I think it could have been more explicitly a call for Ampersand to not let women get trashed on his boards. And I still don't think a women's ghetto at Alas is the way to go. But, I think your call to Ampersand to change the dynamics of his board so that women don't get shit on is right.

I met Heart online in the summer of 1994. I had recently subscribed to her magazine at the same time her life was coming apart at the seams. We spoke every day for months. We became friends, close friends, and we faced down the religious fundies together as they slandered and lied and libeled her all over the online services. In the end, she sued the ones responsible -- she sued fundie owners of fundie homeschool magazines, churches, pastors, writers, all movers and shakers of the Christian Right. It was a huge lawsuit and lasted many, many months. When it went to trial, I was called to testify to the slander I had witnessed online particularly by the competition's magazine editors who had ruthlessly followed her around online verbally attacking her character. I flew out to Seattle and was in the courthouse an entire week -- the trial lasted about ten days -- and it just infuriates me to hear the utter bullshit Tall Julie is attempting to spread because, hello? I was there and I know what happened and I know why it happened and I know who did what and fuck if anything that poster is saying is true.

Here is what Tall Julie is saying:

This is in reference to the fact that Heart and Char don't ban anyone from the Margins except men and MTF trans:

1). Apparently Renee isn't a woman, nor am I, since she and I were both banned, along with several other people who aren't women, according to her.

Tall Julie, Renee, and "several other people" that were banned are MTF's. No secret there. It's stated clearly in the Margins policies. The owners/moderators of the Margins have a right to decide that this will be Woman Space and in so doing have a right to define, for the purposes of this space only, who are women and who aren't. It's a message board, not the whole internet, not the whole world. Deal with it.

2). Anyone familiar with her lawsuit against "The Religious Right" is aware that she sued "The Religious Right" because there was some kind of conspiracy amongst "The Religious Right" to =stop= paying her $300,000 per year to speak to such organizations as "Focus On The Family". I've provided links in the past to articles and interviews, as well as court transcripts. Here is a URL --

http://www.homeedmag.com//seelhoffvs.welch/t/261.html

I would encourage anyone who is interested to read those transcripts, however they are no longer online, but they were online for several years for any and all public scrutiny. The way Heart was outed, slandered, libeled, abused, harassed, and betrayed by the RR is clearly portrayed in those transcripts. And this nonsense about the RR paying her to speak is utter bullshit. Heart self-published a magazine out of her own home that reflected her own life at the time. Was she a Christian fundamentalist at the time? Yes. Did she believe in living out the edicts of the Bible at that time? Yes. She wrote of her own life, her own struggles, her own process of a homesteading, homeschooling, alternative lifestyle fundamentalist Christian woman and other women, some of whom weren't Christians, weren't homeschoolers, weren't homesteaders, loved what she wrote and began, by word of mouth, subscribing to her magazine. The Christian homeschooling movement was just beginning then. They pretty much co-opted the movement from those who had always lived counter-culture, had been homeschooling quietly for years, and turned it into something Christian families not only could do but should do to "protect their children from the ravages of secular schooling and culture." Heart had just been doing her thing, living her life, publishing her little homemade magazine that became surprisingly popular due to the burgeoning Christian homeschooling movement, that she wasn't even really a part of at first, and she began getting invitations to speak at Christian homeschooling conventions. She was invited to be interviewed on Focus on the Family, too, on a show having to do with stay-at-home mothers, I believe, and she was also asked to appear on Christian television once. She was paid for these appearances, but the majority of her income came from her magazine which she put together herself, took very little advertising, did all the work with her family, all while living in a very closeted abusive marriage because in that world you DON'T out your husband's sins, you cover them, and the message is clear anyway that nobody will support you if you do try to get out. Divorce is anathema in those circles no matter what. Wife-beating is not grounds for divorce to them, in fact there are no grounds whatsoever. In any case, Heart was NEVER paid "$300,000 a year to speak for the Religious Right."

