Subscribe: Comments on Daisy's Dead Air: Captain Howdy strikes again
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/feeds/3834026008194420574/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
bad  children  church  disowning sons  disowning  don  good  johnson  people  someone  sonia johnson  sonia  sons  thing  woman 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on Daisy's Dead Air: Captain Howdy strikes again

Comments on Daisy's Dead Air: Captain Howdy strikes again





Updated: 2017-11-23T10:05:15.947-05:00

 



It can't really work, I suppose like this.

2012-07-20T09:05:47.455-04:00

It can't really work, I suppose like this.



Yes, SJ was close to Phyllis Chesler at the time (...

2007-10-20T21:16:00.000-04:00

Yes, SJ was close to Phyllis Chesler at the time (maybe now, too?) and she is very tight with David Horowitz.

Remember, Horowitz was a leftist then, and they traveled in some overlapping circles.



really? it's not an uncommon name, you know...any ...

2007-10-20T20:37:00.000-04:00

really? it's not an uncommon name, you know...any other reason why you'd think that?



and besides the no sex or relationships thing...um...

2007-10-20T19:51:00.000-04:00

and besides the no sex or relationships thing...um, slave. ships? from a white woman who apparently had a bad experience with a black woman?...Wow! She turned into a nun? :P

That's unbelievable!

PS: I also recall she had a relationship with a woman surnamed Horowitz. (I mentally noted the name and wondered if any relation to David Horowitz...and I never DID find out!)



so, went to look up some more on SJ, since we've b...

2007-10-20T18:51:00.000-04:00

so, went to look up some more on SJ, since we've been on the subject, and this caught my eye:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Johnson

During this time Sonia also declared herself a lesbian and started a relationship with an African American woman. After ending that relationship, she wrote in The Ship that Sailed Into the Living Room that even relationships between female couples are a dangerous patriarchal trap, because "two is the ideal number for inequality, for sadism, for the reproduction of patriarchy", and that relationships are "slave Ships" (a concept from which she derived the title of the book).

"Nearly four years after I began my rebellion against relation/sex/slave Ships," she wrote, "experience and my Wise Old Woman are telling me that sex as we know it is a patriarchal construct and has no rightful, natural place in our lives, no authentic function or ways. Synonymous with hierarchy/control, sex is engineered as part of the siege against our wholeness and power."


...which, really? i mean...really?

and besides the no sex or relationships thing...um, slave. ships? from a white woman who apparently had a bad experience with a black woman?...

words fail.

i dunno, dude. there's a concept by, oh, one of the Freudians, I forget which (Karen Horney, is it?--no, Melanie Klein) but something about the "paranoid position" (as opposed to the "depressive" position--there aren't that many good choices here, but the latter is preferable, in that framework)

but, well, something like that, here.

...the "paranoid-schizoid position," that's it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid-schizoid_position

Paranoid refers to the central paranoid anxiety, the fear of invasive malevolence. This is experienced as coming from the outside, but ultimately derives from the projection out of the death instinct. Paranoid anxiety can be understood in terms of anxiety about imminent annihilation and derives from a sense of the destructive or death instinct of the child. In this position before the secure internalistion of a good object to protect the ego, the immature ego deals with its anxiety by splitting off bad feelings and projecting them out. However, this causes paranoia. Schizoid refers to the central defense mechanism: splitting, the vigilant separation of the good object from the bad object.

Klein posited that a healthy development implies that the infant has to split its external world, its objects and itself into two categories: good (i.e., gratifying, loved, loving) and bad (i.e. frustrating, hated, persecutory). This splitting makes it possible to introject and identify with the good. In other words: splitting in this stage is useful because it protects the good from being destroyed by the bad. Later, when the ego has developed sufficiently, the bad can be integrated, and ambivalence and conflict can be tolerated.


Without probing too far into Johnson herself, there is definitely something here as regards political positions, I'd say. "Splitting." Of course it's based on something in the "real world," what isn't? Of course there's a reason why some people and groups arrive at that position. But...it isn't healthy or evolved, relatively speaking. It's just not. I'm sorry.

"It's all bad and tainted and poisonous, it's not just me, this is REALITY! THEM! THEM!! THEM!!!!!" There are a million and one ways in which to fall into that position, and -anybody- can be and has been "them." Maybe some groups with more justification than others, but at the end of the day, so the fuck what, you know? How does this help anything?



What Octogalore said.

2007-10-20T16:55:00.000-04:00

What Octogalore said.



"I don't think that Sonia Johnson was blaming her ...

2007-10-20T16:36:00.000-04:00

"I don't think that Sonia Johnson was blaming her sons for the shit that got piled on her. She was, however, quite aware of the complicity of her husband in her own subjugation and those of other women based soley on his maleness and her/their femaleness. And I'm sure that she saw her own sons following, not in her footsteps, but in the deeply entrenched patriarchal footsteps of their father and the church of fathers structuring their lives."

Well, it was her responsibility to counter this, rather than running away from it. Someone who feels the environment into which she or he would bring children isn't healthy shouldn't have the children. Once he or she does, divorcing them in the absence of bizarre circumstances shouldn't be an option.

"Being excommunicated from the Morman Church for being a woman -- IOW, being your own woman -- is indeed harsher than a mother disowning her adult sons. Many woman lose their entire social and financial structures, in a way most unlike a separatist mother leaving her adult sons to live on her own."

Divorcing your kids is NOT living separately from them. It's ceasing to be their parent. And believing that's better than being thrown out of a religion you've abandoned anyway is delusional. For a grown woman, accepting some financial and social tumult for which she's at least partially responsible is tough. But being abandoned by a parent even in ones twenties, let alone 18, is traumatic and is sure to create lasting scars. Any parent willing to inflict these scars isn't, to me, some brave independent creature, but a monster. Pure and simple.



oh yeah, i "scare" Heart, too. boogedy boogedy. ...

2007-10-19T18:41:00.000-04:00

oh yeah, i "scare" Heart, too. boogedy boogedy.

i guess it really must suck to be her--she still doesn't seem really good at the whole discernment thing.

something else about that SJ thing was nagging at me, and it just clicked: the parallel between what the Mormon Church did to her--excommunicate her, basically--and what she did to the sons is creepy. I'm not talking about materially at this point; i'm talking about the way cultlike organizations (and it sounds like the LDS was that for her at least) excommunicate and do the whole, "us sheep, them goats--you displease me, you are now among the goats, begone, get behind me."

not even the "it's her kids" thing now--abuse begets abuse, and cultlike behavior begets cultlike behavior.

and the "do unto others as was done unto me" as a basic psychological mechanism, politics be damned, is -so- common that i don't understand why that wouldn't cause one to at least -consider- looking at Johnson's actions with a slightly skeptical eye.

damn that was some tortuous writing, o well.



And I'm sure that she saw her own sons following, ...

2007-10-19T17:51:00.000-04:00

And I'm sure that she saw her own sons following, not in her footsteps, but in the deeply entrenched patriarchal footsteps of their father and the church of fathers structuring their lives.

And as I see it, she insured that, by removing herself from their lives. Will they meet another feminist as strong as their mother? Unlikely.

She has therefore INSURED they make the connection: radical feminism = absence of love. I am about the opposite, making sure it is all about love. I am feminist out of love for humanity, not the absence of it.

I think putting that much emphasis on the penis automatically accords it power in one's own mind at least, even if you think you're (re)defining it negatively.

I absolutely agree.

BTW, Belle, loved the Exorcist clip!: "Well, I don't think it's cystitis!" :D

Bint, that thread was incredible! If it makes you feel any better, Heart basically accused me of being Rainsong too! (I think RS has become the Emmanuel Goldstein of the radfems: Two minute hate!)



She = Sonia JohnsonHeart = political lesbian, curr...

2007-10-19T16:42:00.000-04:00

She = Sonia Johnson

Heart = political lesbian, currently separated from her husband.

Q Grrl = dyke who doesn't believe in political lesbians.

Q



btw Daisy, speaking of Captain Howdy, thought you ...

2007-10-19T15:51:00.000-04:00

btw Daisy, speaking of Captain Howdy, thought you might enjoy this if you haven't seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sndmiSctw8Y



I think putting that much emphasis on the penis au...

2007-10-19T15:49:00.000-04:00

I think putting that much emphasis on the penis automatically accords it power in one's own mind at least, even if you think you're (re)defining it negatively.

"you can't pray a negative."

and you know, if someone wants to be a separatist, knock yourself out. it certainly isn't for me though.

i presume "she" refers to Johnson and not Heart, who never really did answer that question about if/when she divorced the last husband. it certainly is good of her to act as various sorts of gatekeeper notwithstanding i feel.



She became a separatist. After she was divorced f...

2007-10-19T13:42:00.000-04:00

She became a separatist. After she was divorced from her husband and all ready physically separated from her grown children.

When does a woman become her own agent?

Being excommunicated from the Morman Church for being a woman -- IOW, being your own woman -- is indeed harsher than a mother disowning her adult sons. Many woman lose their entire social and financial structures, in a way most unlike a separatist mother leaving her adult sons to live on her own.

I don't think that Sonia Johnson was blaming her sons for the shit that got piled on her. She was, however, quite aware of the complicity of her husband in her own subjugation and those of other women based soley on his maleness and her/their femaleness. And I'm sure that she saw her own sons following, not in her footsteps, but in the deeply entrenched patriarchal footsteps of their father and the church of fathers structuring their lives.

My personal belief is that women can and should hold all men accountable for the misogynistic society we live in. All men are complicit; all men benefit.

Daisy, you said that I'm saying Penis = BAD, but I'm not. I'm saying that everyone else is saying Penis = appropriate power/dominance and Sonia Johnson wanted to say Penis = completely irrelevant to my life. I don't think that's such a bad thing, really. Wanting to not have something in your life is not about defining the merit of that thing (i.e, males or penii), but about defining your life on your terms, to your own benefit.

Q Grrl



Here ya' go Daisy,Heart the pseudo-dyke

2007-10-19T01:24:00.000-04:00

Here ya' go Daisy,

Heart the pseudo-dyke



I checked -- looks like they were 18. I didn't ge...

2007-10-18T21:14:00.000-04:00

I checked -- looks like they were 18. I didn't get the sense from Q Grrl's comment above that this was part of the rationale -- correct me if I'm mistaken.

I don't, however, consider someone being "of age" a justification for disowning them, without unusual rationale for doing so. While of course the most serious harm parents can do to kids is earlier on, rejection of kids when they are older teens (with probably harbingers thereof earlier) is also shabby and selfish.



and no, the only reason i didn't mention the daugh...

2007-10-18T20:04:00.000-04:00

and no, the only reason i didn't mention the daughter is that i hadn't heard that, but of course it's just as fucking bad. penii don't make one deserving of special consideration. but. i don't think "basic parenting and love" is exactly a -special- right, you know? The fact that a lot of us don't get it regardless sucks, but it doesn't make it okay to turn around and do it to someone else. that's how the world gets fucked in the first place.



and if a woman's excuse for abusing her sons (and ...

2007-10-18T20:00:00.000-04:00

and if a woman's excuse for abusing her sons (and abandonment of minors does count, yep, IF that's what happened) is simply that "masculinity and men" harmed her, you know what, one hasn't got an ethical leg to stand on when an abusive male fuckhead blames his abusive Mom and the women in his murky past what done him wrong for the innocent women/girls he abuses. Because guess what? some of 'em WERE abused by Mom and/or women, and it -still- isn't a fucking excuse. it's the same here.



and yeah, for damn sure, unless the Mormon Church ...

2007-10-18T19:55:00.000-04:00

and yeah, for damn sure, unless the Mormon Church acts as your actual parents it's worse to disown your actual flesh and blood. and since when is "hey, I was victimized first" an excuse for perpetuating it anyway?



wait, were they still children? i thought they we...

2007-10-18T19:54:00.000-04:00

wait, were they still children? i thought they were fully grown. if not, then yeah, that's pretty fucked.

generally speaking my gut instinct is to be more sympathetic to someone disowning a parent or even a sibling, since family values notwithstanding parents and siblings can be incredibly abusive, and it's true that a lot of people who haven't been through that don't get that. sometimes people do have to make that break for survival and sanity.

i suppose it's not that the (grown) children you raised couldn't turn out to be sociopathic or whatnot despite your best efforts but still, my kneejerk thought is that dammit, you bear -some- responsibility for how they turned out. and yep that includes sonny boy being a patriarchal fuckhead. sorry. p.s. being abusive is just as likely to result in that as being overly indulgent. i don't care what the St. Loony Up The Cream Bun With Jam Brigade says.

this is all of course separate from the question of, did she disown them because of anything in particular they -did- or simply because her new dogma declared that it must be so. if it's the latter then yeah, i really do think that's completely fucked. That's a cult, is what that is.

of course even if that were the case i doubt most people would just say "no, they didn't do anything, i just don't wanna be with 'em anymore," because who would say that, really.

shrug.



“Is her disowning her sons worse than the Morman c...

2007-10-18T19:28:00.000-04:00

“Is her disowning her sons worse than the Morman church disowning her?”

If she did that when they were children and solely because of gender, then yes. Parents have a responsibility for people they bring into this world, of either gender. Just as it’s heartbreaking to see Chinese girls cast off, it’s also an atrocity for this to happen to male children. As Daisy points out, these children aren’t the Mormon church or the other males or male groups who’ve treated Sonia badly. “Innocent until proven guilty” isn’t just for people with vaginas, or people who aren’t your kids.

“How many times does a woman need to be burned by men/masculinity before she's allowed to take action for herself?”

First, nobody’s burned by “masculinity” itself. One is burnt by individual men and groups of individual men. Second, the answer is once. But only before she can take action for herself vis a vis those PARTICULAR men. Do you want to be held accountable for things other women do?

People who disown their children of any gender, when they’re still children, are disgusting. Period, end of story.



I don't get how someone can be "down with" disowni...

