Odds and Sods - APRIL 2015 EDITION

APRIL is here already! I haven't done an Odds and Sods post in almost a year, so here we go.


My last Odds and Sods post featured giant plastic ducks and Miss South Carolina... and so, not to be outdone, I am opening this post with some razzle-dazzle photos of SC COMIC CON, which was March 21st here in Greenville, at the TD Convention center.

I do apologize for being asleep at the switch when it came time to post these. (MORE HERE!) My camera battery died, and I just kept forgetting to replace it. (Also, there were several that didn't turn out as well as I'd hoped and I was somewhat disappointed.) As always, you can click to enlarge.



PS: I also posted a few photos of our local St Patricks Day block party on Tumblr. (green cake!)

~*~

I have recently been watching 19 Kids and Counting, featuring the pseudo-Quiverfull Duggars (who remind me so much of some Bob Jones University-affiliated families) and the weddings of their daughters Jill and Jessa. In case you didn't know, all of the 19 kids have names starting with J, which is either after dad Jim-Bob (they are part of the Christian Patriarchy movement, so this seems likely) or after Jesus, or both. Some seasons ago, they had a funeral for a miscarried "baby", after taking a famous photo first... they named that one Jubilee Shalom.

I figure if the TLC network is having whole-day marathons, I can't be the only one watching these people who seem to be the living embodiment of old-timey Little House on the Prairie values, sewing their own clothes, playing (appropriately Christian music) together in a family band, making jars and jars of their own pickles, expecting the kids to bunk 5 to a room or something, etc. Even though the kids are ON TV, they do not WATCH TV. Really. That's the claim. There are 19 of them, some in their 20s (people in this subculture only "leave home" when it is time to marry, one reason I figure they are SO ecstatic over marriage)... and we actually believe they can't organize their own movie/TV-watching sessions away from mom and dad? In this day of iphones? Pardon me, but I hardly think so.

But that is the show-biz aspect: we suspend disbelief and adhere to this fantasy of an innocent Andy Griffith-ish, old-school, southern family--who are nonetheless savvy enough to deal with Hollywood executives for 10 seasons and become millionaires. Their large house was built for them by the TV network; they reportedly pay no taxes on their land because they declare their home a "church" (a good illustration of how the religious tax exemption is habitually bent/abused). Eldest son Josh works for the right-wing (and very anti-gay) Family Research Council, although Michelle Duggar's sister is a lesbian in a long-term relationship with a woman. Jim-Bob Duggar (R) was in the Arkansas House of Representatives, which would suggest he knows a few things, like how to milk rich people for contributions, make various right-wing promises and get himself elected. Seen in this light, the 200 volunteers who instantaneously showed up to help out during the weddings, suddenly look like political volunteers, don't they? In a sense, they are. These Duggar wedding shows were one long commercial for the pseudo-Quiverfull lifestyle. (NOTE: the Duggars steadfastly refuse to use the term Quiverfull when put directly on the spot, so I have chosen "pseudo-Quiverfull" for this post... but its rather strange that they are easily the most famous of "Quiverfull" families and now they back away from the term? Why?) They even posted a bunch of viewer-tweets on one of the shows, wherein (mostly women) tweeted about how they wish they were Duggars, could have lots of close sisters as they do, as well as a "traditional" courtship. Etc. I saw a lot of this as naked propaganda for a lifestyle.

Both bridegrooms had to ask Jim-Bob for permission to court their legal-aged daughters, and still require chaperons and chaste, safe "sidehugs" (#sidehug became a popular hashtag during the TV marathons). The teary sister-bridesmaids (Jana, Joy Anna, Jinger, Johannah, Jennifer, etc) all kept saying they would "miss" Jessa, as if she was going to Antarctica, not just down the road to a house her father already owns.

Circumstances suggest the Duggars could not possibly be as sweet, naive and innocent as they appear, and yet, people resoundingly choose to think so. They are "cute" ... people don't like to be reminded of their politics. When I confronted tumblr trans women about sleeping through Michelle Duggar's work on an anti-trans campaign, nobody really answered me about that. The Duggars can be as political as they wanna be, since they position themselves as the Arkansas equivalent of the Von Trapps.

Would all those tweeting young women really prefer that their father screen all of their boyfriends, immediately eliminating anyone who did not regard courtship as inevitably leading to marriage? (First there is formal courtship, then engagement, then marriage. Each phase must be officially "announced" and slightly-more touching is allowed at each level; no kissing until the wedding day.) I don't believe that. What are women nostalgic for? That old "Cinderella Complex" syndrome, the feminine desire to be taken care of?

