If only I would cooperate and what happens if I don’t.

It seems today I am evil.  No surprise this happens with some consistency and despite ever changing abolitionist feminists remarkably similar.  So today a few sporadic emails to SWOP East and myspace which reference my BnG post. Most of which is the usual rhetoric that I have heard many times. So I am responding to the troll named Whou indirectly, and to Jeffery Blumethal directly as his personal email contained a thinly veiled threat.

Dear Miss Brenneman

Miss Brenneman you are suffering from a mental illness that is not your fault. But you must realize the danger you cause to women and girls because of Stockholm Syndrome definition

This is the mental illness which you suffer. Again, you are not at fault for this. The Stockholm Syndrome (SS) is a psychological involuntary state in which victims of kidnapping or abuse begin to feel sympathy, emotional bonding, and solidarity for those who are abusing them or keeping them captive in oppressive situations.

The Stockholm Syndrome was named in 1973 by psychologist Nils Bejerot after the hostage victims of a Stockholm, Sweden robbery and six-day kidnapping resisted being rescued, defended their captors, and refused to testify against them. Two of the women hostages eventually became engaged to the captors.

When victims are under tremendous emotional and physical duress, they may begin to identify with their abusers or captors as a defensive mechanism. The victim develops a strategy of staying alive by keeping the captor happy and eventually sympathizes with the captor. Small acts of kindness on the part of the abuser increases the emotional bond.

Stockholm Syndrome is a common survival mechanism of

captured brides
battered women
physically and/or emotionally abused children
incest victims
prostitutes
cult members
concentration camp prisoners
prisoners of war
those in controlling and/or intimidating relationships
hijacked victims
hostages..

that is what which you are suffering. It is not you’re fault as I believe you are telling the truth about being tortured by pimps and tricks. That is what they do and what they like. But you are affected by this so severely that you are a danger. You can not keep writing because the media likes salacious stories and will talk to you. But because you suffer from acute Stockholm Syndrome you are now a recruiter for others to prostituted and tortured as you were. You may not realize it but you want others to tortured because you were and because it arouses you because it is how you learned to be loved. It has happened to many in the past so you can be forgiven but you can not continue talking publicly until after many years of therapy. For the safety of others I am telling you to stop as you can and will not be allowed to cause harm to thousands of women and girls for the sake of your unfortunate battle with Stockholm Syndrome. Raleigh, NC is not so hard to make the price too high for you to continue. Your illness is understandable as is your pain but it has turned you into a sexploitation recruiter making your torture porn and prostitution seem glamorous. Please stop yourself so that others do not have to help you get there.

Jeffery Blumenthal MSW

 

No Jeffery, I am not suffering Stockholm Syndrome and personally I find it annoying that you enclosed the definition in your letter as you apparently feel this would be a revelation to me. What impresses me is your effort to impose your clinical diagnosis of me in an effort to advance a political agenda. I don’t owe you or anyone a detailed response to an unfounded and baseless diagnosis. You do however leave openings for discussion.

I am not the perfect victim Jeffery. I am not your stereotype sex worker that either has to be saved from herself or rendered evil and a danger to society. I digress for a moment because your post brings to mind the Genesis song “Mama” but various posts all day have brought musical references to mind. Shrug. Back to topic. Yes, I have the classic history of childhood abuse that likely fills your stereotype. Yes, I was tortured. Yes I was a sex worker. So in your belief and that of others such as “Whou”, I have a duty to open my soul to the world. You create a dynamic in which I have a duty to re-live over and over the trauma I suffered in some of my experiences in sex work and that those should be public experiences to be debated for their veracity, for their effect on me, for their value in “warning others” and in the case of the neo abolitionist anti trafficking types of the Spitzer, Melissa Farley, Donna Hughes ilk, for value in using my experiences as the template for all sex workers. Veracity being determined by virtue of whether I am speaking from the abolitionist perspective. Effect on me as a cookie cutter mold to impose upon all sex workers. Duty as a mandated survivor to warn all those who may be at risk regardless of whether or not I continue to be torn apart in that process as by virtue of suffering I should become a martyr. The answer to that is no. My value as an activist, as a woman, as a human being, does not go up if I become a martyr for the cause. Feminism does not gain when women are destroyed for a macro level war to protect all women. And much to the likely surprise of many who oppose the idea of a survivor of sexual abuse, rape and torture, I am capable not only of finding healing without patronizing correspondence of a stranger but further, I am capable of being able to determine the propriety of my activism and of my life. As to your psych assessment of me. Remind me again. Who are you? We’ve never met……………… perhaps MSW type since you don’t know me, that means you don’t know me and thus you are projecting upon me your fantasies of victims of sexual violence and how they should respond.

