For the Record

The Blogger known as Heart, aka Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff on SEX-TV, with two of her eleven children.

~*~

The blogger known as Heart, Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, appears to be having an emotional meltdown. I don't really care too awful much, except that she has gone after ME now... accusing me of some pretty weird stuff.

This is an official statement, as they say in Washington.

I am sorry Heart is losing her shit (well okay, not really), but this is apparently because she is a guru without a group, a leader without sheep. Her former droogs are in the process of abandoning her in droves, for insider-reasons of their own. For someone who has been a self-described "leader of women" her whole life, I think this is likely traumatic. As far back as I can remember, clear back to the Ms magazine boards in the early years of this decade, Heart has been the leader of a sizable feminist faction/cult of personality, calling the shots. Now that this faction is finally examining/questioning Heart's Queenship? Not good news for Heart.

Today, I get an email telling me I am accused of bringing Heart's board down during last year's attack by "Anonymous"... how lil ole me can do such a thing is... well... if I knew how to do stuff like that, I'd do it to people IRL that I have grudges against! I have barely figured out basic blogging html skills; I do not work with computers on my job. (?) Strange Days have found us.

One of Heart's many sockpuppets (their names are legion) also accuses me of hurting someone named BB. I assume this is a reference to Biting Beaver, author of a blog I am not sure I have even read! I did not know she was still blogging. I have no idea of the URL of BB's blog and I have never linked her here on my blog a single time. (?) All of these accusations come waaaaay out of left field, to put it mildly.

This is what "Sis" wrote:

Consent does come into play here. BB was a prostituted woman, and her posts are about recovery. The post DD took to hand to A*non was about recovery. She didn’t give consent to any of the rapes and torture she endured as a child, young woman. She didn’t give consent for the rape of her words by another woman who set in motion despicable destruction in BBs REAL life.

I didn't "hand anything" to "anonymous"--as I said, I can't recall if I've even read BB. I only got fast-access internet in June of 2007, the month I started my blog. I do not have internet access at work, period. Meaning, I don't squander my internet time; I use it wisely.

Has she lost her mind?

Last month, Heart actually came here claiming to be her own son. (See last few comments in second link, above.) She asked me to take down the SEX-TV photo (above), which is still available on the porn-site SEX-TV--where I just found it. (Why it's okay to pimp her kids on SEX-TV but I am not supposed to reproduce SEX-TV's own photo of her family, distributed while she was running for President, is anyone's guess.) I find it very bizarre to pretend to be your (terribly precocious and well-spoken) son, to try and manipulate someone. Then again, we know that Heart learned at the knee of Dr Dobson and has a scary fundamentalist history; the fundies are nothing if not well-versed in emotional manipulation, accusations and shaming... all of which were done to Heart. And now, she spreads the poison. (This is the whole evil of fundamentalism--it never really goes away.)

On her blog today, Heart writes:

I didn’t know until a couple of months ago that it was Daisy Deadhead who was initially responsible for the the circus that ended up this way. [insert links about 'anon' attacks on her website]

I don’t know who DD is, really. I do know whoever this person is, s/he is capable of some really sick things.

I like how she snuck in that "s/he"--didya catch that?

I did not do anything to Heart, except write about her here. When someone claims they speak for feminism and actually RUN FOR PRESIDENT as the radical feminist candidate, I consider them fair game. I wrote about the MAJORITY of presidential and vice-presidential candidates during the last election. Am I supposed to go easy on Heart because---? If she didn't want political attacks, don't run for office. When you set yourself up as the official face of radical feminism, then you are representing me, as Lindsey Graham also claims to do. I take him on, and I will take her on, too. Because they DO NOT speak for me. Lindsey Graham does not represent me, and neither does Heart.

She "doesn't know" who I am? Well, at the Ms magazine bulletin board, we exchanged messages several times, when I was using the name "China Cat Sunflower." She defended me against a particularly obnoxious MRA (Men's Rights Advocate) named Rich, who attacked me repeatedly (she called him a "horror") and I thanked her for that. And then later I find out (I got a few friends, too, Heart!) she lets this OBNOXIOUS MRA post at her supposedly separatist bulletin board! Believe me, that sets off alarm bells of my own. What is he doing there, and why? Is he another sock puppet? (If not, why allow an acknowledged, proud MRA to have unbridled access to your inner sanctum?)

And you know, I am right here. She doesn't know who I am? Why doesn't she read my words and find out? I have written of my radical history at length; I have named my copious associates and associations. I have posted my photo and the photos of my friends. I have done everything but give her my name, which is what she obviously wants. She has recently been agitating for feminists to "name themselves"--and not be anonymous, yet simultaneously cautions us that the rapists and misogynists will track us down and kill us. (Can you say "mixed signals"?)

I decided that Heart was having a meltdown when she actually compared herself to Jesus Christ Crucified, in THIS POST, which I found genuinely disturbing.

I hope I don't have to point out, that she IS NOT Jesus Christ, and IS NOT being crucified or sacrificed. But Christianity lends itself to fantasies of persecution, and I say this as a dissident Catholic.

This is not a good or healthy development.

More from Heart's comments:

I’m reading comments all over talking about this daisy deadhead person and the attack on BB. People sound afraid, disturbed, and then there are folks who don’t care. I think that piece is what scares me most…. we never care, until it happens to us.

I love how they reduce women they dislike to "this daisy deadhead person"--I do not even get the benefit of capitalization! Take that, bitch.

Anyway, I assume this is Heart's call to arms, and I expect my site to get taken out next. Unless... unless... she doesn't realize that the troops have deserted her? And they aren't paying any attention?

And then there is this exchange between Polly Styrene (love the name! rock on!) and Heart:

Polly: Whatever Daisy Deadhead has done, or not done in the past, which I will reiterate I have NO evidence of, is past. Not publishing her comments on my blog will not change that.

Heart: What an odd thing to say. Whatever obvious trolls or males who advocate rape have said, they said in the past as well. In fact, once you’ve approved a comment, “it’s in the past.” Are you saying no matter what someone has ever posted, if it’s in the past, you’ll give them another shot?

Hoo boy, I'm being compared to rapists now.

But speaking of trolls, why is Ms-board troll RICH being given refuge in Heart's private space? If Rich-the-rape-apologist can be your buddy, what is the issue, exactly?

Heart: That’s it so far as this subject goes though. I do not want these folks’ names on my blog beyond this point, neither do I want to hear what they are saying, doing, whatever.

Then why are you starting this?

Finally Heart says:

Polly, why don’t you just ask DD whether it’s true?

To borrow a line from Mary McCarthy: Every word is a lie, including the AND and the THE.

Aletha:

Polly, you might try asking because DD is probably damn proud of what she did.

