I Am (Wo)man

I was recently reminded of the song "I Am Woman," and struck by how much it affects me:

Honestly, I don't see how anyone with an ounce of humanism can fail to be moved by the impulse toward freedom it expresses. Indeed, I see from the comments that some people find it personally inspirational for reasons unrelated to gender, and even when they themselves are male. The thrill it gives me is not so different from that I get when Alison Tieman -- one of the most intellectually creative men's rights activists, and my personal heartthrob -- explodes about something in one of her "Ragening" videos.

So, how does confessing this feeling square with being opposed to feminism? Quite simply, by understanding the distinction between that primal impulse, which at a particular historical moment took the form of a widening collective rebellion against gender-based discrimination as experienced by women, on the one hand -- and, on the other, an ideology that captured that movement and framed it within a false narrative about the history and present status of gender relations, one that wrongly counterposes women's liberation to men's liberation instead of recognizing them as complementary objectives to be achieved by overthrowing a gender system that oppresses both sexes in different ways -- and which, by so doing, has actually become detrimental in many ways to women's liberation, as well as being harmful to men.

Why Determinism Is Not the Same As Fatalism

This excellent passage from Engels, which I just read yesterday, employs a mathematical metaphor to make the difference clear:

"Secondly, history is so made that the end-result always arises out of the conflict of many individual wills, in which every will is itself the product of a host of special conditions of life. Consequently there exist innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite group of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant product – the historical event. This again may itself be viewed as the product of a force acting as a whole without consciousness or volition. For what every individual wills separately is frustrated by what every one else wills and the general upshot is something which no one willed. And so the course of history has run along like a natural process; it also is subject essentially to the same laws of motion. But from the fact that the wills of individuals – who desire what the constitution of their body as well as external circumstances, in the last instance economic (either personal or social) impel them to desire – do not get what they wish, but fuse into an average or common resultant, from all that one has no right to conclude that they equal zero. On the contrary, every will contributes to the resultant and is in so far included within it." -- Frederick Engels, letter to Bloch, 21 September 1890, Selected Correspondence, p. 475

Fund Created for Social Mobbing Victims

                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                       https://www.gofundme.com/jonkay

"This fund has been initiated by Jonathan Kay, and seeded with his own $2,500 donation. All donations (including his) will be held, in trust, by the Toronto-based Levitt LLP law firm and its Financial Administrator. Upon the dissolution of the fund, any unspent funds will be returned, on a pro rata basis, to donors. Interested parties may learn more about the fund by contacting us through Twitter .  

"A number of Canadian academics, artists, authors, journalists and politicians recently have been targeted by ideologically-motivated mob attacks on social media. In some cases, these attacks have led to the threat of job loss—and have continued even after the mobbing target has been largely cleared of significant wrongdoing by a neutral fact-finder. These same mobs also have focused their attacks on third parties who have urged due process for the accused.

"Because of the increasingly precarious nature of work in creative industries and academia, those who stand accused of offensive words or actions often have scant means or institutional support to assist in their self-defence. To the extent these individuals have access to legal representation, it may be provided by third parties—such as a union—that exhibit divided loyalties. Even some NGOs that traditionally have stood in support of free speech and academic freedom have fallen mute, intimidated by the barrage of online criticism they will endure if they champion the civil liberties of mobbed individuals. As a result, there is an emerging sense on campuses, and within some businesses, that Canadians with controversial opinions or reputations may be terminated, bullied or libeled without legal consequence. 

"This is something I learned first-hand in the Spring of 2017. Thanks to some good luck, I was able to fight back successfully. But others have been less fortunate, which is why I have created a fund to defray the legal costs of those who have been attacked by ideologically motivated mobs.  

"Legal advice will be provided to fund beneficiaries by Howard Levitt, a well-known Toronto-based authority in labour-and-employment-related matters. Mr. Levitt also has experience in areas of law—such as libel and breach of contract—that sometimes arise in labour disputes. It is foreseen that Howard will provide fund beneficiaries with advice or representation, as circumstances may warrant. In other cases, he will direct beneficiaries to other legal resources that he believes are more suitable. As beneficiary candidates present themselves, Mr. Levitt will help ovsersee a small committee to assist in funding decisions. (I will not be on it.)

"In all cases, the purpose will be to help encourage all parties to pursue a just resolution of any underlying dispute. Where circumstances warrant, journalistic avenues may be pursued so as to highlight elements of these cases that raise concerns in regard to the treatment of unpopular individuals or opinions by schools, business entities and other institutions.     

