The Episcopal left has finally begun to respond to the Elizabeth Kaeton controversy, and the responses are pretty predictable. Why do I characterize them as 'predictable'? Because they are a clear attempt to misrepresent the truth, with the goal being to minimize the seriousness of what The Rev. Kaeton has done.
The Episcopal left has finally begun to respond to the Elizabeth Kaeton controversy, and the responses are pretty predictable. Kaeton's post, in which she described a vision of Anne Kennedy as a hybrid of Andrea Yates and Susan Smith, was "long and thoughtful," and happened to contain "one paragraph where she alluded to another woman's blog." That was Lisa Fox's take on the matter.
Fr. Jake had this to say about it:
A blogger made a lengthy post about feminism. As a whole, it is quite good. An example was drawn from another blogger. From what I have observed, the example was accurate. A paragraph speculated about the dangers if the other blogger did not get help. One of the first commenters gently suggested that paragraph might be a bit over the top. The entry was revised, without the paragraph in question. IOW, the kind of thing that happens on blogs every day.
Lisa Fox at "My Manner of Life" wrote this:
"In the midst of her long thoughtful post, she had one paragraph where she alluded to another woman's blog."
Mark Harris wrote this:
There were all sorts of noise that accompanied an essay on feminism by Elizabeth Kaeton over on her blog Telling Secrets. Folks over at Stand Firm took considerable umbrage at the essay, which in a early incarnation had a nightmare sort of dream about a woman with too many children finally going nuts. 'Lizabeth (as the Mad Priest calls her) removed the offensive dream and the name reference, but the damage was done. Part of the damage was that Elizabeth is a damn fine writer and a zingo progressive and all that and therefore game for those who wish to pounce.
Why do I characterize these responses as 'predictable'?
Because they are a clear attempt to misrepresent the truth, with the goal being to minimize the seriousness of what The Rev. Kaeton has done.
The problem with Kaeton's post is not that it "speculated about the dangers if the other blogger did not get help." It is not that it "alluded to another woman's blog." And it is not that included "a nightmare sort of dream about a woman with too many children finally going nuts."
The problem, Worthy Opponents, is that Elizabeth Kaeton wrote this, and she wrote it not about "some blogger" or "some woman," but about The Rev. Anne Kennedy:
I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home.
I will not illustrate the problem with this article by substituting someone else's name or children's names - our Worthy Opponents can do that for themselves, and perhaps then they will understand.
I will also thank our Worthy Opponents to be honest enough to admit that the person in question is not "a woman" or "some blogger," and not to buy into the canard that Kaeton never identified her. There is only one Episcopal priest, married to another Episcopal priest, with three children and one on the way, who runs a blog titled "An Undercurrent of Hostility" (which Kaeton did indeed name in her original post), and who wrote a post about a broken cereal bowl; and that's Anne Kennedy. In any event, Kaeton admitted having identified her in a follow-up comment on her own site:
Apparently, in my original post, I did not keep the identity of her blog anonymous. I did not keep that first draft, but apparently Google does. I do apologize for that, confident at least, that is an exercise for my own integrity.
Kaeton's responses are no better, and in some ways are even worse. In the comment on her first post, she writes this about me:
He's all hot and smelly from what he considers a victory about the priest from Seattle. It's the nature of sharks to move into a feeding frenzy once they smell blood on the water or fear in the air.
As usual, the most objectionable material can be found at the Mad Priest, who tries to play our game by claiming that we're a bunch of wimps and sissies:
I'm all for men sticking up for their womenfolk (although I meet very few that need sticking up for) but they should do so in the honourable and accepted way of giving as good as they get (or, at the least, giving as good as they can whilst going down fighting). This does not involve trying to get your opponent into trouble.
Mad Priest refers to his having watched some John Wayne movies some time ago as a reference on how American men should respond to situations like this. Never mind the irony of someone of Mad Priest's persuasion relying on John Wayne for guidance, but he would do well to remember that in the world of John Wayne, the way men handled a woman behaving like this was to have it out with her husband, which is of course not possible when the woman in question is a lesbian. It's hard to apply Old West rules to the New Thing.
One of the more amazing developments of this whole controversy is the decision of Kaeton and some of her allies to blame others for it. Kaeton wrote:
I grow so weary of being attacked for raising the issue of the goodness and rightness of feminism.
Jesus was a feminist.
Get over it.
And:
The really, really sad piece is that it was brought on by one of her own - someone I'm certain she considers a friend. So nasty. So unnecessary.
And:
What's fascinating is that, while I take complete responsibility for my post - even the first, unfortunate post which I pulled - I have been amazed that the identity of the author would not have been at issue except that Greg Griffin made it so.
Ms. Kaeton and the folks who have leapt to her defense should get a few things straight:
I didn't write "I swear to God, one of these days you are going to read about this woman loading herself and her six kids in her mini van and driving them all into a nearby lake. Or, drowning them, one by one, in the bathtub and then lining their lifeless little bodies in a perfect row on their perfectly made beds in their perfect suburban home."
Elizabeth Kaeton did.
I didn't identify Anne Kennedy as an Episcopal priest, married to another Episcopal priest, with three children and one on the way, who runs a blog called "An Undercurrent of Hostility," and contained an entry about a broken cereal bowl.
Elizabeth Kaeton did.
I didn't attach to a strained "apology" the threat to "have something done" about the Kennedys, going so far as to write Anne's bishop, and to mention the "concerns" of several "professionals."
Elizabeth Kaeton did.
I have a lot of questions for our Worthy Opponents who are insisting that what Kaeton wrote about the murder of a fellow priest's children is not what it actually is - that instead of a vile, unprovoked assault on someone, it was merely a reflection, a reverie, an inconsequential part of a long and thoughtful essay about motherhood and feminism.
I'll start here:
Have you people no decency?
Do you all really expect us to believe that if the tables were turned, you'd blithely dismiss it as nothing to take offense at?
If the same minivan fantasy were projected, for example, onto someone whose "manner of life" tended to make her more vulnerable to driving her children into a pond or drowning them in the bathtub, would you now be telling everyone to just get over it, that it was a harmless passage in a thoughtful and beautiful meditation?
If so, then say so. Come out and say that we on this side of the debate are free to post unprovoked murderous fantasies about folks on your side of the aisle, and that your only response will be to dismiss it as inconsequential, if indeed you bother to respond at all.
Finally, do you all realize what you're doing? By asserting so forthrightly that Kaeton's minivan murder fantasy is acceptable discourse, you are lowering the bar about as far as it can possibly be lowered. Is this what you intend to do, you who continually insist that the level of dialogue in this debate must be raised? Is this accomplishing that goal? Are you even serious about the goal in the first place?
Look in your hearts, all of you, and tell us: Is this honestly the level to which you wish to stoop? Is it honestly the level to which you wish to give others license to stoop?
No comments:
Post a Comment