you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Racist? You Be the Judge

Phillips' Living Room

A commenter in one of the I Blame the Patriarchs threads posted some links to information which she believes indicates that Doug Phillips, a reconstructionist/theonomist and a leading quiverfull patriarch, is a racist.   I wanted to post this photo from Phillips’ blog in response to her comment, but I guess I can’t post images in comments.  Above is a picture of Phillips’ living room just before a holiday family meal.  Phillips is, of course, white, as is his wife.  There is no love lost, for sure, between Phillips and I; he was a gleeful and dedicated participant in my shunning and excommunication, at one point loudly proclaiming at a homeschool conference in Montana that I was a “Jezebel.”

A picture is worth a thousand words, though, so lest I be accused of being less than objective, I will let the photo speak for itself.




46 thoughts on “Racist? You Be the Judge

  1. Ah, is that the little brown ‘servant boy’ I spy in the corner?

    Posted by sparklematrix | April 2, 2007, 6:41 pm
  2. Hey, sparkle, the figure in the corner is art belonging to slave days in the U.S., “blackface art,” or minstrelsy art. The statue is “Rastus” or “Zip C***” imagery, and is something no white person has a right to display in his home if he’s not expecting to be called a racist.

    Here’s an interesting link:


    Posted by womensspace | April 2, 2007, 7:10 pm
  3. Vereee interesting. We were discussing women as furntiture at Sparkle’s, also race furniture. Race furniture is by and large frowned on by the left at least as politically incorrect, but women-as-furniture is still ok.

    Posted by Pony | April 2, 2007, 7:32 pm
  4. Thanks for the link “The Blackface Stereotype” I knew it was horribly racist but I wasn’t aware of the cultural history. It’s awful and indeed what is *anyone* doing with something like that in their house?

    Oh yes, the white patriarch with his symbols of racist ‘art’ just wonderful! However, he saw fit to call you a Jezebel. Which of course to the Christian patriarch is a fate worse than death—racism doesn’t even bleep the Richter.

    Posted by sparklematrix | April 2, 2007, 7:47 pm
  5. Pony, that is an excellent point!

    Posted by sparklematrix | April 2, 2007, 7:53 pm
  6. Vargas’s Blonde Sambos

    So true, sparklematrix. Talk about a guy who sentimentalizes and romanticizes the antebellum South, which of course, only a racist can do. He’s got all sorts of photos on his site of his kids and him dressed up in Civil War uniforms, etc.


    Posted by womensspace | April 2, 2007, 7:54 pm
  7. It was a little grainy in the photo, but that’s what I thought it was.

    In my own experience, many Christian fundamentalists, especially white Christian fundmentalists, are strongly racist. They cite the passages about the curse of Ham and that passage about mixing uneven yoke all the time, using them as signs that Blacks are defective and interracial relationships are immoral.

    Posted by Rachel | April 2, 2007, 8:06 pm
  8. Reminds me of that garden statue of the little black guy with the lantern. Happily, haven’t seen that one in a while.

    Posted by Branjor | April 2, 2007, 9:26 pm
  9. I think that’s a pretty straight-forward assertion of racism. Not only does he know people are going to think he’s a racist for having something like that in his home, he proudly displays a photo of it on his blog, with no explanation. He’s a real winner, that one.

    Posted by gingermiss | April 2, 2007, 9:47 pm
  10. Yeesh. No subtlety, heh? The Jim Crow museum is something I found very useful in explaining the role and range of all the stereotypes of black americans. Perhaps this person would like us to send a link? There are some things that there is no excuse to romanticise. At best this person is a foolish idiot who needs to grow up to the realities of the world. At worst he is evil, bigoted and hateful. I think both apply.

    Posted by tcupnewt | April 2, 2007, 9:59 pm
  11. Well, a visit to his blog is enlightening! this comment on the merchandising for the father/daughter purity locket has me spitting:

    “it is an especially fitting gift on a special occasion, as a loving gift between a father and daughter to symbolize the importance of purity and remaining as a joyful daughter under her father’s protection until the time of release to her future husband.” puke.

    As for the statue, I thought it was a frog butler. My eyesight is poor!

