Sunday, April 26, 2009


[above image is from here]

Below is just the artwork, without John Lennon and Yoko Ono standing by it.

It is a piece by the artist George Maciunas, who was part of what has been termed the Fluxus Movement. Yoko Ono was among the few women who were part of this movement. She has gone on to do many other creative works, in many media.
Flag poster designed by George Maciunas; it measures 54.8 x 87.8 cm. [this image was found here]

In-Fidelity: Corporate Capitalism = Genocide = White [Mostly Male] Supremacy

Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with Fidelity's Albert R. Gamper, Jr.
[image was found here]

The following information on this Company is from here, and it took quite a while to find it online!
Fidelity Management & Research Company
OverviewBoard of DirectorsCommittees

Fidelity Management & Research Company INSIDERS ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Name (Connections) Relationships Title Age
Edward Johnson III, 45 Relationships, 78
Dennis Dirks, 39 Relationships, 59
Albert Gamper Jr., 107 Relationships, 66

Other Board Members on Board of Directors
Name (Connections) Relationships Primary Company Age
Abigail Johnson, 105 Relationships,Fidelity Nasdaq Composite Index Tracking Stock, 47
James Curvey, 38 Relationships Geerlings & Wade Inc., 72
Arthur Johnson, 44 Relationships Lockheed Martin Tactical Systems, Inc., 60
Alan Lacy, 45 Relationships Oak Hill Capital Partners, 54
Peter Lynch, 112 Relationships The Lynch Foundation, 64
Joseph Mauriello, 44 Relationships Arcadia Resources Inc., 63
David Thomas, 67 Relationships Sprint Nextel Corp., 58
Michael Wiley, 65 Relationships Bill Barrett Corp., 57
George Heilmeier, 40 Relationships Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 71
Marie Knowles, 151 Relationships McKesson Corp., 61
Ned Lautenbach, 153 Relationships Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc., 64
Cornelia Small, 62 Relationships Fidelity Advisor Growth & Income Fund, 63
William Stavropoulos, Ph.D. 157 Relationships, Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc., 70
Kenneth Wolfe, 57 Relationships Revlon, Inc., 67

The following Company information is from here.
Fidelity Management & Research Company
Company Overview

Fidelity Management & Research Company is an investment management firm that acts as the investment advisor to Fidelity's family of mutual funds. Its equity investment strategies include growth, growth and value, high yield, indexing, value, small-cap, mid-cap, large-cap, and market timing. Fidelity invests globally, specifically in the United States, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Europe, and global emerging markets. The firm is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. It operates as a subsidiary of Fidelity Investments.

82 Devonshire Street

Boston, MA 02109-3605

United States

Founded in 1946





Key Executives:
Mr. Rodger Alan Lawson
Age: 61

Mr. Joseph B. Hollis
Chief Financial Officer
Age: 59

Mr. Stephen P. Jonas
Executive Director

Mr. Richard C. Habermann
Senior Vice-President and Portfolio Manager

Mr. Robert von Rekowsky
Portfolio Manager
Age: 42

There should be LOTS of outrage, over this really stark display of intentional pro-genocidal policy.

See also, here and here, and here, and here.

More news on this is here and here.

Black and White Television Set-Ups, and the Horrible Truth about Wealthier White People

[image from here]

My thanks to Anxious Black Woman for reminding readers about two of many intersections of Black history, Nazi atrocity, and the matter of not forgetting genocide is not only in the past.

Her post made me think about the on-going ways in which genocide (which always includes gynocide) is invisibilised cross-culturally, across eras, and by global media.

As a little Jewish white boy, I understood from a very young age that something was terribly fucked up about suburban white Christians and Jews playing "cowboys and Indians". I had nothing resembling a clear analysis of white Christian male supremacy at the time but I knew this much: I didn't want to play, and to whatever extent I might have been coerced into playing, I never wanted to be a cowboy. EVER. The fact that the "game" wasn't called "white settlers and displaced Indians" or "genocidal european invaders and massacred Indians" remains a bit perplexing. Then again, in games like Monopoly, one can purchase railroads for two hundred dollars. It is worth noting that the game was created by a white Quaker, Elizabeth "Lizzie" Magie, who was interested in pointing out the dangers of private monopolies. By the time I was playing, it was VERY pro-monopoly, without a hint that there was anything morally or politically wrong with savvy individuals buying up everyone else's properties.

I've been watching some old b/w movies, also reflecting on some aspects of racism in television programs. "Black and White", as a term, becomes ironic at the very least, in cinematic movies or television programs where:

a) There are virtually no other people of color in these films, except for the random "Asian" (mostly from the North and East, sometimes the South) who is always a gross stereotype, or the "Mexican" who is either a seductress or some form of bandit.

b) The whites are usually mixed in class, but somehow the focus is on the ones with "class"--that term being used with sarcasm, and also a note of irony: think for a moment about the term "now he has real class!". Fucked up, right? These "classy" white folks in old movies often have a Black woman character, often not listed at all in the credits, assisting white women who are portrayed as never quite knowing how to dress themselves. Or there's a Black woman or man serving the white characters their meals, then quickly dashing off-screen, lest anyone dwell too much on what that says about race in Amerikkka. Or there's a Black man working in the house as a butler with one stereotypical accent and manner, often meant to be comical to whites. And of course there's the Black man who seems utterly at peace, if not gleeful, at the prospect of spending yet another day or decade shining white business-men's shoes. If the picture deals with traveling cross-country, there's the Black man as porter on the train of white passengers as a porter. I'm leaving out a stereotype or two, and not too surprisingly these stereotypes often dovetailed with real-life laws that prevented African Americans from being part of white-majority unions, white-dominated jobs, and working in any way that wasn't, rather directly, serving whitey. U.S. white cinema, as it is rarely called by anyone white, offered little to Black audiences that reflected anything meaningful about African American experience. For more on this subject, and for a history of U.S. Black cinema, see here.

c) Whites were and are rarely portrayed in cinema as the virulent racists we collectively remain, whether murderous directly or by proxy. Despite the harsh truth about those of us who own stocks, we are rarely clearly understood as being active genocidalists, for example. And in appallingly pro-white movies like "Dances With Wolves" white supremacist cinematic mores demand that not only the film center around the experiences of a morally distressed white person, but also that he be able to remain a hero in some sense. In that film, "hero" doesn't exactly equal "mass murderer of people of color"--even though at the era depicted, that's usually and often what "hero" meant in white society. Middle class whites, movie-going whites, and DVD-renting whites like our movies to show us in a positive light, even during those periods in history when we were overtly barbarous to people of color. And we like our movies to remind us we are superior to people of color, to this day. It's a delicate, if utterly corrupt, ethical balancing act well-accomplished in cinema and television.

d) In U.S. white cinema, historically, African American women and men are rarely if ever seen as "being in relationship" to one another, heterosexually or not. Black people seem to exist as hired satellites, orbiting around white people. These white people seem to have their own gravitational pull and, as a consequence of this fiction of physics or not, are also utterly self-absorbed. White women in cinema had a period where, although never free from oppressive white heterosexual male "beauty" standards, they were allowed a level of self-possession. Not that their lives didn't revolve around white men, of course. I mean let's not be ridiculous. But many white women in cinema, prior to WWII, demonstrated an ability to appropriately respond to misogynistic white men, and to have things called "careers". Black women didn't have "careers" exactly, unless lifelong positions of paid servitude to whites can be called "a career". If it was one, it was not likely one any child dreams about entering with glee when they become an adult. White women, on the other hand, could be news journalists, wear slacks, argue face to face with men, often of similar build and stature, and didn't yet have the perpetually polite and deferential posture found in white women's characters after the Second World War.

In the last decade of the twentieth century, there was a TV show, "I'll Fly Away", which I loved primarily due to the riveting performance of Regina Taylor as Lilly Harper. (And, um, that young white actor, Jeremy London, was kind of cute to me at the time, not that his personality did much for me.) And yes, boys, he had a brother in real life--a twin brother, in fact: Jason, whose personality I despised, for some reason.) Lilly DID have a visible, three-dimensional family, an inner emotional life, a will, a clear sense of what constituted injustice, and was neither mammy nor ho, although she was made to take care of several children, in two families. One was her own; she worked for a white one. She was a fictional character with depth. And I have always thought that Regina Taylor is a very talented actor--far more talented than many white women and men actors who get far more roles, get paid much more money, and have much fewer gaps between gigs. And, obnoxiously, even that TV show managed to make the lives of the white folks focus of the program. Just when there'd be a great scene with Lilly, we'd have to cut back to the white family's dramas and be reminded "Oh, right: Hollywood doesn't MAKE dramatic family shows with Black actors as the leads." "The Cosby Show" of the 1980s was fine, only because it kept white folks laughing. And then came "Seinfeld", which, along with plenty of other shows not featuring white Jewish characters, such as Saturday Night Live, reminded white audiences of every single racist and sexist stereotype known to dominant society.