The theme of her magazine at the time was centered on Titus 2:

For those of you who are not familiar with "Titus 2", here is a convenient link to the text --

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Tts/Tts002.html#1

Tts 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

Tts 2:2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.

Tts 2:3 The aged women likewise, that in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

Tts 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Tts 2:5 discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Yeah? AND? That's what the Bible says and that's the life Heart broke herself trying to live. Under the best of circumstances it's soul-destroying and she wasn't living under the best of circumstances by any means. It's a life totally under the thumb of some of the strictist patriarchs known in this world. And the interesting thing is, the women who have emerged from that world know feminism in their bones, they know it because they've lived its antithesis, they've lived every day with the in-your-face dogma of patriarchal power and dominance, they've lived it from the very bowels and they've come out. They didn't have to take a Women's Studies course to understand, they didn't have to read Daly, MacKinnon, Greer, Firestone, Morgan, or Dworkin. They GET IT. When they do read these women, they feel it, they get the words put on their lived experiences, and they are affirmed and made whole.

In an interview titled "The Truth about Cheryl", she admits that she had done precisely what she claims on "The Margins" she had not done --

http://www.homeedmag.com//seelhoffvs.welch/truth.html

// On June 17, 1994, Cheryl and Rick departed for the Christian Home Educators of Ohio convention, where Cheryl had a speaking engagement. CHEO had asked for her keynote address, "Titus 2, Living in a Feminist Age." "Titus 2" refers to a biblical passage that Cheryl had long quoted in her publication. It advises women to be "keepers at home... and obedient to their own husbands." But Cheryl's life had moved away from alignment with those conditions. She had been writing a monthly magazine exhorting women to submit to and obey their husbands, as she had done through twenty years of marriage - until two months prior, and that very obedience and submission had resulted in an abusive situation for Cheryl and her children. //

What? Where has Heart EVER denied this? Where has she ever denied that she was indeed a fundamentalist Christian for many years, did in fact publish a magazine based on the principles of Titus 2, did in fact live with suffocating and soul-damaging abuse by her ex-husband, tried her level best to apply the principles of fundamentalist Christianity to heal her marriage -- as it PROMISES IT WILL -- only to learn that those very ideas, tactics and philosophies further sets up a woman for abuse? Where in the world has Heart EVER denied this???? Is she a fundamentalist Christian NOW? No. Fucking. Way. When I met Cheryl going on 12 years ago now, we were BOTH still entrenched in fundie ideology, but due to circumstances in both our lives, both having to do with our suffering outrageous abuse at the hands of fundamentalist men, both having to do with having tried our level best to apply what we believed at the time to be Christian principles to our lives and both having been completely devastated with the results, we both began, blindly, holding each other's hands, to climb and claw and dig our way out. What Heart suffered was cruel punishment -- she had people sabotaging her home, her mail, stalking her, and sending death threats. She almost lost her home a couple times, if it wasn't for the benevolence of feminist women who supported her, loved her, paid her mortgage, fought her legal battles, counseled her, oh my Goddess, feminist women buoyed her up when she was going under time after time! WTF? Have you never heard of PROCESS? Of growth and change? I have read on this very board Heart stating that she was indeed a cog in the wheel of patriarchy, that she had been participating in that machinery that keeps women oppressed, she has --right here!-- said so herself!

// The evening of July 5, 1994, Boutot spoke to Irene Williams, who had spoken to HSLDA's Michael Farris and Sue Welch of The Teaching Home. Although Boutot did not appear to remember specifics in the courtroom, the CHEO Chairman's phone notes from that evening hint at what transpired between the Williamses and the Christian homeschool leaders. Boutot's notes include these phrases: "Ideally letter needs to come from Cheryl... Letter to leaders (also subscribers), include: Under church discipline; specify sins (lying and adultery); decline all speaking, et cetera; potential replace Gentle Spirit with The Teaching Home. Michael Farris is agreeing with direction. Would rather letter publicizing be letter from Cheryl versus others. Letter needs to be reviewed by me... Cheryl needs to advise advertisers and columnists so they don't continue to write. Feels I need to call Dr. Dobson, Focus on the Family, as they have been promoting and endorsing." //

