*CRITICAL NOTE: NOM's latest antics are beyond despicable. Their actions, that I'm addressing here, have been shared many times by their readers. If you could do the same, and share this blog post to combat their activities, I'd really appreciate it.*
So this story is a little complicated. I'll put out a step-by-step guide of what happened.
1. On September 22, 2014, a woman named Janna Darnelle wrote a blog post on "The Public Discourse" blog, arguing that same-sex marriage should be illegal because of her experience where her ex-husband realized that he was gay while married to her, and they divorced.
2. The post contained some rather homophobic statements, one of them being that same-sex families "represent covenants broken, love abandoned, and responsibilities crushed. They are built on betrayal, lies, and deep wounds."
3. As is standard operating procedure on the Internet whenever anyone writes something like that, she got backlash and criticism. Not surprising.
4. Later on the same day, Good As You's Jeremy Hooper pointed out the warped logic of using this incident to oppose legalizing same-sex marriage.
5. Darnelle's ex-husband posted the same comment on different websites, saying that his ex-wife is Janna Darnelle Finkbeiner Anderson.
6. Another man by the name of Scott Rose (who is referred to as a "virulently misogynistic LGBT activist (I've never even heard of him)) commented on different websites, criticizing Darnelle's post. There are claims that he also requested that her employer fire her. (If this is true, I don't agree with it, but even with that in the picture, there's no big pattern of misbehavior here.)
That, and nothing more, is the basis for this outrageous attack on The Public Discourse blog against Leif Anderson (Darnelle's ex-husband), Hooper, Rose and all LGBT people by one Rivka Edelman. Her contention is that LGBT people, gay men in particular, have formed men's rights groups with the intention of controlling women's bodies. Here are some of things she says:
Darnelle’s essay struck a nerve and went viral. It is not surprising that, within a few hours, LGBT activists had taken up arms against her. Keyboard warriors manned the ramparts. Soon, the usual thugs took up their clubs and pitchforks.
As I said before, backlash and criticism for saying something homophobic is entirely to be expected on the Internet. But Edelman provides no evidence to support her apparent contention that "LGBT activists" had attacked Darnelle with the gratuity that she implies.
For those of you who avoid the subterranean landscape of online same-sex parenting debates, it is useful to be introduced to Scott “Rose” Rosenzweig, a virulently misogynistic LGBT activist.
Edelman offers not a shred of evidence to support this.
As soon as Darnelle’s essay was published, Rose went into action, darting from the blog Good As You to other sites in an effort to destroy her personally. (Rose’s obsessive internet commenting has attracted attention at other news outlets as well.)
Instead of actually saying what Rose actually said, Edelman just leaves you to go to the blog posts he has commented on, and trawl through the comments section, in a probably-futile hope of finding it. I've tried, and I've found nothing even remotely incriminating.
Darnelle’s ex-husband even weighed in. A helpful fellow, he left her personal information in the comments section of several activists’ blogs, including her full legal name.
Janna Darnelle wrote under a pen name in order to protect her family. Unfortunately, her ex-husband’s comments helped Scott Rose embark on a campaign of harassment and intimidation.
He said that his ex-wife's name is Janna Darnelle Finkbeiner Anderson. That's it. Seriously.
Here are some other things she's said:
Although they purport to represent the disadvantaged, certain wings of the LGBT-rights movement function as all-white men’s rights groups. In our contemporary climate, these men are allowed to do great harm to women and children with impunity.
That's a conspiracy theory.
The bloggers and activists at Jeremy Hooper’s Good as You blog have used this judge’s decision to suggest that Darnelle was an unfit mother.
Jeremy Hooper said:
For whatever reason (she glosses over it), a judge then seems to have awarded primary custody of their two children to the husband.
That's way short of saying she's an unfit mother.
The “unfit mother” trope is very important to men like Hooper and Rose, because it helps justify taking women’s children, eggs, or the use of their uteri. Darnelle is right. Many families headed by gay male couples are built upon exploitation of women. Practically speaking, Jeremy Hooper, Scott Rose, and their compatriots have formed a men’s rights group that seeks to use women as breeders. These egg donors and surrogate mothers supply infants for a bustling market full of same-sex couples, for whom reproduction is naturally and biologically impossible.
All Hooper did was criticize her logic that the incident she went through is somehow an argument against marriage equality. All Rose did was criticize her for her homophobia. How the hell do you make the leap from that to "exploitation of women" and "a men's rights group that seeks to use women as breeders"?
In the name of equality, groups such as GLAAD (which employs Jeremy Hooper) have pushed through gender identity laws that have legally erased women. The term “woman” now legally can refer to the way that a man chooses to identify himself. Once women have been erased legally as a group and as individuals, it is not hard to erase “mothers.” This lends support to the practice of using one woman’s eggs and another woman’s womb to supply children for gay male couples, obscuring the concept of motherhood and making it seem dispensable.