To any white person who suggests that due to Michelle and Barack Obama occupying the White House, not as servants, is a sign that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream has finally come true, I recommend rereading the work of M.L.K., Jr., including the entirety of the "I Have A Dream" speech, and especially the writings from the last two years of his assassinated life. Below is but a portion of that speech he delivered, with a white woman in the vast sprawling audience who would, twenty years later, become my feminist mentor. We can note that this portion of the speech doesn't get replayed every year, as it is not, in any way, a liberal, white-friendly sound-bite, nor does it come down on the side of thinking "Monopoly" is a just a fun game.

From the "I Have A Dream" speech, by Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963:

"In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

"It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges."

Friday, April 24, 2009

What about the girls? What about the women? Recognition, Discrimination, and Warfare

[the above image is from here]

Common issues that dovetail with matters of oppression are the definition of harm and the matter of whose pain is seen and responded to as if the ones in pain were human? In the dominant society in which I live, words are sometimes seen as acts that can do harm, but often are not. I grew up with the saying "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me". Uhhh, bullshit.

We are now, in this first decade of a new Christian calendar century, just realising that homophobic speech is a harmful act, harmful the way physical assault is harmful: injurious to the being of another; inducing shame; causing pain; changing who a person is so that they henceforth have lower self-esteem and are more prone to being self-destructive. We can now begin to collectively see, in the dominant media--between the latest fashion news, mid- and small-sized automobile crash-test results, Hollywood gossip, sports scores, weather reports, and kitchen recipes that can be cooked in less than twenty minutes--that harm through speech acts can and does cost some young and older people their lives. Witness the cases of the two boys, Carl and Jaheem, who committed suicide due to repeated anti-gay harassment. The speech acts alone, without adding in physical bullying, without these children also being punched or hit while being called those misogynist/homophobic names, are, in some cases deadly. Will those among us who use such terms repeatedly against one or more individuals be considered murderers, should the tormented child take their own life? If not, why not? (If I drink and drive, I might face a fine if caught, as long as I'm not in a car accident along the way from point A to point B. If I hit a vehicle and kill someone, serious charges can be, and ought to be, brought against me. Regardless of my intentions, if I get into a car while drunk, and end up hitting another person and killing them, I have committed, at the very least "(hu)man-slaughter".

I think of this also when I consider how, post-"9/11" it became a much more serious matter for white males, particularly non-Nordic looking ones, to "joke" about having a bomb while waiting on line to board an airplane. This has everything to do with a society's shared experience of threat or harm. Usually, only those who are in oppressor classes (whites, Christians, men, the rich, Westerners, the non-disabled, etc.) are understood by the media to have experienced a single act of harm or threat that was VERY SIGNIFICANT. I was deeply saddened, and at times angry, after "9/11" because it became extremely clear to me that only some people's pain matters. White folks' pain matters. Men's pain matters. Westerners' pain matters. The pain of those with wealth matters. The pain of those in nations bombed by our missiles don't matter, in our media.

The harm of grossly intensified discrimination against anyone who looks "Middle Eastern" or who is categorised, often stupidly, as "Muslim"* is not really registered in the hearts and minds of the oppressor-class masses as real harm. (*For example, Sikhs wearing a turban with a chunni, or one or the other, is part of traditional Sikh attire, and is not a form of religious dress connected with any branch at all of Muslim attire.) "Their" pain becomes "our" pain, if "we're" white and not Muslim or Middle Eastern, only when "one of our own"--a middle aged "clean cut" (read: not swarthy) white male, an elderly white woman with grey and white hair, is detained and frisked at the airport because they happened to be the seventeenth person randomly chosen to be detained and frisked before being allowed to board a plane that day.

Only when that happens does discrimination against a non-dominant group, in recent years particularly against Muslims and Middle Eastern people, globally, become remotely real. Derogatory language and other violence against anyone who looks Muslim or Middle Eastern*, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or region of family origin, is experienced in the form of harassment, threats, taunts, physical shoves, misogynist slurs, and other forms of violence against women, girls, men, boys, property, and land. (*Only about 20% of the total world Muslim population live in Arab countries.)

So when "our" economy, for example, takes what's termed a "downturn" (as opposed, say, to naming it a necessary step in the ending of capitalism), suddenly the media is aware of "people's distress and anxieties" about money and property. This "new concern" more deeply invisibilises the anxiety, distress, and pain many feel who were already not economically secure, inside and outside the U.S.

Whole classes of people only know economic distress; they never experience the "comeback". Some of my family falls into that category, of the permanently poor. Others in my family fall into the category of those who have "wealthy white folks' blues", which is to say, they are upset, worried, anxious, or distressed about whether the value of their half-million dollar home has gone down by 20%, or what's happening to their financial investments. Wealthy white folks speak to one another about "the market" and the condition of their stock portfolio often in earshot of people who will never own a stock portfolio, or a home. I say all of this because if you are wealthy, but are less wealthy now due to the downturn in the economy, please don't expect poor and working class people to offer you a back rub or foot massage if they overhear you being so rude as to discuss such matters in mixed class spaces. For example, telling your corporate colleague, over breakfast at a nearby diner, about "how much your stock fund has taken a hit" in front of the woman who is serving you eggs, bacon, and toast with extra butter, please, may be experienced by her as both of you being "jerks", at least. For good reason.

What we experience is often determined, if only partly, by past experience. Because, where I live, what happens to white men in certain kinds of off-shore wars is viewed as some kind of "standard" for what we comprehend as "traumatic" and "disablingly distressing", we can commonly refer to the U.S. white male war vet as having "post-traumatic stress disorder". Rarely do those of us who are white and male in the U.S. see the civilian war survivor--usually of color, often female as a likely sufferer of "post-traumatic stress disorder". Rarely do white men, as a group, see women and girls as "survivors" of a gender war. Someone "fighting as military personnel" counts as being a human being, often a hero, especially if you are white and male and from a white-majority country. Such a man is understood immediately as "probably having gone through something that has been so awful that he may never be the same". Note how invisibilised the civilian war survivor is, and women and girls across region and race, when we express only this amount of concern about "those impacted by men's military wars".

If we understand both the military war veteran and the civilian military war survivor to have varying forms of PTSD, we might appreciate and be sensitive to the fact that sudden loud noises might have a different effect on "them" than they do on "us", unless we're also survivors of trauma that involved sudden noise. It is not for "us" to tell "them" they are "over-reacting". What constitutes "over-reaction", in other words, is contextual, and depends, in part, on what someone's life has been up to the current moment. My experience of white men, generally, is that we "under-react" to most things, except when a woman doesn't coddle and care for us.

The experiences of the disabled and the oppressed are usually invisibilised by dominant media. Rarely does popular media show us what it means to be oppressed or disabled, in a way that registers viscerally as well as cognitively. And obviously there are a great number of ways to experience oppression: defiantly, depressively, aggressively, hopelessly, etc.

In the U.S. during the last forty years, the general population, including the oppressor classes, have been sensitised, to varying degrees, to the reality of sexual violence by men against women. What has yet to make the mainstream press, on any consistent basis, is an understanding of this violence, both endemic and systematic (not "accidental" or "anecdotal") as a form of warfare. That guns and knives are often used against women when men do their misogynistic harm, does not suffice to make it "count" as warfare. That men maim and kill women routinely does not warrant the phrase "war against a group of people by an aggressive enemy" being uttered.

I think this means dominant society and its media is in huge denial about men's war against women and girls.

One of most common liberal issues I see use up a lot of people's time and energy is when someone who is experiencing being oppressed by someone--verbally, states that is the case, the verbal oppressor states "You're just taking that the wrong way" or "You are too sensitive" or "You are over-reacting--chill out!" or "Why do you take offense to so many things!!"

Each of these responses is not only insensitive, but is another layer of emotional harm to the one being oppressed. Personally, as a white gay Jewish man, I don't need any white non-Jew telling me what is and is not "anti-Semitic" in speech. My gut tells me just fine, thank you very much. And if I'm speaking or behaving in a way that is condescending or threatening to a woman, and don't realise it or intend it, that doesn't mean my actions are not what the hearer says they are.

Oppressors historically define reality, including what constitutes fair and reasonable treatment of those they oppress. Inside many white Christian communities, for example, even those that are not "fundamentalist" there is a notion, an idea, promulgated, that women and men are "compliments" not "equals". This argument is used to spiritually support up all manner of misogyny and sexism, and many forms of male supremacist behavior and attitudes. If a man sees women as "his compliment", I'd assume the man has some serious sexism issues he hasn't bothered to check at the doorway of his social world.