Yes, this is evidence that the competitors to her magazine, this one in particular was Teaching Home owned and edited by Sue Welch, were devising ways to put Cheryl out of business and take over her subscriber base by replacing their subscriptions with Teaching Home and to further humiliate her by demanding that she confess publicly via the "letter" and make it appear voluntary that she was submitting to their abuse of her and their takeover of her magazine. They engaged in an all-out public media campaign to discredit her and part of that was to call James Dobson to inform FoF of her "sins" so they would not continue to endorse her publication. FoF didn't do a whole lot of endorsing of Heart's magazine, but they would occasionally re-air the program in which she had been a guest. It's possible they offered contact info for her magazine, too, I'm not sure, because when people would call after programs were aired they'd want to get the info about how to get copies of the publication. So what about it? Her magazine WAS very popular, which is precisely the reason the competition wanted to take her DOWN. They wanted her subscriber base. They wanted what she had and she had routinely infuriated them in the past by not playing by their rules, not giving them what they wanted, even though she seemed to be in their camp. But always, Heart was her own woman. She supported those parts of their agenda that she, personally felt aligned with and rejected the parts she disagreed with, ALWAYS. Her magazine had a wider audience than theirs since it wasn't entirely focused on homeschooling, but included so many other aspects of simple home life, she had many nonChristian subscribers as well. They were drooling at the thought that they had finally gotten their chance to cash in on the booty.

The issue here is not whether or not "Titus 2" is misogynistic. I think we all agree that it is. At least, I =hope= we can all agree that it is. Rather, the issue here is the way that Heart repeatedly backs away from admitting that she was paid by the Religious Right to advance "Titus 2". It could just as easily have been "The Perils of Refined Sugar" that she was being paid to advance, but she was definitely, as captured in that interview, something which the Religious Right =paid= her money to advance.

Who the hell are you categorizing as The Religious Right? Christian housewives??? Women paid the conference fees to attend, women paid for their subscriptions, individual women! Women listened to the FoF radio broadcast, women asked for the magazine address, women wrote columns in her magazine, women wrote letters and women supported her. Are these women The Religious Right? Are these women the powerful Religious Right? Oh for fuck's sake -- when do women EVER gain power under patriarchal systems and the Religious Right is one of the strongest bastions of patriarchy in existence! Cheryl NEVER produced Gentle Spirit Magazine at the request of ANYONE, she did it for herself, for her family, for her convictions, for her life. She didn't do it because any fucking organization paid her. Her speaking at conferences was, in part, her own way of advertising her magazine because she did not advertise widely, she would occasionally trade ads with other mags, but her publication grew, which publication supported her large family, fed and clothed her children, practically entirely BY WORD OF MOUTH. She wasn't getting paid to endorse Titus 2, she was getting paid for her blood, sweat, and tears in the process of putting out a publication that many, many women enjoyed. When the burden of living that suffocating life became unendurable, she LEFT that life and the Religious Right attacked her like sharks in a feeding frenzy.

On the subject of transphobia, her response to her first "debunked lie" make it clear that she views transsexual women as though we are men. I believe this view was developed by her under the guidance and direction of Charlotte Croson, though I have absolutely no hard proof of that.

Um...no. She makes it clear that she views transsexual men as transsexuals. MTF's she called them. Not women. Not men. Transsexuals. I think that's very clear.

The reason I believe this is that at the time I was allowed to subscribe to "The Margins" -- and this was with her full knowlege that I am a transsexual woman -- there was another openly-known transsexual woman who'd been involved on that board for some time. This is prior to Heart learning that Renee was transsexual, but was after the time that Heart knew that Char viewed M2F transsexuals as "men" and not "women" (so far as I know Char continues to believe, unapologetically, that transsexual women are actually men, and I believe this is supported by a variety of Char's own writings, which are themselves some of the most hate-filled transphobic drivel ever written).

