The newest American Girl doll is a j00

30 05 2009

For those of you who aren’t familiar with American Girl, I’ll summarize.  American Girl is a collection of dolls, who all have an individual backstory and personality, and who are meant to help educate young girls about different significant historical periods.  Felicity was from the American Revolution, Kirsten was a Swedish immigrant from the 1850s, Addy was a run-away slave from the Civil War period, Samantha was Victorian-era, and Molly grew up during World War II; since I was little, they’ve added plenty of more historical dolls, and there are series of books about each one (including a book about the “holidays,” namely Christmas or similar).

The company also started releasing modern dolls, which could be personalized to look JUST like you (but in doll form, and they didn’t introduce curly hair for a while, those weirdos).  The clothing and accessories were modern, too.  I wanted one, but since I already had a doll (Kirsten, who, by the way, is the best), my parents wouldn’t buy me a second.  Boo.

One day, though, I was looking through the catalog, and I noticed that in the holiday section for the modern dolls, they now had a Chanukah outfit and accessories.  Maybe it was a sign that I would some day turn into a feminist or something, but I showed it to my parents and told them that it upset me.  “Why?” they asked.  “Because they’re only doing it just to look like they’re including Jewish people,” I said.  I pointed out how all of the accessories were ridiculously stereotypical (a dreidel and menorah), and the clothing was somewhat offensive; the clothing was white and blue, which I pointed out to my parents were the colors of the Israeli flag, but were only considered “Chanukah” colors because people think that if Christmas has colors, so do other, “Christmas-like” holidays.  I also didn’t understand why there was a Chanukah outfit, but nothing about the high holy days or Pesach.  My parents taught me the word “tokenism,” and I wrote a letter to the Pleasant Company, makers of the dolls, telling them that I, a young customer, was unhappy with the Chanukah outfit.

That’s right, folks.  I got offended over something as a KID that today would offend the crap out of me now.  This is really impressive, considering that when I was little, I wanted nothing more than to be a Disney Princess.  Go figure.

For the record, a couple catalog seasons later, and for the rest of the time we subscribed, there was no Chanukah outfit.

So, why is this relevant?  Well, meet Rebecca Rubin.  She’s the first Jewish American Girl doll!

My feelings are conflicted.  On the one hand, I still find it pretty insulting that the Pleasant Company has to make such a big deal out of their cultural dolls (they did the same thing with Addy, Kaya, and Josefina).  I also need to wait and see exactly how they handle the doll’s story: are they JUST going to talk about Chanukah?  Are they going to make a huge deal about explaining all of the Jewish culture and faith that’s in the story?  Essentially, is Rebecca Rubin going to be “Jewish immigration for dummies?” or is it going to exist as a way for Jewish American Girl fans to connect better to the franchise?

The one thing I hope I’ll appreciate is that part of the character’s story is dealing with Christmas being celebrated in public schools.  I still have trouble dealing with the pervasive nature of Christian commercial holidays.

This’ll be the first time I’ve read American Girl books in a million years, so once I actually get my hands on them and see what’s in them, I’ll be updating.  American Girl, which is pretty famous for selling merchandise that costs more than a solid gold toilet, is also famous for teaching young girls American (and American immigrant) history through the historical dolls.  The history is from the point of view of women and girls, which to me will always make the franchise somewhat positive, even if the commercial aspects drive me abso-positively nuts.





Abu Ghraib photos reportedly depict rape and sexual abuse

29 05 2009

[trigger warning]

A report in The Daily Telegraph has emerged claiming that the Abu Ghraib photos which President Obama is refusing to release graphically depict rape and sexual abuse.

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq, has reported the existence of such photographs to The Daily Telegraph. Although the allegations of rape and sexual abuse had previously existed, the existence of photos of the acts had not previously been revealed.

Read the rest of this entry »





Prop 8 to live on … for now

29 05 2009

As many of you already know, this past Tuesday, the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was indeed an amendment to the state constitution, which means that same-sex marriage in California is officially prohibited by the state constitution.  This amendment does not apply retroactively, which means that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages already performed before Prop 8 passed are still valid marriages.

On the one hand, I do think that the court made the correct decision with regards to how people can decide on changes to their state constitution.  I do NOT think that’s even remotely okay to ban same-sex marriage, but constitutionally, Prop 8 stands.