This thing that you have Jeffery and others about my alleged recruiting of others into the sex industry. Anything to back up those assertions? Even my “pro prostitution, pro porn” friends and allies would likely advise you that I am not an outspoken proponent of sex work. I’m an advocate of sex worker human and labor rights and of harm reduction. That is a far cry from recruiting others into coerced participation in BDSM. Which for the record, neither I, nor any sex worker or sex worker rights activist that I have ever known has advocated coerced participation in sex work. We are actually strongly opposed to coercion. We do however do something as evil as say get together to send condoms to sex workers in Chile

Perhaps Jeffery, Whou, others,, you can’t get off on the fantasy of me advocating sex worker rights rather than hearing the story of my exploitation and thus I am not fulfilling your needs and given you obviously view me as a cookie cutter whore apparently if I can’t fulfill your expectations I better shut up and get out? It seems that I like my sex worker and sex worker rights allies am not some iconic idol, I’m just a woman, just an individual, one who happens to believe in human rights for sex workers despite my past making me the potential posterchild for the CATW magazine’s year end issue. Despite having been a sex worker, I can think for myself, choose to do so and advocate for others to have the same rights.

As far as the sublime threat about my speaking to the media and the use of where I live as part of the subliminal threat. Nice try but it’s been done. It’s on my myspace profile that I live in Raleigh. It isn’t exactly a secret. So Magnum MSW, Whou and others, you will have to find someone else to sell your pitch about being the perfect victim and the duties that go along with it. If I want to march to the beat of a drummer I can listen to Mick Fleetwood or Jim Dispirito. But it is never again going to be to the likes of Farley, Hughes or their true believers Blumenthal or someone as creative as to use the name Whou. Doesn’t Ric Flair have a copyright on that? No wait, I think Ric Flair is Wooooo,,

14 Responses

  1. Well, he has a Master’s degree, so he *must* know what he’s talking about.

    Oh wait. I have a Master’s degree, and I say he’s full of shit.

    Which one of us wins?

  2. So anyone who is a sex worker and Jill’s friend is suffering from Stockholm syndrome, or feeding her mental illness. This blows my mind. I always thought Jill was a tolerant, witty and giving person. I had no IDEA she was really a captor/tormentor in disguise.

    Wow, Jeffery, you really opened my eyes. I’m going to have to get Jill into some counseling. Now, tell me where I can find some sex work-positive counselors? Oh wait, there goes that Stockholm syndrome again. Damn! I need to committ myself for being a friend with another sex worker.

    XX

  3. The article Jeffery referenced also talked about Stockholm Syndrome as it applies to POW’s. Why do I get the feeling that Jeffery probably didn’t send a similar type email to Senator McCain?

  4. Well, I have a law degree so I’ll settle it.

    Brenneman: Activist/Blogger

    Blumenthal: Nut

    Miss Brenneman:

    Sex worker rights isn’t the only subject which brings out the green crayons. After appearing on the Al Rantel show to debate the war (I’m against it,) I received the following:

    XXXXXX,

    I have just listened to your ratings, even though you constantly say you’re not looking at things with emotion, I hear a lot of emotion, especially displaced anger. With that much narcissism, I am sure you don’t date much, and that may be part of the problem. Your world view is skewed and distorted. Oh, by the way I am a very conservative Republican.

    Please get some help and or some medication. I am not saying that to attack you, but to let you know as a professional I am dismayed by what you are saying and your so-called dispassionate neutral view, which is a cover up.

    Regards,

    Sam Stuart Snyder PhD

  5. PhDs in poverty pimping

  6. Wow, Mr. Blumenthal’s note violates so many of the tenants of professional ethics for his profession I am of serious doubt there even is such a person. That he would present a diagnosis for some one who had not requested his assessment, and base this solely on Jill’s posts, with out any direct observation or her permission, and then email, which is not considered a secure medium for privileged information, what he asserts is a professional diagnosis, again, without her prior consent, just boggles the mind.

    If there is such a person, Jill has so many grounds for complaint any state licensing board would have a difficult not imposing censure. Which perhaps is why Mr. Blumenthal states he is a MSW, and not LICSW, which he would be if he was in-fact licensed.

    And “Stockholm Syndrome” is not a mental illness, but a lay term used to describe an adaptive, survival oriented pattern of behavior that most recover from once removed from the environment and with no intervention other than the support of friends and family. However, for some – not most, some – there are lasting effects, which are properly termed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, again a diagnosis that only could be made with the consent of and direct observation and assessment of the patient. Not by assumptions and selective reading of blog posts.

    The arrogance of even daring to say “I know what is wrong with you” amazes me.

  7. It is highly unethical to make a diagnosis over the internet.

  8. And even more unethical, not to mention illegal, to make threats of violence over the internet.

  9. Jill, this man makes my skin crawl. Ewwww! WTF does he think he is??

    YOU, on the other hand, amaze me.🙂

  10. I have had a history of attracting odd responses from MSW LICSW types from my posts. Here is what feminist psychotherapist Andrea Lavigne both emailed me at SWOP East and posted to a message board regarding a petition that I forwarded to a “feminist” listserv. Psychotherapist Lavigne mistakenly believed that I was the author of the petition. I was not.

    Dear Jill Brenneman

    Here is my response to your posting.

    Jill Brenneman writes: “We are deeply concerned by the rigid ways in which the complex issues of feminism and pornography are portrayed. In the broader society as well as within academic and feminist frameworks, there is a lot of disagreement about the extent to which pornography reflects and promotes sexism and violence.”

    Andrea Lavigne writes: You mention the broader society as if this broader society is some gender neutral egalitarian international community.

    Anti-porn feminists are against rigid sex roles bestowed upon us by the patriarchy, the broader oppressive, male chauvinist society in which you subscribe to, Jill. Sex roles are rigid for the fact that they are patriarchally based on private ownership, class division, hierarchy, male supremacy, inheritance via the male line, a male God, sexual discrimination, etc…. It is the anti-porn feminism who maintain non-rigid sex roles. In fact, any deviation from anti-porn feminism’s non-rigid sex roles toward patriarchal sex roles is a direction toward the most extreme rigidity. Anti-porn feminism is to non-rigidity what patriarchy is to rigidity. Any deviation away from anti-porn feminism is a move away from true sexual liberation, toward sexual repression/oppression. The disagreement in which you speak about is really a disagreement between anti-porn feminists and so-called pro-porn feminists. The disagreement is amongst those who claim to be feminists, but are really sex liberals who really are not feminists, but people who have co-opted feminism. These “pro-porn” feminists really subscribe to traditional patriarchal standards of female sexuality. Amongst true feminists, there is no substantial disagreement. The so-called pro-porn feminists are really the lackeys and apologists of the patriarchy.

    Furthermore, I should not have to put the words anti-porn in front of the word feminism to distinguish me from so-called feminists. To be a feminist is in part to be anti-porn amongst other elements that make up feminism. Within true feminism, there is no room for pro-porn. For the sake of the feminist movement being high-jacked by “pro-porn feminists”, “pro-sex feminists, or sexual liberals, I will make the distinction and keep the anti-porn words in front of the word feminism. A person can’t be a pro-porn feminist anymore than s/he can be a pro-meat vegan.

    Jill writes: “Though this conference is about pornography, none of the presenters on the agenda are performers in the pornography industry. Various important voices are excluded from the list of presenters, such as sex workers, feminists and scholars with opposing views about pornography, and advocates for the legitimization of consensual sex work.”

    Andrea writes: One doesn’t have to be a “sex worker” to have an objective opinion on the oppressive influence patriarchy has on our sexuality. Secondly, you don’t know whether or not the conference presenters ever performed sex work or intimately know someone else who has. You don’t know the historical plight of those who presented at the conference. Thirdly, all of us women are seasoned into the sex trade to some degree whether entered into the sex trade or not at some point or degree. You can’t say a “sex worker”, is going to be more objective about pornography, than a non-“sex worker”. An objective interpretation of the sex trade by a “sex worker” or other, no matter what, requires in someone a high degree of liberation from internalization of oppression. This would be someone most likely in a refuse and resist mode. There is no such thing as legitimate consensual sex work under patriarchy. Consensual implies making a decision free from coercion. When a human being is reduced to a body, objectification to sexually service another, whether or not there is consent, violation of the human being has taken place. In the American legal system, consent has become the defining factor in determining whether violation has occurred. In this way the human experience and self is reduced to will, intent or consent, as if that is all that is involved in violation. In this way, liberal legal theory does not consider the oppressive condition of class domination which invokes consent.
    Anyway, “sex worker” implies a simplistic employer / employee relationship. Just like you would not reduce the relationship between a domestic batterer and survivor of domestic violence to one of employer / employee relationship, you would not be correct to reduce the pimp/prostitute relationship to a simplistic employer / employee relationship.

    Jill writes: “Furthermore, the genre called “feminist pornography” is not included on the agenda. This genre of pornography is inspired by feminist principles, such as gender equality, bodily freedom, and mutual sexual pleasure. Women play a major role in producing this genre of pornography, so this genre is not produced just by men for a predominately male target audience.”

    Andrea writes: There is no such thing as feminist pornography. The term pornography, porno- means whore. Feminist pornography is an oxymoron. Just because pornography is made by women does not mean that it is feminist pornography. For example, Boink magazine, founded by a “sex positive” woman is suppose to display “egalitarian” sexuality. But, when you do an analysis of the magazine, it has a stark resemblance to the same old tired patriarchal genderistic ethics / portrayals of female and male sexuality. Boink caters exactly to a male target audience, even though it’s founder is female.

