Panel discussion at William and Mary, ending the misrepresentations with facts

There are a series of blog posts circulating the internet of this nature, which, are presented as fact when in fact they are opinions of Sam Berg, opinions that are based upon her presumptions, which are often absolutely incorrect false and unacceptable. Thus, to me, it is imperative to put out a statement of fact about the William & Mary College events, about the organizer, Constance, members of the panel, SWOP staff that have been egregiously misrepresented and what truly transpired. While Sam Berg is certainly entitled to her opinion and perceptions, they remain just that opinions and perceptions not fact based, nor realistic analysis of the events.

Sam Berg’s factual misrepresentation

First, what did actually happen at the April 21, 2008 Conference on pornography. It was a three person debate with two moderators. The panelists were Karla Mantilla, Renegade Evolution and myself. It started late due to my late arrival as a result of major traffic delays caused by severe weather and a wrong turn which ironically lead me and my colleague Jessica Land being on a dirt road with sheep. The dirt road seemed to be a good indicator that I had gone the wrong way. For me the sheep confirmed this wasn’t the correct road to the college. It wasn’t. Correct assumption. Very cute sheep, even a mama feeding her babies.

I am very glad to have met Karla. I knew of her peripherally and respected her work and commitment to social justice from what I had seen of her work in the past. Meeting her in person and speaking with her both in the debate and afterward only further enhanced my respect for her. While we did not always agree, there were many times in which we did, many times in which all three of us did. Karla’s arguments were presented very well, she was respectful, civil, kind, and it was clear that she was there to debate issues not personalities which was completely consistent with the hopes and aspirations that Ren, I and other SWOP East members had. At no time did the discussion become heated, each person was given ample and equal opportunity to speak uninterrupted. And even when we disagreed it was respectful. I have no doubt that Karla is very dedicated to social justice and she is an articulate, approachable spokesperson for social justice. I was honored to debate with her, hope that we work together in the future as there is more than way to achieve social justice and the world is a better place when people are given different viewpoints toward that process and allowed to judge for themselves the best way to work for a better world. I don’t have all the answers and never claimed to, the world is a better place when many views are expressed and when differing views and diversity are respected we grow together and become stronger in our fight for social change. Karla’s presentation helped facilitate an event which brought people together despite differences of opinion rather than divide. Which in my opinion is what social justice movements should be focused on.

In all honesty I came in feeling a sense of empathy for Karla because there was so much discussion about how dangerous this conference was, how dangerous the evil likes of Ren and Myself were, how there was all this vast need to protect other speakers from being harmed by Ren and I with security presence. This had to be a very challenging environment for her to present in. She was very courageous to do presentation, alone no less because her colleagues withdrew, in what was presented prior to the event as such a potentially hostile environment. I am supremely fortunate to be part of a movement in which we stand in solidarity with each other and that if there is a perception of potential hostility we still fulfill our obligations and or attend these events in support of a colleague who is fulfilling an obligation.

Renegade Evolution the other party in the debate was stellar. She was warm, engaging, witty, open and honest even if it was obvious her answers were not going to be popular. She clearly has a very strong understanding of the issue being debated, as did Karla, she was nothing like the fearsome, threatening presence the was portrayed to be. In differences of opinion she was gracious, validating of others differing views even if they were diverse from her view, she was truly professional. There was no sense of threat from her, if anything, this being the first time I have met her in person, her warmth and sincerity are immediately apparent. The worst word that came out of her mouth was “bunk”. A term we can all live with. We had talked at length prior to this panel discussion and there was never any doubt amongst any SWOP East members of which Renegade Evolution is a member that we were all in agreement that any panel member would have received the same level of respect.