In the above link about Jessa Duggar, we learn that she actually budgeted her own wedding. As we learned during the show about her, she is very efficient and even organized homeschooling lessons for her whole family. But see: that is not old-school Christian patriarchy, allowing women to manage money. The Duggars get the mystique of "tradition" while availing themselves of Skype, iphones, microwaves and smart daughters who can manage money. It is impossible to truly GO BACK, so they get the best of both worlds. (Back in the day, these highly-managed marriages could not be arranged by looking at a guy's photo on Instagram, or checking out your future Christian spouse on her family's television show.)

I don't think women truly, in real life, want this lifestyle, but they do want to indulge the fantasy. Because I don't think it exists. Not even for the people practicing it. People want "reality TV" about it, but not reality.

~*~

Quick notes:


* SOME GOOD NEWS: There is a little orca baby boom, reported by the Guardian.


* We are still plugging away on the radio. Check us out live tonight at 8pm on WOLI!


* We are planning a demonstration against the Republican presidential "debate" (Fox News doesn't allow genuine debate, of course, but you know what I mean) next month here in Greenville, Saturday May 9th, in front of the Peace Center. I will make an official announcement here later, but we are already regularly announcing this on the radio show. YALL COME ON OUT AND RAISE HELL WITH US! (My account of our demonstration at the last Fox News debate is HERE.)

So far, they've got Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz... the usual suspects. But NOT the erstwhile star of the show, Jeb Bush. Uh oh. Is he dissing SC?

Hm. They won't like that.

The event will bring at least six potential Republican White House hopefuls to downtown Greenville for a day of stump speeches.

Confirmed to attend, according to Citizens United, are Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.

Citizens United said it would announce additional speakers later, but Duncan said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush won't be among them.

"Jeb Bush and I have communicated," [SC Republican congressman Jeff] Duncan said. "He has a commencement address in Florida that day that is precluding his having the ability to come."

Duncan said at least three other South Carolina congressmen – Trey Gowdy of Spartanburg, Mick Mulvaney of Indian Land and Mark Sanford of Charleston – are expected to attend.

Trey Gowdy and Lindsey Graham, all by themselves, are reason enough to show up and howl.

Yall come! If you are coming from a long distance, please contact me and we can probably find a place for you to sleep, too. Remember, it is likely one of these (awful) deluded individuals will be the Republican nominee, or will serve as Veep or in the cabinet, if they should win the presidency.

Show up and make your voice heard!


* Medicines from the Earth will be May 29th - June 1st at the Blue Ridge Assembly in beautiful Black Mountain, NC. (my previous account of the herbal conference is HERE) Its pricey, but you will come out smart as the dickens.


* Waving to all the folks who have dropped by in the past couple of months, starting with Black History Month, which brought copious hits on the lynching of Willie Earle in 1947, as well as the release of Edward Lee Elmore from South Carolina's Death Row (after 30 years). We also had a bunch of hits on George Stinney, the 14-year-old child executed by the state of South Carolina in 1944. I was probably the first person to cover Stinney nationally (on the radio), although of course many African-Americans locally have written about George Stinney for decades. At long last, Circuit Judge Carmen Mullen found that "fundamental, Constitutional violations of due process exist in the 1944 prosecution of George Stinney, Jr." and vacated the judgment.

It's about time.

Thumb update, with cats

The sweet feline brothers featured in this post need good homes! I almost took them home with me. (Local folks: Check out Feline Urgent Rescue.)














Its been awhile since I did a health/TMI update, and I know yall simply CRAVE more medical details from Daisy. (sigh)

In fact, my absence over the past week has been due to my increasingly-large Sissy Hankshaw thumb, which unbelievably, I haven't mentioned in about five years now. Rest assured, my thumb is still attached, although I suppose it's a blessing that I don't have bilateral, huge, swollen thumbs like Sissy's, which might attract undue attention. Its the thumb-joint that is enormous, bulbous, painful and angry. On Saturday, it was nearly the size of a golf ball.

The good news is that such physical ailments do not ALARM me as much as they clearly did in that last post (I'm getting pretty accustomed to this aging stuff), but they remain a giant pain in the ass to deal with. I have taken a break from typing unless it is absolutely necessary. I hope to be back in good form after the current cold front passes. We actually have a frost warning tonight, after a weekend of heat. Strange weather. (I hope it doesn't destroy the beautiful hydrangeas.)

