Recently at my mother's house (reason #1 why I haven't posted in 2 weeks) I was having a conversation with my step-dad.
Me: Did mom tell you what I'm taking next year?
Dad: Nah, what are you taking?
Me: history, required intro English, topics in English: women and modernism, deductive logic-
Dad: *laughing heartily* Well that's a contradiction right there!
Me: *eyebrow's raised* And why's that?
Dad: Because modern women aren't logical! *more laughter*
Me: *stunned silence*
Where to start with this? Social blunder #1, I am a "modern woman" and a philosophy major. I am the exact opposite of the demographic that would find that funny. Social blunder #2, giving false information is not funny, it is usually considered ignorant and people respect you less. Way to go, dad.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Why I Am A Feminist
This week while looking at Feministe’s Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday, I read this blog: http://nicefeminist.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/25-reasons-why-i-am-a-feminist/
It inspired me to write my own reasons for being a feminist. So, here are the 25 reasons why I am a feminist:
1. Because I never want another girl to have to be molested by her step-brother when she is twelve years old.
2. Because when I was seventeen my mother said any didn’t have any friends- because none of the people I spent time with were female.
3. Because when I have a conversation with my male friends it becomes their conversation, and I am left sitting there, silent, trying and failing to get a word in.
4. Because a potential person is still considered more important than an actual one.
5. Because if our friends knew what my fiancé is like when it’s just the two of us, he wouldn’t be friends with them anymore. They wouldn’t be friends with someone who is so “whipped”.
6. Because liking stuffed animals and Fallout III is somehow scandalous.
7. Because as sweet and respectful George has always been, he is still only now starting to understand why sexist humor is indeed, not humor.
8. Because if I walk around in public topless with my large fiancé whose chest is as big as mine, I will be arrested for indecent exposure and people will wonder why he let me do that.
9. Because there is a size zero in women’s clothing.
10. Because when I’m a mother and I work, I’ll be a “working mom”, but no one will ever suggest that my husband is a “working father”.
11. Because when I express my sadness in a healthy way, by crying, then I am overemotional. When my fiancé express his anger through intense rage, he is just being a “man”.
12. Because when I moved in with George my family was shocked and appalled, but his could care less.
13. Because when I told my step-father I had lost my virginity, he was disappointed. When his son told him he lost his virginity, all he had to say was, “way to go”.
14. Because I can’t walk down the street alone at night.
15. Because there are still people out there who think women have equality and we should just stop complaining.
16. Because there are people in the world who think they have the right to make decisions for you about your sexuality.
17. Because according to the majority of people, my morality lies between my legs.
18. Because when I was fifteen, despite that I was wearing a dress, I was mistaken for a boy because of my short hair.
19. Because “girly” or “queer” are insults in this country.
20. Because according to people in the marketing business, women do not buy things unless they are pink.
21. Because it’s more acceptable for me to cross gender boundaries than it is for my fiancé, because masculinity is more valuable than femininity.
22. Because when my fiancé wears clothes with holes and stains people look at me and wonder why I let him wear that.
23. Because when I call someone on their offensive jokes, I’m just another humorless feminist.
24. Because everyone laughed when my best friend gave her son a doll.
25. Because most people don’t think about these things.
It inspired me to write my own reasons for being a feminist. So, here are the 25 reasons why I am a feminist:
1. Because I never want another girl to have to be molested by her step-brother when she is twelve years old.
2. Because when I was seventeen my mother said any didn’t have any friends- because none of the people I spent time with were female.
3. Because when I have a conversation with my male friends it becomes their conversation, and I am left sitting there, silent, trying and failing to get a word in.
4. Because a potential person is still considered more important than an actual one.
5. Because if our friends knew what my fiancé is like when it’s just the two of us, he wouldn’t be friends with them anymore. They wouldn’t be friends with someone who is so “whipped”.
6. Because liking stuffed animals and Fallout III is somehow scandalous.
7. Because as sweet and respectful George has always been, he is still only now starting to understand why sexist humor is indeed, not humor.
8. Because if I walk around in public topless with my large fiancé whose chest is as big as mine, I will be arrested for indecent exposure and people will wonder why he let me do that.
9. Because there is a size zero in women’s clothing.
10. Because when I’m a mother and I work, I’ll be a “working mom”, but no one will ever suggest that my husband is a “working father”.
11. Because when I express my sadness in a healthy way, by crying, then I am overemotional. When my fiancé express his anger through intense rage, he is just being a “man”.
