I don't understand Sarah Palin. I really don't. Because she claims she is pro-woman, and yet, she wishes to deny women the right to defend themselves from an attacker.
What am I talking about? Of course, she supports gun ownership. Anyone who can shoot a person attacking them, they can defend themselves.
And yet, she says: "I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued."
Yes. If the mother's life would end. If it would END. Not, mind you, if she would wind up brain-dead or on a ventilator. Not, mind you, if she was left permanently and debilitatingly physically injured. No, the woman's life has to END.
Which means that if a man stabs me in the arm, well, I can shoot him, because he's threatening my health and safety. But if I'm pregnant and I discover I have cancer, and if I wait nine months, I'll live but I will have to get a double masectomy that I could avoid by earlier treatment, I can't be rid of the being that is threatening my health and safety. In fact, I could kill a man-- or even a child, really, it's still self defense-- because he cut off my breasts but I can't kill the child inside me that is preventing me from being able to get treatment.
Or if I have a condition that means I can't go under anesthesia or that I am allergic to an epidural, and I have placenta previa and need a C-section, well, I would survive a C-section without anesthesia, but at what cost?
Or maybe I am severely bipolar, and I wind up hurting myself or someone else because to take my medications would result in the death of my fetus?
I do understand when people argue that Roe vs. Wade should not include social and economic concerns to the woman's well-being. I get that, I really do. I don't agree with it because I believe the baby's soul enters the baby much later in pregnancy, but I do understand the concern, and would probably feel the same way if I believed the baby got their soul earlier.
But you can't limit it to life or death. There are so many things that are actual, real, physical or mental concerns (and by mental I mean psychiatric) that would mean a woman's safety and sometimes the safety of those around her would be in danger if she continued the pregnancy. Even if her life wouldn't end, she could suffer permanent disability, or kill someone else.
As long as there is a self-defense charge, a woman must have the right to abort if her health is in danger, even if her life is not. To do otherwise is to deny women the right to protect themselves from harm. We allow people to use the self-defense charge when they kill someone even if the person was psychotic, not aware they were harming someone, or did so on accident, so the argument that a baby is not being malevolent does not hold up. If the woman's health or safety is in any danger, it is self defense and must be legal. And if you think otherwise, you really can't call yourself pro-woman.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, September 5, 2008
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Nuclear Terrorism on Mecca
Here's an interesting topic Ryter and I were discussing last night.
What would happen if an American (or Israeli) dropped a nuke on Mecca?
Not the country-- an individual. The US government wouldn't do that unless something specific provoked it, like Saudi Arabian Islamic terrorists nuked Washington, and even then it would be doubtful. Israel would wait until they were nuked first. But if a terrorist group of Islamic extremists could fly planes into the World Trade Center, an American anti-Muslim extremist could theoretically smuggle in or drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca.
Then what?
Well, if it was an American, I'd guess the US would immediately find all contacts of the individual and turn over anyone who had knowledge of or involvement in the plan for trial and execution. We'd also send as much aid as possible to the area, trying to make reparations and prove to the world that it wasn't our doing and we don't support terrorists.
Meanwhile the entire Muslim world would hate us anyway, and eventually, a world war would break out.
And if it was an Israeli, I'd guess Israel would also make reparations, but in a kind of half-hearted way, due to international pressure. Then there would be a war between every single Muslim nation and Israel, and possibly with the US allying with Israel.
Meanwhile, what would happen to Mecca?
I am reminded of the Ganges River in India. Hinduism states that the Ganges is sacred, and bathing in it helps a person to obtain salvation. Drinking the water at the end of your life will take your soul to heaven. Spreading of ashes there is also holy.
But the Ganges River itself runs through some of the most populous areas of India. It is thus filled with untreated raw sewage, runoff from the leather industries, partially burnt or unburnt human remains, and livestock corpses. It is a steaming cesspool of filth and disease, and the Hindus still come. They come, they bathe, they get sick. They touch this vile, polluted, revolting river because they consider it holy.
So I believe the Muslims would still go to Mecca. They would go to the radioactive ruins of Mecca and then die slowly of radiation poisoning. Not all of them, but many. So nuking a site that people of a faith MUST go to, the terrorist would be committing a crime against humanity ten times worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because you would kill not only the million or so inhabitants, but also the pilgrims (especially if it was during the hajj, with four million pilgrims), and give radiation poisoning to millions of Muslims who would try to go at some point before the fallout cleared. Most Muslims would not go before they had children and were old and able to die, so the population would not decrease.
The trouble is that the ground itself is holy. It's not just the Black Stone and the Zamzam Well and the Kaaba. That is the land where Muhammad walked, and thus, it would be holy even if to touch it was to guarantee a long, slow, painful death.
-----------------------------------------
I have to say, if I ruled the world, I would turn Mecca into the Muslim version of the Holy See-- a separate, unique state not controlled by the country it is within. I'd also say they had to allow non-Muslims to visit (but not during the hajj, because of the sheer volumes of pilgrims they already must handle). I would love to see Mecca some day-- I would even wear a hijab for respect if it was asked of me-- but I never will be able to, because Saudi Arabia has banned all non-Muslims from entering the city. Even if that were not the case, I would be hesitant to go anywhere in Saudi Arabia because of Sharia law.
It saddens me to think of all the ancient holy cities-- Mecca, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Cairo, and more-- that I would not be safe in as a woman, as a American, and as a non-religious person. So much history, and it is trapped in a place filled with hate and war. It feels sometimes like the land there is just so sick of dealing with humanity that it almost NEEDS fallout just to give it a chance to breathe, to take a break from tens of thousands of years of civilization. And yet, what we would lose would be unbearable, for while Africa is where we were born, the Middle East is where we grew, and where we became what we are today.
What would happen if an American (or Israeli) dropped a nuke on Mecca?