On my way from the market today, I saw a bumper sticker: GLOBAL WARMING? (accompanied with graphic of a rising temperature, obviously meant to signify HELL, of course) HOW ABOUT GLOBAL PRAYER????

Well, I guess that settles it, huh?

~*~

Speaking of fundies, what brought me back here today, even in acute pain? Schadenfreude and scandal-mongering--need you ask? I have an extra-special Doug Phillips update:

A leading advocate of the patriarchal Quiverfull movement groomed a teenage girl as his “personal sex object” and then used the purity culture to shame her into silence, according to a lawsuit filed by his victim.

Douglas Phillips resigned last year from Vision Forum and Vision Forum Ministries over what he described at the time as an extramarital affair.

But the lawsuit, reported by Right Wing Watch, revealed more details about this relationship and the ways that women are treated in the Quiverfull movement – which has been popularized by the prolific Duggar family and their TLC reality show, 19 Kids and Counting.

Attorneys claim Phillips, a close friend to the Duggar family and an associate of actor Kirk Cameron, “methodically groomed” Lourdes Torres since she was 15 years old and led her to believe they would be married.

Read it all. I told you he was a sleaze!

~*~

Have a happy TAX DAY and as always, stay tuned, sports fans.

Another one bites the dust

My always-vigilant, intrepid spies tell me the fundamentalist Christian world has been rocked by still another scandal. In addition to the hoopla brought about by Stephen Jones resigning the presidency of Bob Jones University, we learn that Vision Forum Ministries will be permanently shutting down.

And the hits just keep on comin.

Christian Post reports that misogynist nuisance Doug Phillips resigned from heading up Vision Forum, because (nah, go on!) he couldn't keep his hands to himself. As a response, Vision Forum is calling it a day. Good riddance!

But hey, that's a lotta dough:

According to Vision Forum Ministry's 2011 tax returns, the nonprofit wing of the organization, its total revenue was $3,345,150, while its total expenses were $1,734,985.

Phillips announced his resignation at the end of October, describing it as "inappropriately romantic and affectionate," though he denied any sexual relationship between him and the woman, asserting that he had not known her in a "biblical sense."

Yes, we all know what this means... another powerful man who doesn't know what the meaning of IS, is. ;)

(For more, check out Jen's blog; she properly clocks his worthless ass and has been for some time now.)

Phillips is well-known in fundie circles for his infamous "Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy" a guide popular among Quiverfull households. (Phillips and his spouse Beall have 8 children.)

Religion News reports:

Phillips is a leader among conservative Christians who reject birth control and believe that large families are a sign of God’s blessings, as seen in his friends Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar’s family on TLC’s “19 Kids and Counting.” He preaches a message of “biblical patriarchy,” in which a man is called to “rule over his household” and “the God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household.”

Phillips also takes a dim view of women in the public sphere, saying it is not “the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals” outside the home in business, government and the military.

The damage done by these oppressive, repressive charlatans is hard to quantify, but here is one such example, from Spiritual Sounding Board:

I don’t know where to begin…as I have read through so many of the posts about the [Doug Phillips] mess, I have been forced to reevaluate my own life. Let me state from the beginning that we are not a part of any Integrated Church, and not a part of the “patriarch movement”…but we did, long ago, embrace some of their teachings….like having a large family, homeschooling, courtship, and such.

We have ten children. Six of them are out on their own, five of those are married. Not a single one married with our blessing/agreement….three lived with their spouse before marriage. One son is involved with drugs…one daughter is tattooed like crazy….two remain active in “church work” ……but none “honor” their mother and father…and this is where I find myself…in a time of really re-evaluating what I believe. I feel that for our older six to be who they are must be connected to our wrong beliefs….at least to an extent.

As painful as it is to admit, I am beginning to see that we fostered some pretty difficult beliefs upon our older children all in the name of “protecting” their futures.
We are a divided family now, and my hope that there will ever be a time that we can be all at peace with one another wanes with every passing day.

This Thanksgiving…the children are celebrating without mom and dad…as I just couldn’t host another holiday with all this underlying pain/issues.

My request is to pray for us…as we face this holiday season, as I work through this season of looking at myself and what I believe squarely in the eye…that I will find real answers….maybe for the first time in a long, long time. Thanks for a safe place to express these rather painful admissions.

