There are several issues in which men see oppression of women completely backwards, seeing it as oppression of men. A main area they point to is the idea of men sacrificing themselves for their families, for women and children. A recent example of this is in Haiti where women and children were evacuated ahead of men. However the root cause of this ideology is sexism, sexism against women. This is further seen in the persisting "boys club" which is the military. These positionings of gender however stem from the idea of women being more vulnerable than men, being less able to take care of themselves and handle bad situations. This isn't some sexist ideology directed towards mens lives being less valuable. It is a direct result of women being viewed as inferior.
It is unfortunate in my eyes that the MRA crowd are unable to see the bigger picture. A lack of acceptance of how society is really structured in terms of gender means the struggle they launch is doomed to failure. One must identify the problem first, then it can be addressed.
It must also be noted that society was not always split this way, in the evolution of humans the human society was formerly more cohesive. There weren't always these lines drawn where women should have children and men should die in war. The difference in the physique of females and males was not always so pronounced either.
Women are seen as inferior, this is a fact. This fact needs to be challenged. Terming something "female privilege" is just a denial of the facts. It hinders progress that should be made. The MRA ideology is of course purely reactionary, purely emotional. Their questions are sound. "why aren't women incarcerated for the same lengths of time as men for the same crimes?". To answer this question it would make more sense to me to examine the whens and whys. Higher rates of male imprisonment definitely didn't coincide with the rise of feminism, with any of the waves. In fact I would argue feminism increased rates of female imprisonment. These inconsistencies between gender incraceration was of course caused by the underlying sexism towards women that has long been a part of our culture. Their terming it "the pussy pass" is just degrading towards women.
They rightly point out that without men it would be hard for women to have a functioning society. Well the reverse is also true, without women a society would be damn hard for men. Instead of following this to the logical conclusion of solidarity between the genders, they force more dividers between the genders. There is a greater issue at stake here and it involves the working class not men or women. Not gays or straights. Not blacks or whites. Anger with an unfair system is justified, anger with all women because of the legal system or because of a social paradigm is not. Please direct your anger wisely.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Religion and the patriarchy
It is in my opinion (not so humble) that religion contributes greatly to a state in society which can be referred to as the patriarchy. In my society christianity is the dominant religion so I will concentrate on that. You have a book that you believe is the divinely inspired word of god. This book tells you that a woman should obey you as you obey the church (god?). How can you view this as anything other than sexism? If a woman should obey a man simply because of the penis or lack of penis status that is the definition of sexism. This opens up in society the validation of basing relationships on forcing the woman into a submissive role. The result of having these "divinely inspired" gender roles is rape, genital mutilation and a less important status for women in general, both throughout history and in society today. I think those who support this ideology have a lot to answer for, as it stands atm I am absolutely disgusted by this position.
Christianity is at its core a purely selfish ideology. People who follow the teachings of the bible rarely seem to think about how it impacts on anyone else, they are concerned merely with attaining a heavenly status in the afterlife. It is a mentality of well god said it has to be this way and if it causes these problems that is because people are sinners. I would like to say, if you are a christian that supports this ideology and other similar ideologies found within the bible, you are morally bankrupt and fail to take responsibility for your own thoughts and actions. Please fly to the moon and never return. That is all.
Christianity is at its core a purely selfish ideology. People who follow the teachings of the bible rarely seem to think about how it impacts on anyone else, they are concerned merely with attaining a heavenly status in the afterlife. It is a mentality of well god said it has to be this way and if it causes these problems that is because people are sinners. I would like to say, if you are a christian that supports this ideology and other similar ideologies found within the bible, you are morally bankrupt and fail to take responsibility for your own thoughts and actions. Please fly to the moon and never return. That is all.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The MRA position is ridiculous
I think it is obvious to most people that the MRA faction is merely reactionary and largely unneessarily. While it can be helpful to rally against FRA, it is actually going to be ineffective. You are better off spending your time rallying against the way in which justice is carried out, you need to be able to have a better alternative. "Don't lock up innocent people" is a worthy cause but how do you hope to stop that?