    Jill writes: “…we contend that conferences such as this one must be more balanced in the name of academic integrity. Though the organizers and presenters of this conference have the right to their perceptions, it is important to understand that their attitudes toward pornography do not reflect the views of all sex workers, feminists, and scholars.”

    Andrea writes: You mention that this conference has to be more balanced in the name of academic integrity. Wow. Earlier you had a beef about academia, now you want academic integrity. Anyway, the patriarchal pornographer’s have a long history where only their voice was heard, and heard loud. The voices of anti-porn feminists at an anti-porn conference once a year does not even come near to the loud mouth pornographers that we have to contend with all year around. Even if you wrote to your local pornographers to cut their sexist bullshit in half, their loud mouths would still muffle out the voices of anti-porn feminists. You want balance, go tell your pornographer buddies this. You and your buddies need to stop infiltrating and co-opting the feminist movement once and for all.

    Andrea Lavigne http://socialphysics.info/
    Andrea Lavigne, experienced in feminist psychotherapy, is committed to helping clients understand and resolve inner contradictions that result from patriarchy’s prescribed social roles and familial upbringing.

    Andrea Lavigne received her Masters Degree in Social Work (MSW) at Wayne State University in 1994. Andrea is currently in an independent private practice as a licensed master social worker (LMSW). Andrea is credentialed as a Qualified Clinical Social Worker (QCSW) and an Academy of Certified Social Workers (ACSW). Andrea is a member of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). Andrea is also an activist / educator / organizer in women’s liberation movement, see:

  11. Sam Stuart PhD. If only these geniuses, Stuart, Blumenthal, Lavigne, worked at NASA. With genius like that, forget a Mars landing. We could go all out and land on Pluto, Uranus, Saturn, someplace far more exotic than the next closest planet. Such a waste of incredible talent.

  12. I’ve been cyberstalked for close to four years now by someone I dated briefly, and this is the kind of drivel he sends me on a regular basis. With “fucking whore” thrown in for good measure, of course.

    This kind of one-minded zealotry reminds me very much of the freaks who petition abortion clinics, or worse, bomb them. It’s sick. Way sicker than the people they love diagnose at a comfortable distance.

  13. Bree, as to your cyberstalker calling you a fucking whore. Amazing how when they can’t think of anything valid to say the cliche comes out. Calling you a fucking whore. Wow, he’s original.

    As far as the two critics of me in this recent round, Whou and MSW Blumenthal. You caught me. My secret gig is that I am in fact a recruiter for the pro porn/pro prostitution people to enslave others. I’m sent to Tom Jones concerts worldwide to recruit elderly women for a new form of porn called Grandbabes. Of course I don’t realize that I”m doing this because of my Stockholm syndrome but if I did realize I’d be able to remember the words to Green Green Grass of Home. Again I’m busted.

  14. Assuming that Jeffery Blumenthal has a valid MSW and is not just an inept fraud, I thought it would be interesting to look at the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers.

    Under the heading of Ethical Standards:

    “Social workers respect and promote the right of clients to self-determination and assist clients in their efforts to identify and clarify their goals. Social workers may limit clients’ right to self-determination when, in the social workers’ professional judgment, clients’ actions or potential actions pose a serious, foreseeable, and imminent risk to themselves or others.”

    Blumenthal is seeking to limit Brenneman’s right to self-determination, which is unethical. His attempt is based on the belief that all sex work is violence against women. However, further in the code it states:

    “Social workers should base practice on recognized knowledge, including empirically based knowledge, relevant to social work and social work ethics.”

    That means that it is unethical to base practice on theories that have no empirical basis, such as the belief that all sex work is violence against women. So using this unsupported belief as the basis of professional judgement is unethical.

    “Social workers should provide services to clients only in the context of a professional relationship….”

    That makes offering unsolicited psychiatric diagnoses outside of a professional relationship unethical behavior.

    “Social workers should strive to become and remain proficient in professional practice and the performance of professional functions.”

    The absurdity of Blumenthal’s diagnosis makes it appear that he’s unqualified to make the diagnosis. If he doesn’t have the qualifications, then his action in unethical. If he does have the qualifications, he’s being deliberately deceptive, which is obviously unethical.

    “Social workers should make clear distinctions between statements made and actions engaged in as a private individual and as a representative of the social work profession…”

    Regardless of one’s opinion of Blumenthal’s motivations, trying to justify the contents of his e-mail by reference to the profession of social work is unethical.

    I’ve had talks with a friend who is a clinical social worker about the ethics of the profession. Even if one is being charitable and assuming that Blumenthal means well, and even if one sets aside the criminality of the implied threat, Blumenthal is well over the line that separates ethical from unethical behavior.

    Here’s the URL for the full Code of Ethics:
    http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: