American Electra by Susan Faludi

The funniest aspect of the mass internet-responses to Susan Faludi's much-discussed HARPER'S article, is that young women already run the joint. Therefore, when blogs like Feministing authoritatively announce:

We mulled over how to respond most effectively here at Feministing, and have decided to publish a week-long series of responses from a diversity of young voices in our community

Say whaat?

Um, isn't that who ALWAYS writes for Feministing? How is this any different from business-as-usual? They write as if this week-long special event is somehow different from the norm, and of course, it isn't, which is the hilarity.

In truth, "a diversity of YOUNG voices" (emphasis mine) is the typical demographic for ALL of the Big Feminist Blogs. The fact that a tiny middle-aged squawk over at HARPER'S (a magazine you have to BUY to read; it isn't online for everyone's perusal and I still haven't read the whole damn article) can create such a fuss, is telling.

I long ago unsubscribed to HARPER'S, after their Andrea Dworkin hit-piece, which I didn't like (see comments here). However, Susan Faludi commands widespread respect, even from young feminists. She is likely the primary reason for the overarching concern this time; even Amanda Marcotte, major Youthquaker, notes that she was eager to read Faludi's account. (For my part, I have been howling non-stop about ageism within feminism since my arrival in Feminist Blogdonia in 2007... nobody cares, and in fact, I am usually shown the door for bringing it up.)

What is immediately striking is how this mass counter-attack would not happen regarding any other form of discrimination, except (as we have seen numerous times) for fat. I very much doubt that if this was an account about racism in feminism by Alice Walker (and she did write one), the response would be, "to present a diversity of white voices in our community." (Or would it?)

Yes, it is the same.

Maybe worse, since Faludi outlines the incontrovertible facts: Second Wave feminism gave birth to the Third Wave, and this feud tends to imitate the elements of a mother-daughter fracas. Since that's what it is. Basically, many Third-wavers are spitting in their feminist foremother's faces. Faludi writes: "The contemporary women’s movement seems fated to fight a war on two fronts: alongside the battle of the sexes rages the battle of the ages."

Yep. (NOTE: Sorry I can't provide "a diversity of older voices" to reply along with me, but there are EXCEEDINGLY FEW of us online... and the Third-wavers have banished even those few, in favor of young folks talking endlessly about Lady Gaga. Thus, it is very difficult for us to even find each other.)

I still can't find the entire text of Faludi's piece, so if you can find one online, please link here. But here are some excerpts from what is currently posted:

Why does so much of “new” feminist activism and scholarship spurn the work and ideas of the generation that came before? As ungracious as these attitudes may seem, they are grounded in a sad reality: while American feminism has long, and productively, concentrated on getting men to give women some of the power they used to give only to their sons, it hasn’t figured out how to pass power down from woman to woman, to bequeath authority to its progeny.

...

I’ve been to a feminist “mother-daughter dinner party” where the feel-good bonding degenerated into a cross fire of complaint and recrimination, with younger women declaring themselves sick to death of hearing about the glory days of Seventies feminism and older women declaring themselves sick to death of being swept into the dustbin of history. I’ve been to a feminist conclave convened to discuss the intergenerational question where no young women were invited. After the group spent hours bemoaning the younger generation’s putative preference for a sexed-up “girly girl” liberation, one participant suggested asking an actual young woman to the next meeting—and was promptly shot down. I’ve delivered speeches on the state of women’s rights to college audiences whose follow-up comments concerned mostly the liberating potential of miniskirts and stripping, their elders’ cluelessness about sex and fashion, and the need to distance themselves from an older, “stodgy” feminism.

Gee, she sighed, I wonder why no young women were invited? (I can't imagine.)

Interestingly, Faludi uses the word "handicapped"--the type of old-fashioned term that makes young women (and me too, and I am older than Faludi) wince. (I wonder how often our language-choices 'mark' us as older, online?) She writes at length about the stylistic differences in Second and Third Wave feminists, and I suddenly remember my recent post in which I exhorted women to sass back to fatophobic doctors, advice that came almost verbatim from early issues of Ms. magazine, as well as Our Bodies Our Selves. I was lambasted for expressing disgust that women so often act like victims, instead of paying customers, which we are. This is the kind of thing that got me lauded (as a writer) in the 70s, but now, I get excoriated for saying the exact same things.

