from Fun with Feminism

Creationism and Evolution

I was going to see a speaker tonight who is addressing the question of how Creationism and Evolution are compatible, but am unable to after all. The reason I wanted to go was not to hear how the two are compatible - of course they are if one doesn't take the Bible literally - but to see if the following issue is addressed:

How can a Christian decide to take the parts of the Bible that conflict with science NOT literally, but maintain that other parts (maybe that science has not yet contradicted) should still be taken literally? Of course it's fine to accept evolution if you think the creation account in Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, but WHY shouldn't it be taken literally? How do Christians determine what parts of the Bible are literal and which are not? As far as I'm aware, there is not guide at the beginning that says, Here, here, and here - these stories are not LITERAL, but here, here, and here - these stories really did happen exactly this way.
It's like people go through the Bible and say, Okay, obviously Jonah didn't actually live inside of a whale, so we're going to take that metaphorically. And the story of the ark? Millions of species couldn't have fit on a boat 450 feet long, so we'll take that metaphorically also. And that the world was created in six days, and the moon gives off its own light, and Adam actually NAMED all the species that have ever existed on the planet... But at what point are we obligated to question the literal interpretation of the plagues on Pharaoh, or the wall of Jericho, or the virgin birth? How do we determine which stories we take literally and which stories we don't?

I think my Dad is still going, so we'll see if this question gets addressed...

I'd Like My Standard Doubled, Please

This post is not about a particularly new topic, but at some point, a girl just can't take it anymore and has to rant a bit. So:

How is it, in the 21st century, that it can still be considered acceptable to critique a presidential candidate on their LOOKS?

Now, you were probably thinking that that was a rhetorical question, but because it's free gift with purchase day at Anna's House of Whatever, I'm going to answer that rhetorical question: Well, it's acceptable because she's a woman, of course! We can't have a bitch in the White House, can we?! My god! What if her female hormones go cuh-RAZY and she starts a war with some random country that doesn't even have WMD???

[crickets]

Okay, snark over, I promise. Here are some more rhetorical questions that I won't be answering, though:

1. Do you know how many pictures I've seen of Hillary Clinton making a strange face (like when the camera catches you unaware/off-guard) where something was said about her looks? Ha ha ha, Hillary Clinton's so ugly! Ha ha ha, aren't we funny!

2. Do I really have to care what color shirt a presidential candidate is wearing? And, what does that even have to do with how they'll do as president? "Ah, I see the President's wearing the blue shirt; important things will be done today!"

3. Why is it that no one's questioned whether Barack Obama, John McCain, or any other candidate in this election is 'too emotional' to lead a country? If one's gonads are on the outside, rather than the inside of one's body, does that bestow some sort of magical, country-leading power?

I haven't done a very good job of turning off the snark, have I? Alright.

I guess I get so worked up because I'm not even a Clinton supporter. There's a number of reasons why (after Dennis Kucinich dropped out, and I embarked on a rather long session of fence-sitting) I finally decided to support Barack Obama. I won't get into those reasons here, because this isn't a political blog, but I continue to find myself annoyed by the level of sexism present in much of the criticism leveled against Senator Clinton. I'm not saying she should be immune from criticism, just that her laugh or that blouse she was wearing that one time, or how 'old' she looks are not acceptable (nor are they particularly mature, for that matter). I'd love to see/hear/participate in dialogue about:

1. Whether a presidential candidate is intelligent (and willing to admit they're wrong, or to educate themselves on issues beyond the sound-byte level).

2. Whether they truly care about people who are poor, abused, enslaved, victimized by inequality, etc, throughout the whole world, and what they plan to do about it.

That question, the one everyone keeps asking, about if the United States is 'ready for a woman president'? It's offensive, and not just because of this. Every time I hear that question asked, or see it in print, I know that what it's really asking is, "Is a woman good enough to be President?", and we shouldn't need to ask that at all, not anymore. Maybe we should be asking, "What the hell is wrong with all these people who think only a white, straight male is capable of holding our nation's highest office?"

It's true, there are indeed...

On the presidential elections

"Like every candidate, Obama must appeal to millions of voters who believe that without religion, most of us would spend our days raping and killing our neighbors and stealing their pornography. Examples of well-behaved and comparatively atheistic societies like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Denmark--which surpass us in terrestrial virtues like education, health, public generosity, per capita aid to the developing world, and low rates of violent crime and infant mortality--are of no interest to our electorate whatsoever.
Can we care for one another without believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is now listening to our thoughts?

Yes we can. "

Sam Harris, 21 March 2008

My Feminist Affirmation

I refuse to submit to the stereotype that women are less carnal than men, that women's needs are not as intense as men's, and that men can satisfy their sexual needs – and are excused from social criticism – while women must be modest by not acknowledging or acting on their own, equally potent, desires.

That's all. I just refuse.

I Love This!

More hilarious comics at Married to the Sea.

Doesn't make sense to me...

Deuteronomy 5:17 – Thou shalt not kill
Deuteronomy 20:10 - And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword

More evidence that God is a monster

from Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth:

"For that had always been his [God's] idea of fair dealing. If he had had a motto, it would have read, "Let no innocent person escape." You remember what he did in the time of the flood. There were multitudes and multitudes of tiny little children, and he knew they had never done him any harm; but their relations had, and that was enough for him; he saw the waters rise toward their screaming lips, he saw the wild terror in their eyes, he saw that agony of appeal in the mothers' faces which would have touched any heart but his, but he was after the guiltless particularly, and he drowned those poor little chaps."

"Their naked privacies were probed, to make sure that they still possessed the hymen unruptured; after this humiliation they were sent away from the land that had been their home, to be sold into slavery; the worst of slaveries and the shamefulest, the slavery of prostitution; bed-slavery, to excite lust, and satisfy it with their bodies; slavery to any buyer, be he gentleman or be he a coarse and filthy ruffian.
It was the Father that inflicted this ferocious and undeserved punishment upon those bereaved and friendless virgins, whose parents and kindred he had slaughtered before their eyes. And were they praying to him for pity and rescue, meantime? Without a doubt of it."

This is sick.

I read about this on Feministing yesterday. I've watched it a couple of times now, and I just want to cry. Now, I'm pro-choice; in case anyone needs clarification on this, though, hitting a woman in the stomach to force her to miscarry is not an abortion. It's assault.

This happens to women. In real life. In case you don't want to watch the video (and I don't blame you if you don't), AbortionMan is called in to "save the day" by the woman's boyfriend (without her knowledge). He punches, then knees her in the stomach, then stomps on her once she's on the ground (though this last part happens off-screen). The video's creators posted the following comment today:

This video is not pro- or anti- abortion, and it's not supporting violence, especially against women. What it is doing is finding humor in a dark situation. Would you rather see a woman dumping a baby in a trashcan? No. We understand there are limits, however, we don't let limits scare us from providing something that the world needs more of- humor. So we invite you to experience our comedy, but don't force you to participate in it.

Live. Love. Laugh.

I appreciate dark humor. I appreciate satire.

This is not funny.

response to "A Thought"

First, I will say that my opinion of Jesus differs from Anna's in that, when I think of his messages, loving others is not what first comes to mind. I realise that many moderate Christians like to focus on this one, but if we were to rate the messages from great religious leaders throughout history, I don't think Jesus would win in the 'loving others' category.

However, given that we are are surrounded by Christians who like to focus on this particular message, I, too, will focus on the message of love when giving my opinion of Christian behaviour.

Like Anna, I am also astonished at how people, who claim to model their lives after Jesus, actually behave. The WWJD fad was a fantastic idea, and I wish it was as popular now as it was a few years ago. I enjoy asking questions about what Jesus would do in certain situations: Who would Jesus bomb? - probably no one. Would Jesus support the death penalty? - probably not. Would Jesus buy a big house and a boat and a new car and go on vacation to Hawaii? - I doubt it.

Also, just to be clear, I am not expressing an opinion about people buying new things or taking vacations. My point is that, if we are to look at how Jesus suggested people live if they really want to follow him, I don't think we would find that buying new things and taking vacations were part of Jesus's instruction.

Here are a couple of verses that come to mind - and I will admit that I am purposely picking out the weird/negative ones - and these are chosen simply because they are (to me) just as valid as the good ones that Christians really like to quote (and they are all from Matthew because I am too lazy to look up more in other books):

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;" (Matthew 10:37)

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:23)

"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." (Matthew 19:29)

So I guess I'm wondering what makes these less valid than the other commandments?


I would now like to comment on this quote of Anna's:

"There's no kindness, no attempt at understanding, not even a hint of that 'grace' they're always going on about."

This is another thing that I find very interesting. I would think that if God was such a magnificent thing in Christians' lives, we would notice it more. Wouldn't we be able to tell that they 'have God' by simply observing how they behave in normal situations? Wouldn't the miraculous grace and compassion given to them by their saviour be evident in every waking moment of their lives? Christians talk about how finding God saved them, how they were so lost and miserable and wicked, and now they are free and happy and good people. The problem I have with this is simply that (among the ordinary Christians I am with every day) there is no difference to behold between Christian and non-Christian behaviour.

I don't feel the need to explain this any further as I'm sure we are all aware that, aside from praying before a meal or going to church, there are not too many ways to tell a Christian from an Atheist.

A Bit of Hope...

When I get some time, I'll try and work on a longer post detailing my thoughts about the raid on the YFZ compound (associated with the FLDS Church). For now, I will simply say that I am relieved that these women and girls are safe. I first became aware of the FLDS Church when I read Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven. Further research presented me with haunting stories of teenage girls forcibly married to (and then raped by) old men, of children having children, and of nobody being allowed to speak up for their own rights as a human being. The stories of the so-called "lost boys" of polygamy are equally depressing. At the risk of this turning into a long, not well-thought-out rant when I really should be going to bed, I'll stop for now.

Except to say this: That girl, the 16-year-old who blew the whistle? She's my hero.