12. Because when I moved in with George my family was shocked and appalled, but his could care less.
13. Because when I told my step-father I had lost my virginity, he was disappointed. When his son told him he lost his virginity, all he had to say was, “way to go”.
14. Because I can’t walk down the street alone at night.
15. Because there are still people out there who think women have equality and we should just stop complaining.
16. Because there are people in the world who think they have the right to make decisions for you about your sexuality.
17. Because according to the majority of people, my morality lies between my legs.
18. Because when I was fifteen, despite that I was wearing a dress, I was mistaken for a boy because of my short hair.
19. Because “girly” or “queer” are insults in this country.
20. Because according to people in the marketing business, women do not buy things unless they are pink.
21. Because it’s more acceptable for me to cross gender boundaries than it is for my fiancé, because masculinity is more valuable than femininity.
22. Because when my fiancé wears clothes with holes and stains people look at me and wonder why I let him wear that.
23. Because when I call someone on their offensive jokes, I’m just another humorless feminist.
24. Because everyone laughed when my best friend gave her son a doll.
25. Because most people don’t think about these things.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Monday, July 13, 2009
I Am Not a Lady- Sexism and Language, Part 1
George: “I love you naked lady”
Me: “I am not a lady”
George: “You do indeed have a vagina”
Me: ”But I am not a lady. I have worked very hard to ensure that people do not view me as a lady, and yet you confine me to this title on the basis of my genitalia.”
To be fair, he really is trying. He always understands when I point something out to him that is sexist and he apologizes; it is very hard to undo years of misogyny culture damage. Even I find myself saying things like this sometimes.
Why do I find lady offensive? Because I am not a lady. I do not embody the qualities of a lady, except that I do have a vagina. However, as society often tells us, lady-ness is not defined by a person’s vagina-having status. According to society, gays and inadequately testosterone-ridden males are ladies. Dykes and inadequately estrogen-ridden females are not. According to the top two definitions on dictionary.com, a lady is:
1. a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken: She may be poor and have little education, but she's a real lady.
2. a woman of high social position or economic class: She was born a lady and found it hard to adjust to her reduced circumstances.
I am crass and blue-collar. I must admit that as a scholar and an English major, I am articulate and do have a large vocabulary, but I feel that I am still far from ladylike in my language. I am loud and sometimes obnoxious if that’s what it takes to get my point across. I’m only polite/shy/quiet with my father-in-law, but that’s just because he’s a mite scary. Also, my “well-spoken”-ness doesn’t so much have to do with any trace of being ladylike, but it’s more that I am well educated- something very un-ladylike indeed.
Me: “I am not a lady”
George: “You do indeed have a vagina”
Me: ”But I am not a lady. I have worked very hard to ensure that people do not view me as a lady, and yet you confine me to this title on the basis of my genitalia.”
To be fair, he really is trying. He always understands when I point something out to him that is sexist and he apologizes; it is very hard to undo years of misogyny culture damage. Even I find myself saying things like this sometimes.
Why do I find lady offensive? Because I am not a lady. I do not embody the qualities of a lady, except that I do have a vagina. However, as society often tells us, lady-ness is not defined by a person’s vagina-having status. According to society, gays and inadequately testosterone-ridden males are ladies. Dykes and inadequately estrogen-ridden females are not. According to the top two definitions on dictionary.com, a lady is:
1. a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken: She may be poor and have little education, but she's a real lady.
2. a woman of high social position or economic class: She was born a lady and found it hard to adjust to her reduced circumstances.
I am crass and blue-collar. I must admit that as a scholar and an English major, I am articulate and do have a large vocabulary, but I feel that I am still far from ladylike in my language. I am loud and sometimes obnoxious if that’s what it takes to get my point across. I’m only polite/shy/quiet with my father-in-law, but that’s just because he’s a mite scary. Also, my “well-spoken”-ness doesn’t so much have to do with any trace of being ladylike, but it’s more that I am well educated- something very un-ladylike indeed.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Men Speak Out
…is an AMAZING book. I’m about a hundred pages from the end and I can tell this is going to be one of the best books I have ever read. It is a collection of essays written by feminist men about “gender, sex, and power”. The book is divided into four sections and I must say I devoured the first one, “Masculinity and Identity”. The other sections are “Sexuality”, “Feminism”, and “Points and Perspectives”. I highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys feminism. Trigger warning though! Some of the essays are highly disturbing, and some viewpoints are conflicting, so obviously you may not agree with all of them. I sure didn’t. Again, the book is Men Speak Out: views on gender, sex, and power.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Monday, July 6, 2009
My Reading List
I have a few books on the reading list right now and I’m going to be catching up on my reading a bit over the next few weeks. Just wanted to post the books that I'm going to be reading; and when I'm finished reading, reviews will be coming!
Dreams From My Father… Barack Obama (I know it’s old but I wasn’t in to politics when it came out)
The Audacity of Hope… Barack Obama (same as above)
Lord Save Us From Your Followers… Dan Merchant
Men Speak Out… Shira Tirrant (currently reading this book and I love the first essay so far!)
When I get some more on the list they will definitely be reviewed here.
Dreams From My Father… Barack Obama (I know it’s old but I wasn’t in to politics when it came out)
The Audacity of Hope… Barack Obama (same as above)
Lord Save Us From Your Followers… Dan Merchant
Men Speak Out… Shira Tirrant (currently reading this book and I love the first essay so far!)
When I get some more on the list they will definitely be reviewed here.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Nancy Morgan on the “Feminist Meltdown”
Call me a glutton for punishment but, at times, when I have nothing to do I scour the web with my handy dandy stumble upon browser for “conservative politics” pages. Subsequently, as I read, I tear their fallacies apart. If the article/blog/what have you is disturbing or intellectually inept enough it may find its way to my blog. In the wee hours of this morning I had the pleasure of finding this gem:
http://rightbias.com/News/052107melt.aspx
I find this woman’s utter lack of comprehension of feminist ideologies amusing at its best, frightening at its worst. I found myself laughing, mostly, with the exception of just a few sentences. I know I shouldn’t let it get to me, but the things that come out of conservatives’ mouths sometimes just floors me. One particular sentence which lit a fire under my ass is, of course, “By going along with the fiction that men and women are equal…”
*sigh* I defy you to prove to me that men and women are not equal beings. Yet I can produce evidence of countless ways in which men and women are equal. Ms. Morgan goes on to say that equality has caused lower standards in our firehouses, police departments and military, yet she fails to provide any evidence of this.
Ms. Morgan exhibits all the traits of the classic anti-feminist, making her a perfect example. I find it most funny however, that she does not possess the most common trait of the anti-feminist: she is not male. What is so funny to me is that the very thing she speaks out against is the very same thing that has given her the power to speak out. Without feminism, it would have been blasphemous for her to get a head for politics.
From the very start of her post she exhibits one of the most common and at the same time most fallacious tactics of anti-feminists. She begins her post by talking about the horrors of misogyny that take place in other countries and about how American feminists are busy fighting for things like gay marriage instead of combating what she considers to be the real malignancies to women. This is a classic distraction/straw man technique. She fails to address the fact that feminists fight all kinds of intolerance and inequality, including the violence in other countries, as well as the violence here at home. Feminists fight for equal rights, big or small.
And the things she considers to be insignificant and/or immoral are far from unimportant. She mentions the lobbying to change the definition of marriage to include lesbian, gay, and transgendered relationships. Violence in other countries does not taking away from the fact that discrimination against the so-called “abnormal” sexuality in this country is appalling.
“Meanwhile, their American sisters are busy lobbying for hate crime penalties for anyone who dares to hurt the feelings of a gay or transgendered person.” There are two things wrong with that sentence. The fight for hate crime legislation is a necessary and important one. Also there seems to be some confusion as to the meaning of the term “crime”. Moving down a paragraph I am greeted with possibly the craziest misinterpretation of the pro-choice movement I have ever seen: “This would make legal the practise of killing a baby in the mother's birth canal.” The delusions of that sentence are so laughable it’s not even worth commentary.
Ms. Morgan goes on to suggest that the glass ceiling theory is delusional and empowerment through works like “The Vagina Monologues” is a painful reminder to women who have suffered vaginal abuse. She then states that women’s studies and queer studies courses “teach that men are bad, Christianity is outdated, and traditional values are merely a social construct designed to keep women down.” One out of three isn’t bad. Her final attempt at straw man tactics harps one of my personal favorite feminist fights. She claims that our attempt to change society’s views of masculinity is an attempt to “make shameful any vestige of manliness”. She even goes so far as to say that it is a common practice of feminists to “dope up” boys “to keep them from displaying male traits”. Delusional people are so funny to me!
As I said before, she then ends her attempt at the straw man technique in favor of outright feminist hate. Ms. Morgan begins to talk about how feminists are entirely responsible for things like the decline of the traditional family structure, insinuating as anti-feminists often do that anything but a nuclear family is inherently immoral. She engages in the usual slut-shaming, of course, for what would an anti-feminist post be without a remark on the morality of women being confined to their sexuality.
As I said at the beginning of this post I found this article hilarious with the exception of a few sentences. The other two sentences are ones in which Morgan actually implies that a woman does not have the right to her own body. I find this, not shocking as with the idea that men and women are not equal beings as before, but sickeningly disturbing. She says that “[Men] are compelled to keep up with the latest politically correct semantics or risk legal action. Think Duke Lacrosse.” and “Just as you're both ready to engage in that first kiss, he pulls back and asks your permission… Another neutered male - thank you, feminists.” It is disgusting to think that she actually believes that if a woman is raped she is just being too pc, and that the simple act of respecting a woman’s personal space automatically means that a man is sans testicles.
Overall, this is the article of a delusional, hypocritical and disturbingly socially backwards woman who is apparently in desperate need of a dictionary since she can’t even define the simple word “feminist” correctly.
http://rightbias.com/News/052107melt.aspx
I find this woman’s utter lack of comprehension of feminist ideologies amusing at its best, frightening at its worst. I found myself laughing, mostly, with the exception of just a few sentences. I know I shouldn’t let it get to me, but the things that come out of conservatives’ mouths sometimes just floors me. One particular sentence which lit a fire under my ass is, of course, “By going along with the fiction that men and women are equal…”
*sigh* I defy you to prove to me that men and women are not equal beings. Yet I can produce evidence of countless ways in which men and women are equal. Ms. Morgan goes on to say that equality has caused lower standards in our firehouses, police departments and military, yet she fails to provide any evidence of this.
Ms. Morgan exhibits all the traits of the classic anti-feminist, making her a perfect example. I find it most funny however, that she does not possess the most common trait of the anti-feminist: she is not male. What is so funny to me is that the very thing she speaks out against is the very same thing that has given her the power to speak out. Without feminism, it would have been blasphemous for her to get a head for politics.
From the very start of her post she exhibits one of the most common and at the same time most fallacious tactics of anti-feminists. She begins her post by talking about the horrors of misogyny that take place in other countries and about how American feminists are busy fighting for things like gay marriage instead of combating what she considers to be the real malignancies to women. This is a classic distraction/straw man technique. She fails to address the fact that feminists fight all kinds of intolerance and inequality, including the violence in other countries, as well as the violence here at home. Feminists fight for equal rights, big or small.
And the things she considers to be insignificant and/or immoral are far from unimportant. She mentions the lobbying to change the definition of marriage to include lesbian, gay, and transgendered relationships. Violence in other countries does not taking away from the fact that discrimination against the so-called “abnormal” sexuality in this country is appalling.
“Meanwhile, their American sisters are busy lobbying for hate crime penalties for anyone who dares to hurt the feelings of a gay or transgendered person.” There are two things wrong with that sentence. The fight for hate crime legislation is a necessary and important one. Also there seems to be some confusion as to the meaning of the term “crime”. Moving down a paragraph I am greeted with possibly the craziest misinterpretation of the pro-choice movement I have ever seen: “This would make legal the practise of killing a baby in the mother's birth canal.” The delusions of that sentence are so laughable it’s not even worth commentary.
Ms. Morgan goes on to suggest that the glass ceiling theory is delusional and empowerment through works like “The Vagina Monologues” is a painful reminder to women who have suffered vaginal abuse. She then states that women’s studies and queer studies courses “teach that men are bad, Christianity is outdated, and traditional values are merely a social construct designed to keep women down.” One out of three isn’t bad. Her final attempt at straw man tactics harps one of my personal favorite feminist fights. She claims that our attempt to change society’s views of masculinity is an attempt to “make shameful any vestige of manliness”. She even goes so far as to say that it is a common practice of feminists to “dope up” boys “to keep them from displaying male traits”. Delusional people are so funny to me!
As I said before, she then ends her attempt at the straw man technique in favor of outright feminist hate. Ms. Morgan begins to talk about how feminists are entirely responsible for things like the decline of the traditional family structure, insinuating as anti-feminists often do that anything but a nuclear family is inherently immoral. She engages in the usual slut-shaming, of course, for what would an anti-feminist post be without a remark on the morality of women being confined to their sexuality.
As I said at the beginning of this post I found this article hilarious with the exception of a few sentences. The other two sentences are ones in which Morgan actually implies that a woman does not have the right to her own body. I find this, not shocking as with the idea that men and women are not equal beings as before, but sickeningly disturbing. She says that “[Men] are compelled to keep up with the latest politically correct semantics or risk legal action. Think Duke Lacrosse.” and “Just as you're both ready to engage in that first kiss, he pulls back and asks your permission… Another neutered male - thank you, feminists.” It is disgusting to think that she actually believes that if a woman is raped she is just being too pc, and that the simple act of respecting a woman’s personal space automatically means that a man is sans testicles.
Overall, this is the article of a delusional, hypocritical and disturbingly socially backwards woman who is apparently in desperate need of a dictionary since she can’t even define the simple word “feminist” correctly.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Friday, July 3, 2009
New Preamble to the Constitution
So I was stumbling upon conservative politics pages just for a laugh and came across a blog post titled “A New Preamble to the Constitution” in which a conservative makes a “Bill of Non-Rights”. Here is the original link:
http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2009/new-preamble-to-the-constitution/
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
No is saying that you do. No one.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended.. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be..
Again, no one is disagreeing.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
Since when do you not have the right to be free from harm? And if you don’t have that right, why is it a bad thing to believe that you should?
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes ..
No, you don’t have the right to FREE food or housing, and no one is saying that you do. You DO, however, have the right to food and housing.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.
We all have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you are sick and you need health care to make you better then it is only fair that you get said health care. We all pay our taxes, and health care should be just another service offered like police, firemen, teachers, etc. If the nation’s teachers were all privatized would you call it socialism if we tried to ensure all children got to go to school? What if we extended the idea the public health care is socialism to our teachers? Our firemen? Our cops?
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
No one is saying you have the right to physically harm anyone else. In fact liberals are often outraged at the thought of it. Thinking you don’t have the right to harm other people doesn’t mean you have to believe that those who do harm deserve death.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
Where are you getting the idea that people believe this?
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
No you don’t have the right to a job, but when you can’t afford to get vocational training and/or higher education then there s no “opportunity” to take advantage of.
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
No one is disagreeing here.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
I'm actually not going to disagree with this one. I think that English should indeed be our official language and you should have to learn it to become a citizen. However, I wouldn’t have said that so harshly, particularly the “go back to where you came from” bit.
(Lastly…..)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
Not one of our founding fathers was a Christian. Our country was founded on the right to believe whatever you want to, not on a belief in God. The phrase only was first used on our coin during a strong Christian uprising during the civil war, in 1864. It became the official US motto after an act of congress in 1956. The constitution calls for the separation of church and state, and so nothing which comes from the government should be endowed with any religious motto or emblem.
http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2009/new-preamble-to-the-constitution/
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
No is saying that you do. No one.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended.. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be..
Again, no one is disagreeing.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
Since when do you not have the right to be free from harm? And if you don’t have that right, why is it a bad thing to believe that you should?
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes ..
No, you don’t have the right to FREE food or housing, and no one is saying that you do. You DO, however, have the right to food and housing.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.
We all have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you are sick and you need health care to make you better then it is only fair that you get said health care. We all pay our taxes, and health care should be just another service offered like police, firemen, teachers, etc. If the nation’s teachers were all privatized would you call it socialism if we tried to ensure all children got to go to school? What if we extended the idea the public health care is socialism to our teachers? Our firemen? Our cops?
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
No one is saying you have the right to physically harm anyone else. In fact liberals are often outraged at the thought of it. Thinking you don’t have the right to harm other people doesn’t mean you have to believe that those who do harm deserve death.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
Where are you getting the idea that people believe this?
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
No you don’t have the right to a job, but when you can’t afford to get vocational training and/or higher education then there s no “opportunity” to take advantage of.
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
No one is disagreeing here.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
I'm actually not going to disagree with this one. I think that English should indeed be our official language and you should have to learn it to become a citizen. However, I wouldn’t have said that so harshly, particularly the “go back to where you came from” bit.
(Lastly…..)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
Not one of our founding fathers was a Christian. Our country was founded on the right to believe whatever you want to, not on a belief in God. The phrase only was first used on our coin during a strong Christian uprising during the civil war, in 1864. It became the official US motto after an act of congress in 1956. The constitution calls for the separation of church and state, and so nothing which comes from the government should be endowed with any religious motto or emblem.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Love's Baby Soft
This is kinda old to the internet, but it's just so disturbing I felt I had to share. I really wanna know what the people in the ad room were thinking. I know it's older/vintage but even pedophilia has never really been an accepted concept in the US.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
An Email From Rick Santorum
So I recently was doing a bit of stumbling upon feminist sites, and came across this beauty:
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/08/and-now-an-important-message-from-rick-santorum/
The story doesn’t really need much commentary; that was covered by the guy who received the email. However I would like to comment on the sudden realization which hit me when I read this. Why is it that conservatives think that liberals want to impose our beliefs on them? I believe it is because they want to impose their beliefs on us, and so think that that is everyone else’s agenda as well. I can respect the fact that someone thinks gay marriage is immoral, even though I disagree with it. However, other people being gay and getting married isn’t going to affect you. No one is asking them to come to their gay wedding or hop into bed with them. So we liberals aren’t asking for anything that should affect conservatives. So why do they think we are trying to “punish” them or force them to agree with us? It’s because they think we have to agree with them. Because they think that they should be able to make moral decisions for us, they think we are trying to make moral decisions for them. It’s a vicious cycle of bigot fuel creating more bigot fuel.
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/08/and-now-an-important-message-from-rick-santorum/
The story doesn’t really need much commentary; that was covered by the guy who received the email. However I would like to comment on the sudden realization which hit me when I read this. Why is it that conservatives think that liberals want to impose our beliefs on them? I believe it is because they want to impose their beliefs on us, and so think that that is everyone else’s agenda as well. I can respect the fact that someone thinks gay marriage is immoral, even though I disagree with it. However, other people being gay and getting married isn’t going to affect you. No one is asking them to come to their gay wedding or hop into bed with them. So we liberals aren’t asking for anything that should affect conservatives. So why do they think we are trying to “punish” them or force them to agree with us? It’s because they think we have to agree with them. Because they think that they should be able to make moral decisions for us, they think we are trying to make moral decisions for them. It’s a vicious cycle of bigot fuel creating more bigot fuel.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Why Teen Sex Is Not the Immoral Act That the GOP Seems To Think It Is
This is a long one, be prepared!
So lately feminism has been plaguing my mind. After doing a bit of philosophical and critical thinking I got onto the subject (in my head) of teen sex. I was reminded of where George and I had left things in our discussion on when our children can have sex. He had won, and it’s not that I have issues about needing to be right all the time, but within my relationship with George I have trouble leaving things where one person still does not agree. He had won the argument, because I had no counter argument at the time, but I still disagreed with him. Well, in my critical thinking binge I finally came up with a counter-point after months of brooding over it (I am not above admitting I do have some issues), and I presented my argument respectfully to him, and he agreed with me.
So what was the whole argument about? We had left things off in that our children would be allowed to have sex at 16. I had said that I don’t see anything wrong with 15. He argued on the grounds that no fifteen year old is ready to be a parent and he felt that it would be irresponsible for us to let them engage in an activity which could lead to pregnancy. I could not think of any rebuttal, so I let it sit. And so for the argument that won him over:
No one knows but you when you are ready to have sex. I want to tell our children this, and arm them with the power to understand sex and love and decide for themselves when they are ready. We knew when it was the right time, why won’t our children know if they are taught enough about sex to understand when it is right? A sixteen year old is no more ready to be a parent than a 15 year old, nor is an 18 year old even. So why is 15 special? Everyone is different and matures at different times, we agree on this, which is why we agreed each of our kids would be allowed to do different things when they are ready, not when we are ready for them. We can’t possibly presume to know when they are ready for sex better than they will.
The reason this is so important to me is because when I was 15 I fell in love with a boy and began having protected sex with him (something George already knew, but I am including this story in my blog post for reader clarification). I didn’t tell my mother (I have a step father but even after the second marriage mother remained sole disciplinarian), not because I was hiding it, but because I didn’t feel it was any of her business. It was my life, my body, and my choice, and talking about sex with your mother isn’t exactly common practice. I had always been under the impression that sex really wasn’t a big deal, so I had no reason to believe that this would bother my mother. But it did. When she found out I was having sex, she freaked the fuck out. She was convinced I would get pregnant, though I had told her we were having protected sex. And for some reason which she had no evidence for, as she has told me in recent years, she was convinced that I thought it was no big deal if I got pregnant. Well instead of talking with me about her concerns, asking me how I felt about sex, asking me if I felt I was being responsible, or at the very least doing some sort of her own evaluation of my intellectual ability to consent to sex, she screamed at me for being irresponsible and told me I was what she called “grounded”. My mother’s version of grounded meant that I was not allowed anywhere but home and school, and was not allowed to talk to anyone on the phone. I feel like that is harsh, but that it’s still not too unreasonable, if it weren’t for the fact that this went on for over a year. I digress. My point in including this story was to point out that I have had to go through a period in my life where I did not own the rights to my own body. To continue:
I won’t take my kids’ sexual freedom away from them. George has never known what it is like not to have the rights to your own body. It is a dehumanizing, infuriating experience that I don’t want to put my kids through. Of course I don’t want our kids to impregnate or be impregnated, and I fully understand that they won’t ever be ready for that as teens, but a .1% chance is not enough to take away their right to their body. I say a .1% chance because that is the chance of pregnancy if using both condoms and birth control, and of course, I absolutely won’t condone having sex without condoms or pills. If our kids are found to be having sex without their use I fully expect us to reprimand and punish them. Also, I don’t want to just out and tell them that they are allowed to have sex at 15, or 14, or even 16 or 17. My whole point is that I don’t want them to feel like they need permission to make their own decisions about their bodies. We don’t have the right to tell someone else, no matter how they are related to us, what to do with their body.
Finally winning this argument with George was a victory for me, and it got me to thinking about people in general. Why is it that teen sex is so “immoral”? Is it because teenagers are incapable of making their own decisions? Anyone who has ever spent time actually talking to someone under 18 should know that they may not (generally) be the most intelligent of people, but they are far from stupid. If you look at it from the standpoint of they might make a mistake that they regret later, then adult sex should be just as immoral. Adults have sex with strangers or with people who aren’t good for them etc. all the time. I understand that as adults we are all free to make our own decisions because it is our constitutional right, but if adults are just as capable of making a mistake as teens, then why don’t teens get those rights too? Is it that teens are less capable of coping than adults? Individuals are unique, there are some adults who have trouble coping with sex at all, just as there are some teens that way as well. However, I know that the majority of teens in high school have sex and aren’t any the worse for it, just as with adults.
So, if it isn’t their decision making capabilities, then what? Is it that premarital sex is banned in the bible? (note: this argument is based strictly on grounds of morality, not legality) Well, unless you are a complete asshat, most Christians agree that the Bible is up for interpretation. Otherwise shaving would be wrong but raping your enemy’s women, not so much. In that case if you choose to believe that biblical ideas of premarital sex are correct, why? Why that passage and not what which says that pigs are unclean? Or the passage about dashing “thy little ones against the stones”? So, for all intents and purposes, we should say here that the Bible is not the know-all of everything moral and so, for the purposes of this argument, should not be used as a definitive guide to morality. So if it is not because of religion, why is it immoral?
I suspect it to be one of the above reasons which are either illogical or unable to be proven, or that it could be one other reason. I suspect that it could be the GOP believes teen sex to be immoral, because that is what they think. In their minds, they think it is immoral, so it is. I honestly have no problem with that, if their moral compass points them this way. They are entitled to their opinion. However, just because it is their opinion, that doesn’t make it correct. There is no real proof that teen sex is immoral.
So lately feminism has been plaguing my mind. After doing a bit of philosophical and critical thinking I got onto the subject (in my head) of teen sex. I was reminded of where George and I had left things in our discussion on when our children can have sex. He had won, and it’s not that I have issues about needing to be right all the time, but within my relationship with George I have trouble leaving things where one person still does not agree. He had won the argument, because I had no counter argument at the time, but I still disagreed with him. Well, in my critical thinking binge I finally came up with a counter-point after months of brooding over it (I am not above admitting I do have some issues), and I presented my argument respectfully to him, and he agreed with me.
So what was the whole argument about? We had left things off in that our children would be allowed to have sex at 16. I had said that I don’t see anything wrong with 15. He argued on the grounds that no fifteen year old is ready to be a parent and he felt that it would be irresponsible for us to let them engage in an activity which could lead to pregnancy. I could not think of any rebuttal, so I let it sit. And so for the argument that won him over:
No one knows but you when you are ready to have sex. I want to tell our children this, and arm them with the power to understand sex and love and decide for themselves when they are ready. We knew when it was the right time, why won’t our children know if they are taught enough about sex to understand when it is right? A sixteen year old is no more ready to be a parent than a 15 year old, nor is an 18 year old even. So why is 15 special? Everyone is different and matures at different times, we agree on this, which is why we agreed each of our kids would be allowed to do different things when they are ready, not when we are ready for them. We can’t possibly presume to know when they are ready for sex better than they will.
