Tag Archive for women

Theopublicans

Virginia transvaginal ultrasounds. Oklahoma zygote personhood. Rick Santorum. I am so gobsmacked, I seriously have no idea what to say. It’s as though Republicans have deluded themselves into believing that the past, a time when people were tortured and killed for speaking out against the Church, when women were treated as baby-making appliances rather than human beings, when the genocide of people with skin browner than Rick Santorum was considered by the elite of Europe to be a righteous act, that this tarnished and violent past of ours is some sort of Golden Age to which we should return. Progressive Americans keep shouting at Republicans like Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, and so many others under the banner of the GOP, to pull their heads out of their asses and join us in the real world of the twenty-first century, but apparently there is some sort of euphoric mass hallucination going on in their bowels that makes it difficult for them to hear reason.

Republicans and conservative Christians (often the same hat turned inside-out) keep touting the tired (and false) rhetoric that they are anti abortion because they are “pro life”, yet their track record for protecting the lives of Americans is extremely poor. Republicans like Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, are the ones who seek out war in every corner of the globe, and they are perfectly willing to send out young American men and women to get maimed and killed. Republicans like Rick Perry support the death penalty. Republicans like those in Virginia or Oklahoma who have passed, or seek to pass these “personhood” amendments, are not concerned about the health and well being of the mother, but only the seed she carries. Republicans are not “pro life”. They are “pro control”.

Just as the grounds at Versailles are meticulously trimmed, with nary a branch or leaf out of place, the closer one approaches the palace (because even nature itself was under the direct control of the king), so too is the Republican party seeking to dominate, to control every aspect of life, particularly women’s lives, not simply from birth, but from conception until death. And even in death, conservative Christians demand obedience. Whether it’s Mitt Romney’s Mormons baptizing the dead, or Rick Santorum’s Catholics praying for salvation, Republicans are making it clear that the reasoning behind their decision making does not come from science, but from superstition.

When Progressives speak out against this vile and unwanted penetration of backward religious ideologies into politics, religious leaders have cried foul and made claims that we are inhibiting their religious liberty. Yes, conservative Christian Republican men have convinced themselves that they are the victims here, that they are the persecuted ones, because something like Obama’s health care mandate for birth control is somehow violating their freedom of religion. Conservative Christians have no qualms about insinuating their bigoted, backward beliefs into government in order to create invasive moral legislation, yet they shed such crocodile tears when government demands they obey the law of the land. Some have even gone so far as to claim they are being torn between obeying the law and obeying their religion, as though the two were fundamentally incompatible. This suggests that the only government conservative Christians want to obey is a theocracy, a God-fearing President touting the Bible as the divinely mandated Law of the Land.

Clearly I’m more than a little angry about this. How did such backward-thinking, future-fearing, superstitious men come to be such a dominant voice in American politics? These are people who should be reduced to a very vocal minority fringe group, types one might find in Monty Python’s Life of Brian shouting about lost hammers and nine-bladed swords. This is not a group of people that should be taken seriously at all. Yet we must because they so dominate American politics.

I sincerely hope that ideological yahoos like Rick Santorum or Bob McDonnell truly are just a very vocal minority, and that they do not represent all who label themselves Catholic or Christian in this country. I sincerely hope that politically conservative folk, particularly conservative and/or Republican women who are on the Pill, recognize the danger that comes from the twenty-first century Republican party, and that they choose to distance themselves from it. I sincerely hope that everyone will see the contemporary Republican party to be just as vile and repugnant as the Westboro Baptist Church.

But I don’t want to delude myself.

Orthodox Misogyny

Last week, I lightheartedly kvetched on my social networks about being somewhat socially inept on things such as Facebook or Google Plus because I wasn’t “internet popular”. This internet social awkwardness extends out into the real world as well where at parties I will often find myself either talking too long about a subject to a person or small group of folks without realizing that particular topic of discussion actually ended five minutes ago, or awkwardly hanging out on the periphery of a small social circle trying to make conversation but not knowing exactly how and thus winding up looking like a creeper to whomever I’m standing next to. I’m sure others have experienced this kind of social awkwardness and it’s really nothing to dwell on. It’s likely a common feeling for folks to sometimes feel out of their element in some social situations. While I might be at times socially awkward online or at parties, I’m thankful that I was not brought up in an orthodox household. Orthodox religion is no friend to feminism, so these two stories that piped in on my news feeds really made my feminist hackles stand up.

Video frame via BBC News

It was reported at BBC News the other day that in Israel, an ultra-orthodox group of men are protesting a school attended by girls from orthodox families, regular orthodox families. The great offense that is rankling these poor, put-upon men is that the girls walking to school aren’t dressed modestly enough for the ultra-orthodox neighborhood their school abuts. In other words, the ultra-orthodox are indignant that the orthodox aren’t orthodox enough. And in some other words, these men are appealing to their so-called religious authority as “those with the biggest walls around Torah” in order to be boorish, misogynist pigs toward kids who are just trying to go to school. These men are hurling slurs and rocks and even feces at these kids, causing fear and nightmares. I imagine that if these ultra-orthodox men could have their way, these girls wouldn’t even have a school to go to, but would instead be sequestered in their homes living out their lives as prisoners first of their fathers then of their husbands.

Photo credit: Community Newspaper Group/Aaron Short

Meanwhile in Brooklyn, New York, another group of misogynist pigs disguised as religious men have been posting signs in Hasidic Jewish neighborhoods telling women that they must step aside if they see a man approaching. It’s not clear why a man shouldn’t be capable of stepping aside for a woman as a woman does for a man, because the rules in the Halakha basically state that unfamiliar men and women should not commingle anyway. In my opinion, if one is going to practice this rule, it should be understood that a man is just as responsible for stepping out of a woman’s way as a woman is to avoid men, but this being Earth, this rule doesn’t seem to be interpreted as such. Instead it is interpreted as “It’s a man’s world, so women need to stay out of his way so that he can maintain his delusion that it’s a man’s world.” This is just blatant sexism and misogyny disguised as religious practice.

Successfully following all the rules in a religious tome just isn’t possible in the real world, and for those who try, they seem to live very unfulfilled lives. The ultra-orthodox, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or something else entirely, seem constantly on edge wondering if the thing they’re doing is likely to somehow offend their gods. Fiercely conservative religious traditions wield their holy texts over their believers like abusive parents wielding a paddle or belt. Strict social regulation in this manner is like screaming at a child every time she touches something, and then wondering why that child as an adult has a petrifying fear of … everything.

As an atheist, I’ve never been taught to segregate my activities or my friends based on sex. I’ve never gotten indignant toward a child walking to school that I would be forced to throw a rock at this child in anger. I’ve never demanded someone step out of my way because I’m looked upon as somehow superior. When I read about things like men protesting a school for girls by barking and shouting and calling these children immodest and immoral, or seeing signs posted that women should sit down shut up and make him a sandwich, I realize that I’m definitely not as socially inept as I often think I am.

Why I’m a Male Feminist (And Why Our Movement Needs More of Us)

“Feminist” is a polarizing word.  You’ll generally see it used in one of two ways: as self-identification by people who consider themselves feminists, and as a pejorative by people who do not.

It’s a word with an ugly connotation in many people’s minds, not unlike the word “atheist”; people hear the “-ist” suffix and infer an ideology that seeks feminine supremacy rather than gender equality, just as many see atheism as a rebellious denial of God rather than an affirmative acceptance of a godless universe.

To be sure, there are differing opinions among those who consider themselves feminists regarding what it means to be a feminist. There are disagreements about its implications regarding sexuality, marriage, reproductive rights, and parenting. There are disputes about what reforms are needed in modernized Western societies compared to developing nations.  There are debates about who gets to call themselves feminists, particularly about whether this label can apply to men.

Can men be feminists?

I call myself a feminist because I agree with the movement’s most basic tenet: women are people. I feel that throughout human history and in the status quo today, women have been and are either (a) regarded as lesser beings than men, or (b) propped up on a pedestal from which they are not permitted to descend, and often paradoxically both at the same time. I see this as wrong and would like to do my part to correct it.

As such, supporting fair treatment across gender lines means proactively questioning and reforming the way we (both men and women) think about women. For this reason I will use the word “feminist” and not try to make up some new, gender-neutral term for supporting gender equality.

Hoping that I don't sound like this.

I know that there are hardcore feminists out there who object to men calling themselves feminists. I understand their reasons for feeling that way (for example, men presumptuously thinking they can speak on behalf of feminism, men dominating discussions on feminism, and then there’s this guy).

I still feel that I should use the label, as it helps to make feminism less taboo, less scary to people who claim they oppose feminism without understanding what it means. An increase in the number of visible male feminists (or “pro-feminists” or “allies” if you prefer) will increase dialogue among men about their treatment of women, and increase the number of men who stop to think “Y’know, maybe I am being sexist without realizing it. I should reexamine my attitudes about gender roles.”

