About Me

My photo
Jocelyn Andersen is the author of "Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence."" For more information about her work, visit her website at www.JocelynAndersen.com

Friday, November 04, 2016

Such is Life

Yes, I voted for Donald Trump in the early voting. Such is life. I do not believe he is dangerous and I am absolutely convinced of his sincere love for this country as well as his competence to run it. I am also as relieved as everyone else to have this election season  almost behind us. 

Life goes on, regardless of the outcome. 

Sunday, October 23, 2016

The Difference Between a Feminist and a Radical Feminist

    Do we recognize the difference between Muslims who seek to peacefully practice their Islamic faith and those referred to as "radical Islamists" who rape, pillage, behead, crucify, burn people alive, murder, maim, and in general seek to subdue the world for their own cruel purposes? 
  I do, and I believe it is high time that Christians and conservatives acknowledge that there also exists a difference between those who call themselves feminists (as I call myself) and those who should only be referred "radical feminists." 
   Feminists advocate from a position of compassion in working for functional equality of the sexes and towards the worthy goal of girls and women enjoying true equity with boys and men--in every sphere of life--but it stops there. Feminists do not seek preferential treatment or superior advantage for women over men. 
   Feminists honor human life, and do not need to trample on the lives and Constitutional Rights of others in order to achieve the functional and Constitutional equality they seek and deserve.
   Radical feminists, on the other hand, seem to operate from a position of selfcenteredness, fear of and hatred towards men, and do not honor the lives of pre-born babies. Nor do they honor the Constitutional and Civil rights of those who disagree with them concerning their radical agenda. Therein lies the difference between the two.
   Feminism honors and affirms life. Radical feminism does not.

Thank you for visiting my blog. If you agree with this article, please share it using the links below. Your comments (even dessenting ones) and reactions are welcome.

Thursday, August 11, 2016

A call to Conservative's to stop labeling anti-family pro-abortion supporters as "THE FEMINISTS"

Feminism a cult as defined [by men] in 1931  

I am issuing a call to all conservatives who value equality--especially those who have media platforms--to refrain from equating anti-family and pro-death platforms with feminism.

 Just as all pro-family and pro-life supporters do not support equality of the sexes, all who support abortion and anti-family agendas are not feminists.

Feminism, from the beginning, has been simply defined as advocating for women full equality with men in all things. 

Of course, historically, the very idea was bizarre and outlandish to many and--most importantly--defined by men who unequivocally opposed the very idea of the sexes being equal in any way (women did not write and publish dictionaries at that time, nor did they have a say in what went into them) .  

The oldest dictionary this writer owns is the 1931 Universities Webster Dictionary which does not contain the word feminist at all but does libel feminism as a "cult."  

Regardless of its actual meaning, most people associate the word "cult" with evil, oppressive, dangerous, and false. 

That is the biased connotation deliberately infused into and associated with the the word feminism from the very beginning by those who opposed the premise--prejudice at its finest. 

One pro-family, 19th century, feminist claimed that had she known in advance of the fierce persecution she would endure because of her activism for the full equality of men and women, it is doubtful she would have begun her advocacy in the first place.

By 1943, in some circles, feminism had been upgraded, somewhat, from a "cult" to a "doctrine." 

The word "feminist" finally appears in a dictionary and is defined simply as: "One who advocates feminism."

 In 1955, Webster's continues its hateful narrative and stubbornly discriminates against the idea of equality of the sexes with their "cult" disinformation. (Webster's Complete Unabridged).
Keeping in mind that the word feminism was originally defined by men who opposed any semblance of equality of the sexes, it must be noted that the word was deliberately biased, from the beginning, with a hateful connotation that it does not in reality possess. 

"THE FEMINISTS" narrative is pure propaganda that has been bought into--almost wholesale--even by those who support equality of the sexes.

It is time to stop perpetuating the lie (even unwittingly) that equality is evil. 

An open and objective conversation about equality for women and men is impossible when the very words "FEMINISM" and "FEMINISTS" (words that mean nothing more than advocacy for full equality of men and women) are constantly used as a synonyms for every evil agenda under the sun.

