so here we are again. another slutwalk, another sex-positive man organizing it, standing behind women (but not in a creepy way!) and supporting womens god-given right to be sexually penetrated by men. now thats good faux-feminism! and it gets even better than that: this particular dood as recently as earlier today went by the internet handle “molester” on internet forum “formspring”. you know, because sexual assault is funny, and stuff and things. alas, the women who allowed this dood to “help” them pull off slutwalk baltimore probably shouldve done a background check; or at the very least, followed the links he left on his facebook profile, where they wouldve learned about the “molester” thing. oh well! im not blaming the women, really; thats just what happens when you do feminist organizing with men. you have to be super-extra vigilant, and they werent.
what we have here is (apparently) an 18-year old male anarchist who credits himself with “kickstarting” baltimore slutwalk, but who doesnt know the first fucking thing about feminism: his blogger profile doesnt even indicate “feminism” as an interest. at least he doesnt lie about it i guess? except when hes lying by omission of course. because one of the first things he did when an actual woman-identified feminist confronted him regarding his disgusting behavior as “molester” on another site was to delete the account and all traces of his previous persona, a high school student who left vile, woman-hating commentary about the internet which was available as of today. that he claims he was a high-school student at the time (and hes practically still one now) doesnt change anything, although i’d like to think this little bastard could still learn something about feminism and his own male privilege, before turning into hugo schwyzer. of course, he probably wont learn anything, and i know its not even possible for a man to appreciate his own male privilege and stop abusing it. but i am choosing to see this as a “teachable moment” regardless.
and dont even get me started on the idea of an anarchist — someone who resents any formal social controls on him at all — getting involved in a movement thats supposedly about rape (a legal construct) and protecting the interests of girls and women from men who would sexually violate them. according to his blogger profile, dood fashions himself and his politics after (among others) “tucker”. although he doesnt say, this sounds like a reference to benjamin tucker, the anarchist-dood that apparently wrote this charming passage entitled “anarchy and rape” in the 1800s (but sounds like any modern pedophile or MRA, or fake-feminist-anarchist, take your pick):
With a plentiful sprinkling of full-face Gothic exclamation points and a series of hysterical shrieks, the Journal of United Labor, organ of pious Powderly and pure Litchman, rushes upon Liberty with the inquiry whether Anarchy asks liberty to ruin little girls. Liberty is thus questioned simply because it characterized those who petitioned the Massachusetts legislature for a further raise of the age of consent to sixteen as a bevy of impertinent and prudish women. The answer shall be direct and explicit. Anarchy does not ask liberty to ruin little girls, but it does ask liberty of sexual association with girls already several years past the age of womanhood, equipped by nature with the capacity of maternity, and even acknowledged by the law to be competent to marry and begin the rearing of a family. To hold a man whose association with such a girl has been sanctioned by her free consent and even her ardent desire guilty of the crime of rape and to subject him to life imprisonment is an outrage to which a whole font of exclamation points would do scant justice. If there are any mothers, as the Journal of United Labor pretends, who look upon such an outrage as a protection against outrage, they confess thereby not only their callous disregard of human rights, but the imbecility of their daughters and their own responsibility for the training that has allowed them to grow up in imbecility. Has Liberty a daughter? further inquires the Journal of United Labor. Why, certainly; Order is Liberty’s daughter, acknowledged as such from the first. Liberty is not the daughter, but the mother, of Order. But it is needless to raise the age of consent on account of Liberty’s daughter. Order fears no seducer. When all daughters have such mothers and all mothers such daughters, the Journal of United Labor may continue to regard them as the worst of womankind, but the powers of the seducer will be gone, no matter what may be fixed as the age of consent. Because Liberty holds this opinion and expresses it, Powderly and Litchman profess to consider her a disgrace to the press of America. Really they do not so look upon her, but they are very anxious to win popular approval by pandering to popular prejudices, and so they took advantage of the opportunity which Liberty’s words gave them to pose as champions of outraged virtue while endeavoring to identify Anarchism with wholesale rape of the innocents.
okay? this is what we are dealing with here. sexually predatory men who, regardless of whatever else they may or may not want, historically, do not want a bunch of prudish women telling them they cant fuck 13-year old girls. and anarchism is informing the sexual politics of at least one of the organizers of baltimore slutwalk.
now, heres how this all went down. it started on facebook, with an image of some of “molester”‘s previous handiwork, and a call to the rest of the community and to baltimore slutwalk: is this who you want representing you? really? to his credit, he doesnt deny it, although he does engage in some olympic-grade backpedaling and worming-squirming:
SlutWalk Baltimore This was two years ago. I fully admit on video that I used to be a part of the problem. I’ll leave this on here just to live up to the fact. I make no excuses for some of the truly disgusting things I’ve said, and I apologize, now and always.