What I think about whenever I hear about the media's presentation of human pain and atrocity, is "who else is suffering in this or other ways"? We know that the pain and suffering of males, whether they are males in only-oppressor classes or not, is real. We understand, for example, that boys who have been and are being molested by Catholic priests and other Christian preachers, are being harmed, irreparably. A great deal of media attention was brought to bear, critically, if also exploitively, on the horrid matter of priests sexually abusing boys.

And white men suffer too, of course. I have suffered as an adult, as has my brother, and other white male relatives in my family of origin. Our suffering, or dimensions of it, at least, is registered as real and is also transformed, as Andrea Dworkin once noted, into great theatre, visual art, and literature. We assume, here in the U.S., at least, if not also in the U.K., that Shakespeare writes of "human" suffering, even while he writes of a specific kind that is very gendered and raced. Which students are being taught that Shakespeare wrote colloquial ethnically specific stories primarily about the inner and outer worlds of those with gender and sexuality privilege?

I do not wish to minimise anyone's pain, except when its expression is grossly insensitive to those who are suffering far more.

When I hear the stories of the abused, including of white male military war veterans, and of white Catholic boys I feel sadness and sometimes rage at the unchecked harm produced by white male supremacist societies. This is the case whether stories are of young males being bullied, teased, taunted, exposed to homophobic and female-hating slander or slurs, enduring spiritual and physical and psychic betrayal at the hands of those entrusted to spiritually care for young people, or of boys neglected and abused in other ways.

And, mixed in with that sadness and rage, I often wonder: what about the girls? Is their pain also being recognised? Are there as many reports about girls who kill themselves because of lesbophobia and heterosexism? If a woman who knows her sexuality not to be "hetero" becomes the spouse of a man and has children with him, and also becomes increasingly depressed and despondent, does her depression and despair count as being caused by homophobia and heterosexism? If she has committed suicide, is her death registered as "in the same category" as those others who have taken their lives due to these forms of oppression and discrimination? If women are "never the same" after being raped and battered by a father, boyfriend, or husband, or due to growing up impoverished, or because they were given up for adoption because they are female, or were not given up for adoption but knew, very clearly, that their care-givers value boys more than girls, is their pain registered in the dominant society's psyche and told in its media, accurately and honestly, not exploitively and sensationally? Does it, too, become great art?

The question I want the answer to, if there is one, is this:
What else has to happen to girls and women for the dominant media to regularly report on what happens to them as "part of men's war against women"? We in the U.S. seem to barely grasp economic class warfare, although elsewhere in the world Leftists seem quite clear about it: capitalism kills, not just when a caught, criminal corporate executive shoots himself in the head. We seem to barely grasp racist warfare, the war of whites against all people of color, although at least some anti-racists are clear about that. The plights and plans of those of us who are Indigenous are never spoken of it dominant society, and the destruction of Aboriginal people is rarely seen as "genocide".

To this list of grievances I add one more: what of this endemic and systematic violence against girls and women by men? Why doesn't that count as "warfare" too?

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

On Earth Day: Derrick Jensen, on Civilisation and Enlightenment


The Whiteness Problem, by Kai Chang

Here's an itty bit of another important piece of anti-white supremacist analysis from Kai Chang over at the blog, Zuky, linked to from my blogroll.

The Whiteness Problem

The backhanded boycott of the historic UN anti-racism conference in Geneva by mostly-white diplomats from Western nations, whose fortunes just happen to stand upon centuries of white supremacist colonialism, slavery, and imperialism, is farcical on its face. The story being peddled is that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the Czech Republic are sitting out Durban II because of the sheer scandalousness posed by the singular figure of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivering another one of his branded ahistorical anti-Zionist tirades. I don't buy that story; in my world, simply swallowing the line that's being peddled by political hacks and fake news outlets is called being a sucker.

Without question, Ahmadinejad's twisted vision of omnipresent Jewish imperialism is unsound and indeed dangerous. But does it really make sense to pretend that one politician of dubious power, among thousands of conference attendees and hundreds of nations, is some dark overlord whose words carry the weight of the world? Of course not. This is not a tenable diplomatic position: Well, we were thinking about working with y'all to stop genocide but this asshole Ahmadinejad is gonna be there so we'll pass. In fact, if one wanted to denounce anti-Semitism, you know what would be a really good place to do that? How about a global anti-racism conference? Norway’s foreign minister Jonas Gahr Støre said in his speech before the assembly: "We who have made a point of defending freedom of expression cannot opt for non-attendance as a strategy, leaving the floor to precisely those who hold opposite views. We will not surrender the floor of the United Nations to the extremists. The President of Iran has just exercised that human right. He did so, I believe, in a way that threatens the very focus of this conference." See? It's called firing back from the same podium. You're allowed to do that at UN gatherings. You can crush flimsy arguments with strong substantial ones. That's how debate and dialogue work.

I think it's pretty clear that certain countries were looking for an excuse not to participate and ended up thanking their lucky stars that Mahmoud came along to provide a useful caricature in their diplomatic charade. Why would white-majority countries such as the US, Germany, and Australia want to avoid an international conference aimed at ending racism? Hmm, let's think this one through, shall we? Okay I'm done, how'd you do? Here we go: People who benefit from racism generally do not want to talk about racism. That's like asking bankers to talk about ponzi schemes and money laundering. It's like asking a drug warlord to talk about processing facilities and smuggling routes. It's like asking a system administrator for the superuser password and hidden directory structure. It's not gonna happen.

Julian's note:
For the rest of the piece, please click here.

Eleven Year Old Jaheem Herrera: Also Committed Suicide Due to Anti-Gay Bullying

[image of Jaheem Herrera, from here]

As is the case with all forms of sexual violence, anti-gay bullying is one of those atrocities that generally goes unrecognised and remains unremarkable. To acknowledge and honor each and every victim and survivor, every incident of sexual or heterosexual male supremacist violence, including those who commit suicide after enduring it: how many blog posts would that take?

Rather than repeat here what another gay man has already expressed and reported on, I'll link to Living Out Loud with Darian's blog post on this boy's life and death.

My heart goes out to Jaheem's family and friends, with a special wish for healing to his ten year old sister, Yerralis, who discovered Jaheem’s dead body.


[image is from here]

Here is a link to a listing of where Take Back The Night Events are taking place in the next several days.

And here is a blog devoted to Take Back The Night 2009.

Yom Hashoah, Israel, Adolph Hitler, and the U.S.: some thoughts by an ignorant citizen

[A member of Einsatzgruppe D is about to shoot a man sitting by a mass grave in Vinnitsa, Ukraine, in 1942. Present in the background are members of the German Army, the German Labor Service, and the Hitler Youth.[144] The back of the photograph is inscribed "The last Jew in Vinnitsa". Image and information that goes with it was found here]

I live in the United States, the country in which I am a citizen. This is a fact I take for granted--this secure citizenship--most days of my life. My father was born in the Ukraine, however, but managed, with his relatives, during a period of pogroms killing and displacing Jews in that country, to come to the U.S. several years before the above photograph was taken. My father's family lived approximately one hundred miles from Vinnitsa, which is about the same distance that exists between Tampa and Orlando, Florida. The town in which my father was born no longer exists.

I find that we who are educated here in the U.S., especially in universities and colleges, consider ourselves experts in many things--perhaps in everything. What follows flows from the mind of someone who has been raised by an arrogant society that encourages me to think "what I think" is important and has the right to be shared. I have also been raised, within my own family, to believe I had no right to my thoughts or feelings, and to keep them to myself as best I could. It is this paradoxical tension which appears and is leaned into every time I write or speak. Today I speak about Israel, and Hitler, and the political function of scapegoating people of color as "the source" of all of our problems.

The State of Israel has organised its national existence based on the forced relocation of non-Jewish Palestinians, making it, from the start, an occupier nation and a nation of colonisers; in essence, a racist State. It's founders and leaders have done this in a place where Europeans and those from the United States were outsiders--not of the land, regardless of their faith. Only faith declared otherwise.

I suspect that if there were no white European Jews and no white U.S. Jews in Israel, the only reason for U.S. leaders to maintain "relations" with that nation would be to use it as a military landing pad in its quest for world domination--oh, and to hopefully get control of some of those nearby oil fields as well. The U.S. cares about places where white people live. And white people occupy many places so that Europe and the U.S. can then care about those areas, "protecting them" with military might. It is not only the U.S. that functions rather effectively as a racist State. G-d knows, the Israeli government is far from egalitarian in its treatment of Black Jews relative to white ones. G-d knows the class differences between Israelis of many faiths, and Palestinians of many faiths, is blatant. Guess which group, overall, more closely approximates the U.S.'s white middle class? Yes, the Israelis, if they are seen as white, light-skinned, and not of color.

I do not know a goddamned thing about what it is to live in or around Israel. I have no bone-deep sense of how threatened Israeli Jews feel, nor the extent to which Israeli Jews are right to feel this way. I intuit some sense of how Palestinians in the region feel, and the fact of regular suicide bombing speaks to a level of desperation and grief I have not experienced in my lifetime. If I have learned nothing else from dominant media, it is that it will blame the victims every opportunity it gets. Women ask for rape, men say. Blacks would have not been so persecuted in the 1950s and 1960s (oh, and the '70s, and '80s, and '90s, and currently) if they weren't so uppity, whites say. Never mind that women of any ethnicity and African Americans of any gender are never not persecuted, and have never enjoyed luxuriously long (or pathetically short) periods of U.S. history in which oppressive hostility was not acted out against their bodies and minds.

And I do know this: there was a man born two days and one hundred and twenty years ago, named Adolph Hitler, who demonstrated that it was possible, within certain regions of Europe, mind you (and not others), to wipe out half of the world's Jews in just a few years.

This didn't happen in the Middle East, though historically Middle Eastern Jews (not white ones) have been enslaved there, by Egyptian rulers. What has happened to Jews, mostly from Europe, over the millennia has been posted elsewhere on this blog. The assumption that any or every Middle Eastern country's leadership has both the will and the means necessary to generate anything like a Nazi Holocaust is as yet completely unfounded and is bound to a fiction that allows white male supremacy to flourish. We might presume, stupidly, that Iran's bigoted leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wouldn't think of doing such a thing, as in his view "such a thing as the Nazi Holocaust" never happened to begin with. But by what means shall Iran destroy Israel, really? Bigotry alone is not enough. What Israel has plenty of is racism, misogyny, and military force. This is a dangerous and deadly combination. Palestinian people know of this force. It has ripped them from their homes, and torn their flesh from their bones.

The world's Jews have a holiday, Yom Hashoah, or "[Nazi] Holocaust Remembrance Day". According to the omnipresent white Christian calendar, it precariously fell this year on the day after Adolph Hitler's birthday. Last year it was Christian calendar date May 2, and next year it will be C.c. date April 11. As a note to non-Jews, it actually falls on the same day every year, if you get out your Jewish calendars: Nis 27.

One of the things we Jews ought to remember, at this time of the Jewish (5769) and Christian 2009 calendar years, is exactly who Adolph Hitler was in the context of the region, culture, and methods in and by which he rose to power. What we also ought never forget is the fact that millions of Jewish, Roma, lesbian and gay people; Polish resistance fighters and intellectuals, Soviet prisoners; the mentally and physically disabled, and other groups were turned to ash, or were shot and buried--transformed in moments from terrified community of captives to an egregiously large lump of land, under which horrendous piles of corpses lay to rot with casual disregard in the eyes of the assassins.

To the extent that anti-Semitism flourishes in any region, Jews anywhere are imperiled. This statement ought not be disregarded or taken as mere rhetoric by non-Jewish people who have not endured genocide. When your own cousin's story includes the fact that every one of our family of 300, except for Uncle David--who somehow survived Auschwitz at the age of seventeen--was killed within four years in Eastern Europe in the late '30s and early '40s, it gives one pause. So too does the fact that anti-Semitism is on the rise across white-dominated countries. Muslims are frequently blamed for this increase, but we should know better by now than to point a finger at one group of people, particularly when the pointer's finger is white, and the singled-out "problem" people are of color. Whenever two groups of oppressed people are seen as primarily responsible for each other's demise, you can count on it that there's at least one other group, an oppressor of each of the two embattled groups, that is writing up such responsibility-relinquishing reports, spreading such conveniently self-serving lies*. It is also misleading to think that only white-dominated countries known for past anti-Semitism are now emerging as pro-Palestinian. The social-political history of the Danes disproves this "theory".

(*The U.S. supplies 90% of the arms to make Mexico's drug wars highly lethal; why aren't they "our" drug wars then, if our munitions are being used to kill? And Europe's role in destabilising governments and rending the cultural fabric of people across regions of sub-Saharan Africa are rarely reported in the white Western press as requisite factors for the violence that gets blamed on "one" ethnic group or "the another". Nor do we hear much about the flow of arms from Europe to embattled regions of Africa. I hope the picture is getting clearer.)

Racism and anti-Semitism are hard for my foreigner's mind to untangle when our media sloppily suggest that all Jews are white and racist, and all Muslims are anti-Semitic and aren't Israeli. Muslims and Jews, in the Middle East, lived as relatives for centuries, let's not forget. The economic exploitation and political execution of Christian/Aryan anti-Semitism in Europe transformed many Jews' desire for a Jewish homeland into an historically, uniquely desperate need.

After all, it was the merger of European cross-cultural/regional anti-Semitism, the political forces necessary to make turn otherwise "good citizens" into accomplices and engineers of mass murder, makers of the mechanistic means to do so--the technology that turned Hitler's idea of killing all Jews into something heinously plausible, his mission half-way accomplished. We must not forget what it was that supported him: his officers, the SS, universities, churches, the post office, the Finance Ministry, drug companies, the builders of the crematoria, and the other constituencies comprising the madman-made machine for pulverising Jews and so many others into dust en masse. Many things had to be in firmly place or be quickly manufactured in order to destroy so many so swiftly. Not the least of these components was virulent and abundant cultural anti-Semitism. (Check.) But is not bigotry alone that generates genocide.

In the cultural worlds I learn about or are part of, I observe that U.S. whites' feelings about the Israeli government are mixed up with feelings about Israeli and non-Israeli Jews. Among some Europeans, feelings about Israeli Jews are mixed up with feelings about European Jews, most of whom have never set foot in Israel. Among some U.S. people of color, feelings about white Jews have been historically combined with experiences of non-Jewish whites. White's feelings about Jews, both white and of color are often enough blended into general white supremacist racism. And so on.

What little the U.S.'s "good citizens" learn from history, its media compels us to promptly forget. For example, we forget, on an appalling routine basis, that those of us who are white are here in large part as colonisers; we are part of a racist and misogynist State; our Founding Fathers were rapists and slave holders who, in order to form a more pure... I mean perfect union, required the displacement and mass murder of tens of millions of Indigenous inhabitants of Turtle Island, later called North America. This mass murder was a genocide approximately five to eight times larger than the one known as the Nazi Holocaust, if dead body counts matter.

So when you hear the media ridiculously promulgating notions that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Israeli government are each different incarnations of those heinous leaders of Nazi Germany, please take a moment and remember the truth of our history.

Recommended reading:
Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women's Liberation, by Andrea Dworkin (2002)
"In 2009 Europe, the Jew remains the scapegoat", by Stan Goodenough (2009)
"Russian Anti-Semitism and the Scapegoating of Jews">, by James L. Gibson and Marc Morjé Howard (2007)
"The Strange Phenomenon of Black Anti-Semitism", by Larry Elder (2009)
"The Muslims Need a Scapegoat", by Ibrahim Abdul Mu'min (2005)
"The Black Jewish or Hebrew Israelite Community", by Rabbi Sholomo Ben Levy (2009)

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Longtime Thealogian Carol Christ reminds us just how far we haven't come

[This image of Carol Christ was found here]

With thanks to Heart and her blog, Women's Space, for this recent post.

Carol P. Christ [pronounced "crissed" not "cryst"] is a white feminist thealogian, teacher, and writer who has been doing her work for decades--since the 1970s. Goddess love her.

Here is the beginning of a recent post from Christ's blog, with the link to the rest of it.

Roman Catholic Woman Fired By Bishop For Advocating Inclusive Language For God

Last week I reported that Roman Catholic and Jewish groups were lobbying against the passage of a New York law that would revise the statue of limitations for prosecution of child abuse. In my blog, I alleged that the image of God as an all-powerful and dominating male other encourages children to submit to abuse by clergy perceived to be acting “in his image.” I suggested that such images of God need to be challenged and changed.

This week I learned that a Ruth Kolpack, a female pastoral associate in Beloit, Wisconsin, was fired by a Roman Catholic bishop for refusing to renounce her Masters’ thesis in which she advocated that the church “free God language from captivity.” According to reports the bishop (who shall remain nameless here) told Kolpack that her views were “off-base” while admitting that he had only read “bits and pieces” of her thesis and refusing to discuss theological issues with her.

Thirty years ago when I wrote “Why Women Need the Goddess”, I thought the question of female language for God within the churches and synagogues was a no-brainer. If God is a God of love and justice, I reasoned, then surely “He” could be referred to as “She,” and if God is appropriately imaged as a loving “Father,” the certainly God could also be thought of as a loving “Mother.” I even dared to think that churches and synagogues could embrace the word “Goddess.” Sadly, I have been proved wrong!

