We are publishing Budd Hopkins's rebuttal to the devastating articles written by Jeremy Vaeni and Al Lehmberg about the mysterious and enigmatic and of course, pseudonymous Emma Woods in our last issue. Since he speaks rather directly about Emma, we are happy to also have her response, in her own words.
I didn't write anything about this controversy in my editorial and I've removed Bill's response from the magazine due to space restrictions. I really should post it online, and once the presses are rolling, I might get to it in my wholesale jumble of catching up on everything.
I also didn't want to put the magazine itself on either side of the argument just yet, mostly because the official magazine is a broad collection of opinions, with mine one among many. But I do have a growing opinion about the situation, and here is probably the proper place to express it.
Here, it's sort of obvious by now that it's me talking rather than the magazine presiding. And here, we can have a conversation where you will put me to rights if I am wrong, or at least state your own opinions.
So. Here. I am speaking as a female entity, and this controversy basically breaks down into male-female issues, above all else. It's not an intellectual or a political puzzle, but rather that oldest of battles for power and control. Sexual? You betcha.
I've never met Emma nor spoken to her myself, and I only know her through personal emails and of course her website, comments online, and radio guest appearances. From everything I've seen and read, she is just wonderful. If you become familiar with this case, you will no doubt come to the same conclusion.
If she is acting, she is doing a fabulous job of it. Consistent, pleasant, sweet, compliant, reasonable. If she's a stalker, as various guys in the argument claim, well then. That's a foul thing to say. Can they prove it? Maybe with some leaked crazy letters or maybe some shrieking and wailing or threats on the various audio tapes that David Jacobs is said to have created?
I have read Jacobs's earliest response to the accusations way back when they were first examined on the Paratopia radio podcasts, and I watched those words in his official statement come right down off the web and change lickety-split whenever Emma pointed out his factual errors and omissions. So far, as Vaeni is wont to say: "He said; she documented."
Worse, in a true male-female power-play, each side is using its ammunition. Emma has plenty of wiles, and Jacobs and Hopkins have big careers built on books, foundations, and followers. Built, I might add, on stories gleaned from all the women and men who might be known as Emma. Are all the funds shared equally between all the contributors? Probably not.
We have an unfair fight here. Very very unfair. It's power vs. persistence, and I do mean power. A board owner bans you from speaking. Pow! You are gone. A professor dismisses you early. Pow! You are history. A famous author denigrates you, but not by name ... no, never by name. Pow! You lose the face game.
Really, persistence is the only thing the powerless have to work with. Just keep on keeping on. Keep on repeating, reminding, re-telling, and saying it in simple sentences so that the slow steady drip erodes the concrete of that edifice that they built so tall and strong.