Once again, have you never heard of PROCESS? Not only that, but it has been many of our experiences on many internet venues, message boards, mailing lists, blogs, etc., that when MTF transsexuals participate in feminist space, they repeatedly distract and derail threads in which feminist women are speaking to in-fight among themselves about who is a Real Woman and who isn't, taking up voluminous bandwidth for these arguments and mudslinging personal attacks upon one another AND upon feminist women who don't agree with trans stances and position, such that thread after thread become ALL ABOUT TRANS and not about those things feminist women want to discuss.

Char's writings speak for themselves. They certainly are NOT hate-filled. Char has repeatedly supported, both personally and publically, trans people, loving them as individuals and feeling great compassion for them yet aligning herself firmly against trans politics because it is clear that trans politics are deeply at odds with feminist politics in many crucial ways. Yes, she and Heart and many, many other feminist women are ALLOWED to hold anti-trans-politics positions that are based on their OWN lived experiences and critical examination of said politics. It does not constitute HATE to disagree with someone's politics.

In short, all of the things she attempts to debunk are actually true --

1). She does not tolerate anything but a rigid and dogmatic view of radical feminism on her boards and she will ban anyone (as evidenced by my own banning years ago) she sees and disagreeing with her radical feminist agenda.

Bullshit. Utter and complete nonsense. She has NEVER banned anyone from these boards except: Men and MTF's and the occasional unidentified troll. All manner of women post here and represent a whole range of opinions and views. There are even women here who don't (yet, heh heh) identify as feminist, much less radical feminist. We've even been accused as being host for male apologists, pornographers and religious fundies. Whatever. ALL women are welcome here and they will not be banned. They will be confronted, engaged, asked to support their arguments, but they are welcomed and if they desire to stay, they may stay.

2). She was a paid speaker of the Radical Religious Right who taught that women should practice Christian submission to their husbands, just as she had practiced Christian submission at the hands of her abusive husband Claude, allowing him to beat her for years on end.

Before I get into the ridiculousness of this inflammatory claim, I would like to address the overt misogyny in the latter statement about "allowing him to beat her for years on end." Blame the victim much? How is it that any woman's practice of her religion should ALLOW any man to beat her? How is it that the doctrine of Christian submission, which sets forth a MUTUAL submission between believers, gives ANY MAN license to abuse his wife? How is it you are laying the responsibility for this man's abuse on HER and not on HIM? How is it that you are not calling him out on his participating in her subjugation and subsequent shunning and excommunication and resulting poverty and abuse by MEN (as well as women) in the conservative religious community in which she was a part? How is it that you clearly place the blame for her own abuse on her? It is clear that this person who wrote this is NO FRIEND of women of any political persuasion.

She was a paid speaker for some Christian Homeschooling conferences in the US during the emergence of the Christian Homeschooling Movement. She was a paid guest (but if I'm not mistaken, I don't think it was much more than her expenses) on Focus on the Family, I think one time, maybe twice. She appeared once on Christian television with Paul and Jan Crouch -- gosh, it's been so long since I've seen that show, I don't even remember what it's called. I've blissfully blocked it out. Cheryl's magazine, put out by her own hands, provided the income her family lived VERY simply on for a number of years, maybe five?...not many years, that's for sure. She didn't ultimately benefit in ANY WAY from the Religious Right who tore through her life like a devastating tornado when her evolving life ran counter to their agenda.

3). She follows in the political footsteps of Charlotte Croson, who is a publish writer of various transphobic and bigotted pieces.

Asked and answered above. This is ignorant and that's all I'm going to say about that.

Sophia

Heart

--Sophia

And I *wish* I had "various" published pieces. Sadly, I only have one. And it can be found here: http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/sexliesfeminism.html if anyone is interested in reading it.