For the rest, click here.

Defining the "Fetid Father Syndrome", an expose on White Heterosexual Men's Misogyny and Misopedia

[Image is from here]

What follows can also be found at its home source online where white heterosexual men's big white lies are busted. To get to that source for some very thorough and clarifying work, go to Liz Library.

By liz, J.D., LL.M., D.B.A., P.T.A., Ph.T., N.N.F.L.P, and MoM.E

A parody of Ira Turkat's Malicious Mother Syndrome... or, wait... no. HIS was the parody!


With the increasing commonality of divorce involving children, a pattern of abnormal behavior has emerged that has received little attention. The present paper defines the Divorce Related Fetid Father Syndrome. Specific nosologic criteria are provided with abundant clinical examples. Given there is no lack of empirical data available on the disorder, issues of classification, etiology, treatment, and prevention appear overripe for investigation. I.e., it's about damn time.


A divorced woman gains custody of her children and her ex-husband vents his love and concern by shooting all of them.

A man in a custody battle has sex with his offspring because his divorcing wife finds him repugnant.

A father forces his children to sleep in a car while he downs a few in a bar on their way home.

The actions illustrate a pattern of increasingly common behavior that has emerged as the divorce rate involving children has grown. Today, half of all marriages will end in divorce (Beal and Hochman, 1991). The number of children involved in divorce has grown dramatically (e.g., Hetherington and Arastah, 1988) as well. While the majority of such cases are "settled" from a legal perspective, outside the courtroom he continues to abuse and control, frequently rationalizing his behavior as merely divorce-related "battle."

The media have spent considerable effort raising public awareness about the problem posed for divorced mothers who do not receive court-ordered child support payments. Hodges (1991) has noted that less than 20 percent of divorced mothers receive all child support payments three years after their divorce. Research on the decline of women's economic status following divorce (e.g., Hernandez, 1988; Laosa, 1988) has contributed legislation of not much use in addressing the "Deadbeat Dad" problem, but has encouraged a backlashing trend of misogynistic propaganda and specious "research," in the ostensible interests of "presenting two sides of an issue" which never had a whole lot to offer on the wrong side in the first place.

While the media correctly portray the difficulties imposed upon women and children by the "Deadbeat Dad" phenomenon, the cameras have yet to honestly capture the warfare waged by a select group of fathers against child supporting, nurturing mothers. Everyday, attorneys and therapists downplay the many horror stories in which vicious behaviors are lodged against innocent mothers and children. Unfortunately, while there is considerable empirical data on the subject, researcher's agenda'd writeups and the scholarly literature have pretty much ignored the problems.

By contrast, the drivel prattering on and on and on in an effort to bolster Fetid Fathers is reaching absurd proportion. A noted example can be found in the writings of Gardner (1987, 1989) who has concocted a marvel of propaganda called the Parental Alienation Syndrome. Supposedly, a custodial parent successfully engages in a variety of maneuvers to alienate the child from the non-residential parent. Once successfully manipulated, the child becomes "...preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent-denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated" (Gardner, 1989 p. 226). In the typical case of Parental Alienation Syndrome, both mother and child supposedly engage in an array of actions against the father. Gardner views "brainwashing" as a concept "too narrow" (Gardner, 1989) to capture the psychological manipulation involved in turning a child against his/her non-residential parent. Of course, the entire theory is pure shit, but then again, so was Freud's theory of penis-envy, and a whole lotta other things people like to think are true.

While Gardner's fetid anti-woman descriptions of "Parental Alienation Syndrome" provide a major contribution to obfuscating the realities of men's child-involved hostilities, the present paper is concerned with a more global abomination. As noted in the examples provided in the beginning of this manuscript, lethal attacks on divorcing mothers take place which are beyond merely manipulating the children. Further, these actions include a willingness by some fathers to violate societal law. Finally, there are fathers who persistently engage in fetid behaviors designed to continue to allow them to exert control over the mothers of their offspring, despite being unable to show any good reason why they should have the right to do so. From yammerings on about the alleged harms of "fatherless" households, to the demanding of a "shared parental responsibility" post-divorce that they never undertook during marriage when she begged them to do so, these men epitomize the reason that for eons, societies have ended up engaging in wars, and atrocities of justice have never been quelched, and the reason that irrational male-mob-mentality, however ostensibly sophisticated, and however ostensibly educated, continues to be the rule of the day.

The purpose of the present paper is to define and illustrate just one aspect of this global abomination with the hope of generating increased honesty in the scientific and clinical investigation of the real problem.


The present section provides a beginning definition of the Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, which has been derived from clinical and legal cases. As in all initial proposals, it is anticipated that future research will lead to greater refinement in the taxonomic criteria.

The proposed definition encompasses four major criteria, as follows:

1. A man who unjustifiably punishes his divorcing or divorced wife by: a. Attempting to remove the children from their closest attachment b. Involving others in fetid actions against the mother c. Engaging in excessive litigation

2. The father specifically attempts to "possess" or "access" i.e. control and manipulate what he considers to be his human chattel, i.e. his ex-wife and the children by, among other things, a. Refusing to maintain a regular and consistent visitation schedule, refusing to regularly make payments of child and spousal support, refusing to continue the marital pattern of primary caregiving, etc. b. Attempting to purchase the affections of the children c. Sudden unwarranted and undesired interference with the child(ren)'s school, life, and household routines.

3. The pattern is pervasive and includes fetid acts towards the mother including: a. Lying to the children b. Lying to others c. Violations of law

4. The disorder is not specifically due to another mental disorder, although a separate mental disorder may co-exist. And usually does, albeit it's routinely ignored by therapists and the legal system. It's called Patriarchal Psychosis and Sense of Entitlement.


In this section, I will provide clinical illustrations for each criterion using the reference numbers provided above. As criteria 1-3 are behavior specific to the Fetid Father Syndrome, I will provide a series of clinical examples. The fourth criterion which addresses the relationship of the proposed syndrome to other mental disorders, will be discussed more generally.

Criterion 1A: Demanding "Rights" to the Children

The range of actions taken by a father to attempt to remove the children from their mother is impressive. For example:

One father lied to his children that he could no longer buy food because their mother was getting all of his money via child support, and spending it going to male strip bars, shopping, and having her nails done.

A doctor's husband forced her 10-year-old son to apply for federally funded free school lunches to delude the boy that it somehow was his successful mother's fault that daddy was an alcoholic ne'er-do-well.

A woman who for years was very close to the children in a custody battle, was asked by their father to give up neutrality and join his campaign against the mother to "dance on her grave." When the friend refused to give up her neutrality, the father falsely informed the children that their mother was a feminist dyke who was having an affair with this woman.

These behaviors, if successful, could lead a child to not only hate the father, but perhaps go years without seeing him. Of course, the father will immediately claim that the children's reaction is the result of their mother's behavior, backed up by such idiots as Ira Turkat. Another example would be Cartwright (1993) who flatulated: "The goal of the alienator is crystalline: to deprive the lost parent, not only of the child's time, but of the time of childhood." (p.210).

Criterion 1B: Involving Others in Fetid Actions

The second component of the first major criterion where the father attempts to punish the mother who gave life to his children at huge sacrifice to herself, involves manipulating other individuals to engage in fetid acts against the mother. Examples of this kind are as follows:

During a custody battle, a father lied to a therapist about the mother's behavior. The therapist, having never spoken with the mother, appeared as an "expert" witness to inform the Judge that the father should be the primary residential parent and that the mother needed to be in therapy. See, e.g. Karen Anderson's case, as well as the case of the child who killed himself after this sort of horsepucky by Gardner.

One angry father manipulated teenagers to leave anonymous threatening notes at the ex-wife's home.

A father who did not have legal custody of his children manipulated a secretary at the child's school to assist in kidnapping the child.

In the above examples, it is important to note that the person manipulated by the angry father has, in a way, been "charmed" into siding against the mother. Typically, the individual "duped" takes on a righteous indignation, contributing to a rewarding climate for the father initiating fetid actions. Commonly "duped" third parties are not only family law professionals, but also second wives, girlfriends, and the mothers of these men.

Criterion 1C: Excessive Litigation

There is little question that either party in a divorce or custody proceeding is entitled to appropriate legal representation and action.

Most commonly, however, it is men who have the greater access to litigation funds, as well as community contacts, and interim legal fees and costs are seldom awarded.

Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, therefore, attempt to punish the divorcing wife by engaging in excessive litigation.

A belligerent and unreasonable father verbally attacked his ex-wife whenever he saw her, which was often, because he also was engaging in stalking. Over time, her response was to try to avoid him. He then took her repeatedly to court, thereby using the legal system to force her to have contact with him.