Every word is a lie, including the AND and the THE. I have not done anything to Heart, except write about her here, on Polly's blog, on Ren's blog, etc. I have not directed large numbers of trolls to her website to attack her blog. (And why would they listen to ME?) I did not encourage "anon" to attack Heart, although I didn't lose any sleep over it either.

I hope that is clear enough even for a fundamentalist having a meltdown to understand.

Unfortunately, she is getting so few hits now, she has to come sucking around HERE, to my tiny-ass blog, for readers. She knew I'd have to address her sockpuppet delusions...and all that sockpuppetry appears to be fragmenting her personality in dangerous ways. I miss the old Heart who used to argue on the MS boards and put the misogynist trolls in their place. Now, she invites them in and then accuses other feminists of being rapists.

Holy Bizarro Universe, Batman. As Helena Kallianiotes would say (see my post from this morning): Crap and more crap and more crap.

Censorship and radical feminist transphobia, episode # 89176

One reason I don't "moderate" (censor) comments on my blog, is because I fear the inevitable slippery slope.

First, I'd be moderating for being offensive. Next, I'd be moderating for any disagreement at all. And finally I would be moderating/censoring just for thoughtcrime, i.e. "upsetting" my friends and readers.

Nope, not going there.

Thus, I don't understand the tendency of certain bloggers to zealously moderate/censor comments. I understand guarding against trolling and spam, particularly after witnessing the manner in which some radical bloggers (such as Renee) have been harassed to death by online viciousness. But for regular, relatively small-time bloggers such as your humble narrator? Censorship is primarily used to avoid ideological conflict; a way to stay safe and avoid being questioned about one's beliefs.

And some of us actually grow and learn through the working out and witnessing of such conflicts. For this reason, I love contentious, argumentative blogs, where all sides of questions are aired and examined.

Whenever I use the word CENSORSHIP, people get very exercised. It's like pushing a button, and the official Encyclopaedia Britannica definition of CENSORSHIP is duly spit out, on cue. (Honestly, why do people bother going to college, if it doesn't teach them to think for themselves?)

The teleprompter reads: It's not censorship since you can write it on your own blog! It's not censorship unless it's the government! It's not censorship since we have not prevented anyone from speaking! Blah blah blah. This is drivel; of course it is censorship. If I sent my kid to bed so she would not see SEX AND THE CITY, then I censored her television viewing, period. If I edited the scene out of the movie BIG, wherein Tom Hanks touches Elizabeth Perkins' boob in implied foreplay-mode--so my very-young child would not see it--but left the rest of the illegally-videotaped movie intact, this means I CENSORED about 30 seconds of the movie BIG. Yes, lil ole Daisy, unentangled by government, CENSORED something, all on her own! This is the proper usage of the word, people:

cen·sor·ship (sĕn'sər-shĭp')

1) The act, process, or practice of censoring.

If you do not want to be accused of censorship, then by all means, do not censor, which is defined as:

To examine and expurgate.

That's all. No mention of the government or "Get your own damn blog"--none of that. It simply means, TO JUDGE UNWORTHY FOR WHATEVER REASON--AND SUBSEQUENTLY DELETE. That is censorship.

When you protest that no, you do not engage in censorship, when you clearly DO, then you are a coward who does not have the courage of your convictions and who does not take responsibility for your own beliefs, whatever those beliefs are.

Thus, when you "moderate"--you censor. Do not argue otherwise, just because you want to come off as some big tolerant liberal. Please admit what you are doing. I just admitted I didn't want my young daughter to see likable Tom Hanks grab a boob, before she was old enough to understand everything about that scene. Now, you can do likewise and admit that you have occasionally done the same, it will not kill you.

If, however, you are one of those people who LIVES TO CENSOR, then I can see why you might want to avoid the label... obviously, alternate versions of truth--as perceived by others--are things you don't like to wrestle with very often. Much easier to squash these other voices, like dragonflies on a hot southern-summer windshield.

~*~

As you all must have guessed by now, I was just censored, again, and decided to address the subject. I was polite and succinct in my comment, so the only reason I was censored was for disagreeing with the majority.

And see? It would have been lots better if Valerie of Valerie Speaks, had just gone ahead and allowed my polite little dissenting comment... now it is going to be FAR MORE NEGATIVE and MUCH LONGER.

On a thread titled Radical Feminists and Trans Stuff (warning, offensive hate speech from Sam Berg and the usual we-hate-sluts contingent), Heart writes the following:

The conflict ideologically speaking between radical feminists and Queer/postmodern people is really located right here, in the disagreement about what gender is. All sorts of things happen to female persons because we are female: we have been denied the vote, denied citizenship, forced into marriage, forced into prostitution, endured the mutilation of our genitals and reproductive organs, had our feet bound, been raped and sexually enslaved, suffered honor killings, forced to cover ourselves in specific ways, forced to bear children, degraded and debased because we bleed or because we are pregnant, and so on. That’s *gender*. It happens to us because of our sex. This is core to radical feminism because the belief that gender is something mystical, something in the head, something someone is somehow “born with,” something someone just “knows” about herself or himself [1] obscures or erases the horrific realities I’ve described, what the process of gendering a human being does to her (or to him.) To gender a person is to force him or her to conform to a patriarchally designed and coerced stereotype. To gender is to coerce. If we abolish gender and all gender coercion, people grow up free to be whomever they want to be, to express themselves in any conceivable way, wear whatever, do whatever they want to themselves and not be told it is “unfeminine” or “unmasculine” or whatever, not be ostracized, marginalized and so on.

Italics mine, not Heart's.

And here is my censored comment:

Correct.

Therefore, forcing someone to present as one or the other gender, simply because their genitalia is X or Y, is to continue the coercion.

Just to be clear, there is nothing remotely feminist about that position.

And you know, I can't understand how anyone could write that paragraph, and still be in favor of forcing gender on people: If you have X or Y genitalia, you are evilll and wrongggg for not identifying accordingly! (Isn't that the conclusion Heart and Co. have arrived at?)

If one agrees that gender is constricting and negative, why so judgmental and intolerant of the people who won't live according to their assigned birth gender? Doesn't the existence of such people PROVE that gender is fluid, multi-faceted and complex, rather than something very precise, prescribed and inborn (as the patriarchy has historically defined gender)?

Why are you preserving the gender-system right down to the necessity of panty-checks, if you claim you are against it?

And more to the point: your disapproval of trans people and your implication that trans persons are somehow invalid and trying to "deceive"[2]--is basically an unabashed celebration of inborn gender-roles and identity. (And this is in direct contradiction to your stated claims of abolishing gender.)

More from Heart:

No radical feminist I know and respect is personally concerned so far as what someone else might have done to their body or how they identify or, for that matter, what their beliefs about gender might be. All of us want justice for all people.

