Archive for February, 2010

Benson Vs McBee

Woo-hoo, deja vu. Sandi Benson is once again threatening legal action, or, at the very least, stating her intent to maybe, perhaps, pursue legal action against our beloved Chick. You may recall that Sandi warned (or threatened) Chick that legal action may be forthcoming back in  September. I wrote about the kerfuffle here, if you care to catch up.

Today, Sandi has a new post up, entitled Revenge. [NOTE: This blog entry has since been removed.] Maybe it’s just little ole moi, but I find it’s a little confusing. On one hand, Sandi informs us she has lawyers on retainer, and is actively pursuing legal action against Michele McBee, the owner and author of Poop On Peeps. On the other hand, though, she seems to be asking her readers for their opinions on how she should handle dear Chick. She says:

“Do I fight dirty with dirty, and air all of her dirty laundry to expose how imperfect these judgemental people are,  how they are guilty of many of the things that they are so cruel and quick to judge others about? Should I post pictures of her and open up the comments for you to all join in and trash talk her appearance?  Her remark to this will be that I put my picture out there and she doesn’t.  If that’s the case, how did I get the photos?

Or do I just take it to the courts and let her be exposed publicly via the legal process and let you all find out her real identity via public record of court proceeding?  Is it better to drag her through court proceedings and make her get her own attorneys to prove lack of malicious intent and desire to defame and cyber harass on that awful website?”

Maybe it really is little ole moi, but I would think if you have lawyers on retainer, or as Sandi says, “we have and have a legal team in place ready to go“, then why would you be putting this forth for discussion?  That post almost comes across as a dare to her readers – expose any and all details about Chick that can be unearthed. Kinda confusing, too, on the whole “let you all find out her real identity via public record of court proceeding” thing, considering Chick’s real name has been pretty darned public for a long time now. It seems a little disingenuous to write, in one post, about her legal options, and at the same time rip Chick a new one. More likely Sandi was trying to vent frustrations, and maybe garner a little more sympathy for herself. She’s probably figured out that her stats increase, and she gets tons more readers every time she mentions Chick, or Chick mentions her.

It’s not surprising to me that Sandi is on the offensive, being on the receiving end of Chick’s pointy stick must not be pleasant. Her methods, though, leave a lot to be desired. She crossed a line that many would not, myself included, when she published a link on her blog for the “virtual” gravesite of a premature infant Chick buried many years ago. Chick has repeatedly said if you put it out there, it’s fair game, but I’m sure that she never envisioned a situation like this.  However, as we all know, the internet does not forget, or forgive and Chick’s real name has been widely known for quite a while now; she’s known for the better part of a year that people are actively searching information about her. If she wanted to keep a private affair private, she should have perhaps removed, or protected that memorial site. You can’t live a double life and not expect one to spill onto the other and create a ground in, messed up stain on your “real” life. If you spend your days trying to think of new ways to torment the same four or five people over and over again, it’s no surprise that they fight back. All the same, I don’t condone what Sandi did.  

Chick’s sycophantic followers, however, are up in arms. How dare she!!! She’s not a REAL mother!!!!  She should be arrested!!!! While I do, on some level, feel for Chick on this one, I can’t stomach the two-faced outrage. Sandi didn’t create a site mocking Chick’s miscarriage. Chick has repeatedly mentioned losing a child, and the “special” club she belongs to; she created that site, and put her name on it. I’m sure she never expected to have it show up on an attackee’s blog, but those are the chances you take, aren’t they? Anything, people, anything you’ve attached your name to online can come back to haunt you. Even things you would prefer never see the light of day, things that are intensely personal.

The most interesting aspect of the conversation at le Poop is the enormous double standard Chick is perpetrating. She has frequently mentioned being part of a “special” club of parents, those who have lost and buried a child. She will not write about, or even allow comments about, women who have lost a child.  She says a miscarriage is not the same as losing a child, and only holds sympathy for those who’ve buried a child.  She has declared all who’ve endured her pain off limits, but lesser mortals such as Dooce and Sandi are fair game because, after all, they only had miscarriages, not lost real, live babies. From her entry A Note From Me, she comments: 

“you know there’s a difference. Pretty much every woman I know has had a miscarriage, and that’s a lot of women. Picking out a casket, buying a plot, the service, the loss, really?! Seriously!”

On the whole, I can agree with her. My heart aches for anyone who’s lost a child, it’s unimaginable to me.  A mid-term miscarriage is just as unthinkable to me. But can you equate one with the other? Should the death of a child you’ve known, loved, rocked to sleep, fed in the middle of the night, and worried over ever be put in the same category as the loss of a mid-term fetus? Where do you draw the line? A 21 week fetus is a baby that deserves perpetual mourning and respect, but the loss of a lesser fetus is somehow not painful enough to be remarkable?  One of the Chicklets asked just that in an angry tirade. She says:

“You carried a baby to 21 weeks, I have carried one to 20 weeks, another almost 18, and several others for a couple of weeks. And you think your pain was more special than that? You think that whatever pain you endured was easier than my having to her from doctors that because my baby wasn’t “viable”, I was lucky to have lost it when I did? It was harder for you because you had a child to bury? It was harder for you because you got the luxury of a service? Somehow you are more special than I because you had to pick out a casket, and have a gravesite to visit? Fuck that, you ARE NOT.”

Chick’s thoughtful response was:

 “I think when your birth a child, or you raise your child and they’re taken away by illness like Heather spohr, or in an accident then yes it is different.”

You might note the clever sidestepping Chick did there, not even answering the question put forth. She does, however, try to portray herself as a woman who has lost a child, like the Spohrs, not just endured a miscarriage, like Sandi and Dooce, and innumerable others. As painful and heart-wrenching as that must be, I don’t think for a moment that it equates to a parent losing a child. No matter what the circumstances.

February 11, 2010 at 6:25 pm 64 comments

What’s new, Chicken?

I’m working on a new post for you all now, but in the meantime, check out some of the other posts in the scintillating Chick series:

Dance, Chicken, Dance

Saving the Children……One Chicken at a Time

Pooping on Peeps

Unnecessary Roughness

Check back soon, the new post should be up in a day or so.

Queen B

February 5, 2010 at 4:35 am 3 comments

Add to Technorati Favorites