One father told a judge that his daughter was not really his child, demanding a paternity test, and attempting to make the mother appear to be a free-wheeling slut.

One man refused to stop attacking his ex-wife through the courts, despite numerous attorneys being fired or voluntarily leaving the case. Over a three-year period, seven different attorneys were utilized.

Data exist which can help in determining the range of excessive litigation. For example, Koel et al. (1988) report on the frequency of post-divorce litigation in a sample of 700 families. Their data indicate that only 12.7% of families file one post-divorce petition to the court, whereas less than 5 percent file two or more petitions (Koel et al. 1988); less than one percent file four or more petitions.

Criterion 2A: Claiming Visitation Denial

Experts are in agreement that regular and uninterrupted visitation with the non-residential parent is not harmful for children, albeit little research substantiates that it is of any benefit. (Cf Hodges, 1991). Despite this, however, because of the incessant drumbeat of pro-father propaganda, some states, such as Florida, actually have laws written to reflect the view that such visitation is "crucial" to child well-being. (Cf Keane, 1990). Unfortunately, even when it is recognized that the mother and children also have legal rights to some semblance of stability and normalcy in the post-divorce household, individuals with Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome continue to interfere with it, using, inter alia, usually false claims based on ridiculous exaggerations, that visitation is being denied.

A father who previously attacked his ex-wife physically during visitation transfers of the children, refused to return the children as required when the ex-wife obtained a court-order that exchanges be monitored by the police. Fathers also counsel each other on tactics to make the mother look like the party at fault, such as claiming a need for police to accompany them to exercise visitation that is not being denied in the first place.

A common strategy of Fetid Fathers is to exercise visitation sporadically, frequently failing to show up at all. Then, on an occasion when they do arrive (late), to make a brouhaha the first time when, weary of consoling disappointed children, and tired of having days on end and her own schedule repeatedly ruined by the manipulative pointless waiting, the mother and children decide to pursue other plans.

One father had his twenty-year-old girlfriend repeatedly pick up the children for visitation, during which times she would make snide comments to the mother, and gleefully inform her that the children would be in her care for the weekend, inasmuch as the father was "working overtime."

The President of the father's rights group pompously misnomered as Council for Children's Rights (Washington, D.C.) refuses to acknowledge such tactics, let alone that they really are a form of child abuse (Cf Levy, 1992). Unfortunately, the police typically avoid involving themselves in such situations, unless it's to aid the father. Furthermore, even if a victimized mother is financially capable of returning to court on an ongoing basis, there is little that can be done to prevent such fathers' behaviors. Finally, even when such cases are brought to trial, the courts are often inadequate in protecting the custodial family's interests, instead choosing to give lip service to fathers' visitation rights. (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992).

Given the physical absence of one parent, the telephone plays an important role in maintaining the communications between child and non-residential parent. Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, however, engage in an array of actions designed to abuse telephone access.

A father claimed that he called to speak to his children and was told that they were not at home when, in fact, he could hear their voices in the background. In fact, what happened was that this was the father's third call that day, he already had spoken twice at length to the toddlers, the toddlers were napping, and he was interrupting the mother's Brownie Scout meeting.

One father claimed that when called to speak with his children, the mother put him on "hold," informed no one, and then left him on hold. In reality, this was yet another stalker-type, who had called upward of twenty times already that day to talk to the mother (not the children), and she put the phone down, rather than listen to the incessant ringing.

Another father even managed to claim that a mother's good intentions were somehow thwarting his "rights." He claimed, when she encouraged the children to call him (after not hearing from him for weeks), that she somehow "knew" that he was away on vacation and did this to "turn the children against him."

Some fathers claim that "alienation attempts" are so painful and fruitless that this is the reason they eventually stop calling their children; that they simply "give up." In reality, their original calls were for the purpose of stalking and harassing their ex-wife, and when this became of less interest, they moved on to other women. Speaking with their children was never of any but casual passing interest in the first place.

Criterion 2C: Claiming that Mothers Deny Them Participation in Extra-Curricular Activities

An ancillary aspect of the process of maintaining one's relationship with one's child is to participate in activities that one did before the parents separated. School plays, team sports, and religious events are just some of the type of activities of this type. Fetid Fathers frequently engage in maneuvers designed to make it appear that they have been prevented from participation in children's activities as a cover for their lack of interest, and also as a cover for their historic lack of participation altogether in other kinds of parenting activities that, while not of the sort that would garner public notice and kudos, might well be more meaningful, e.g. housework.

One father, who decided he preferred a happy hour with the new receptionist at the office, claimed he was given the wrong date and time for an important event for the child, thereby placing the blame for his own misplaced priorities on the mother who already was doing all the calling, scheduling, shlepping and arranging. The child was asked by the mother, "I wonder where your father is?" Incredibly, the father managed to convince the custody evaluator that this was thinly disguised "parental alienation" by the mother.

One father claimed that the mother refused to provide him with any information about any extra-curricular activities in which the children were engaged. Nevermind that the family hadn't heard from him at all in six months.

While coaching a child's soccer team, one father told many of the team parents disparaging falsehoods about the child's mother, and how she was engaging in "malicious mother syndrome." When she came to watch her son's soccer game, many of these parents essentially "betrayed" the father by telling the mother what he had said, thereby bolstering his specious claims that the mother was engaging in "parental alienation syndrome."

Fetid Fathers who engage in such behaviors rarely have to face penalties for their actions. Judges, attorneys, and policemen do not involve themselves in every instance of obnoxious social behaviors, nor should they. Furthermore, most mothers cannot afford the financial requirements involved to go to court again and again. As such, the cycle of harassment and threats and lies continues.

Criterion 3A: Fetid Lying to the Children

Given their developmental status, children in a disputed divorce situation are quite vulnerable. When one parent decides to attack the other by lying to the children, examples of this type of fetid behavior may include some of the following:

One divorcing father told his very young daughter that he was "not really" her father, which was not true, except in the biological sense, and incredibly inappropriate and cruel.

An eight-year-old girl was forced by her father to act as messenger to deliver copies of paid bills to him when he visited on the basis that he was entitled to an "accounting" of all the child support money the mother ostensibly had misspent.

One father falsely told the children that their mother, whom he had repeatedly beat her up in the past, was really the "batterer" in the relationship, even citing to (and misusing) Gelles and Straus research.

These examples of fetid lying can be contrasted with the more subtle maneuvers typically seen perpetrated by men, such as claiming that a mother has made "virtual allegations" (Cartwright, 1993). Here, a mother supposedly setting up a "Parental Alienation Syndrome" makes some casual or off-the-cuff comment overheard by the child about abuse by the father that may have occurred, and the individual suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome falsely claims not only that abuse has not actually occurred, but that the mother is engaging in "alienation."

Criterion 3B: Fetid Lying to Others

Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome may engage a wide range of other individuals in their attacks upon the ex-wife. However, with this particular criterion, the individual with Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome specifically lies to other individuals in the belligerency against the mother. Some examples include the following:

One disgruntled father called the president of the (1500 employee) workplace of his divorcing wife, claiming falsely that she was using business property for personal gain and was abusing their mutual children at her work locale.

One man falsely told state officials that his ex-wife was sexually abusing their daughter because he suspected that she was about to get wise to HIS sexual abuse of the child. The child was immediately taken away from her and her access to the child was denied.

During the course of a custody dispute, one father informed the guardian, who was investigating the parenting skills of each parent, that the mother had physically abused him and then made "false allegations" when she obtained a restraining order.

Snyder (1986) has reported on the difficulty imposed upon legal authorities when confronted with someone who is an excellent liar. Consistent with research on the inability of "specialists" to detect lying (Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991), a skilled fabricator can be a compelling witness in the courtroom (Snyder, 1986). While sometimes seen in borderline personalities, Snyder (1986) notes that pathological lying (Pseudologia Fantastica) is not restricted to that particular character disorder, so commonly attributed to mothers, as to whom experts for Fetid Fathers can actually find nothing really mentally amiss.

Criterion 3C: Violating Law to Attack the Wife

Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, have few, if any boundaries in their campaign against the divorcing wife. Violations of law are common in many cases, although the laws broken may be relatively minor. However, in some cases, the violations of law may be quite serious.

One man deliberately drove his automobile into the house of the ex-wife where their mutual children resided. Another, on visitation, doused his sleeping children in gasoline and set them on fire.

In the midst of a custody battle, one man broke into the residence of his divorcing wife and removed a number of personal and irreplaceable papers. Another cleaned out the house, lock stock and barrel.

One enraged father emboldened to "pursue his rights" confronted his girlfriend and infant on an Atlanta street, picked up the child by the feet and smashed his head into the concrete pavement repeatedly. Another shot his son to death when a New Jersey court decided the child's mother had an equal right to name the child.