When I get mad at the Bob Jones people for messing up this town for so long, I try to focus on what I know must be the internal damage that is not readily apparent to the rest of us. This passage, from this mother in pain, reminds me to be compassionate and remember that there is so much more going on than meets the eye. The seemingly-united front and moral superiority that they unfailingly present to non-fundamentalists can be shattered in an instant... because much of it is based on the egos of these selfish, hypocritical religious shysters, who created their empires for themselves, not for God.

And humans are fallible. There is not one righteous. No, not one.

Estimated Prophetess

Purple and red angelonia, and other purty plants at the South Carolina Farmer's market. (from my Flickr page)


I am one of those lifelong weirdo-hippies that enjoys talking to strangers, and so the article titled Happinomics in Adbusters totally vindicates me. I do think I am happier when I exchange pleasantries with other people, and I enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling of connection/communion that results from it...it's not (only) because I am a nosyparker! Random social exchanges are good for our well-being! And now I have this hotshot happiness-researcher to back me up in my random babbling in restrooms and checkout lines. Alright!

I have long noticed that friendly chit-chat increases the possibility of sales in a retail environment, just as familiar, fast-paced music does.

~*~

I am about to get banned, at long last, from FEMINIST CRITICS, the argumentative blog dedicated to criticizing feminism. I am already on the "watch list"--even though one guy who throws around the word "skanks" (and authoritatively announced that the Southern USA is a "shithole") is on no such watch list. I guess it depends on who you know and who you blow, as the expression goes.

In any event, the version of women's lives propagated at FC is a sharp contrast to the version offered at No Longer Quivering, a blog started by ex-Quiverfull women that I have been visiting regularly. On FEMINIST CRITICS, feminism is presented as a blight, blunting the happiness of our society, making people (read: men) totally miserable and altering the course of natural desire, blah blah blah. On NLQ, I see what our world would be WITHOUT feminism, and I feel like getting down on my knees before Almighty God and giving thanks for being born into a world that has finally been given the possibility of WOMEN'S FULL HUMANITY. Hallelujah and praise GOD for FEMINISM!

Graphic grabbed from Cyborg Mommy.



The guys at FEMINIST CRITICS (along with their trusty anti-feminist female mascot/hench(wo)man, TyphonBlue), would be totally at home in the Quiverfull movement... in fact, I don't understand why these anti-feminist malcontents aren't jumping on the bandwagon to find them a proper Quiverfull wife who will shut up and not argue.

Then, of course, it dawns on me: they'd have to support all those kids! LOL--obedience comes at a high price, dudes.

Meanwhile, TyphonBlue continues her complaint that her husband has been greatly harmed by the loss of his Bodily Integrity (FC lingo = circumcision) and resultant male sex-Godhood, or she'd be in the secular-Quiverfull movement for sure. [Caution: second link contains ableist language, the term "crippled sexuality"--which is horrendously gross, but I linked it to make a point. And TyphonBlue wonders why hubby has issues? I certainly don't.]

And you know, that's the thing...Quiverfull is a religious movement. IS there a secular equivalent? Absolutely.

The constant, worshipful fetishizing of the large family (Jon & Kate Plus 8, Nadia Suleman) is everywhere in our culture. It's been going on since the Osmonds, the Jacksons, The Brady Bunch and The King Family. And in these enlightened times (cough) you don't need religion to be radically natalist. In fact, I found the Quiverfull blog when one of their readers linked my Surfwise review to their message board, offering the wise observation that it sounded the same as the Quiverfull life, only no surfing.

The Quiverfull women are awesome in their self-analysis and truth-telling, one speaking openly about what it was like when her husband no longer desired her. (And what happens to these wives then? Are they simply supposed to ACCEPT loveless marriages? Apparently.) These women ain't a bit shy regarding the use of that much-maligned word PATRIARCHY; in fact, they are very clear about the usage. Unlike some of us, they don't throw the word around in a meaningless mish-mash of theory, they are quite specific: a patriarchal household is one in which the husband/father rules. After all, patriarchy is literally defined as "rule of the fathers"--and that is the life they have escaped from, the life they are warning us about. They know what patriarchy is.

PATRIARCHY is that which would exist, if feminism had not challenged it, if feminism did not continue to challenge it throughout the world.