How radically have our sensibilities changed, that what I say can be taken (by my generation) as a praiseworthy goal, but by the young women as somehow insulting?

Faludi writes about the recent NOW [National Organization for Women] presidential election:

The candidate who seemed to be in the lead was thirty-three-year-old Latifa Lyles, a charismatic speaker attuned to a youthful sensibility, a black woman who insisted on a more diverse constituency, a technologically savvy strategist who had doubled the organization’s Internet fund-raising and engaged the enthusiasm of a host of feminist bloggers. A feminist activist since she was sixteen—when she told her mother she was going on a “school trip” and ran off to the 1992 reproductive-rights demonstration in Washington, D.C.—Lyles had worked her way up the ranks in NOW, from chapter leader to national board member to youngest-ever national officer. She had spent the last four years as national vice president for membership under [Kim] Gandy, who championed Lyles as her successor. “It’s hard to ignore the fact there’s been a generational shift in this country, and an organization that doesn’t recognize that is living in the past,” Gandy declared. “Latifa’s youth is not a detriment but an advantage. She’ll take NOW to a different level.”

“I never paid attention to a NOW election in my life until I knew Latifa was running,” Jessica Valenti, the founder of Feministing.com, a leading young feminist website, told the Associated Press. “This could be the moment where NOW becomes super-relevant to the feminist movement again.”

What kind of Major American Feminist isn't paying attention to the NOW election? I had no idea you could be a Big Feminist Blogger and Big Feminist Author and not care about NOW. (shows what I know)

If anyone wants to know what's wrong with modern feminism, doesn't that sum the whole thing up in a nutshell? The young women don't give a shit about NOW, unless the prez is a young hipster like themselves. Can we be forgiven for thinking they might not be too serious?

The preoccupations of the younger side of the generational divide were on rampant display the next afternoon at the young feminist workshop, which included tips on how to recruit other young women (do not use the NOW logo when advertising your event) and a prep session on Twitter marketing, led by a young woman in stiletto heels—along with tirades on the transgressions of NOW’s elders, people “so grumpy and crotchety that as a young woman, you come into that meeting, you’re like, ‘I’m never coming back here.’ ” “Many a time I’d hear, ‘Oh, why are you wearing high heels? We fought for so long not to have you wear those high heels!’ ” “I’ve been in meetings where Seventies-ish women say to me, ‘Oh, we’re so glad to have some young blood!’ It’s creepy, and we don’t like it.”

Do not use the NOW logo?!?

(They won't use the NOW logo, but I betcha they DO take those extra salaries, birth control pills and legal abortions that NOW secured for them.)

Lord have mercy, what a lousy state of affairs this is.

One young feminist I respect a great deal, because I know she heartily works for the Forces of Good, is Natalia Antonova, who wrote:

Inter-generational conflict always exists, and it affects way more than simply mainstream American feminism. Faludi’s assertion though that there is a “nightmare of dysfunction” within American feminism is, well… funny. For me, “nightmare” relates more to systemic exclusion of trans people. Or, say, how the concerns of those who are not middle-class and don’t get invited to sit on panels can easily get lost in the shuffle. Is that too much theory, perhaps? Theory, of course, is another thing that Faludi says that younger feminists are too preoccupied with.

Indeed, I have to say that bringing THEORY into the mix is something I genuinely appreciate about the youngsters. Recently, when I commented on another blog that [Bourgeois Feminist] didn't speak for me as a working class woman ... well, they heard me. They got it. I admit, older feminists often didn't, and still don't. They still don't understand why we all didn't vote for Hillary.

So maybe I wouldn't like the whole article, even as I enjoy the relatively cheap shots that I have quoted here. Maybe I'll even get to read it one of these days.

In the meantime, I am very pleased with my own daughter, as Jessica Valenti is proud of her own mother. Maybe that is key. Generalizations are one thing, and I can relate to them. But how do we really feel?

I am personally proud of young feminists when they stand up to patriarchy (pardon old-fogie terminology) and pave their own way... and that will never change.

Andrea Dworkin on Transgender

Photo from The Boston Phoenix.