SlutWalk Baltimore Let me also note I was about sixteen at the time of this posting. I don’t even remember writing this or know where it is posted. Not an excuse, but it is a caveat.
yes, i was young then, see? unlike now. im 18! ima big-boy now! (and yes, in the beginning he was still responding from his “slutwalk baltimore” account.) in short order we are told that the name “molester” was given to him in school, and he never objected to it: he just rolled with it (the implication being that we should just roll with rape-culture too? i guess? thats rich!):
SlutWalk Baltimore Again, the Formspring is a couple of years old. I forgot it was even there– people used to call me that in school, so I rolled with it. I forgot all about it.
yes like all male-privileged persons, he used and abused his male privilege to unabashedly identify with the rapist-class, and didnt challenge rape culture at all, even as recently as today, right before he deleted his “molester” account: why bother challenging the part of rape culture he likes? you know, the part where he gets to bond with other men over the sexualized abuse and humiliation of girls and women, by men?
then, he further abuses his male privilege by deleting his “molester” account: abusing his privilege, as a male-bodied person to re-write history, including erasing it when its convenient to do so, instead of letting the community judge him based on the facts and what he has actually done. if that isnt the most egregious abuse of male power imaginable, i dont know what is. men write history, and they re-write it to suit themselves. men always do this, and this erasure of history has particular significance when considering the history of radical feminism, and womens resistance to being sexually used and abused by men. erasure is the preferred tactic of the patriarchy and of sex-positivism in particular, against radical feminists in particular, who protest mens molestation of girls and women in particular. male privilege fail!!!
i mean honestly, i could go on and on. clearly, this dood relishes his own male power — including rape culture — in many ways. interestingly, the point at which he does object seems to be precisely the point where girls and women become less sexually available to him and all men, and when other men start implying that girls and women shouldnt dress like sluts and whores for his pleasure, and that women should only be the property of one man, and not all men. that is the tipping point here, is it not? unacceptable! conservative! marching! against! like all liberal dickwads and self-identified feminist men supporting slutwalk, they are protesting the challenge to their entitlement that occurs in the friction and overlap, where liberal mens brand of rape-culture butts-up against conservative mens brand of rape-culture — marriage. its all rape culture though. thats the thing. liberalism and conservatism are both built on it.
and with that, i present this little asshole’s facebook profile, as it appeared earlier today (i have no idea if hes changed it, and i have no reason to check). of particular interest to me are his favorite books (commentary mine):
now, it just so happens that i was reading sheila jeffreys this very morning, and i literally just read her takedown of “lolita” about 2 hours before seeing this. 2 hours before. and i said i wanted to use this as a teachable moment, and i do. for anyone who is unfamiliar with her work, i cannot recommend sheila jeffreys strongly enough: anyone, and i mean anyone interested in sexual politics and “sex-positivism” should immediately read “the spinster and her enemies” and “anti-climax” should follow. this is game-changing, radical work, and gives historical context to sexual politics like nothing else i have seen. of course anyone teaching womens studies to women without having read (or understood) the classics by second-wave authors should be immediately dismissed. but i digress.
in the case of certain works of “great literature” that were initially challenged under obscenity rules, written by men to include all manners of sexual abuse of girls and women at the hands of men, including necrophilia, pedophilia, rape (and moar!) in “anti-climax” jeffreys reveals these works-of-art for what they really are: absolutely gagworthy pornographic degradation of women, that paved the way for a thriving global pornography industry that sexually degrades women too. and those previously-banned obscene books and their progeny — mainstream porn — were literally the propaganda for and the plot of the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s and 70s. legitimizing and eroticising the sexual degradation of women — including rape and child-rape — informed and fueled the so-called “sexual” revolution. on which the current sex-positive platform was built. on which “slutwalk” itself is in fact built. but from whose perspective is any of this “sex”? this is not a rhetorical question.
and it really must be addressed, especially when sex-positive pro-porn anarchist male lolita-fanboys are organizing around issues of sexual politics, claiming to support the rights of women and girls to be free from the sexual abuse of men. its just not true.
anyway, without further ado, here is sheila jeffreys on “lolita” (anti-climax pages 76-85):
lolita! omg. have we had enough of this sex-positive male-centric bullshit yet? have we had enough of men injecting their sickening sadism and woman-hating cultural baggage — and practice — into “feminist” politics? have we? jesus fucking christ on a popsicle stick. come on people. if you want to do slutwalk, then fucking do it. without men. you do not have the time or energy to spend vetting this kind of shit beforehand, and you will always, always have to, when you are dealing with men — this is who they are. they are showing and telling you who they are. this is as good as it gets.
the only other option is to just. not. bother.