by Phyllis Chesler
I’m really shocked. Unexpectedly, and without warning, I just lost 40% of my funding. This means that I may have to close up shop. My funder, someone who has stood by me for 14 years, did not send her annual check. I kept emailing. Finally, she texted that she’d decided that my work to help save Afghan women was no longer one of her priorities. “I do not want any more of them here,” she wrote.
“Them.” “Here.”
Granted, immigration is a controversial issue—but my funder knows that I was among the handful who wrestled with the dangers of the West’s opening our doors to unredeemable misogynists and potentially radicalized Islamists. While I condemned the atrocious way in which the Biden administration chose to leave Afghanistan, I also knew that despite all the blood and treasure we spent in that country, there was no way we could ever change the hearts and minds of those who live in rural Afghanistan, control the poppy crop, or are members of the Taliban.
But these particular Afghan women? On our watch, they became women’s rights activists, judges, doctors, lawyers, journalists, poets, scientists, social workers, small business owners. They are most likely to assimilate, they are our daughters now. We—Western feminists, Western governments—are at least morally responsible for them.
But that’s not the only reason my funder decided not to send her precious check my way. Her decision came only days after I‘d published a pro-abortion piece, a piece which was read at a 2022 demonstration outside St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. Although I remained a steadfast supporter of a woman’s right to an abortion, I had not written about this for a long time. Come the 21st century, I was drawn to other burning issues such as Islamist terrorism, rising Jew hatred, the endangered lives of tribal women, persecuted minorities in Muslim countries, and the degradation and disappearance of both feminist knowledge and intellectual diversity in the West.
Why do I think that my abortion piece was a turning point? Once, on a visit to my home, my funder quietly left a book behind. The book was a rather shocking anti-abortion screed. I was meant to find it. Carefully, kindly, we never discussed it. But I knew that she regularly attended conferences at which anti-abortion speakers were featured and I silently blessed her for her tolerance for another feminist viewpoint.
Here’s the necessary perspective. No funder is obliged to fund or to continue funding anyone. However, advance notice is always appreciated. And, while my pro-abortion views may have played a part in this de-funding, in terms of this particular issue, I’m among the very lucky.
Gynecologists have been defamed and death threatened; violence against abortion clinics in America have, so far, resulted in 11 deaths. Clinics and their patients have been physically harassed by aggressive activists and via lawsuits. Recently, small clinics across America have lost even their most minimal funding and have only been able to serve a small part of those who need their help. Even feminists learned to speak carefully about the raging war over control of women’s bodies. Increasingly, they were for “reproductive freedom,” or for “choice,” not for “abortions,” which should be legally available and rare.
On other fronts, professors, graduate students, activists, and authors, have lost their good reputations as well as tenure, funding, colleagues, students, and publishers and all for holding the “wrong” views on gender; Islam/Islamophobia; Israel; racism; Palestine; prostitution; and on the Mother of All Issues, that of transgender rights.
I’ve written many hundreds of articles about just such cases over the last twenty years. My voice has kept the issue of censorship alive and has strengthened those who might otherwise remain invisible both to themselves and others.
I’ve never been properly funded—but that’s my fault, too. I’ve never taken the time out to write grants or socialize with philanthropists and heads of foundations. Even if I had, my views were never the feminist flavor of the month—and also, I kept moving from subject to subject. I pioneered subjects but did not remain there to specialize in them.
The truth is, I did not want to stop my research, writing, and activism in order to raise monies. (A cash prize would have been nice but that was not to be). Time was all I had and it was precious to me. I lived from university paycheck to paycheck and on book advances, which never, ever, even covered the costs of writing a book.
Still, compared to most other radical feminists, I was among the fortunate few. No matter how hard I was challenged, I at least had a university position. So many other valiant, visionary, and determined feminists had no jobs and no job security; had neither capital nor funding, and ran out of steam within a decade or two. Feminist bookstores and publishing houses were shuttered, restaurants, bars, and women’s centers also were. Whether we were published or self-published, we never received significant advances or royalties, our work went out of print, was increasingly forgotten, and was not taught in Women’s Studies or elsewhere. There were exceptions—but that’s what they were, exceptions to a rule.