    Posted by Pippa | April 2, 2007, 10:05 pm
  12. Wow, it’s interesting but I’d say given this man’s interests & goals that the use of that statue as a ‘servant’ in his diningroom is most definately racist. It can be a fine, fine line to walk between collecting & displaying a collection and setting up a scene reminescent of & glorifying a racist past. I think Phillips has done the latter here without a doubt all the while probably pretending an ‘innocence of intent’ in his behavior.

    One of the problems with guys like Phillips is that he likes to cross this line and back and dares anyone to call him out on it. It’s bounday violation and it’s a hard call and he does it on purpose because he gets a sense of power out of confounding, confusing & otherwise dis-enabling people to confront him on his shit.

    Posted by Amazonnight | April 2, 2007, 10:07 pm
  13. Yeah, Pippa, that blog is a treasure trove of feminist blogging material!

    He wouldn’t for one moment cop to being a racist. He would say that in Christ, there is neither male nor female, bond nor free, it’s just that there are “differences” and some people are meant to submit and some are meant to lead and guess which ones are white guys?

    He would defend his obsession with the Civil War and the antebellum South in all sorts of ways that sound plausible only to him and guys who think like him.

    Rachel, it’s true that a certain kind of conservative Christian defends racism for the reasons you metion, Bob Jones University types, especially. In my experience they don’t cite to the unequal yoke so much, which has to do with being “yoked together with unbelievers,” i.e., Christians marrying heathens, but they cite to the passage that says God has placed people in certain nations and expects them to marry within the boundaries of the nations he has placed them in.

    Having said that, the Christian Reconstructionists, of which Doug Phillips is one, actually do believe that the Bible approves of slavery, for example. And a lot of the recons disapprove of racial intermarriage because it causes community problems and so on. It’s not the racism that causes the problems, of course, it’s the anti-racism.


    Posted by womensspace | April 2, 2007, 10:36 pm
  14. Are males allowed to post comments to this blog? If not, I apologize for the intrusion; I just followed a link here from the front page of, so I am not familiar with your blog or your particular dogma.

    I do not recognize the names you mention, but if you are referring to the statue in the corner at the far right side of the photo, I have to agree with “Pippa” that it looks like a frog butler. The green skin, the bulbous toes, and the shape of the head all say frog, frog, frog.

    Is there something racist about anthropomorphic animal statues?

    Posted by Brian Sexton | April 3, 2007, 12:15 am
  15. The fact that the statue is child-sized also has the dual racist slur of “boy” as in, from slave-massa days, calling an adult black man “boy”. Actually that goes well into the 20th century as well.

    The artist in me also says that by placing such a piece, in the corner, it is also putting the group ‘in their place’ by equating it with ‘naughty child in the corner’ (meaning, inherently bad).

    I’d also say that having such a piece, is trying to be more subtle about the racism, rather than the flag. What I’m saying is that there is classism going on here as well. The posh white bigots having *art*, the lower class bigots with the flag of the South.

    Posted by stormy | April 3, 2007, 9:30 am
  16. That looks like a frog in the corner, leading me to the conclusion that irregardless of Phillips’ racial views, he is definitely speciesist! And he wonders why jihadi bears continue to commit “terrorist” acts against humans.

    Great catch by the way.

    Posted by Prior | April 3, 2007, 1:44 pm
  17. Hope you will all forgive any ignorance on my part, as I am new to this blog. (Followed the link from WordPress today :-)). I’m not sure what everyone is referring to in the photo. Is it the figure in the right corner? It actually sort of looks like a frog dresed in clothes – is it actually a blackface figure? I can’t really tell, and have no idea how to resize the photo.

    Thanks for any clarification. Very interesting discussion to tead today!

    Posted by irishsof | April 3, 2007, 4:06 pm
  18. I wish there was a way to enlarge the picture. I can’t tell if it’s a frog or a person. But look at this, this was on another blog last month:

    Posted by anonymous | April 3, 2007, 5:37 pm
  19. Dear goddess on high, anonymous.