How the hell is transgender equality misogynistic? Transgender women (yes, I said women) benefit greatly from it.
The publication of Janna Darnelle’s story led to a spate of blog posts full of vitriol, calling her “a pitiful creature,”
That's far short of vitriolic.
accusing her of mental instability,
Her divorce may have been mentally damaging. I don't think that's a controversial thing to suggest. Also, I don't think that suggesting that is an attack on her. Mental illness does not change one's worth as a person at all.
and questioning her very existence.
That's really vague. Show me an actual comment.
And if those three statements are all your evidence of vitriol, then you're strongly mistaken in your belief that vitriol has been directed at her.
With the help of her husband’s comments, Scott Rose set off to dig up and publicize as much personal information as possible about Darnelle, such as high school graduation and real estate records. Rose has harassed Darnelle with threatening messages. He has even contacted Darnelle’s employer, leaving this message on the company’s Facebook page:
This is a COMPLAINT against […], an executive assistant in […]. Under the nom de plume of “Janna Darnelle,” […] has published a horrifying, defamatory anti-gay screed on the website “Public Discourse.” The first problem would be that she is creating a climate of hostility for eventual gay elders and/or their visiting friends and relatives. The second problem would be that in the screed, she comes off as being unhinged. Her public expressions of gay-bashing bigotry are reflecting very poorly on LLC.
Please show me evidence of this stalking or these threatening messages. You claim that he sent her threatening messages. Please substantiate that claim. And that Facebook post, by itself, is not a call for her to be fired.
Sadly, all of this conforms to a predictable pattern of attack. If you study the routine that plays out whenever Jeremy Hooper and Scott Rose conspire to take someone out, you will see seasoned patterns. Four steps comprise their usual character assassination.
First, they call the individual a liar and say the person’s existence cannot be verified without more data about him or her.
Show me where they've actually done that.
Second, once Hooper and Rose have such data, they write to the person’s employer to get him or her fired or professionally destroyed.
I'm still not convinced that that happened. I need more than that Facebook post.
Third, if they cannot get the person fired, Hooper and Rose go after the family members.
How the hell did you come up with that? Do you have any evidence? Or is this just defamation?
Fourth, if they cannot turn the person’s family against him or her, Hooper and Rose blast endless broadsides against the person, trying to make him or her feel afraid or unsafe at all times.
Where are you getting this from? You're just making up BS! What the hell have either done to do this? You've made a completely unsubstantiated claim! You could be saying anything! Anyone can say anything like that!
Now, Rose has criticized Darnelle's homophobia (and I applaud him for that). He has been fairly active during this nontroversy. But Jeremy Hooper? All he did was criticize her logic that a gay man divorcing his wife after realizing he's gay is a reason not to legalize same-sex marriage. From that, how do you accuse him of "call[ing] the individual a liar and say the person’s existence cannot be verified without more data about him or her", "writ[ing] to the person’s employer to get him or her fired or professionally destroyed", go[ing] after the family members" and "blast[ing] endless broadsides against the person, trying to make him or her feel afraid or unsafe at all times"?
But even for Rose being more active than Hooper, you still cannot accurately claim those things about him. You have just plainly lied about both of them.
Edelman then moves to discussion about gay men being parents:
They have a bag of rhetorical tricks as well. Learn these.
Soft derails: “What about straight divorces, adoptions, and blended families?” Such asides are meant to distract and create false equivalencies. The fact is, every single family headed by a gay male couple had to take another person’s child. In order to accept this, one must accept that men have the right to use women’s bodies and buy their children.
May I remind you that every time a woman assists a male couple in having a child, by donating an egg or being a surrogate mother, she does so with her full consent? No woman is forced against her will to be a surrogate mother or to provide an egg to a gay male couple (or a straight couple).
Shocking derails: “Look at all the bad parents that are heterosexual.” The existence of such parents, while tragic, does not give men the right to harvest eggs from women, to use them as breeders, or to take their babies and children.
You're right in saying that does not grant men that right. But that's not what's happening. It always happens with full consent.
Appeal to emotion: “We want children; what should we do?” This tries to make people feel guilty or shame them into handing over poor women to be used by rich men. My response: I have not asked you to solve my problems, have I? You can’t demand society legislate a special subclass of women to be used explicitly as breeders so you can feel happy.
But that's not what's happening!
Born this way biology: “Do not live a lie; be true to yourself.” This tactic becomes another erasure of women.
Of, for f*ck's sake. How the f*ck is it misogynistic to say that gay men should live a live that makes them happy, with another man?
In this scheme, we are asked to accept that men’s biology matters. A man who is attracted to other men could not possibly be asked to stay with his wife, because he is biologically fated to be attracted to other men’s bodies. Yet, simultaneously, we are told that women’s biology—especially their biological bonds with their children—are of no importance. Despite the scientific evidence of maternal and fetal bonding during pregnancy, and despite the long histories of women who have suffered lifelong grief because their babies were taken from them, we are expected to think of women as breed animals and to believe that men have the right to raise other people’s children.
You want to marry a man and you are a man? Society does not owe you women’s children, women’s eggs, or women’s bodies.
But who the hell is making the claim that society does owe them that? No one's making that claim! A woman who voluntarily wants to be a surrogate mother or donate an egg can do so. If she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to. No couple, gay or straight, has the right to have another woman provide an egg or be a surrogate mother. Everyone understands that.
I'm really confused as to how you've come to the conclusion that women are being used this way. In other countries, they may be, and that's terrible. But here? No. It doesn't happen here. Yes, some states have draconian abortion laws, and yes, Hobby Lobby is a bullsh*t decision. But what you claimed is happening is not happening. You're an embarrassment to all other women and feminists who know the truth that gay men do not seek to use women that way.
Edelman is trying to make feminism the ultimate theme of the case, as you will see in the conclusion:
In writing this piece, I know that I risk being labeled a bigot. Like Janna Darnelle, I will probably have to endure a whole host of misogynistic terms. I’ll be called crazy, unhinged, laughable, bitter, fat, old, and ugly. In other words, I am just a woman who dares to say rich privileged white men do not have the right to women’s bodies and body parts.
Male sexual pleasure has been a protected industry for both gay and heterosexual men for ages. By and large, the industry exploits women and children. Now we have a new industry: surrogacy, or the commercial-industrial uterus. How very progressive. And at the same time, how very old and predictable.
This piece is not feminism. That it's not feminism is pretty obvious considering that it's on the Public Discourse blog, which belongs to the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank that opposes marriage equality and abortion rights This is anti-LGBT bigotry and hatred
disguised as feminism to make it seem more legitimate. The reason that Edelman's tried to bring feminism into it is because feminists are generally seen as being pro-LGBT equality, so if a feminist attacks LGBT people, it may be seen as a legitimate attack, because a feminist wouldn't make that attack unless it's valid. That's the angle she's tried to play.
One thing that I find quite telling is that absent from this piece is any discussion of lesbians, or lesbian couples, or lesbian parents. The piece is completely devoid of any acknowledgment that a lesbian couple may employ a surrogate mother, or use a man's sperm to have a child. Why? Because acknowledging that it is not just men, but also women, who employ these methods of reproduction would undercut the narrative that gay men who employ these methods want to control women. If women do it as well, than obviously, gay men aren't being misogynistic. (That is in no way a judgement on women who employ those methods. I'm just pointing out that they do to make the point that doing so isn't misogynistic.)
This piece is absolute garbage. Its ultimate contention comes from lies, fabrications, myths and outrageous accusations, like gay men have created men's rights groups with the intent of controlling women. (An actual believer in men's rights, Elliot Rodger, killed women because he wanted to have sex with them, and they wouldn't. Does homosexuality seem at play there?) This piece should be dismissed in its entirety, as, to quote Judge Friedman in Michigan, "entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration." Everything that is says is just completely wrong, completely inaccurate, completely incorrect.
But don't expect lies fabricated with the explicit intent to smear LGBT people to be any deterrent from NOM jumping all over it.
They accuse the "Radical LGBT Playbook" of "Ruthless Misogyny". They label Edelman's utter tripe a "hard-hitting piece which everyone should read and share." And they implore their supporters to "[s]hare this far and wide, and help us expose where the real hatred and bigotry in the fight over marriage is coming from."
NOM, it's coming from groups like you and people like Edelman. It's coming from you because both of you have the fucking audacity (yes, I said it uncensored) to fabricate these absolute bullshit lies about LGBT people, even as you accuse our side of hatred and bigotry. Both of you are an absolute disgrace. You are both utterly shameless.
You owe an apology to all women and feminists for so profoundly embarrassing their noble movement and goals of equality and justice. You owe an apology to Jeremy Hooper and to Scott Rose for your unsubstantiated accusations against them regarding their response to Janna Darnelle. You owe an apology to all LGBT people for your disgusting, despicable, abhorrent lies that they seek to "legislate a special subclass of women" and "form[] a men’s rights group that seeks to use women as breeders." And until you can learn to debate with a molecule of civility, you owe it to basic decency and humanity to remove yourselves from this debate completely, and to never let out another peep ever again.