Saturday, June 18, 2011

Trying To Understand What Happened (part 1)

Preface: This is the first of three posts I've written about the very bad reaction to the two posts I wrote in regard to Sugar Ray Leonard's accusations of sexual abuse against an unnamed Olympic boxing coach, which resulted in my separation from the blog I have been writing for since 2006. I have agreed to not mention that blog or its owner, for whom I have the greatest respect and who is in no way responsible for what I wrote or the reaction to it. I have also not linked to the posts there in order to avoid her blog becoming the target of further attacks.

I will not be writing for that blog in the future, I wish it and its owner the best of fortune.

The furor at my former blog and in other places around my post about Sugar Ray Leonard's sexual assault accusation against an unnamed boxing coach was based in an essential difference between discrimination against women and discrimination against gay men. And, as in all things, that difference hinges on society and the law giving the benefit of the doubt to men who identify as straight. The difference in experience at the hands of the law and society is an important and inescapable difference between the struggle for women and gay men for our rights. It is something that will have to be addressed because it will both be the occasion of other misunderstandings and it will continue to feature in our treatment by the law and by society.

Mostly leaving aside my first, and what I considered the most important problem with Leonard's accusation, I will concentrate in this first post in three about it on the parts which most people objected to.

Women have the collective experience of having accusations of rape and assault summarily dismissed in ways that favor their attackers. That is known and documented past the possibility of rational denial.

Gay men, on the other hand, have the experience of knowing that any defense they make against an accusation of sexual predation is up against one of the predominant features of anti-gay invective and stereo-typing, the gay man as predator and recruiter. That stereotype is never far from the mouths of the opponents of gay men, it has been a feature of anti-gay culture for centuries, from before the modern period in which even the word “homosexual” first identified gay men as a distinct category. That is also documented, though, as I found to my surprise, it is either little known or is not considered important to most people who aren't gay men.

Gay men also have the experience of not being believed when they accuse their attackers. Gay men have often been assaulted and not infrequently killed due for nothing more than that they are believed to be gay. On rare occasions straight men have been the victims of anti-gay violence due to perception or rumor. As I will point out, again, for gay men that takes its most extreme form in the legally-claimed gay panic defense, where presumption of gay predation intersects the presumption of straight male justification and, so innocence.

This key cultural difference was, I am certain, the reason that my pointing out problems of plausibility in Leonard's accusation led to the odd situation in which closely examining an accusation of a sudden, unexpected and uninvited gay assault, made by a man in his late forties on a young boxing champion, in the context of a conversation in which the gay man was telling Leonard why it was so important that he knock out or damage another world champion boxer, was seen as an anti-feminist act.

So strong is the assumption of gay predation that even citing its most extreme and undeniable expression in murder cases, little to nothing I actually said was heard.

It is understandable that many of the assumptions that come from the experience of women might be mistakenly inserted into what I said. But I didn't foresee that. Those assumptions, though, don't transfer from the experience of women to what is being described as happening between two men in this accusation of a gay assault, not without clarification. In the wider culture that assumption is mixed in with the revulsion against even gay touching, which accounts for the widespread acceptance of what would be considered far differently if the identity of the accused was different.

The, almost uniform, denial of the possibility of a young boxer of Leonard's ability using his skill to more than fend off an attack by a man more than twice his age seemed to me to be a willful act of irrational stereotyping of gay men as preying on weaker men by straight liberals and I still do. I think any gay man of even somewhat less than average intelligence, at that time and today, who would make a sudden, unannounced, very likely unwelcome sexual assault on a boxer well, well on his way to amassing an amateur record of 145-5 75 KO, would have to be almost uniquely reckless. For a coach who had seen what he could do in the ring to do it would seem to be even more reckless.

If that isn't a scenario that requires more explanation, it is hard to imagine one that would. If it was accurate, it would tell a lot more about the boxing world than it would about any gay men I've ever known. I have never known a gay man so stupid or insane as to risk that.