PATRIARCHY is that state of affairs championed on FEMINIST CRITICS. And the Quiverfull women come forward to say, very plainly, NO. NO. NO.

I am now addicted to the blog, and the eye-opening spiritual witness of powerhouse-survivors Vyckie and Laura, also very descriptive and talented writers. God bless you strong womyn, and I love you. I am waiting for the special moment, here in Bob Jones University-land, to give your website-address to women who truly NEED it. I meet Quiverfull wives every day, I know it will happen eventually, so stay tuned. (((blows copious kisses)))

~*~

And speaking of patriarchy, dig THIS! It made me somewhat dizzy, but you know how cognitive dissonance is. Lord have mercy!

Kittywampus writes about Masters and Johnson, reviewing a review (we are somewhat derivative here in Blogdonia, you may have noticed) about the new biography of the duo, titled Masters of Sex.

Dana Goldstein's review on The American Prospect:

The truth of the Masters-Johnson partnership, however, was far more sordid. By Johnson’s own account, and that of friends and colleagues, Masters hired the divorced mother of two under the implicit understanding that she would become his sexual partner — for the purposes of research, Masters claimed. “Sex for Virginia Johnson would become part of her job,” Maier writes matter-of-factly. And indeed, Johnson told Maier herself in an interview, “No — I was not comfortable with it, particularly. I didn’t want him at all, and had no interest in him.” Johnson engaged in sex with Masters, she claimed decades later, because as a single-mother, “I had a job and I wanted it.”

She said what?!

Is this Virginia Johnson we are talking about?!

Well, damn, who knew.

Kittywampus writes:

Of course, when Masters hired Johnson in 1957, Catharine MacKinnon was still in grade school. No one had dreamed up a name for sexual harassment, though it occurred commonly, and women certainly knew it was wrong when they experienced it. And yes, sexual harassment is the right word for what Masters imposed on Johnson. She very clearly states that she had no interest in him. She was living a hardscrabble life as a single mother, and her other options appeared worse.

This is the couple whose work overturned the oppressive Freudian conceit of the vaginal orgasm as essential to mature femininity. They proved that clitoral and vaginal orgasms didn’t differ, physiologically. How ironic that this liberatory insight flowed from a partnership that began as sexual exploitation.

As I said over on her blog, all you can say is WOW.

I am really quite stunned.

~*~

At left: Close-up of red and purple angelonia. (I love them!)


I'm always glad to hear that there are more feminists in South Carolina (this rates another strong hallelujah! from me)... and Moody Springs is Rachel's relatively new blog. She writes about Ellen DeGeneres' new 'funny' commercial in which Ellen announces 'ironically' (and watch out for that free-floating irony, folks!), "Inner beauty is important, but not nearly as important as outer beauty.":

It's funny, I guess. Or...supposed to be. See, because she is a comedienne, and she makes jokes. And she uses verbal irony here...everyone knows that inner beauty actually is more important than outer beauty, but it doesn't hurt to enhance one's outer beauty. But instead of saying that, she says the opposite of what we all know to be true....

Or do we?

Actually, what she is saying is very "true." Outer beauty is more important than inner beauty. Or rather, that one must do everything she* can to hide her outer ugliness. Or in other words, her wrinkles; the fact she is old...or the fact that she didn't die young and is still alive. Oh, the situational irony is just as rich as the verbal irony...the fact that you have the vitality in you to live long, and that you have been blessed for many years with the good luck to not have been involved in some circumstance that resulted in your death, makes you ugly. So if you use this makeup, it will lie flat over those wrinkles. Hide them. Your potent life force that led you to be wrinkled will be your secret.

Rachel, may your new blog live long and prosper, girlfriend! Welcome to wacky Blogdonia.

And BTW: YES!--as several have asked, I did coin the word Blogdonia, with considerable help from Groucho Marx. Unfortuntely, the graphic in that link, featuring the mercurial Rufus T. Firefly, has now evaporated into the cyber-ether. (My advice to new bloggers regarding images is: always copy and download your own, because other people's stuff comes and goes like summer sitcoms, and frequently does not even last out the week.)

~*~

More stuff you should check out:

Politico on Obama's persistent gay problem.

Angry Black Bitch is hilarious on the subject of Senator John Ensign, violating the sanctity of man-woman opposite marriage.