Being visible among skeptics, or Wearing it proudly

At the SSA conference last month, I chose to wear my bright green “THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE” t-shirt, bought years ago from a fundraiser for a battered women’s shelter.

I don't always wear t-shirts with slogans on them, but when I do I support equal treatment of women.

I’ll admit that I knew I wasn’t going out on a limb with this: I knew that there were many feminists among the population of young atheists and agnostics. It got positive reactions from feminist atheist bloggers Jen McCreight and Greta Christina, and it turned out there were even a few other male feminists there as well.

In proclaiming myself as a feminist, just as happened when I proclaimed myself an atheist, I am bound to make both friends (not all of whom I’d like to call “friend”) and enemies (some of whom I have no quarrel with) based solely on the label.

Case in point: one of the Marxist activists present at the conference seemed to assume I’d be sympathetic to her group’s ideology based on my self-identification as a feminist. I was not.

I’m not aware of any animosity toward me regarding the shirt (I’ve experienced such from male acquaintances in the past), but I have to wonder if it frightened anyone away. I would certainly hope not.

The bottom line

I will echo the sentiments of atheists who have found the AAFHSS community to have a detectable sexism problem, if based solely on what I’ve read in the blogosphere (I personally heard no such comments at the SSA conference).  I do suspect, however, that many groups and social movements have the same problem, if not a more deeply embedded one; the difference is that there are outspoken feminists in the secular movement who recognize sexism when it rears its ugly head and call people out on it.

I also will ask that any men who feel threatened by feminism take a serious second look at their attitudes toward women.  Are you afraid of becoming a second class citizen, or are you afraid of losing special privileges you’ve become accustomed to?  Are you afraid that values associated with your gender will someday no longer be the default?

I won’t tell other skeptics and freethinkers that they should get behind a particular ideology, but I will ask them to consider what they do believe about sex and gender and examine the evidence on which they base their views (even feminists should do this – any idea worth believing is worth scrutinizing).  You may find that you hold biases you weren’t aware of.

On dating bad boys versus nice guys

This is in response to two posts. The original Seattle Ugly by Rainy Brain here, and a response on Blag Hag: The reason why you’re single.

Mr. RainyBrain (can’t find a name) says he’s annoyed at the dating scene in Seattle for a single mid-30′s “Average Attractive” male. I get that. He goes on to say that this is because there are no “Average Attractive” women in Seattle. They’re all ugly or below average and he’s not physically attracted to them.

One of the multiple issues I see here is that he only ever mentions physical attractiveness. If that’s all you consider when you’re in the dating scene, then you are a shallow ass and it’s no wonder you’re single. I’m sure if you actually got to know some of those “less than average” women, they’d be wonderful and intelligent, and therefore become extremely attractive and sexy. So in response to you sir, I say that your standards aren’t too high, you’re just shallow.

To Jen, while I think your argument is a little aggressive, I get what you’re saying. Men need to respect women and treat them as people regardless of how attractive they feel we are. But as far as this Nice Guy phenomenon, and that the way into a woman’s bed is through treating her kindly doesn’t always apply. Enter the Bad Boy. Research shows that women are more attracted to the “bad boy” versus the “nice guy.”

Most everyone knows — or at least knows of — a stereotypical “bad boy” like Ricky. The guy with such high self-esteem he could aptly be called a narcissist. The guy who wins women over with deceit, callousness and impulsive behavior.

How many women do you know who are in relationships with these kind of douche bags? And studies show that this was an advantage in evolution where the stronger, more dominant males, less likely to follow rules was generally the best at hunting for food and protecting offspring. However, I don’t see that as much of an advantage today where women can very obviously fend for themselves and protect their own offspring because today, our survival skills depend more on higher intelligence. Where do you think modern medicine comes from?

"Grrr..." -- "But I offer you heaven!"

As I was having a conversation about this with a friend, he commented along the lines of, “Never in my life have I gotten more laid than when I was a jerk towards women.” And for anyone who attended public high school, I’m sure you’ve witnessed this in effect. The article ends saying that these “bad boys” might have the most sexual conquests in the short-term, but that the nice guys will win in the long run because they’re more apt to stick around for the long-term relationship.

So in the end, I say the risk of dating is up to your personal preferences. If you want the bad boy, good luck and don’t expect him to stick around long unless you have an iron will and think you’re enough of a catch to keep him. If you like the nice guys, look for intelligence. He might not be the greatest looker, but geeks and nerds are worth it. For the rest of us, myself included, looking for something in between, yeah… any advice?

Note: This got a little ranty and off topic from the original articles, sorry… but I’m just going with it.

Pay Gap Discrimination Towards Women

As covered by PZ Meyers and Jen McCreight, women face a depressingly large pay gap for lifetime earnings as compared to men. This pisses me off. I have nothing else nice to say, so here’s the graph.

Click through image for source study from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce.

We Are Not Alone (with Ultra-Conservative Female Politicians)

If you thought the USA was the only country lucky enough to have politicians like Michele Bachmann, you were wrong.

Earlier today I saw the name Liliana Rendón trending on Twitter.[1] Since I don’t usually see many Hispanic names trending worldwide, I decided to check it out. Turns out that Liliana Rendón is a congresswoman in the Colombian Senate. She’s part of the Conservative Party and is against abortion for any circumstance and same sex couples adopting among other things (sound familiar?).[2]

Once I started looking into it, the name ‘Bolillo’ also came up. Up until yesterday, Hernan ‘Bolillo’ Gomez, was the coach for the Colombian national soccer team. Hernan had a disagreement with his lady friend at a bar on Saturday night and decided to hit her several times. After some pressure from the Colombian Football Federation and others, he resigned.[3][4]

So how does Liliana fit into all of this? During a television interview, she defends Hernan claiming that a man should not be fired for hitting a woman. Confused, the interviewer asked if her husband had ever hit her. After saying that he hadn’t, Liliana responded with “If my husband ever hits me, it’s because I deserve it.” and followed by saying something along the lines of “we shouldn’t be asking him to resign from his job after hitting a woman, but instead asking what she did to deserve it”

Apparently she believes that most aggression towards women is their own fault. She did mention at the end of the interview that she does not want to defend men that come home drunk and beat their wives, but then she added “If you let them do it the first time, just wait for the second…”

It’s sad to hear that people with considerable influence believe these kinds of things. Is there any reason justifying the physical injury of others?
Women or men, I don’t think there is.

 

 

If you want to read more, there’s another (english) article with many more quotes from the congresswoman. For example:

“we (women) are very irritating, we are very stupid and manipulative and sometimes we provoke certain reactions.”

 

Paul and the Women

Paul Writing His Epistles

First century Christianity was a radically different religion from the one we understand today in the twenty-first century. However, it seems sometimes that many among the Christian community believe that the way they practice Christianity is exactly the same way Jesus practiced Christianity, with the greatest error in that thinking being that Jesus did not practice Christianity as he was a Jew. The small Jewish cult, with the help of a man named Paul, would eventually become a predominantly Greek and Roman community with early Christians practicing their tradition in the privacy and safety of their homes. In Greco-Roman society, the manager of the home was the wife, and the duties of managing Christian gatherings often fell upon women more than men in these private settings. By the end of the first century, it was not unheard of for women to be in very prominent positions within the Christian community. Yet this is clearly not the behavior we see in the Church today.

Readers will no doubt be familiar with the passage in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 which reads:

11. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

This letter is attributed to Paul, the same Paul who wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:38-40 the following:

38. So then, he who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. 39. A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. 40. But in my judgement she is more blessed if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God. [emphasis mine]

Fresco of Thecla in the Cathedral of Chernihiv

Scholars have agreed that many of the Pauline letters in the New Testament are merely attributed to Paul, and not written by him at all. Paul’s attitudes toward women at times seem surprisingly progressive, particularly in Romans 16 in which he praises many women active in the early Church such as Phoebe, Prisca, and Junia.

Early Christianity offered women a freedom from the strict gender roles demanded of them by Greco-Roman society. A proper woman was to be married and have children. It stood to reason then that when the Christians came along suggesting to forgo marriage and children and instead follow the Christian tradition, it was not taken well by the Greeks and Romans. The apochryphal work “The Acts of Paul and Thecla” recounts the story of a young woman named Thecla who rejected her betrothal to Thamyris and instead went with Paul to become a Christian. As a Christian, she would be free from the demands and expecations placed upon her by Greek society. As a consequence of her conversion, she was condemned to death (though miraculously saved thanks to her new faith).

Paul wrote that all Christians were equal, as stated in Galatians 3:28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” If Paul was indeed progressive, and the early Church was a place of equality for women and men, then what brought about the radical shift away from equality? Most likely it was brought about in the third and fourth centuries after the Church had become the official state religion of Rome. With that power came abuse. The old communites ended as Christianity became monolithic. Sexism was institutionalized, and new Pauline letters were written to promote the old Greco-Roman gender roles once dismissed by early Greek Christians.

Today, the institutionalized sexism and rigorous gender roles of the Greeks and Romans persist in the Christian religion. It no longer offers freedom from societal expectations, and indeed actively promotes a narrower view of women’s roles than it once did. Christianity may have served an important role in social change, but now in the twenty-first century, it is holding society back and preventing progress in equal rights for women, gays and lesbians and other queer folk, and anyone else who does not subscribe to the rigid roles imposed by long-dead Roman leaders who sought to reinstate the old social order via the new faith. The best bet for social progress now is to completely cast away religion.

Next week, I’ll be looking further into the contradictions in the Pauline letters and discussing the authentic ones versus the later attributions. See you then!

Contraceptive Conundrums and why you should support contraceptive coverage

Catholics oppose contraceptives citing that ”there is an ideology at work … that goes beyond any objective assessment of the health needs of women and children.” Excuse me?! My objective need as a woman is that I don’t want children! This stance makes me grit my teeth. How can one hold the belief that contraceptive is morally wrong when the results without it is often having a child before you are emotionally and financially ready? It boggles my mind that the Catholic church thinks that it’s better to bring a child into this (overpopulated) world in poor conditions, rather than simply limiting and preventing (never mind abortive methods) the chance of pregnancy until a couple is ready and able to support a child.

Today I am joining the National Women’s Law Center Blog Carnival in an effort to get contraceptive coverage approved in health plans, which would take away co-pay costs of oral contraceptives, effectively making birth control free for many women.

Pro-lifers and Baptist Press oppose this change because it may include “abortion-inducing” drugs such as the Plan B pill. (I use quotes because without an accepted definition of when life begins, which is a whole ‘nother post.) I can understand this objection for those who do believe that Plan B induces abortion by preventing the growing embryo from implanting in the uterus, but… if you don’t like it, DON’T TAKE THE PILL! One’s religious objection to an abortive pill is that individual’s decision. Someone else’s religious belief should not have influence on the government’s decision to provide preventative medicine to those who are willing to benefit from the (pardon) miracle of modern science and medicine.

One other issue often missed by many in this argument is the lack of contraceptive options for men. This PBS article makes the point that the options are pretty much condoms or vasectomy. There are some other options under development out there but none of them are available in the US yet. And why can’t men have an equivalent to a daily pill to prevent pregnancy? You can’t always rely on the female to be on the pill or have contraception available. So why can’t men have that cheaper option as well, rather than paying for an expensive surgery that isn’t always reversible, or buying condoms all the time?

So why make birth control without co-pays mandatory? Because it makes it far easier for women to afford to prevent pregnancy and save money in the end by waiting until they’re ready for the financial responsibility of a child. With half of all pregnancies in the US being unplanned, the simple act of providing free birth control could save all those hospital costs of providing pre- and postnatal care for mothers and their children. It will keep women healthier and more stable to have their sex life in their control and preventing unplanned pregnancies.

Skeptiscale! [movies] – Made in Dagenham

WE WANT SEX. At least that’s what passers-by thought of the strikers in the film Made in Dagenham. In reality, the word Equality was not quite visible. After getting a lot of attention, they realized the mistake and unfolded the remaining piece of the banner.

Equality...

Made in Dagenham is about women’s rights, specifically equal pay in the workplace. The story takes place in 1968 in the United Kingdom. The female sewing machinists at the Ford Motor Company plant in Dagenham decided to walk out after being re-classified as unskilled laborers. When they found out that they were making less money than their ‘equally skilled’ male counterparts, they decided to make the strike permanent. (At the time, women workers made about 15% less than men.)

The machinists had trouble getting support from their (male dominated) union, so they decided to go to other factories to get support from other female workers. Eventually they reached Barbara Castle, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. All these events and more led to the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970.
Made in Dagenham
The film is inspired by true events. A good mix of comedy and drama make it fairly entertaining. Despite the happy ending, many of the problems presented in the movie are still present in society today. One example deals with a male schoolteacher’s dismissal of a mother’s complaints after he beat her son, because she was a just a woman and ‘didn’t understand’ discipline. Another has to do with a college-educated housewife whose opinion is not respected by her husband and co-workers. Made in Dagenham provides a fun-yet-serious perspective of the fight for gender equality in the UK.

Due to the mostly accurate(and entertaining) portrayal of a real problems and events, this movie scores a total of 8.1/10 points on the Skeptiscale!

Scientific Accuracy/Believability: 4.1/5
Quality of the Movie: 4/5