2007-10-18T18:01:00.000-04:00

I don't get how someone can be "down with" disowning her sons simply for being sons. That's really creepy.



I don't get it at all. Disowning someone for bein...

2007-10-18T17:13:00.000-04:00

I don't get it at all. Disowning someone for being a violent criminal, or a constant physical, emotional, and finanical drain (such as drug addicted adult child might be), things like that, i can understand...however, rejecting them for solely being male or female? I don't get it at all. I don't care how feminist someone is, you bring a kid into the world, suddenly, it's not all about you anymore, and theres some obligation there...even if those children have penises.



I'm down with Sonia disowning her sons. Her family...

2007-10-18T17:00:00.000-04:00

I'm down with Sonia disowning her sons. Her family, her call.

well, sure. no one but her really knows the situation, and it's pointless to speculate.

that said, it does not seem fair to disown children based solely upon genitalia. though I suppose the sons of Sonia Johnson are more fortunate than many daughters born in developing nations that don't survive to see daylight. at least Sonia Johnson's sons are not dead.

but there seems to be not much difference to me between rejecting sons because they're sons and rejecting daughters because they're daughters.

if rejecting one is bad, then rejecting the other is also as bad, to my mind.

(yeah, I get the difference between killing and disowning - but the emotions that drive both of those acts seem similar enough to me.)



Is her disowning her sons worse than the Morman ch...

2007-10-18T14:39:00.000-04:00

Is her disowning her sons worse than the Morman church disowning her?

Do YOU believe it is? If so, that is interesting, because I was under the impression most agnostics and atheists consider people *better off* when they are disowned or excommunicated by churches. I seem to recall you are agnostic? (If not, disregard question.)

If so, is it because they are her flesh and blood, or is it because we're somewhat horrified to think a woman could completely reject her offspring based on genitalia?

Yes, I do find it horrifying. I find rejecting ANYONE horrifying, if based on one characteristic they have no control over, or even if they do (i.e. tattoos)...

If it is the latter, why should the genitalia of some humans have such sway over what an individual chooses in her life?

Excuse me? Hey, you and Sonia are the ones rejecting people according to their genitalia, not me. You are saying PENIS = BAD, and judging someone summarily on that point alone, not what they have actually done.

Why do her sons' penii (?) overshadow *all* the feminist works she's done?

Who said that?

I think I made it clear that I admired the work she did. If I didn't, let me make it clear now, that I certainly did have admiration for her and wanted to interview her because I admired her. I volunteered to do that. I think her sudden lurch to the separatist fringe is what brought about the son-disowning, and I see it all as part of a piece.

[and if I recall correctly, she was somewhat separated from her daughter too, no?]

I don't know any specifics about that, but she did speak of ALL of her children fondly during the interview.

Why do you think I was so shocked that suddenly, her boys are persona non grata?

How many times does a woman need to be burned by men/masculinity before she's allowed to take action for herself?

Okay, are you saying that these sons "burned" her? Do you have a reference? Because it is my understanding that the only reason is that they were male, not that they burned her.

Are you saying her sons did something worthy of being disowned? That makes sense, then, and I certainly don't begrudge that. However, simply disowning them for having penises(as I understand it?) is acting just like the oppressor who wantonly judges people by physical attributes alone, and I won't be party to that. I judge people by the content of their character, as a famous person with a penis once said.

In hunting monsters, we must be careful not to become monsters ourselves (quoting another penised person there, admittedly)...

I'm pretty cold-hearted, and I say: once. But then, I've disowned both my father and my brother, so I might be biased.

Hey, we have something in common. I have done exactly the same. I haven't spoken to my father since informing him that he was a grandfather, almost 24 years ago. He didn't seem too interested. Maybe if I'd had a boy? ;)

Rest assured, I am not sentimental about men in any way. However, I think it's important to blame the ones actually at fault, not ALL of them. That seems to be where we differ.



I'm down with Sonia disowning her sons. Her famil...

2007-10-18T14:11:00.000-04:00

I'm down with Sonia disowning her sons. Her family, her call.

She went through the ringer so many times, in so many forms, all because she was a woman who wanted to see all women treated humanely. I cannot begrudge her separatist needs.

Is her disowning her sons worse than the Morman church disowning her? If so, is it because they are her flesh and blood, or is it because we're somewhat horrified to think a woman could completely reject her offspring based on genitalia? If it is the latter, why should the genitalia of some humans have such sway over what an individual chooses in her life? Why do her sons' penii (?) overshadow *all* the feminist works she's done?

[and if I recall correctly, she was somewhat separated from her daughter too, no?]

How many times does a woman need to be burned by men/masculinity before she's allowed to take action for herself?

I'm pretty cold-hearted, and I say: once. But then, I've disowned both my father and my brother, so I might be biased.

Q Grrl