The organizers including Constance had multiple protocols in place to ensure each person was treated with respect, the questions given as debate questions were neutral asking us to speak our views, thoughts and beliefs as panelists. We were three separate people thus there were three separate views. There was no slanting of questions to meet any political agenda. Thus the idea of a debate. To discuss and represent viewpoints and perspectives for the goal of the audience’s benefit, not to convert the other panelists to our positions. Given all the controversy I have no doubt that ensuring a neutral and fair event was paramount to Constance and all the organizers. Rather than be criticized they should be commended for their professionalism, sincerity and extensive efforts to ensure fairness and the safety of all panelists in attendance and those who did not appear as they had committed to.

Addressing facts.

In early March I was contacted by Constance Sisk about presenting on a panel discussion resulting from controversy relating to the Sex Worker’s Art Show. I advised Constance that I had just had reconstructive surgery on one wrist just days prior and was facing the same on the other within a yet to be determined time frame. That my availability was entirely subjective to my recovery and to the determination of the surgeon about when to proceed with surgery on my other wrist. This information could not be given until it was available and given that it was recovery from surgery and pending second surgery, the situation was fluid. If there was slow recovery on the first wrist, I would have been released to go back to my full time Monday through Friday job thus I would not be available for a weekday presentation. Thus I was asked two questions by Constance. Could I commit to a Sunday presentation in which John Foubert would also be invited, hear my presentation, have time to publicly or privately discuss his views, Constance even changed the time of the event so that it would be a time when John Foubert was available Yes, I could pending that I was not just days off the second surgery which was still unknown. The second question, could I recommend a speaker that could represent the sex worker rights view. I presented that request to all of my colleagues at SWOP East. The only person at that time that could confirm availability was Amanda Brooks. Who despite being a board member with SWOP East, lives on the West Coast. It is a 3000 mile journey for Amanda to come to Virginia also. During this time frame there were funding concerns as to whether Amanda’s travel expenses could be covered. After a significant time frame in which all efforts on the part of both the organizers and SWOP East had failed to come up with funding to cover Amanda’s travel costs it became obvious she could not attend due to travel cost issues.

During this time frame, I had seen the surgeon, was sufficiently recovered to drive to Virginia from Raleigh/Durham, which this was a paramount issue given I have a stick shift car but I was still awaiting a second surgery date in early April, thus until that date was known and my recovery level was determined which dictated when I could return to work at my full time job and whether or not I could be recovered enough to do a presentation and drive I could not make a commitment. I was invited to do a presentation on March 30, John Foubert was invited and it was made very clear that I was very open to discussion with him, with the audience about their views, their concerns etc, as it was specifically stated before, during and after the presentation that I was open to any question and any concern during and after this presentation. There was a very hostile series of letters to the editor in response to my upcoming presentation in the local student newspaper Flat Hat. To which I specifically asked the hostile person to please introduce themselves to me at the presentation and we could discuss their concerns face to face. That person did not show up. Neither did John Foubert or anyone representing him.

I had the second surgery on April 2. It was not until the follow up visit with the surgeon on April 15 that I would be able to give an answer to whether I could commit to being on the panel. Again it depended both on recovery and doctors recommendation. I advised Constance that I could not commit to present until I had the answer on April 15 as I was unwilling to commit to an event that I could find myself unable to attend due to medical or return to full time work conditions. Because my presentation had drawn strong reviews and support from the audience, Constance expressed interest in having me attend the panel discussion if possible. Her basis was the positive response from feedback from the audience and attending students. As a result she wanted me to present at the panel if possible. I was given clearance to return to work on April 23, and was sufficiently recovered by the April 15^th doctors visit to confirm my attendance and know that I could and would live up to my commitment. Constance was not the cause for the delay in determining who the sex worker rights speaker would be. It was out of everyone’s control due to medical reasons. As soon as I was able to confirm she was able to confirm.

Thus Amanda did not back out. It simply wasn’t feasible due to travel costs. Perhaps Sam Berg’s colleagues are in a financial situation to offer financial assistance. SWOP East members were not, nor was SWOP East as we are not funded. Constance did not play a game. There was no conspiracy. If anything she should be commended for taking heat to protect the confidentiality of my medical status. I would never ask a conference organizer of any sort to reveal personal information to me about potential other speakers as the potential other speakers aren’t particularly relevant as they do not change my presentation. I as a presenter in a debate am there to debate issues, to present my views to an audience, not to engage in personality conflicts with other panelists or to try to convert other panelists to my view. That isn’t the idea of a panel discussion/debate. If anything in a debate format that would cheat an audience if other panelists suddenly jumped up and said I repent and have seen the light and agree completely with you and we spent the remainder of the panel nodding about our agreements. Once again, the idea of a debate is different views being expressed to the audience, for the audience. It is not for the benefit of the speakers.

When it was knowledge that I would be able to attend my understanding was that it would be in debate to John Foubert and Sam Berg. Both parties having very significantly different viewpoints to my views. John Foubert being local and likely having many colleagues that could have attended which would have been hostile to either of my presentations. That did not effect my willingness to attend, nor did the face of probable strong disagreement with my views from John Foubert, his local supporters or those of Sam Berg cause me to request special accommodations on the part of the organizers. My anticipation was to be the minority view. I have certainly taken my fair share of criticism from Genderberg supporters, many of which are blatantly hostile. I had significant debates with Sam Berg in the past which were not at the level of hostility of other members of Genderberg, which obviously she can not control the actions of Genderberg members, but certainly the debates with Sam did not leave me with a sense that she held me in high esteem or that I was going to expect a warm reception. Sam and I had communication in March in which she stated that I had engaged in sleazy tactics regarding the purchase of a domain name related to Wheelock College’s conference on pornography of which I was a signatory on a petition, not the author of the petition but had been widely viewed as being the author, of which someone purchased a very similar domain name to the Wheelock event and posted that petition and the assumption of Sam was that I had done so and that it damaged my credibility with her. I advised her that I had not purchased the domain name she believed I had and in fact I was in agreement with her that whomever did it was misguided and that it was a poor choice on their part and a choice I oppose. And that if any evidence that I had done this could be provided I would appreciate it so that I could refer the matter to the domain administrator to have my name removed as I had no part in that and no support of it and have no knowledge of who did. But I would have appreciated Sam asking me if I had rather than making an unfounded assumption that I had and called my credibility into question over her misunderstanding. While I support the basis of the Wheelock petition and still do, I did not purchase any domain name related to it, did not write the petition and did not “spam” it to radical feminist message boards. I sent the original copy a year ago to many message boards as I felt the petition had strong merit that should be discussed as it is an entirely one sided presentation on pornography from a radical feminist perspective that excludes perspectives from sex worker rights advocates and that should be discussed as a legitimate concern. Just as my blog is completely open and unmoderated to anyone to express their concerns about me, about sex worker rights, as is the SWOP East website which is blog driven. We don’t censor content because we disagree with it.

Renegade Evolution came into the picture when I was advised one of the questions would have to do with feminist pornography. I expressed to the organizers that while I could research the topic, it was one that I knew virtually nothing about and that it would be a disservice to the audience for me to be the speaker on that specific plank as regardless of my research over the weekend I would not have a full perspective of the topic as I would be starting from a point of virtually zero knowledge. She asked if I knew anyone local who knew the topic that could be available on short notice as for the best possible presentation for the audience’s benefit there should be someone there who knew the topic. Of those which strong topic knowledge in and outside of SWOP East, the only person qualified and local was Renegade Evolution, who was and is supremely qualified as a current porn actress. There was no conspiracy on the part of anyone to undermine the radical feminist and male feminist perspectives.

Nor was there any concern on the part of Sam Berg or John Foubert about either my or Amanda having any concerns about being outnumbered when it appeared it would be 2 to 1 in opposition to us. While it was never the intent of anyone to even the numbers by having two anti porn and two sex worker rights activists present with the addition of Renegade Evolution, it should be strikingly evident that for all of John Foubert and Sam Berg’s airplay about their feelings, they did not consider mine or Amanda’s and seemed perfectly content to have a 2 to 1 advantage and only when the numbers evened out, even though that was never the objective, did they complain and then withdraw. Ironically leaving their own, a radical feminist, to be alone on a panel they considered too dangerous to attend. It seems my and Amanda’s feelings were not the only ones forgotten. I can imagine this left Karla feeling unsettled being left alone on a panel considered too dangerous to attend despite security presence and despite one of the projected panelists being male. Should I also mention that Ren is physically small woman. If she is 5’2” and 110 lbs, I am two weeks off reconstructive surgery on both wrists, thus the idea of violence is absurd. Ren and I together probably don’t weigh much more than John Foubert.

Sam writes: “that wholesale changes were being made to the panel just five days before the event without informing me. I had agreed to do the panel with John and Amanda, and I hadn’t gotten any emails saying she couldn’t attend or that they were looking for a replacement.”

I have done many panel discussion/debates both while as a radical feminist activist and later as sex worker rights activist in which the other presenters were fluid and ultimately irrelevant. One agrees to speak on a panel discussion to represent their views and present them to an audience. They aren’t intended as personality contests. Who the other panelists are should have very little bearing on anyone that is well prepared and knows and believes in what they are representing. Even in the case of Sam being intimidated by Renegade Evolution, the conference organizers went above and beyond the call of duty as not only was security and police presence and awareness of her concerns offered but Karla Mantilla another radical feminist was offered and accepted a position on the panel in support of Sam to no objection of either Ren and I.

Sam writes: “If they had told me Amanda couldn’t make it I would have suggested that pornographers and strip club owners are very easy to find through legal channels so they could have been asked to appear on the panel.”

It is entirely out of the context of standard procedure of panel discussions for panelists to place demands o who they are debating. And why would a strip club owner come take time off work running his business to debate a feminist and a male feminist? That is an unrealistic expectation.

Sam writes: “ I would have also suggested that the number of porn-using men on campus should have been able to produce just one pornsturbator willing to defend his porn consumption.”

This is almost jaw dropping. To expect Constance to find a “pornsturbator” defies the remotest level of professionalism. This would be entirely unproductive as just the term pornsturbator is so inflammatory that it would have lead to heated confrontation. It would also make Constance guilty of setting up this “pornsturbator” to be blasted with rhetoric of this nature, which would lead to him being angry, and an audience that gets cheated out of a debate and instead exposed to some kind of tag team on some guy that watches porn. To give into a demand of that nature would make Constance a very poor organizer. While personally I don’t watch porn and don’t give a lot of thought to the concerns of men that do as my focus is on sex worker human, civil and labor rights and don’t have the bandwidth or honestly the desire to defend mens porn usage, I can’t see any inherent value in placing him in what would be an obvious sham debate which ultimately would turn into a shame based free for all argument trying to convince him of his wrong doing. Again!!!! The audience is the reason for the debate. Not the other panelists.

It is hypocritical to say the least that Sam Berg while so concerned about the safety and well being of herself and John Foubert by default, are completely unconcerned about those feelings for Amanda and I, ummm, former sex workers, that genderberg alleges concern about, and intends to set up some unsuspecting guy under the guise of a debate to turn it into Williamsburg’s version of the FOPP.

Gee, and to think the rest of the world including Constance didn’t see these suggestions as feasible. Sam would you ask Farley to go recruit strip club owners and pornstubators for you to debate? Or does Constance get treated with some absurd standard of having to meet a large series of demands, suggestions regardless of their damage to her credibility, to that of the audience and to the University.

Sam Writes: “Because I was under the impression that Constance & Co. were being honest with me about their intentions,”

They were. As documented above you don’t know what you are talking about. If you want someone to blame, blame the bastard pimp that I was used against my will in BDSM prostitution as a submissive and his clients for all the times they forced me into obviously unsafe bondage, suspension and other forms of torture that were unsafe, that were against my will, that I wasn’t compensated for and because of the lack of sex worker rights could not be open and honest with a doctor about how I arrived with those injuries as this is the fourth surgery for nerve compression issues related to the nerves in my elbows and wrists which is consistent unsafe bondage over a three year period. But I had no rights then and have none now. Something tells me though that my coerced participation in the sex industry and what I suffered is going to be viewed as irrelevant or even worse as imaginary because I am the political enemy.

Sam Writes: “I chalked up the lack of a pornographer or porn-using man on the panel to inept organizing and the extreme amount of publicity given recently to sex work advocacy at William and Mary.”

Then get new chalk because there was a pornographer on the panel. Ren. Your challenges of inept organizing are absurd, libelous and hypocritical given that you and Foubert backed out of a commitment at the last second leaving Constance scrambling and leaving your ally alone. I stood my ground in the face of an actual death threat presented to VAASA deemed credible enough by Charlottesville PD to warrant the police to provide me with protection of their accord, not of my request. I still showed up because I made a commitment.

Sam writes “How much sex work advocacy has been given a voice there can be answered with the name Constance”

You failed to show Sam, so didn’t Foubert. She can’t represent your sides if you fail to appear. She gave you every opportunity. She gave Foubert the opportunity twice, once with me and once on the panel. This Constance bashing is a total shit.

Sam writes: “I spoke with John Foubert for the first time Thursday and he told me that Constance is a big pro-sex work advocate on campus and she brought the sex worker show to campus the past three years.”

Or perhaps Constance believes in giving voice to diversity? Not just one sided discussion like Wheelock? How hypocritical is it that you so strongly opposed the petition by sex worker rights activists for any participation at Wheelock, how you and your associates maligned, cast dispersions on my character, among other things, made baseless accusations at me, because I asked forwarded an petition for Wheelock to include other perspectives.

Sam Writes “Constance was a guest on Jill’s radio show a few weeks ago,”

So what??? Radical feminist/abolitionist Bill Nelson did a show last week. Gee, he is really pro prostitution. He runs a shelter for street based prostitutes that want to get out of the sex industry, that need help which chemical dependency, offers them job training, counseling, all of this on a beautiful facility in the wealthiest suburb in the Twin Cities so that they are far away and safe from pimps and johns. A place so awful and pro porn that deer come up and you can feed them…… I have begged radical feminists to appear on my show. All have refused accept Bill. Most refuse to even acknowledge the request. Sam you want to be on my show. I’ll give you and anyone you want the show. I have an open slot at 10pm 646 200 3136 www.xxbn.net, you knock yourself out. I’ve also had a rock group on the show, The Naked Heroes, a Hurricane Forecaster named Rob Lightbown, a fired flight attendant named Queen of Sky, Ellen Simonetti that was fired for standing up to corporate powerhouse Delta Airlines for their sexist application of unwritten policy, I have begged feminists to support Ellen after she was called a bitch and an immature self serving whore. See details below. Who has supported me and written the station? Bill Nelson, sex worker rights activists and Canadian pro feminist Martin Dufresne, whom while we have had strong disagreements from time to time also have come together to support Ellen. Martin wrote a plea for support that is supremely well written. Where were you? Where was Genderberg? Or does Ellen not count? I approached many genderberg members was was rebuffed. Why? Is Ellen somehow evil too? Why because she talked about her book on my show? Because her skort, not skirt, skort, rode up in a pic of her sitting an airplane seatback? Nothing pornographic about her pictures. She is in full uniform, perhaps in one pic a millimeter of her bra shows. God forbid. Like all women don’t wear a bra and haven’t had a piece of it show in a pic. Is it because she is wearing pantyhose? Corporate policy. Is it because her legs are long? She is 6 feet tall. I’m 5’ 10”, long legs go with the territory. Ellen was royally pissed because the day she went public with her book Queen of Sky diary of a dysfunctional flight attendant, a porn site grabbed the name queenofsky.com So one can’t exactly call her pro porn. Why exactly is Genderberg unconcerned about Ellen? She is a woman who was called a bitch and whore and the radio station went so far as to do a second segment to trash her more two days later. Why doesn’t she count? Regardless of her feelings on porn, sex worker rights activists stood up for her, 2 men stood for her. Where are the rad fem women? Trashing Constance, Ren and Amanda with assumptions, distortions, factual misrepresentations.

Ellen Simonetti is an ex-flight attendant who blogged about her work and got fired for doing that by her employer, Delta Airlines. She has written a book about it (“Diary of a Dysfunctional Flight Attendant: The Queen of Sky Blog”) and is getting flak from a Los Angeles talk radio station, where three shock jocks (Frosty, Heidi & Frank – think Three Stooges) did a number on her these last few days, calling her, among other insults, an “immature attention-seeking whore”, and blowing a fuse because she is talking back on her blog. If you have time to look into this and want to chime in in support of a woman challenging a big corporation’s work practices, here are references: Simonetti’s blog: http://queenofsky.journalspace.com/
and web page: www./myspace.com/queenofsky The radio station’s website: http://www.971freefm.com/pages/1249.php

where you can scroll down to listen to the show’s podcasts with Simonetti.
Their e-mail address: klsxpromotions@cbsradio.com

Sam writes: “and Jill did a pro-sex work chat with William and Mary college folks”

No Jill did not! Once again you speculate. I support sex worker rights and harm reduction. I didn’t do a pro sex work chat, I didn’t advocate anyone join the sex industry, I advocated that someone with no other choice but sex work in order to survive isn’t consenting. Poverty is not consent! I spent the majority of the presentation talking in first person about my experiences in coerced prostitution, about my own work against human trafficking and that of SWOP East, of our project to get condoms to sex workers without them in Chile who are there largely because of poverty, thus no choice, no consent, who are dying of HIV because they can’t get condoms from outreach providers because the outreach providers can’t afford them because US Governments “Anti Prostitution Oath” Does that make me pro sex work? Wanting to save lives? Advocating sex workers have the same human rights as everyone should have? You come back to me with proof that I did a pro sex work chat or you retract the statement. You don’t even know me.

Sam Writes “a few weeks ago, but in her emails Constance claimed ignorance of the lengthy pro-porn and radical blogosphere debates on this contentious subject.”

Well, excuse her if she didn’t hang of your every post. Oh wait, she couldn’t have, she isn’t allowed in Genderberg.

Sam Writes: Constance. Constance said she was excited to have me coming and offered to let me spend Monday night at her place, where she planned on cooking dinner for a group of people post-panel”

Which she did and does for every event………….. Wow, cooking dinner for you, what a terrible thing to do, offering you a place to stay so you don’t have to pay hotel costs because she couldn’t get funding. My grandmother would be making the sign of the cross over her chest and saying Ave Marias after hearing of such treachery and skulduggery

Sam Writes: How do you think it would feel if a pro-choice feminist were invited to a predominantly pro-life campus by a predominantly pro-life group and the pro-life organizer did everything Constance did without revealing her pro-life politics to her pro-choice panelist and house guest?

How about you invite me to a panel discussion that I had to pay the flight for because you couldn’t get the funding and you were concerned about my expenses and appreciated me flying to Portland on my own dime to present on your panel, so you invite me to your house for supper with other guests, audience, panelists, and let me stay the night without charge rather than having me eat supper alone and go to a hotel I had to pay for alone? I would assume you were being kind, being a human being concerned about me, my finances, my not being alone in a far away city and that you were kind enough to care about me regardless of whether you disagreed with my politics. That is how I would feel. I would appreciate your kindness and feminism that we could agree , disagree or in between but that you treated me with kindness. That would be how I would feel. It would exemplify feminism.

Sam Writes: I agreed to do the panel with John and Amanda three weeks ago. Though it was unethical to make major lineup changes at the last minute like that without telling me and things started feeling really fishy due to the lack of notification about the event anywhere besides pro-john blogs

Pro John blog,,,, I’m done with this,,, There is a difference between arguing factual misrepresentations and rhetoric. We’ve hit the rhetoric point.

Do you realize what you have done Sam? Do you even realize what you are doing?

Infiere