Surviving Controversy
By Kirsten Anderberg (www.kirstenanderberg.com)

The most important topics cause the most intense controversy when breached. It has often been said that if you are an activist, and no one hates you, you simply cannot be doing your job. I have been through a near spiritual journey over the last year, figuring out how to navigate the waters of controversy due to my outspoken articles. At this point, I have been called every name in the book, have survived all kinds of outrageous slander, have endured slews of hate emails, and I am still here, breaching the most painful of issues. People used to yell at me all the time for not having thick enough skin when I would delve into controversy. But that presupposes that I knew my words in that instance were going to be controversial. I say lots of things. I really cannot predict which ones will set off the hailstorms of controversy that some do.

Some things that I write about, I know will cause a reaction. When I wrote an article about the faceless, state-subsidized fathers of the welfare system, shaming women and putting them into double-triple duty to make up for the missing man, I knew I was going to take a hard hit. Still, I have to admit, some of the slander going on was pretty outrageous. I was called everything from a whore to a child support fraud criminal to a child abuser... it was pretty amazing. The first 50 hate mails from that article irritated me. The next 50, since they said the same stupid things over and over, started to become humorous to me. The next 50, again saying the same things about how the mother of their kid is a whore gold digger, and then the next 50 after that... well, by the end of it, the aggregate of those hate mails was humorous. They were extremist, they were ridiculous. And taken as a whole, they were even more revealing. So, in the end, I felt more validated in my controversial opinions, due to their reactions to it.

Very often you can tell whether you are doing right or not by WHO is reacting to you. When my article about the Genocide in New Orleans in 2005 was reposted by others and circulated on the White Pride forum circuit, that was a compliment, actually. If I am pissing off Nazis, that is a good thing. When you get raving racist email, from people you pissed off talking about racism, that is a great affirmation, honestly.

I just stirred a bunch of controversy recently by questioning the message we are getting from Cindy Sheehan. My favorite hate mail from that controversy so far is from Leo Hughes ( cyzzygy@yahoo.com): "Hey traitor: Nice article there, on bashing Mother Sheehan, it's always great to read about one commie whore bashing on another commie whore. It's a shame that a slimy whore like you gets to call itself an American. I implore you to immediately go to Iraq and become a human shield, to protect the terrorists you obviously love. It's my fervent hope that I will someday read of your gruesome death at the hands of the terrorist scum, knowing that you refused to defend this country and actively worked to undermine it. You are a disgusting PIG!" I can only laugh out loud at that one! So, for voicing my personal opinion on Cindy Sheehan, I am now a whore? That was a radical leap! And so stereotypically Archie-Bunker-ish! Sometimes it is amazing when your controversial articles expose how people are still thinking and functioning in America! For the insights the hate mail brings, I am thankful for controversial articles with punch and power.

I can pretty much tell where a raw nerve is when people fly off around some article posted somewhere on the internet. When I get loads of hate mail, and some fan mail too, in one day, I know I have done my job! It is a trip how an article I post one morning, will have been reposted all over the f*ckin' world within the day if it is something that really touches a nerve. Mostly class, race and sexism issues spurn that type of internet wildfire. The things that piss people off is as telling as any social science research. I often think it would be fun, or maybe I already do this, to throw things I think out there, to just see what freaks everyone out, to gauge where people are at. But it is not fun to play with words, and emotions, and societal faultlines, if you are going to be hurt all the time from the attacks. Or if you are going to stress out trying to defend yourself from the slander about you, personally, in media, for saying what you think out loud and much too clearly.