The reason this is so important to me is because when I was 15 I fell in love with a boy and began having protected sex with him (something George already knew, but I am including this story in my blog post for reader clarification). I didn’t tell my mother (I have a step father but even after the second marriage mother remained sole disciplinarian), not because I was hiding it, but because I didn’t feel it was any of her business. It was my life, my body, and my choice, and talking about sex with your mother isn’t exactly common practice. I had always been under the impression that sex really wasn’t a big deal, so I had no reason to believe that this would bother my mother. But it did. When she found out I was having sex, she freaked the fuck out. She was convinced I would get pregnant, though I had told her we were having protected sex. And for some reason which she had no evidence for, as she has told me in recent years, she was convinced that I thought it was no big deal if I got pregnant. Well instead of talking with me about her concerns, asking me how I felt about sex, asking me if I felt I was being responsible, or at the very least doing some sort of her own evaluation of my intellectual ability to consent to sex, she screamed at me for being irresponsible and told me I was what she called “grounded”. My mother’s version of grounded meant that I was not allowed anywhere but home and school, and was not allowed to talk to anyone on the phone. I feel like that is harsh, but that it’s still not too unreasonable, if it weren’t for the fact that this went on for over a year. I digress. My point in including this story was to point out that I have had to go through a period in my life where I did not own the rights to my own body. To continue:
I won’t take my kids’ sexual freedom away from them. George has never known what it is like not to have the rights to your own body. It is a dehumanizing, infuriating experience that I don’t want to put my kids through. Of course I don’t want our kids to impregnate or be impregnated, and I fully understand that they won’t ever be ready for that as teens, but a .1% chance is not enough to take away their right to their body. I say a .1% chance because that is the chance of pregnancy if using both condoms and birth control, and of course, I absolutely won’t condone having sex without condoms or pills. If our kids are found to be having sex without their use I fully expect us to reprimand and punish them. Also, I don’t want to just out and tell them that they are allowed to have sex at 15, or 14, or even 16 or 17. My whole point is that I don’t want them to feel like they need permission to make their own decisions about their bodies. We don’t have the right to tell someone else, no matter how they are related to us, what to do with their body.
Finally winning this argument with George was a victory for me, and it got me to thinking about people in general. Why is it that teen sex is so “immoral”? Is it because teenagers are incapable of making their own decisions? Anyone who has ever spent time actually talking to someone under 18 should know that they may not (generally) be the most intelligent of people, but they are far from stupid. If you look at it from the standpoint of they might make a mistake that they regret later, then adult sex should be just as immoral. Adults have sex with strangers or with people who aren’t good for them etc. all the time. I understand that as adults we are all free to make our own decisions because it is our constitutional right, but if adults are just as capable of making a mistake as teens, then why don’t teens get those rights too? Is it that teens are less capable of coping than adults? Individuals are unique, there are some adults who have trouble coping with sex at all, just as there are some teens that way as well. However, I know that the majority of teens in high school have sex and aren’t any the worse for it, just as with adults.
So, if it isn’t their decision making capabilities, then what? Is it that premarital sex is banned in the bible? (note: this argument is based strictly on grounds of morality, not legality) Well, unless you are a complete asshat, most Christians agree that the Bible is up for interpretation. Otherwise shaving would be wrong but raping your enemy’s women, not so much. In that case if you choose to believe that biblical ideas of premarital sex are correct, why? Why that passage and not what which says that pigs are unclean? Or the passage about dashing “thy little ones against the stones”? So, for all intents and purposes, we should say here that the Bible is not the know-all of everything moral and so, for the purposes of this argument, should not be used as a definitive guide to morality. So if it is not because of religion, why is it immoral?
I suspect it to be one of the above reasons which are either illogical or unable to be proven, or that it could be one other reason. I suspect that it could be the GOP believes teen sex to be immoral, because that is what they think. In their minds, they think it is immoral, so it is. I honestly have no problem with that, if their moral compass points them this way. They are entitled to their opinion. However, just because it is their opinion, that doesn’t make it correct. There is no real proof that teen sex is immoral.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
