Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 27th, 2007
From left, Milka Duno, Sarah Fisher, Lyn St. James, Billie Jean King and Danica Patrick pose for a photo at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway on May 12, 2007. Duno, Fisher, and Patrick will race in the Indy 500.
On May 27, 2007, during what is the Memorial Day weekend in the United States of America, the start of a 500 mile race is undertaken at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, often called the “Brickyard.” For the first time ever, three women are racing in the Indy 500. Congratulations to them.
What has this got to do with Bigfoot? And women doing Bigfoot fieldwork?
The times they are a’changin’. It is more evidence, for starters, of the changing presence of women in another male-dominated field. I’ll spend “Indy 500, Women, and Bigfoot – Part 2″ dealing with the use of the sexuality of women to market NASCAR and the Indy 500, in spite of what the women are actually doing on the track. I’ll also look at and question whether this may be in the future of women within Bigfoot studies.
But first let us return for a moment to the recent past issue about possible male chauvinism in Bigfoot studies.
The discussion of the role of women within Bigfoot studies rages on, with another rationalization for calling some comments “sexist” from the women who began this “smackdown” a week ago. What can we learn from comparing how women are treated at the Indy 500, with how they are treated within hominology? Is there any doubt that sexism exists everywhere, but do Sue Darroch and Robin Bellamy understand who is the enemy and who is not?
Blogger Sue Darroch has come back to this issue again on May 27, 2007, with her latest “Sunday Smackdown….Male Chauvinism Within Cryptozoology? Part Deux.” Her blog is another round of her rationalizations of why she has decided to completely turn my comments on Coast to Coast AM upside down. Darroch was the first to express publicly her reaction to my conversation with George Noory, repeating the Robin Bellamy “a bit chauvinistic” remark. Robin Bellamy says anew that “one remark was chauvinistic. I stand by that opinion.”
Darroch passes along the Bellamy’s remark freshly given that Bellamy “felt that one remark was a bit off the mark and sexist.”
Sue Darroch in this new blog never addresses the issue and content of my C2C comments, which were about supporting women in the Bigfoot field, pheromones, feelings of threatening potential and animal awareness, and were definitely not about hormones and (sexual) attraction, as noted in Darroch’s original blog.
Darroch appears to not realize the power of words. To say someone is “a bit chauvinistic” is like saying someone “only beats up women once in awhile.”
In this new blog, Sue Darroch edited and published part of an email originally sent to me by Bellamy. Bellamy was recently bestowed with the title of “Director of Cryptozoology” by the Paranormal Studies and Investigations Canada (PSICAN), apparently Darroch’s organization. Bellamy was called “Ms. Cryptozoologist” in a recent interview with Lisa Shiel. Bellamy reveals her major expertise is as a Mothman eyewitness in the 1970s and giving talks at the recent annual Mothman Festival. Responding to the question of “What do you think Bigfoots are?,” she falls back on the PSICAN group’s position: “My organization stands firmly behind the ‘I don’t know’ response to that question.” But she quickly calls to task other researchers’ theory about Mothman being a “giant owl” as “ridiculous and an insult.” Bellamy says she is “primarily a ghost investigator” since 2003. So, here, is the unedited entire email from Bellamy:
I was sorry to hear you were upset by my comment. I did not say you were a chauvanist (sic)–I simply said that one remark was chauvanistic (sic). I stand by that opinion.
I did find it remarkable that you were so enraged. We’re (Sue and I) such a small fish in the big pond I would hardly think our opinions would count so heavily. Perhaps if you had brought this to my attention rather than blogging it I could have had a chance to clarify that it was the STATEMENT not the person I objected to.
Im (sic) very VERY new in the crypto field. My role is primarily administrative at this point, at least until my book goes to press, and I rely on your work quite heavily as I learn. I will admit to having only a cursory interest in Bigfoot–Im (sic) more enthralled with birds and water “monsters” to be honest, with a possible study of cryptoentemology at some point. So all of my opinions” (sic) are based solely on the work of others; largely you.
If you and Sue Darroch want to battle this out, I’d like to be kept out of it. I admire you both very much, for different reasons, and it was never my intent to insult you. I wasn’t upset when I made the statement. I simply felt that one remark was a bit off the mark and sexist. Surely you’ve taken stronger criticism from better sources *grin*.
If you’d like to discuss further, I’m certainly available for that. Otherwise I consider this matter closed as far as I’m concerned.
I do not know Bellamy, as they say, “from Eve.” We have exchanged a few friendly emails in the past about Mothman and the Mothman deaths in Point Pleasant. But it does not take a genius to speculate what most people would say if I ended an email with a “Fondly” from a male to female, in the midst of a “smackdown,” in which the words “chauvinistic” and “sexist” appear within that email. Why is it more acceptable for a woman to say “fondly” in this kind of email, as opposed to a man? What kind of double-standard does that belie in this exchange? Think about it.
Both Darroch and Bellamy seem to feel that by trying to paint me with what they are doing, they can merely “believe the issue to now be closed” because they say so.
But they have claimed that I overreacted, when I clearly say they are the ones that heard my call for women within fieldwork, which I was promoting, a la’ Jane Goodall, and turned those comments from me upside down. They turned my conversation with George Noory on its head, took my few sentences on pointing out that women might ultimately be the key to future contact with Bigfoot and turned it upside down, and called my comments “a bit chauvinistic.” They did this in a blog called “Sunday Smackdown.” It would be humorous if it wasn’t such a such a tragic comedy of how these two women wish to present themselves within cryptozoology.
In different ways, I am now being criticized for have written a blog of my reaction to Darroch’s first blogged “a bit chauvinistic” remark. Darroch has written: “Mr Coleman could have posted his concerns or asked for clarification on the original entry…Our email addresses are not exactly hidden either.”
Bellamy wrote: Perhaps if you had brought this to my attention rather than blogging it”
So who began this “smackdown” in the blogsphere anyway?
Okay, I get it. I am suppose to backchannel my reaction and questions to these women but they don’t have to, is that it? When they were chatting about George Noory and my talk about women in Bigfoot studies, it became just fine for them to blog to the world their reactions but I am not allowed to answer in the same fashion? Without asking me anything about the content of what they had, incorrectly, deemed “chauvinistic,” they blogged publicly their comments that issue forth images , which have been reinforced by them today, that my comments were sexist. My email addresses are anything but hidden on the internet too.
Frankly, I find the double-standard being proposed here between women and men shows a blind side to these women’s understanding of what is happening right in front of them.
For other women’s reactions to this exchange, please see:
For more direct comments on sexuality and Bigfoot fieldworkers who happen to be female, see “Part 2″ of this discussion.