The main issue with MRA is they confuse personal issues with oppression. There is a distinction to make. To answer the question of many people on my blog. Men can be oppressed hypothetically, but they are not.
The main issue with MRA is they confuse personal issues with oppression. There is a distinction to make. To answer the question of many people on my blog. Men can be oppressed hypothetically, but they are not.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Why the idea that women have human rights in Australia is a joke
Warning: This post may contain traces of anger that many people have an intolerance to. This post will be a bit long, as in talking about human rights I think I have to show the legalities of international legislation on this issue. Please bare with me though, I think I raise some interesting points I would like responded to. If there are any MRA types that still frequent my blog I would also like your input here. I will start off with the UN declaration of human rights;
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedom set forth herein.
(sourced from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)
To make my argument for the lack of human rights in Australian (which applies well to other nations, such as America) and to show why FRA is not a violation of human rights, so irrelevant as a parellel to the question of the prevalence of sexual abuse I will draw primarily from these five articles;
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
In order to demonstrate my point I will take a personal reality and show how it is also a political reality. Firstly I will pose a few questions, Where were my human rights when I was being raped, sexually abused, emotionally abused and stalked? Where was my right to life, liberty and security of person? Where was my right to not be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? Those rights didn't exist. As a consequence in a society where 1/6 women will be repeatedly sexually abused or raped (I seperate those two things because law does) where is the human rights of that nearly 20% of women? Where are the human rights of all women in society who are subjected to this constant threat which takes the form of further restriction of liberty. Such as freedom to leave ones house after dark without fear of and the very real possibility of assault.
When I was being raped I did not have those rights, I still don't have the rights to full protection from sexual abuse happening again which is demonstrated by its shameful prevalence. One in six women in my society have had their human rights directly violated, how can you reconcile this fact with the statement that women have human rights? In an above human rights article it also states that it is a human right to not be subject to incitement of discrimination. We live in a society which romanticises and constantly justifies sexual abuse in various forms, including saturation of the media. I don't doubt that FRA is wrong or a horrible experience, but it is not a human rights violation, as the UN outlines in its declaration everyone is entitled to a just hearing when accused of criminal activities and that is just what men accused of rape receive.
Even if it was a reality that FRA was a human rights violation. Nobody has been able to show that it happens as often as does sexual abuse. I doubt that one in six men are subjected to repeated FRA accusations. They get a just trial, and I believe I had a trial too, but not a just one. Society has deemed me as a woman, deserving of sexual assault, it has deemed this by encouraging it and normalising it to the widespread extent of today. Even as a person accused of rape human rights are upheld in this way, but I never got anything but an arbitrary decision that resulted in the ideology that I should be raped and consequently degraded and tortured.
I have been raped and sexually abused multiple times starting when I was 11. The oppression of women was made evident to me before I even became one. However despite the fact my human rights have been violated consistently over my lifetime I am not supposed to be angry, not angry with the system that allows these atrocities and not angry with the people who perpetuate it. I am sick of being told that I shouldn't be angry, that I should just get over it. How can I get over something that is still happening to the women around me, and how can I get over something which is likely to occur to me again in the future? I don't think I can without accepting that rape is just "shit happens". If that is the case I refuse to "heal" from my experiences, we need to stand up against this system and prevent this shit from happening anymore.
I don't understand at all how anyone can claim that one in six women don't have their human rights directly violated and how women as a whole aren't subject to a system which enforces this. If anyone can give me some answers on this I would be grateful.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedom set forth herein.
(sourced from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/)
To make my argument for the lack of human rights in Australian (which applies well to other nations, such as America) and to show why FRA is not a violation of human rights, so irrelevant as a parellel to the question of the prevalence of sexual abuse I will draw primarily from these five articles;
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
In order to demonstrate my point I will take a personal reality and show how it is also a political reality. Firstly I will pose a few questions, Where were my human rights when I was being raped, sexually abused, emotionally abused and stalked? Where was my right to life, liberty and security of person? Where was my right to not be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment? Those rights didn't exist. As a consequence in a society where 1/6 women will be repeatedly sexually abused or raped (I seperate those two things because law does) where is the human rights of that nearly 20% of women? Where are the human rights of all women in society who are subjected to this constant threat which takes the form of further restriction of liberty. Such as freedom to leave ones house after dark without fear of and the very real possibility of assault.