Not the country-- an individual. The US government wouldn't do that unless something specific provoked it, like Saudi Arabian Islamic terrorists nuked Washington, and even then it would be doubtful. Israel would wait until they were nuked first. But if a terrorist group of Islamic extremists could fly planes into the World Trade Center, an American anti-Muslim extremist could theoretically smuggle in or drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca.
Then what?Well, if it was an American, I'd guess the US would immediately find all contacts of the individual and turn over anyone who had knowledge of or involvement in the plan for trial and execution. We'd also send as much aid as possible to the area, trying to make reparations and prove to the world that it wasn't our doing and we don't support terrorists.
Meanwhile the entire Muslim world would hate us anyway, and eventually, a world war would break out.
And if it was an Israeli, I'd guess Israel would also make reparations, but in a kind of half-hearted way, due to international pressure. Then there would be a war between every single Muslim nation and Israel, and possibly with the US allying with Israel.
Meanwhile, what would happen to Mecca?
I am reminded of the Ganges River in India. Hinduism states that the Ganges is sacred, and bathing in it helps a person to obtain salvation. Drinking the water at the end of your life will take your soul to heaven. Spreading of ashes there is also holy.But the Ganges River itself runs through some of the most populous areas of India. It is thus filled with untreated raw sewage, runoff from the leather industries, partially burnt or unburnt human remains, and livestock corpses. It is a steaming cesspool of filth and disease, and the Hindus still come. They come, they bathe, they get sick. They touch this vile, polluted, revolting river because they consider it holy.
So I believe the Muslims would still go to Mecca. They would go to the radioactive ruins of Mecca and then die slowly of radiation poisoning. Not all of them, but many. So nuking a site that people of a faith MUST go to, the terrorist would be committing a crime against humanity ten times worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because you would kill not only the million or so inhabitants, but also the pilgrims (especially if it was during the hajj, with four million pilgrims), and give radiation poisoning to millions of Muslims who would try to go at some point before the fallout cleared. Most Muslims would not go before they had children and were old and able to die, so the population would not decrease. The trouble is that the ground itself is holy. It's not just the Black Stone and the Zamzam Well and the Kaaba. That is the land where Muhammad walked, and thus, it would be holy even if to touch it was to guarantee a long, slow, painful death.
I have to say, if I ruled the world, I would turn Mecca into the Muslim version of the Holy See-- a separate, unique state not controlled by the country it is within. I'd also say they had to allow non-Muslims to visit (but not during the hajj, because of the sheer volumes of pilgrims they already must handle). I would love to see Mecca some day-- I would even wear a hijab for respect if it was asked of me-- but I never will be able to, because Saudi Arabia has banned all non-Muslims from entering the city. Even if that were not the case, I would be hesitant to go anywhere in Saudi Arabia because of Sharia law. It saddens me to think of all the ancient holy cities-- Mecca, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Cairo, and more-- that I would not be safe in as a woman, as a American, and as a non-religious person. So much history, and it is trapped in a place filled with hate and war. It feels sometimes like the land there is just so sick of dealing with humanity that it almost NEEDS fallout just to give it a chance to breathe, to take a break from tens of thousands of years of civilization. And yet, what we would lose would be unbearable, for while Africa is where we were born, the Middle East is where we grew, and where we became what we are today.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Patriarchy : Radical Feminists :: Communist Espionage : 1950's Politicians
This is very long, but it's been building up in me for a while now.
The definition of a patriarchy: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly: control by men of a disproportionately large share of power.
Is Western white middle-class and upper-class a patriarchy?
Well, let's examine it. Legal dependence of wives-- in Western society, wives are legally independent. Reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line-- well, descent, yes. But that's just a name and if a father is absent or has a dumb name kids can be named for their mother. It's really more the choice of the parents, it's just that traditionalism says it's the guy's name. But moving on, inheritance in our society unless specified goes to the nearest living relative-- the oldest child or a sibling-- and doesn't have to remain in the male line.
Is the father the head of the clan or family? Well, let's think. Mothers are usually working. They are also expected to be the "mature" parent-- dads can play with their kids and be lovable goofballs, but moms have to be authoritarian. In most households today, the mom handles the day-to-day budget (because she buys food and household necessities); she raises the children and oversees their well being; she controls when the couple has sex; heck, she even gets final say in decorating. Now, I'm talking absolutes-- we don't all have this dynamic-- but it is what society, particularly the media, tells us it should be. Mothers "should" be calm, cool, collected, and capable of both working and managing the household, and they should reign supreme in their homes. For white, Western, middle-class and upper-class society, the mother is the head of the family.
According to the strict sociological definition of a patriarchy, we are not a patriarchy. We are a mixture. Aspects of our culture are patriarchal still, like names. Other aspects are egalitarian, like inheritance and dependency laws. And some have even become matriarchal, like who is the head of the household.
Of course, there are some subsets in our culture where not the case, but the fact is that unless you are a devout religious person, uneducated, of a minority that has been traditionally uneducated, an immigrant, or not living in Western culture, you do NOT live in a sociological patriarchy no matter how much you want to complain about one.
But what of the second part, the broader definition? "Control by men of a disproportionately large share of power?" It is undeniable that more men that women are in political office. But why? We have ONE presidential candidate this year who is female. People don't tend to vote solely on the sex of their candidate-- but they can't vote for a woman if a woman doesn't run. I look at the average ballot and there are three or four candidates and maybe one is female. Women aren't running for office-- they are choosing not to. Therefore, until you can prove that when equal numbers of men and women run for public office men will STILL control the political power in disproportionate numbers, I will withhold judgment about it. However, I suspect that were that the case, we would have a much more egalitarian situation.
Why aren't women in politics, then? Surely it is because the men are oppressing them somehow!
...Well, not really. Women avoid politics for a variety of reasons, but the most common ones I've heard are "I wouldn't do national politics because I'd be away from home too much," "I don't want to run for office because politics are nasty and I don't want to have every bit of my past scrutinized," "I don't want that kind of attention, if I become famous I want it to be for _________," and "I wouldn't get elected because I am _______ (a minority/an atheist/uneducated/not pretty enough for TV/too liberal for my area/too conservative for my area)."
Which are all valid reasons to not want to run for office, and the difference is that while many women take them as a sign they shouldn't run, many men just ignore them, and put up with their past being scrutinized, and put up with the attention. I don't know why that is the case-- social conditioning or hardwiring-- but it is the case.
Still, if we live in a political patriarchy you can't blame the men. Most of them would be happy to vote for you if you ran and agreed with them on the issues. Power doesn't fall into anyone's lap, you have to go out and GET it.
And economic power? Many wealthy people in this nation are men. That's because as a WHOLE (not individuals), men are more likely to go into business, or computer science and then invent something, and that's where the money is. Women are more likely to go to college (we make up a larger percentage of college attendees than men except in the computer sciences, theoretical math, and physics) and get jobs that relate to their specific major, but then once they start working, what happens?
Women have to take time off for maternity leave if they want
biological children. That's obvious. Most men don't (can't, sometimes won't) take paternity leave, though, and that's a big chunk of time. Then because the women are the head of the household and society says they need to work AND raise children properly, they chose jobs for their flexible hours and benefits, not for their ambitiousness. Naturally those jobs are not as likely to get them up into the CEO rankings. As terrible as it sounds, from an economic position paying women less for the same work makes sense-- women are the ones who stay home to care for sick kids, they have maternity leave, they avoid overtime to get home, and they aren't as likely to push for advancement. This is not universal, but it is common enough that you have to consider the employer's position (note: I'm not saying having a wage gap for the same work isn't wrong).
Some feminists will counter by saying "Women should not have to meet the default standard set by men." So should men have to meet the default set by women? At times, sure. Mothers and fathers should spend equal time off work with sick kids, for example. But women have set an impossibly HIGH female standard-- not just impossible for men, but also for WOMEN. Why are so many women feeling stressed out, overworked, put upon? Because they are fulfilling the "
superwoman" ideal, the high-powered executive mom who comes home, cares for the kids and maintains the household, and is always composed and cool-headed. Women will make themselves miserable living like that. Should they go back to being housewives? Of course not, it makes no sense economically to have half your healthy adult population staying in the home, and many women would be even less happy in that situation. But instead, women need to change the image of themselves-- they need to make themselves seem LESS together, LESS perfect, and meanwhile encourage their husbands or male partners to take a more active role in the household-- which doesn't mean giving him assigned chores to do, it means letting them pick wall colors and deciding together if you have the time or money to take little Susie to ballet class twice a week. And they need to teach their sons and daughters that maintaining the household and raising the children is not the province of EITHER parent. In a few generations, you'd see equality in home life-- and once you have men having the same demands at home as women do now, the workplace will be increasingly accommodating towards parents and potential parents, and men and women will see more equality there.
So my points are:
1. Westernized, educated, middle or upper class Americans (or Western Europeans, Australians, etc) are not living in a strict patriarchy.
2. In the broader sense, perhaps we are living in a patriarchy, but that can change easily in time if women approach the issue from the right direction-- which does NOT mean sitting around bemoaning "The Patriarchy!" or fire-bombing the homes of conservative men in the public sphere (however fun the latter might be).
What should women do to affect change?
1. Stop complaining. It alienates people and does little good. Instead, look for solutions.
2. Start small. The smaller the change, the more likely it will slide past the notice of most people-- and the more likely that you will later get what you REALLY want. Exceptions are for life-and-death situations, like fighting domestic violence or hate crimes.
3. Go into politics. Want to change the world? Your vote's not THAT important (but vote anyway). But if you go into politics, you can be a voice for many people. Plus, then you get more women in politics, which is what feminism wants. Even if you don't think you'll get elected, run anyway. Get your opinion out there. And encourage other women to run too, even if it's just for mayor of Podunksville.
4. Go into jobs that will make you a lot of money, and do a damn good job at them. That's how you'll get economic power. Be the next Donald Trump with a business empire or invent a processing system that makes you billions. The only thing holding women back from economic power is ambition. And when you do start making billions, start giving it all away-- want to be loved and remembered by millions? Be an Oprah or a Mother Teresa; and Oprah doesn't have to trudge through shit unless she wants to.
5. Don't try to be superwoman (unless you want to be Oprah). No one seems to get that this attitude is not helpful to feminism. Women can't set the standards for themselves higher than the standards for men, because if they fail, it makes them seem weak. So split household management with your spouse (not just chores). Don't take charge at home unless you have a higher standard of cleanliness you need maintained. Your life won't be perfect, but you will be helping a movement.
6. When it comes to household tasks, sons and daughters are equal. They'll live alone someday, they need to do everything. Teach (or have your spouse teach) them to do their own laundry properly, to vacuum and pick up after themselves, to scrub toilets and mow the lawn. Teach them to cook, too, as it's helpful for #5 when your kids can make you dinner after you get back from work. Household management can and should be gender-neutral, as I said before.
7. Never, ever assume you are oppressed. Instead, assume you are on top of the world, the one in power. Besides making you feel better, this will make other people treat you like you are in control too. It sounds like just "positive thinking" but people assume that whoever is in charge will make themselves known as such and will know what to do. It works.
8. Get into show business, and write/produce movies or TV shows where the man is capable and intelligent, but the woman is not weak. I want to see one TV couple, somewhere, where neither partner is weaker than the other. I'm sick of bumbling goofball dads whose kids don't listen to them, but I don't want to go back to the strong man of the house and the weak, delicate woman who cooks his dinners and tells the kids "Just wait 'til your father gets home!" either. Kids absorb so much of what they perceive as a "normal" family from what they see on TV (I know, scary, huh?), so if the media was more egalitarian, kids would pick up on that. But that can't be done as a gimmick, either.
That and a few generations could change the world. Religious revival is going out anyway.
Now, I want to make one thing clear-- this does not apply to many, many women out there. The vast overwhelming majority of 3rd world and developing nations are truly patriarchal. I do not
deny that Saudi Arabia is a patriarchy or even, say, parts of Eastern Europe. It also doesn't apply to immigrant families and pockets of immigrant communities (immigrants themselves and a few generations removed if they don't Westernize), because many of them take the values and family dynamics from the "old country." It also only minimally applies to anyone who is uneducated, especially if they are uneducated and a minority, because I don't know enough about their lives to fairly discuss them. And I acknowledge that in some places religious communities are patriarchal and that is passed on to the mainstream in that area.
But your average "FIGHT THE PATRIARCHY!" feminist is white, educated, from a middle or upper class background, and living in the Western world. They are not truly oppressed, and by focusing on their own "oppression" instead of working to help others who genuinely need help, they are doing the world a great disservice.
Read More:
Feminism 101 talks about the concept of patriarchy as perceived by feminists.
Patriarchy as defined by Wikipedia.
More on feminist views of patriarchy.
Dads on TV, courtesy of MSN.com.
Children and television-- I think it's a bit outdated, but the point-- that kids learn gender roles from TV-- stands.
The Victorian woman in the black and white photo is Victoria Woodhull, a very interesting character who was more than a little ahead of her time.
The definition of a patriarchy: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly: control by men of a disproportionately large share of power.
Is Western white middle-class and upper-class a patriarchy?
Well, let's examine it. Legal dependence of wives-- in Western society, wives are legally independent. Reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line-- well, descent, yes. But that's just a name and if a father is absent or has a dumb name kids can be named for their mother. It's really more the choice of the parents, it's just that traditionalism says it's the guy's name. But moving on, inheritance in our society unless specified goes to the nearest living relative-- the oldest child or a sibling-- and doesn't have to remain in the male line.
Is the father the head of the clan or family? Well, let's think. Mothers are usually working. They are also expected to be the "mature" parent-- dads can play with their kids and be lovable goofballs, but moms have to be authoritarian. In most households today, the mom handles the day-to-day budget (because she buys food and household necessities); she raises the children and oversees their well being; she controls when the couple has sex; heck, she even gets final say in decorating. Now, I'm talking absolutes-- we don't all have this dynamic-- but it is what society, particularly the media, tells us it should be. Mothers "should" be calm, cool, collected, and capable of both working and managing the household, and they should reign supreme in their homes. For white, Western, middle-class and upper-class society, the mother is the head of the family.According to the strict sociological definition of a patriarchy, we are not a patriarchy. We are a mixture. Aspects of our culture are patriarchal still, like names. Other aspects are egalitarian, like inheritance and dependency laws. And some have even become matriarchal, like who is the head of the household.
Of course, there are some subsets in our culture where not the case, but the fact is that unless you are a devout religious person, uneducated, of a minority that has been traditionally uneducated, an immigrant, or not living in Western culture, you do NOT live in a sociological patriarchy no matter how much you want to complain about one.
But what of the second part, the broader definition? "Control by men of a disproportionately large share of power?" It is undeniable that more men that women are in political office. But why? We have ONE presidential candidate this year who is female. People don't tend to vote solely on the sex of their candidate-- but they can't vote for a woman if a woman doesn't run. I look at the average ballot and there are three or four candidates and maybe one is female. Women aren't running for office-- they are choosing not to. Therefore, until you can prove that when equal numbers of men and women run for public office men will STILL control the political power in disproportionate numbers, I will withhold judgment about it. However, I suspect that were that the case, we would have a much more egalitarian situation.Why aren't women in politics, then? Surely it is because the men are oppressing them somehow!
...Well, not really. Women avoid politics for a variety of reasons, but the most common ones I've heard are "I wouldn't do national politics because I'd be away from home too much," "I don't want to run for office because politics are nasty and I don't want to have every bit of my past scrutinized," "I don't want that kind of attention, if I become famous I want it to be for _________," and "I wouldn't get elected because I am _______ (a minority/an atheist/uneducated/not pretty enough for TV/too liberal for my area/too conservative for my area)."Which are all valid reasons to not want to run for office, and the difference is that while many women take them as a sign they shouldn't run, many men just ignore them, and put up with their past being scrutinized, and put up with the attention. I don't know why that is the case-- social conditioning or hardwiring-- but it is the case.
Still, if we live in a political patriarchy you can't blame the men. Most of them would be happy to vote for you if you ran and agreed with them on the issues. Power doesn't fall into anyone's lap, you have to go out and GET it.
And economic power? Many wealthy people in this nation are men. That's because as a WHOLE (not individuals), men are more likely to go into business, or computer science and then invent something, and that's where the money is. Women are more likely to go to college (we make up a larger percentage of college attendees than men except in the computer sciences, theoretical math, and physics) and get jobs that relate to their specific major, but then once they start working, what happens?
Women have to take time off for maternity leave if they want
biological children. That's obvious. Most men don't (can't, sometimes won't) take paternity leave, though, and that's a big chunk of time. Then because the women are the head of the household and society says they need to work AND raise children properly, they chose jobs for their flexible hours and benefits, not for their ambitiousness. Naturally those jobs are not as likely to get them up into the CEO rankings. As terrible as it sounds, from an economic position paying women less for the same work makes sense-- women are the ones who stay home to care for sick kids, they have maternity leave, they avoid overtime to get home, and they aren't as likely to push for advancement. This is not universal, but it is common enough that you have to consider the employer's position (note: I'm not saying having a wage gap for the same work isn't wrong).Some feminists will counter by saying "Women should not have to meet the default standard set by men." So should men have to meet the default set by women? At times, sure. Mothers and fathers should spend equal time off work with sick kids, for example. But women have set an impossibly HIGH female standard-- not just impossible for men, but also for WOMEN. Why are so many women feeling stressed out, overworked, put upon? Because they are fulfilling the "
superwoman" ideal, the high-powered executive mom who comes home, cares for the kids and maintains the household, and is always composed and cool-headed. Women will make themselves miserable living like that. Should they go back to being housewives? Of course not, it makes no sense economically to have half your healthy adult population staying in the home, and many women would be even less happy in that situation. But instead, women need to change the image of themselves-- they need to make themselves seem LESS together, LESS perfect, and meanwhile encourage their husbands or male partners to take a more active role in the household-- which doesn't mean giving him assigned chores to do, it means letting them pick wall colors and deciding together if you have the time or money to take little Susie to ballet class twice a week. And they need to teach their sons and daughters that maintaining the household and raising the children is not the province of EITHER parent. In a few generations, you'd see equality in home life-- and once you have men having the same demands at home as women do now, the workplace will be increasingly accommodating towards parents and potential parents, and men and women will see more equality there.So my points are:
1. Westernized, educated, middle or upper class Americans (or Western Europeans, Australians, etc) are not living in a strict patriarchy.2. In the broader sense, perhaps we are living in a patriarchy, but that can change easily in time if women approach the issue from the right direction-- which does NOT mean sitting around bemoaning "The Patriarchy!" or fire-bombing the homes of conservative men in the public sphere (however fun the latter might be).
What should women do to affect change?
1. Stop complaining. It alienates people and does little good. Instead, look for solutions.
2. Start small. The smaller the change, the more likely it will slide past the notice of most people-- and the more likely that you will later get what you REALLY want. Exceptions are for life-and-death situations, like fighting domestic violence or hate crimes.
3. Go into politics. Want to change the world? Your vote's not THAT important (but vote anyway). But if you go into politics, you can be a voice for many people. Plus, then you get more women in politics, which is what feminism wants. Even if you don't think you'll get elected, run anyway. Get your opinion out there. And encourage other women to run too, even if it's just for mayor of Podunksville.4. Go into jobs that will make you a lot of money, and do a damn good job at them. That's how you'll get economic power. Be the next Donald Trump with a business empire or invent a processing system that makes you billions. The only thing holding women back from economic power is ambition. And when you do start making billions, start giving it all away-- want to be loved and remembered by millions? Be an Oprah or a Mother Teresa; and Oprah doesn't have to trudge through shit unless she wants to.
5. Don't try to be superwoman (unless you want to be Oprah). No one seems to get that this attitude is not helpful to feminism. Women can't set the standards for themselves higher than the standards for men, because if they fail, it makes them seem weak. So split household management with your spouse (not just chores). Don't take charge at home unless you have a higher standard of cleanliness you need maintained. Your life won't be perfect, but you will be helping a movement.6. When it comes to household tasks, sons and daughters are equal. They'll live alone someday, they need to do everything. Teach (or have your spouse teach) them to do their own laundry properly, to vacuum and pick up after themselves, to scrub toilets and mow the lawn. Teach them to cook, too, as it's helpful for #5 when your kids can make you dinner after you get back from work. Household management can and should be gender-neutral, as I said before.
7. Never, ever assume you are oppressed. Instead, assume you are on top of the world, the one in power. Besides making you feel better, this will make other people treat you like you are in control too. It sounds like just "positive thinking" but people assume that whoever is in charge will make themselves known as such and will know what to do. It works.
8. Get into show business, and write/produce movies or TV shows where the man is capable and intelligent, but the woman is not weak. I want to see one TV couple, somewhere, where neither partner is weaker than the other. I'm sick of bumbling goofball dads whose kids don't listen to them, but I don't want to go back to the strong man of the house and the weak, delicate woman who cooks his dinners and tells the kids "Just wait 'til your father gets home!" either. Kids absorb so much of what they perceive as a "normal" family from what they see on TV (I know, scary, huh?), so if the media was more egalitarian, kids would pick up on that. But that can't be done as a gimmick, either.That and a few generations could change the world. Religious revival is going out anyway.
Now, I want to make one thing clear-- this does not apply to many, many women out there. The vast overwhelming majority of 3rd world and developing nations are truly patriarchal. I do not
deny that Saudi Arabia is a patriarchy or even, say, parts of Eastern Europe. It also doesn't apply to immigrant families and pockets of immigrant communities (immigrants themselves and a few generations removed if they don't Westernize), because many of them take the values and family dynamics from the "old country." It also only minimally applies to anyone who is uneducated, especially if they are uneducated and a minority, because I don't know enough about their lives to fairly discuss them. And I acknowledge that in some places religious communities are patriarchal and that is passed on to the mainstream in that area.But your average "FIGHT THE PATRIARCHY!" feminist is white, educated, from a middle or upper class background, and living in the Western world. They are not truly oppressed, and by focusing on their own "oppression" instead of working to help others who genuinely need help, they are doing the world a great disservice.
Read More:
Feminism 101 talks about the concept of patriarchy as perceived by feminists.
Patriarchy as defined by Wikipedia.
More on feminist views of patriarchy.
Dads on TV, courtesy of MSN.com.
Children and television-- I think it's a bit outdated, but the point-- that kids learn gender roles from TV-- stands.
The Victorian woman in the black and white photo is Victoria Woodhull, a very interesting character who was more than a little ahead of her time.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Closing Comments on the 2008 Election Series
Meh. I'd do more Democratic candidates but I'm just doing the ones everyone seems to be talking about. I could do Edwards but I didn't like Edwards last time he was running and I don't like him now, and that's only partially because almost no one who wants to go into the medical field or is in it now likes him because he was once an ambulance chaser.
I think if the Republican party runs McCain or Romney, most voters will go Democrat. They are too reminiscent of Bush and the neocons. I'd vote Clinton or Obama over them, of course. If they run Giuliani, the Dems may have a challenge. They'll probably run Clinton, she's more popular.
My guesses:
Giuliani vs. Clinton: Could go either way, but there might be a knee-jerk NOT REPUBLICAN vote for Clinton. Also could be a knee-jerk NOT HILLARY vote for Giuliani. I'd probably vote for Giuliani just because Congress will be Democratic and Clinton + Democratic Congress = WAY too much power.
Giuliani vs. Obama: Obama is a pro-war Democrat who doesn't really seem to understand fiscal policy. Giuliani is a socially liberal Republican. There may be a knee-jerk NOT REPUBLICAN vote for Obama but then again a lot of people vote Republican by default even still. I would debate it a lot and likely go with Obama, because he hasn't come out in favor of executive authority like Giuliani, and because I think I disagree with Obama a little bit less than I disagree with Giuliani, which is a depressing thing to vote about.
I don't really agree with any of the candidates. I really want someone who pushes for spending cuts and peace talks, who gets along with other countries even if he or she ideologically disagrees with them. Someone who wants to focus on the deficit first and foremost, and once spending is cut in other areas, THEN will start to implement other programs. Someone who is socially liberal but who will leave most issues up to the states unless doing so involves the restriction of human rights.
I think if the Republican party runs McCain or Romney, most voters will go Democrat. They are too reminiscent of Bush and the neocons. I'd vote Clinton or Obama over them, of course. If they run Giuliani, the Dems may have a challenge. They'll probably run Clinton, she's more popular.
My guesses:
Giuliani vs. Clinton: Could go either way, but there might be a knee-jerk NOT REPUBLICAN vote for Clinton. Also could be a knee-jerk NOT HILLARY vote for Giuliani. I'd probably vote for Giuliani just because Congress will be Democratic and Clinton + Democratic Congress = WAY too much power.
Giuliani vs. Obama: Obama is a pro-war Democrat who doesn't really seem to understand fiscal policy. Giuliani is a socially liberal Republican. There may be a knee-jerk NOT REPUBLICAN vote for Obama but then again a lot of people vote Republican by default even still. I would debate it a lot and likely go with Obama, because he hasn't come out in favor of executive authority like Giuliani, and because I think I disagree with Obama a little bit less than I disagree with Giuliani, which is a depressing thing to vote about.
I don't really agree with any of the candidates. I really want someone who pushes for spending cuts and peace talks, who gets along with other countries even if he or she ideologically disagrees with them. Someone who wants to focus on the deficit first and foremost, and once spending is cut in other areas, THEN will start to implement other programs. Someone who is socially liberal but who will leave most issues up to the states unless doing so involves the restriction of human rights.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Part 3 of the 2008 Politics Series
I'll do the last two Republican candidates together because there's no way I'd vote for either of them, and here's why.
-------------------------------------------------------
Mitt Romney:
1. He is very anti-abortion, though he may allow the states to decide. That's uncertain.
2. He supports No Child Left Behind, charter schools and vouchers. As stated before, I pretty much hate all those ideas.
3. He is pro-abstinence-only education, which is moronic. Abstinence-only education DOESN'T WORK. Duh.
4. His stance on environmental issues is basically "if it immediately hurts humans, stop it-- but if it doesn't, and we can get money off of it, then screw long-term effects!"
5. He opposes rights for homosexuals.
6. He would push to limit stem cell research, which could save millions of lives.
7. He opposes medical marijuana.
8. He approves of Guantanamo, and will not allow the prisoners there to have judicial review, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention and besides, it makes the US look like total hypocrites because we insist that everyone treat people in their countries a certain way and yet we don't do it ourselves.
9. He would increase troops in Iraq and continue that war.
10. He would refuse to meet with leaders of nations whom he disagreed with, or who are dictators. Now, I'm not saying we should appease every dictator who comes along, but there is a lot to be said for opening diplomatic relations with countries, even if we don't really like their methods.
I agree with his stance against censorship, against prayer in public schools, for encouraging tech research (well, it's better than other uses of the money),and that he opposes amnesty. None of those are strong enough to make me want to vote for him, ever. He's conservative on social issues AND he's a war hawk.
-------------------------------------------------------
As for the final Republican, John McCain:
1. He wants to continue the Iraq war, increasing troops, and wouldn't be opposed to invading Iran.
2. He is completely pro-Israel, and anti-Palestine. I'd rather we had a President who left Israel/Palestine alone, because there's too much emotion and religion wrapped up in that, and we don't need to be involved. Not that we should stop aiding Israel, but we should stop being so overt about it.
3. He would keep Guatanamo Bay as it is, like Romney would.
4. He is very pro-drug legislation, which means no medical marijuana and more of the "War on Drugs."
5. He supports school vouchers.
6. HE BELIEVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. Gah. *headdesk*
7. He wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and he is against birth control and contraceptives. He would push to redefine not just fetuses, but embryos as well (an embryo is what you call it between fertilization and the 8th week of gestation) as people. He also is a supporter of abstinence-only education, which means that not only can young women not abort the mistakes but they won't know how to prevent them in the first place.
8. He wants to ban flag desecration, which is just stupid.
9. He favors amnesty for illegals. I've always thought they should amend the law so that you are not a citizen if you are born in this country but your parents are here illegally, and make it easier to get work visas. Then continue deporting and more importantly protecting the borders. With the ability to deport whole families instead of just parents, and the fact that many illegal aliens come here to give birth so their children can live in this country, that would cut down on the number of illegals. Amnesty just says "Yeah... I know we said you can't come, but we'll let it slide this time. But in the future, YOU CAN'T COME." Any kid knows that when a parent talks like that you can get away with it any time you want.
In fairness, he does at least want to allow stem cell research (unlike Romney), though he would regulate it, and favors merit-pay for teachers (a strategy I like as long as they get MORE pay for doing well, not LESS pay for doing poorly). He also would leave the gay marriage question up to the states. He opposes drilling in Alaska and ethanol subsidies, which is good, and wants to reduce the deficit. But none of that can make me ignore the fact that he wants to attack science education AND sex education and make it illegal to even take a morning-after pill. He's religious right. No thanks.
Mitt Romney:
1. He is very anti-abortion, though he may allow the states to decide. That's uncertain.
2. He supports No Child Left Behind, charter schools and vouchers. As stated before, I pretty much hate all those ideas.
3. He is pro-abstinence-only education, which is moronic. Abstinence-only education DOESN'T WORK. Duh.
4. His stance on environmental issues is basically "if it immediately hurts humans, stop it-- but if it doesn't, and we can get money off of it, then screw long-term effects!"5. He opposes rights for homosexuals.
6. He would push to limit stem cell research, which could save millions of lives.
7. He opposes medical marijuana.
8. He approves of Guantanamo, and will not allow the prisoners there to have judicial review, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention and besides, it makes the US look like total hypocrites because we insist that everyone treat people in their countries a certain way and yet we don't do it ourselves.
9. He would increase troops in Iraq and continue that war.
10. He would refuse to meet with leaders of nations whom he disagreed with, or who are dictators. Now, I'm not saying we should appease every dictator who comes along, but there is a lot to be said for opening diplomatic relations with countries, even if we don't really like their methods.
I agree with his stance against censorship, against prayer in public schools, for encouraging tech research (well, it's better than other uses of the money),and that he opposes amnesty. None of those are strong enough to make me want to vote for him, ever. He's conservative on social issues AND he's a war hawk.
As for the final Republican, John McCain:
1. He wants to continue the Iraq war, increasing troops, and wouldn't be opposed to invading Iran.
2. He is completely pro-Israel, and anti-Palestine. I'd rather we had a President who left Israel/Palestine alone, because there's too much emotion and religion wrapped up in that, and we don't need to be involved. Not that we should stop aiding Israel, but we should stop being so overt about it.3. He would keep Guatanamo Bay as it is, like Romney would.
4. He is very pro-drug legislation, which means no medical marijuana and more of the "War on Drugs."
5. He supports school vouchers.
6. HE BELIEVES INTELLIGENT DESIGN SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. Gah. *headdesk*
7. He wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and he is against birth control and contraceptives. He would push to redefine not just fetuses, but embryos as well (an embryo is what you call it between fertilization and the 8th week of gestation) as people. He also is a supporter of abstinence-only education, which means that not only can young women not abort the mistakes but they won't know how to prevent them in the first place.
8. He wants to ban flag desecration, which is just stupid.
9. He favors amnesty for illegals. I've always thought they should amend the law so that you are not a citizen if you are born in this country but your parents are here illegally, and make it easier to get work visas. Then continue deporting and more importantly protecting the borders. With the ability to deport whole families instead of just parents, and the fact that many illegal aliens come here to give birth so their children can live in this country, that would cut down on the number of illegals. Amnesty just says "Yeah... I know we said you can't come, but we'll let it slide this time. But in the future, YOU CAN'T COME." Any kid knows that when a parent talks like that you can get away with it any time you want.In fairness, he does at least want to allow stem cell research (unlike Romney), though he would regulate it, and favors merit-pay for teachers (a strategy I like as long as they get MORE pay for doing well, not LESS pay for doing poorly). He also would leave the gay marriage question up to the states. He opposes drilling in Alaska and ethanol subsidies, which is good, and wants to reduce the deficit. But none of that can make me ignore the fact that he wants to attack science education AND sex education and make it illegal to even take a morning-after pill. He's religious right. No thanks.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Part 2 of a Politics Series
Continuing with my 2008 campaign commentary... This was interesting for me, as I actually learned a lot about the candidates and what they stand for.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Of course, Ron Paul most likely won't get the Republican nomination-- and the main candidate, Rudy Giuliani, isn't really the kind of person I would vote for:
1. In the past, he has used government money to build massive stadiums in New York. While it's not like he'll do that in DC it's a bad sign in terms of fiscal policy.
2. He'd be willing to go to war with Iran just to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. I don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons, but it's hardly the US's job to decide that. We aren't the Middle East's nanny. Along the same lines, he's been rather anti-UN.
3. He wants to send more troops to Iraq and continue the war there. Now, the current system is not working, clearly, and I find it problematic that a potential Commander in Chief would support a system that isn't working.
4. He likes Bush's idea of domestic surveillance. BAH. I have nothing to hide (unless my discussing plans for the evening is a terrorist plot) but it's still an invasion of privacy.
5. He likes education vouchers. I'd prefer to make the public schools we have better than to just give parents permission to pick whatever school they want on the taxpayer's dime. Exceptions are of course important for children at the extremes of the spectrum (the uber-geniuses who are doing calculus in the third grade and the developmentally challenged kids who are focusing on learning how to communicate their basic needs obviously can't be easily integrated even into a good public school) but most kids getting vouchers would be average kids like me who just need a decent, well-funded, well-STAFFED public school.
6. He wants to allow prayer in school and more importantly, the posting of the Ten Commandments and other such documents focusing on a certain faith. I view this as a violation of the first amendment because it's saying that one religion is "best" in the eyes of the government. I guess I wouldn't mind posting the Ten Commandments, as long as Hammurabi's Law, the eight precepts of Buddhism, and the five pillars of Islam are next to it. As for prayer in schools, private prayer and moments of silence are one thing, but a public school should not call such moments "prayer" or lead groups in prayer.
7. He is opposed to medical marijuana. As a firm opponent of drugs I say make them all legal, at LEAST medical marijuana.
8. He has stated that he approves of radically conservative Supreme Court judges like Scalia. Which means that he might appoint someone similar.
9. He believes in executive authority, which is just scary. A president should NEVER believe in executive authority. Bush believes in executive authority. How's that working out for us?
I like that he is pro-choice, he accepts evolution as fact and thus would likely be in favor of requiring public schools to teach it, he is in favor of guaranteeing certain rights for homosexuals, he supports stem cell research, and he believes in global warming. However, I think his stance on executive authority, his approval of conservative judges, and his views on domestic surveillance and his approval of the Iraq war would be too much for me.
Of course, Ron Paul most likely won't get the Republican nomination-- and the main candidate, Rudy Giuliani, isn't really the kind of person I would vote for:
1. In the past, he has used government money to build massive stadiums in New York. While it's not like he'll do that in DC it's a bad sign in terms of fiscal policy.
2. He'd be willing to go to war with Iran just to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. I don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons, but it's hardly the US's job to decide that. We aren't the Middle East's nanny. Along the same lines, he's been rather anti-UN.
3. He wants to send more troops to Iraq and continue the war there. Now, the current system is not working, clearly, and I find it problematic that a potential Commander in Chief would support a system that isn't working.
4. He likes Bush's idea of domestic surveillance. BAH. I have nothing to hide (unless my discussing plans for the evening is a terrorist plot) but it's still an invasion of privacy.
5. He likes education vouchers. I'd prefer to make the public schools we have better than to just give parents permission to pick whatever school they want on the taxpayer's dime. Exceptions are of course important for children at the extremes of the spectrum (the uber-geniuses who are doing calculus in the third grade and the developmentally challenged kids who are focusing on learning how to communicate their basic needs obviously can't be easily integrated even into a good public school) but most kids getting vouchers would be average kids like me who just need a decent, well-funded, well-STAFFED public school.6. He wants to allow prayer in school and more importantly, the posting of the Ten Commandments and other such documents focusing on a certain faith. I view this as a violation of the first amendment because it's saying that one religion is "best" in the eyes of the government. I guess I wouldn't mind posting the Ten Commandments, as long as Hammurabi's Law, the eight precepts of Buddhism, and the five pillars of Islam are next to it. As for prayer in schools, private prayer and moments of silence are one thing, but a public school should not call such moments "prayer" or lead groups in prayer.
7. He is opposed to medical marijuana. As a firm opponent of drugs I say make them all legal, at LEAST medical marijuana.
8. He has stated that he approves of radically conservative Supreme Court judges like Scalia. Which means that he might appoint someone similar.
9. He believes in executive authority, which is just scary. A president should NEVER believe in executive authority. Bush believes in executive authority. How's that working out for us?
I like that he is pro-choice, he accepts evolution as fact and thus would likely be in favor of requiring public schools to teach it, he is in favor of guaranteeing certain rights for homosexuals, he supports stem cell research, and he believes in global warming. However, I think his stance on executive authority, his approval of conservative judges, and his views on domestic surveillance and his approval of the Iraq war would be too much for me.
Part 1 of a Politics Series
I'm gonna be doing a little series on how I feel about politics now, and then another one in a year or so when it actually matters...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Since I usually identify myself as a libertarian, everyone's been saying I should vote for Ron Paul. It's unlikely. My biggest concerns with him are:
1. Against gay marriage and adoption, and in favor of "don't ask, don't tell. Admittedly with a Democratic Congress he wouldn't be able to do a lot of damage. But he could block legislation that could secure rights for homosexuals, even if it doesn't involve federal money. He wouldn't try to ban gay marriage at a federal level, but at the same time he wouldn't allow laws that would prevent states from invading people's private lives. I know it won't happen for a long time, but we really need a constitutional amendment saying that the government cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, same as we needed one that said they couldn't do it on the basis of race (There's not enough discrimination against women any more to warrant making that an amendment).
2. No federal money for schools. The one way in which I am really, truly not libertarian is that I think that we need to provide for children and the mentally handicapped or ill. But again, it's unlikely he would be able as president to decimate the federal school funding system, and on top of that at least he would push to repeal No Child Left Behind.
3. Anti-abortion. But he's agreed to leave the question of abortion to the states, which is something. With a Democratic Congress, which we will most likely have, that wouldn't be too disastrous.
4. He opposes the UN.
However, I agree with his fiscal and international policy ideas, and the concepts of state's rights and minimal intervention at the federal level. I've always felt that the only thing the federal government should enforce on the states are basic human rights and equality, and if necessary, protections for minors and the mentally handicapped/ill. Ideally the states would take care of the minors and mentally ill themselves, but they don't.
But I most likely won't vote for Ron Paul because of his stance on the rights of homosexuals, and I wouldn't vote for him anyway unless it looked like my vote didn't really matter in terms of keeping the religious right out of office.
Since I usually identify myself as a libertarian, everyone's been saying I should vote for Ron Paul. It's unlikely. My biggest concerns with him are:
1. Against gay marriage and adoption, and in favor of "don't ask, don't tell. Admittedly with a Democratic Congress he wouldn't be able to do a lot of damage. But he could block legislation that could secure rights for homosexuals, even if it doesn't involve federal money. He wouldn't try to ban gay marriage at a federal level, but at the same time he wouldn't allow laws that would prevent states from invading people's private lives. I know it won't happen for a long time, but we really need a constitutional amendment saying that the government cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, same as we needed one that said they couldn't do it on the basis of race (There's not enough discrimination against women any more to warrant making that an amendment).
2. No federal money for schools. The one way in which I am really, truly not libertarian is that I think that we need to provide for children and the mentally handicapped or ill. But again, it's unlikely he would be able as president to decimate the federal school funding system, and on top of that at least he would push to repeal No Child Left Behind.3. Anti-abortion. But he's agreed to leave the question of abortion to the states, which is something. With a Democratic Congress, which we will most likely have, that wouldn't be too disastrous.
4. He opposes the UN.
However, I agree with his fiscal and international policy ideas, and the concepts of state's rights and minimal intervention at the federal level. I've always felt that the only thing the federal government should enforce on the states are basic human rights and equality, and if necessary, protections for minors and the mentally handicapped/ill. Ideally the states would take care of the minors and mentally ill themselves, but they don't.
But I most likely won't vote for Ron Paul because of his stance on the rights of homosexuals, and I wouldn't vote for him anyway unless it looked like my vote didn't really matter in terms of keeping the religious right out of office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