Even demonstrating the fact that as the law stands today, it is possible for a judge to legally instruct a jury in a murder case that an alleged gay pass is sufficient mitigation to find lesser charges or even innocence didn't impress a usually reasonable audience that gay men, as a group, are not given the benefit of the doubt by society or even the law. Most outrageously absurd in all of the river of slogans that my post brought out were those asserting it was an expression of male privilege and that any defense against its distortion was "mansplaining". Which, in this context is a new and higher hurdle for gay men to have to jump in order to be heard.

Consider that. In a murder trial a judge can tell the jury that they can consider a pass made by a gay man is enough to hold the murdered man responsible, in part or in total, for his own murder. How is that any different from blaming women for attacks made on them? That is, except that there are not law articles written that judges should be allowed to instruct juries that they should consider negative stereotypes of women in their deliberations.

And that doesn't even consider the chances of an assault charge being brought if the victim is known to be gay, if his attacker can get the police to believe the victim made a pass at the straight man who was manfully defending his honor. That is the crux of the problem, the difference between the accuser having to defend their accusation and the accuser becoming the accused and the combination of the two which gay men can face.

How did it reach this point among people on comment threads, who would have known me, as a gay man, through years of reading my writing about sexism and whose entire, expressed point of view is that nothing is acceptable but complete legal and social equality, bodily autonomy and ownership? That women as all people must insist on being considered as more than objects, as the possessor of full, inherent rights in every context. How the people who have heard me say that over and over again and had heard me say nothing else could turn on me over this issue is something I will be considering.

Given that the accusation was of a gay assault, the only woman mentioned in my post was Leonard's first wife and the only thing I said about her was that the widespread exculpation of Leonard's behavior, including hitting her, was inexcusable even if every word of his accusation was true. That exculpation of his bad behavior as being in some way explained by his being gay-groped, once, was even contained in the long quote I provided from the New York Times, I said that it was something that was frequently said all over the internet. The charge of anti-feminism attributed to what I wrote has been the major shock I've received in putting my ideas in writing. I can't believe that it is unrelated to the gay issues in the subject and that I am a gay man. Apparently the penumbras of some interpretations of feminism extend to include Leonard, a straight man, but exclude me even as I refuse to accept this excuse, widely made in the wake of his accusation, for his wife beating.

That Leonard's accusation is deemed to be above question is due entirely to the identification of his alleged attacker as a gay man. If a male boxer was writing his memoir in his advancing middle age and he said he'd suffered a lifetime of torment, resulting in decades of bad behavior, because one of the women teaching in his high school did what this boxing coach is said to have done, nothing I have said would be seen as terrible. Every point I made about the necessity of his identifying the woman he was accusing so the half-dozen or more of other women teaching at his school would not be suspected would not only be allowed but would be demanded. The questions I raised testing the scenario in terms of age and presumable ability would be considered to be valid ones. All points in favor of exculpation of the accused woman would be acceptably raised. I am pretty confident in saying that every aspect of the story would be within acceptable limits of skeptical* consideration. The claims that one unwelcome heterosexual assault of this kind made on a young man explained decades of bad behavior would be considered absurd and ridiculous.

If it was a woman claiming the same thing about a woman teaching or coaching at her school, most if not all of the same questions would be allowable, perhaps, given that the charge would be of a rarely heard of lesbian attack, that fact would be given as why it was even more urgent to question the account. I am still confident that asking many of the questions I have would be quite acceptable, if not demanded by many of those who condemned me asking them in the accusations against a gay man.

As I have said, a straight man being accused by a woman would traditionally be given every possible benefit of the doubt. It is certain that his identity would also be demanded so other men would escape suspicion, their families not subjected to wondering if their husbands, fathers or grandfathers were sex criminals.

The view that gay men are presumed sexual predators is apparently so ingrained that in the several arguments I've gotten into at even very liberal blogs nothing I said about the problems with the scenario was even heard by the audience, including at least one defense lawyer who, variably, either denied that “gay panic defense” is currently allowed or that it was never used successfully. Even as he gave me one of the key citations proving that not only is it sometimes used successfully, but arguing that since lawyers will find some way to appeal to juries anti-gay prejudice that it should be allowable for a judge to tell those same juries it is a legal mitigation if not exculpation for the brutal murder of a gay man. When I asked him if he was the defending lawyer defending the coach against this charge, wouldn't he have brought up many of the points I raised about plausibility, he deflected the question instead of answering it.