The above descriptions may remind the reader of certain personality disorders (e.g., sociopathic) but these behaviors may be demonstrated by individuals with nothing more than Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome who do not appear to meet official diagnostic criteria for an Axis II disorder. The important thing to remember is, when concocting a bullshit politicized theory of psychology, you want to present horror stories and then make it seem as if your diagnosis could apply to every normal person, giving the impression that the most innocuous and mild behaviors could be foreboding mass murder and mayhem. So, continuing...

Criterion 4: Not Due to Another Disorder

In assessing the Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, it is important to note that many of the above clinical examples seem to have occurred in individuals who had no prior mental disorder diagnosis or treatment. In fact, one father who engaged in extremely fetid behaviors toward his divorcing wife and children had several mental health professionals testify that he was not suffering from any type of mental disorder (as if this has anything to do with facts about what actually happened.)

In the author's experience, for each mental disorder that might come to mind to account for some of this behavior, an exceptional case presents. For example, in some cases, an Adjustment Disorder might seem an appropriate diagnosis, yet one man still carried on about alleged visitation denial 10 years after the divorce. Other cases might suggest a possibility of a personality disorder diagnosis, yet one man who repeatedly violated the law in attacking his ex-wife, received no personality disorder diagnosis despite being evaluated by masters level and doctoral level examiners. In some instances, Intermittent Explosive Disorder might be considered, yet the anger for many of the batterers and stalkers and abusers and controllers does not appear to be intermittent.

Finally, the reader should appreciate that while diagnostic accuracy for certain psychiatric difficulties is not as good as one would like (e.g., the personality disorders, see Turkat, 1990), the problem is compounded in family law where incompetent mental health examiners sometimes become involved in the judicial process (Turkat, 1993). Clearly, the relationship between Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome and other mental disorders is a complex one which requires significant investigation.


The above description of the Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome raises a variety of important clinical, legal and scientific issues.

From a clinical perspective, families subjected to Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome are subject to serious episodes of stress and distress. Yet, there is no scientific evidence on how to treat this phenomenon. It is particularly compromised by the fact that many of these cases that appear to meet the proposed diagnostic criteria deny that there is anything wrong with them.

An additional difficulty is that many therapists purport to be unaware of this pattern of fetid behavior (Heinz and Heinz, 1993). As such, there are fetid therapists who are "fooled" by such cases and, as noted earlier, will come to court testifying that there is nothing wrong with the father involved.

From a legal perspective, there are some misogynists whose "theories" may encourage this type of behavior (see, e.g. Gardner, 1989). On the other hand, there are attorneys who deliberately miscast such behavior as the financial rewards for them are dependent on male business. In other words, the more involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for the attorney. (Grotman and Thomas, 1990). However, even for the subset of attorneys for whom this may be true, there is a point of diminishing returns. Furthermore, independent of economic considerations, many who become involved with family law courtrooms find that these types of cases are not handled well (Greif, 1985; Levy, 1992).

The man who is not disturbed "enough" to lose visitation rights to his children may well succeed in gaining custody outright. Rarely will he be sanctioned, and seldom will he go to jail. Thus, many mothers report significant frustration when they and their children are exposed to this type of behavior, and the courts seem to do little. In a review of pertinent law literature on gender bias in family law proceedings, Tillitski (1992) concluded that there is widespread discrimination. A frequent claim by Fetid Fathers and their advocates (contrary to what a review of the literature actually shows) that the bias is against men, is exemplified by one codger's oft-repeated truism. Some old family law judge in Georgia supposedly said once that, "I ain't never seen the calves follow the bulls, they always follow the cow; therefore, I always give custody to the mamas." (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992, p. 741). Similarly, it is noted that custodial rights of fathers are enforced as rigidly as are child support orders (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992.) Such bias against the value of mothering and the efforts and experience of women's lives in family law proceedings results in a clamoring of fathers who claim, with thwarted senses of entitlement, that they are "victims" of the system (see, e.g. Tillitski, 1992). This situation would seem to reinforce much of the vicious behavior displayed by men causing women and children to suffer from their Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome.

The issue of sex distribution of the disorder certainly needs to be addressed. The overwhelming majority of custodial parents are female (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Gardner (1989) uses this to claim that "Parental Alienation Syndrome" appears most commonly in females, although it's suggested possible for a male who has custody of the children to engage in the same type of alienating behaviors. The author's experience with Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome is not similar to Gardner's, however. The present writer has yet to see a case of a noncustodial mother engaging in all of the criteria listed. This does not mean that it is not possible for there to be a "Fetid Mother" Syndrome. But, Shephard (1992) reports that there is significant abuse of some custodial mothers by non-residential fathers. And while it should be noted that there are females who might appropriately be called "Deadbeat Moms," it's rare that we hear of a mother who shoots her ex-husband and children because she doesn't want to pay that "bastard." Given at the present time that a case in which a mother's meeting all of the criteria for Divorce-Related Fetid Mother Syndrome has yet to be documented, it appears advisable to await scientific evidence to guide issues of nosologic labeling.

How prevalent is the Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome? The answer is unknown. Gardner (1989) reports that approximately 90 percent of all custody battles involve some aspects of "parental alienation." That would imply that there could be Fetid Fathers in that number of cases, if not the litigants, then some of the therapists, custody evaluators and attorneys involved.

Further, Kressel (1985) reviewed data in which men claim up to 40 percent of maternal custodians denied visitation to the them, in order to punish him. And there's a possible 40 percent Fetid Fathers right there. Relatedly, Arditti (1992) reported that 50 percent of a sample of divorce fathers (N=125) indicated that visitation was interfered with by the mother. Fifty Percent. It's epidemic. While claims of parental alienation may be common, it is highly unlikely that such a percentage of fathers would meet all of the criteria for Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, so this author believes that writers, such as Ira Turkat, are in fact moving much of the problem.

In regard to incidence, it would appear through the title of this syndrome that the fetid behavior is precipitated by the divorce process. However, this is clearly an empirical question. While the fetid actions may first be noted during a divorce process, it is possible that fetidness may have been present earlier but undetected. Research on pre-divorce parental conflict (Enos and Handal, 986) supports this speculation. Relatedly, it may also be that there are some cases of pre-existing mental disorder that have not been discovered until the stress of the divorce itself unfolds. And it may well be a substantial reason why 2/3 of divorces are filed by women.

Finally, it should be noted that research on the nature of post-divorce family functioning is beginning to emerge. Some data exist on the role of parental conflict in children's post divorce functioning (e.g. Frost and Pakiz, 1990; Furstenberg et al., 1987; Healy, Malley and Steward, 1990; Kudek, 1988), but as Ira Turkat admits, studies do not document the so-called cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. It's bogus. Bogey. Bullshit. BULL shit. Fetid Father exaltation.

The Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome represents an important societal phenomenon. The disorder affects children, parents, attorneys, judges, guardians, mental health professionals and others. Until the words "fetid father" are schmeared more thoroughly in and around the scientific and clinical literature, such that we all come automatically to associate the alliterating duo, the problems imposed by individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome will continue to plague us. Hopefully, the present manuscript will stimulate research so that clinical and legal management guidelines can be developed.


AAAliznotes (1994-2002). Available online at

Arditti, J.A. (1992). Factors relating to custody, visitation and child support for divorce fathers: An exploratory analysis. J. Div. Remarr. 17:23-42.

Beal, E.W., and Hockman, D. (1991). Adult Children of Divorce, Delacorte Press, New York.

Cart wright, D.F. (1993). Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 21:205-215.

Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System. (1992). Gender and justice in the courts: A report to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Georgia State Univ. Law Rev. 8:539-807.

Ekman, P., and O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46: 913-920.

Enos, D.M., and Handal, P.J. (1986). The relation of parental marital status and perceived family conflict to adjustment in white adolescents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54:820-824.

Fatherhood and Family Law: The Myths and the Facts. What the Research REALLY says.

Frost, A.K., and Pakiz, B. (1990). The effects of marital disruption on adolescence: Time as a dynamic. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60:544-555.

Furstenberg, F.F., Morgan, S.P., and Allison, P.D. (1987). Paternal participation and children's well being after marital dissolution. Am. Sociological Rev. 52:695-701.

Gardner, R.A. (1987), The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, N.J. Gardner, R.A. (1989). Family Evaluation in Child Custody Mediation, Arbitration and Litigation, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, N.J.

Greif, G.L. (1985). Single Fathers, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Grutman, R., and Thomas, B. (1990). Lawyers and thieves, Simon & Shuster, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Healy, J.M., Malley, J.E., and Stewart, A.J. (1990). Children and their fathers after parental separation. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 531-543.

Hetherington, E.N., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.) (1988). Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.

