The adults who taught and encouraged this are guilty of child abuse

Doktor Zoom says the essential truth in the title of the Wonkette post introducing us to this horrifying video, “Earnest Christian Teen Creates Awful Online ‘Rap’ Artifact That Will Haunt Her Life Forever.”

If anything, that understates the case. Here is the artifact in question:

YouTube Preview Image

I don’t want to mock this child and I don’t want you to mock this child either. She deserves more pity than scorn.

Love is hard. Prideful indignation is easy.

She’s parroting what she’s been taught by wretched, hateful adults who have nurtured their hate and their ignorance until it is all they have left, all they treasure, all they need and want and desire. Their precious.

This is what you get when you trade in love for the cheap high of self-righteous indignation. It makes you dumb. It makes you cruel. It makes you proud of being dumb and cruel, and it makes you resent anyone who isn’t.

Adults put this kid up to this. They encouraged her to think like this. They rewarded this, trained and produced this. “If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Those adults are the ones who deserve to have this awful thing haunt their lives forever.

And I suppose it will, in a sense, when this poor kid grows up and encounters reality and the painful spiritual crisis these adults have set for her like a trap. When that happens — when the bubble bursts and she’s confronted with real people and the real Jesus — she’s going to be furious with them.

It will take her a long, long time to forgive them.

 

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Relitigating the Golden Rule
The Rod D. Horror Picture Show
Bowling with Jesus
Whatever happened to 'pro-life Democrats'? Go see 'Spotlight'
  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    (-_-)

    The part that really grates is when she calls it “fake love” if it’s not a man and a woman in the relationship.

    One only hopes she will come to regret this ad deeply in later years.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tomstone Thomas Stone

    Any form of love between two men is fake and can’t possibly have any real meaning. Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so…

  • http://twitter.com/mcclure111 mcc

    So I think I want to talk about something that happened today.

    My wife was on the phone with her mother. Her mother says a lot of nasty things, especially lately, and she’s really good at it. The one that stood out today came when my wife was trying to explain something to her mother about whether their relationship as a mother and daughter felt normal and loving or not. And this somehow got to a place where her mom said something like: “Well you’ve really really been in a normal marriage, how would you know what one is like?”. This was where my wife hung up.

    Some context.

    My wife and I have been together about 13 or 14 years. I’ve mostly lost count. We’ve been legally married for a little over seven (there was a handfasting a couple of years in, but only us and a few other people knew that at the time). For the first four or so years my wife and I were together, we both honestly thought I was male. There was a long period after that my gender was… confusing, and how I thought about my gender shifted a few times, but I was still basically male-identified when we got married and I didn’t really completely figure things out and get to the point of being able to straight-up say things like “I’m a woman” until… last year? Two years ago? Recently. The point is this is an *old* relationship, a very mature relationship, and for almost its entire run, an apparently heteronormative one. We weren’t living in any way you could externally tell the difference between us and any other straight couple. We didn’t tell either set of parents I was transgender until a little over a year ago and when that moment came, they were blindsided. Heck, when my wife found out the year before that, she was mostly blindsided.

    This experience means I have an… unusual perspective, on gay marriage debates, what with being one of a fairly small class of people with a same-sex marriage which is recognized in every state, and I think my experience gives me a couple of interesting ways to frame the legitimacy of same-sex relationships. But I think my mother-in-law might have done it more interestingly than I can right here. See, her reaction to all this has been a bit surprising. When we first told her, her reaction was startlingly ugly and focused on me. She thought I was some kind of weird pervert, she thought this was my way of coming out of the closet as a gay man? It was weird. Anyway, she finally got talked down from that, and while she might still be grossed out by me for all I know, she seems to, to my great surprise, actually fully accept the idea I’m a woman. She calls me by the correct name, sometimes even the correct pronouns. But to the extent she’s gotten past her transphobia, this has only served to activate her southern-baptist homegrown homophobia. If I’m a woman, then that means my spouse and I are *lesbians*, and that’s the worst outcome possible. So she went from trying to talk my wife into getting a divorce because I was some perverted freak, to trying to talk my wife into getting a divorce so my wife isn’t being gaaaay. My mother-in-law doesn’t believe us to actually be married. She doesn’t believe our relationship is real. As far as I am concerned, I’m one of my wife’s good female friends that my wife has been doing something mistaken and sinful with; two women can’t have a relationship like that.

    But then she takes that that step further: “you’ve never been in a real relationship, you don’t know what it’s like”. Think about that. Not just is our current relationship fake, our whole relationship is invalidated all the way back to the beginning, retroactively fake, even though from the outside there was no way to tell it was anything other than a man and a woman, even though for a good period of it *we* didn’t know it was anything other than a man and a woman. Now, from *my* perspective, what I honestly believe is I was a woman all along and at the start I was just too repressed and terrified to be able to admit this to myself or anyone else. But my mother-in-law’s statement was about my *wife*– whether she’d ever loved, whether she’d ever “been in a marriage”. My spouse from her perspective loved a man, went through all the motions of a straight relationship. But her love apparently wasn’t real, her emotions were being made secretly counterfeit the whole time by the girl hiding inside of her husband, waiting to molt. So says mom-in-law. As if love is not something we feel but something her god (not mine; not my wife’s) allows you to have, when and if your bodies and souls fit his mathematical formulae. Break the rules of the formula, then the “love” classification is withdrawn from whatever feelings you had.

    Now, here is what I wonder. People like my mother-in-law– do they actually *have* some kind of system in their head by which a damn lick of this makes sense? Or are they just making this up as they go along, and resolving that if anyone ever challenges them they just won’t listen?

