Saturday, July 09, 2005
Dr. Kelly Hollowell asks the question we've all been too afraid to ask: Do conservatives see women as inferior?
I sat in church on Mother's Day and listened to the pastor build his sermon around the book of Proverbs. Sadly, one point of emphasis was that "it is better for a man to live in the corner of a roof than share a house with a complaining wife." The pastor predictably joked that "his point was scriptural and not personal." But then went on in poor taste to make other jokes concerning his wife's shopping habits and the number of shoes in her closet.
Yeah! Way to celebrate women on Mother's Day! I know I like to show appreciation with tasteless remarks in front of a congregation. After reading this and two other examples, I was utterly shocked that Hollowell answered her own question completely contradictory to my expectation:
...I don't think conservatives regard women as inferior. Rather, it is a liberal spin that has over-capitalized on a rather obvious (although not exclusive) area of appreciation conservatives have for women.
The worst part of the conservative's failure to correct this perception is that liberals have usurped and distorted the very meaning of feminism. Today, it has been successfully spun so far left that it is epitomized by women willing to kill their own children in the womb.
Whaaa? Are we thinking of the same liberals? I think the very core of feminist movements, the very definition, opposes conservatism. And spin? Hasn't this woman been paying attention? It is conservatives that smear the good name of feminism (they can't help it-- it's chapter one of their manifesto).
Right before I diagnosed Hollowell with minor cognitive dissonance and conservative brainwashing, she shows signs of life:
First, it would be good for conservatives to give a few more kudos to women called outside the traditional roles and – dare I suggest it – support them along the way. Second, it might help in some cases for the more traditional leaders to take a class on sensitivity training … OK, OK, at least a class in 21st century communication skills. Third, and I have to say it, it would help if the old codgers among us who do hold rather blatantly chauvinistic views stepped into the 21st century and recognized that women can think outside the cake box.
I daresay these are progressive statements. I can just hear conservative men belching objections at her request for finding their feminine sides. Yet Hollowell claims to be a conservative woman. She must be living in an alternate reality (i.e. watching Fox News) or she has her ideologies confused.
It's okay, Kelly. Come towards the light, come see the ways of liberal truth. We'll let you be a feminist.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Values of the Heartland of America
I eat fast food under rare and urgent circumstances, tonight being one of them. I sat down to inject my arteries with Hardee's Brand TM trans-fats and cholesterol and I was welcomed to the dinner table by this image:
Sex on TV is old news. Now you can grip your 3D softcore porn and feel the sweat of the plastic cup as it drips through your eager fingertips (free with purchase of large soft-drink, all rights reserved, woman is not guaranteed to have sex with you). It makes for a good wholesome family dinner. Collect them all!!
Evolutionists are Nazis
I could go on by noting that if atheistic evolution is true, Marx was correct and Locke was wrong, there is no justification for condemning the Nazis, and so on and so on...
When did 'atheist' and 'amoralist' become synonymous? I don't believe in the existence of a higher power, but I am compassionate human being even if my compassion did evolve by chance. One does not need to believe in a higher power to believe that genocide is abhorrent.
Further, if atheistic evolution is true, then there will be no accounting after this life is over for how one's life has been lived. In other words, Stalin, Hugh Hefner, and Mother Theresa all receive the same recompense - absolutely nothing. What is the value of choosing one path over the other, except to satisfy one's own personal desire?
Exactly. Call me a pessimist, but justice in the afterlife is not a guarantee. This is why is important to ensure a real and earthly punishment for the criminals here on earth. There is a problem, though, with theistic anti-evolutionists crusading for universal acceptance in God when there is a complete lack of evidence to support it.
Embrace the Random.
Santorum-Soaked Moral Fiber
Rick Santorum blames feminism for the destruction of America's traditional values:
"In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don't both need to," Santorum writes.
"Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root," said Santorum. "The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness."
Senator and canine enthusiast Rick Santorum has a new book. Here are some excerpts.
A sampling: "And for some parents, the purported need to provide things for their children simply provides a convenient rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home."
And by "some parents," of course, he means mothers. Fathers are allowed to pursue gratifying careers outside the home as much as they damn well please.
Do you think maybe someday people who blame feminism for "women working outside the home" will acknowledge that many women -- especially poor women -- have always worked outside the home, since the dawn of work, long before 1972?
Just pretend that Santorum has a point. Why does he insist that the mother has to stay home? I've known several families with working moms and stay-at-home dads. Isn't it sexist to suggest that men can't raise children as well as women? Just a thought.
(also at The Liberal Avenger)
Marty tries to help with my blogger's block. In the background, Carlo pesters Ryan.
Carlo nesting in a canvas bag.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
They Aren't All Bad
United Church of Christ shows some compassion and common sense:
The United Church of Christ's rule-making body voted overwhelmingly Monday to approve a resolution endorsing same-sex marriage, making it the largest Christian denomination to do so.
The Rev. John H. Thomas, president of the United Church of Christ, said with the vote on Independence Day, the rule-making body ``acted courageously to declare freedom.''
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
A Nugget of Joy
This is an excerpt from the comments section of an article about rising sexism in Australia. I read it and let forth a slight chuckle.
Paul Gilchrist writes:
...Personally, I blame the women. They haven't grasped their opportunities, but choose to run to the safety of the kitchen and wealthy males. Look at the endless parade of bimbos who chase sportsmen and successful businessmen. The thing which might save feminism is the war in Iraq. If it goes on long enough, and we have conscription, then surely half the conscripts will be women. That's something all the blokes will support.
The F Word
Is it time to abandon the 'bad' label and invent one anew? Salon.com:
Gandy isn't suggesting that anyone rub the word "feminism" off their bumper stickers or refrigerator magnets. But she did acknowledge that she has had informal conversations -- both with people who work at NOW and with those she meets on the road -- about agitation from some within the movement who believe it's time to retire "feminism's" number.
But, she said, we cannot pretend that "feminism" has escaped the fate of "liberalism" before it. "This is what the right-wing has done to our language," she said. "'Liberal' is a proud term. But at a certain point, it became very difficult for people to call themselves liberal. If you asked them about issues they would say, 'I'm not liberal, I'm progressive.' Excuse me, you are a liberal! But the right made that a bad word. They've done the same thing with 'feminism.'"
But some people didn't think the notion of ditching the word was such a crazy idea at all. "I think it's very smart," said Erica Jong, whose use of explicit language in "Fear of Flying' changed the nature of American women's fiction in 1973. "The problem hasn't gone away. Women are still second-class citizens; the problem of choice is still with us -- in fact it's gotten worse. So if we need to change the name to get people involved, we should."
I have never had a problem with the term and I know many men who happily label themselves 'feminists', but many people do find the term repellant even though they endorse the ideas. I think that is more the result of social stigma and negative connotation than the suggestive gender denotation of the term itself. In this case, it doesn't matter what we call it because the anti-feminist, anti-humanist, anti-civil rights lobby will be determined to smear it.
Hate to Spoil the Party
Sunday, July 03, 2005
War on Fatherhood?
I don't get it. Someone please help me translate David Usher's latest incoherent babbling?
All men and women of moral stature must now step forward demanding restoration of the marriage contract, enactment of policies that encourage (and expect) spouses to responsibly work through the normal problems and processes of marriage and aging, and policies ensuring that divorce is no longer an institution that turns children into the chattel of politicians and feminists.
We now know that feminists are definitely not the best protectors of women and children, nor are they providers. Every day that we open the newspaper to read about mothers in poverty, illegitimacy, deadbeat dads, fatal child abuse, and crime in the streets, is another glaring reminder that husbands and fathers historically provide the best care and sustenance for their families.
(Emphasis added.) I just don't follow the 'logic.'