When speaking of the pro-abortion issue, I implore equality loving, pro-life, media commentators and reporters to call them for what they are, pro-abortion supporters--not "THE FEMINISTS." When speaking of the gay marriage issue, I implore pro-family advocates with public platforms to please call them for what they are, gay marriage supporters--not "THE FEMINISTS." 

Conservatives who have pubic platforms and large followings, I implore you to please stop referring to those in the political far left collectively as "THE FEMINISTS. When you do this, you effectively lump all supporters of full equality between women and men (including those of us who are pro-life and pro-family) in bed together, jointly promoting an anti-life anti-family agenda, when that is not the case and could not be further from the truth.

Feminism is not evil. Equality is good. Feminists are not evil. Equality is good.

The practice of conservatives (even by those who support equality) of re-defining the pro-abortion and anti-family far left democratic platform as a FEMINIST agenda perpetuates an utterly false narrative.  

Equality of the sexes is not evil. Inequality of the sexes is evil, and has been the cause of human suffering throughout the history of the world.

What is a feminist? One who supports the full equality of women and men and advocates for feminism, which is the practice of those who advocate for full equality of men and women. 

Equality is a good thing!

Sunday, August 07, 2016

Why I am voting for Donald Trump in November

Ever since I voted for Ted Cruz in the Florida Closed Primaries (which I would like to see opened), I have wondered why I didn't just go ahead and vote for Donald Trump from the get-go. 

My husband did. 

I secretly wanted to. But I caved to the propaganda and  shaming tactics of the left in painting--with a very insulting broad brush--all Trump supporters as ignorant, uneducated, and ill-informed, along with the unsubstantiated-oft-repeated-lie that Donald Trump is a dangerous man--not true. 

So I admit it. I listened to the propaganda that he was dangerous and chose the safer route [I thought] by voting for Cruz. I allowed myself to be frightened into not voting for Trump in the Florida Primaries, but heaved a deep sigh of relief and celebrated along with the rest of his supporters when he won Florida anyway!

I probably possess enough college credits to claim an associates degree, but two years shy of a bachelor's degree, gasp! I do not hold a college degree. 

Gasp again! I never plan to. 

Yes, I'm a college drop-out and a self-educated woman. I am not ashamed of that. In fact, I am quite proud of where (with God's help) I have brought myself compared to where I began. And along with myself, all those without college degrees and those who are blue collar working Americans should be incensed at the disdain with which the democratic socialist left (both the media and the politicians they support) hold the hard working conservatives--the back bone of this country--of the United States.  

Enough said along those lines.

I am not voting for Donald Trump because I believe he is the lesser of two evils. I do not believe he is evil. I believe he is the best person for the job.

I am not voting for Donald Trump because I am ill-informed on the issues. I am more informed than your average Jane. 

I am not voting for Donald Trump because I am uneducated. I am well educated.

I am voting for Donald Trump because I believe he is the man of the hour for our country. I believe he is genuine and competent. I believe he will continue to surround himself with awesome advisors as he has done from the beginning. 

I believe he will bring jobs back to this country. That is so important. We need work. We need income. We need opportunities in order to be able to realize our dreams.

I believe he will do what it takes to keep the people of this country as safe as possible from terrorism.

I do not believe Donald Trump is a loose canon. No one builds the kind of business empire he has built by being unstable. No one raises the kinds of children he has raised by being an unstable or uncaring person. Both his business success and his accomplished children are testaments to his stability and compassion.

I do not believe Donald Trump is sexist--his business record in hiring and promoting women, along with being supportive of the mothers he employs, proves that. 

I am a woman who supports the Equal Rights Amendment, and I am confident that a President Trump will be good for women as well as for men. I am not a one-issue voter. I have three sons and three grandsons who need a bright future right along with their sisters and cousins--my five grand-daughters. 

I will not throw any of their futures under the bus by voting the "woman-ticket" in this or any other election. 