  • Carstonio

     I’m sorry for how your mother has treated you. I’ve had my own problems with parents who don’t respect boundaries. Among other things, they harangued one of my siblings for living with someone from a different ethnic background. For years they would grumble about the couple holding hands in public, allegedly fearing that they would be shot by James Earl Rays.

    While parents do generally want the best for their children and want them to be happy, with some of them their definitions of both are horribly twisted, sometimes projecting their own personalities and dislikes onto their children. As a parent myself, stories such as yours remind me that ultimately my children must be the ones to decide what makes them happy. Who they love is not important. What matters is that they love and are loved by people who respect them.

  • The_L1985

     My parents used to tell me, over and over, that I should never marry a Jew because “they’ll never fully accept you” and “even if you convert, they won’t really see you as a Jew.”

    I’m dating a Jewish man now.  I’m constantly blown away by how much nicer and more welcoming his parents are to me than my own parents are.

  • AnonymousSam

    A World Religions class I attended visited a synagogue once to hear the Jewish perspective directly from a kohen. Most of the questions students asked related to whether people could convert to Judaism, and if so, would they be considered second-class Jews? Would converts be highlighted in the bloodline charts as “not real Jews”? Yes, I know you said they’d be real Jews, but, like, would they still be considered outsiders? Now, when you say “for all intents and purposes”, you do still mean there’s a substantive difference between real Jews and fake Jews, right?

    The poor man. He seemed bewildered as to why it was such a significant point that there be a difference between being Jewish “by birth” or by entering the faith. He could only keep repeating himself with slight variations, obviously hoping that eventually it would sink in.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Look, all it means is that you can’t be elected the president of judaism. But your kids totally can, so long as they produce their long-form Bar or Bat Mitzvah certificate.

  • AnonymousSam

    Not if the Rabbilicans pass new naturalization restrictions!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    “Rabbilicians”– Orthodox Jewish Republicans? 
    Couldn’t resist.

  • http://twitter.com/mcclure111 mcc

    Hi Carstonio, it just makes me happy when I find there are parents that have this attitude. I think WayOfCats had the right of it– “The sad part on a personal level, for her, is that this is the only way she gets love from those around her.”. It seems like if the girl in this video had had parents with an attitude like yours, she most likely would not have gotten to the place of making this video. (Well, even besides the question of how much of this was her idea and who’s holding the camera.)

  • Tricksterson

    Satan loves me this I know because the right-wing Bible nuts tell me so.

  • The_L1985

     I’ve never understood why people have a problem with the concept that a gay couple is made of 2 people who love each other, just like a straight couple is.  You can have platonic love towards someone of either sex, and even fundamentalist “boys and girls can’t be friends”-type Christians feel love toward both male and female members of their families–why is romantic love really such a stretch?

  • http://www.facebook.com/tomstone Thomas Stone

    Honestly? I have to imagine that the reason is they construct familial love, like romantic love, as being a form of ownership- the version where daughters are essentially their fathers’ possessions until they are transferred to a husband doesn’t require love in the sense that one loves a friend or a partner, and surely the ‘complementarian’ version of gender relations almost precludes any concept of love that would be familiar to me.

    I also really doubt that everyone who spouts that garbage actually feels that way, but I think that’s the psychological framework that goes into it.

  • http://mordicai.livejournal.com Mordicai

    Yep yep yep!

  • Carstonio

    That’s probably a cultural framework as well as a psychological one. Many, many claims about homosexuality allegedly harming society involve notions of gender essentialism or complementarianism, as if it’s a societal responsibility to make sure people adhere to sex-specific roles.

    Some of these folks may indeed believe in females as fatherly or husbandly property. Others seem to subscribe to a watered-down version, marriage as fundamentally a societal responsibility with husband as provider and wife as homemaker. The latter certainly has its cultural roots in the former, and for some the original context may have gone missing. Like the people who know little about Southern history and believe that’s not a bad idea to expect voters to be literate enough to understand the candidates’ positions.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     One of the things that is wrapped up in there is a heavy helping of magical thinking — if we just deny QUILTBAG folks enough rights, they’ll magically turn heteronormative.

    Magical thinking permeates a lot of the religious right’s thinking: stop the woman from having an abortion and she’ll magically become a happy mother. Stop the woman from terminating a doomed pregnancy and the fetus will magically grow a brain. Force a couple that desperately wants out of this marriage to stay together for the sake of the children and they’ll magically become a happy functional family. Keep women out of the workplace and they’ll magically turn into satisfied housewives.

  • Carstonio

    Those folks usually frame those notions in terms of divine or natural purpose, as if a woman who “denies” motherhood is like a flute being used as a drumstick. Magical thinking is a good term for it.

    Friskies used to publish a book on dog care, and although two or three pages were obviously a printed infomercial, overall its advice was sound. In promoting spaying and neutering, the authors urged dog owners to reject the belief that a female dog needed to become a mother to be fulfilled. And yet we have millions of people who believe that about human women.

  • http://twitter.com/shay_guy Shay Guy

    It’s an axiomatic system, I guess. You don’t question the axioms.

    Of course, formal systems don’t axiomatically assert that they fit reality.

  • Hth

    Or else she’ll nurture this hate and ignorance as an essential part of who she has always known herself to be and pass it on to her own children.  The adults in her life were probably once children who were given millstones of their very own.

    I don’t really know at what age we start holding people accountable for believing the horrible things that lots of people work really, really hard to get people to believe.  18?  21?  When you can run for President at 35?  It does seem like children should be sheltered from accountability while adults should accept consequences, but it’s always interesting to me how hard it gets when I try to find the line of separation there.

    I grew up in a church that, like Fred’s, practiced “adult baptism.”  Most of us raised in the church chose to be baptized somewhere in our early teens — younger than this girl.  We were imagined to be perfectly capable, as junior high students, of making binding, lifelong, oathbound commitments to God.  Let’s say this girl is a Baptist (I don’t want the bother of stalking her online to figure out where she goes to church); let’s say she’s gone through the pastor’s class and been baptized within the last few years.  It seems weird to make an argument that she’s completely empowered to do that, but not capable of making adult-level decisions about literally anything else in her moral universe.

  • Wingedwyrm

    I’m willing to bet that, as far as making her own choices is concerned, her age is variable.

    I don’t mean the number, of course.  I mean whether or not she’s old enough to make a certain choice, like dedicating herself to God or believing in the inherant sinfullness and the inherant not-inateness of homosexuality, are entirely dependant upon which choices she makes.

    I was an atheist in High School and repeatedly told that this was a phase because I was so young, too young to really understand the ramifications of what I was saying.  But, the same was not said of the Christians my same age.  They were lauded for making that choice, which involved dedicating their lives to the obedience of God.  Nobody said “Now, I love God, but maybe you should wait a few years, until you’ve been to college, to think that through.”

    Similarly, I can make a safish bet that, if she were to tell her parents that she felt that homosexual love was every bit as holy and sanctified as heterosexual love, she would be told that she’s too young to really understand what she’s saying.

  • http://kingdomofsharks.wordpress.com/ D Johnston

    So there’s a certain video producer who is, I believe, in her early 20’s. She came from a very conservative, very fundamentalist family and pretty much absorbed all their beliefs. As a teenager – years before she jumped on the “Internet personality” bandwagon – she made homophobic posts on some forums.

    When she got out of high school, she quickly rejected most of that, and the results were ugly. It resulted in a number of fights with her parents, and as a result she’s been estranged from her whole family for several years now. She doesn’t discuss it much (it’s a sensitive topic, and she really doesn’t do politics), but from what I’ve gathered she was in a deep depression for a long time after this all started. She’s more or less over it now (insofar as you can “get over” being cut off by your whole family), but there are people out there who will not let her forget any of this. Even though she’s repudiated all of her high school beliefs, the dickhead fans of other personalities have been known to dig up those old posts and rub them in her face just to cut her down to size.

    My point is, don’t be so quick to judge. You don’t have all the facts, or any of the facts. I can think of one woman who’ll tell you that this is not a simple matter of changing your mind.

  • Laertesweb

    It’s pretty cool that other people who’ve started down this road have turned away from it.  This girl, though, doesn’t get credit for other people coming to their senses.  She’s gonna have to do that herself before she gets any slack.

  • RJ (TO)

    I only got about 30 seconds into this before shutting it off. There’s a lot of this kind of brazen sh*t floating around out there and too much of it in large doses makes me feel like just giving up.

  • spinetingler

    Of course comments are disabled.

  • Wednesday

     Yep. The hilarious part is that the account has another video up with annotations about how liberals are evil for silencing dissenting voices.

  • stardreamer42

    Ah, yes. Shouting from the rooftops that she’s afraid to speak above a whisper, just like right-wingers in general.

  • Ben English

     I have to say that’s probably a good thing in the long run. It’s youtube, so even the so-called gay allies would likely be (mis)directing a huge stream of vitriol and misogyny at the girl instead of at the message and the people who taught it to her.

  • Wednesday

    The auto-captions from YouTube are an improvement on the content of the video.  That should embarrass her _now_, even if she hasn’t quite figured out that “rapping about how gay people are inferior” isn’t exactly tolerance.

    And as someone married to a person of the opposite sex, I am pretty seriously offended by the suggestion that my love is only valid because between the spouse and myself we have the “collect them all” set of standard human sex organs, and that our love was created by the pervert Lawful Evil god this girl has been taught to worship. Self-declared defenders of straight marriage, stop pretending you speak for me or my relationship.

    Relatedly, can someone explain to me why consensual adult monogamous* romantic same-sex relationships are sexual perversion, but obsessing over the genitals of perfect strangers is totally acceptable?  Especially since the latter is so closely linked with addictive self-righteous indignation that they seem to be getting gratification from it.

    *Not to say there’s anything inherently wrong with polyfidelous or open relationships. Just focusing on monogamous same-sex relationships since that’s what this girl is specifically hating on.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2RAPF5V3YPOUWAZGAJ2VCQM76Q Alicia

    Or else she’ll nurture this hate and ignorance as an essential part
    of who she has always known herself to be and pass it on to her own
    children.  The adults in her life were probably once children who were
    given millstones of their very own.

    I have to agree. I’m not convinced that everyone goes into this trajectory of personal growth on every possible front. It can happen for everyone, but if the conditions aren’t right, and if she is willing and able to keep herself in the fundamentalist bubble for her entire life (which is perfectly possible) then why would she? I mean, as you said, it’s not like the adults in her life just sprang into being fully-formed. Some were able to go through their entire lives the way they are now.

  • http://twitter.com/shay_guy Shay Guy

    It’s a characteristic pattern of Fred’s to assume people can see contradictions. Kind of an admirable faith in humanity, I guess.

  • Alicia

    I’ve noticed that too. I think that people can change, and I don’t think that it’s completely unlikely that she or anyone else can change. I just don’t think that it’s safe to just assume that she will have this moral epiphany and have to deal with the consequences of that at some later date. Clearly, some people don’t — it’s not as if the Moral Majority and the religious right are entirely made up of teenagers.

