You know, it think it's really sad how often the same one or two self-identified "radical feminists" are involved when there are outbreaks of racism in the feminist blogosphere. This repulsive woman never stops.
Here's the background story:
After Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (aka Heart aka CrunchGranolaDyke aka AmazonHeart) posted the above picture on her blog, several people of color began to point out how racist and sexist it was. I mean, it's not like the idea of swarthy men looking like animals salivating over a naive, long-haired, wispy, white blonde is exactly a new idea, now is it? But, of course, we aren't really capable of deciding what is and isn't racist and so we need our great white savior, Cheryl to decide this for us:
The men in the cartoon are not men of color only. They are white men and men of color both. Men of color patronize strip bars just like white men do. Strippers are also white and of color.
All men have sex privilege over all women, of whatever race. Men of color objectify both women of color and white women, just as white men do. Men of color patronize prostitutes, use pornography, just as white men do, and the women prostituted are women of color and white women.
No more foolishness or stupidity from the two of you. Don’t comment here anymore, you are not here in good faith. I’ve encountered your type before many times, one too many times in fact — you are sexist, misogynist liberals who, when push comes to shove, do not give one good goddamn for women. You will sell your sisters out in a heartbeat.
We have those who would deny women the agency to decide what they will do with their bodies now telling us what we can and can not call racism. How (un)surprising!
You are not one of our sisters, Cheryl. You are no friend to people of color and especially not to women of color. You are a racist, pure and simple. You are known for this stuff all throughout the blogosphere. Of course you support other people's racist depictions of people of color; it's the same behavior you engage in so why wouldn't you support it? You are not a feminist. You are not even an ally to feminists. You are the same bigoted arse that you were before you left the fundamentalist right-wing movement when you were no longer allowed to be a leader in it (the "liberals" line is hilarious because it's the same label you tried to use against REAL radical feminists back then). There are still women who remember you from then and see you being the same person today.
P.S. This month's Special White Woman award goes out to Pony/Sis for the following comment:
I kill myself laughing at BelleDame et al’s frantic desperation. No logic can throw the truth, but still they go their usual pathetic route.Oh yes, you know us women of color just love accusing you innocent white women of racism for no reason at all and not because, you know, you actually are being racist, right? Is it okay for a colored girl like me to point out how this comment of her's is identical to the sentiments expressed by men whenever women point out their misogyny? Maybe one of the decent white folks on that thread could let me know if I'm getting too uppity again. Y'all definitely know what's best for us, after all, right?
Losing hard? Throw the racism hat in the ring. It’ so convenient, and soooo disturbing.
But at their friend AmPimp’s?
Nine Deuce, the other white woman who thought that posting this racist and sexist cartoon would be a great idea, has decided that she isn't really able to deal with people questioning her theories. Here's what I wrote in response to this comment directed at me:
(Her words are italicized and my responses are underneath each part in regular text)
I didn’t apologize. You need to acknowledge your own mischaracerizations.
Is it a mischaracterization to say that telling someone "Sorry" is a form of apologizing? Ah well, even if you don't apologize, you have acknowledged the fact that I did not say you claimed science is irrelevant. That's close enough for me. :)
Science, in the sense that jerry is referring to it, is a European product. It’s an Enlightenment product, to be exact.
If Jerry claimed that he was referring to an Enlightenment product, I must have missed that thread. On this one, I've seen him refer to sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, evolutionary biology. All of these are science topics, the science that predates the Enlightenment period. Furthermore, your questions and comments were directed to me and I certainly wasn't referring to any "Enlightenment product".
I am more aware than you have any way of knowing that plenty of discoveries and technological advances took place outside of modern Europe. Anyone making the opposite assumption would be foolish.
If you knew this, then why would you claim that science was founded by "European dudes"? Even what they did develop was built upon what existed before the Enlightenment. There's simply no factual basis for claiming that "European dudes" founded science.
As for Foucault, I’d be a goddamed idiot if I wrote off every white dude because he was a white dude. I am just saying that we ought to examine the sources and possible biases of all of our assumptions about the source of knowledge.
Well, I can certainly agree that WE should do that. Of course, that "we" also includes those who may think that the observation of prostitution sans objectification in other species isn't really an important means of understanding the behavior of "sex-positive" dudes (and everyone else). It also includes those who would try to use science to invalidate all other sources of knowledge. As a woman of color, I have seen how whites and their western culture tries to invalidate anything it can't co-opt, so I have no desire to see all the other "authorities" kept out of the equation when we (people) are trying to determine what is and isn't "true".
I don’t particularly like Foucault, but that idea is present in a lot of his work.
Nor do I. I don't need any white man's opinion in order for me to understand science and it's implications. If we're going to criticize white male dominance, then I think it would be a great start if we stopped looking to them for guidance about what philosophical theories we should believe in. But hey, I guess that's just the womanist in me.
We might define the true source of knowledge for ourselves, but our definitions are heavily influenced by forces that exist before we develop critical thinking ability.
This is too, true! I think it can be easier to see how others are influenced by dominant forces than it is to see how we are influenced by it. For instance, it might be easier for you to see if I have a bias that favors empiricism and it might be easier for me to see if you have a bias that favors white, Western culture.
You are off topic and boorish.
Boorish? Have I hurt your feelings or sensitivities in some way?
She wouldn't post what I wrote to her but she responded to it here.
This has been quite an interesting exchange, interesting and amusing.
Nine Deuce = Science Fail