I’ve been quiet today because I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the great feminist DOS attacks of the moment and the long long long threads discussing them: who’s responsible, what they were reacting to, whether what they claim actually occurred, who’s right, who’s wrong etc etc etc. One of those threads is currently running at 1000+ comments.

Short summary:

• Womensspace, a website founded by radical feminist (and notorious successful ex-fundamentalist litigant) Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff aka Heart, has been shut down due to DOS attacks.
• Heart has discussed this on her blog, which is run on a separate site.
• At least one and maybe more script-kid “hacker” forums have bragged about the coordinated DOS attack on Heart’s website and the websites of several people associated with Heart, and some people with an axe to grind over this incident have also sent Heart and commentors on Heart’s blog hate-mail and comments threatening rape and murder.
• The “justification” for the attack on Heart’s websites is that a blogger named Biting Beaver (BB), who acts as moderator on one of the discussion boards on Womensspace, posted about her distress on finding her teenage son masturbating to porn. She was so upset at his disregard of her teachings about the way porn degrades women that she wrote something like this: that at the moment she found him she felt herself wishing that she had gone ahead with the abortion she considered when she first fell pregnant. She also expressed concern that he would be influenced by porn to become a sexual coercer and even perhaps a rapist. The DOSsers and their defenders are judging such statements as child abuse, and thus they defend their attacks: BB must be exposed. The attacks have also led to BB making her own blog private, open to being read by invitees only.
• Many of the people defending the attacks on Heart’s website seem to be confusing Heart with BB, as well as confusing comments made by other posters in response to BB’s remarks as if BB wrote them. This sloppy reading is demonstrated in various other confusions of fact.
• Many of the people defending the attacks on Heart and BB seem to also be outraged by BB’s notoriety from last year, when she became a feminist cause-celebre after an unplanned pregnancy following contraceptive failure, and subsequently being denied Emergency Birth Control by so-called pro-life doctors, mainly because she was cohabiting with her lover but not married to him. Fundraising was done so that she could afford an abortion, as she felt the children she had already were enough for her.
• These same people get all the facts of that (now terminated) pregnancy confused with BB’s posts about the marital rape that resulted in the birth of the son with the burgeoning porn habit, and act as if BB had been engaging in a casual one-night-stand and thus morally deserved the punishment of pregnancy and childbirth, and if you’re confused as well by now I’m not surprised.
• Because both Heart and BB are controversial, nay notorious, radical feminists, these attacks aren’t getting anything like the coverage that the threats against tech-blogger Kathy Sierra did earlier this year. She wasn’t asking for it, see? Both have also been involved in their fair share of interblog spats with other feminists, so that in some ways the pool of sympathy for either of them is limited within the femblog community.

For the record: what BB said about fleetingly wishing that she’d gone ahead with an abortion? Harsh. Hurtful. Nasty. If she’d actually said it to her son.

There’s no evidence that she did – she posted the sentiment on a forum where the other people there were people she trusted, and she had no reason to believe her son would ever see it. Other people on the forum said even harsher things about their occasional wishes that they’d chosen differently about becoming mothers. Thanks to the actions of the DOSsers, it’s now almost inevitable that he will find out that his mother said these words, and quite possibly that what he reads will attribute the harsher words of other forum contributors to his mother. That is going to hurt. I’m adding my bit to the pile-on because if he does read those words I hope he’ll also end up reading the next paragraphs.

Think about it: is what she said any worse than what many teenagers have said to their parents? “I wish I’d never been born! I wish you were dead!” Teenagers say that stuff to parents so often that it is a cliche – why is it apparently so unforgiveable that a parent, a mother, might sometimes feel exactly the same about their offspring in tense and emotional confrontations?

In moments of heightened emotion, people often say appalling things to each other, and those appalling things do not, despite some pop psychology myths, necessarily represent deep, hidden, “real” feelings. The loving companionship and nurturing between family members every single day is what’s real, not necessarily those dark, ugly, spiky words that boil up when people are angry and hurt.

The DOSsers and and/or their defenders are arguing that by raising her son to read Dworkin and regard porn as degrading instead of as a way to assuage “natural pubertal curiosity”, and that by teaching him that any coercion at all in the area of sexuality is the start of the slippery slope to rape, that BB is distorting his masculinity. I’ll certainly agree that what BB is doing in that regard is not the normal socialisation of male children in our society, which usually socialises male children to objectify women and disregard women’s autonomy. BB has a painful personal history, and like most parents is compensating for the life experiences that hurt her by attempting to raise her own children differently. But are her different beliefs on their own enough to constitute child abuse? On the sole evidence of some emotional venting on blogs and discussion forums?

There are many imperfect parents out there who nonetheless love their children and do the best they can for them. Some people, not just the DOSsers, are rushing to the conclusion that this emotional outburst and a few others that they’ve found from BB are signs of severe emotional instability that means she should have her kids taken away. I have to say: how many of you are experts in family psychology who have conducted a thorough clinical examination? I haven’t examined here either, but if venting pseudonymously on blogs about how parenting is not always a beautiful thing means that one is mentally ill and an abusive parent, there’s going to be an awful lot of kids taken into care.

If there was actually evidence of abusive parenting I’d be all for removing BB from her children’s lives, but there is no such evidence. Are we absolutely sure that pseudonymous rants on the internet are a well supported clinical sign of child abuse? How many conservative bloggers and MRA bloggers will fall into that net if you spread it that wide? Surely posting threats of rape and murder in comments and in email would be considered just as much a sign of an abusive personality? Have the DOSsers thought their principlies through here? Or is this just another case of grasping at anything to attack the radfems?

Our HAT Facebook group is now up and running, with 20 members so far!

So, I wish to have a Sydney Femmobolsho Gathering towards the end of this month, if we can get enough people willing to down margaritas somewhere with a sunny courtyard. The excuse is my birthday. Ooh, this means I can play with the Facebook Event thingy, doesn’t it?

Another image from the Wow! Flickr image pool: this is just a really appealing image

Image credit: originally uploaded by goshiva

For contrast, here’s two totally natural shots of a dune in Namibia at dawn and dunes in Libya at sunset.

Ross Gittins today in the SMH, regarding the bewilderment of the Howard government’s economic-rationalism ideologues as to why we sheeple aren’t more happy about the wonderful economy: It’s not only the economy, stupid

Gittins points out that growth in real incomes is not enough to satisfy when people no longer compare their circumstances only with themselves 10 years ago but also with the people around them, and all can see that the disparity in wealth between the social classes is growing. The evidence in the electoral polls shows that a growing proportion of voters prefer predictable job security to a booming share price, and are made more anxious that their children will be able to afford home-ownership than grateful over their own capital gains in the skyrocketing property market.

Economic-rationalism has never sufficiently factored in people’s attachment to intangible goods. Gittins’ final line nails it:

Another explanation for our base ingratitude, of course, could be our dawning realisation that there’s more to life than economics. No, that couldn’t possibly be right.

The great tradition of religious tolerance in Catholic parochial schools in New South Wales is under fire. Many thousands of children of all faiths have been educated in a system often chosen by parents due to a complex perception of superior education outcomes rather than as a response to the promulgation of faith within the schools, and many non-Catholics and non-Christians remember their time at a Catholic school very fondly. But from now on such experiences may be fewer and further between than in previous generations.

Cardinal George Pell and NSW Bishops have sent out a pastoral letter which bemoans the trend for more non-Catholics to attend Catholic schools and for more Catholics to send their children to public schools, and announces methods which the hierarchy wishes to implement to reverse these trends – a four way selection process giving preference first to children from the school’s local parish, then to Catholics from other parishes, then to other Christians and finally children from other religions. They also plan to move into preschool education in order to “foster the spiritual development” of younger children, which would at least be a welcome addition to the chronically short supply of pre-school places. The Cardinal and Bishops also want recruitment of staff to favour more practising Catholics and to actively encourage the school population to participate in Catholic events outside the school.

Here’s the doozy – acknowledgement that they actually considered barring non-Catholics altogether:

The Church will not ban non-Catholic students from enrolment – it says it considered, but rejected, plans for a formal “downsizing to accommodate only those who are committed to the faith”.

The SMH prefers to describe the decision against barring non-Catholics as “dismissed suggestions”.

Of course, the Catholic education system would be perfectly within its rights to limit their schools to Catholic students only: that’s certainly the line taken by the Daily Telegraph editorial – Protecting and raising a flock -

In short, what the Bishops are suggesting is a greater emphasis on the core tenet of Catholic education – which is that the teachings of the Catholic Church should be at the foundation of what is offered in Catholic schools.

Why should that come as a surprise to anyone?

This truculent editorial makes no mention that the Bishops considered closing Catholic schools to non-Catholics, and makes no mention either that most of the Catholic families choosing to send their children to non-Catholic schools are poorer families, despite longstanding efforts to attract them by discounting/waiving fees for poorer families etc. The Bishops’ preferred methods all advocate an increased emphasis on religious identity, but what if increasing religiosity is exactly what is driving the poor, long the mainstay of the Church, away? (teh wealthy are increasingly preferring elite independent schools, too.)

The current Catholic school student body composition, trending towards 20% non-Catholic students in NSW, enables better understanding of Catholic traditions and teachings outside the Catholic community, and fosters tolerance and ecumenical co-operation. That over 50% of Catholic children attend state and non-Catholic independent schools also leads to better understanding between Catholics and families of other religious beliefs. Closing the schools to non-Catholics, or even merely making non-Catholics feel less welcome there, will only lead back to the bad old days of suspicion and prejudice that once led my grandfather to forbid my mother from dating Catholic suitors.

I’ve posted before on my experience with invisible disability, and linked to amandaw on the “But you don’t look sick!” phenomenon. And for further background, everyone should read the “Open Letter to Those Without CFS/Fibro” at Not Done Living.

Now Annaham at Hamblog has come out with the Invisible Illness Bingo card, v. 1.0. “But you don’t look sick!” features, as does “Lucky! You get to stay in bed all day!” and “But I went through hard times too, and I managed just fine. Let’s talk about what a great person I am.”

Anyone who has experienced chronic illness is likely to recognise a few of these. (Perhaps you’d like to punch a wall or two.) If you haven’t had the pleasure of a debilitating but invisible illness, you might still recognise a few of these as having flitted through your head (or even emerged from your mouth) in the past when confronted with the frustrating reality of chronic illness in others. Perhaps when they’re all down on a card like this, we can all recognise these comments for what they are, and for what they do to people on the sharp end.

Images generated by The Simpsonizer.

I couldn’t get the software to play nice and generate a background picture that I could put the whole family into (unlike Lauredhel’s effort), but here we are as icons at least.

Y’know, it’s one thing to express doubts about how long the fairly bland Kevin Rudd can continue to successfully present himself to the electorate as an exciting breath of fresh air.

It’s another thing entirely to call the man “a load of crap”.

That will not play well Peter Dutton, it really won’t. Thanks for showing us all, yet again, that the Howard Cabinet could all do with some time in charm school.

crossposted

An attack has been made on the Australian media from the front page of Life Decisions International (LDI), whose domain name is the far more accurate fightpp.org (PP being the USA’s Planned Parenthood, the family planning organisation that offers comprehensive sex education and pregnancy services including abortion for those who choose it). The LDI are upset that somebody noticed an association between them and serial ministerial bungler Kevin Andrews.

Australian Media Shows No Regard For The Truth

It is not unusual for pro-abortion activists to use their allies in the media to attack pro-life leaders and lawmakers. But some in the Australian media are taking the practice to a whole new level. LDI has issued a response to an attack on an Australian lawmaker.

When we go to the response, the target of our media’s attack is made more explicit (the weird hyphenation of some words is in the original):

Australia Media Shows No Regard For Truth In Attack On Pro-Life Minister
8.6.2007

WASHINGTON, D.C.–It’s nothing new. Pro-abortion activ-ists work with their allies in the media to attack pro-life leaders and lawmakers. The most recent vociferous attack is against the Honorable Kevin Andrews, a Member of the Australian Parliament and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

“It is obvious that some pro-abortion zealot was in the United States or was searching the Internet in an effort to find something that could be used to attack Mr. Andrews,” said Douglas R. Scott, president of Life Decisions Interna-tional (LDI). “They eventually discovered that Mr. Andrews and his wife, Margaret, are members of our Board of Advi-sors. To pro-abortion activists, one may as well be a mem-ber of the Ku Klux Klan.”

In an article by pro-abortion apologists Kerry-Anne Walsh and Michelle Singer of Australia’s Sun-Herald titled, “Andrews in radical group that boycotts Disney,” Kevin Andrews is called an “adviser to a radical right-wing inter-national organisation that advocates economic boycotts to achieve social and political change.” In the very next sen-tence, Andrews is said to be “officially listed as a board member to Life Decisions International (LDI).”

“Talk about admitting a bias right off the bat,” Scott said. “LDI is called a ‘radical right-wing’ organization. We are later referred to as an ‘extremist body’.”

Right. A group of people that not only want to end all abortions but also target the practise of contraception in it’s entirety aren’t extremist at all! Note that whenever they are confronted they claim to be only against abortion, but a perusal of their press releases shows that they actually call any approach to sexuality other than chasitity part of an alleged “Culture of Death”. This includes instructions about Safe Sex procedures to help control STIs (they blame Planned Parenthood for changing the terminology from STDs to STIs as well, I’m not sure what nefarious goal that is meant to further).

LDI is part of the broader anti-contracepting movement which is allied to the anti-abortion movement. Because a majority of anti-abortion supporters see no moral problem with contraception per se, these anti-contracepting organisations tend to bury this agenda under layers of the usual emotive anti-abortion arguments. The opposition to all forms of contraception tends to be covert, because most people simply do not agree.

If the LDI are wanting to defend Andrews from the general impression of incompetence that flows from a perceived conflict of interest between his ministerial position and his position on the LDI board, implying that Andrews makes all his decisions without due consideration won’t be helping.

The writers suggested that Andrews should not serve in the Australian cabinet because he has a “conflict of inter-est.” After all, they suggest, he could have to “make deci-sions that affect companies boycotted by the extremist body he advises.”

“This is nonsense. We do not even send The Boycott List to Kevin and Margaret Andrews. And even if we did, the Minister would have to carry it around with him to know which corporations to target. Walsh and Singer cannot be serious!”

Yeah, whoever heard of a senior legislator and government executive office holder taking time out to for due diligence checks on matters of record before making a ministerial decision?

The response to the Australian media attention also asserts that Andrews and his wife have nothing to do with the policymaking of the organisation, because they are part of the Board of Advisors, not the Board of Directors:

“Kevin Andrews and his wife, Margaret, are members of LDI’s Board of Advisors,” Scott explained. “He has had ab-solutely no role in determining LDI policy or strategy. The listing of prominent lawmakers or business leaders on let-terhead in an advisory capacity is nothing new.” (emphasis added)

Here’s what the website says about the Board of Directors:

A respected Board of Directors establishes policy relating to life issues and fiduciary accountability. This talented group of volunteers actively oversees LDI activity in these areas. They ensure that LDI employs only the highest ethical standards. (emphasis added)

Interestingly, of the long list of names on the page detailing the members of the Board of Advisors/Board of Directors, the only two people identified as Hon. Advisors rather than Directors are Kevin and Margaret Andrews. This distinction may possibly be purely because they are the only non-North Americans on the Board, or it may be intended to provide a layer of plausible deniability as to their level of involvement in decision-making.

Like so many other recent matters, Kevin Andrews refuses to answer all the questions put to him. Way to continue to erode public confidence in the probity of the Howard Cabinet, Mr Andrews. Do keep up the good work.

Crossposted at LP

Here’s a Sunday Night Quiz for you!

What is it?

(yes, some of you may already know. Don’t give it away, eh?)