    It was on this very site that I first encountered “Fox Geezer Syndrome”, a name for the phenomenon in which (usually elderly) people who get their news exclusively from Fox News wind up subscribing to the hyperemotional and reactionary politics that is often espoused on that network. The reason that works is because they create a bubble around themselves where the only things that are allowed in are things that reinforce that worldview. It’s not exactly radical to suggest that someone can start the “Geezer” process at a much younger age.

    There’s already Christian branded television, music, movies, etc. to make it easier to avoid cultural influences from outside the bubble. It wouldn’t be that hard.

  • Madhabmatics

    her flow is terrible

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=659001961 Brad Ellison

    So much so that I couldn’t focus on anything else.

  • Jim Roberts

    It really is genuinely awful. Ed from BNL has a more legit flow. Which, of course, just gives us a new way in which this video is horrific.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I am not really one to blame this girl as an individual, or even her parents as individuals.  All share some responsibility for this kind of thing, of course, but I think that the cause is more of a social-structural issue than an individual agency one.  Think about what it takes to hold these kinds of views, to think that this is okay.  It requires an environment where no one challenges it, where no alternative points of view are offered to add perspective to an otherwise one-sided idea about how the world works.  We have a very pluralistic society, and maintaining that kind of oneness of world view requires that a group purge itself of any contaminating influences and guard itself against their return.  It means limited media exposure, limited interaction with other people, only taking information from certain approved sources, etc.  If any individual node in this network deviates from approved ideas, it must be treated as a contaminating factor and exiled from it to prevent the structure from collapsing.  

    Obviously a certain amount of people are going to be purged as they grow up in such a “bubble”, but the thing as a whole is self-correcting and damned hard to crack.  The most that can be done to correct it is to slowly chip away at it, scraping more individuals out of it through education and integration than it can replace, gradually shrinking it.  Unfortunately, those of influence inside the bubble are aware of this, and fight on a more strategic level to weaken those eroding factors.  The “Wedge Strategy” of Creationism is one example of this, as are voucher programs that allow sectarian schools to get students and public funds.  

    The fight is damn tiring at times, but giving up is not an option.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/bobby.herrington.1 Boze Herrington

     FearlessSon, that was beautiful. Thank you.

  • AnonymousSam

    The love I nurture for every, male and female alike, is what keeps me from descending into my potential evil. I should hope it’s legitimate, or else there’s going to be trouble. :P

  • EllieMurasaki

    Speaking as a genderqueer individual whom I’m certain you had no intention of excluding: Hi.

  • AnonymousSam

    Touché. Erase and correct: Male, female, and everything in between and on the Z axis and by those whose scale can only be measured in imaginary numbers, plus the additional genders of the many cultures who don’t observe a binary gender system, all manner of neuter and ambiguous and variable entities, Chii, and whatever else furries and Japanese doujin artists can possibly come up with.

    *pant, pant* Did I leave out anyone?

    (Sheesh, I should be better about this sort of thing.)

  • EllieMurasaki

    Personally I would have said ‘everyone, regardless of gender’.

  • Hench

    Boo hoo, someone unwittingly excluded your marginalized people. Get over it.

  • EllieMurasaki

    You want to go away for five minutes and rethink that statement?

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    Unwittingly?

    Huh.  Yet another person who thinks that this young woman has no mind of her own.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Hench was responding (or at least Disqus tells me Hench was responding) to my pointing out that the phrasing ‘male and female’ excludes genderqueer people. Not to the video.

  • Hench

    Yes, I was. I don’t think the exclusion of queergender was intentional and you getting passive-aggressively hung up on it is ridiculous

  • EllieMurasaki

    So I should quietly sit back while I am having my toes stepped on, is that it? Sam fixed their oops and apologized, which is all I wanted, and further has just posted to the effect of not wanting your help on the subject.

  • http://twitter.com/mcclure111 mcc

    So, Sam excludes GQ, Ellie thinks GQ should be included, Sam then agrees GQ should be included. So everyone here is fine except you are now offended on Sam’s behalf that Ellie wanted GQ included… even though Sam agrees with Ellie..? Why do you care about this? At that point it comes across like you are actively bothered that Ellie and Sam are trying to use nonbinary-inclusive language.

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    Ah.  My mistake.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Question: How does “male & female” exclude the genderqueer? Do you mean transexuals? They tend to be moving from one to the other, so one or the other should still apply. If it means something else I apologize. 
    A man in women’s clothing still has a XY body, and vice versa, that’s about what it should mean.If you ask me, most people tend to be male, female, or some combination of the two. We once had a cat who was a true neuter (no sexual parts at all), but how common is that in people?Didn’t watch the video, don’t want to.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Bigender people exist (though the phrasing “male and female” does not necessarily exclude them). Agender people exist; one is speaking to you. Third-gender people exist. Genderfluid people exist and encompass any combination of those three and the familiar two. I may well be forgetting some; genderqueerness is complicated.

  • AnonymousSam

    Amen to “complicated.” I read this and thought “Sometimes I think I’m genderfluid, but then other times I’m not.” … I don’t think I was being factitious.

  • AnonymousSam

    It presumes that gender is binary, which isn’t always the case. Sometimes there isn’t even a word for how a person perceives themselves.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Ann — it helps to be clear about whether you’re talking about bodies or people. People are gendered in far more complex ways than bodies are.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Also @AnonymousSam, @EllieMurasaki:disqus I originally meant someone’s physical body, something everyone has, and most of those seem to be drawn from one of two original basic plans, with a few variations. What a person thinks of oneself is definitely another matter.

    That said, there’s “bi-gender” and “big-ender”, I’ve watched too much Benny Hill to be able to ignore the second variation of the word.

  • AnonymousSam

    Even those physical variations can be something, though. We have XX chromosome males and XY chromosome females, hermaphrodites, neuters (natural and otherwise), transsexuals…

    We’ll be really screwed the day we genetically alter a male to be able to give birth, but only when impregnated by a female. ^_^ (It’s almost already possible!)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Like seahorses? That would definitely be worth seeing.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     > What a person thinks of oneself is definitely another matter.

    Some of us consider what a person thinks of themselves to be the matter, and their physical body to be another matter. I mean, corpses have the same physical gender-determining attributes as living beings, but they’re nevertheless missing many of the important bits.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    I think that’s what I was saying. Certainly it’s the person’s own opinion that is essential, I’m just trying to compare that to the physical attributes, weight, mass, eye color, etc. A dead body may have gender, but you can hardly call it an  active, thinking person.
    Unless it’s a zombie.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    So, your initial question was how “male & female” excludes the genderqueer, and you went on to clarify your question in terms of attributes of bodies. 

    Does understanding that we want to avoid excluding people, such that whether we include or exclude bodies is pretty much irrelevant, help answer that question?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ann-Unemori/100001112760232 Ann Unemori

    Well, as far as I know, everyone has a body of some kind; never knew a person that didn’t have one. And most of them tend to come from one of two variations of the basic design. A person is whatever he/she wishes to be, the person’s body is mainly the vehicle resided in.
    One way to put it: whether it’s a Ford, or a Chevy, or a chassis featuring parts of both, the vehicle still needs a driver in order to get anywhere. A person is the driver, the body is the car.
    I’m not going to say anymore on this, as I fear it’s gotten snarled enough.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    I’m not going to say anymore on this, as I fear it’s gotten snarled enough.

    That’s your right. If at any point you choose to answer my question, I’ll be interested.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I originally meant someone’s physical body, something everyone has, and most of those seem to be drawn from one of two original basic plans, with a few variations.

    That’s not gender. Fuck if I know what the word is, since ‘sex’ ain’t it even though it’s the most common word in use for that quality–I’ve been told off for saying someone female-assigned-at-birth, pronoun ‘they’, is of the female sex; I’m pretty sure I was clear that by that I only meant that this individual has a uterus–but that’s definitely not gender.

  • AnonymousSam

    Did zie specify what zie perceived zir body to be/have been? That seems odd, unless it was some sort of variant of body dysmorphic category misperception. While our genes aren’t the only determining factor of physical makeup, it seems wrong to say that there’s no such thing as sexual dimorphism.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I didn’t dare ask. I think it amounts to ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are, in their mind, synonymous, and neither term relates to the between-legs bits.

  • AnonymousSam

    Speaking as the person who unwittingly did exclude zir marginalized people, I don’t need your help, thanks. I had a minor fuck-up. It was acknowledged to have been unintentional (for which I thank Ellie for giving me the benefit of the doubt, assuming I read zir correctly) and I showed my own acknowledgement of that exclusion and added a little humor because, hey, fuck-ups, c’est la vie. Erase and correct, build a bridge and, as you said, get over it.

    I’m very lackadaisical when it comes to my own gender (I don’t care if people refer to me as male or female; both are correct; neither is correct). Consequentially, I have a narrow perspective for the genders of others; it often doesn’t cross my mind to verbally include everyone in a group when using gender-based pronouns and I’ll wind up throwing out the standard terminology because I haven’t put any further thought into it than that. It’s just like when the term “gentlemen” would be used to address an entire crowd irrespective of the women in the audience, except now we’re dealing with much more than just men and women. Sometimes there’s both, or neither, or something else entirely.

    It’s no skin off my teeth to revise my words to include them all explicitly, rather than relying on my words to be implicit. It just means changing speaking and writing habits. I can do that. Moreover, I’m happy to do that as it means correcting a deficit on my part. Hakuna matata.

  • EllieMurasaki

    for which I thank Ellie for giving me the benefit of the doubt, assuming I read zir correctly

    You did, and no problem–it’s hardly ever deliberate on anybody’s part, I’ve noticed. People just…forget there’s more than two ways to do gender. Fuck knows I’ve done it. So every so often when somebody’s forgetting, I poke ’em about it to raise general awareness.

  • AnonymousSam

    *Nods* It’s appreciated. As I said, I should know better. Heck, I did a huge term paper for my Psychology of Sex and Gender class on other cultures having more than two gender classifications because the concept was fascinating and I was hoping to find something which sounded akin to my own situation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1174815915 Kathy Verbiest Baldock

    Here is some insight. I think i am the one that caused this video to go viral. Her father, Pastor David Jarzabek, Arlington TX was a Youtube stalker of mine over a period of FOURTEEN months. In one TWENTY SIX day period, he produced TWENTY videos directly attacking the work I do as an LGBT advocate and straight Evangelical advocate. 
    Last Monday night, lovely missy, Jessica K posted to my FB wall and I connected the dots and within a few hours I had screen captures and lots of info on her Dad. He was faceless to me as he tormented me. 
    I got three of his youtube stations shut down in Dec 2011 and I thought I was done with him. Then a video of me getting tossed from a church went viral and THAT pushed Dad back in the game and he came after me again creating new channel with direct threats to me. Jessica pointed me right to him as I clicked on open FB links. 
    The post on the events is AMAZING. Her Dad DID teach her to hate. And he is a pastor. Read the post and see how I am NOT getting resolution by approaching this the “biblical way”. It is sad that courts will protect me and the church will not. 
    It really is quite an amazing read about a completely obsessed man who caused me MUCH stress. I guess it is payback time. 
    http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/my-youtube-stalker-is-a-pastor/

  • Mary

    Wow. Thanks for your story. Good luck in getting his harassment to stop. I would say his obsession with you makes him the pervented one!

  • Lliira

    Wait a minute… HOW old is she? I’m sorry, but she is not a “child”. She is absolutely old enough to know this kind of hate is wrong, to make this kind of big moral decision for herself. She’s got more years ahead of her to change her mind than older people (probably), but let’s not infantalize her.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1174815915 Kathy Verbiest Baldock

    I think she is 21??? Close to it. The other video on the channel is her Dad, you can see that she came by this rightly. 

  • Michael

    Don’t underestimate the power of poisonous dogmatism, especially when strengthened by threats of eternal hell.  The poor girl thinks she has to “take a stand” to save her soul.

  • dr_ngo

     Poor young woman, surely, not “girl.”

  • Mary

    “She is absolutely old enough to know this kind of hate is wrong,”

    She may be physically an adult, but emotionally? I think not. When I was her age I was a fundie but after a while I had to take a break from church to figure out what I believed.  This girl has a pastor for a dad and strong ties with the church which means she has very little chance to grow up unless she leaves them, which would be a scary move to make. She can’t make that “big moral decision” when she is fed proproganda morning, noon, and night. She is just as brainwashed as the Phelps clan.

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/ Geds

     She may be physically an adult, but emotionally? I think not. When I was
    her age I was a fundie but after a while I had to take a break from
    church to figure out what I believed.  This girl has a pastor for a dad
    and strong ties with the church which means she has very little chance
    to grow up unless she leaves them, which would be a scary move to
    make. She can’t make that “big moral decision” when she is fed
    proproganda morning, noon, and night. She is just as brainwashed as the
    Phelps clan.

    I dated a pastor’s daughter while I was in my critical transition phase from Evangelical to atheist.  She’d gotten the whole nine yards of fundie brainwashing, up to and including private Christian schooling that included Ken Ham’s creationist propoganda.  Her dad was General Association of Regular Baptist, which is kinda between the Southern Baptists and the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists in temperament.

    She was the classic daddy’s little princess pastor’s daughter.  Kinda.  On some level she was like Reverend Lovejoy’s daughter from that old episode of the Simpsons: did and said all the right things but was more interested in looking the  part than actually playing the part.  Her younger brother was the classic rebellious pastor’s kid.

    The relationship was probably destined for failure from the beginning.  I realize that now, even thought I didn’t think so then.  But one of the things that I found constantly fascinating and confounding was the way she would do everything in her power to avoid moving in any direction where she thought her father would stop loving her.  That was also interesting, since I think she did her father a great disservice by thinking of him in that way.  I only met him once, but he seemed like a good man.  And hearing about how her parents handled her younger brother left me baffled that she thought they’d disown her if she ever did anything the didn’t like.

    At the time we were pretty equally liberal, too.  She was certainly more liberal than her parents.  She got on the Obama train at the beginning of the 2008 election cycle while I was still thinking McCain was a valid option.  We were both pretty much okay with gay people (by which I mean I was on board with equality and I don’t know where she was, but she certainly thought they should be treated as human beings and not hate targets).  I was already pro-choice and she was pro-life.   But the only place where we weren’t really in a negotiable compromise space was the evolution v. creationism area.  Still, she was actually afraid of me because she was worried that I’d end up dragging her into a place where she’d reject religion.  That, in turn, would cause her to lose her father’s love.  It was

    It was interesting all the way through, really.  At the time I still lived with my parents but more or less lived my own life and made my own decision.  She lived two states away from her parents but had to consult them for every single decision she made, no matter how inane.  That, I think, came down to indoctrination.  She wasn’t encouraged to think for herself, but my parents taught me to make my own decisions.  That eventually led to me making decisions they don’t like in regard to religion, which I know bothers them, but they haven’t disowned me for it by any stretch of the imagination.  I don’t think she knew what her parents would do in a similar situation, but feared the absolute worst.

  • Ben English

     That’s heartbreaking. Any story of people thinking that they must earn their  parents love just tears me up.

  • The_L1985

     So much this.  When I finished high school, I was 16 going on 12.  I just barely had the emotional maturity of a middle-schooler, and only just.  It wasn’t until several years later that I was actually able to socialize like a normal person.

  • The_L1985

    I had this view at age 19. I did a complete 180 in college. If you are sheltered enough, then no, you don’t see this as hate or wrong.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    My younger self might have been willing to join in the bag-on-the-woman fest, but frankly, I’m too old for this shit now and I’m just wearily optimistic that the young can learn from their own and from society’s mistakes.

  • Ben English

     I’m said to say that if Youtube comments hadn’t been disabled, I probably would have posted something vitriolic myself in response to the video earlier today. Not that the message doesn’t deserve a strong response, but as Fred mentioned, directing it at the young woman is ignoring the true issue. The sad thing is, I was in much the same situation myself through my first 18 years. I never made an ass of myself quite so publicly, but I did vote yes on the anti-gay marriage amendment to my state’s constitution when I was 18.

    I’m really ashamed of how quickly I can be to judge others for the same sins I was guilty of not too long ago.

  • Jessica_R

    Yeah, I think she’s old enough to know better. If kids well younger than her have spoken up for equality and gotten praised for it, she can wear this like the badge of shame it should be. Plenty of people have hateful assholes for parents and don’t become one. What a shame she’s not one of them. 

  • http://twitter.com/WayofCats WayofCats

    The sad part on a personal level, for her, is that this is the only way she gets love from those around her.

    Now we should get love because we have parents and such, but that is not how it works in hate-filled environments. You must have any quirky edges sanded smooth, and if you are a woman it becomes even worse; anything that rises above doormat is ruthlessly pounded down.

    So that creates videos like this; doing it probably got her more positive attention than in her whole previous life. What will snap her out of it is getting love from some other source.

    Then she will have the space to make her own decisions.

  • gpike

    I was one of those embarrassingly ignorant Christian kids too – though I never made videos about it.
    I’d like to point out that while the girl in the video may be old enough to make her own decisions, that subculture, in my experience, has an effect of stunting personal development in weird ways. I can’t help but feel empathy because I once drank that kool-aid myself. Even somebody that misguided can turn their viewpoint around under the right circumstances, though.
    I know that in my own youth I was so caught up in who I OUGHT to be that I didn’t bother trying figure out who I actually WAS.

  • http://twitter.com/celesteh Les Hutchins

    She looks uncomfortable in the (short) section that I watched. There is some risk that she is actually herself LBT and not just parroting outward hate, but directing it inward also.  I hope for her sake this is not the case.

  • histrogeek

    You gotta think it’s like those nasty teens at Little Rock High School, particularly the ones caught on film. I always wonder how many of them were ashamed of that (more terrifyingly how many weren’t). They were part of a culture and were put or put themselves on the front line of wrong.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    You gotta think it’s like those nasty teens at Little Rock High School, particularly the ones caught on film.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2011/10/elizabeth_and_hazel_what_happened_to_the_two_girls_in_the_most_f.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/ericrboersma Eric Boersma

    I think the worst part about this whole thing is that she’s disabled comments and ratings for her video. Inside, she knows that what she’s saying is unacceptable, but she’s just not willing to finally take that step and say “No, this isn’t OK”. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2RAPF5V3YPOUWAZGAJ2VCQM76Q Alicia

     Honestly, disabling Youtube comments is a reasonable step for anyone to take, regardless of the subject matter or potential offensiveness of their videos. If you look at Youtube videos for even a little bit it’s not hard to imagine the level of misogyny and bile that would be spewed on anyone (especially a young woman) who dared to post and ‘star’ in a video. For instance, the chances that she’ll be the target of rape jokes there are basically 100%.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The other thing? Nominal adults in their late teens and early 20s are actually still in the terminal stages of physical development; their bodies and brains are still in a somewhat more malleable phase than later.

    So while judgement isn’t impaired per se, I would say that it’s not exercised with as great care as an older person’s would be.

    This is all to say that I think the young woman posting this video may have either:

    1. Been somewhat pressured into it and deferred to an authority figure over that niggling sense that doing this speech wasn’t a good idea,

    or:

    2. Decided to do this speech as a somewhat impulsive act of trying to show an authority figure that she’s capable of effectively propagandizing for the movement she wants to be a bigger part of and didn’t account for the fact that, y’know, it’s public.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The other thing? Nominal adults in their late teens and early 20s are actually still in the terminal stages of physical development; their bodies and brains are still in a somewhat more malleable phase than later.

    So while judgement isn’t impaired per se, I would say that it’s not exercised with as great care as an older person’s would be.

    This is all to say that I think the young woman posting this video may have either:

    1. Been somewhat pressured into it and deferred to an authority figure over that niggling sense that doing this speech wasn’t a good idea,

    or:

    2. Decided to do this speech as a somewhat impulsive act of trying to show an authority figure that she’s capable of effectively propagandizing for the movement she wants to be a bigger part of and didn’t account for the fact that, y’know, it’s public.

  • P J Evans

     Even those of us who didn’t do stuff like that have ‘oy, was that stupid’ moments when we look back.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

    I think it would be good to look at the ignorance aspect a bit more.  To provide one example that stuck with me:

    1.   She repeats the “fact” that new instances of HIV infection in the U.S. are disproportionately found among gay and bisexual men and men who have sex with other men in general.  However, she ignores the fact that it’s a totally different story in other parts of the world, where it’s women in man/woman relationships that are most at risk.  Also, she seems completely ignorant of the reasons that the CDC cite for the situation here in the U.S., reasons in which anti-LGBT stigma plays a huge part.

    2.  She mentions that the FDA doesn’t allow gay and bisexual men as well as any man who has ever had sex with another man since 1972 (I may be off by a year or two) to donate blood.  However, she completely ignores that even the Red Cross — you know, the folks who are out there dealing with the issue of blood donation and distribution on a regular basis — has been urging the FDA to drop this ban for years on the count that it is unnecessary and exacerbates the problem blood shortages.

    These are both classic arguments — including the convenient failure to offer the full details of the topics under discussion — by organizations like the AFA and FRC.  This young woman is not merely parroting what the (older) adults around her have told her, but what those adults have been spoonfed themselves by organizations who are only too happy to misinform and mislead (and yet cry when the SPLC and other organizations expose their dishonest tactics to spread hate).

    In short, this is a young woman that isn’t just spouting the hatred she’s been taught.  She spouting the half-truths and lies carefully crafted by the evangelical bubble that Fred has talked about in the past.  She’s proof that for some, that bubble is still intact and some people are not getting the full story that would dispel the truthy lies the bubble builders would prefer they hold on to.

  • misanthropy_jones

    there are too many people who see the genitals rather than the heart as being the seat of romantic love…

  • Si

    Man, anyone can spout this bullshit abusive brainwashed bigoted party-line bullshit. But not everyone can do so in such excruciatingly horrible rap form. I think this is a bigger crime against hip hop than it is against gay rights.  Which is saying something.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

    Is this even rap? I think this is just (terrible) spoken word. Also, the backing track is about as insipid as the rest of the video.

  • Eamon Knight

     I was wondering about that. Not that I’m in any way a culture vulture, but I’m almost sure rap is supposed to have backup music that’s a little more….rappy (in the literal sense).

    (Aside from everything else that’s wrong with it, of course).

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Where did the word rap come from?

    In the 1960s, “to rap” meant “to talk” or “to converse”. This is probably the usage intended in the video.

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    I certainly hope she is still growing and changing, but Fred—this is no child.  This is a young woman.  Yes, the adults in her life should be ashamed of themselves, but she is an adult, too, now, and responsible for what she purposely posts in public view for all to see.

    Honestly, when I saw the title on your front page, I thought you were talking about a six-year-old.

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/ Geds

     I certainly hope she is still growing and changing, but
    Fred—this is no child.  This is a young woman.  Yes, the adults in her
    life should be ashamed of themselves, but she is an adult, too, now,
    and responsible for what she purposely posts in public view for all to
    see.

    I’d say there’s reason for hope.  As a 31 year old I look back at 21 year-old me and am baffled about most of what I was and what I stood for.  The 20s can be a fascinating time of great growth.

    Of course, the woman in question has to find herself in a place where growth and self-reflection are encouraged.  That might simply not happen, which would be sad.

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    I’m sure there is a lot of influence from her parents and others.  But she is no innocent preschooler, and we do her no favors by treating her like one.

    A question: if the person making this video was a male of 20 or 21 years of age, would we be calling him a “child”?

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/ Geds

     A question: if the person making this video was a male of 20 or 21 years of age, would we be calling him a “child”?

    Probably not.  But that’s not a fair cop, since this looks like a category error.  The original article calls the person who made the video a “teen.”  Fred simply copied the line of thought from the Wonkette piece over here.

    It was then someone who showed up here who informed us that she is, in fact, 21.  I haven’t checked that claim and I don’t see any evidence that anyone else here has, either.  Given that she was originally identified as a teenager I’d say that Fred’s initial use of “child” to reference her isn’t an indication of some sort of misogynist plot.

    Now if she was specifically identified as a person in her 20s and everyone called her a child that would be a different case entirely.

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    Oh, come on.  You know I didn’t say anything about any “misogynist plot.”  I hate to be the language police on this one (in fact, I hate language policing most of the time), but this is simply not a child.

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/ Geds

     Oh, come on.  You know I didn’t say anything about any “misogynist
    plot.”  I hate to be the language police on this one (in fact, I hate
    language policing most of the time), but this is simply not a child.

    And yet here you are, acting as the language police while ignoring the key point that she was identified as a teenager by everyone until the mid-point of the first page of the comments on this very post.  It’s salient.

    Perhaps calling a teenager a child is also not necessarily the best idea, either.  It is, however, a defensible choice, since a teenager could be anywhere on a spectrum from an older child to a young adult.  Most of the teenage years also fit under years when older adults can be accused of child abuse for abusing the individual in question.  So it appeared that Fred was operating with a rhetorical device.  The follow-on information that she may actually be in her 20s changes the aptness of said rhetoric.  Given Fred’s lack of the follow-on knowledge there’s nothing inherently wrong with his choice of language.  It might not be the best way to word it.  It might not be your preferred language.  There’s a world of difference between “I don’t like this” and “this is wrong,” though.

  • http://heathencritique.wordpress.com/ Ruby_Tea

    There’s a world of difference between “I don’t like this” and “this is wrong,” though.

    And yet, sometimes they overlap.

    I just have no patience with this.  Good for Fred that he does, I guess, and that he doesn’t want anyone to do anything mean like mock this poor, innocent childgirlwomanbigot.  Who, sadly, has no free will of her own and was no doubt forced to stand in this lovely setting and tell people they’re going to be tortured forever.

    Poor little woobie.  What’s the age of accountability again?

  • Fanraeth

    I’m conflicted on this one. My knee-jerk impulse is to flame her like crazy, but I also know what it’s like to be raised in a fundamentalist bubble. In my case, I had neither a church or a public school available to me to provide alternative views, so it wasn’t until these last few years that I began to emerge from that programming. It took grappling with my sexual identity and actually being befriended by those godless, baby-killin’ atheists my parents warned me about for me to snap out of it. Now I never did anything as blatantly hateful as this young woman has, but there was certainly a lot of hate simmering inside of me.

    TL;DR version, I don’t know her situation and don’t feel comfortable doing more than condemning the video.

  • other lori

    She looks old enough to be responsible for her own behavior to me. At some point, we have to own up to our own prejudices and hatreds, and I think teens are at that point. A few generations ago, she would have been ready to marry and start her own family (if she hadn’t already); I don’t think we’re doing teens a service by imagining them as helpless children.

  • Tricksterson

    If the two girls who made up “Prussian Blue” can turn their backs on hate and ignorance than there’s hope for this young woman.

  • Fox

    And yet this article has yet to refute anything she’s said. It has merely stated disagreement. It implies that she is grossly incorrect but has yet to demonstrate it.

  • EllieMurasaki

    It gets tiresome having to explain and explain and explain all the reasons why the only loving Christian thing to do is ensure that people in loving monogamous relationships who want legal recognition of those relationships have legal recognition of those relationships regardless of the gender or genitals of the people in the relationships.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X