However, consider what has happened since Prop 8 was enacted.  At first, the only states left to be awesome were MA and CT.  It was lonely.  But suddenly, we were joined by Iowa, Vermont, and Maine.  New Hampshire is working on it, and then we can be all, “Come on, Rhode Island, stop sucking.”  And Iowa’s victory is huge; it proves that New England isn’t alone, and it gives courage and strength to same-sex marriage advocates in the midwest and elsewhere that success can happen in states that aren’t notoriously liberal.

As of now, I would consider the 18,000 existing same-sex marriages in California to be a depressing consolation prize.  While I’m very happy that these couples are not being stripped of their benefits and status, it’s not symbolic of any sort of equality.  Instead, it’s simply that there’s no legal recourse to nullify the marriages.

I also think it’s too soon to judicially challenge the same-sex marriage ban in California, or in the other states which have banned same-sex marriage and unions.  Instead, I think that same-sex marriage advocates and supporters need to focus on pushing for same-sex marriage though the legislature in other states, as we’ve seen in Vermont and Maine, and hopefully New Hampshire soon.  The more “normal” same-sex marriage is, the more likely judges will be to rule in favor of same-sex marriage, and against marriage bans and other LGBT-unfriendly laws.  If we rush to have a federal lawsuit, we run the risk of bad timing.  The Supreme Court may rule against same-sex marriage, thus setting a precedent that reinforces the cultural norm that LGBT people are merely second-class citizens.





Friday Blogaround

29 05 2009

Happy Friday everyone!  Here are some must-reads:

Higher Ground, Not Common Ground by Merle Hoffman in On the Issues magazine:

As a person who feels that war should be the strategy of last resort, I still like to read military history. I find myself going back to the wisdom of Sun Tzu who wrote in “The Art of War” in the 6th century BC: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.”

As feminists who fight battles against those who would deny women’s freedom and equality, we know the mettle of our enemies. They are relentless, committed beyond secular principles, willing to look at things in the very long term, absolutely sure of their righteousness and totally determined.

They have one solid line, which they define and defend. Those who stand on their side are with the angels; those who stand on the other are misguided, at best, and sinners, at worst.

Educating Ourselves to Oblivion by William Astore:

Can there be any doubt that education matters not just in how we view the world, but in what kind of world we create — or simply accept? And can there be any doubt that, despite a massive educational infrastructure (admittedly now fraying badly), Americans remain remarkably poorly informed about the world? Last year, Rick Shenkman, the editor of the History News Network website, published a book (now out in paperback), Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter, excerpted at this site. Stupid enough (or ill-informed) was the answer.

Cheney’s Bunker Mentality by James Ridgeway:

Say what you will about Dick Cheney, at least he’s consistent. While he was in office, the Vice President made a practice of exploiting the fear and loss wrought by the 9/11 attacks to advance his own political agenda—and he’s still doing it now. During his speech at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday, according to Dana Milbank’s calculations in the Washington Post, “Cheney used the word ‘attack’ 19 times, ‘danger’ and ‘threat’ six times apiece, and 9/11 an impressive 27 times.”

When Systems of Oppression Intersect: Mental Health and the Immigration System by Thea Lim:

Angry Asian Man reports on the story of Xiu Ping Jiang, a 35 year-old Chinese illegal immigrant diagnosed with a mental illness who has been stuck in immigration limbo for over a year.

Detainee Abuse: New Details Reported by Melissa McEwan:

[Strong trigger warning.]

My heart went into my throat as I read the headline in the Telegraph this morning: “Abu Ghraib abuse photos ‘show rape’: Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.”

Oh god. Oh god.

The images, according to the story, show one male American soldier raping a female prisoner, a male American translator raping a male prisoner, someone else forcibly removing a female prisoner’s clothes to expose her naked breasts, and other sexual assaults being committed on prisoners “with objects including a truncheon, wire, and a phosphorescent tube.”

Infant Formula Product Placement in Chemistry Matric Exam by Lauredhel:

School and university exam writers often invent scenarios. They play with made-up names for people, they dream up companies, they have fun devising original scenarios and puns to spice up their questions.

But what happens when they get bored doing that, or don’t have time, or when an alternative is shoved under their noses?

There is a national government Senior High school examination for 18-year-olds in the Netherlands. The chemistry exam is a 3 hour exam consisting of four questions, each with a series of sub-questions. This year’s exam has just taken place, on May 26. You can download and read the exam questions and the technical appendix.