    Posted by womensspace | April 3, 2007, 5:45 pm
  20. Thanks for the heads up though! Like I say, these guys always provide PLENTY blogging material!

    Posted by womensspace | April 3, 2007, 5:46 pm
  21. Heart, I’ve been lurking and reading your blog for a while now, but I had to comment on this. Back during a time when I was still trying to be the good little fundamentalist girl my parents wanted, I went to a ‘college’ run by Phillips and his ilk, New Saint Andrews. The whole experience was disgusting and humiliating, but what finally made me get the hell out was a lecture one day on how fabulous slavery was, how slaves were treated so wonderfully and how they in fact loved the experience. There’s nothing subtle about his racism, and his anti-female tirades are just as bad.

    Posted by Maha | April 3, 2007, 6:02 pm
  22. “From Doug’s Bookshelf: The Secret Six by Otto Scott is the best book on the evil movement known as abolitionism which funded America’s first terrorist, John Brown, and did so in the name of anti-Christian Unitarianism. Christians should be aware that being anti-slavery and being anti-abolitionist were not incompatable sentiments for both Southerners and Northerners in the years leading up to the Civil War.”

    Robert Lewis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks
    This little book is a compilation of the wit and wisdom of the greatest southern theologian of the 19th century.
    $5.00 – In Stock

    Posted by anonymous | April 3, 2007, 6:07 pm
  23. For those who (fortunate for you!) are not in the loop as to these fairly horrifying things, Matt Chancey, who is Doug Phillips’ latest bud and who is the subject of the link just above this comment, is married to “Mrs. Chancey,” who runs the “Ladies Against Feminism” website.


    Posted by womensspace | April 3, 2007, 6:25 pm
  24. The link also shows what this Dabney fellow believes. Phillips idolizes dabney, apparently.

    Posted by anonymous | April 3, 2007, 6:27 pm
  25. This is what is wierd, to me, about white people. Well, one thing. For reasons unfathomable and illogical, they actually think they can talk about the antebellum South and the Civil War as though it’s one issue, and slavery as though it’s some other, sort of irrelevant ior tangential ssue. They think they can make the Civil War and the antebellum South all about what power-hungry, greedy, white men were doing and were interested in, everything EXCEPT slavery, which they think they can talk about some other day, in the meantime, what is most important to talk about is what the white guys involved were doing and whether the Northern white guys were any better than the Southern white guys, as though that is THE ISSUE. And the issue of slavery is some side issue off somewhere over there. Because, of course, for white people, it doesn’t and didn’t HAVE to be an issue, unless, of course, they loved or love specific black individuals and then, HELL yeah. ISSUE. And somehow what the abolitionists did or didn’t do doesn’t figure in, it’s all about whether the SOUTHERN white guys were better/worse than the NORTHERN white guys. For this type of person, it’s not about the egregious brutalities of slavery — RAPE. MURDER. LYNCHINGS. TORTURE. FORCED SERVITUDE. DENIAL OF AN EDUCATION. KIDNAPPING. SEPARATION OF FAMILIES. ETC. It’s also not about the way ALL of the white guys, (EXCEPT a precious few abolitionists), treated the women in their lives, or all women, or slave women, or black women, or women of color, or indigenous people, male and female. It’s all about WHETHER THESE WHITE GUYS WERE BETTER THAN THESE *OTHER* WHITE GUYS, WHICH WHITE GUYS WERE THE BADDEST, AND WHICH WERE THE GOODEST AND ABOVE ALL, WHICH WERE MOST CORRECT ABOUT THE $##^*()^%&%&^*(&)&^&%%$*^*&*&^*%^*%* Constitution which was a document created BY white guys FOR white guys and NOBODY ELSE so who really gives a good blessed goddamn in the first place, sorry to be blasphemous about the Constitution but you bet I am.

    It is Exhibit A of the way white privilege works. Whatever didn’t touch me, I can’t even see it. Where is it. Oh, that? Who cares.

    I’m really just spouting off right now because I do believe that Doug Phillips and his partners-in-destruction are straight up apologists for slavery and sexism.

    I am very sure Phillips hates the abolitionists not only because of their anti-slavery work, but because of their pro-woman work, pro-human rights work, pro-civil rights work.