What are you talking about? Of course you are "personally concerned"--to the point that you believe such women should be refused entry at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (Michfest). You have written in favor of this position hundreds of times, on your own blog, the old Ms message board, countless other blogs, as well as the Michfest board. Hundreds of posts, thousands of words. You have proudly and zealously gone on record as approving of the active exclusion of trans women. How is that "unconcerned"? How is that "wanting justice for all people"?

The acrimony around transgender issues has to do, mostly, with the insistance that woman-only space and lesbian spaces, especially, be respected.

No, the acrimony is due to the fact that that you have decided certain women do not belong in that space, and you will not give equal time to any defense of said women's rights. They do not deserve inclusion, so OUT, OUT DAMNED SPOT. Ejection without trial! You show such proud disrespect, that you will not even listen to trans women or allow them to post on your blog... then you claim to be about "justice"...(!)

You first claim gender is oppressive, and then assert you want the right to continue to oppress people who do not fit into the proper gender categories. When this contradictory position brings about "acrimony"--you decide it isn't for the reasons feminists like me have enumerated, it is instead because you are too PURE AND GOOD for this world (there's that pesky Calvinism of yours creeping in again, Heart). You will not listen to what WE SAY is the problem and the cause of the acrimony, because of course, you know better than we do, right? We are not important enough for you to listen to. We don't count.

I think they call that predestination.

The experience of being subordinated because we are female from the time of our birth results in a lived reality that is not shared by those born male, even if they have transitioned.

No one has ever said the experiences were identical... but that these experiences do illustrate a different kind of oppression. As a cisgendered woman who has admirably fulfilled your gender-role, you have a privileged status. In fact, the way you are definitively proclaiming Who is What, regardless of their self-definition, is part and parcel of that status. You are giving an excellent demonstration of cis privilege: you know what transgendered people are, even BETTER than they know themselves. As men have always claimed to know women better than WE know ourselves. (Since you claim to be this right-on lesbian-feminist, doesn't imitating the worst habits of men bother you at all?)

As female persons subordinated on account of our sex by men and male-created institutions, we are entitled to gather as women for all the reasons all oppressed groups of persons gather. We are entitled to say that our spaces will not be shared by those born male.

As I said, cis privilege: you will decide who is "born male" and what that means, using the traditional patriarchal definitions. People's own perceptions of who they are, their own accounts and process, do not matter to you.

You are continuing to FORCE the definitions of gender; the very same gender that you criticize as oppressive. Suddenly, gender is your friend, when you need it to keep out the riff-raff.

Do you see the contradiction here?

Our gathering as women born female, who have lived as girls and women all of our lives, ought to be respected. A comparatively small number of vocal persons disagrees and has not only refused to respect women’s and lesbian space but has filed lawsuits against lesbian organizations, in some instances causing them to close, boycotted already marginalized lesbian and women performers and artists, launched no holds barred attacks on lesbian and radical feminist journalists, and so on. We are being told we are not entitled to determine how we will and will not strategize our own liberation. We are called “transphobes” and “bigots” in other words because we believe we are entitled to our own spaces, “our” meaning spaces for women born female, lived as girls and women all of our lives. There is a lot of understandable anger and resentment about this among lesbian/radical feminists. That anger isn’t about bigotry or transphobia, it is about justice for women as a people. Because, in fact, women are a people.

There are real transphobes everywhere, zillions of them in the mainstream, many of them, as you’ve noted, in alternative communities as well. Radical feminists are not, for the most part, transphobes and neither are lesbian feminists/lesbian separatists. Defense of our own spaces is not bigotry; it is insisting that we retain the right to strategize our own liberation.

Who is "our"? If you are going to continue to justify your exclusion of certain women, this is counterfeit liberation... it only refers to you and your friends. This is not all women. Certainly, it bears no relationship to radical feminism, but is instead a parody, a joke, by pseudo-feminists who were too busy during the birth of radical feminism to be involved... but like you, came on board much later, after reaping the considerable benefits of acceptable middle-class heterosexuality, as well as religious authority within Christianity.

Aren't you even a little embarrassed to be on the side of the censors, the segregationists, the haters, this time? Do you honestly believe there is nothing to the lawsuits, the boycotts, the challenges? They are just filled with the devil and are out to get you, is that it? These progressive feminist trans women who want to be included are simply trying to co-opt feminism, is that it? Why would they do that? What is the purpose? What's the frequency, Kenneth?

It seems to me, they want to be included, as disabled women once agitated to be included, as LESBIANS (whom you claim to be, something you mystically "just know" you are) have also agitated to be included. This is the same. But for some reason this time, you dig your heels in. THESE WOMEN you will not accept. They are too inferior; you simply will not associate with them.

And I think we can see, more boycotts, more lawsuits, more hell-raising, all are necessary.

Like the last segregationists, they will not give an inch unless they are forced. Bigots rarely learn a thing.

(sigh)

PS: Valerie, see how much LONGER this version is? Two lines would have caused much less fuss!

~*~

[1] How on earth could someone decide they are lesbian while still married to a man? Maybe lesbianism is "something someone just “knows” about herself or himself"?

[2] Heart has written that any trans person who does not disclose their trans-status to a prospective sexual partner, is guilty of rape. It is basically the feminist version of the "trans-panic" defense, used by trans-bashers throughout the land. Most recently, it was used as a legal defense of Allen Andrade, convicted murderer of trans woman Angie Zapata.

Feminists on High Horses, pt. 2

A woman who is admittedly hostile to feminism, Typhonblue, posted the following recently at the Feminist Critics blog:

Feminists disavow or ignore violence that happens to women when it does not follow their ideology. Namely, violence done to women by other women, or violence done to daughters by their mothers.

This suggests it’s not women’s suffering, per se, that’s important to them, but upholding their ideology.

Ouch! She brought me up short with that one. In attempting to refute her statement, the best I was able to do is offer the example of Phyllis Chesler's book, Woman's Inhumanity to Woman, (as well as an old thread here at DEAD AIR, on female friendship).

And then I thought, ohhh wait a minute. Phyllis is now in the business of adversely judging Muslim women, isn't she?

Not a good example, maybe.

Of course, this left me no examples at all. I was then forced to face Typhonblue's words.

It is important for feminists to remember, always, that feminists (not just women, but feminist women) have oppressed other women. Leni Riefenstahl was considered a feminist, you know. Feminist heroine Margaret Sanger was a racist and eugenicist. Feminists have freely collaborated with men in brutal communist regimes, as well as within terrorist factions worldwide.

My question is, are we to ignore the agency and free choices of these feminists and other feminists like them? Are all women so oppressed by "The Patriarchy" that we unable to choose a proper, moral course of action?

Are we also, then, mere puppets, mouthing the words? Because if so, why do we bother?