I was not a gender-neutral liberal feminist. I was a radical and at a time when the Western university had not yet been taken down by postmodern academics. Radical feminists were feared and hated. We were not promoted. We had to fight for tenure and promotion—at least, I did. In order to survive, we had to be leftists, pro-“sex work,” and primarily anti-racist. I had politically incorrect views about—well, about everything: Male violence towards women, prostitution, pornography, motherhood, custody battles, surrogacy, anti-Semitism, Islam, Islamic gender and religious apartheid, Jihad, honor killing, gender identity, the trans issue—just on and on.
People think that writers and thinkers simply live on air and in romantic garrets, that what we do cannot or should not cost real money. That is not true. Even without taking a salary (I don’t), work such as mine requires a webmaster, a website, a research assistant, an IT team, hardware and software upgrades, office expenses, subscriptions to newspapers and magazines—even rent—and this all costs more than a proverbial pretty penny. I’ve subsidized 60% of my own work but doing so has worn me right down to the ground.
Now, no outside funding=being potentially silenced. It’s another form of censorship.
Increasingly, more and more of us are being silenced on both sides of the aisle. What is acceptable to say depends entirely upon the company you keep. There are certain subjects that one cannot safely discuss with many conservatives: Abortion is among them, but so is lesbianism, border control, and Donald Trump. There are also subjects that one dare not discuss in most left-liberal company: Israel, the scientific basis of gender, Donald Trump, and God, in no particular order. One can discuss all these subjects anywhere as long as one has the “accepted” point of view; but not otherwise.
Ironically, my funder also said that she was now more interested in funding issues having to do with school curriculum, CRT, and intersectionality. I immediately sent her 50 articles that I‘d published in 2021 and early 2022 on these very subjects. She said she’d go back and look at her accounts but that she was probably out of discretionary funds.
Oh, how I need a Lorenzo de’ Medici, someone who appreciates another Renaissance spirit and wants to keep it around. But, until that day comes along—I must, most humbly, turn to you, my readers and colleagues, for this essential support.
To donate to Phyllis Chesler’s GoFundMe campaign, click here.
- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
19 Responses
Your funder does not support abortion. You knew this.
Why should she/he/them fund you when you support a position that they do not?
You are “shocked” at this turn of events?
How do people who think they are moral and upright and good and decent support the murder of children? I will never understand this. You lost your funding because you are pro-abortion and your funder is not.
The funder was perfectly within their right to end donations to you. Why would they continue giving you money when you publicly support child murder? And now you turn to NER readers to help you with donations so that you can continue to write pro-abortion “screeds”. Not going to happen.
You said it yourself: “Here’s the necessary perspective. No funder is obliged to fund or to continue funding anyone. However, advance notice is always appreciated. And, while my pro-abortion views may have played a part in this de-funding, in terms of this particular issue, I’m among the very lucky.” No funder is obligated to give you or anybody else anything. Your strategy in publicly supporting the opposite position as that of your chief funder was not wise. You are welcome to your views and can publish them if you wish.
Your are “shocked” that your funder pulled support from you? I’m shocked that you’re shocked.
Your funder does not support abortion. You knew this.
Why should she/he/them fund you when you support a position that they do not?
You are “shocked” at this turn of events?
How do people who think they are moral and upright and good and decent support the murder of children? I will never understand this. You lost your funding because you are pro-abortion and your funder is not.
The funder was perfectly within their right to end donations to you. Why would they continue giving you money when you publicly support child murder? And now you turn to NER readers to help you with donations so that you can continue to write pro-abortion “screeds”. Not going to happen.
You said it yourself: “Here’s the necessary perspective. No funder is obliged to fund or to continue funding anyone. However, advance notice is always appreciated. And, while my pro-abortion views may have played a part in this de-funding, in terms of this particular issue, I’m among the very lucky.” No funder is obligated to give you or anybody else anything. Your strategy in publicly supporting the opposite position as that of your chief funder was not wise. You are welcome to your views and can publish them if you wish.
Your are “shocked” that your funder pulled support from you? I’m shocked that you’re shocked.
@Jerry & Lou: PC was shocked at the abruptness without prior notice of the defunding. PC was disappointed at the decision, that her other contributions were not considered adequate to maintain funding. You make no mention of reconsideration for funding based on PC’s articles in the fields of the funder’s new interests. The odor of the aura of your comments, if I may mix sensations, is disgusting.
Rather than suggesting to the funder a set of vigorous well-argued columns, pro abortion vs, con abortion, for support and publication and enjoyment and education of their audience/readership, you driveled into mere trashing. You have shamed yourselves.
Mr Jerry and Mr Lou have shamed themselves because they were critical of the lady author of the article for being shocked that her previously generous funder removed funding from the author because the funder is against killing children and her protégé the author published a favorable article about killing children? And then the author is shocked that the funder pulled funding because it was so quick, so without courtesy and kindness? The funder should have been kinder and more thoughtful in pulling funding from the author? How does a funder tell the recipient of funds that the trough is now empty in a kind manner? Does one send chocolates? This is all that you got from all of this? Mr Jerry and Mr Lou have shamed themselves in your opinion but the author who publicly supports the killing of children has no cause to feel any shame at all, Mr Howard? Shame on you for not knowing the difference.
@MELFCCRSJ, consumer of alphabets:
Jerry & Lou, the conjoined twins, shamed theirselves by offering no pertinent alternatives in the abortion societal impasse.
Fundamentally, how is a human being defined, when does it become a human being, before becoming a human being does it have rights as a kind of living entity? Who decides what in a humane civilization on questions of competing survival?
Re notification of defunding: As a minimum, a simple telephone call, or meeting over a cup of Hemlock tea would be proper etiquette, given the long term relationship. God forbid, there might be a discussion of alternatives to maintain the mutually beneficial relationship. Simpler and stupider to abort the relationship.
Mr Jerry and Mr Lou have shamed themselves because they were critical of the lady author of the article for being shocked that her previously generous funder removed funding from the author because the funder is against killing children and her protégé the author published a favorable article about killing children? And then the author is shocked that the funder pulled funding because it was so quick, so without courtesy and kindness? The funder should have been kinder and more thoughtful in pulling funding from the author? How does a funder tell the recipient of funds that the trough is now empty in a kind manner? Does one send chocolates? This is all that you got from all of this? Mr Jerry and Mr Lou have shamed themselves in your opinion but the author who publicly supports the killing of children has no cause to feel any shame at all, Mr Howard? Shame on you for not knowing the difference.
Dear fool aloof from honest and honorable debate:
A. Are there any conditions under which abortion would be justified? Would death of the ‘mother’ if certain due to complications in the pregnancy, justify abortion of the fetus to save the mother?
If YOU were the fetus would you agree to be aborted to save your mother?
B. If the fetus is the result of incestuous rape, and has not as yet developed brain or heart function, is it yet a human being with rights for survival?
C. Are you a complete fool yet or does your foolishness require additional development?
D. Do you hate debate due to your simple or complex ignorance of factors involved?
As a pro-life feminist I understand the position of the donor. However much I admire you I would find it difficult to support your position on many areas ( even President Trump!). Each issue has to be examined in its own right . I do not just accept a whole tranche of opinions such as you have outlined, but look at each one . I think this is what your donor is doing. I am sorry it has had such a devastating effect on you as it is very important to hear all sides of every argument and your opinions are valuable and clearly argued.
Howard, you’re a nut. Phyllis, you don’t “deserve” funding any more than many of the other writers who write on important issues. Your voice isn’t more important than others. Deciding not to fund you is not akin to censorship. New English Review still runs your pieces, for instance.
Most readers of NER, I would venture to say, are pro life and believe those unborn children to be more important morally than your belief they should continue to be aborted at mom’s whim. I’m glad your white knight donor decided those babies lives and missing voices were more important than your own voice. Good for her.
Believing we have enough refugees here doesn’t make one racist which is what you’re clearly implying about your former donor. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing what the whole left does…attempt to brand those who disagree as racist. That’s a totally cheap shot that you took even though you phrased it in a way that affords you some plausible deniability.
The culture is divided and, while you aren’t pro Islam, you’re really still a Leftist narcissist who sees her own writing and opinions as more righteous than others. But your opinions aren’t more righteous, Phyllis. And specifically regarding abortion, it’s completely wrong. I wouldn’t support you on that basis, either, and wish i wouldnt see your writing on NER. Would a pro Nazi piece be permitted on a pro Israel platform? Not usually. I guess it would if Rebecca was the editor
@Anon— I may be a nut (nutritious & delicious, often shell-shocked) but not necessarily wrong in calling for comprehensive debate. . Following your tasteful description of me, where were your absolutist counterarguments re the extreme cases for abortion decisions that I presented for debate? I can understand your absolute opinion on the matter. However, mother and fetus are unimpressed.
As a pro-life feminist I understand the position of the donor. However much I admire you I would find it difficult to support your position on many areas ( even President Trump!). Each issue has to be examined in its own right . I do not just accept a whole tranche of opinions such as you have outlined, but look at each one . I think this is what your donor is doing. I am sorry it has had such a devastating effect on you as it is very important to hear all sides of every argument and your opinions are valuable and clearly argued.
Howard, you’re a nut. Phyllis, you don’t “deserve” funding any more than many of the other writers who write on important issues. Your voice isn’t more important than others. Deciding not to fund you is not akin to censorship. New English Review still runs your pieces, for instance.
Most readers of NER, I would venture to say, are pro life and believe those unborn children to be more important morally than your belief they should continue to be aborted at mom’s whim. I’m glad your white knight donor decided those babies lives and missing voices were more important than your own voice. Good for her.
Believing we have enough refugees here doesn’t make one racist which is what you’re clearly implying about your former donor. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing what the whole left does…attempt to brand those who disagree as racist. That’s a totally cheap shot that you took even though you phrased it in a way that affords you some plausible deniability.
The culture is divided and, while you aren’t pro Islam, you’re really still a Leftist narcissist who sees her own writing and opinions as more righteous than others. But your opinions aren’t more righteous, Phyllis. And specifically regarding abortion, it’s completely wrong. I wouldn’t support you on that basis, either, and wish i wouldnt see your writing on NER. Would a pro Nazi piece be permitted on a pro Israel platform? Not usually. I guess it would if Rebecca was the editor
Dear fool aloof from honest and honorable debate:
A. Are there any conditions under which abortion would be justified? Would death of the ‘mother’ if certain due to complications in the pregnancy, justify abortion of the fetus to save the mother?
If YOU were the fetus would you agree to be aborted to save your mother?
B. If the fetus is the result of incestuous rape, and has not as yet developed brain or heart function, is it yet a human being with rights for survival?
C. Are you a complete fool yet or does your foolishness require additional development?
D. Do you hate debate due to your simple or complex ignorance of factors involved?
Hey Lou. I’m pretty sure that comment was made by Howard Nelson. I’m not sure why you felt the need to repost it.
I’m also not sure why you keep reposting your own comments. It’s spammy and like the commentary itself, rather annoying.
An acorn is not an oak tree. Anyway, Dr Cheaper has written on more than just abortion. Her voice and experience has now been silenced, not to mention any research assistants who may have !at their jobs.
We can all benefit from a daily course in reading comprehension. As the non-pc PC clearly stated in her article, the founder is considering continuing funding for the more recent areas of interest to the founder. All is not lost.
It might be useful if all us commenters advised the founder of how much we appreciate PC’s clear argumentation, though we may disagree with the adequacy of its presentation.
What’s the point of preaching to the choir; better to query the chorus to provoke critical thinking.
“An acorn is not an oak tree.” True. And a toddler is not an adult. And a teenager is not an adult. All because body-brain development and decay proceed throughout life. So, again, when does human life begin? What rights, if any, does the fetus have once it is a human being? How does the authority prioritize decisions on continuance of mother and fetus lives when one or both dangers to lives are codependent? Who’s authorized the authority on life and death decisions.
Does the “acorn” show brain/ heart development?
Sorry, it’s this bloody autocorrect ‘Chesler’ not ‘Cheaper’.
So here we are at a grim interim. What have we learned that we accept and what’s been spurned?
1. PC was shocked and disappointed at the manner of her abrupt defunding and the stated and other probable reasons/opinions held by the founder.
2. PC, being a force of nature, will continue her pursuit of justice as she understands it from lessons learned from her experiences and those of others.
3. PC believes a pregnant woman’s fetus is part of her body and that she has the right, and should have the right, to abort the pregnancy under certain conditions. I apologize for not knowing what those conditions are; I assume, perhaps incorrectly, the fetus to be non-viable outside the womb at the desired time of abortion.
4. Our so-called civilization has no acceptable, or shared definition of when a human life entity begins, and what its rights are, and whether those rights are superseded by the rights of the pregnant woman.
There’s nothing new in the four notes above. So,
5. Being created in the image of God and having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but not digested the fruit — and still being unable to come up with a post-Solomonic solution based in justice/lovingkindness, indicates either:
(a) Our creation was defective and/or inadequate
(b) We misunderstand what ‘being made in the image of God’ means
(c) The Tree of Knowledge is overrated
(d) The aborted fetus is rewarded by its early return to God for restocking and
availability for reisssuance after necessary genetic modifications.