When I was being raped I did not have those rights, I still don't have the rights to full protection from sexual abuse happening again which is demonstrated by its shameful prevalence. One in six women in my society have had their human rights directly violated, how can you reconcile this fact with the statement that women have human rights? In an above human rights article it also states that it is a human right to not be subject to incitement of discrimination. We live in a society which romanticises and constantly justifies sexual abuse in various forms, including saturation of the media. I don't doubt that FRA is wrong or a horrible experience, but it is not a human rights violation, as the UN outlines in its declaration everyone is entitled to a just hearing when accused of criminal activities and that is just what men accused of rape receive.
Even if it was a reality that FRA was a human rights violation. Nobody has been able to show that it happens as often as does sexual abuse. I doubt that one in six men are subjected to repeated FRA accusations. They get a just trial, and I believe I had a trial too, but not a just one. Society has deemed me as a woman, deserving of sexual assault, it has deemed this by encouraging it and normalising it to the widespread extent of today. Even as a person accused of rape human rights are upheld in this way, but I never got anything but an arbitrary decision that resulted in the ideology that I should be raped and consequently degraded and tortured.
I have been raped and sexually abused multiple times starting when I was 11. The oppression of women was made evident to me before I even became one. However despite the fact my human rights have been violated consistently over my lifetime I am not supposed to be angry, not angry with the system that allows these atrocities and not angry with the people who perpetuate it. I am sick of being told that I shouldn't be angry, that I should just get over it. How can I get over something that is still happening to the women around me, and how can I get over something which is likely to occur to me again in the future? I don't think I can without accepting that rape is just "shit happens". If that is the case I refuse to "heal" from my experiences, we need to stand up against this system and prevent this shit from happening anymore.
I don't understand at all how anyone can claim that one in six women don't have their human rights directly violated and how women as a whole aren't subject to a system which enforces this. If anyone can give me some answers on this I would be grateful.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
women, LGBT and discrimination
I know I said at the beginning of my blog that I didn't want the imposition on my blog of christians saying "It is god's word", but I have changed my mind. I would love to hear a christian perspective on some of my ideas. Also I plan to express my interpretations of their views so it would be unfair to prevent any from commenting on it. If I am incorrect in some way please let me (civilly). Firstly I would like to offer my interpretation of peoples interpretation of the bible. I haven't read it all but I have read bits, fairly big chunks of it in parts actually. However definitely if I misquote or paraphrase let me know. I write from my understanding of christianity's take on marriage through discussion with church going christians and research into christian groups, activists and blogs. (caution may repeat some sentiments expressed in my last blog entry but I wish to expand and clarify on these points)
I am sceptical that there is any christian that follows god's word (expressed through the bible) in its entirety. I have certainly never encountered anyone who wants to stone adulterers or rape victims who won't marry their rapists to death (for obvious reasons). It applies also to lesser things like a man being forbidden from sitting where a menstruating woman has been. I have heard logical arguments from christians for why; the onset of sanitary protection means disease spread through blood contact isn't an issue anymore, therefore there is no reason to avoid seats formerly sat upon by menstruating women. This puts a qualifier on the whole argument of god's word. By saying it isn't appropriate or relevant to follow certain parts of the bible (as examplified above) you are saying it is incorrect even though god said so because of logic and rational application of facts.
Logic dictates that the other side of this is agreeing with god's word also with a qualifier. Either there has to be a logical reason to follow god's word or at the least no illogical reason why it should not be followed. Thus it seems to remove the "god's word' argument at least as a sole basis for political policy and interpretation of the bible as it is obviously impacted by peoples opinions and views about certain things.
How this applies to the question of homosexual marriage is simple in my opinion. If there is logical reasons why homosexual marriage would be a positive thing, or at least not a negative thing then it should be allowed even though god was/is clearly anti gay.
