. [see note 113 in the book] Viewed this way, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that marxism-leninism is and always has been a genocidal doctrine, wherever indigenous nationalities/cultures are concerned. [see note 114 in the book]

I also want to recommend two other books to the readers and commenters here on the matter Linda D. specifically raises. One is titled Black Sexual Politics, by Patricia Hill Collins (2004) and the other is called Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism (expanded edition, 1997), by Suzanne Pharr. With those two books, and Churchill’s and Ani’s, I strongly agree with Linda D. that Dworkin’s analysis, too, is needed in this discussion.

Related concerns:

Whose LGBT culture are we talking about? Is our understanding of this culture u.s./eurocentric? Does it place the experiences of Two Spirited people and Womanist woman-centered women at the center of its theories on heterosexuality and queerness? What is our analysis of heterosexuality and its causes? Heterosexuality, not having an asocial or cross-cultural history, nor a future that is eternal, is infused with political ideology, is it not? (It sure seems that way to gay ole me!)

Do those who discuss "the LGBT community" mean white people in the middle class or those who are part of the bourgeoisie? If so, this is but a small piece of the whole of Queer experience and culture.

On Roger Ebert's sexism and ageism (and if you read the whole post, we can note how this also includes racism and heterosexism):

What irks me even more is this comment by Roger: "What a pleasure this movie is, showcasing actresses I've admired for a long time, all at the top of their form. Yes, they're older now, as are we all, but they look great, and know what they're doing." Well, we're not all "older now", as the film stars one actor who is all of thirteen; let's hope she's not yet hit the top of her acting game. And I doubt he's been admiring her for a long time, or, well, I hope he hasn't.

So, getting to the most sexist portion of his review: why do men ALWAYS say things about women's appearances like "they're older now, BUT they look great"? What, exactly, does "great" mean: not old? That they've had enough cosmetic facial surgery, but not too much? First, older women are older than younger women AND they look great. Age doesn't take away beauty; it adds more dimensions to it. And what's with the obsession about how great older or younger women appear, particularly to white heterosexual men who write movie reviews? This film's actors are whatever various ages they are (and they are various ages: a teenager performing in a film with women in their thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, and at least one woman in her eighties). And whether or not they are still lookin' great really ought to be entirely irrelevant. It would appear looks don't matter when we're dealing with white male actors who are "older." There's plenty of unattractive older male actors, and plenty of ugly-as-f*ck younger ones as well.

*          *          *

On September 2, I published another piece on the sexual assaulter and former profeminist activist Kyle Payne, who I'd dealt with in several posts already and who I regard as a dangerous man, psychologically and politically capable of sexually assaulting women again. I regard him as such because he has demonstrated no appreciable empathy for his victim, nor a willingness to be accountable to feminists, or, even this one profeminist. He has refused to answer basic questions about his crime and his awareness of what he did that was destructive to another human life. He has remained utterly preoccupied with how his life was harmed by being caught.

On whiteness, white privilege, and white supremacy, there was a posted video promoting the work of Tim Wise, who, increasingly, I find to be in need of a deeper immersion in radical feminism, particularly that radical feminism which firmly embraces intersectionality as a core theoretical practice, based in the reality that most women, intersex people, men, and transgender people, occupy multiple locations socially and politically such that focusing on just one--say racism/white supremacy--insufficiently deals with the complex of oppressions ALL oppressed people endure, resist, and challenge. There is not one single human being who is only located as oppressed by color or race.

I also noted a few personal-political observations about white folks like me, the content of which is reproduced below:

1. We know best. When we fight for justice, for, say, animal rights, we are quick to condemn those other human cultures (you know, the ones we have colonized and are exploiting and destroying) because they, allegedly, "don't get it" that animals are not inferior to us. Never mind that this view doesn't inhere in Western Philosophy, in our Civilizations at all. Our religions, laws, and customs place men above women, (some) humans above animals, (some) men above the Earth, as a ruler, as a dominator. Never mind that most white folks, disproportionately men, are or have been barbarians and savages (currently often by proxy). Never mind that any notions of animals being like us, not being inferior, being spirited and sentient, comes from the cultures we oppress, not from our own.

2. We behave, without acknowledging it as reprehensible and wrong, as if white folks were adults, and people of color are children. We will actually argue (not in so many words, necessarily) that because some people of color participate in the systems which disproportionately harm them and benefit us, that they are not equipped to lead a struggle against oppression.

3. We actually believe that because not all Indigenous cultures were/are [fill in the blank: respectful of women, respectful of animals, peaceful, sustainable] that we ought to decide who owns the land, as if it is ethically ours to begin with. (It isn't: we stole it, and ought to give it back "without reservation.")

4. We think we are the experts on everything that isn't about us, while being profoundly ignorant about how and what we do that is so harmful and oppressive to others. We call our oppression of others "good", "moral", and "right".

5. We don't think we are raced: we actually believe that "those people" are a race of some kind, and we are, well, just people. We refuse to acknowledge that in any social space, we are white supremacists. Whether we behave like white supremacists has a lot to do with what we recognize in ourselves as racist actions. There are exceptions to this belief: white liberals think we are white, but that race should just be invisible, meaning we should all act like white people. White Nationalists do believe in a white race, and that it is in danger, or must be "pure" as if that was ever the case, or as if creating "purity" involves anything other than bigotry and violence against people of color. White Nationalists, the ones I've heard speak out, believe that race is natural, inevitable, not political and cultural. White Nationalists believe in genocide against non-white people, even if they don't promote it publicly. Such white folks, it may be concluded, aim to be purely evil.

6. We argue there is such as thing as "reverse racism" and reverse ethnic bigotry. We carry around a ridiculous belief that we either have been living in, do live in, or will soon be living in, an Indigenist Supremacist, Asian Supremacist, Latina/o Supremacist, Arab Supremacist, Jewish Supremacist, Muslim Supremacist, or Black Supremacist society. Never mind who still controls every political institution and economy in this country and other white-dominated countries. (The answer is white Christian men.)