~*~

All of this came to mind as I read an interesting post at Palin PUMA Watch. This post deftly deconstructed Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff's (aka Heart at Women's Space) impassioned defense of fundamentalist Christian women and Sarah Palin in particular. Heart and other feminists such as Violet Socks at Reclusive Leftist have been zealous in their defense of Palin. This has left me somewhat dumbfounded.

I was hopeful that after the election, this embarrassing state of affairs would just go away. I was wrong. Both blogs are attacking Obama for his (very bad, no question about it) choice of Rick Warren to lead the invocation at his inaugural. This is, they claim, because Warren is a well-known homophobe, which of course begs the question: Have they checked out Palin's positions on gay rights? They are the same as Warren's.

This disconnect, I find very strange. Heart begins:

I have been intending to write a post about the way so many feminists, leftists, liberals and progressives consummately misunderstand conservative Christianity and conservative Christian women in particular. I keep feeling overwhelmed by this writing project and so deciding against it. But given the across-the-board anger among women over the misogyny of the 2008 Presidential elections, it seems important to me to at least begin to take a stab at offering some of my thoughts in the interests of working towards uniting women, bringing women together, something that is not going to be possible so long as feminists simply, again, don’t get conservative Christian women (and too often don’t even try because despite all the evidence to the contrary, they think they know.)

As my regular readers know, I live in what is possibly the most conservative county in the USA. A quick look at an electoral map of 2008, shows us that Heart's state, Washington, is blue and went Democrat. Mine, South Carolina, is red, and has been that way for a very long time.

In addition, I speak to conservative Christian women every single day, on my job, as both customers and co-workers. I consider some of these women to be my friends. Although once a proud Quiverfull fundamentalist, Heart is now a political lesbian feminist. Her dealings with fundamentalist women are in the past, not the present. Thus, I think I qualify as one who can critique this rather bizarre broadside. Heart continues:

During the 2008 election campaigns the staggering amounts of misunderstanding, misinformation, disinformation and absolute hogwash circulating about Sarah Palin and her connections with conservative Christianity were startling and, honestly, shocking to me. Cluelessness reigned, with all sorts of people claiming Palin was a “dominionist,” a “reconstructionist,” a stealth member of various kinds of secret, fascist Christian cabals and cults, and you name it. There was little to no concern for facts or for accuracy; worse, leftists, progressives, you name it, just spouted off randomly, continually, without bothering to do a bare minimum of homework, you know, talk to folks, talk to dominionists and reconstructionists and theoretically secret-cabal-and-cult-members, or if not that, at least read their writings, which are available in superfluity, in abundance, nay, in a GLUT, all over the internet.

They are not just all over the internet, but right here on DEAD AIR, as a matter of fact. (see argument in comments here)

Is Cheryl saying here that Pentecostals are never Dominionists or Reconstructionists? My seminarian (see link) tells me they can overlap fine, although they don't always. (Why can't they?) If one believes that religious laws (i.e. abortion, gay marriage) should apply to the government, then one is arguing from a Reconstructionist position. The concept is that the government should be reconstructed to reflect Christian values. The Bob Jones University people sometimes refer to this philosophy as theonomy.

What homework are people supposed to be doing, exactly? You either want the government to be an arm of the church or directly reflect church law/morality, or you don't. Period. It isn't complicated. Palin's positions are in perfect keeping with this perspective. Considering that she does attend a very right-wing church with conservative theology, is Cheryl/Heart saying that she doesn't really believe what her church teaches?

And here we come to the heart of it. How responsible is Palin, the governor of the largest land-area in the USA, for what she says? Is she merely mouthing the words, but somehow doesn't really believe them? She calls herself a feminist and is a member in good standing of "Feminists for Life." Is this why we are supposed to look the other way when she makes offensive or theocratic statements? Why?

If women are to be equal, then we must take complete responsibility for our actions, our politics, our beliefs, our ideology, as men have historically been held accountable. And you know, I think Sarah Palin would totally agree with me about that.

But Heart doesn't. We are not supposed to call Palin a homophobe or point out that her policies would actually hurt women, if made law.

And Heart reminds us that she was once a leader in this right-wing:

I walked among these scary Christians for many years. During those years, I was a leader of women, and among those women were my closest friends, mentors, sisters.

Does this mean that Heart/Cheryl was "scary" too? Well, if she was a LEADER, of course it does. But look at how she abdicates responsibility for being a leader, while still wanting to brag about being a leader. How does that work, exactly?

This is exactly her approach to Palin: Isn't she fabulous? But she can't help being deeply indoctrinated by her church, poor dear.

Which is it? Both cannot be true.

I show Sarah Palin respect by taking her at her word, that yes, that she believes what she says she believes. She has never said that she is dissenting from the teaching of her church (as I have said I dissent from mine, for instance). We are not putting Sarah Palin down for being a Christian. This is utter bullshit--we are putting her down for what she has SAID SHE BELIEVES AND WANTS TO MAKE LAW. She wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and has never made a secret of that, among other radical measures that would adversely affect the lives of millions of women.

Why are we supposed to grant her an exception for being a woman? Is that feminist?

But then, this isn't the only recent post in which Cheryl/Heart has made it clear that we are not to hold women to the same standard as men, except when we should.

~*~


Ampersand, at Alas, A Blog, weighed in a couple of weeks ago, about the term Christianism, which upset me terribly (as a Christian, even a slipshod, bad one) ...and yet, it did make sense. What other word could there be for the Christian-supremacy of the USA, such as the "Christian litmus test" for political office, which I have written about also? Ampersand also made fun of the idea (as I would, too) that Christians are oppressed. Heart responded that Christian women ARE oppressed, so Ampersand is terribly misogynist and wrong for laughing at the very idea:

“Christians” are not oppressed in the same way “Americans” are not oppressed in the same way “whites” are not oppressed — they are not oppressed if they are male. They are not oppressed unless they are female persons, in which case they are oppressed by men in their group or by men who are at war with or in other kinds of conflict with the men in their group. “Christians” are not a sexless, genderless monolith; there are male Christians and female Christians and many, many members of the former group severely, and in a dedicated fashion, oppress the latter; as well, men from other religious groups oppress the latter in times of conflict or war.

And with this, I get dizzy.

What about the female nazi officers, many of whom were proud members of Deutsche Christen? I was suddenly reminded of the movie made from Fania Fenelon's biography, Playing for Time. There is a terrifying sequence in which a female nazi officer at Auschwitz, played by Shirley Knight, brings a sweet, gurgling baby in to show the Jewish women prisoners. Knight is happy, laughing, ecstatic; the women prisoners have never seen her so human, so real, so feminine. But... whose baby is it? Where did the baby come from? They know where: she has stolen the baby from some executed, Jewish mother. They obediently coo over the baby, in a forced, frozen manner. They want to stay in the Kommandant's good graces; she has power over life and death, after all. But the horror in their faces is evident.