Nine Simple Ways to Scare Your Date by Sarah.of.a.lesser.god:

There are several advantages to being a content singleton, one of which is not having to deal with first dates and the thorny path known as flirtation. But I finally decided to just learn to flirt, and decided to take some cues from Marie-Claire’s nine steps to flirting like a pro, provided by a guy named Neil Strauss (he likes to be considered the world’s greatest pick-up artist). I got some amazing results and learned some valuable lessons!

“Mild Mannered” Grandfather Stabs Cheating Wife by Renee:

That is the “gentle” face of an aggrieved man.  Seldom had a read about a more sympathetic person.   This poor sweet grandfather was happily looking forward to his golden years with his wife of  35 years, when he experienced a totally understandable “moment  of madness .”  Brian Gibbs has admitted to wounding with intent and was jailed for four-and-a-half years.

Enjoy!





We need a Men In Power Club, because those menz don’t already have power

28 05 2009

saltarelliMale privilege is all around us.  By simple birthright, men are automatically more powerful and privileged than women are in society.  But of course those menfolks snatch every opportunity they get to further flaunt their privilege and to snatch onto every last piece of it so that they can maintain it and keep it all to themselves.  How dare anyone, especially those darn feminists, try to call them out on it or snatch it away from them?!

A third year student at The University of Chicago, Steve Saltarelli, just founded a new (misogynist, sexist, Oh no! But what about the men?!!) group on campus called Men In Power.  It’s supposed to “help more men get ahead while raising awareness of the male experience.”  Uh-huh.  Because of course in a patriarchal society, every dude wonders, But what about the menz?!!

In March, Saltarelli wrote a satirical article about the need for a group on campus that would:

spread awareness and promote understanding of issues and challenges facing men today…We would simply advocate for men in the same manner that female groups advocate for women.  Anyone with an interest in both studying and learning from men in powerful positions, as well as issues involved with reverse sexism, may become a member of MiP.

In addition, the Men In Power club would host weekly study breaks/screenings of “movement-oriented films” like 12 Angry Men, Men of Honor and X-Men;  an open-mic night on issues about body image; a barbecuing tutorial; a “Protecting What’s Yours: Drafting a Prenuptial Agreement” workshop; as well as various fishing, hunting and flag-football retreats.

After the article was published, Saltarelli received emails from students who were legitimately interested in joining such a group and so he decided to start a Men In Power club.  (But if the article was written as satire, then Saltarelli wouldn’t have actually been serious about being directly involved in forming it and supporting its formation.)  The mere name of the group reiterates male dominance, a fact of our patriarchal society, and reproduces sexist, oppressive structures that maintain male privilege.  It also suggests that power is something that men lack.

Other feminist blogs have covered this already (see here and here), so I don’t want to repeat what’s already been said but I’ll close with this: Saltarelli, grow up and get over yourself and your male privilege!  Do your homework.





Dick Cheney is inescapable

28 05 2009

Via Campus Progress:

cheney





Seriously fucked up, triggering and vomit inducing

27 05 2009

I read this on The Curvature and it’s absolutely sickening.

Just 2 days ago, an unnamed serial rapist in Australia was sentenced to 9 years in jail for “having sex with his intellectually disadvantaged [now 27 year old] daughter” last year in March when his daughter was 26.  On March 29, 2008 the rapist “followed his daughter home and had sex with her” and believed it to be consensual because she didn’t say anything.  And then, “the next day he had sex with his daughter again.”  (By the way Sunshine Coast Daily and all other rape apologists media sources, we do not call this “having sex”.  This is called RAPE. Sex and rape are two very different things.)

As a woman with a disability, she already exists as a vulnerable, stigmatized and ostracized body in society.  Women with disabilities are raped more often than women without disabilities.  There are several reasons for this that Cara highlights in her post, like the fact that people with disabilities have fewer resources at their disposal and they may be afraid to come forward about sexual assault/rape especially if/when they are dependent on their attackers, who are often family members or caretakers.  Not to mention rape myths like the fact that disabled women are sexually undesirable and therefore “un-rapable”.  And given the stigma that disabled women already face, if they do speak out they may be even less likely to be believed.

Feminists have repeated this over and over, but people like this serial rapist still don’t seem to get it: The absence of “no” does not mean “yes”.  Silence does not mean “yes”.  I hate the sense of male entitlement to female bodies that makes people buy into the bullshit that unless a woman objects to any level of sexual activity, men have a green light for them to just go ahead.  Most male rapists know that women are not consenting and that they aren’t having sex with her but that they’re raping her.  Because of this male sense of entitlement, male rapists feel that sex is a given unless a woman explicitly says “no”.

