Just can’t figure out why it’s such a concern what women wear.
Archive for the 'Religion' Category
Putin scares me. Just type “Putin and his quest for world domination” into your search engine and read a few of the links. I can’t help but wonder if we’re going to end up back like when I was a child, teaching our children to hide under their desks in the case of a nuclear attack. (Yeah, that’ll help.)
But ISIS and what it represents scares me more.
If you haven’t read Infidel yet, you should.
And this article is interesting. A bit long, but worth it, although I disagree with the author’s idea that we should encourage the “quietest” Muslim movement — I think the tenets of Islam are counter to those of modern civilization, and should be radically denounced.
I have this image as I drive down the road of men stopping my car at a stop light and dragging me out. Or being forbidden to work, or to have my hair or face seen in public.
(There were lots of these women in London when I was there last June. Beautifully made-up eyes, magnificent manicures, toting bags and bags from Marks and Sparks and Harrod’s. I couldn’t help but wonder why they were spending all this money on clothes no one would ever see, but I guess they have to have something to look forward to and this might be it.)
These concerns seem to be even more critical than the one for equal pay, or whether Beyoncé is or is not actually a feminist; and while less immediate, and we can all comfort ourselves (in the Western world at least) by its geographical distance from our actual lives, but I wish I were a screenplay-writer — there’s a kickass blockbuster dystopian book or movie here, where we’re all going complacently about our lives, trivializing the rising impact of “radical” Islam, until it’s staring us in our faces and we’re all back in the 7th century, where all the men have beards, all the women are property, and all of our children are raised to believe this is the One and True Way. Except it’s not purely a work of fiction, and it probably is something we should risk seeming paranoid about and actually do something.
And I agree with Sam Harris — liberals making excuses, while not actually addressing or distributing the threat to the point where it no longer exists, doesn’t help.
Bad enough that he says this. Even more horrifying that there are people in the “congregation” saying Amen and laughing.
There is no hope. Punch your toddler boy who acts “girlish” and tell your girl that her primary role is to look pretty?
I’d like to punch him in the nose. Asshole.
And look at his wife, there, smiling. Criminy. Maybe somebody should punch her in the nose, too, just for encouraging him by her presence.
Homophobic North Carolina preacher Sean Norris recently gave a sermon in which he advocated physically assaulting gender variant toddlers. Listen to it here. This letter is my response to him.
Dear Pastor Harris,
Hi. I’m C.J.’s Mom and boy would you hate me! I have a little boy who likes “feminine” things and I’ve allowed him to do so. I’ve even shared it with people on the internet. But, not by taking pictures and posting them on YouTube, as you suggest — mostly because that’s not exactly how YouTube works, I think you have it confused with Facebook, but that’s not really the point I’m trying to get at anyway.
My point is my son is gender variant. He’s a little boy who likes all things girly, like playing with dolls and wearing skirts. My son started acting a little girlish at age two and a half and I…
View original post 300 more words
A University of Rochester economics professor blogged in support of Rush Limbaugh’s comments regarding Sandra Fluke.
Quoting him directly:
While Ms. Fluke [the law student] herself deserves the same basic respect we owe to any human being, her position — which is what’s at issue here — deserves none whatseover [sic]. It deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked and jeered. To treat it with respect would be a travesty. I expect there are respectable arguments for subsidizing contraception (though I am skeptical that there are arguments sufficiently respectable to win me over), but Ms. Fluke made no such argument. All she said, in effect, was that she and others want contraception and they don’t want to pay for it,” wrote Steven Landsburg, the professor, on his blog, The Big Questions.
To his credit, Rush stepped in to provide the requisite mockery. To his far greater credit, he did so with a spot-on analogy: If I can reasonably be required to pay for someone else’s sex life (absent any argument about externalities or other market failures), then I can reasonably demand to share in the benefits. His dense and humorless critics notwithstanding, I am 99% sure that Rush doesn’t actually advocate mandatory on-line sex videos. What he advocates is logical consistency and an appreciation for ethical symmetry. So do I. Color me jealous for not having thought of this analogy myself.
Upon being sanctioned by his President, he has posted a follow-up, some of which I quote below:
The commenters [to my previous blog posts regarding this issue] have offered many bright and lively arguments and observations, some of which have led me to modify some of my views. This is a wonderful thing. It’s also the very opposite of Sandra Fluke’s approach, which amounts to a contemptuous dismissal of the very possibility of engaging these issues through intellectual discourse. I’d have expected a distinguished academic to feel the same way.
But he’s still missing the point. Or should I say points.
I’m curious as to whether Dr. Landsburg saw her testimony. It seems not.
Ms. Fluke DOES deserve respect, and was herself ridiculed, mocked, and jeered, quite appallingly so. Rush did not mock her position, he mocked her. This much is quite clear. It causes me to wonder whether Dr. Landsburg even saw or heard these himself, or was just reacting to the fray.
The concern regarding denial of oral contraception for women taking it for medical, non-contraceptive reasons is a real one.
And while Professor Landsburg congratulates himself on both his mastery of effective argumentative tactics and his open-mindedness, he does so in comparison to Ms. Fluke’s “approach” rather than to Mr. Limbaugh’s. As far as I can tell Sandra has been anything but contemptuous. One can certainly not say the same regarding Rush.
The fact that this clip is followed up with comments like these leave me very little hope:
This is just a few of them. Too early in the day for me to wallow around in such a misogynistic quagmire.
And it’s interesting how all of the “clueless” comments seem to come from men. Am I the only one who thinks that men should just stay out of this argument altogether? When you have ovaries, a uterus, and risk becoming pregnant every time you have sex, then you can talk about this.
Why is it that many people who are religious feel compelled, no, instructed to share their faith with everyone, but recoil if someone suggests that he or she does not agree with them, or, horror of horrors, doesn’t believe in “religion” at all?
Out-of-the-closet atheists are often treated as if they are, inherently, evil. As if saying you don’t believe in a god is saying that you molest children for fun or sacrifice virgins or puppies in the forest around raging bonfires on Saturday nights.
Is it really so impossible to believe that humanity would do good, or right, because it is the right thing to do, without the impetus of fear-of-eternal-damnation?
I often wonder if the people focused on their salvation, their redemption, in the next life are not, in fact, missing the point. So many relationships with the people here on earth sacrificed, in the name of “standing up for what [I] believe in” or, even worse, for “The Truth,” as if they know, with absolute certainty, what that is.
How can it be wrong to find wisdom and beauty and joy and morality and justice and love from works of Shakespeare, and Dostoyevsky, and Merwin, and Robert Frost, rather than from a book cobbled together over centuries by men with differing agendas?
And don’t we all see that if we argue morality through the lens of religion we’ll never agree?
A couple of clips to watch. You might not agree with everything said, but at least give it some thought.
(thank you treacle talks)
(the interview starts around minute 4)
So the buzz on NPR this morning is that “Catholics” are upset about a new proposed law that would require all insurance companies to cover contraception.
At the same time, reportedly, 98% of the women in this country use contraception at some point in their lives.
There are approximately 313 million people in this country, and, according to this chart, 24% of them are Catholic. It seems safe to assume that approximately half of that 24% are female, 98% of whom apparently use contraception — 36,808,800, according to my calculations; would it be presumptuous to think that perhaps this 37 million are not at all upset?
Has anyone asked them?
And even if no one has, one can still presume.
So who’s upset?
The cardinals, priests, bishops, the POPE forcryingoutloud?
Why do they even get to voice their opinion? They don’t need contraception. They’re MEN, who can’t procreate, because they’re not supposed to be having sex. (If they are, they’re probably molesting young boys.) They shouldn’t get to decide this.
So either Catholic women are using contraception and not talking about it (shame on them), or, well, what? What’s the alternative here?*
Why is this even an issue? As we are living on a planet that’s about to collapse under the collective weight of humanity, can “they” possibly still believe that the “be fruitful and multiply” is a good edict to follow? I’m sure that’s useful to the woman in Kenya with 14 babies and living through famine.
Women who have a say in their procreation have more power. Is that the problem? We all know how “the Catholics” (not to mention the rest of the
men world) feel about women with power.
Does anyone else have a problem with a religious organization, run by “celibate” men, telling women that they have no right to claim control over when and if they procreate?
And if we all have a problem with it, why don’t we say anything?
And now the biggest supporter of breast-health and breast-health-awareness has decided not to give money to Planned Parenthood to be used for breast cancer screening by women who maybe can’t otherwise afford it.
And then we have women putting themselves forward as viable candidates for this country’s highest office, namely Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman, (whose primary selling points seem to be general attractiveness and nice hair rather than intellectual rigor or experiential qualifications), questioning the fairness of laws protecting women’s rights to access to contraception.
Is this the best we can do?
We should get to decide if and when we have babies or not — especially since women who have children are automatically considered to be less viable in the workplace. How many men give up their careers against their will because they had children?
And if the insurance companies are going to pay for Viagara, they should pay for our Apri, or our IUD, or our diaphragm.
*I have very good, self-aware, contraception-using, parents-of-gay-children, female friends who consider themselves to be “good Catholics.” I don’t get it. The people running your particular show are telling you that you’re sinning and you’re wrong and you and/or your children are going to burn in hell, but you go every week and find great comfort in the ritual or something. Maybe it’s the incense. I don’t get it. I. Don’t. Get. It.
Maybe someone can explain it to me?