I will admit that I wrote my post in shock that this was the state of the liberal blogosphere in 2011, that one of the major planks of anti-gay oppression is far from gone from the culture of liberals. Given the scenario that Leonard has given, it is clearly possible that a gay man can imagine the coach risking, at the least, a brutal and violent refusal whereas straight people see a young, adult, world class boxer in peak condition as “powerless” in the face of a pass made by a man in his late forties. I expect this is an issue that will increasingly become important for gay men to address, especially in light of the increasing announcements by male celebrities that they were sexually abused by gay men**.

Just as women have to always insist that their attackers not be allowed to escape punishment for their crimes based in the common practices of their subjugation and oppression, gay men will not be able to ignore the distinct mechanisms of our oppression. That the two different methods that straight men have used to oppress us inescapably bring addressing those into conflict won't do anything to lessen the facts of our oppression. Either will always be just under the surface in the thinking of many people, even those who believe themselves to be past it. Of those who might constitute a jury.

This is an accusation of a gay assault, the common practices and attitudes creating the scenario, the actions and reactions of two men involved in an alleged gay assault and the treatment of such a scenario by society are not those operating in the quite different experience of women in what would superficially appear to be a similar situation. The inequities and injustices society imposes on women are not the same as those it imposes on gay men, those differences result in the need to not apply the conclusions that are relevant in one kind of case, to the other kind.

That this issue involves legal conflicts over the presumption of innocence of the accused is an extremely important problem that will have to be dealt with because it's not going to go away. The right to the presumption of innocence is as important as that for equality and the right to vote. In this crime show and "24" addled society, it is under active attack. That society and the legal system have used the essential right of the presumption of innocence to benefit straight men can't be used as an attack on that essential right. Women and children as well as gay men are accused of crimes. We need that right as much as anyone else accused of a crime, no matter what their identity is, no matter how society has abused it to favor straight men. As seen in the cases where straight men are accused of assaulting or even murdering gay men, they are given more than their fair share of it.

Note: Mixed up in this is also the extremely complex recent history of the sexual abuse of young children and the mania of false accusations mixed in among the legitimate prosecutions. I have been struck at how much of the reaction to this has been conflated with that phenomenon. I won't go into that today.

Sugar Ray Leonard's assault accusation, though is an assault by one man on another man, it was not an allegation of child abuse. I don't know what the refusal by those who read my post to realize that fact could mean, though it is also something that will have to be addressed in the future.

* I will deal with issues of skepticism in the third part of this series. What that word has come to mean might be quite relevant to understanding what happened.

** Given that much if not most of the casual discussion has identified, not only this coach but most of the males who are accused of assaulting men or boys as being gay, the convenient distinction of denying what is assumed needs serious review. The distinction between pedophiles and gay men is one which seems to not have caught up with the majority of those I've read commenting on those. Leonard was an adult when he says he was assaulted, there is no reason to quibble over whether or not the man he is accusing is gay except to dishonestly deny how this issue is seen by most people.

That, after years of hearing that distinction between gay men and pedophiles made in the media, it has not gained that much traction in the culture highlights that the would-be liberal discussion of these matters isn't how it's usually talked about. And, quite often, I've found, the would-be liberal slips into the more typical language, exposing how it is really seen.

Note: This post is my analysis of why people had a hard time dealing with what I said, it isn't a full account of what I said. I will be dealing with Leonard's refusal to name the man he is accusing, which is the part of my post which was ignored by just about everyone who commented on it in my third post. I considered that point to be the most important thing I said.

As the subject of these posts is the very negative reaction to my blog posts dealing with Sugar Ray Leonard's accusation, I can hardly avoid talking about how this involves me. I anticipate being criticized for that. I don't apologize for defending myself, I don't know of anyone who is held to a rule that says they can't defend themselves or anyone who would agree to that rule being applied to them. I certainly don't.