From the Sunshine Coast Daily:

At the time of the offences, the man had been out of jail for a year after serving 10 years for repeatedly raping his step daughter from the time she was 10 years old.

The court heard the man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, was in a relationship with a woman from 1979 to 1983 and they had a daughter in 1982.

He left that woman to begin a relationship with the woman’s 17-year old daughter from a previous relationship.

The 17-year old already had a three-year old daughter of her own, and when the little girl was nine, years old the man began a sexual relationship with her while living at a Sunshine Coast caravan park.  (Again, FYI Sunshine Coast Daily, this is not a “sexual relationship”.  As a minor, a 9-year old child cannot consent to a sexual relationship.  This is sexual abuse.)

He raped the girl for the first time around her tenth birthday.

The abuse continued until 1997 when the girl was about 16 years old.

He also raped another 16-year old family member in 1996.

In 1997, the man was sent to jail for a total of 35 offences and was eventually released in 2007.

Clearly this rapist is a sick, sick man with a laundry list of sexual abuse and sexual assault towards female family members.  Why was this rapist, convicted with 35 charges and possessing such a clear and consistent history of sexual abuse and sexual assault, released from jail after only 10 years?  And now, why is he sentenced only to 9 years of prison and eligible for parole in as early as 2012?

This is seriously fucked up.





Thoughts on masculinity…

27 05 2009

When I was a senior in high school, I took a Feminist Theory class and we watched Tough Guise: Violence, Media and the Crisis in Masculinity, an excellent film by Jackson Katz.  It was the first time I had really thought critically about social constructions masculinity and the normalization of violent masculinity.  Early in the film, Katz says:

The front that many men put up that’s based on an extreme notion of masculinity that emphasizes toughness and physical strength and gaining the respect and admiration of others through violence or the implicit threat of it.  Boys and young men learn early on that being a so-called “real man” means you have to take on the “tough guise,” in other words you have to show the world only certain parts of yourself that the dominant culture has defined as manly.

Masculinity is a topic that really interests and fascinates me.  People generally do not think or talk about masculinity, especially not cissexual, heterosexual men.  Cissexual, heterosexual men are taught from early on that they need to defend their masculinity so that it is never contested.  The greatest insult you can hurl at a man is that he isn’t man enough, that he’s a wuss, a pussy, a sissy, a fag, etc.  These insults are used as a mechanism of social control to maintain patriarchal gender norms.  Meanwhile, the masculinity of LGBTQ men have been, and still are, consistently attacked.

Masculinity is defined and constructed in such a narrow way and today on Yes Means Yes, Thomas writes about the need for cissexual, heterosexual men to start thinking and talking more about masculinity and male sexuality:

To refuse to talk about it, though, is to be a prisoner of the privilege. The common understanding of male sexuality is a stereotype, an ultra-narrow group of desires and activities oriented around PIV [penis in vagina], anal intercourse and blowjobs; oriented around cissexual women partners having certain very narrow groups of physical characteristics.

The dominant idea and representation of masculinity and male sexuality is that of cissexual, heterosexual, white, upper-middle/upper class masculinity – this also describes the main power holders in our patriarchal society.  And Thomas is absolutely right, refusing to examine these narrow, oppressive ideas of masculinity is to be imprisoned by privilege.  Masculinity is not natural – it is a sociocultural bind where boys and men feel like they need to posture as bad boys, as tough guys.





Do you really want to work for him?

27 05 2009

This is older news, but back in March, a third grader wrote a letter to Dov Charney, the founder of American Apparel, who has also been sued several times by female employees for sexual harassment, saying that she wanted to work there when she grew up.   This is the letter she sent:

dovletter

American Apparel is famous for its commitment to immigrant rights like its Legalize LA campaign.  Clothing is made by employees who are paid well above the minimum wage, work in comfortable, air conditioned factories in Los Angeles, have reasonable health benefits and access to English language classes.  These are pretty decent and equitable working conditions considering that clothing from many other stores are produced in sweatshops overseas.

However, it is pretty easy to see that based on their advertisements and store displays, American Apparel sells sex and uses women to do so.

unzip

amapp

Women’s bodies are objectified and hyper-sexualized to market clothing and other accessories, which is not a new advertising technique, but it’s disgusting that American Apparel is exploiting women, their bodies and their sexuality to sell sex while masking behind “immigration reform”, “fair pay” and “sweatshop free” rhetoric.  All of those sound good and are good, but why must we utilize, objectify and hyper-sexualize women’s bodies in order to promote immigrant rights and decent working conditions?  Must we constantly sacrifice women so?  Women deserve better than that.  Women are not just mere instruments or machinery to further good or just causes.

Besides, Charney is so unabashed about the sexual harassment cases against him and where he stands on his company’s hyper-sexualization.  He’s disclosed to the press before information about his sexual relationships with female employees.  When asked if he calls women sluts at work, he said, “In private conversations, where such language was generally welcome.”  When asked if he thought slut was a derogatory term, he responded, “You know, there are some of us that love sluts.  You know, it’s not necessarily – it could also be an endearing term…something you call your lover.”

O RLY?  Calling a woman a slut is endearing?





Women are unhappy – blame (not patriarchy, but) feminism!

26 05 2009

Earlier today my friend emailed me this op-ed by Ross Douthat from The New York Times.  It’s loaded with standard anti-feminist rhetoric about how “all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness.”  Riiiiiiiight, Uh-huh.  His opening paragraph:

American women are wealthier, healthier and better educated than they were 30 years ago. They’re more likely to work outside the home, and more likely to earn salaries comparable to men’s when they do. They can leave abusive marriages and sue sexist employers. They enjoy unprecedented control over their own fertility. On some fronts — graduation rates, life expectancy and even job security — men look increasingly like the second sex.

This is horribly oversimplified in so many ways.  For starters, the wage gap still exists, so women are not more likely to earn salaries comparable to men’s.  And how easy is it to leave abusive relationships?  Definitely easier said than done.  Furthermore, sexual harassment in and out of the workplace is a persistent problem that many women constantly put up with but given the court’s unfriendly record towards women, many women do not sue sexist employers.  Do women really “enjoy unprecedented control over their own fertility”?  I would say not exactly, given that abstinence-only sex ed still reigns in this country, and many abortion clinics have had to shut down because of the shitty economy.

The article that Douthat links to?  Not a reputable source.  It’s from Double X and it’s by notorious anti-feminist Christina Hoff Sommers.  I didn’t have the patience to read her article so I just scrolled through it briefly and when I hit the bottom of the page this is what I read:

Why are there no conferences, petitions, workshops, congressional hearings, or presidential councils to help men close the education gap, the health care gap, the insurance gap, the job-loss gap, and the death gap? Because, unlike women, men do not have hundreds of men’s studies departments, research institutes, policy centers, and lobby groups working tirelessly to promote their challenges as political causes.

OH NO, WHAT ABOUT THE MEN?!!!! IT’S CALLED PATRIARCHY.  WE LIVE IN IT.  MALE PRIVILEGE ABOUNDS.

Her closing paragraph:

The struggle for women’s rights is far from over, but the serious battlegrounds today are in Muslim societies and in sub-Saharan Africa. In these and other parts of the developing world, most women have not yet seen so much as a ripple of freedom, let alone two major waves of liberation. We should be directing our efforts toward the millions of women who have never had the luxury of coping with the problem that has no name.

Condescending much?  Ethnocentric much?  Let us liberated westerners plunge ourselves into the poor “third world” and rescue these oppressed women from their plight!  But I digress…back to Douthat’s op-ed.  In his second paragraph, he writes:

In the 1960s, when Betty Friedan diagnosed her fellow wives and daughters as the victims of “the problem with no name,” American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women.

Read the rest of this entry »





“What’s Good for the Bitch is Good for the Bastard”?

26 05 2009

While I was wandering around in a bookstore the other day, I saw this:

skinny_bastard

It’s by the two women who brought us the Skinny Bitch books (Skinny Bitch, Skinny Bitch in the Kitch, Skinny Bitch: Bun in the Oven and Skinny Bitchin’), which proclaims “sugar is the Devil” and “soda is like liquid Satan” (Yes, it’s probably not a bad idea to consume less sugar and soda, but is shaming women the best way to go about doing that?).  Skinny Bitch has been a best seller on The New York Times Advice, How-To and Miscellaneous Paperback Best-Seller list for 92 weeks, and has sold  a whopping 1.1 million copies nationwide, according to Nielsen BookScan.  It’s shameful that a book that tells women to “Stop being a moron and start getting skinny” would be successful…It goes to show how much society idolizes and values thinness.

When Skinny Bitch first came out, a lot of my female friends raved about it.  I wasn’t too excited about it, and reading the first few pages was enough to make me put the book down.  It begins with “Healthy = skinny. Unhealthy = fat”.  Not only is that incorrect (healthy can come in different shapes and sizes.  Weight (and BMI) is a misguiding measure of one’s health.)  Being skinny is the desired beauty/body norm, but it does not always mean healthy.  “Fat” is also a subjective term and a social construct.) but it is also very fat shaming.