Heinz, H.R., and Heinz, S.A. (1993). Emotional incest: The tragedy of divorcing families. Am. J. Fam. Law 7:169-174.

Hernandez, D.J. (1988). The demographics of divorce and remarriage. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 3-22.

Hodges, W.F. (1991). Interventions for Children of Divorce, (second edition), Wiley, New York.

Keane, G. (1990). Florida Divorce Handbook, Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL.

Koel, A., Clark, S.C., Phear, W.P., and Hauser, B.B. (1988). A comparison of joint and sole legal custody agreements. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 73-90.

Kressel, K. (1985). The Process of Divorce, Basic Books, New York.

Kurdek, L. (1988). Custodial mothers' perceptions of visitation and payment of child support by non-custodial fathers in families with low and high levels of pre-separation interparental conflict. J. Appl Devel. Psychol. 9: 315-328.

Laos a, L.N. (1988). Ethnicity and single parenting in the United States. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 23-49.

Satire, Whatis (2002).

Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welf. 71:357-367.

Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the borderline patient. Am. J. Psychiatry 143:1287-1289.

Tillitski C.J. (1992). Fathers and child custody: Issues, trends

Turkat, Ira Daniel. Defining the Malicious Mother Syndrome.

Turkeys, thewholelottayou. Who would take seriously for one second, let alone believe the dishonest, self-centered, unbalanced, transparent, ridiculous, paranoid and puerile drivel and spit parading as "scholarship" that emanates from the fecal matter even some Ph.D.s apparently use these days instead of their brains.

[The original article, an iconical testiment to the kind of foul air teenage boys think is funny to draw attention to with cigarette lighters (or psychological projection), below, was emailed around FR groups. Hard to believe Turkat actually posited Malicious Mother Syndrome as a serious theory, turning reality on its head. Even harder to believe are the numbers of ignorami who have swallowed this shit and regurgitate it back in the courtroom.]

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Jay Smooth on calling someone out as racist: I'm filing this one in the HELPFUL category!!

Introducing a video featuring Jay Smooth who offers us his excellent tips on calling people out as racist. Thanks, Jay!


Thursday, April 16, 2009

"No Ass At All" by Aisha Tyler



"No Homo" explained by a man who conveniently leaves out the connections to misogyny and white supremacy

Homophobic language is contained in this video. An even basic understanding of how homophobia is a manifestation of misogyny is not. For that analysis, check out this book, and this one.

Also, for a more astute analysis by a man about homophobia, sexism, and racism, than what I've heard from Jay Smooth, please see Byron Hurt's work, including his film, Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, where connections between an oppressed-while-oppressive cultural artform is discussed in context of the cultural offerings of white heterosexual male supremacist Amerikkka.

Phil Spector: Murderer of actress Lana Clarkson

[the above image of (on left) Phil Spector and (on right) Lana Clarkson, is from here]

You'll be hearing this again and again:
He was violent to a woman because of the drugs he was on or the alcohol he consumed. He was violent to a woman because he was crazy. He was violent to a woman because he was trying to be funny. He was violent to a woman because he was a depressive, or a misanthrope. What is left out of these "don't-blame-me(n)" analyses is that he was violent to a woman precisely because he was a man and she was a woman.

As has been once noted, men's violence against women becomes "a human being's violence against another human being" when it is committed by a man against a woman and the media wishes to de-politicise it by calling it something other than part of men's war against women, part of the on-going gynocide.

Jim Fusilli closes the article below, from the Wall Street Journal, with this:
"Phil Spector, producer, is now Phil Spector, murderer. It may take a good long while until we can listen to his work without remembering that."

And I suppose that's the point: we're supposed to not worry our little heads about the gynocide or any particular woman-killers for too, too long. Eventually, folks, it'll all fade away, and we can once again listen to music made by a gynocidalist, and think, "Wow, what an artist!" I hope that we remember one thing primarily about Phil Spector: he is a woman-killer.

To any Beatles fans:
I strongly recommend purchasing and listening to the 2003 release of Let It Be... Naked, by the Beatles, rather than the original (1970 vinyl/1990 CD) release of Let It Be, way over-produced by the gynocidalist Phil Spector.

The following article on Phil Spector is from here.

* APRIL 16, 2009

From a Wall of Sound to a Prison Cell
By Jim Fusilli

Los Angeles
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (Reproduced here for non-commercial purposes only.)

Phil Spector's contribution to rock is undeniable. His productions elevated the pop record to art through outsize arrangements and orchestrations that heightened the poignancy in songs of adolescent love. Now-classic early '60s "Wall of Sound" productions for the Crystals, the Ronettes, the Righteous Brothers -- "little symphonies for kids," he called them -- are among rock's greatest recordings, as is his later work first for the Beatles and then for John Lennon and George Harrison as solo artists. Had he only been a composer, co-writing such songs as "Chapel of Love," "Spanish Harlem" and "Baby, I Love You" with the likes of Jeff Barry, Ellie Greenwich, Jerry Leiber, Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil, his role would be memorable. He played the guitar solo on the Drifters'"On Broadway" and piano on Lennon's "Love," two pretty nice credits. You can run down the litany of popular music's great producers -- Berry Gordy, George Martin, Brian Wilson, Kenneth Gamble and Leon Huff, Daniel Lanois, Terry Lewis and Jimmy Jam, Rick Rubin, Dr. Dre and Timbaland, among them -- and not find someone who had his sense of scale and breadth of vision.

But that's just part of his legacy, which will soon include a sentence of at least 18 years in prison. On Monday, a jury here convicted Mr. Spector of the second-degree murder of actress Lana Clarkson, and the 69-year-old now awaits sentencing on May 29 for his crime.

People in the music business have long known that Mr. Spector could be a crude, desperate little man. In the studio, he demanded absolute control and demonstrated utter disdain for many of the singers and musicians he employed. He hadn't done any meaningful work in decades. Surrendering to the sway of alcohol and drugs, and taken to comparing himself to Shakespeare and Mozart, Mr. Spector ended up in a succession of Los Angeles-area mansions surrounded by go-fers, bodyguards and seemingly interchangeable girlfriends prior to his 2006 marriage to Rachelle Short. In his Spector biography "Tearing Down the Wall of Sound," writer Mick Brown reveals a troubled man who might have been dismissed as another delusional show-biz misanthrope -- if he hadn't had a propensity for violence through gunplay.

In some circles, Mr. Spector's disregard for gun safety was as legendary as his productions. He greeted guests at his home wearing a .38 in a shoulder holster. In 1972, he was arrested in Beverly Hills for pointing a gun at a woman; charged with carrying a concealed weapon and a loaded firearm in a public place, he paid a $200 fine and was placed on one year's probation. Three years later, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge after he aimed a gun in the face of a valet at the Beverly Hills Hotel. During his two trials for Ms. Clarkson's murder, the first of which ended in a deadlocked jury in 2007, five women testified that Mr. Spector threatened them at gunpoint.
[f] Associated Press

Phil Spector, center, stands with his attorney Doron Weinberg, left, as the verdict is read his trial in Los Angeles on Monday.

Celebrities were treated to similar shenanigans. According to Mr. Brown's biography, Mr. Spector, weapon in hand, locked the door to his Beverly Hills mansion behind Michelle Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas, refusing to let her leave. Mr. Brown also reports that Mr. Spector was wearing a handgun in 1973 when he attended the Ali-Norton fight at the L.A. Forum in a group that included Bob Dylan, Neil Diamond and James Taylor; later that night, when he was introduced to Frank Sinatra at Trader Vic's, he was still wearing the gun. Once he pulled a gun in a studio at the Record Plant and accidentally fired it; the bullet somehow missed Lennon. On another occasion, a drunken Mr. Spector pressed the muzzle of a gun against Leonard Cohen's neck. "Leonard, I love you," he said. Nudging the barrel aside, Mr. Cohen replied: "I hope you do, Phil."

On Feb. 3, 2003, after a night of drinking at four Hollywood-area nightspots, Mr. Spector brought Ms. Clarkson, 40, to his Alhambra mansion, arriving at about 3 a.m. Some two hours later, he emerged through a back entry, gun in his hand. "I think I killed somebody," he told his driver, who when he entered the house saw Ms. Clarkson's body. A single .38 caliber bullet had been discharged in her mouth. The driver called 911.

At the police station, Mr. Spector, who had tried to alter the crime scene prior to the arrival of the authorities, claimed the victim had killed herself while singing "Da Doo Run Run" and "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'," two of his best-known productions. The jury agreed with the prosecution, finding that Mr. Spector had killed her.

Phil Spector, producer, is now Phil Spector, murderer. It may take a good long while until we can listen to his work without remembering that.

Mr. Fusilli is the Journal's rock and pop music critic. Email him at or follow him on Twitter @wsjrock.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page D9