There has been a lot of heated discussion among Second-Wave radical feminists, concerning when transphobic theory "took over" the discourse. Women who claim to be of the hard-core Andrea Dworkin school of radical feminism, steadfastly adhere to the concept that trans people are not the gender they say they are and will not use preferred pronouns; some go so far as to edit comments on their blogs and change the pronouns, for example. Many of these Second-Wavers believe it is reactionary to "endorse" (for lack of a better word) the gender identities of trans folks. Much talk about the "gender binary" (male/female, historically constructed as mirror images, opposites, yin and yang) and how transgenderism "upholds" this binary, etc etc etc.

For many of these feminists, the late Andrea Dworkin is something of a patron saint. One well-known radfem uses a quote from Dworkin on her blog, to let it be known she is a "take no prisoners" sorta gal. I have read many, many quotes by Dworkin on Second-Wave radical feminist blogs.

But it is telling that they carefully leave out the quote(s) below, even though they claim to have all of her books.

In conversations with trans feminists, I have continually assured them that many Second-Wave radical feminists were NOT transphobic, and actually empathetic to trans people. However, I've had trouble finding any proof, other than my own memory and a few trans friends of Kate Millett's. Depressingly, the more I searched, I found much more proof that radical feminists were mean and vicious (i.e. Robin Morgan's lynch-mob rhetoric concerning trans women in her book titled Going Too Far). The Janice Raymond/Robin Morgan/Mary Daly faction seems to have "won" the transgender round of radical feminist theory, by default.

And so, it brings me great pleasure, after a very long search, to finally have the following quote IN MY HAND, not just from memory. Thank God for Amazon.com and the used books option, since this is long out of print.

The book is WOMAN HATING, copyright 1974, EP Dutton, New York City, ISBN 0-525-47423-4. The book jacket contains approving blurbs from: Phyllis Chesler, Ellen Frankfort, Florynce Kennedy, Audre Lorde, Kate Millett and Gloria Steinem.

I find it interesting that Morgan did not provide a blurb, since she and Dworkin were good friends. (Was this passage the reason?)

Note: In the 70s, at the time of this writing, the accepted terms were "transsexual" (instead of transgender) and "hermaphrodite" (instead of intersex)--and these are the terms Dworkin uses.

~*~

First, Dworkin believed that the human race is multi-sexual, and to maintain patriarchy, these multiple genders must be "contained" within the two-gender binary. Transgendered people, then, are the people who have fallen through the cracks, so to speak, who do not fit into this rigid system.

These excerpts are all from the suitably Dworkinesque-titled chapter Androgyny: Androgyny, Fucking and Community:

Hormone and chromosome research, attempts to develop new means of human reproduction (life created in, or considerably supported by, the scientist's laboratory), work with transsexuals, and studies of formation of gender identity in children provide basic information which challenges the notion that there are two discrete biological sexes. That information threatens to transform the traditional biology of sex difference into the radical biology of sex similarity. That is not to say there is one sex, but that there are many. The evidence which is germane here is simple. The words "male" and "female," "man" and "woman," are used only because as yet there are no others.

She discusses the facts that there are intersexed people, hairy women, feminine men, indistinct genitalia, etc.

We can presume then that there is a great deal about human sexuality to be discovered, and that our notion of two discrete biological sexes cannot remain intact. (Note: The following sentence is underlined repeatedly in my used copy.) We can presume then that we will discover cross-sexed phenomena in proportion to our ability to see them.

In addition, we can account for the relative rarity of hermaphrodites in the general population, for the consistency of male-female somatotypes that we do find, and for the relative rarity of cross-sexed characteristics in the general population (though they occur with more frequency than we are now willing to imagine) by recognizing that there is a process of cultural selection which, for people, supersedes natural selection in importance. Cultural selection, as opposed to natural selection, does not necessarily serve to improve the species or to ensure survival. It does necessarily serve to uphold cultural norms and to ensure that deviant somatotypes and cross-sexed characteristics are systematically bred out of the population.

Later in this section, she makes a statement in italics, for emphasis:

We are, clearly, a multi-sexed species which has its sexuality spread along a vast fluid continuum where the elements called male and female are not discrete.

And then, we get to the section titled Transsexuality, which she starts off by quoting "a transsexual friend":

How can I really care if we win "the Revolution"? Either way, any way, there will be no place for me.

Keeping in mind there were far fewer uncloseted transgendered people in the 70s, I find the following paragraphs to be pretty radical and trans-positive stuff:

Transsexuality is currently considered a gender disorder, that is, a person learns a gender role which contradicts his/her visible sex. It is a "disease" with a cure: a sex-change operation will change the person's visible sex and make it consonant with the person's felt identity.

Since we know very little about sex identity, and since psychiatrists are committed to the propagation of the cultural structure as it is, it would be premature and not very intelligent to accept the psychiatric judgement that transsexuality is caused by a faulty socialization. More probably, transsexuality is caused by a faulty society. Transsexuality can be defined as one particular formation of our general multisexuality which is unable to achieve its natural development because of extremely adverse social conditions.

There is no doubt that in the culture of male-female discreteness, transsexuality is a disaster for the individual transsexual. Every transsexual, white, black, man, woman, rich, poor, is in a state of primary emergency as a transsexual. There are 3 crucial points here.

One, every transsexual has the right to survival on his/her own terms. That means every transsexual is entitled to a sex-change operation, and it should be provided by the community as one of its functions. This is an emergency measure for an emergency condition.

Two, by changing our premises about men and women, role-playing and polarity, the social situation of transsexuals will be transformed, and transsexuals will be integrated into community, no longer persecuted and despised.

Three, community built on androgynous identity will mean the end of transsexuality as we know it. Either the transsexual will be able to expand his/her sexuality into a fluid androgyny, or, as roles disppear, the phenomenon of transsexuality will disappear and that energy will be transformed into new modes of sexual identity and behavior.

~*~

I have noticed that many radical feminists latch on to her third point, overlooking the first two. Further, they make the third point prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Dworkin obviously meant that transgenderism will "disappear" after her androgynous feminist revolution, not that we should make actual trans people disappear RIGHT NOW. I think she is very clear on that.

When trans feminists initially read these words in the 70s, it is understandable that they felt welcome in the feminist movement. When they attempted to take their place among us Second-Wavers, they were rejected, trashed, outed, and accused of being "rapists" simply for being trans persons. Feminists who loved what Andrea wrote about pornography (including her legal activism), seemed to overlook what she said about trans people, and/or assume she had the views of Morgan, Daly, Sheila Jeffreys, et. al.

No.

Let the record show, once and for all, that she did not.

~*~

Everyone is welcome to discuss this post, regardless of your views. But the ground rules are: RESPECT FOR EVERYONE, including preferred pronouns. No trans-baiting and yes, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

Make Andrea proud, and show some empathy for those people in a primary emergency within patriarchy.

Thank you.

I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more

At left: Maggie Gallagher spreads her poison at Harvard. (Photo stolen from a right-wing website I will not give hits to!)




Whilst skimming an article last evening, I got pissed off and imagined myself ranting and raving on Bill O'Reilly, wherein he eventually cuts my mike. (This is actually a frequent, favorite fantasy of mine.)

Who got me all stirred up? Maggie Gallagher, former single mother.

Question: Why is Maggie allowed to have a nontraditional family, but nobody else is? OHHH of course, she is heterosexual. That's IT! That's the WHOLE REASON!

I can't remember which conservative essay I once read by Gallagher, some time in the 90s, in which she painted a familiar portrait of harried single motherhood, in predictably exhausted terms. (Biographical note: Your humble narrator was briefly a single mother also, an experience totally worthy of a nervous breakdown, or several.) She described her son crying for his father, a well-written and evocative passage, and I made personal note of it.

And now, she is preaching to other people about what constitutes a "real" family.

Women like Gallagher (and Sarah Palin) make me livid. It was not traditional motherhood, but feminism that made it possible for Gallagher to attend the once all-male Yale and hang with the guys from the once all-male National Review. They did not voluntarily allow her in. Nonetheless, she launched a full-frontal attack on feminism (pausing to write an interesting obit for anti-porn feminist crusader Andrea Dworkin) titled Enemies of Eros: How the Sexual Revolution Is Killing Family, Marriage, and Sex and What We Can Do About It--which defended the basic Schalflyesque, right-wing view of relations between the sexes. Apparently, Maggie forgot that once upon a time, single women who gave birth were regarded as sluts and whores by this very same right wing. She seems to think none of that really applies to her. In fact, Newt Gingrich was ranting and raving as late as 1994, that children in single-parent homes might be better off in orphanages. (Did Maggie agree with that, or would she receive some special motherhood-dispensation as a contributor to the National Review?)

It is pertinent that Maggie wrote a book titled The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. You should read that as nyah-nyah-nyah, neener-neener, we are allowed to get married and YOU PEOPLE aren't. She wants to zealously, deliberately deny these benefits to gay people, and has all kinds of bullshit reasons for doing so.

But you should not call her a bigot--because that's mean.

I was reading Politico's article about the various conservative and evangelical objections to Newsweek's religion vs gay marriage cover story, when I came across this:

In an e-mail to Politico, Maggie Gallagher, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, took a similar line, calling marriage “the one necessary adult relation in society – the way we bring together male and female to bring the next generation to life in a way that connects those children in love to their own mother and father.”

What?!?

What about her own son?

Why does Maggie Gallagher get a fucking pass? Why is she allowed to be the president of this "pro-marriage" organization*, but clearly started breeding before she had any such need for marriage? How "pro-marriage" is that? Back in the old days, a big scarlet A. These days, they actually listen to her say things like this (from Maggie's Wikipedia entry):

Marriage as a universal social institution is grounded in certain universal features of human nature. When men and women have sex, they make babies. Reproduction may be optional for individuals, but it is not optional for societies. Societies that fail to have “enough” babies fail to survive. And babies are most likely to grow to functioning adulthood when they have the care and attention of both their mother and their father

Apparently, Maggie didn't get the memo that gay people have children too. Some of these children even have visitation with their natural parents (as other children of divorced parents do), and all the rest of it.

Does Maggie's son see his father regularly? (If so, why was he crying about having "no father" in the essay I read?) Does Maggie hold her own family to this same standard? Does she regard a marriage as "traditional" in which a child was first conceived from sex with another man, other than the one she is currently married to? BECAUSE IT ISN'T. THAT IS NOT TRADITIONAL. That used to be ANATHEMA.

And why doesn't she see that?

In short, that old song: decent treatment for ME, but not for THEE.

Maggie also warns:

Gay marriage is not primarily about marriage.... It is about inserting into the law the principle ... that sexual orientation should be treated exactly the same way we treat race in law and culture.... The next step will be to use the law to stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation.

To those of you who thought gay marriage was about, you know, MARRIAGE, well, just shows what YOU know. It's actually a nefarious plot to force "gay values" on everyone.

But you know, I hope Maggie is right in that last quote...if it means bigots like her get shamed, stigmatized and marginalized, I'm all for it. They deserve it. Maggie sez, in short, I have the right to break the old rules about marriage and child-rearing, and then pretend I have a traditional family, but you people can't.

And what about the CHILDREN?! More from Maggie:

Same-sex marriage advocates are saying there is no difference between two men being intimate and a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising children. They are saying that the opposite idea, that mothers and fathers both matter, is a form of hate, ignorance, animus, bias. That's why they claim that the normal definition of marriage is discrimination.

Again, I ask... what about her own son? Is she exempt from this rule?

Why did she have a child out of wedlock, not instantly given up for adoption to a proper, two-parent family?

I want to emphasize this point, again and again, because it really puzzles me as much as it interests me. I want to highlight the contradiction here. Because you know, Maggie ain't the only one. How many of California's Prop 8 voters were divorced and/or single parents? How many share this same prejudice, excusing their own nontraditional family-oriented behavior, but criticizing gay people? What causes this weird dislocation?

I have long been fascinated by the juxtaposition of what many conservatives SAY, and their actual behavior. William Bennett, author of the moralistic Book of Virtues, for example, later referred to as The Bookie of Virtue, as his gambling habits were made public. The aforementioned Newt Gingrich, preaching about the sanctity of the family, but serving divorce papers on his wife as she recovered from cancer surgery. And of course, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard and the whole Hee Haw gang.

The ongoing hypocrisy stuns, and is unbelievable.

*Gallagher is also the president of The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

Keeping the gays from getting married has proven to be a pretty lucrative gig!

Odds and Sods - Crepe Myrtle edition

Left: The Crepe Myrtle trees are now in fabulous bloom!

~*~

Amber Rhea and I have argued about a lot of stuff, veterans included, but her post yesterday was just too great AND IMPORTANT not to mention, particularly after all the hubbub over the 4th of July, when the incident she writes about occurred:

“Support our troops” means put a fucking yellow ribbon magnet on the back of your SUV (yes, it’s so cliché to even say it at this point, we’ve all heard it before), not actually providing care and coverage to the infirm. Oh right my dad gets a piddly $200 a month benefit from the government for being exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam; “oops, our bad for exposing you to a potentially deadly chemical; here’s two hundred bucks!”

And leaving the infuriating irony aside, this whole situation has brought out into the light (yet again) the stark, ugly reality of the divide between the haves and the have-nots. We can spend billions of dollars on a wall between the US and Mexico but somehow we can’t figure out how to provide comprehensive health coverage for every citizen.

Read the whole righteous rant. Amber reminds me of what some of the Ron Paul supporters have said: it isn't so much that they are "against" the war, but rather that they just don't trust the government to do it (or anything else) correctly and without bankrupting us all as a side effect.

~*~

THE CANARY COALITION is sponsoring the 2008 Relay for Clean Air on August 23rd:

We all have the right to breathe clean air and The Relay for Clean Air is the annual civil rights march staged by the Canary Coalition to focus national attention on poor air quality in the greater Appalachian Region. The Relay flag is passed from one segment to the next over the 100 mile course that stretches from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, along the Blue Ridge Parkway to downtown Asheville, NC. There are segments of the Relay designed for bicycle riders, runners and for walkers. The Relay is not a race, but rather a cooperative demonstration of determination by its participants.

Here is a detailed relay schedule, and you should contact them if you want to participate!

~*~

I haven't kept up with the whole fake-Obama-birth-certificate hoopla, and I am indebted to Mattt over at Bastard.logic for providing me with a handy-dandy link-o-rama to the whole thing. Firedoglake updates us:

Only the most rabid of partisans would place their blind trust in the candidacy of a man who cannot even prove he was born. What evidence do we have that this "Barack Hussein Obama" even exists? After all, detailed investigation reveals that his name, "Barack Hussein Obama," is an anagram for either "Dread Cthulu," or else, even more frighteningly, "Tom Boerwinkle." Why, his "father's" "race" is listed as "African," when he was really Black! Ha! HAH! Heh. Ho. Hum.

The Strata-Sphere debunks the birth certificate carefully, point by point, for any lingering doubters.

~*~

Another righteous rant over at Lotus, regarding Obama's flip-flop on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):

Let it be noted clearly that Barack Obama, who previously pledged to join in a filibuster of any bill that contained telcom immunity, not only didn't join any filibuster attempt, not only voted for the damn bill, he voted in favor of cloture. It would be hard to imagine a clearer reversal of position; this is the kind of thing for which the phrase "flip-flop" was truly destined.

But what made it even worse than the bald, cruel fact of the bill's passage was the way the media treated the story. Both AP and Reuters covered the vote as simply another question of political games, of a "legislative victory" for Bush, just another version of the horse-race coverage, who's up, who's down, without any consideration of the meaning of the vote. Worse, where they did consider the bill, they got it maddeningly, grossly, infuriatingly wrong.

Yes, you are hereby ordered to read all of this rant, too.

~*~

Finally, my homegirl Renegade Evolution had a harrowing accident, getting burned whilst "fire-spinning" (oh, holy God!)... but has characteristically taken this turn of events with her usual good humor. Nonetheless, she isn't feeling too well, so send her some good vibes!

She also reports on an interesting fellow named Kyle Payne, who seems to be making the rounds of feminist Blogdonia. What's this guy on about, anyway?

Left: red and lavender periwinkle.



Well, on the face of it, Kyle appears to be a terribly earnest young man who hates porn and misogyny. Oh my, yes. He weeps actual tears of sympathy for women, blah blah blah. I figured, a young John Stoltenberg acolyte, but with a blog.