Nor will I apologize for writing about this topic. An accusation like this, placed in front of the public is widely commented on, the way it is commented on is frequently in terms that impinge on the condition and position of gay men in society. If Leonard was making an accusation against a woman that was being commented on this way, there would be no one holding that it was off limits.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Sugar Ray Leonard's Claim of Sexual Assault And Why I Have A Hard Time Believing It

The Olympic gold medal winner and professional boxer, Sugar Ray Leonard has written a memoir in which he says he was the victim of a gay sexual assault when he was 20. Here is how the New York Times reported it:

Two pages later, Leonard delivers the book's bombshell while indirectly addressing a growing concern in the sports industry at large. He reveals publicly for the first time that he was sexually abused as a young fighter by an unnamed “prominent Olympic boxing coach.”

Leonard writes that when the coach accompanied him as a 15-year-old and another young fighter to a boxing event in Utica, N.Y., in 1971, he had the teenagers take a bath in a tub of hot water and Epsom salts while he sat on the other side of the bathroom. They suspected “something a bit inappropriate” was occurring but did not want to question a strong male authority figure.

Several years later, Leonard describes sitting in a car in a deserted parking lot across from a recreation center, listening intently as the same coach, said to be in his late 40s, explained how much a gold medal at the 1976 Olympics would mean to his future.

Leonard was flattered, filled with hope, as any young athlete would be. But he writes: “Before I knew it, he had unzipped my pants and put his hand, then mouth, on an area that has haunted me for life. I didn’t scream. I didn’t look at him. I just opened the door and ran.”

He adds that when he first decided to discuss the incident in the book, which is written with Michael Arkush, he offered a version in which the abuser stopped before there was actual contact.

“That was painful enough,” Leonard writes. “But last year, after watching the actor Todd Bridges bare his soul on Oprah’s show about how he was sexually abused as a kid, I realized I would never be free unless I revealed the whole truth, no matter how much it hurt.”

Later in the Times piece, after citing the numerous incidences of his violence - especially against his first wife - , adultery, drug and alcohol abuse this is said:

Greenburg speculated that it was counseling that helped him finally come to grips with the sexual-abuse episode of his youth.

“Having to hide a situation like that made it worse, I would think,” he said. “You have these dirty little secrets, and you feel as a man, and one in a tough-guy world like boxing, that you can’t share it with anyone. I would think that would probably affect every aspect of his life.”

I've had several discussions about this in the past couple of days with straight men and women who uniformly take what Leonard says at his word. One, a lawyer, said that it had a ring of truth to it. I'm afraid that as a gay man who is intimately familiar with what it's like to have been gay during the time in question and who remembers 1976 very well, I am having a very hard time believing it as reported.

My first problem with what he's said is that Leonard has refused to name the man he is accusing, even though he says that the man is dead. Not naming the man carries a number of problems.

This casts suspicion on any boxing coach in his late forties who might have been in contact with Leonard during the Olympics and who might have had some connection with him five years earlier. I have no idea how many of those there are but I do know that raising suspicions of this kind should be avoided when possible. Leonard could clear up that much by naming the man he's accusing and ending the possibility of innocent people being hurt*. Furthermore it reinforces the picture of all gay men as sexual predators. "A gay man" doesn't assault someone a specific man does. If that man can be named, he should be and he should face the consequences of his actions, those shouldn't be left hanging as a finger pointed at all gay men.

Leonard could possibly dispel any likely doubt by naming the man and seeing what other people could say of him. It's possible that there were other, credible, incidents. Or it could risk none of those coming forth and casting doubt on what he said happened.

But, unlike many, many of other stories of sexual abuse by older men on younger men and boys, Leonard's doesn't seem probable to me because of the facts he alleges.

First, as things stand, he claims that the assault took place shortly before his all important match at the Montreal Olympics, in the context of a conversation in which the coach was telling him of the importance of winning gold. He says that he had suspected the coach had sexual interest in him since he was fifteen, so for about five years.