    These are something people like Doug Phillips will never understand. For them, white hetersexual rich men are to own the world. They are neck and neck with the kinists they claim to reject.


    Posted by womensspace | April 3, 2007, 6:41 pm
  26. Of course they are straight up apologists for racism and sexism. And if white people weird you out, try being mixed — Indian, black and white — sometime.

    Posted by anonymous | April 3, 2007, 6:45 pm
  27. These are something people like Doug Phillips will never understand. For them, white hetersexual rich men are to own the world.

    When he talks about Jamestown, he talks as if no one, no person, no human was in America before the whites came to America. @@ America is his land by God.

    Posted by chasingmoksha | April 3, 2007, 6:59 pm
  28. His excuse is that the Indians were pagans and savages, so taking their land was OK. I wonder what Phillips’ excuse is for the Trail of Tears. Most of the Tsalagi who were forced to march to Oklahoma in 1838 were literate Christian landowners. I guess white makes right in dominionist-language.

    Posted by anonymous | April 4, 2007, 3:06 am
  29. My first thought on seeing the statue was frog-footman, from “Alice”. However, it is very shadowed and the details of the face are hard to see.

    Posted by Ledasmom | April 4, 2007, 1:56 pm
  30. They think they can make the Civil War and the antebellum South all about what power-hungry, greedy, white men were doing and were interested in, everything EXCEPT slavery, which they think they can talk about some other day…

    The Scarlett O’Hara/Gone With The Wind reference wasn’t lost on me. “Oh, fiddle dee dee. I’ll think about that another day.” Bwaaahaaahaaaa! Forgive me, all, for luvin’ that Scarlett.

    Posted by CoolAunt | April 12, 2007, 8:06 pm
  31. According to this blog, the statue in the picture is that of a frog, not a black servant.

    However, that does not negate the other evidence that seems to support the contention that Doug Phillips is racist.

    Posted by Bryan | June 11, 2007, 4:28 pm
  32. Well I got here really LATE, but one would think that if this dining room was supposed to be would be.

    There are no dessert spoons/forks at the TOP of each place setting…. oh woe!!!! oh Pain!!!!

    Also, the tablecloth does not go with the china pattern and the napkins do not match the tablecloth..and it just looks tacky….

    where is Martha Stewart when we really need her?

    Posted by Morgan Farmer | June 11, 2007, 4:33 pm
  33. I don’t know, Bryan. I think the statue is Rastus or “zip c*** art” (read: racist, blackface Southern art memorializing the antebellum South and slavery) but possibly it’s a frog, not a person.

    The crows in Walt Disney’s “Dumbo” are crows, but they are still blackface, if you get what I’m saying. It’s easier to defend a the statue if it’s frog than if it’s a man, but nobody who cares about black people is going to be fooled.


    Posted by womensspace | June 11, 2007, 4:48 pm
  34. Heart:

    A Little further down on the same blog, the statue is identified as “the PG Wodehouse character in the Bertie and Jeeves series”, an item previously sold by The Bombay Company. And these folks are not exactly Doug Phillips supporters, if you read the blog! lol

    But again, this is no way negates other evidence supporting the notion that Doug Phillips may be racist.

    Posted by Bryan | June 11, 2007, 5:01 pm
  35. Isn’t it obvious that Doug Phillips is a racist? There’s a lot more proof that he’s a racist than his Little Black Sambo/frog butler statue in his dining room.

    Posted by Tina | July 18, 2007, 3:15 pm
  36. Hello everyone. My name is Doug Phillips, I’m NO relation, and I share some of Dr. Phillips’ views while strongly opposing others. Aside from my Day Job in a hospital lab, I’m a writer and Indie fimmaker, and my films are purposeful and non-exploitative, but I don’t think any of them would pass the “Ten Commandments” required of entries in Dr. Phillips’ San Antonio Film Festival.