Nope. Check out what Belledame reports, courtesy of the Iowa Independent:

An Iowa blogger who claimed to use activism and education to promote “a more just and life-affirming culture of sexuality” for women, especially those women who have been victims of sexual violence, has pleaded guilty to photographing and filming a college student's breasts without her consent.

Kyle D. Payne, 22 of Ida Grove, presented his guilty plea Monday in Iowa District Court for Buena Vista County. He agreed he was guilty of felony attempted burglary in the second degree and two counts of invasion of privacy, a serious misdemeanor.
Lynda Waddington :: Iowa Blogger Pleads Guilty to Secretly Photographing Woman's Breasts

In documents filed with the court, Payne agrees that "with an intent to arouse my sexual desire, I photographed and filmed Jane Doe and her breast without her consent." A portion of the plea agreement stating that Payne was of sound mind when the incident took place in early 2007 was stricken from the document, leaving only the portion where Payne agrees that he is currently of sound mind.

At the time of the incident, Payne had been employed by Buena Vista University as a dormitory resident adviser. Police reports indicate that while attending to an intoxicated and unconscious female student, Payne reportedly assaulted and photographed her. The guilty plea entered Monday did not include assault charges. Tips received by police and campus security following the incident led to a 10-month investigation that resulted in Payne's arrest in February....

Payne, who identified with radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin, attended a training for feminist anti-pornography activists in January at the University of Texas in Austin. An article in the Ida County Courier stated that Payne had "written papers and given several public presentations on feminist critiques of pornography, prostitution, and the 'rape culture,' in addition to serving as an advocate for survivors of sexual violence." According to a resume previously posted on his blog, he has attended many such conferences since 2004.

Payne faces a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of up to $7,500. As a condition of the plea deal, the state has agreed that no other charges will be filed as a result of this incident. Sentencing has been set for Aug. 11.

You really can't make this stuff up!

**

EDIT 6:00PM--Long thread about Kyle Payne, with details on the case, accusations, unsubstantiated gossip, etc.

----------------
Listening to: The Pogues - Amadie
via FoxyTunes

More fun with Cheryl

Left: Presidential candidate Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (aka Heart) on SEX-TV, with two of her eleven children.

~*~

Heart, aka Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, now has five websites (!) to talk about how wonderful she is. (two more linked below)

After she announced she was "running for president"--I did a demolition piece on her, which I think said it all. Until now, I had little to add to that. People told me I should lay off her, that the worst thing you can do to a pathological attention-seeker with Narcissistic Personality Disorder is to keep feeding the "LOOK AT ME!" jones. So, I stopped mentioning her. She gets kind of boring after awhile anyway, as most narcissists do.

And now, I find a Technorati link to my blog from her newest website, titled FIGHT THE LIES. Apparently she has already removed the link, which is good, because I DO NOT WANT HITS from her wacky Ellen Jamesian faction. Nonetheless, I will respond to the page she obviously claims was inspired by me.

First of all, is there no END to the self-aggrandizing "I'm suffering for women!" chatter from this person? In my piece linked above, I chronicled Cheryl's so-called (ha!) shift from extreme Christian fundamentalism to extreme Second-Wave feminist fundamentalism. I am still struck by the similarities--the love of suffering, the tireless claims of martyrdom, the endless passing of the collection plate (more about which in due course), the hagiography and colorful twisting of the (extremely suspicious) biography, the various poses with her 11 children as props (bringing to mind the saintly and ever-maternal expression of the Blessed Mother in Roberto Ferruzzi's MADONNA OF THE STREETS) and the continual rattling on about her hard work and self-sacrifice, all she does for Jesus... oops, I mean WOMYN.

Meanwhile, the viciousness towards women who are not like her, continues unabated. In fact, FIGHT THE LIES (the title sounds exactly like the name of a Jack Chick comic or religious tract, doesn't it?), seems directed to those of us who have already been duly banned from her site and have therefore found it necessary to defend ourselves against her false accusations in our censored absence. FIGHT THE LIES is basically a Calvinist-feminist attack on heretics... it is the equivalent of her own church's excommunication of HER: Oh goody, now I get to do the same thing to other people! (NOTE: Heart probably doesn't have anything nice to say about that old sexist, Friedrich Nietzsche, but when he said "In destroying monsters, we must take care not to become monsters ourselves"--he was talking about fascistic, fundamentalist zealots like Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff and their total lack of self-awareness.)

Like the Quiverfull faction that created her (and that's the link to her second new blog, BTW) Heart writes like she is always under attack by the Dark Side. It's a war between Good and Evil, and Heart is always on the side of the angels. AND HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST OTHERWISE, you cynic! Heart freely and proudly admits that she perpetually passes the collection plate, because she dedicates her LIFE (like a missionary) to covering issues for womyn. Interestingly, she recently asked for money to get a fallen tree moved out of her driveway, for instance, saying it was the only way off of "her land"--neglecting to consider that many of us don't own any land at all. I am not sure how this tree-removal benefits all women, although I realize, it benefits Heart, which to her is one and the same. She assures us she is not a millionaire, although she DOES admit she won a very large settlement from the Calvary Chapel fundies, who are therefore bank-rolling her whole enterprise. (Now, there's an interesting thought.) But how much, she assures us, is none of your business! (The net accounts say it was over a million; I assume the lawyers took their share.)

Heart doesn't seem to understand: She is an offensive, intolerant, judgmental, nasty, vicious, exclusive fundamentalist, only this time it's for her version of (rather zany, sometimes amusing) radical feminism. She was Wild-for-Jesus, now she is Wild-for-Womyn, and she hasn't missed a beat in the transition. Her very patriarchal, top-down approach is stylistically exactly the same. The finger-pointing, the judging, the slut-shaming, the sneering at the womyn who do not measure up, is the same as it ever was. If Heart can't be Quiverfull Queen, she will move on over to Valley of the Amazons (waves at AntiPrincess!--a favorite book of ours!) where she can brag without commercial interruption, and refuse to use the preferred pronouns of transgendered people in PEACE AND QUIET.

Cheryl has traded in one uncompromising, dogmatic philosophy for another one, and that's all she has done. She has not appreciably changed since being a devoted Quiverfull wife, traveling the country and speaking at podiums for Dr Dobson.

What Cheryl/Heart really needs to do is go back to reporting on women around the world, as she does on Womensspace, and cut out the self-aggrandizement and the self-centered gibbering about her greatness. These days, there seems to be less and less actual news about women on Heart's website (which is something she did do very well, when she could keep her fundie sensibility out of it) and more, more, more about her self, self, self. This dorky-assed "presidential campaign"--for instance. Just another way to preen and pose, whilst endlessly burbling about how much she does for THE WOMYNS!!!!!!!

But I gotta say--do her Ellen Jamesians know that she is on SEX-TV? If not, let me give them the heads-up. I have rarely seen anyone do the Madonna of the Streets thing as well, particularly on a SEX blog!

Strange bedfellows! But Heart, who easily reconciled Andrea Dworkin and Dr Dobson back in the day (she claims), knows all about that.

Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, one day late

Left: Coptic Icon, Feast of the Assumption St Menas Church, Old Cairo. (artists and dates unknown)

Well, I meant to go to Mass on my Holy Day of Obligation, I really did. But I got home from work, kicked back, diddled around, smoked a bit, watched old movies, fumed over the new HARPERS article attacking Andrea Dworkin, looked in on the blog and talked about the Mormons on other planets... and...well... I am a BAD CATHOLIC.

Aside: Of course, there is a blog titled Bad Catholic. :)

So, I wanted to apologize to Our Lady, who has done so much for me. I owe her bigtime. You know what they say: you have to sit in waiting rooms for God, but Our Lady will see you now!

I hope she doesn't mind that I missed her Feast day. I love her so much, I think she will give me a pass, but you know how that goes. You shouldn't take your mother for granted! I figured I would post on her, to make up for it! HI MOM, WE LOVE YOU!

~*~*~*~

I am now debating whether to take on the Harpers' piece, but there is no link for it yet. If anybody can find one (I know yall have magic powers!), post it here! I'd definitely call it a hit-piece.

Meanwhile, watching the Phil Spector murder trial like a damn junkie, and later today, going to a product training from a company called Lumina Health. I'm not sure what this company is about, so I will let you know!