"The purpose of the fund is not to advance an ideological agenda, except insofar as the protection of due process, freedom of speech, and freedom of intellectual inquiry may be taken to represent matters of ideological preference.

"It is not intended that the fund will be used to protect any and all parties who are fired, disciplined or censured on the basis of their expressed viewpoints—as some forms of speech truly do go beyond the boundaries of legally acceptable discourse. Mr. Levitt will exercise discretion in directing the fund's resources, but will do so without any defined ideological or partisan litmus test in mind."       

—Jonathan Kay

Understanding Abusive Spiritual Systems and Relationships

The International Cultic Studies Association is holding a conference on Understanding Abusive Spiritual Systems and Relationships which qualifies as continuing education.

Understanding Abusive Spiritual Systems and Relationships

Indiana University -- Purdue University
Hine Hall, President's Room

This event will bring together mental health professionals and other helping professionals who currently work with those who have experienced spiritual abuse. Spiritual abuse may be viewed as being situated within the broader umbrella of psychological abuse but is a unique and often unrecognized aspect of this broader phenomenon. The societal value placed on religion can sometimes hinder critical evaluation of harmful dynamics and coercive control within religious frameworks. This workshop will explore spiritual abuse and the underlying mechanism of coercive control, and explore counseling interventions for clinicians working with those who have experienced abusive spiritual systems and relationships, and their loved ones.

Introduction to Spiritual Abuse (Ashley Allen, MSW, LMSW, .25 CE hours)
Panel: Born and/or Raised in Spiritually Abusive Groups (Debby Schriver, MS, 1.0 CE hour)
God Images, Implicit Religions, and Multiplicity of the Self: New
Conceptual Models for Understanding the Experience of Spiritually Abusive Groups (Peter Malinoski, PhD, 1.0 CE hour)
Early Trauma, Spirituality, and Serious Mental Illness: Exploring Intersecting Factors (Vincent Starnino, PhD, 1.0 CE hour)
Applying Cultural Competency to Work With Former Members (Matthew Staton, MDiv Counseling, .75 CE hours)
Choosing Self-Advocacy: An Attorney's Journey Through Spiritual Abuse

Panel: Support Groups (Dawn
Racine, M.S.Ed., Donna Lark, and Gina Harding, MBA)
Roundtable Discussions (Donna
Backstrom; Anna Holmquist; Stephen Martin, MDiv;
Peter Malinoski, PhD)

• Attendees will be able to identify clinically relevant effects of spiritual abuse.
• Attendees will be able to describe areas of clinical focus with this population.
• Attendees will be able to utilize effective skills for assessing spiritual abuse.
• Attendees will be able to identify the unique clinical needs of children raised in spiritually abusive groups.

Registration

ICSA Members including Institutional Members: $25.00 + $7.00 for parking voucher
6 CE credits are available with registration
(Please check with your individual board to be sure NBCC CE hours are accepted)

Financial Assistance
Scholarships are available for those with financial need, e.g., unemployment, disability. Contact ICSA at mail@icsamail.com

Information on spiritual abuse: www.spiritualabuseresources.com/

Patriarchy, or Self-Responsibility?

So, this morning I was hanging out in the lobby of Planned Parenthood, where a number of volunteer patient escorts were waiting to see if any protesters would show up and oblige us to go out into the freezing cold to escort patients (none did). The conversation turned to the choices people make about changing their names, and naming their children, after getting married. And one woman complained about how, when she'd gotten a divorce, the law had required her to get her husband's permission to get her maiden name back after the divorce.

She described this as "patriarchy," and thought she should be able to do this all on her own -- even though she acknowledged that she could have done so anyway once the divorce was completed; she just couldn't get it done as part of the divorce process by a unilateral choice.

I sensed that her logic was flawed, but didn't feel like trying to argue the case on the fly. But, upon reflection, I'd point to at least two problems with it:

I haven't read the law in question, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that it applies exactly the same to men and women; after all, if it didn't I surely would have heard it mentioned as a feminist talking point by now. I expect that if this women's ex-husband had taken her name when they married, and not she his, it would have been he that needed her permission to get his family name back as part of the divorce process. If that doesn't happen much, it's just because wives take their husband's names far more often than vice versa, not because there's anything sexist about the law.

The other symmetry she's overlooking is that between the marriage and the divorce. She got her husband's name not by unilateral action, but a mutual agreement resulting from a negotiation (at least an informal one) between the parties. Why, then, does she think undoing the results of that agreement shouldn't also require negotiation -- especially as part of a process that in its entirety is negotiated?