I have a hard time imagining that a very middle aged gay man would have chosen Sugar Ray Leonard to make a sudden, un-negotiated, physical sexual assault against just as he was about to win a gold medal in BOXING. Boxing, repeatedly and skillfully and forcefully hitting an evenly matched opponent in the face and head in order to inflict damage up to and including knocking him unconscious. Boxing is not track and field, it's not gymnastics, it's the training and practice of how to do physical damage to someone. No matter how physically attractive Leonard was, the possibility that he might beat you to a bloody pulp if he didn't welcome your entirely unannounced, unapproved physical advance would have made him an unlikely man to choose to make one on.

His identification of a boxing coach who had been associated with him for at least five years also gives me problems. For someone who had been cultivating an athlete for five years, watching them climb up the extremely steep hill to even get to the Olympics, knowing that any upset could quash their hopes of even getting a bronze, I can't imagine them taking the chance of coming on to their athlete during the very weeks in which they could ruin years of investment of their work and hopes, ruining any benefits that could be gotten from having coached an Olympic champion. Especially if he had the chance to make that advance for the five preceding years. I can't imagine an Olympic coach making their first and only actual sexual advance on an athlete in that context. I can't imagine him risking his professional standing. In 1976 any credible rumor of an Olympic boxing coach coming on to his unwilling athletes half his age would have been the end of any career in sports. In the media atmosphere of the mid-70s, especially the sports media, risking an athlete pressing charges would have be enormous.

Several of those who objected to my doubts pointed out that the alleged attacker was a boxing coach. But he was a boxing coach in advancing middle age, hardly a match for a young man about to win Olympic gold, someone who had systematically fought and won against increasingly able and skilled opponents in peak condition to reach the stage when he was about to fight against another, super elite boxer. I'd guess that an experienced boxing coach who had seen what Leonard had done to other boxers might have had more reason than most to not want to risk provoking an attack by him in the summer of 1976. There were far less dangerous men to come on to in Montreal that week.

The wider context of my having problems with the idea of a gay man doing that in 1976 is directly due to the fact that it was and remains possible for someone to beat or murder a gay man and to either get off without charges or to have a murder charge reduced to manslaughter by claiming a sexual assault. In many cases the mere allegation of an unwanted, gay sexual advance could get a man out of a charge of assault before it went to court. It was common knowledge that many gay bashers got away with it by telling that kind of story to the police and prosecutors.

If you doubt that is the case, there are law review articles debating whether or not the use of the "Gay Panic Defense" should be allowed to be raised by the defense in murder cases** or if that practice should be abolished.

Let me stop right here and repeat that. Today it is being debated whether or not to allow defendants in a MURDER CASE to claim they, usually brutally, killed a gay man because he made a pass at them. Today. Never mind in the mid-1970s.

In the mean time, right now, it is quite possible to use a claim of gay assault to get off on a very brutal killing, in which the physical evidence doesn't support the defendant's story that a sexual assault took place. Not in the deep South, in Illinois. the first state to decriminalize gay sex.

I will be writing about this apparently little known part of the law. Little known by straight folks, apparently, but very well known to gay men. Just as women can become the accused in a rape case, gay men murdered by straight men can be blamed for their own murders, qualified for unofficial capital punishment for doing something straight men do to women every day. I will be writing about that more, soon. It seems to be unknown to a considerable part of the straight, liberal, self defined non-homophobic, blogosphere.

* When Scott Brown said that he had been abused at a much younger age I said, a number of times, that he should have named the man, who, as far as I know, he hasn't yet. I don't remember anyone who was critical of me making the same point at the time.

** As the law now stands, a nonviolent homosexual advance may constitute sufficient provocation to incite that legal fiction, the reasonable man, to lose his self-control and kill in the heat of passion, thus mitigating murder to manslaughter. The author argues that this homosexual-advance defense is a misguided application of provocation theory and a judicial institutionalization of homophobia. Provocation defenses have their origin and rationale in tangled theories of justification and excuse, both of which divert attention away from the killer and onto the behavior of the deceased victim. The homosexual-advance defense appeals to irrational fears, revulsion, and hatred prevalent in heterocentric society, focusing blame on the victim's real or imagined sexuality. In allowing the defense, the judiciary reinforces and institutionalizes violent prejudices at the expense of norms of self-control, tolerance, and compassion that ought to reign in society. The defense affirms homophobia and undermines the ability of courts to produce fair verdicts by creating a lower standard of protection against violence afforded to an identifiable class of victims. The author concludes that we ought to expect more from our courts: judges should hold as a matter of law that a homosexual advance is not sufficient provocation to incite a reasonable man to kill. Murderous homophobia should be considered an irrational and idiosyncratic characteristic of the killer rather than a normative social aspiration incorporated as the homosexual-advance defense into the standards that govern jury decision making.

Note: It seems to me that a lot of the people who I've discussed this with seem to believe that the problems Leonard had with violence, drugs, alcohol and other things as an adult are attributable to this one incidence he alleges. I don't buy that at all.

A far more obvious motivation for him hitting his first wife is in his training in systematic violence, the brutality of boxing which he practiced professionally and for which he was lauded and which made him a hero to millions of people.

I can't imagine that not instilling a sense of permission in at least some elite boxers. Boxing is permitted, systematic and intended brutality. When a boxer practices brutality outside of the ring it should be the first thing suspected as a motivation, not an incident which could be as much an attempt at self-exoneration as it could be a factual account of what would be considered quite differently, by society and the media if it had been a man doing the equivalent to a woman.

Even if every word Leonard said about this incidence is true, that doesn't excuse anything else he's admitted he did.

Accusations [Anthony McCarthy]

I'm not going to speculate as to why it has apparently become the default assumption on some liberal blogs that some accusations are not to be questioned but that is a position that is so wrong, so impractical and so, plainly, nuts it can't be allowed to stand unchallenged. There is nothing about any accusation that puts it or the details it contains beyond the bounds of questioning. If you don't want your accusation to be questioned, don't accuse someone because they have every right to question it.

I am going to point out that even for those who objected to what I said yesterday, it's not the default assumption depending on who is making the accusation and who is being accused and what they're being accused of. The objections made in yesterdays comments carried loads of accusations.

I'm going to present three instances, one which comes pretty close to home, of specific cases of false accusations and will mention one of the most outrageous examples of mass injustice in recent decades, for which I have no intention to apologize so don't bother asking for that.

There is the infamous Charles Stuart case in Boston. In October, 1989, emergency took a call from Stuart who said that he and Carol DiMati (Stuart), his pregnant wife, had been assaulted and robbed in their car, shot by an unknown "black man". His wife died in the hospital, the child who was taken prematurely suffered seizures and died within days. Charles Stewart was treated in the hospital and the Boston Police immediately started looking for the unknown black man, breaking down doors and, it was rumored, some heads in the frenzied search for a particularly brutal murderer as the grieving widower recovered in the hospital.

The Boston Police soon fixed on Willie Bennett who Stuart would later identify as the killer in a stand up line. The police figured they had done their job. Raymond Flynn, the mayor of Boston, Mike Barnicle, the prominent columnist and most of the movers in Boston and the region all said they'd gotten the man who had viciously killed a young, pregnant woman and the child she was carrying, in one of the most publicized cases in memory.

Only, as some will remember, Stuart's brother, who had helped him cover up the crime, soon cracked and what really happened came out. Charles Stuart, who was upset that he was going to become a father and that he would suffer a decrease in standard of living when his wife stopped working, had shot his pregnant wife to collect the insurance and then inflicted a wound on himself in order to place the blame on a stereotypical scary black man. Charles Stuart, knowing he would be arrested jumped off of the Tobin Bridge and died.

A similar thing happened a few years later in the Susan Smith case, in which a young mother claimed that "a black man" had carjacked her car with her children in it, setting off another manhunt for the man who abducted two white children. As you might remember about a week later she confessed that she had drowned her children in the car so she could take up with a man who didn't want them. I don't know the details of what the manhunt consisted of but it's not hard to imagine rights may have been violated and an innocent man could have eventually been arrested.

I would bring up the rash of false charges of ritual child abuse from the 1980s and 90s that put many, innocent women and men in prison and which destroyed their lives before they were exonerated. But I'm sure that would be objected to by a number of possible political cliques. It's a long, outrageous episode of mass delusion and legal opportunism based in outrageous, outlandish accusations that were clearly not questioned sufficiently to find the truth. That truth came well after the false charges produced many victims, many of them who never recovered their lives after those were mad. But that would take far, far longer than I've got to present in this post.

And there is the recent case in the town next to mine, in Maine, in which an unidentified young boy's body was discovered. The accusations there weren't specific and they weren't made by authorities, they were far more informal and potentially far more dangerous. The police didn't release the cause of death for a number of days and rumors were rife. A number of those rumors speculated that the boy had been the victim of a pedophile, who I guarantee you was almost always identified or assumed to have been an unspecified "gay man". Which is one of the reasons many of us living here would have been somewhat on edge until the case was solved. You will remember that eventually the boy's mother, who is clearly mentally ill, was arrested for the killing of her son.

And that's the problem with an accusation against a person identified with a group, black men, gay men, etc. An accusation against an unspecified member of the group is an accusation against more than one person who could match that description.

When did it become politically impermissible to ask questions about an accusation? How do any of the people who think that any accusation is beyond question expect to find out who ISN'T guilty as accused under that rule?

A personal note: I'm tired of people complaining that my posts violate some kind of unwritten prohibition, putting ideas and questions I choose to raise off limits.

I'm especially tired of complaints asserting that those ideas and questions violate some kind of unwritten rule for writing on a feminist blog. I have never agreed to limit my thinking to fit any kind of index of prohibited ideas, I've never been asked to. I would like any feminist bloggers or writers to point out what list of ideas they've agreed to not bring up in their writing. Show me the list of prohibited topics and ideas.

There is no rule anyone can make or make up on the spot that is going to keep me from saying what I think should be said. If you can point out a factual or logical problem with what I say, feel free. If you can point out any inconsistencies or hypocrisies in what I write, please, correct me. If you have any rational, grown-up objection to anything I write about, that's within the bounds of criticism that anyone who writes something for public display opens himself up for, the kind of correction any rational person should welcome. But I'm not going to limit anything I write on the basis of political or intellectual fashion or to conform to someone's idea of what's allowable to be thought or said except my own.

Note: These are the two posts I wrote the weekend of June 11, 2011.


Anyone who wishes to write to me should use the address of this blog, I will be taking down all my other e-mail accounts.

The address is:

If you are writing to tell me how much you hate what I wrote, save your fingers, I don't care.

I don't open attachments.
Also note: I will keep comments open for now. If there any problem with those I will require verification. If there are still problems I will close comments on any post or on all of them.

Blog comments can be useful and informative but they are commonly used on just about every blog I've ever read to spread lies, distortions and personal insults. I will not put up with it anymore. I'm a thought criminal, but that's not one of my crimes.

If you want to lie, get your own blog.


I will not be posting any more pieces at Echidne's blog. Echidne has never asked me to look at what I have posted there before it was posted. She has never had any responsibility for what I wrote. That has always been the stated fact of my writing for her blog.

Anyone who reads her blog might have noticed I've been posting fewer pieces and comments there over the past couple of months. It was mentioned that I would be writing less a while ago. It's time to go back to writing my own blog.

It will be no surprise that the blog mobbing of the past weekend has solidified the decision to stop writing for Echidne, though I hadn't had any definite plan of when to stop. That end was always known to be coming, all gigs end. I don't want her to have to put up with the frequent mobbings that my posts have attracted.

Some of the things I've written have attracted some who could fairly be called enemies, some of them not terribly rational. I won't need to put up with them here if I choose not to.

This is the third stint I've had at her blog over most of the past five years. I'd decided to stop writing before, this is the last time for that. I wish Echidne, Suzie, Res and anyone else she has writing on her blog well.

There are people who comment at her blog who I will miss a lot and others I won't miss, some who I won't have here.

That's all I've got to say about it.