I am not sure how to get that thick skin you are supposed to have as a political journalist except through experience. I could not get it just coming out of the gate. I took my share of black and blue bruises when I first started getting a wider reading audience. The open comment sections in a lot of alternative media, especially, was a challenge and killed me off at first. When every article I wrote, ended up with the post, "go write a diet book, you hog" with a picture of a very fat, disheveled person posted ON my article's tail, it got really irritating. Other times people would post complete lies on my articles, like I was wanted by the police and criminally charged with this or that horrible crime. But the thing is, over time, I simply had heard the same things over and over again, enough times, like the complaining missing in action welfare fathers, that it became predictable and humorous after a while. In time, I realized there was even a name for these people who just try to get under your skin to divert your energy... they are called "trolls." But it took me quite a while to distinguish a pattern with these trolls so I could get to a place where they did not "win," so to speak. There is a saying on the IMC's, "do not feed the trolls." Unfortunately, no one really explained what that meant to me until I lived through it. I have gotten much better at figuring out when to defend myself, and when to not bother replying to things in comment areas or email, as I now see the pattern and know how to play the game better.

I wrote an article about men who use women, nonconsentually, for sex when they do public exhibitionism. I said that most women 1) did not want the contact of a naked stranger's penis thrust upon them and 2) felt physically threatened by the way men only did things like that when the women and the man are alone in some corner of the public sphere. I knew some idiots would try to stop the discussion of women taking this back into their own hands by putting a spotlight on the man with his penis out. But I did not realize how many men would defend this behavior wholeheartedly as a natural need of men, as something that is good for men and women and something that does not hurt women. Woman after woman said that yes, they were traumatized by "weenie waggers" in their past. Even some men said they also had felt physically frightened and threatened when they experienced weenie waggers whipping it out on them. Over and over people said they did not want the unasked for contact, while man after man posted they were not hurting anything! The vehemence and persistence these men showed regarding this topic was quite telling.

Perhaps my most controversial article to date was one about the Republican National Convention (RNC) protests in New York City in 2004. That thing set people off right and left. All I said was I felt excluded from the protests due to social class and no means to get there. And I began to resent the protests beginning to sound like a big, fun, activist party that I could not attend. So one day, when I was sad that everyone was leaving to the RNC protests but me, it seemed, I wrote an article about how maybe this protest hopping is elitism. I said maybe the RNC protests were just elite white kids protesting FOR everyone else, but never facilitating those who they supposedly represent to any of these "parties." And oh, man, friend and foe alike took me on for that one. Friends said, "how could you have picked right now, right before this protest to put this article out? I am so upset with you!" And others said I was a traitor to the movement for speaking about that. Yet many a poor person wrote me email and thanked me and said they did not feel so left out after reading my article. Adbusters.org asked me if they could post the article on their front page, which they did. Yet others, such as Infoshop.org, would not publish it. It was interesting to see the mix of very intense reactions to that. But my goal was not to set off some huge controversy. My goal was to speak my mind on what was bothering me that day and to make people think. Period.

Some people complain that I always bring my articles back to me, so I am just self-centered. But reality is, I can really only speak about my own personal experience. I think it is weird to talk about important things in third person. I would rather hear things in first person, usually. So, I, purposely, talk about my experiences predominantly. I think it is important to bring things down to earth with real stories that exemplify what I am talking about. The easiest way to do that is to speak from my own experience. Also, there is a certain safety in only criticizing what you know and are part of. When I did a religious comedy act, I did not feel, raised as a Catholic girl, I should be doing Jewish comedy, for instance. I felt I could do Catholic comedy, like Cheech Marin did, coming from the same Catholic high school I came from... but for me to do something like Muslim comedy as a white Catholic girl would have been inappropriate, I think. Likewise, as an American, I can openly criticize my own country's policies, as I am its citizen, but it is not appropriate for me to be talking trash about other countries, generally. It seems there is enough dirty laundry in America that I do not need to tend the mote in any other country's eye, so to speak. So I talk about what I know. And I claim nothing more.

Somehow I am pretty good at causing controversy. I know people who try to be controversial, but nothing they do seems to really ignite people. I do not have that problem. I am somehow able to ignite people, for and against me, quite well, consistently and effortlessly. Some people say that I am incoherent, that my words make no sense and that no one should listen to, or read, me. But I think the problem is that I am too coherent. People can tell exactly what I am saying, and it is shocking, apparently. It is a little disconcerting to know that your own thoughts are so off center from much of society, but with a society as sick as ours in America, being off center from society is not a bad thing.

I encourage writers to take on controversial issues, even though you get battered in the fall out. Even with all the controversy that has come my way in the last few years, I would not trade it for me just towing the party line, and being published in all the lefty mags, without ruffling any feathers, soaking up merely praise and fat paychecks. I would prefer to actually stand on my own, and say things that are not mainstream and to have freedom from the peace activist rhetoric. I would rather have the freedom to think on my own, and to say what I think, than to just please complacent clients and editors with copy edit that says nothing. I would say that the most controversial articles I have written are the most important ones too. They are the ones with the messages in them that haunt you, that make you think later, after reading them. I think there is a good measure of activist effectiveness in controversy and I think it is foolish to shy away from honest writing simply for fear of controversy. I am finding my skin is getting thicker the longer I hear the same old slander and online buffoonery about me, and you will see humorous patterns in your critics too. To shy away from controversy in the media, is to shy away from the really important issues.

Yes Kirsten, those men really hate it when a woman speaks out. That's the only thing on their minds, hating woman! I stand by you, girl! To hell with men, they suck.

I've SEEN your ignoRANT articles on Cindy.

Anderberg gets almost nothing but crap from men, and she's the villian because she finds some men ugly. So how many people here think she should shut up about deadbeat dads, aggressive and public shock freaks, and somehow figure out that you're the exception? Or maybe you're not an exception, but jeez, it's just guy stuff and women should be used to it by now.

Ever notice that whenever a woman calls out some nasty male behavior or other, some men turn into an attack pack? No discussion, no negotiation, just sheer defensive, go-for-the-throat she's-a-manhater (oooh! not a man-hater!) -and-once-we-call-her-a-manhater,-she's-crazy-and-dismissable (wink wink) barbarism.

Deal with it, guys. Some women don't like you running away from your kids, blaming us for "getting ourselves pregnant," shunning and outlawing single moms, and then telling us that we can't have abortions. Some women don't like your macho, power-trip posturing, and most especially when some men decide they're going to wag their tool at our daughters in some perverted monkey-politics gesture. And some women are going to call men out on it.

You can get huffy about it all you want, but some women are pissed off and just don't know their place. You can try to make Anderberg into a man-hating villian, but we all know that what she says about some men is the truth.

Yes, you find some men ugly. I've seen your pictures and I find you very ugly (not to mention fat and demented looking).

That's not the point. The point is that you believe you have the right to publish offensive libel and slander and that no one has the right to talk back to you about it. Portland IndyMedia deletes almost all of the comments posted against your publications.

Slandering Cindy Sheehan was the line in the sand you crossed. BTW, Cindy is a woman and some of us are coming to her defense, and many of us are men, so shut the fuck up about claiming this is all about you being a woman.

You are an offense to the human race. Your gender has nothing to do with it. It is your hate that makes you an offense.

Oh, there have been many stories, as of late, about female school teachers raping little boys and the mother of a school girl sexually molesting her male friends. I haven't seen you write about this.

When was the last time you wrote about a mother murdering her children, or a woman smothering her child while breast feeding the baby during an alchoholic stupor? Have you written about women who seduce men to gain access to their apartments only to case the joint and then brake in later to rob?

I haven't seen you comment on those many photos of women walking around naked in public squares, publicly flashing men, women and children. Doesn't occur to you as being in anyway related to male nudity does it?

You wrote an article about there being nothing at all in a society which would be the male equivalent of a "can-can performance." Naturally, you left out the whole concept of CFNM (look it up in google) where the point is to degrade and torment naked men in the presense of clothed women. You also seem to have forgotten male stip joins and chip-n-dale performances. You forget these things because your hatred for men is so great you can only see what you want to see.

When people argue against you on Portland IMC, their comments are deleted (especially those that show evidence that you are incorrect). For every comment against your position that gets published, dozens more are posted and deleted.

You are as vile as a man who hates women or a white skin-head who hates jews. Hate is hate and you are full of it.

You base your opinion of me on looks; I base mine on some men's behavior. I say out loud that I hate some men. You tell me to shut the fuck up and then damn me for hating. No hate from you, right? Yeah, women like it when you tell us to shut up. Makes your wife feel good, I'm sure.

You are what I hate about men. You can't take it--you're not human enough. A woman says some men abuse women, and you're not even human enough to agree. You're not human enough to see that you're part of the problem. No, you're just inhuman enough that your reaction is to grind some salt in the wound.

Swallow this rewrite: "Cindy is African American and some of us are coming to her defense, and many of us are white, so shut the fuck up about claiming this is all about you being African American."

I should stop "claiming" I'm a woman. OK (gotta keep the man happy), I'm a man. And I'm not Kirsten.

You see the universe from one point of view and you ignore all facts which contradict your limited experience. You believe you can call others ugly but when they call you the same, you attribute it to sexism. You are an empty shell, a worthless whiner, and you have absolutely nothing to contribute to the universe. The only thing you can point to is that you have a vagina, and frankly, Kirsten, more than half of the world has one of those, so it doesn't give you any unique way of seeing things.

You're a hateful woman. There is no hope for you.

She's a friggin snake.
A piece of filth that breaths and types lies about Cindy whom she is not worthy to lick the ground Cindy has walked on.

No answers, just insults. Familiar territory to many of the women here. Some men have only two ways of communicating with women: seduction and abuse. Since you're not going to seduce me, you and your pals are down to just one.

You keep on going after Andenberg, and I can't answer for her. You don't address anything I've said here. But have you even read her blog? It seems to explain itself. Seems to me that she's got some good points. And grasping for heroes is dangerous--sometimes they get pushed off their pedestals and fall on their gawkers.

The first sign of a bigot is the division of the world into us and them. You are an extreme bigot.

Actually, I have read her blog and I think it has no value whatsoever. Moreover, I see no reason to answer your positions since they are based on assumptions that have no factual basis. You're view of men is completely distorted as is your view of women (since most of what you have stated about men actually applies to women as well, only you cannot see that).

Small minded people such as yourself are unable to rise above their embodiment and put themselves into the shoes (or bodies) of others and understand what it is like (or may be like) to be someone else. I do not believe that men and women are very different. Women seduce and abuse men just as men seduce and abuse women. Those who seduce are doing what evolution found useful in keeping the species going. Those who are abuse are manifesting the damage they themselves likely suffered at the hands of an earlier abuser (whether male or female).

Those who are so damaged by their experiences that they can no longer see the world objectively are lost forever and not worth an ounce of energy in any effort to repair. You are broken. Shame on whatever asshole broke you, but that is not my problem, it is your problem. So don't be surprised if I don't want to waste my energy going back and forth with a broken individual. It is not only futile, but I gain nothing in exchange for my efforts. I'd rather spend that energy giving my wife and daughter a better world than on repairing someone else's broken baggage.

Just visited Kirsten A's website, most of the articles are interesting and find common ground with most of her views. However, the recent attacks on Cindy Sheehan seem a bit out of the ordinary and not true to her usual writing. Why now, why attack a mother who lost her son with such callous cruelty? Why now, especially when Cindy has endured a series of attacks from the likes of Bill O'Reilly and the FOX news pundits? Does an attack from the far left serve to balance the scale??

Personally i find that many males often behave in ways that are offensive, that in itself doesn't mean all males are like this or all women are perfect either. We need to remember we are born into our skin and genetalia without being asked what we prefer. Society influences males and females to act according to their scripts handed down from centuries of patriarchal religions, any deviation from norm is frowned upon at best..

Cindy attempted to talk her son Casey out of going to Iraq, but being a headstrong male raised in THIS society, he chose to ignore his mother's warnings and ended up losing his life in Iraq. HE no longer suffers in the physical realm yet SHE (Cindy) suffers everyday with the memory of who he was and the dreams of who he could have been. If only HE had listened to HER and not joined the military..

So why attack HER??

Sometimes people prefer controversy to diligent research (considered boring) because writing something inflammatory will draw a greater response and attention than some detailed scientific research that may actually put away a criminal of war (GW Bush) and his cronies (or any other corporation that destroys lives with toxins). We need a greater discourse about US imperialism as a whole, though RIGHT NOW it is the Bush regime that perpetuates US imperialism to the greatest degree..

Thanks to Kirsten, now we can all argue about weenie-waggers and other tripe nonsense while the Bush regime war criminals remain in their position of power..

No better yet, now we can all speculate on what Cindy MAY have done if Casey had survived Iraq and returned home to HIS mother..

I have very carefully divided the world into us and "some men." Not bigotry--I know some very good men, and I've been careful to exclude them from this discussion. I haven't even begun to address the red herring of your introduction of women into the discussion. And I never said anyone was a sexist for saying Kirsten was fat and ugly (but I would). But you'll use whatever you can, except the truth of what I said, to dismiss me.

You claim I'm small-minded and narcissistic, without anything but your word for it--except that you claim (again, no proof) that I've never walked in anyone else's shoes. Do you mean your shoes?--that I should walk in your shoes and then I'd understand why some men are what they are?

And I'm not "broken." Men are not responsible for me, including for my outlook on some men. But if you declare I'm broken, then you don't have to listen. And if you say a man did it, then men are still in control.

But you've followed my prediction--you've labelled me a manhater, crazy, and dismissable. How did I know? It's what you did to Kirsten. Take her on on the issue--is Sheehan all she's cracked up to be? Quit the namecalling, the sexist attacks, and address the issue.



As I predicted, this has devolved into

What about you lying about Cindy?

I'm not Anderberg's fact checker or researcher, and I've said twice that I'm not Anderberg. I don't know if she's lying. And what, specifically, are the lies you're referring to?

What makes you think, after the piece she wrote above, that she's going to respond to all the Indymedia posters who come along to attack her? Why do you think she'd be writing to you, of all of them?

Do you really think she's the *only* woman who's angry at some men? Do you really think everyone agrees with you about her, so I could only be Anderberg herself?

She's responded to Sheehan supporters on her site, and, as I said, I'm not speaking for her. Look it up. Where's Sheehan's response?

To Luna Moth: imho, Anderberg's timing sucks, but sometimes timing isn't the most important thing. Sometimes honestly saying what you believe is important, even if you burst a few balloons. If the left can't handle the truth, if they don't recognize that _all_ their heroes have clay feet and learn to live with it (and maybe decide they're still heroes), then we're way too dishonest and vulnerable. If people decide to support Sheehan, flaws and all, then that's honest support. Anything else is mindless hero worship.

That's the issue, dear ( some ) manhater. honestly saying: Honesty.
Not men, not women not you, but lying. If she's not working for the CIA, she might as well be.

-How Many Kids Did Cindy Sheehan's Kid Murder?
author: Kirsten Anderberg -
on this thread
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/11/329030.shtml
where she LIES about Cindy.

Sorry folks, but this is my FIRST and ONLY post here. I have not written ANY of these posts put up as if I am talking and you are all fighting some make believe fiction you are making up here. I must point out that all of the nasty things I am supposedly guilty of, YOU just did to me! Talk about SLANDER! But this type of trolling is so stupid...it's all been tried before. No, boys, ya are not gonna be able to silence me! Haha! Perhaps because you have no actual writing skills! I did not call Cindy Sheehan ANY of the low brow type of stupid meaningless slander like you here have done! She is not the untouchable saint you proclaim. What a joke! LOL! Hypocrits! Take your stupid pacifism shit and love your war and your murderers and slander those of us who call them out on it. . I stand firm, Cindy Sheehan's kid, and ALL US military are MURDERERS. Deal with it!

This Anderberg is trying to demonize the Uranium poisoned troops.
So when they come home they will be shoved into the forgotten gutter and die. Just like the huge casualties that were ignored after Gulf War 1
The rulers need Anderberg. And other lies spread across the net.
Remember that we as a majority were flambozzeled to let this slaughter and shame go on by not shutting this country down.
Now this thing has the asinine gall to attack Cindy.