These are the reasons I am voting for Donald Trump (along with others on the ticket who will support his policies) in November.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Story behind the writing of Gender Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System

The story behind the writing of, Woman this is War! 

After, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence, was published, I began to receive invitations for speaking engagements. This was exciting! The Christian community was signalling that they were ready and willing to deal with the sin and trauma of domestic violence in a proactive, compassionate, and biblical manner.

But in His own inimitable way, my Father in Heaven brought it to my attention that I was not yet ready to start jaunting all over the country speaking at domestic violence seminars hosted by churches. Although I did not yet understand the "why" of it, I did get the message, loud and clear, that if I began traveling, prematurely, to speaking engagements, I would be going "half-dressed," so to speak.
So, reluctantly, I cancelled events I had scheduled at mega-churches in places such as New York and California, and I began my journey into researching and writing what would became, Woman this is WAR!
Being raised in a Southern Baptist home, attending Southern Baptist Sunday Schools, and identifying as a Southern Baptist for 27 years of my life, It was difficult for me to accept that the Holy Spirit--who leads and guides into all truth--was leading me to challenge the status quo of traditional role religion, a status quo which had been ingrained into my psyche from birth. You see, my denomination did not endorse equality of the sexes, and never had as far as I knew. I remember arguing with God saying, "But Lord, that's their baby. If I touch that, they'll eat me alive! You will have to show me where to start. Weren't there any Baptist women who wrote about equality of the sexes?" 

I really did ask God that question. 
And the answers to that prayer began flowing in. I will never forget the thrill of discovering the writings of Sarah Grimke, a godly woman of the 19th century who was the first American woman to write a fully developed treatise on woman's equality. The peace her words brought to my woman's soul was a balm. I experienced outrage as well, at how both men and women had been foully cheated by the unjust limitations of role religion.
After reading Sarah Grimke's treatise, I found Shirley Taylor, That fearless Street Evangelist for Women, of Baptist Women for Equality, followed by Elizabeth Wilson, another 19th Century woman of God who spoke out against the societal and religious norm of female subordination. The list goes on, with many men standing up for women as well.

As my research and writing began to emerge in the form of a manuscript--with many footnotes to document and back up my findings (the book ended up having more than 400 footnotes)--I realized I was telling parallel stories of the American Woman's Rights movement which I found was  directly connected with the abolition of slavery. The two issues cannot be separated. And it is more than interesting that many of the same arguments were used to keep both women and slaves in subjection.

The religious significance of scripture being used to prove that God ordained both slavery and female subjection cannot be under-estimated. It is what gave power to the institution of slavery and to traditional role religion as well.
Enter complementarianism, what I call traditional-role-religion-on-steroids. Under the complementarian regime, women have lost ground, and abuse has increased. During my research, I was appalled to see that denominations that once ordained women as pastors, deacons, and elders, no longer did so. And it was tragic to see that an entire family counseling industry had sprung up within the Christian world in order to salvage hurting marriages that complementarian doctrine itself was causing!

I began to understood that the things I was learning were the missing parts of the puzzle as to why domestic violence is just as prevalent among Christians as anywhere else--perhaps even more so. Now I could accept speaking engagements again. Now I could run with my message "fully clothed." Now I could see the big picture. And that is what, Woman this is WAR! is all about, and how it came about. 

Saturday, May 28, 2016

It's time to put women in the U.S. Constitution

I am a pro-life, conservative, Christian. I support conservative Christian values, but I believe we should join, as co-belligerents together, with all who support passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Actress, Patricia Arquette, is petitioning the House of Representatives to vote to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
I signed the petition 
Ratifying ERA is simply the right thing to do, and we should need no other argument that than that to get it done. 

All people who value equality of the sexes should support this amendment. It will only help women and can in no way harm them. But the record does need to be set straight on one thing. In an email appeal for supporters, Arquette wrote, "And this goes beyond wages: our rising maternal mortality rates, lack of parental leave, the war on our reproductive rights, and the low priority given to victims of rape and domestic violence in courts...all of these problems would be addressed by the ERA." Arquette is wrong, passing the Equal Rights Amendment would have no effect whatsoever on "reproductive rights," which most pro-life conservatives view as supporting abortion. This is something they simply cannot do. 