This searing scene has never left me, all of these years. It was true, an actual event in Fania Fenelon's imprisonment. I saw the movie once, 28 years ago... and I never forgot it. Know why? This was a woman's story, and a woman's moment. It pressed into my consciousness, and reminded me: Women can be evil, too, and don't forget it.

Did Christian women help identify the witches for burning? Did especially pious women volunteer to clean up the blood after the Inquisition? (You didn't expect MEN to do that, did you?) Christian women owned slaves; Christian women sent the dogs out to retrieve them when they ran off. YES, THEY DID. As a Christian woman, let me take full responsibility and admit what other Christian women have done.

And Heart/Cheryl tells us she was "a leader of women" among the fundamentalists, so let me be very clear: Heart counseled women to homeschool, to abstain from birth control, to have as many babies as they could, as part of the Quiverfull movement. She proudly spoke at podiums, organized groups, and published/wrote/edited a magazine that they read. In short, Heart oppressed women, as a Christian leader. She has never taken responsibility for this. The reason she has not apologized is that she was too oppressed as a woman to NOT do this, so she is off the hook. As are all the women I have mentioned above. Right?

(((ethical dizziness ensues)))

Heart writes:

This is an important part of my own reality and story, because, as I’ve also written about frequently, I suffered tremendous harm and loss at the hands of these men and eventually sued several of them (and won). As is true of so many other Christian women now and throughout history (consider the witch burnings in Europe and the U.S.), I was specifically targeted, subjugated and harmed as a Christian woman by the men and male-led organizations in my Christian group with the goal that I would remain in subordination to them.

(Note: She also sued TWO WOMEN, Sue Welch and Mary Pride, but has conveniently left that part out.)

Heart says she was a leader. But then, she says she was subordinate to men. Well, which was it?

Which is Sarah Palin?

Heart decides Ampersand is full of shit:

As to Amp’s post about “Christianism,” that would have to be “Christian Male-ism,” Christian Patriarchy, the “fathers of the faith” so-called having played, along with other fathers of other fundamentalisms, a crucial and central role as an architect of male heterosupremacy. But that has nothing to do with women.

Christian women, oppressing other women, DOES have to do with women. And anyone who can't get this, is politically a mess, and does not deserve to be listened to.

And in closing, I am reminded of Sudy's post, in which she declares the word PATRIARCHY to be "old school"--it doesn't quite account for the twisting and turning realities we are discussing here, does it?

Sudy proposes the word Kyriarchy(read the whole thing!):

When people talk about patriarchy and then it divulges into a complex conversation about the shifting circles of privilege, power, and domination -- they're talking about kyriarchy. When you talk about power assertion of a White woman over a Brown man, that's kyriarchy. When you talk about a Black man dominating a Brown womyn, that's kyriarchy. It's about the human tendency for everyone trying to take the role of lord/master within a pyramid. At it best heights, studying kyriarchy displays that it's more than just rich, white Christian men at the tip top and, personally, they're not the ones I find most dangerous. There's a helluva lot more people a few levels down the pyramid who are more interested in keeping their place in the structure than to turning the pyramid upside down.

Who's at the bottom of the pyramid? Who do you think are at the bottom of the pyramid who are less likely to scheme and spend extravagant resources to further perpetuate oppression? I think of poor children with no roads out of hell, the mentally ill who are never "credible," un-gendered or non-gender identified people, farm workers, modern day slaves...But, the pyramid stratifies itself from top to bottom. And before you start making a checklist of who is at the top and bottom - here's my advice: don't bother. The pyramid shifts with context. The point is not to rank. The point is to learn.

Learning does not take place in the face of open denial. Learning can not happen when we are busy abdicating our role in society. Yes, I have more status and money than a newly-arrived male immigrant from Mexico. The Guatemalan waiter in my local diner is not "oppressing" me, because he is male and I am female. This just doesn't cover the intricacies of social arrangements in these modern times.

And yes, Sarah Palin can be a woman, even a feminist, and oppress other women. I take her at her word that she believes what she says she believes, and will do as she promises she will do.

Let us proceed, then, from there.

Odds and Sods - After the deluge/Stealth antichrist edition

Left: Anti-Walmart art on display at Downtown Books and News, Asheville, NC. (Artist/inventor unknown!)

~*~

Yes, sports fans, the horrible new neighborhood Walmart, the one we could not keep out, the one I complained about so much that I worried I would alienate my dear readers, is ready to open. It's too traumatizing for mere words. Suffice to say, the mess they have made of everything (I hold them accountable for my flood last week, although of course I can't prove their shitty construction is responsible)... is plenty substantial. The toll on my nerves alone, is sufficient to hate them forever!

And so, this edition of Odds and Sods, picks up where the flood left off. I wanted to give it a Biblical tinge.

~*~

For those of you who thought my piece yesterday was mean, I assure you, I am still getting a significant number of hits on IS BARACK OBAMA THE ANTICHRIST?, which probably skews my thinking a bit. And then I wake up this morning and learn that Dr Dobson's outfit is asking people to PRAY FOR RAIN during Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the convention.

I wish I were making this up:

COLORADO SPRINGS – A video producer for Focus on the Family is asking people to pray for rain when Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) makes his speech at the end of the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Obama is giving his acceptance speech outdoor at Invesco Field at Mile High on Thursday, Aug. 28.

Stuart Shepard made the prayer request in his latest Internet video for the evangelical Christian group.

He says he's only partly joking.

"Sure it's boyish humor perhaps to wish for something like that, but at the same time it's something people feel very strongly about. They're concerned about where he would take the nation," said Shepard.

Shepard does a weekly commentary called Stop Light, produced for the Internet by Focus on the Family Action.

Boyish humor!

Do you BELIEVE these people?

It is my opinion that such statements, as well as the recent McCain ad (famously featuring Paris Hilton and Britney Spears), highlighting Obama's popularity and naming him "the biggest celebrity in the world"--are covert, sly, under-the-radar winks to the Black Helicopter Faction of the GOP. This is precisely the faction McCain can't easily win over: the hard-core right wingnuts who are constantly looking for signs of the Rapture. They believe Senator Barack Obama is the antichrist, as evidenced by the fact that I am getting hits from them every day. And these little "boyish" jokes, the praying for rain (suitably Biblical, for those who don't get it), the frequent reminders of his dangerous, alarming "celebrity"--all of this is code. Most of it seems to be going right over the heads of the mainstream media, but it's connecting with the Rapture-freaks (and their many fellow-travelers) in the Heartland. The Obama campaign really should address these ongoing religious rumors HEAD ON, because I think his recent falling-poll numbers have everything to do with what I am hereby naming the Stealth Antichrist Campaign.