It strikes me that this is a very typical example of how feminism induces women to refuse responsibility for the consequences of their own choices. No one forced her to take her husband's name when she married; she presumably did so because it was agreeable and convenient for her. Yet, she doesn't accept that making that choice logically also meant that, if she later decided to divorce, she'd have to negotiate to undo all the same things she'd negotiated to do -- simply because that wasn't convenient for her.

Instead of acknowledging that she'd brought this inconvenience on herself by her earlier choice, feminism gave her an easy out from that responsibility, by blaming "patriarchy" instead. And that could be seen as a microcosm of what a lot of feminism is about these days.

"I Lost My Son to the Alt-Right Movement"

Sad story but with an unfortunate admixture of misinformation. For one thing, it links to a piece claiming without evidence that the men's rights movement, like the alt-right, "appeal[s] to men with fantasies of violent, sometimes apocalyptic redemption."

Here are a few of the main men's rights websites: www.avoiceformen.com, www.honeybadgerbrigade.com, http://ncfm.org/. You'll be hard put to find anything about violent redemption on them; the second, in fact, is run mostly by women and was created by one. Nor do all their posters even claim that men are "THE true victims of oppression" (emphasis added) -- only that we have issues that are being neglected.

Additionally, although I'm no fan of Stefan Molyneux, the article's claim that he's "alt-right" is widely contested and appears to be based on very thin evidence.

http://www.cultnews101.com/2017/08/i-lost-my-son-to-alt-right-movement.html

Defend Free Speech at Acadia University

I'm signing this petition in spite of the misleading and divisive language describing the opposing campaigners as "Marxist and Socialist." Their sort of authoritarianism can be found everywhere on the political spectrum, and falsely tying it to one ideological perspective can only needlessly limit support for the petition by repelling Marxists and socialists like me who agree with the arguments in libertarian Marxist Hal Draper's classic essay "Free Speech and Political Struggle."

https://www.change.org/p/acadia-university-support-for-professor-rick-mehta

Return to HOME

This evening, for only the second time, I took part in one of Project HOME's Potlatches.

The first time was about a quarter century ago, at the invitation of my friend Carolyn Jacobs, and I sang three antiwar songs by Fred Stanton.

This time was again at Carolyn's invitation, and I sang my filk song "Trinity," based on Lois McMaster Bujold's fantasy novel The Curse of Chalion.

Mark Segal Smears Chelsea Manning for Having Principles

At a Liberty City Democrats meeting I attended a few years ago, I heard one member remark derisively, "Mark always supports the party" -- by which he meant the Democratic leadership vs. internal challengers. Oh, how true we can now see this is.

In his most recent column in the Philadelphia Gay News, Segal accuses Chelsea Manning of being "divisive" by choosing to run in the Democratic primary against incumbent Senator from Maryland Ben Cardin, asking why she doesn't run against a "right-winger" instead. Never mind that residency requirements might not make that possible -- Segal implies it must be about narcissism on Manning's part. I commented as follows:

"In her first-tweeted video, she opted not to say anything bad about Cardin, but used video of Trump. What a great way to divide us." Wth?!! Not criticizing her fellow Democrat, and instead focusing on the man all Democrats are united in hating -- that's "a great way to DIVIDE us"? In what universe?

"Why pick a member of the resistance [sic]?" Who defines "resistance"? Does it refer to anything principled, or just partisan affiliation? For Segal, evidently it's the latter.

His question is clearly rhetorical, since with a modicum of research he could have found a real answer to it. As Glenn Greenwald noted, "Cardin’s crowning achievement came last year when he authored a bill that would have made it a felony to support a boycott of Israel — a bill that was such a profound assault on basic First Amendment freedoms that the ACLU instantly denounced it and multiple senators who had co-sponsored Cardin’s bill (such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand) announced that they were withdrawing their support."

By contrast, Chelsea Manning is running as a self-described radical anti-authoritarian. Obviously, if that's how you define The Resistance, Ben Cardin isn't part of it -- he's part of the problem. And, by the way, there's nothing unitive about him either -- you unite progressives by standing without compromise on progressive principles like freedom of speech, not squelching it on behalf of inherently divisive ethnic nationalism. And it's ironic that Segal conveniently overlooks Cardin's anti-civil-liberties stance when, only a few months ago, he was denouncing the Chicago Dyke March for censoring a Jewish contingent's Stars of David (an editorial I endorsed on my blog, by the way). Is he only for freedom of speech when it suits his demographic?

A Double Header of Deception on NPR

Well, Morning Edition outdid themselves today, airing not one, but two stories containing defamatory misinformation.