The New Agenda's Urban Girls: The Have-Nots of Sports

Mr Daisy has deserted me on this sultry, sauna-like day, to go to HeroesCon in Charlotte. I assigned him Dead Air photography duties, so let's hope he returns with some proper Superhero photos to celebrate the Solstice!

And now, signing off to sizzle...

~*~

Estimated Prophet - Grateful Dead (jump to 1:31; they diddle with chords for a whole minute and a half!)



Like an angel
Standing in a shaft of light
Rising up to paradise
I know I'm gonna shine

Will Bill O'Reilly be held accountable for hate speech against Dr Tiller?

As you have probably heard by now, late-term abortion provider Dr George Tiller was shot and murdered yesterday while attending church in Wichita, Kansas.

Church. Shot him in church.

As I commented on the Feministe thread, not even the mafia does hits in church.

If you would like to send condolences, the Feminist Majority will forward them to Dr Tiller's family.

~*~

There is much fascinating and intense commentary in the wake of Dr Tiller's murder, signaling deep moral confusion about the subject of abortion, at least here in the USA. I recommend Jill's Feministe thread about the kinds of late-term abortions Dr Tiller performed; these were usually medical emergencies. Also recommended is Heart's post on the Quiverfull connection. (I knew there had to be one.)

Meanwhile, we have William Saletan at Slate, who asks the loaded (pardon expression) question: Is it wrong to murder an abortionist?

To me, Tiller was brave. His work makes me want to puke. But so does combat, the kind where guts are spilled and people choke on their own blood. I like to think I love my country and would fight for it. But I doubt I have the stomach to pull the trigger, much less put my life on the line.

Several years ago, I went to a conference of abortionists. Some of the late-term providers were there. A row of tables displayed forceps for sale. They started small and got bigger and bigger. Walking along the row, you could ask yourself: Would I use these forceps? How about those? Where would I stop?

The people who do late-term abortions are the ones who don't flinch. They're like the veterans you sometimes see in war documentaries, quietly recounting what they faced and did. You think you're pro-choice. You think marching or phone-banking makes you an activist. You know nothing. There's you, and then there are the people who work in the clinics. And then there are the people who use the forceps. And then there are the people who use the forceps nobody else will use. At the end of the line, there's George Tiller.

Now he's gone. Who will pick up his forceps?

Tiller's murder is different from all previous murders of abortion providers. If you kill an ordinary abortionist, somebody else will step in. But if you kill the guy at the end of the line, some of his patients won't be able to find an alternative. You will have directly prevented abortions.

That seems to be what Tiller's alleged assassin, Scott Roeder, had in mind.

Megan McArdle writes in The Atlantic:

Imagine a future in which the moral consensus has changed, and our grandchildren regard abortion the way we regard slavery. Who will the hero of history be: Tiller, or his murderer? At the very least, they'll be conflicted, the way we are about John Brown.

I was waiting for someone to mention John Brown. They always do, on both the right and the left. His moral certainty haunts us.

McArdle continues:

We accept that when the law is powerless, people are entitled to kill in order to prevent other murders--had Tiller whipped out a gun at an elementary school, we would now be applauding his murderer's actions. In this case, the law was powerless because the law supported late-term abortions. Moreover, that law had been ruled outside the normal political process by the Supreme Court. If you think that someone is committing hundreds of gruesome murders a year, and that the law cannot touch him, what is the moral action? To shrug? Is that what you think of ordinary Germans who ignored Nazi crimes? Is it really much of an excuse to say that, well, most of your neighbors didn't seem to mind, so you concluded it must be all right? We are not morally required to obey an unjust law. In fact, when the death of innocents is involved, we are required to defy it.

As I say, I think their moral intuition is incorrect. The fact that conception and birth are the easiest bright lines to draw does not make either of them the correct one. Tiller's killer is a murderer, and whether or not he deserves the lengthy jail sentence he will get, society needs him in jail for its own protection.

Still, I am shocked to see so many liberals today saying that the correct response is, essentially, doubling down. Make the law more friendly to abortion! Show the fundies who's boss! You know what fixes terrorism? Bitch slap those bastards until they understand that we'll never compromise!

Well, it sure worked in Iraq. I think Afghanistan's going pretty well, too, right?

Using the political system to stomp on radicalized fringes does not seem to be very effective in getting them to eschew violence. In fact, it seems to be a very good way of getting more violence. Possibly because those fringes have often turned to violence precisely because they feel that the political process has been closed off to them.