Stay on the lookout for more of the same.

~*~

Speaking of fundamentalists, Heart (aka Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff), our favorite ex-fundie feminist running for president (supposedly, although I have yet to see her on a national forum of any kind), posted a very bizarre, racist comic over a week ago, which I didn't know if I should link here. The comic, by one Elena Steier, I found very disturbing, because it reminded me of something, but I could not put my finger on just what it looked like.

Belledame and SnowdropExplodes have helpfully solved the mystery for me. The comic, particularly the juxtaposition of the sheer blond whiteness of the dancer and the dark, leering, long-nosed appearance of the male audience, look exactly like nazi propaganda cartoons. There are various footnoted comparisons (with linkage) to several of these old comics at Snowdrop's blog.

Heart, please stop embarrassing other feminists with this vicious bullshit of yours, and go back to the bosom of your cozy ex-comrade, Dr Dobson, where you belong. PRETTY PLEASE!?!

~*~

And while we are on the topic of vicious bullshit, Heart has repeatedly claimed transwomyn are not oppressed. And we now have another transwomyn who has been murdered, named Angie Zapata. (PS: that link is a veritable educational gateway; lots of details about the case, which are almost too heartbreaking to read.) Zapata was also a transwomyn of color, and Brownfemipower and Uppity Brown Woman write very well about these various intersections of identity, and how they threaten the mainstream media's hegemony (when they attempt to cover such stories), as well as the status quo in general.

I'm sure Heart has some handy-dandy explanation for why Angie Zapata wasn't really oppressed. She can sell it to Dr Dobson, as they go riding into the sunset together.

----------------
Listening to: The Clash - Hateful
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.

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff for President?

Left: Major Arcana XX: Judgement

I knew whenever I finally drew this card, it was time to talk about the radical feminist running for president. How ironic it is also the same day as a major presidential debate. That is to say, a day that serious candidates subject themselves to questions from the media, and their ability to answer determines their future electability.

What if I told you that a well-known blogger is running for president, but won't allow any dissenting voices on her blog? And she will NOT subject herself to questioning?

You'd probably say, well, that's how most politicians are.

But wait, this is a RADICAL FEMINIST candidate, who believes that the current patriarchal, power-based, racist, sexist, heterosexist system is CORRUPT! But she still won't allow dissenting voices on her blog.

"HUH?" You might reply, incredulously. "You mean, a RADICAL?"

(I actually had this conversation yesterday.)

Yes, I refer to the amazing Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, aka HEART, infamous blogger at Women's Space, who is now running for president as a radical feminist, a group to which I have a lifelong connection (unlike her). This radical feminist blogger will accept no criticism, or discussion about her views. And now she claims to be running for president. What do you think about someone who runs for president but allows no dissent? Does that make you somewhat nervous? Good thing she can't win, huh? I have no desire to see the inside of a Gulag, even an organic one.

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff defies all description. Copious links to her theoretical flotsam and jetsam are at the links, above. Some other criticisms, by me and others, are listed below.

Suffice to say that a few scant years ago, Cheryl was the darling of the fundamentalist Christian homeschool set. Today, for instance, she tells us:

What follows is disturbing and might be triggering to women from this type of background. In fact, what is here might be more disturbing than almost anything you have read so far from the Quiverfull reconstructionist writers. One reason is that it is quite well-written. The young woman who wrote it is clearly highly educated and intelligent. I saw this all the time in my old world, bright young women, completely controlled by their fathers, convinced that this is what they — the daughters – wanted and that it was best for them. My own daughter who is now 31 and who, of all my daughters, spent the most time in this world at my side, sent a link to me in abject revulsion and disgust which included a link to this article. She came across the link looking for a girl who was her friend in our old world and who, she learned, still shares the views of the young woman who wrote this essay. I knew my daughter’s friend’s father as a colleague; I sometimes shared speakers’ platforms with him. He ruled his family with an iron fist and was brutally controlling in ways it would be hard for outsiders to believe. When feminists castigate and mock girls women in these groups, calling them names, stereotyping them, treating them hatefully, they are failing to take into account what girls and women are subjected to in this world.

(Italics mine) She did WHAT? She shared a speaker's platform with this man?

Does Heart take any responsibility for being an active PARTISAN and PROPAGANDIST in this "old world" of hers? Does she ever say how WRONG she was for oppressing other women by preaching the Gospel of endless childbearing? Is she sorry she instructed women to be submissive from podiums, as these iron-fisted husbands pointed to Heart as an example their womenfolk should follow? Is she sorry she exuberantly, constantly instructed women FOR YEARS that the public schools are bad, hence as a good mother you must teach your own children AT HOME whether you are cut out for it or not? These are the tenets of the Quiverfull movement that she belonged to, wrote for, agitated for, preached at podiums for, ad nauseum. Any apologies for any of that? Nope. Never. Nada. Not a single time. Because if she had any shame or self-awareness about the gravity of what she did, she would be too ashamed to open her mouth in criticism of OTHER WOMEN.

And criticizing WOMEN is what Heart does best. Why does this make me think her fundamentalism runs deep, deep, deep in her soul? Because little has changed. In Heart-universe, whores are still the root of all evil, just as her Bible tells her so.

Heart's version of these years is that she was entirely a victim, a sort of brainwashed sleep-walker. Even though she also claims she was a feminist in the 70s, and MADE A DECISION to become one of these kinds of Christians, she takes no responsibility for that decision. Even though she openly and unapologetically brags about having been a publisher, writing and editing a popular Christian homeschooling magazine, meeting deadlines, homeschooling 11 children, etc... . she does not credit the environment that made this possible for her to do, and lauded her for doing it. Heart enthusiastically traveled around the country on speaking engagements, promoting her magazine, and brags about that, too, as she managed to sneak it into her comments, above. When it makes her look good, she hauls out her fundamentalist, Quiverfull work-history for the purpose of intimidating others. However, she ABDICATES all ideological responsibility when it might make her look suspect.

According to Heart, she was a powerhouse/force to be reckoned with in the Quiverfull movement, UNTIL this narrative infringes on her feminist self-definition as a victim. And then, she was--what? Forced? Intimidated? Tellingly, no details concerning her decision-making process are provided. All these feminine activities she describes as unmitigated joys, such as homeschooling and breast-feeding, were these chosen activities or forced on her? Obviously, she made decisions to do as she did, and doesn't even have the moral decency to apologize for the disgusting garbage she propagated as a reactionary, dangerous, misogynist, homophobic, right-wing fundamentalist.