To demonstrate this point that homosexual marriage is a positive, or at least not a negative, I will introduce a hypothetical here, from a strictly conservative christian view. Let us for a moment assume that sexuality, in particular homosexuality is a choice and that it is also wrong and condemned by god as wicked and sinful. The facts are as follows:
Being homosexual increases the chances of depression, anxiety and suicidality due to discrimination perpetuated by not being seen as equal to heterosexual (ie marriage rights)
Homosexuals are still 'gay bashed'
Homosexuals as people are seen as less than heterosexuals
Gay relations won't actually be changed by gay marriage rights (just viewed as equal)
Addressing the homosexuality (sexuality in general) as a choice argument I would just like to ask as a woman why wouldn't I choose to be gay? The benefits are:
Significantly less chance of stds
Significantly less prevalence of sexual violence
Significantly less prevalence of domestic violence
(compared to heterosexual relationships and marriages, all shown in scientific studies). This leads into the next issue I noticed while perusing the bible. One of the main verses which condemns homosexuality as sinful also includes condemnation of thieves and adulterers. It also condemns rape. 1/6 women in Australia will be raped or sexually assaulted NUMEROUS times in her life. I am not sure of the exact facts here (I am not sure anyone is) but it stands to reason to assume it is about 1/6 of men perpetrating these acts of violence. So on one hand you have gay marriage which involves 10% of the population and on the other a crime nearly 20% of people are directly involved with in one way or the another. I have however been unable to find any christian groups rallying against rape (please direct me to websites of any that exist).
Homosexuality has been proved to have no direct health issues. Being raped on the other hand generally comes hand in hand with co morbid psychiatric issues such as depression, anxiety, borderline personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse. Why when there are logical reasons not to oppose homosexual marriage and logical reasons to rally against rape do we have people pouring millions of dollars into anti-gay christian compaigns but none that I can find into anti-rape christian compaigns?
I would like to at this point out that in my opinion the idea of marriage as "tradition" also holds no weight. There is little about marriage today that resembles what it was founded on. There is a no faults divorce system and there exists now the choice not to get married and not necessarily be expected to produce children if you do. The one tradition that holds true is marriage as a union between one man and one woman. However the history of marriage as an insitution is based upon the rule of a patriarchy. The "one" man is dominant over the "one" woman. Positioning women as lesser than men and thereby implying their needs and wants are of less concern. This allowed there to be a position where rape wasn't possible in wedlock. Consequently to support traditional gender roles in marriage is to encourage a culture where sexual abuse is widespread, this I believe contradicts the bible.
Convicted sex offenders and child molesters are permitted to get married with no challenge (that I have heard) coming from church groups. Seems to me that a child molester would pose more threat to the welfare of children then does a gay couple, who have the same potential as straight couples for love and compassion and morals.
I talked earlier about there being no health problems directly involved with being homosexual so I would like to now address a constant argument presented by the conservatives against gay marriage. The fact that gay men are more prone (then heterosexuals) to contracting sexual diseases such as aids. However to say this is relevant to the fact that they are homosexual is deeply flawed. It is like stating heterosexual people contract sexual diseases for reasons of their sexuality. If this is the case, then opposite sex marriage shouldn't be allowed either. On the basis of relative std contraction only lesbian marriage and relationships should be allowed as they have the lowest amount of stds.
It has also come to my intention that several conservative church groups believe it is impossible to have morals without following a divine law. However through the application of science morals can certainly be formed and followed quite well. The bible itself is subject to the scrutiny of facts as I stated previously. The other flaw of this as applied to homosexual marriage is that it is used to state that gay people do not follow god's law correctly and are evil. However many straight couples in society do not follow the bible either, not much is said about their inability to make moral judgement. I suppose as long as you conform to a christian view of a relationship without actually being christian you are still seen as a moral person, even though it is asserted that is is not possible for you to do so.
Another point I wanted to raise is the fact that the bible sees women as lesser beings than men. How can a rational person support the right of women to vote (assuming you do) to grant equal rights but deny equal rights to homosexual couples? Returning to the std argument for a moment, I also don't understand the ramifications of std rates in homosexual relationships in regards to gay marriage. I believe they are most likely already sexually active, it is hard to save yourself for marriage when you're not allowed to marry.
I have two side notes to make here.
1) I oppose the use of the word homophobia and propose instead sexualism (allows for sexualities other than homosexuality to be discriminated against)
2) I use the term homosexual throughout this post as it is written in regards to christianity's response to the LGBT movement which has a focus on the homosexual aspect. Although to be politically correct I would prefer if I, and they, used the term "non heterosexual"
I am sceptical that there is any christian that follows god's word (expressed through the bible) in its entirety. I have certainly never encountered anyone who wants to stone adulterers or rape victims who won't marry their rapists to death (for obvious reasons). It applies also to lesser things like a man being forbidden from sitting where a menstruating woman has been. I have heard logical arguments from christians for why; the onset of sanitary protection means disease spread through blood contact isn't an issue anymore, therefore there is no reason to avoid seats formerly sat upon by menstruating women. This puts a qualifier on the whole argument of god's word. By saying it isn't appropriate or relevant to follow certain parts of the bible (as examplified above) you are saying it is incorrect even though god said so because of logic and rational application of facts.
Logic dictates that the other side of this is agreeing with god's word also with a qualifier. Either there has to be a logical reason to follow god's word or at the least no illogical reason why it should not be followed. Thus it seems to remove the "god's word' argument at least as a sole basis for political policy and interpretation of the bible as it is obviously impacted by peoples opinions and views about certain things.
How this applies to the question of homosexual marriage is simple in my opinion. If there is logical reasons why homosexual marriage would be a positive thing, or at least not a negative thing then it should be allowed even though god was/is clearly anti gay.
To demonstrate this point that homosexual marriage is a positive, or at least not a negative, I will introduce a hypothetical here, from a strictly conservative christian view. Let us for a moment assume that sexuality, in particular homosexuality is a choice and that it is also wrong and condemned by god as wicked and sinful. The facts are as follows:
Being homosexual increases the chances of depression, anxiety and suicidality due to discrimination perpetuated by not being seen as equal to heterosexual (ie marriage rights)
Homosexuals are still 'gay bashed'
Homosexuals as people are seen as less than heterosexuals
Gay relations won't actually be changed by gay marriage rights (just viewed as equal)
Addressing the homosexuality (sexuality in general) as a choice argument I would just like to ask as a woman why wouldn't I choose to be gay? The benefits are:
Significantly less chance of stds
Significantly less prevalence of sexual violence
Significantly less prevalence of domestic violence
(compared to heterosexual relationships and marriages, all shown in scientific studies). This leads into the next issue I noticed while perusing the bible. One of the main verses which condemns homosexuality as sinful also includes condemnation of thieves and adulterers. It also condemns rape. 1/6 women in Australia will be raped or sexually assaulted NUMEROUS times in her life. I am not sure of the exact facts here (I am not sure anyone is) but it stands to reason to assume it is about 1/6 of men perpetrating these acts of violence. So on one hand you have gay marriage which involves 10% of the population and on the other a crime nearly 20% of people are directly involved with in one way or the another. I have however been unable to find any christian groups rallying against rape (please direct me to websites of any that exist).
Homosexuality has been proved to have no direct health issues. Being raped on the other hand generally comes hand in hand with co morbid psychiatric issues such as depression, anxiety, borderline personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse. Why when there are logical reasons not to oppose homosexual marriage and logical reasons to rally against rape do we have people pouring millions of dollars into anti-gay christian compaigns but none that I can find into anti-rape christian compaigns?
I would like to at this point out that in my opinion the idea of marriage as "tradition" also holds no weight. There is little about marriage today that resembles what it was founded on. There is a no faults divorce system and there exists now the choice not to get married and not necessarily be expected to produce children if you do. The one tradition that holds true is marriage as a union between one man and one woman. However the history of marriage as an insitution is based upon the rule of a patriarchy. The "one" man is dominant over the "one" woman. Positioning women as lesser than men and thereby implying their needs and wants are of less concern. This allowed there to be a position where rape wasn't possible in wedlock. Consequently to support traditional gender roles in marriage is to encourage a culture where sexual abuse is widespread, this I believe contradicts the bible.
Convicted sex offenders and child molesters are permitted to get married with no challenge (that I have heard) coming from church groups. Seems to me that a child molester would pose more threat to the welfare of children then does a gay couple, who have the same potential as straight couples for love and compassion and morals.
I talked earlier about there being no health problems directly involved with being homosexual so I would like to now address a constant argument presented by the conservatives against gay marriage. The fact that gay men are more prone (then heterosexuals) to contracting sexual diseases such as aids. However to say this is relevant to the fact that they are homosexual is deeply flawed. It is like stating heterosexual people contract sexual diseases for reasons of their sexuality. If this is the case, then opposite sex marriage shouldn't be allowed either. On the basis of relative std contraction only lesbian marriage and relationships should be allowed as they have the lowest amount of stds.
It has also come to my intention that several conservative church groups believe it is impossible to have morals without following a divine law. However through the application of science morals can certainly be formed and followed quite well. The bible itself is subject to the scrutiny of facts as I stated previously. The other flaw of this as applied to homosexual marriage is that it is used to state that gay people do not follow god's law correctly and are evil. However many straight couples in society do not follow the bible either, not much is said about their inability to make moral judgement. I suppose as long as you conform to a christian view of a relationship without actually being christian you are still seen as a moral person, even though it is asserted that is is not possible for you to do so.
Another point I wanted to raise is the fact that the bible sees women as lesser beings than men. How can a rational person support the right of women to vote (assuming you do) to grant equal rights but deny equal rights to homosexual couples? Returning to the std argument for a moment, I also don't understand the ramifications of std rates in homosexual relationships in regards to gay marriage. I believe they are most likely already sexually active, it is hard to save yourself for marriage when you're not allowed to marry.
I have two side notes to make here.
1) I oppose the use of the word homophobia and propose instead sexualism (allows for sexualities other than homosexuality to be discriminated against)
2) I use the term homosexual throughout this post as it is written in regards to christianity's response to the LGBT movement which has a focus on the homosexual aspect. Although to be politically correct I would prefer if I, and they, used the term "non heterosexual"
Thursday, August 19, 2010
On the matter of LGBT
I bring this up because I think it applies quite well to the ideologies of feminism in many ways.
The dogmatic conservatives seem to have taken up a postion of oppression. Whereby they are being oppressed by the oppressed. I just don't see how this is possible. You can't have a situation where the oppressed are oppressing the oppressors. Just like in feminism where the men claim it is they who are being oppressed.
And just like within a feminist context they are claiming that their freedom of expression is being compromised by the gay and lesbian movement. However just as it is wrong to openly (or secretly) hate a woman, a black, an asian it is wrong to hate a homosexual.
The parallels between the movements and the issues in each are startling. So I had a few questions. To those who subscribe to christian dogma and support gender equality (which doesn't seem to have support in the bible) and are anti gay how do you justify this position?
To those who support equality based on gender, race and sexuality what do you think about the issue of anti-gay christians being oppressed?
Is it anti-religious to resent that kind of bigotry? Is it even bad to be anti-religious? A lot of the dogmatic christian ideology seems to subscribe to the idea that homosexuality (but not hetereosexuality) is a choice, so it is therefore a viable target. In much the same way (but actually based on facts) being christian is a choice, and interpretation of the bible in certain ways is a choice. So perhaps by their very own logic it is perfectly moral to "silence" them.
Another point in which I saw anaologys to feminism was education. Namely there were complaints about literature involving homosexuals and sex education involving homosexual studies. Much the same as there is opposition to studies focused on women.
I think the point many conservatives miss is that as a woman, as something (someone?) other than heterosexual I experience oppression, where as they are the oppressing force. As the oppressed it is important for their to be things like girls studies, womens studies and the inclusion of homosexual literature and education in the reading curriculum. This to enable the change of societal values that will lead to more freedom for more people rather than what we have now. I am not forcing my will upon their lives they are forcing theirs into my life, by bitterly not allowing me the right to marry a woman.
At this point I should go into the arguments of why/how homosexuality is not a choice, but I really can't be bothered right now. If it is necessary let me know.
That said. I don't hate christians I hate the bigotry and the cowardice of hiding behind the bible.
The dogmatic conservatives seem to have taken up a postion of oppression. Whereby they are being oppressed by the oppressed. I just don't see how this is possible. You can't have a situation where the oppressed are oppressing the oppressors. Just like in feminism where the men claim it is they who are being oppressed.
And just like within a feminist context they are claiming that their freedom of expression is being compromised by the gay and lesbian movement. However just as it is wrong to openly (or secretly) hate a woman, a black, an asian it is wrong to hate a homosexual.
The parallels between the movements and the issues in each are startling. So I had a few questions. To those who subscribe to christian dogma and support gender equality (which doesn't seem to have support in the bible) and are anti gay how do you justify this position?
To those who support equality based on gender, race and sexuality what do you think about the issue of anti-gay christians being oppressed?
Is it anti-religious to resent that kind of bigotry? Is it even bad to be anti-religious? A lot of the dogmatic christian ideology seems to subscribe to the idea that homosexuality (but not hetereosexuality) is a choice, so it is therefore a viable target. In much the same way (but actually based on facts) being christian is a choice, and interpretation of the bible in certain ways is a choice. So perhaps by their very own logic it is perfectly moral to "silence" them.
Another point in which I saw anaologys to feminism was education. Namely there were complaints about literature involving homosexuals and sex education involving homosexual studies. Much the same as there is opposition to studies focused on women.
I think the point many conservatives miss is that as a woman, as something (someone?) other than heterosexual I experience oppression, where as they are the oppressing force. As the oppressed it is important for their to be things like girls studies, womens studies and the inclusion of homosexual literature and education in the reading curriculum. This to enable the change of societal values that will lead to more freedom for more people rather than what we have now. I am not forcing my will upon their lives they are forcing theirs into my life, by bitterly not allowing me the right to marry a woman.
At this point I should go into the arguments of why/how homosexuality is not a choice, but I really can't be bothered right now. If it is necessary let me know.
That said. I don't hate christians I hate the bigotry and the cowardice of hiding behind the bible.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Rape jokes
I know there is an abundance of feminist blogs addressing this issue, but I couldn't resist putting my two cents in.
Rape jokes can be funny. Example
http://www.theonion.com/articles/raped-environment-led-polluters-on-defense-attorne,817/
The question often brought up is "why can we joke about death and not rape"
It is interesting to deconstruct. Perhaps it is because death happens to everyone. It isn't insulting one group of people. Perhaps also the fact that real rape is often a target for joke comes into play as well.
However there are obviously bans on certain type of jokes. Torture jokes don't seem to be common.
The joke is "rape is just surprise sex!" not "torture is just surprise bdsm!"
It just doesn't have the same oomph because people recognise torture for what it is; wrong.
However in a culture where rape is often considered to be rough sex, it hits a little too close too home when people minimise it by referring to it as sex. This misconception damages rape victims, women and society. Why perpetuate the myth?
Rape jokes can be funny. Example
http://www.theonion.com/articles/raped-environment-led-polluters-on-defense-attorne,817/
The question often brought up is "why can we joke about death and not rape"
It is interesting to deconstruct. Perhaps it is because death happens to everyone. It isn't insulting one group of people. Perhaps also the fact that real rape is often a target for joke comes into play as well.
However there are obviously bans on certain type of jokes. Torture jokes don't seem to be common.
The joke is "rape is just surprise sex!" not "torture is just surprise bdsm!"
It just doesn't have the same oomph because people recognise torture for what it is; wrong.
However in a culture where rape is often considered to be rough sex, it hits a little too close too home when people minimise it by referring to it as sex. This misconception damages rape victims, women and society. Why perpetuate the myth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)