It is the type of rhetoric used by Arquette, linking ERA with "reproductive rights," and other divisive issues that has hindered Constitutional equality for women by polarizing those who would otherwise unite together with her in support of ERA. 

We live in America. We all have to right to advocate for what is important to us—even if other Americans don't like it or are morally against it. I am 100% in support of our First Amendment Right of Free Speech, but I am asking the pro-abortion camp to please leave side issues out of the campaign for ERA. The Equal Rights Amendment would have no power, whatsoever, to legislate any issue beyond discrimination based on sex. Men do not need equal pay laws to protect them against pay discrimination based on sex, because men are already guaranteed equality under the Constitution. Men do not need separate laws to protect them from sex discrimination in courts or when applying for jobs, because men already enjoy protection under the Constitution. 

It is Constitutional protection that women currently do not have, desperately need, and that no mere "law" can give. 
The ERA has absolutely nothing to with issues that divide such as abortion, gay marriage, or registering for the draft
In 2011, I petitioned—in person—the Hillsborough County, FL, Legislative Delegation to allow a vote to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in Florida. The delegation promised chocolate to anyone who limited their appeals to 3 minutes or less. The following is a transcript of my two minute speech stating my case in favor of ERA:

"I am here ... supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. Only three states are needed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, and Florida should be one of them. Women are guaranteed only one right under the United States Constitution, and that is the right to vote. This should be unacceptable to all Americans. The 14th Amendment is often cited as giving women equal rights. It does not. It does not mention women at all but does specify that only men can vote. It is rather antiquated, an it has been suggested that it be repealed and replaced.  American women enjoy many privileges today, but they are just that, privileges—not Rights. Privileges are easily revoked while Rights, on the other hand, are not.   American Women are forced to accept revocable privileges in exchange for Rights because we do not enjoy the same level of protection under the United States Constitution that American men do. Barry Goldstein stated in his Times article, that 40 states have determined that gender bias against mothers exists in their family court systems. We need an Equal Rights Amendment to stop discrimination against women and their children in our family court systems. Florida Senate Committees have overwhelmingly passed the Equal Rights Amendment, but it is my understanding that the [FL] House has never granted even one hearing or vote. I am asking you to support this by granting hearings and by voting to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in the state of Florida. America is just three states away from ratifying an amendment that would guarantee Constitutional equality for all of its citizens, not just its male citizens."

The delegation still owes me chocolate.

Unfortunately, personal agendas, political agendas, and religious agendas have successfully prevented those who are in positions to support what is right and good to neglect their duty to serve the people. They have chosen to serve themselves instead. Sign the petition, and then let your elected officials know that you support ERA and that it is an important factor in your voting decisions. 

I applaud Arquette for using her celebrity platform to support Constitutional equality for women, but I would beg her to allow the issue of ERA to stand alone without muddying the water by using it as a platform to introduce other issues that only serve to keep the support base for ERA divided rather than united.

Monday, May 02, 2016

Stop Anti-Semitism: James Andersen 2016 Presentation

Jocelyn with her son, James
 James Andersen presentation on bigotry and hatred towards Jews. How it started, what continues to perpetuate it, and what each of us can do to stop it.

A must watch video on the importance of remembering the lessons of the Holocaust and making sure it never happens again.

Click here to watch the video 

Has Cameron Mayfield been sacrificed on the altar of the gay marriage issue?

Drunken prank lands Cameron Mayfield a hate crime conviction

Yesterday, the 24 year old aviation student was convicted of a felony hate crime in the burning of a neighbor's rainbow flag. Was the politically charged atmosphere in Nebraska a catalyst in the decision to charge a young man with no previous criminal history with a felony hate crime in the burning of a rainbow windsock.

News reports state that Mayfield and the victims of his crime, “Ariann Anderson and Jess Meadows-Anderson,” a lesbian couple who live on the same street, had never spoken to each other before, although Mayfield's father told WOWT News, in a telephone interview, that he thought his son was "upset about a prior run in with Andersen." He disclosed details in an exclusive interview with this writer that his son had complained to him a few weeks prior to the incident that he had witnessed Anderson, their neighbor and one of the victims, take some apple wood, that he used for smoking barbecue, out of his truck while walking her dog.
In a recorded phone call from the jail, Mayfield told his father, "They burned something of mine, so I burned something of theirs."
That recording, according to the family, was never played in court.

Sources close to the family are shocked that Mayfield would be charged with a hate crime against lesbians saying, “His uncle is gay.”  That the couple's sexual orientation played a part in the crime is unbelievable to those who know Mayfield well.

Other sources inside the family claim that in addition to a gay uncle, Mayfield has a transgender uncle, a great aunt who is a lesbian, and enjoyed being a welcome guest in the home of their Grandmother. He was not raised with bigotry. Mayfield has friends who are gay. “No one who knows Cameron Mayfield would ever accuse him of hating gays or lesbians. He should not have done what he did, but there is no way he did it because they were gay.”

And that is the central question here. Did Cameron Mayfield do what he did because his neighbors were gay?

Did he commit a crime? He admits that he did. Was being drunk an excuse? Of course not. Does the fact the the crime victims happened to be gay automatically make it a hate crime? The implications of that question should give pause to every thinking person. Mayfield's attorney, James Martin Davis, brought up the issue of political motivations in  charging defendants with crimes. He  said,  “Just because the victims ... are gay doesn’t make it a hate crime.”
After Mayfield's initial hearing, Davis named the Nebraska gay marriage debate as the matrix in which the felony hate crime charge was spawned, “There’s a political wind blowing here in Omaha... I want to make sure that my client doesn’t get caught up in the wind.”
Many believe that his client did indeed get caught up in the political windstorm sweeping through the state of Nebraska, and the entire country, over gay marriage, and that justice was not served in that courtroom on Wednesday, April 27, 2016 for one Cameron Adam Mayfield, 24 years of age.

On close inspection, there are good reasons this case that should raise concerns for anyone who believes that the American court system should be a place of justice rather than a place to legislate political agendas.

The young man whose life has just been ruined by this outrageous conviction has no prior criminal history, has no history of bigotry--in fact, just the opposite--or habitual alcohol or drug use. He has gay friends, a gay uncle, a transgender uncle, and a gay aunt. Because of his older brother and sister who are mentally handicapped with Down's Syndrome, he has learned tolerance for those who are different. In an interview with the family, it was disclosed that throughout his life, he has often defended his brother and sister against the cruel taunts of others.

It was falsely alleged, in court, that his parents have publicly supported traditional marriage through a yard sign. Even if that were true what relevance is that to the case? The Washington Times reported that most Americans continue to support traditional marriage as well, but that does not constitute hatred of gays or lesbians.

WOWT News reported that, “Chad Simmons, a burglary detective with the Omaha Police Department, was the one and only prosecution witness during the hearing. Simmons testified that Mayfield called his father approximately three hours after the alleged crime while he was being detained. His father asked him if he burned the flag. Cameron told him that he had. His father then instructed Cameron to tell the police there was no intent of hate. Earlier in the evening, Mr. Mayfield told a sergeant investigating the crime at his house that he had several conversations with his son about the flag and what it meant.  He also told detectives that he raised his son to be "tolerant." He was brought up this way in part because Cameron has two mentally challenged siblings. Simmons also testified that the Mayfield family had a sign in their front yard approximately six months prior to the crime that read "Protect Traditional Marriage."

In an interview with the family it was disclosed that the phone conversation alluded to was recorded from the jail and was played in court. In that conversation, Mayfield's father never instructed him not to say there was no intent of hate. His father asked him if he hated anyone. And Mayfield said, "No." The yard sign featured in the detective's testimony did not belong to Mayfield family at all but was located in a neighbor's yard, given to the neighbor by the Catholic church.
A man is convicted on the testimony of one witness who saw nothing and gave false information about a recorded phone conversation and a yard sign that belonged to someone else
Mayfield's father also disclosed in the interview that he and his wife were not aware that the Anderson's were a lesbian couple until the incident of their son's arson occurred.
Did Mayfield lie about not knowing the couple was gay? Did he lie about not knowing the meaning of the rainbow windsock? Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. But if he was lying, does even that prove his actions were motivated by hate? The burden of proving motivation was on the prosecution. Did they prove it? Why wasn't Mayfield's statement from the second recorded phone call from the jail used in court?
"They burned something of mine. So I burned something of theirs" 
How is it that a foolish 23 year old commits a misdemeanor crime, admits to it, and then finds himself  convicted of a felony hate crime just because it is falsely alleged that his parents had a “Protect Traditional Marriage” sign in their front yard six months prior to the crime? Add to that, a false statement that his father was allegedly coaching his son on what to say. How does any of that, even if it were true, prove to a prosecutor and judge that hatred, rather than mere anger over stolen apple wood was involved?

Mayfield was drunk and behaved in a criminal manner, but it has never been proven to the satisfaction of many Americans watching the case, that his actions were motivated by hatred. In fact, Mayfield has apologized for what he did and offered to replace the $15 windsock. He has clearly stated on more than one occasion that he does not hate anyone.

More cause for concern: It is understandable that the crime itself would have been frightening to the victims while it was taking place. There are numerous television interviews which show the victims, Ariann Anderson and Jess Meadows-Anderson, claiming fear for their lives and safety—even going so far as to obtain a restraining order against Mayfield. If that was the case, why did they admit at the outset--on March 4, 2015--in a KETV News Watch video interview, that they did not feel they were in any physical danger from their neighbor. They told News Watch 7 that their purpose for pushing for a hate crime conviction was ideological.

Obviously, then, the request for an order of protection was just for show and political advantage. There is little doubt, based on their interview with KETV News Watch 7, that the motivation for obtaining the restraining order and for pushing to ruin a young man's life by having him charged with a felony hate crime rather than the misdemeanor he admitted to, was ideologically and politically motivated.

WOWT 6 News hinted at the political motivation for the charge when it reported that, “As for Anderson and Meadows-Anderson the two say they're still focused on bigger news. The couple is hoping that a federal judge in Omaha makes a ruling that will allow same-sex marriages in Nebraska. The two are currently married in Iowa, but that union isn't recognized in their home state. If the judge makes a decision in the coming days the two say they have plans to get married in a court house. The two had a large wedding for friends and family in Iowa in 2011."

In addition to the questionable way the case has been handled, with a prosecutor and press hell bent on a hate crime charge and conviction, the media optics of the case have deliberately cast Mayfield in the most unfavorable manner possible.

Upon Mayfield's arrest, most press images of him showed the drunken mugshot. Which looked pretty bad. The windsock, that he admitted he burned and offered to replace, was immediately replaced, by the victims, with a full sized, 3' x 5', gay pride flag. This has been the only image presented to the public view. Since it is contested that this is not what was burned, why hasn't evidence been presented to verify whether it was a wind sock or a flag?

Mayfield and his attorney have held from the beginning that it was a $15 rainbow windsock attached to a three foot pole. A full size 3' x 5' flag could not fly from a mere three foot flag pole. Mayfield claimed that he believed the windsock he was stealing and burning to be a springtime decoration. Mayfield's father has produced a police evidence photo of the charred remains of the windsock/flag lying next to the small unburned pole it was  flying from.

Mayfield did not make a favorable impression on the press early on and had little to say later. Those who know the defendant say this does not surprise them. “He is normally quiet and  we expect that he would be uncomfortable and not very articulate in front of judges and news cameras—especially since his entire future is at stake.” His father had this to say about his reticent son, "Cameron doesn't express himself well."

Has Cameron Mayfield's future just been stolen from him because of a political agenda? Was Meadows-Anderson admitting to this when she said, referring the legal nightmare the young musician/aviation student had plunged himself into, "You almost feel bad, for a minute..."