Feminism @ MindSay

Here's the story that could mean trouble for women across the country.

Here's my two cents(moar liek 2 dollars) on it: Creating a law that defines fertilized eggs and beyond as "persons" is obliterating the common sense dictations of the differences between potentialities and actualities. Don't know what those are? Someone who doesn't know the difference, namely the idiotic residents and government of the state of North Dakota, might as well be making demands to build houses out of acorns, claiming they're the same as oak trees, or plugging an oven into a waterfall, claiming it's the same as hydro-electric power. That's what happens when you confuse the potential with the actual. Disagree? Comment. Only actual persons deserve rights, if we're going to keep a dignified rule of law.

Oh, and a question for North Dakota: How do you plan on enforcing such a law? The only proper way to do it would be to arrest all women of child-bearing age and hold them indefinately on the grounds of probable cause to commit murder. After all, fertilized eggs are rejected by womens' bodies 50 to 90 percent of the time and are flushed out at the end of a cycle.

Joe Biden should not be afraid to hurt Sarah Palin's precious feelings simply because she's a woman. He should not keep the kid gloves on while Palin whoops his ass.

I don't hold double standards, and neither should Joe. He needs to treat her like a human being and kick the living shit out of her in the debates.

It's been awhile since I've blogged and boy has the world gone to hell. I will reserve my comments for the financial crisis to another blog because I feel it needs time to shake out.

The Problem of Sarah

I am at a loss, honestly. As a woman, I really do want to support female politicians, but I refuse to support one that is basically inept. (Not to mention the few opinions she seems to have seem to be a bit to anti-woman for my tastes). The people of Alaska should consider a recall when this election is over. I am appalled at the McCain campaign for being so blatant in their pandering to us "womenfolk" and I'm disgusted that Sarah Palin would actually have the delusion that she is somehow qualified for this job. Beyond the fact that I feel like this is politics at its basest form it worries me for the messages it sends. Once again a half-way pretty chick gets passes from the media and politicians, even though she's a dilettante at best when it comes to national politics.

The conservatives come out swinging, "Don't you be mean to our girl Sarah!" Well, your girl Sarah has decided to insert herself into perhaps the most important election in my lifetime, not to mention put forth the idea that she is somehow qualified to be the 2nd most powerful person in the World.

As a woman, I am offended at these types of actions. Pundits saying that Joe Biden has to use kid gloves with her during the debate, because the American people could perceive him as mean and condescending. Please....she put herself out there and if she says something idiotic or rambles like she did with Couric - she deserves what she gets. She's not running for Vice President of the PTA, she's running for the Vice Presidency of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! The woman barely grasps simple economics, she can't name a SCOTUS case beyond Roe...all she can do is regurgitate talking points. Would anyone be letting this go if Mitt would have gotten the call? Hell No. She looks good on a poster....wow, we've come so far. It's sad to me that a good portion of the comments surrounded Mrs. Palin is of the "I'd do her" variety. Have we really regressed so far in our society that THIS is the level of discourse in this country? Now I realize there is a real constituency to made out of the citizens of this nation that want Sarah to "show us her shit" and then go shoot a moose with her, but I'd like to think we are capable of more.

The damage that this candidacy has done to women politicians remains to be seen, but I have to think that in circles where the idea of a female President makes them uneasy...this doesn't help. I have to wonder if that was a consideration when picking her. After the success that Hillary Clinton had, did the boys get together and decide that the best way to deal with the possibility of more women running for office would be to completely destroy one? The religious conservatives in particular have always had issues with women who worked outside of the home and left the kids to be raised by daycares and nannies, yet this woman is getting a pass from those same groups...why? Is it because she's Pro-Life and attends church? Or is it because if she quits the race they all get to say "See I told you women shouldn't be in power!"? I hate to get all tin-foil hat on this, but the thought has crossed my mind...with all the truly gifted women politicians out there..why this one? I realize the appeal of the outside of the Beltway idea, but I'm sure there was someone who would have at least known what she was talking about, beyond some snarky retort.

The basic point is she is running for the second highest office in our country. She deserves to be treated just like any other candidate. That's what true feminists believe, that in instances where true equality is possible, women should be treated no differently.

***********************************
By the way, if anyone is looking for information on Sarah Palin live from Alaska, I highly recommend www.themudflats.net

First, let me say that I'm not posting this to pick at anyone of the Christian faith. While it's true that I'm agnostic (and was a Christian for 13+ years), I don't have anything against religions per se. I think that there are some serious flaws in some (as you'll soon see), but I do think that some religions do have a few good elements. For example, I'm really attracted to some of the elements of the Buddhist faith. I think that it's incredibly peace-oriented and I like a lot of their common views on things like the treatment of animals, etc. Of course, just because I like aspects of that religion doesn't mean that I'm inclined to become a Buddhist. The point that I'm trying to make is that I think that religions have the potential to do a lot of good for some people. They're not for everyone (figuratively speaking, of course), but I think that if a person can find peace and answers to their questions in their religion then that's great. However, each person is unique. A religion that's "right" for one person might not be for another. And while I think it's great that some people are really strong believers in their faith of choice, they need to recognize the fact that just because someone doesn't follow their faith, they don't need to be converted. If they're moral and happy with the way their life is, then leave them alone. Accept them for who they are and what they choose to believe in. And remember that in their eyes, your religion is just as flawed as you believe theirs to be.

Now, all of that being said, the thing that I really wanted to blog about is the view (and treatment) of woman in the Bible and the Christian church/faith. As a strong feminist, people should realize that in spite of my problems with other aspects of said religion, for this reason alone I could never again even consider embracing it.

Christianity views women as less than men. Their role is pretty much limited to the domestic realm. (Titus 2) Women are listed with property in the 10 Commandments. (Ex. 20:17) As a result, Christianity is extremely patriarchal and women are delegated to support roles. Many of the "great Christian" leaders had horrible ideas about women. For example:

The following quotes concerning the nature and role of women are from the father of Christian Protestantism, Martin Luther:

“The word and works of God is quite clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes.”
Martin Luther, Works 12.94


“Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children.”
Martin Luther, Table Talk


“Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for.”
Martin Luther, Works 20.84


“God created Adam master and lord of living creatures, but Eve spoilt all, when she persuaded him to set himself above God's will. 'Tis you women, with your tricks and artifices, that lead men into error.”


“We may well lie with what seems to be a woman of flesh and blood, and yet all the time it is only a devil in the shape of a woman.”


St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 CE). He wrote to a friend:
"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." 10


St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 to 1274 CE):
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."


Martin Luther (1483 to 1546):
"If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there."

The following Old Testament story is horrendous. Yes, many Christians will say, we are under grace now and the OT was the law. The fact of the matter is that either the Bible (whole and entire) is God's Word according to Christian faith or it is not. This horrendous act was never condemned.

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women.

Verse 25 describes the hours long gang rape of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of passion or concern for the raped girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.

I'm not saying that just because someone is a Christian that they are a misogynist/sexist/rapist/etc. I know a lot of really fabulous, open minded people who are Christians. Feminists, even. How they can overlook the previous information attached to their religion I don't know, but that's their personal choice to make. And if it works for them then okay, whatever. I'm not going to jump on their backs about it and tell them they're wrong and going to the agnostic equivalent of Hell. That's not how I roll.
I'm just saying that I, personally, cannot go against my own moral judgement and succumb to Christianity (or any religion that has negative views of any sex, race, ethnicity, or any other form of prejudice).

Anyway, I just thought some of you might find this information interesting (if you weren't already aware of it), or perhaps I'd come across someone with opinions similar to mine. Also, please don't leave me any seething comments if this blog in any way offended you. For one, offending you wasn't my intent. And two, I'm sorry if it did, but you should have figured out that you wouldn't agree with what I had to say from the subject line.