    Responding to #34 above…I think that the Crow sequence in Dumbo is very painful. Not only was it an overblown stereotype, but the lead crow’s character name actually was “Jim Crow.” (The character was voiced by Cliff Edwards, who also voiced Jiminy Cricket and was the soldier with the sad reminiscent voice in the military hospital scene in G.W.T.W.) At the time Dumbo was produced, that kind of treatment was “normal.” So… things may not be like we want them to be, but they ARE improving. At least the Hyenas in Lion King were more subtle.

    Posted by Doug | September 9, 2007, 6:57 am
  37. The Doug Phillips of Vision Forum fame isn’t a “Dr.” He is an “Esq.”, a title he likes to parade about quite a bit. It’s a good way to intimidate people into silence.

    Speaking of Indie film making and Doug Phillips Esq. and his San Antonio Film Festival and the Ten Commandments, have you seen the expose on how he produced a “fakeumentary” called Raising The Allosaur? Doug Phillips Esq. is a first rate con artist.

    Film frauds run in the Phillips family too. His brother Brad Phillips stole a master copy of someone else’s film and then sold it as his own. His film may have resulted in the needless deaths of hundreds of innocent Sudanese. Racism is just a minor issue compared to all the other evils in this family.

    Posted by Ernie | September 9, 2007, 5:43 pm
  38. I don’t know if Doug is a racist, I think there are many accusations against people being racist that are incorrect, but Doug certainly has done very many wrong things. And yes, racism would not be a big issue compared to other things he has done.

    Posted by Josh | January 20, 2008, 11:23 pm
  39. Vision Forum founder Doug Phillips is a pasty, painfully effeminate little man (“little man syndrome”) in extreme denial about his true nature. In an attempt to forestall the dissemination of this information (as if it wasn’t patently obvious to all observers) he attempts to exert hypermasculine power in an extrabiblical manner against not just those he is in actual authority over, but all women. His attempts to banish “nags” and “churlish women” are obvious attacks against some female figure from his past. The truth will come out, if prior repentance has not occurred in that camp, it won’t be pretty.

    Posted by Leslie Armstrong | August 28, 2008, 2:37 pm
  40. I know this is an old article but I didn’t where else to comment. I seem to remember that you’d had some awful encounters years ago with the Doug Phillips. I’m curious about your thoughts on his latest dust up over cheating on his wife? It’s creating quite the buzz. Will you be posting an article and giving us your take?

    Posted by Jennie | November 4, 2013, 5:58 am
  41. BTW there’s a lot of speculation (and this really surprised me) that his public confession of cheating on his wife with another woman, outing himself, was a preemptive move to prevent someone else from exposing him cheating with another man, like one of his boy interns. Cheating with another woman would be a forgivable sin by his fundy friends but gay sex, ala Ted Haggard, would be unpardonable. I have trouble with this theory but on the other hand it’s the only thing that’s logical too. Why else would he out himself like this? Anyway it’s all very weird and I’d like to know what you think.

    Posted by Jennie | November 4, 2013, 6:06 am
  42. Hi, Jennie. I will have to think about this for a minute. =:-O. It’s surprising and honest to God, it is just not surprising, at all.

    Posted by Heart | November 4, 2013, 10:25 am
  43. Thinking about it, what I think is, he has a very, very hard road ahead now and so does his wife and so do his children and so does whomever it was with whom he was involved. It will be very hard for all of them. There will be much pain, especially for Phillips. Thinking about it, honestly, brings tears. This kind of thing has its way with us. I can only wish all of them, and all of those who followed Phillips, well. 😦

    Posted by Heart | November 4, 2013, 1:28 pm
  44. I always thought the quiverfull and patriarchy movements were cultish and anti-Christian examples of sexism and reactionary culture. I now see the effects of it. Very sad. These people wed themselves to a bygone society that was self-serving and hypocritical. Christianity always transcends our environments, standing above us and judging us in a myriad of ways. I hope the church comes to a more complete realization of this. We are not of this world and we should not covet it. We should not strive for supremacy. We are called to be servants and pilgrims, following in the footsteps of Jesus, our ultimate critique.

    Posted by Jon | November 16, 2013, 12:00 am


  1. Pingback: Crosspost: Vision Forum and “Historical Revisionism” | H • A - June 19, 2013

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,598,915 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo