I recently submitted an article to Subversify Magazine at the advice of an associate. The magazine states it "provides alternative perspectives to mainstream media. Our content features commentary, fiction, reviews, cynicism and just about anything else that disturbs the mainstream population." Unfortunately, I found out the hard way just what was meant by "disturb" when my article appeared in an issue that also featured an article titled, "...should Sarah Palin and her daughters be sterilized?"
I find this idea so absolutely abhorrent and reprehensible that I immediately notified the editors that I will no longer be associated with the publication. The fact that a publication would entertain the notion of sterilizing children because of their parent's celebrity is hateful. I apologize to the Palin family, and especially Governor Palin's daughters for my name being in any way related to this article. I am sorry for having an article in the same magazine as this one. No one in the world should diminish this family in this way for any reason. Please forgive me.
Sincerely,
Molly Brogan
Posts
9 comments:
Since this post I have asked the publisher to remove my article. We will see what happens.
What made you submit your article?
Thanks for asking Tim. By the way, in the mean time, my article "A Dark Night Brings Commitment to Life" was pulled from the Subversify.com publication but can be seen on my blog http://cblegacy.blogspot.com
In my original dealing with the editor, I understood the magazine to stand for free speech and alternative views to mainstream media. It seems, however, my views of these concepts differ from the publications, because I think evolved humans can express these in respectful and honorable ways. I found the article about the Palin's to be extremely disrespectful and hateful. I don't associate myself with haters, so distanced myself from the publication.
I find it a pity that this publication cannot edit its submissions in ways that relay ideas respectfully. I don't think it takes a supreme court justice to understand the difference between expressing an alternative view respectfully, and expressing it hatefully. To use any law or ethic as an excuse to hate, I think, should not be tolerated.
As I glanced over the publication before deciding to submit, I saw several alternative views on the economy, war and prisoners and fictional stories that were wonderfully presented and clearly articulated. I regret not digging deeper into the publications history and if I had, might have understood that they allow hateful opinion and call it free speech.
I see your point, and wonder if we humans haven't become so cynical in our evolution, that we see an opinion like this as humorous in any way. I know several people waved off the joke of Letterman as "that's just Letterman."
I applaud your integrity.
Good for you.
On a much lighter note, I gave you a blog award-
http://www.ifyouwriteit.com/2009/06/the-coveted-best-follower-blog-award/
Hey Molly, while I am no longer associated with the mag, I wanted to extend some measure of apology if you felt mislead about the nature of the magazine. The article in question was crass satire and in no way was suggesting any real harm or malice to anyone. Subversify in its short history has had writers who don't hold back on their opinions. This often leads sensationalistic writing and objectionable content. The editorial staff is blissfully lax in regard to the expression of political and social dissidence. The clash of subversive minds is part of the charm of writing for a freethinking group, that a hodgepodge of ideas are published without repression. To this extent, I applaud the magazine for having the courage to publish content without holding back. I’m sorry that the content was not to your liking but I encourage you to go back and challenge the original author ( or the publisher for that matter) on the message boards. Being a community driven magazine, it’s the individual writers that help drive content (and in your case perhaps infuse some idea of social responsibility).
Best Wishes,
Stacy
While I understand your position, Anonymous Stacy, I do not agree with your rhetoric and certainly do not agree with your insinuation that words do no damage or that this particular rhetoric is funny and not hateful. I doubt that Willow or Bristol Palin, if reading this article in question, would feel a boost of self confidence, quite the opposite. I also doubt whether it would do any good to their reputation or world view. I do not agree that a woman running for public office should be a target for every hater who thinks they are funny while expressing this kind of BS. Nor do I want to bring any more attention directly to the author of this article or the magazine that supports hate and calls it free speech or community mindedness.
In my view this author crossed very clear moral and ethical boundaries personally attacking these children and the governor in the way that he did. Her decision to have children, to protect her children and to support her children are sacrosanct. They are not to be confused with her politics. The fact that families of politicians support candidates and campaign for them does not mean we have the right to publish hateful rhetoric about them. I have no desire to associate myself with this hate or its vehicle by responding to it or publishing with it. Publishing or writing the article is not a hate "crime" but it certainly lends to a culture of hate that leads to it.
I do understand that the world includes a spectrum of experience. To each his own. Mine, by choice, includes love, kindness and integrity.
Good for you, Molly, to take a stand on this. There's far too much hatred flying around.
I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin, but the idea of sterilizing the family is abhorrent, as you stated. Nothing more than violence, justified as meeting an end.
Post a Comment