And so, we see that Heart was no ordinary woman in this Quiverfull set, but a mover and shaker and magazine publisher. Also, a "high achiever", as mother of 11 children in a culture (like Catholicism and Mormonism) in which childbearing is status-related for women. Would she have been chosen to speak for this set if she had been infertile or less fertile? Interestingly, she never discusses that, along with so much else she ignores. Wikipedia tells us (Quiverfull link, above):

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, a former ardent Quiverfull adherent, birth-mother of eleven children, and former editor of Gentle Spirit Magazine, argues that the Quiverfull movement is one "in which women and children are routinely and systematically subordinated and subjugated by the men in their lives - fathers, husbands, older sons, sons, pastors, elders, leaders - as a matter of biblical principle."[31] Seelhoff charges that Quiverful adherents "never talk about the victims of the movement, other than to distance themselves, to explain how it is that the victims are aberrations," and do not talk about "the way the lives of so many, many women in that movement have been all but destroyed - women with 5, 7, 9, 11 or more children".

In 1997, Seelhoff won a lawsuit of over a million dollars against some of the Quiverfull people, for making off with her Gentle Spirit mailing list--although in reading these many accounts, the timeline is a little hazy. Cheryl/Heart also remarried in 1995 and was apparently excommunicated by her sect, Calvary Chapel of Tacoma.

It is interesting that Heart was a charismatic leader, editor, speaker and popular figure in the Quiverfull movement, and insists on being the same sort of hotshot in radical feminism. In signing onto the radical feminist project, she must also be front and center. No humility here, no mere follower she. The ego is tremendous.

A short catechism, for Cheryl's benefit

Around the time of Cheryl's lawsuit and excommunication, I became a serious, full-time vegetarian. No more slumming, no more dilettante vegetarianism! I forced myself to speak up for animal rights, I read books, I went to the appropriate classes and websites, and I studied. And I invite the reader of this blog to look at how many times I have blogged or commented about vegetarianism.

Not many, you say.

Why? Well, because I was late to the game. I have humility about the subject; I am humbled before lifelong vegetarians and animal rights activists. In fact, I made fun of vegetarianism for years, before I became convinced it was morally right. So, I do not grandstand and soapbox, I am humble. I am learning. I am a BABY in the cause.

(Graphic at left from Radical Women.)

Likewise, Cheryl was anti-feminist for years, hobnobbing with the likes of Dr. James Dobson and condemning women who didn't have babies every year. As she says on her website today, she even raised her daughters in this noxious environment. In short, she is late to the game. She came to radical feminism after doing untold damage to feminism and women. Does she show any humility? Are you kidding? No, she sets up a blog titled WOMEN'S SPACE--not, say, "Heart's Space"--as most feminists do. No, she presumes to speak for all of womankind, as her type of fundamentalist Christian characteristically claims to speak for all women, all families, all children.

Does she sit down and shut up and learn from women who have been feminist all their lives? No. Does she show respect for her feminist elders? No. Are you kidding? She runs for fucking president. From one podium to another, barely missing a beat.

She has no shame. None at all. She is right, and everyone else is wrong, and this is the CONSTANT, this is the THEME of her life. Whether the "truth" is dogmatic Christianity or dogmatic radical feminism, the approach is exactly the same. She "feels sorry" for her opposition, but she will not lower herself to actually debate with them or answer her critics, as it is notable the aforementioned Dr Dobson believes you should never do.

Do you want this person to be president? Are you ready for the Gulag? To the transpeople: are you ready to GO BACK? I think she would likely enforce re-transitioning, re-education camps, etc. I think it is likely she also supports the "vouchers for homeschoolers" movement, at the expense of public schools, a political position right in line with Dr Dobson and Pat Robertson.

It is interesting that although she calls herself a radical feminist, she has alienated dozens of feminists, and will not let the purged feminists reply to criticisms on her site. As far as I know, none of the persona non grata feminists (including me) has banned Heart in return.

Needless to say, I don't want this person representing feminism, radical feminism, me or the USA. As Someone Else once said: By their fruits shall ye know them.


~*~


More about Heart:

Despite calling herself a feminist, Heart works to actively withhold basic civil rights from certain women, such as sex workers and transgendered women.

This Women's Space thread about race, is kinda fun, primarily because it starts out with Sidney Poitier. Unfortunately, it goes downhill from there. Here is Bint's reply at My Private Casbah.

Other disgusted feminists include Veronica and Belledame.

In this fascinating thread, Ren is attacked for writing "Fall under a truck and die choking on your own blood," in response to some of Heart & Co.'s feminist excesses. Heart freaks out over this remark and holds a War Crimes Tribunal. What I find especially interesting here is that Heart is all over Ren's ass, yet still does not apologize for having told women (for decades) that they will burn in hell, eyeballs melting, tongues blackening and curling up like burnt newspaper, screaming for all eternity.... which is at least as nasty as choking on blood. Also, she does not apologize for promising to deny sex workers their rights, and upholds the status quo of putting women in prison if they should attempt to earn a living in a way her feminism or her religion does not approve of. Isn't that as unpleasant as choking on blood? (I guess it's all a matter of who is doing the insulting, and for what reasons, huh?)

I Shame the Matriarchy took on the Heart-faction, and got 70 posts in reply!

My Private Casbah: Evidently, Cheryl Seelhoff lieks moar drama
----------------
Listening to: Nina Simone - Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues
via FoxyTunes

Girls on Film

Graphic from Radical Women



I attempted to participate in a thread over at Women's Space/Margins, only to have my comments censored. Heart does not tolerate any dissent from any feminists at her site. (Instead of "women's space"--perhaps it should be called "women who agree with Heart's space.") Thus, I will continue here.

Heart, at Margins, writes:

This is the first of a series of posts I plan to do illustrating the intentions of, and reasons for, pornography.

To assume that all pornographers have the same intentions and reasons, is a little silly, doncha think?

If you mean analyze the sexism and misogyny in porn, that's something else again. Interestingly, I saw none of this in your post, just a blanket condemnation of all porn as "rape"--which any 14-year-old kid with internet access knows is simply not accurate.

I get thousands and thousands of spam comments day in, day out, almost all of them advertisements for porn. Right now there are something like 4,000-plus ”comments” — links to pornography, primarily – in my spam queue. Most of it is as vile as can be imagined.

"Vile"--meaning what, exactly? Vile is in the eye of the beholder. Do you mean violent? Say that, then, and be specific. Or is all porn "vile" to you, as I suspect? In which case, you are not in a place to discern which porn is "vile" and which is not.

I’m tired of talking to pro-pornography, pro-prostitution people, male or female, about pornography. I think I’m done with doing that.

When have you had any comprehensive discussion of this kind? I have seen no discussion. TALKING TO, as in, you expect to preach like the fundamentalist you are, and have everyone LISTEN? As you should know, that leads nowhere. People do not appreciate or learn from preaching; they learn from interactive discussion. And this is something I have NEVER seen you engage in.

I am a radical feminist, profoundly skeptical of porn and prostitution, and you even censor me. Therefore, I doubt you've been able to have any kind of civil political discussion with people who are diametrically opposed to you, including women who are currently employed as sex workers.

Thus, when you say "pro-pornography, pro-prostitution"--you actually mean the women employed in these businesses. You have placed yourself above them, and have no interest in discussing the reality of their lives and reasons for their employment with THEM. You prefer to talk over their head, as a preacher discusses the sinners that must be converted.

Their opinion, and whether they WANT to be converted, is of no concern to you.

Discussions with those who are vested in this stuff — who make a living by way of it, who use it all the time, who sell it, who perform in it — remind me of discussions I used to have in my old world with religious fundamentalists who could not be separated from their ideological fixations, obsessions and dogmas by love, money, cogent debate, force, or any combination of the above.

Funny you should say this, since I think you sound exactly like a fundie preacher, and IT'S NO ACCIDENT THE FUNDIES ALL AGREE WITH YOU 100% ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

The fundamentalists are too good to talk to the whores, and you are too. Like them, you simply believe you are smarter and morally superior to the women who actually do this work, and you don't have any reason to listen to anything THEY tell you. When they tell you what THEY believe would make their lives easier, you don't care. You know better than they do. You consider yourself superior in every way.

Otherwise, why not listen? Why not dialog? Why not grant these women the respect you grant the women on your site?

They stood ready to defend their beliefs — and that’s about it.

"Beliefs" are not tantamount to challenging someone's livelihood/job and ability to earn a living. You are the one who counsels sex workers that they should stop earning money this way, yet you propose no solutions for them. And that's about it.

They were pretty much incapable of even considering the possibility that they might have missed something, might not be seeing something, let alone that they might be wrong.

FTR, I think sex work sounds terrible. I would not want to do it, or have my daughter do it. I would also not want to pick grapes or soybeans out in the fields, or work on an assembly line, as my father did. However, I do want the migrant workers and factory employees to have rights and unionization, whether I think they are exploited or not--in fact, PRIMARILY and PRECISELY for this reason--to prevent FURTHER exploitation.

Do you in fact agree that workers need unions and rights? Why are you making an exception for WOMEN, in this case? Why have you bought into the MALE definition of sex work as SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS rather than a business transaction?

It's men who fantasize about the sex-work-scenarios being "real"--surely you realize they are not? They are part of the job, just as a car salesman laughs at our dumb jokes in hopes we will buy one of his cars. But you seem to have a totally different standard for judging women's work, in this instance, and what has historically been men's work. Men's work is respected by you, and women's is not, unless it's sewing, childcare, knitting or canning fruit.

Unless sanctioned by the Church, in other words.

I always find it perplexing, the way the pro-porn side invokes the spectre of fundamentalism in its arguments or diatribes or propaganda. My experience is, if there are fundamentalists in this debate, they are on the pro-porn side.

As I said, I agree with you that the business is nasty and exploitative to women. I agree it perpetrates misogyny. What I don't agree with is how you want to judge and punish women for their own oppression, therefore blaming the victim. You want to deny them all rights, reinforce their marginal legal status and you approve of the system that legally penalizes them.

You won't even listen to a radical feminist who disagrees with you, like me.

Umm, you can easily see why the "spectre of fundamentalism" is invoked, since you agree with the fundamentalists 100% about throwing hookers in the pokey? Don't you?

Aren't you the one who agrees with the fundamentalists that these women do not deserve Social Security benefits, Worker's comp, retirement, health insurance, and the other valuable rights gained by collective bargaining?

Aren't you the one who thinks these women aren't good enough to qualify for these rights, yet you are?

How is that different from a fundamentalist?

The 11 words at the top of the page tell us what pornography is about. It is about men forcing their bodies inside of and onto the bodies of women.

So, the women being paid for this, are in all cases being forced? No.

Again, you prove by this statement that you do not listen to the words of sex workers. You proudly and arrogantly ignore what THEY SAY, and you place yourself above them. You know more than they do, like a good Church elder.

It is about men forcing women to do things they do not want to do.

Even when they are paid and willingly want to enter this business?

Especially, the words communicate the interest men have in watching women being raped.

It isn't actual rape, Heart. It's a fantasy story about rape, that some men enjoy. (There are also porn-fantasies involving the rape of men by women and other men, you realize?) Sex workers make money off of men's fantasies; that is in large part what sex work involves. But their fantasies are not real. Why are you endorsing male definitions of porn as "reality"?

We all know a woman is depicted in the film those 11 words advertise, but she is a dehumanized woman. She has no name; she is a generic “blonde,” a generic “whore.”

Umm, you mean as in your previous paragraph: "those who are vested in this stuff — who make a living by way of it, who use it all the time, who sell it, who perform in it"--I see no names in that sentence, either. You invoke a generic sex worker, a generic whore.

If I am mistaken, how about you name some names of actual women? Or do you even know the names of any real-life sex workers you claim to care so much about?

Didn't think so.

The understanding and agreement between the maker and advertiser and the consumer of pornography is that nobody cares about the names, identities or lives of “blondes” or “whores” or any other woman being raped by men in pornography and nobody wants to know any of that.

And when these sex workers attempt dialog and actually try to comment on your site, you won't allow it. You won't even allow a feminist who disagrees with you, on your site...you don't want to know any of that, either, since it contradicts your world-view.

The agreement is that the porn consumer should be free to order up a constellation of body parts and the pornographer should stand ready to provide them.

Where is this "agreement" you speak of?

The agreement is the pornographer will provide images of rape and violence which humiliate and degrade already-dehumanized women whose names we do not know.

Again, where is this "agreement" you speak of? Certainly, you HAVE seen soft-core porn with kisses, hugs and fervent I-love-you's interspersed with copulation? Why are you saying here that all porn is about humiliation, when anyone can turn on cable TV and see otherwise?

Do you think these disingenuous statements help your argument? How?

The agreement, especially, is that this will be sexually titillating and exciting to the consumer.

Again, where is this "agreement"? What are you talking about?

This is what real men want to see: “blondes” and “whores” being raped. Available for cash, at the click of a link.

Comments, as always will be moderated. Men and women may comment, so long as they are anti-pornography. At some point, as anti-pornography activists, we are going to have to work to provide some sort of public counterbalance to the weight of the pornographic garbage passing for “discussion” and “debate” which we, and millions of others, find suffocating and deadly.

Really? Because I have never seen you do this even once. Gotta link to a real discussion? You are a very influential feminist, and I have found many of your discussions all over the web; I have seen you fulminate, proclaim, preach, huff-and-puff-and-blow-the-house-down, but never DISCUSS in good faith.

In fact, this whole post of yours strikes me as one long MASTURBATORY exercise for you--proving that everyone has various ways of getting off, and this is yours, isn't it?