Actually, I take that back, I also have a book review published in the Journal of Lesbian Studies.

http://www.haworthpress.com/store/Toc_views.asp?sid=7NA08M085J5D9NHG1BNHCUS404J81J50&TOCName=J155v06n01%5FTOC&desc=Volume%3A%206%20Issue%3A%201

You can't read that online, but you're welcome to purchase it from Haworth Press. It's a review of "Voted Out", a book about the psychological impact of the anti-gay amendment in Colorado.

I will clarify some of all that magnificent stuff you posted. You were at my house back in 1997 when my case went to trial, and so you know that I lived, with all nine of my kids, in a double wide mobile home on five acres. I lived there from 1990 until I moved in 1999. There has been an attempt to paint a picture of me as someone who was wealthy, an executive type. I wasn't that. Ever. During the years I published the magazine, I lived *extremely* simply. That was something my magazine taught, simple living, not the current fake and trendy "simple living" of, say, Real Simple, but true simplicity of lifestyle along the lines of the Amish and the Mennonites. My daughters and I wore long corduroy jumpers, plain dresses, thick socks, never trousers. We wore head veils. We did not have television, didn't watch movies, didn't listen to any music at all but hymns. We practiced simplicity for practical, spiritual, and alternative lifestyle reasons. We were strict vegans. We were pacifists and environmentalists. We composted and/or recycled EVERYTHING, gardened, raised farm animals and chickens, bought our food at food co-ops we organized with others in the community we were part of, and didn't believe in buying anything new. When the lie is told that I was paid $300,000 by the RR, beyond what Sophia has posted there, it's just absurd. My magazine grossed that much money at its most successful. But it *costs* to publish a magazine. It costs a lot of money. Especially the way I published, four colors, high quality paper, 11 times annually, mailed out at Second Class Rates all over the world. I charged only $22 per year for 11 thick magazines. I limited advertising to no more than 10 percent of content. I wanted as many women as possible to be able to subscribe, and my readership base was largely low income, one-income families where the wife was at home.

Beyond that, I was raising *nine children*. My magazine supported 11 people because my ex took an early retirement as soon as the magazine began to turn a profit.

I was paid very little to speak at conferences. The most I ever received was $500 for keynoting a conference where I spoke to 5,000 women. Generally, I earned something like $75 for an hour's workshop at regular conferences. I spoke lots of other places where women would gather more informally and would invite me to come and speak. Sometimes admission would be charged and tickets sold (on a sliding scale with no one turned away), other times women would pass a hat. I would usually have my airfare and hotel or lodging paid if I had to travel, but often I stayed in the homes of subscribers. Whatever money I made at conferences, I made not via honorariums but through magazine subscription sales and sales of back issues.

I was part of a panel for Focus on the Family in, oh, 1990, if I'm not mistaken. There were four women: me, a former air traffic controller (I think), a former M.D., and a former corporate executive. We'd all left our careers to take care of our kids. The program was entitled "Career Homemaking." It was aired every few years, and Sophia's right, information about subscribing to my magazine was provided at the end of the program. I didn't receive *any* money for participating on this panel. Zero. My roundtrip airfare was paid for the taping, mostly because I was invited down on short notice, i.e., "Can you be at the studio in Los Angeles in four days?" Airfare, even then, was hugely expensive. I had left my career and was living very simply. This was at the very beginning of my publishing days, which began in 1989. When I went on the FOF panel, I had 17 subscribers.

I was not paid by *any* "Religious Right" organization to "teach women to submit to their husbands", and what you wrote there was right on, Sophia. I wasn't affiliated with any RR organization-- not even a church. The money I earned came from speaking, from conferences, and from magazine subscriptions.

I never went on television with Paul and Jan Crouch, heh , but I did appear on a talk show aired out of Portland and sponsored by their television network, Trinity Broadcasting. I can't remember the host's name, but I liked him, he was funny, and the whole program was about simple living. I wasn't paid for this; it happened in conjunction with a seminar I was presenting in Portland.

I appeared a number of times on local television as well to talk about either homeschooling or my magazine. In addition, quite often when I traveled to speak at conferences, I also spoke on radio programs or went on television wherever the conference was. Usually when I traveled to speak, some or all of my family traveled with me. Women traveling alone in those circles was severely frowned on. Sometimes the whole family would take off in our van. When I had to fly any distance, typically my ex-husband or one of my oldest sons would fly with me.

I was part of the early homeschooling movement, which was part of the counterculture movement of the 60s and inspired in large part by John Holt of Growing Without Schooling. I was homeschooling before the movement was co-opted by the Religious Right. And that was really what my lawsuit was about. "You will be assimilated" has real meaning when we are talking about the Religious Right. My little magazine was hugely popular, I was a rising star, and patriarchs on the Religious Right hated that. They hated it because (1) I was inter-racially married. This is something TallJulie never posts, although it was central to my lawsuit. The magazine editor who tried to replace my magazine with her own, who tried to get my mailing list, at one point told me she would not list my speaking engagements in her publication unless I told those who invited me to speak that my now-ex-husband was black. She told me she had received many complaints, that conference organizers had been alarmed when I showed up with my biracial family in tow. (2) We were pacifists and nonresisters in my family. The Religious Right, in general, is patriotic, nationalistic, and militaristic. We didn't salute the flag, and our sons were raised as conscientious objectors. (3) I didn't fit the woman-of-the-hour-with-power, Phyllis Shlafly, Total Woman stereotype the RR loves. I didn't clatter around in high heels with my Total Woman makeup perfectly applied and my hair neatly coiffed. I looked like an Amish woman, a member of the plain people.
LearningOne, who posts here, once wrote in an article for another publication that when she went to see me speak, her husband was with her, and he expressly told her he didn't want her to dress or look like me! Well, I was hurt by that when I read what LearningOne wrote all those ago, but I think it's funny now (so no worries, LearningOne). (4) The RR hated me because they couldn't control me. As Sophia wrote, I picked and chose. I was always my own woman. I refused to align with them or to seek their endorsement or approval. I wouldn't advertise with them. I never sought their support. I spoke at secular conferences as well as religious conferences. I had all kinds of subscribers, atheists, agnostics, Jews, pagans, wiccans, Amish, Mennonite, brethren, conservative Christians. My publication was earthy, down-home, mostly practical.

Over the months the RR was attempting to seize its opportunity to take me down and steal my publication and mailing list, not only did I receive death threats, not only did I nearly lose my home and land several times, but my car also burned to the ground in a mysterious fire. My ex emptied the bank accounts with the encouragement of the pastor (his best friend) and the RR leaders I ultimately sued. I was alone, in the country, excommunicated, responsible for nine children.

When I won my lawsuit against the RR for their having conspired to violate the Sherman Anti-trust Act and received my settlement, I bought my current farm and returned to publishing. I refunded or resumed subscriptions for all of the women whose subscriptions were left hanging when I was put out of business by the RR. I published for another two years, but differently, my magazine reflecting all of the changes in my thinking and politics.

So those lies being told over there, those are some horrific lies. They are an attempt to erase and denigrate some of the proudest moments of my life, the moments when I stood up to the Religious Right, stood up to abuse, and made a new life for myself and my children. The efforts to portray me as affluent, ever, are a lie. The efforts to portray me as a pawn of the RR are a lie.

And I love you, Sophia, for telling the truth.

Heart

Heart

And you can stop right now, please, don't need to justify yourself or your life anymore. I may not have gotten all the details precisely correct, but it doesn't matter. The truth is there to see and that's all we can do is speak our truth against the liars who would try to turn our own lived experiences against us.

Love you, sister.

Sophia

Heart

Heart