First they have an interview with Brianna Wu, who's been building her personal brand for the past three years by slandering the #Gamergate "consumer uprising" (as Christina Hoff Sommers has described it -- watch this starting at 42:23) as a harassment campaign against women in gaming in general and her in particular. The specific function and purpose of this lie has been to divert attention from the movement's legitimate grievances about corrupt and authoritarian practices in video game journalism.

And then, in introducing a story on the class-action discrimination suit against Google being brought by its former employee James Damore, they repeat the lie that he wrote an "anti-diversity memo." If you read the memo for yourself you can easily see that that's not what it is; in fact, Damore specifically proposes new, evidence-based approaches to help make Google's diversity efforts more successful. And here's one female engineer's response to the canard that the memo "promotes gender stereotypes": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9SzOkOHzmM

I encourage others to join me in complaining to NPR about these libelous stories.

The First Amendment, Without Exceptions! (Indonesian Baker Won’t Write “Merry Christmas” on Cake for Religious Reasons)

This is an interesting story, but the comparison with the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is inaccurate. As noted in an amicus curiae brief filed by the First Amendment Lawyers Association (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-111-tsac-first-amendment-lawyers-association.pdf), "The Colorado Civil Rights Commission held that Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack C. Phillips, violated the Colorado Anti-DiscriminationAct (“CADA”), § 24-34-601(2), C.R.S. 2014, for declining to create a custom-designed wedding cake for the same-sex marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins." (Emphases added.) 

The same kind of misrepresentation appeared in an email I received from the ACLU a couple weeks ago, falsely claiming the plaintiffs in the American case "just wanted to buy a cake."

As an out bisexual, I obviously wouldn't (if I were a baker) decline to make a cake on the grounds that Phillips is stating (opposition to same-sex marriage). On the other hand, were I approached by an adult evangelical Christian who asked me to create a cake for a celebration marking his graduation from an ex-gay "conversion therapy" program, I very likely would refuse rather than participate in celebrating something I consider fraudulent and pernicious. And if, in response, this would-be customer hit me with a discrimination suit claiming I was refusing his business on the basis of his religion, I would vigorously defend myself, explaining that I wasn't discriminating against him -- I'd be perfectly willing to sell him something off the shelf -- but, rather, discriminating against an idea that I don't agree with. Unlike discrimination against people, discrimination against ideas is protected by the First Amendment.

Applying the Golden Rule (which is supported by secular humanists and a variety of religious traditions in one form or another, and not only Christians), clearly I can't deny Jack Phillips a liberty I claim for myself: the liberty to be free from compelled speech, clearly stated in the brief linked above and completely irrespective of whether the beliefs involved have a religious basis (which they wouldn't in the hypothetical case of the last paragraph).

Not only has Phillips stated his willingness to sell the plaintiffs anything they want off the shelf, but I think it perfectly clear that, had they opted for a low-key wedding sans cake, but some straight friend decided to surprise them with a cake ordered without their knowledge -- and tried to commission this cake from Jack Phillips --  the latter would have refused this prospective customer's business notwithstanding his heterosexuality. Because this case is about discriminating against ideas, not people.

In fact , what the plaintiffs are asking for is to have a special exception carved out (no pun intended) from the First Amendment's protections against compelled speech -- an exception based not only on subject matter (same-sex unions) but on one particular opinion about that subject (pro). This is in defiance of a long and very well established principle of First Amendment jurisprudence, namely that viewpoint discrimination by government is impermissible.

Karl Marx and the Victorians

Before returning to the library what my left book group will be discussing next month -- Eric Hobsbawm's How to Change the World: Reflections on Marx and Marxism -- I must share some of the interesting quotes in the chapter titled, "Dr. Marx and the Victorian Critics," because they illuminate in the most interesting manner the attitude pro-capitalist intellectuals took toward him before they felt threatened:

"Marx is a Hegelian in philosophy and a rather bitter opponent of ministers of religion. But in forming an opinion of his writings we must not allow ourselves to be prejudiced against the man." -- Rev. M. Kaufmann, Socialism (1874)

"However its teaching may be viewed, no one will venture to dispute the masterly ingenuity, the rare acumen, the close argumentation and, let it be added, the incisive polemic which are displayed in ... the pages [of Capital]." -- W. H. Dawson, German Socialism and Ferdinand Lassalle (1888)

Of his views on the division of labor and machinery, "both learned and exhaustive, and is well worth reading." -- J. Shield Nicholson, Principles of Political Economy I (1893)

"Marx was trying to get at the right kinds of history. The orthodox historians ignore all the most significant factors in human development." -- George Unwin, Studies in Economic History (1927)

"Where alone Marx did memorable work as a historical theorist, was in his analysis and interpretation of the capitalist era, and here he must be admitted to have rendered eminent service, even by those who think his analysis more subtle than accurate, and his interpretations more ingenious than true." -- Robert Flint, Socialism (1895)

"[T]hough Marx has colored his picture too darkly, he has rendered great service in calling attention to the more gloomy features of modern industry, to which it is useless to shut our eyes." -- Llewellyn-Smith, Economic Aspects of State Socialism (1887)

Update from the International Cultic Studies Association:  "To reach out to those who relate more to the term spiritual abuse than cult, ICSA created a subsidiary website, www.spiritualabuseresources.com, which also houses the Spiritual Safe Haven Network pages."

A Reminder: ICSA Is Coming Back to Philadelphia in 2018

Annual Conference - Overview Theme of Conference: The global challenge of young people born, raised or recruited into extremist groups, abusive religious organizations, or coercive/exploitative relationships Overview Annual Conference Call for Papers Registration/Fees    Online    Fax/Mail/Phone-Fees     Program    Agenda    Preconference    Speakers    Abstracts Accommodations    Hotels    Meals    Getting There Details    Visas    Health Insurance    Cancellation    Financial Assistance Conference Committee Philadelphia is America's First World Heritage City Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Philadelphia Video  About Philadelphia Mark the dates in your calendar! Call for Papers The International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) is conducting its 2018 Annual International Conference jointly with Info-Secte/Info-Cult of Montreal in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from July 5 – 7, 2018 (preconference workshops on Wednesday July 4, 2018). The conference will address the needs and interests of ICSA’s four main constituencies: former group members, families, helping professionals, and researchers.  The conference will take place at the Loews Philadelphia Hotel on Market Street in downtown Philadelphia. Hotel details, including special conference rates, will be posted later in the year. Though the conference has a theme focusing on those born or raised in cultic groups, the program will be varied, with numerous sessions pertinent to former members of cultic groups, families, helping professionals, researchers, and others.  More information coming in the fall. Subpages (13): About Bordeaux Abstracts Agenda Cancellation, Conference Congrès International Annuel 2017 Fees Getting There Hotel Meals Preconference Events Register by Fax, Mail, E-Mail, Phone Social Speakers   Views expressed on ICSA Websites or in ICSA's publications or events are those of the document's author(s) or speaker(s) and are not necessarily shared, endorsed, or recommended by ICSA or any of its directors, staff, or advisers.

Surviving and Moving On After a High-Demand Group Experience: A Workshop for Those Born/Raised in Cults

Workshop for Those Born/Raised in Cults (CT) Topics Discussed Register OnlineRegister Fax/Mail Facilitators Transportation / Directions Cancellation Policy Event Scholarships Workshop Evaluations ICSA's YouTube Channel 2017 Facilitators of SGA Workshop (back row): Bill Goldberg, Elizabeth Blackwell, Rosanne Henry, Eva Mackey, (front row) Leona Furnari Lorna Goldberg, Ann Stamler Surviving and Moving On After a High-Demand Group Experience: A Workshop for Those Born/Raised in Cults When: Friday 4:00 pm April 27, 2018 to Sunday 2:00 pm April 29, 2018 (Check-in time is 3:00 pm - 4:00 pm.) Where: Guest House Retreat & Conference Center, 318 West Main Street, Chester, CT 06412 (860–322–5770).   As increasing numbers of people born or raised in cultic groups or relationships have reached adulthood, the International Cultic Studies Association has developed a program* that addresses their special needs. People born or raised in cultic environments cannot look back to a “pre-cult” identity. Raised in fringe subcultures, they often have educational and other skill deficits that interfere with adjustment to mainstream culture. Having grown up under the influence of irrational belief systems, they struggle with issues of dependency, self-esteem, and social conflict, and often have to deal with the trauma of physical and/or sexual abuse. They have difficulty getting help because they tend to lack finances and be wary of other people, including helpers. Meeting annually since 2006, this workshop addresses the needs of people born or raised in cultic environments through presentations by specialists and former members, including discussions in which attendees may participate according to their comfort levels. Special attention is paid to attendees’ needs for privacy, reflection, and working at their own pace. Workshop subjects include Critical Thinking: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?  Is There Such a Thing As a Healthy Family?  Stages of Development: What Did We Miss and How Can We Catch Up?  Now We Are Parents: What Have We Learned?  You Mean I Have a Right to Boundaries?  What Are Our Strengths and Challenges Building a New Life?  Perfectionism, or The Inner Critic: Can We Accept Success?  Moving On: What Does It Mean and Is It Possible?  Postcult, How Should We Feel Toward People Who Harmed Us?  Relationships: Why Are They So Difficult?  This workshop has been made possible by special donations and the willingness of facilitators to volunteer their time. Without the dedication of these people, registration fees would be much higher than they are. Donations cover a substantial portion of the total cost. Because many people born or raised in cultic environments struggle financially, we urge those in need to apply for additional assistance. Please contact us at 239–514–3081 or mail@icsamail.com All contacts will be kept strictly confidential. Guest House is a delightful retreat and conference center in the scenic Connecticut River Valley. It offers spacious guest rooms with private bathrooms, superb cuisine, and amenities that range from a grand piano in the lobby to wireless Internet in every room. Travel directions by car, train, and air, along with other convenient links, are available at guesthousecenter.org. Contact ICSA for possible help with ground transportation from Amtrak or Metro-North, or from nearby airports. Contact ICSA for possible help with ground transportation from Amtrak or Metro-North, or from nearby airports. Also contact us if your travel plans include a night before or after the workshop. It may be possible to extend your stay at Guest House. We cannot accept onsite registrations, and we cannot guarantee acceptance of registrations received within 14 days of the workshop start date. _________________________________ *Two articles describe this program: (1) Lessons Learned from SGAs About Resiliency and Recovery (Leona Furnari and Rosanne Henry) and (2) My Perspective of Rosanne Henry and Leona Furnari’s Presentation to the Annual SGA Workshop (Patrick Rardin) describe this program.  There is also a video on ICSA's YouTube channel:  "Born or Raised in Cultic Groups" with Lorna Goldberg and Leona Furnari. SGA Dr. Lois Kendall has published a book on the subject: Born and Raised in a Sect: You are Not Alone.  Subpages (5): Cancellation Policy Facilitators Register: Fax/Mail/E-Mail/Phone Topics Discussed Transportation and Directions   Views expressed on ICSA Websites or in ICSA's publications or events are those of the document's author(s) or speaker(s) and are not necessarily shared, endorsed, or recommended by ICSA or any of its directors, staff, or advisers.

Two Upcoming ICSA Conversations

New York December 15, 2017.  7:00 - 9:00 pm Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew (United Methodist), 263 W. 86th St., New York City (Subway stop: #1 train at 86th St. and Broadway) (map) - Social Hall (downstairs; handicap access via elevator). Sexual/Romantic Intimacy: Challenges for People Raised in a Cult Sara B. Waters, MS, MA, is a psychotherapist and licensed mental health counselor (LMHC) and credentialed substance misuse counselor (CASAC) in New York City, with 18 years of experience in the mental health field. She was raised as a “missionary kid” in France in a high demand, fundamentalist, evangelical group and missionary boarding school. She left the group as a teenager and is intimately familiar with the trauma of religious psychological abuse, parental rejection, and loss of community. Sara specializes in treating posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and recovery from high-demand and abusive relationships. In addition to maintaining a private practice in Manhattan, Sara conducts empirical research in psychology and is completing a PhD in Clinical Psychology at The New School for Social Research. For individual or relationship counseling, email sarawaters@protonmail.com or call/text (347) 554-0191. sarabwaters.com. Abstract.  This talk is an introduction to the ways that cult dynamics can negatively impact the normal sexual development of children. Issues include the effects of institutionalized sexual coercion, hypersexuality and/or sexual repression. Psychological abuse related to sexuality will be discussed, both in terms of sexual and intimacy issues while in the group, and after a person leaves the group. Strategies are offered for developing beneficial attitudes and behaviors related to sexuality and intimacy as a part of healing from cult involvement.Register Online New York February 23, 2018.  7:00 - 9:00 pm Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew (United Methodist), 263 W. 86th St., New York City (Subway stop: #1 train at 86th St. and Broadway) (map) - Social Hall (downstairs; handicap access via elevator). Ready to Mine: Zen's Legitimating Mythology and Cultish Behavior Stuart Lachs encountered Zen Buddhism in New York City in 1967. After more than 30 years of intensive practice in America and Asia, and having taught for a number of years ‒ as well as witnessing countless instances of questionable teacher behavior ‒ he severed all ties to Chan/Zen Buddhist centers around 2000. Stuart's research interests are Chan/Zen Buddhism and the sociology of religion. He has been active in the Columbia University Buddhist Studies Workshop, the Princeton University Buddhist Studies Workshop, and the Oslo University Buddhist Studies Forum. He has a number of papers critical of Chan/Zen institutions and leaders available on the internet as well as a paper on the Hua-t'ou, a Chan form of meditation. He has presented at the annual conferences of the American Academy of Religion (AAR), the Association of Asian Studies (AAS), the International Association of Buddhist Studies (IABS) and the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA). His articles include “The Zen Master and Dharma Transmission: A Seductive Mythology,” published in Minority Religions and Fraud: In Good Faith (Ashgate, London, 2014); “Denial of Ritual in Zen Writing” published in The Ambivalence of Denial (Harrosowitz, Wiesbaden, 2015) and "Modernizing American Zen Through Scandal: Is "The Way" Really the Way?" published in Buddhist Modernities: Re-Inventing Tradition in the Globalizing Modern World (Routledge, New York and London, 2017). Stuart enjoys corresponding with people who reply to his papers. Abstract. Zen Buddhism was the first of Eastern religions to gain wide acceptance in the West post WWII. It was accepted mostly uncritically by artists and intellectuals alike. However, beginning in the 1970’s, the most prominent Zen groups in America were wracked by scandal. In spite of these repetitive scandals caused by the sexual abuse of students by their supposedly enlightened Zen masters, Zen followers and academics  have refused to associate the phrase “cultish behavior” to these developments. This was not the case with a range of Christian oriented groups or with Asian teachers associated with other traditions or a variety of other groups, though the Zen scandals mirrored these groups. This paper will show how Zen’s legitimating story and mythic history lays the ground work for authoritarian inclined charismatic leaders - titled Zen master or rosh i- to draw his followers into a world dependent on obedience, his approval and with an ethical frame dependent on the master’s self serving understanding. Though Zen presents its idealized master as being fully in the world, spontaneous, unattached, a state in which one is internally firm and free while remaining perceptually competent in the world, this has hardly been the case. This is not an abstract conjecture as the paper will mention a number of examples of Zen masters, both Eastern and Western and their followers that displayed cultish behavior, while highlighting one case in particular. It is by explaining the mythic and idealized legitimating story of Zen that helps followers make sense of their lives and earlier choices when these groups implode. After all, the Zen mythology of the super human Zen master was developed over hundreds of years which makes it hard to counter for individuals breaking with a group when the Zen master’s great attainment is shown to be wishful thinking. Register Online

For Those Interested in Doing Good, Not Just Looking Good

Attention all activists! This piece by Dominic Cummings -- centrally involved with Vote Leave in Britain -- illustrates how evidence-based issue campaigning looks different from the more common talk-the-good-talk-and-get-your-face-on-TV variety: https://dominiccummings.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum-21-branching-histories-of-the-2016-referendum-and-the-frogs-before-the-storm-2/

Non-British readers may find the following glossary helpful:

No10 — 10 Downing Street — the PM’s office

Downing Street — Cabinet more generally

Westminster — the government

SW1 stands for Southwest London. Broader than the government, includes the media, probably even more

N1 — north London. I don’t know what it signifies.

“Vote Leave” (VL) is the name of the campaign he ran. It had some official status. There were several leave campaigns. This campaign was officially nonpartisan. Several Labour politicians were involved in it, but there was another Brexit campaign, “Labour Leave” that was partisan. The UKIP (i.e., the tiny party wholly devoted to Brexit) had its own campaign, Leave.EU. Grassroots Out was yet another campaign.

GOTV — Get Out The Vote

NHS — National Health Service, government run medicine in UK

HQ — the people running VL?

MP — members of parliament, often MPs affiliated with VL, but not involved day to day

backbencher — junior MP, ie, not in cabinet (nor shadow cabinet)

IN — the campaign to remain In, as opposed to Out of the EU.

I’m not sure whether he means this informally, or specific groups.

The main group is "Britain Stronger in Europe,” aka “The In Campaign”

ECJ — European Court of Justice in Luxembourg — judges EU law

ECHR — European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg — technically not EU

EEC — European Economic Community — predecessor to EU

Purdah — 6 weeks before the election, in which the government is constrained

Here are some people. He sometimes refers to them by given name and sometimes by surname.

David Cameron — Tory Prime Minister (PM), opposed to Brexit.

George Osborne — 2nd most powerful Tory, anti-Brexit

Ed Miliband — head of Labour until shortly before campaign, anti-Brexit

won that position by defeating brother David

Jeremy Corbyn — head of Labour during campaign, anti-Brexit

Boris Johnson — cabinet Tory, pro-Brexit. celebrity face of Brexit

Michael Gove — cabinet Tory, pro-Brexit.

Nigel Farage — head of the tiny UKIP (i.e., the Brexit political party)

Malcolm Pearson — former head of UKIP, formerly Tory MP

Dominic Cummings is the author. Not a politician, i.e., not public figure.

Previously worked for Gove.

Gisela Stuart — Labour MP, pro-Brexit, chair of VL.

During the Blair government had been involved in renegotiating EU.

Kate Hoey — Labour MP, pro-Brexit, involved in VL, not mentioned in essay

Steve Baker — backbench Tory MP, previous IT career

Jeremy Heywood — head civil servant

Ed Llewelan — chief of staff for Cameron

Craig Oliver — head of PR for Cameron

Jean Monnet & Jacques Delors — architects of the ECSC/EEC/EU

Trump Helps Put the One-State Solution Back on the Table

Attending yesterday's rally to Protest Trump's Reassignment of Jerusalem in downtown Philadelphia, I was gratified by how all the leaders explicitly called for one "state for all its people," without regard for religion or ethnicity, as the just solution in Palestine/Israel. I haven't heard this at previous demonstrations, and it's especially welcome because it counteracts both Islamist attempts to monopolize the Palestinian movement, and Zionist fear-mongering about same to monopolize Jewish opinion on the other side (as discussed by this Palestinian-American, for instance: https://postwarwatch.com/2012/11/26/the-one-state-solution/).

Ironically, much of the credit for this probably belongs to Benyamin Netanyahu's actions making a two-state program increasingly obviously unworkable, and especially to Donald Trump for so brazenly abandoning any pretense of US neutrality.

Even granting that a just two-state solution is conceivable in principle, I think it's always been the wrong outcome to advocate, because doing so implicitly undermines the ideal of pluralism. If people are capable of co-existing peacefully, after all, then they are capable of co-existing in a single country. Advocating two states suggests otherwise.

I'm pleased to report that, without having resorted to any unilateral edits that might have started a war, I appear to have induced someone better established in the Wikipedia community to remove misleading language in the article about The Red Pill that without warrant described rightist Mike Cernovich as a "men's rights supporter," based on a single article whose author mistakenly conflates antifeminism with men's rights activism.

How *Not* to Cope with Politics and Stress

The Philadelphia Gay News's Kristina Furia wrote something truly shocking and benighted in her psychology column last week. I've submitted this letter to the paper:

Your editorial was quite correct in saying Donald Trump's election "was unanticipated by many on the left -- a fact that may speak, in part, to why Trump was victorious."

Which is why this statement by Kristina Furia is appallingly bad advice: "It's crucial that we try our best to avoid situations where political discussion with people of opposing views is likely." Has she learned nothing from last November?

I've been repeatedly bemused to hear people say they were "shocked" and "devastated" by what happened that day. I was mildly and momentarily surprised when I saw Trump take the lead -- the polls had given Clinton the advantage, but not a huge one. (Like presumably most people at the Mt. Airy watch party, I'd pushed the button for her, but reluctantly, trading my preference for Jill Stein with someone in California who voted for her in my place.)

Why the different reaction? Because, unlike Furia and many people I know, I make a conscious effort to expose myself to other ideological viewpoints, via both mass and social media. This means not only that I had a better sense of how many people in the country don't share my social and political attitudes but, equally important, an awareness that not everyone interprets Trump's statements and actions the same way.

For instance, many people think he was, in fact, simply engaging in "locker room banter" with Billy Bush, not describing anything he'd actually done to women, let alone against their will. Diana Davison even made a video detailing why she thought so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok1Gd0CQsiM

When one has an awareness of these different perspectives, an outcome like last November's is not only less surprising, but also less disturbing -- because it doesn't mean millions of people are OK with sexual assault, for instance.

For this reason, Furia's advice isn't just bad civically and democratically, but psychologically too. People following it are more likely to experience psychological trauma when someone they don't like is elected, because their skewed information diet gives them an overly dire sense of what other people's voting behavior signifies.

The grain of truth in her advice is that discussing politics the wrong way certainly can be bad for you. When people approach each other as antagonists who must be defeated, they are apt to end up reinforcing and intensifying their stereotypes of each other. But if, instead, you try to just listen and really understand the other person's point of view, you may well end up both more politically/sociologically knowledgeable and less scared -- even if you disagree with them just as much as before.

On a mass media level, Clay Johnson's book The Information Diet has some good tips on how to un-skew your information intake. A good place everyone can start is to regularly reset your search and social media platforms so they're not just feeding your own biases back to you (the "filter bubble"). If possible, use platforms that don't track you in the first place, like the search engine DuckDuckGo (better for your privacy too).

On a person-to-person level, I'd encourage everyone to look for opportunities for regular conversation with people who don't think alike, such as the Philadelphia Political Agnostics meetup group.