Indeed, I think it is notable that this happened after Obama's election, at a time the rightwing feels beleaguered. According to most statistics I have seen, the actual number of abortions is decreasing. Thus, this terrorist act was not about a situation that is progressively worsening... in pro-life terms, the situation is IMPROVING.

Therefore, we can conclude the real catalyst was a feeling of hopelessness on the part of the anti-abortion movement; the sentiment that they have "lost" the battle for good.

Strategically, this motivation is very different from that of John Brown, who hoped to ignite a full-scale rebellion (and eventually, there was one, called the Civil War). By contast, Scott Roeder appears to have acted because there is NO HOPE of a full-scale rebellion, so he might as well do whatever desperate acts he can manage.

Even if he has to do it in a church.

And finally, Salon correctly points out that Fox News demagogue Bill O'Reilly has been waging a non-stop verbal war on Dr Tiller for years now. After calling everyone from Michael Moore to the DailyKos bloggers "terrorist apologists" and worse--I think it's now Bill's turn to wear the title of TERRORIST APOLOGIST, since his incendiary and inflammatory screeds have everything to do with WHY Dr Tiller was in the right-wing cross-hairs.

There were only three doctors in the entire country (and now only two) who did late-term abortions. Why do we only know the name of Dr Tiller? Largely because Bill O'Reilly was obsessed with him, in particular:

Tiller's name first appeared on "The Factor" on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as "Tiller the Baby Killer."

Tiller, O'Reilly likes to say, "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and Al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.

O'Reilly has also frequently linked Tiller to his longtime obsession, child molestation and rape. Because a young teenager who received an abortion from Tiller could, by definition, have been a victim of statutory rape, O'Reilly frequently suggested that the clinic was covering up for child rapists (rather than teenage boyfriends) by refusing to release records on the abortions performed.

When Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, an O'Reilly favorite who faced harsh criticism for seeking Tiller's records, was facing electoral defeat by challenger Paul Morrison, O'Reilly said, "Now we don't endorse candidates here, but obviously, that would be a colossal mistake. Society must afford some protection for viable babies and children who are raped." (Morrison ultimately unseated Kline.)

This is where O'Reilly's campaign against George Tiller becomes dangerous. While he never advocated anything violent or illegal, the Fox bully repeatedly portrayed the doctor as a murderer on the loose, allowed to do whatever he wanted by corrupt and decadent authorities. "Also, it looks like Dr. Tiller, who some call Tiller the Baby Killer, is spending a large amount of money in order to get Mr. Morrison elected. That opens up all kinds of questions," said O'Reilly on Nov. 6, 2006, in one of many suggestions that Tiller was improperly influencing the election.

Tiller's excuses for performing late-term abortions, O'Reilly suggested, were frou-frou, New Age, false ailments: The woman might have a headache or anxiety, or have been dumped by her boyfriend. She might be "depressed," scoffed O'Reilly, which he dismissed as "feeling a bit blue and carr[ying] a certified check." There was, he proposed on Jan. 5, 2007, a kind of elite conspiracy of silence on Tiller. "Yes, OK, but we know about the press. But it becomes a much more intense problem when you have a judge, confronted with evidence of criminal wrongdoing, who throws it out on some technicality because he wants to be liked at the country club. Then it's intense."

Tiller, said O'Reilly on Jan. 6 of this year, was a major supporter of then-Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. "I think it's unfairly characterized as just a grip and grin relationship. He was a pretty big supporter of hers." She had cashed her campaign check from Tiller, "doesn't seem to be real upset about this guy operating a death mill, which is exactly what it is in her state, does she?" he asked on July 14 of last year. "Maybe she'll -- maybe she'll pardon him," he scoffed two months ago.

This is where it gets most troubling. O'Reilly's language describing Tiller, and accusing the state and its elites of complicity in his actions, could become extremely vivid. On June 12, 2007, he said, "Yes, I think we all know what this is. And if the state of Kansas doesn't stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands as the governor does right now, Governor Sebelius."

Three days later, he added, "No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands. But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller's business of destruction. I wouldn't want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day. I just -- you know ... Kansas is a great state, but this is a disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas. Is it not?"

Speaking of DISGRACE, I think we know who the DISGRACE is.

Of course, he will not apologize for inflaming the rabble. But we cannot allow him to forget that he is accountable, too.

It is not Governor Sebelius, but Bill O'Reilly who has blood on his hands.

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.

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