Skinny Bitch is a vegan manifesto that is very misogynist, fat-shaming, condescending to women, and just terribly misguided in their approach to promoting veganism.  Why can’t women want to try veganism or vegetarianism because they wanted to do so for personal beliefs, their health, the environment, etc. instead of because they were shamed into it?  Why can’t women just feel good about themselves and want to be healthier instead of being shamed by a stupid, condescending book?  But of course, the self-help industry (as does capitalism) thrives on people feeling badly about themselves and the way they look, so the idea of telling someone that they look good, that they are already good enough is simply unfathomable!

And now we have Skinny Bastard which hit bookstores at the end of April.  It is geared towards men and tells them, “Eating well isn’t some ‘girlie’ thing—these Bitches will whip your ass into shape with their straight talk, sound guidance, and locker room language…if you’re man enough to take it.”  This plays right into gender stereotypes – that men are completely independent and individualistic and can’t take/don’t need advice from anyone, especially women.  And it implies that men who can’t get through Skinny Bastard are not man enough.  Here we go with the shaming again – now men are being shamed and their masculinity is being challenged.

Read the rest of this entry »





Proposition 8 upheld: Protests in over 100 US cities TONIGHT

26 05 2009

As most of you probably already know, today the California Supreme Court decided to uphold Proposition 8.  As a “compromise,” Justice George agreed to preserve the 18,000 same-sex marriages that had been performed in between the May legalization of same-sex marriage and the November passing of Prop 8, because Prop 8 did not include language specifically stating that it was retroactive.  Although I can’t say I’m surprised by the decision, I am angry and disappointed.  Although the decision could have had a worse outcome if the 18,000 marriages were deemed invalid, this is still a saddening setback in the struggle for full equality.

Check out Bilerico and The New York Times for the story.

If you are also angry and disappointed by this decision, check out the list of 117 protests in US cities that are happening tonight.





Quick Hit: Sonia Sotomayor nominated for Supreme Court

26 05 2009

This morning President Obama announced his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.  She will be the first Latina woman, the first woman of color (and the third woman) to be a Supreme Court Justice.  Unsurprisingly, there has already been a lot of conservative backlash.

amd_sonia_sotomayor

A lot has been written about this already:

From Feministe: Sonia Sotomayor nominated for the Supreme Court

From Racialicious: Open Thread: On Sonia Sotomayor

From Think Progress: Conservatives Blast Obama’s Hispanic SCOTUS Nominee As “Not the Smartest” And An “Intellectual Lightweight”

From Reclusive Leftist: Sotomayor announcement marred by the usual crap





Ladies, do you have a bob haircut? Long tongue? Liberal-minded? Wear pants? Well, Reverend Phil Kidd wants you to “shut up!”

26 05 2009

via Pandagon:

Meet Reverend Phil Kidd, the charming homophobic anti-feminist “man of God” who just wants us ladies to “shut up” once in a while.

"Shut up," Kidd tells his wife through brain messages, in this cozy and heartwarming family portrait

"Shut up," Kidd tells his wife through brain messages, in this cozy and heartwarming family portrait.

This all around good natured guy has some advice for us women.  Behold, “Hey Lady, Shut Up!”

In I Corinthians 14:34 we read, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak,- but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” This verse is not implying that al women that speak in the church are out of order, there are certain times when it is right for women to be vocal in the assembly. First, when they Receive Salvation they should be glad to confess Christ as their Saviour. Second, when they Repent of Sin and they need to make public confession before the church. If the transgression is known by the church and they want to get right then confession should be given to the church. Third, when they Rejoice In the Spirit they have the right to praise the Lord. The Bible says everything that has breath has a right to praise the Lord. But there are some times when the Scripture commands woman to shut up!

First, they are commanded to shut up concerning the Authority of the Church. I Timothy 2:12 tells us that a woman is not to usurp authority over the man. God never has called a woman to preach. I know some “mainline” churches are ordaining woman to pastor their churches. Even radio and television are now promoting female pastor’s. What a sad day, seeing woman open the bible and expound the scriptures. Eve, in the Garden of Eden, in a perfect surrounding could not even quote on verse correct. I sure would not trust a woman to expound truth in this sin cursed mess we live in. Some sorry Baptist Churches are now letting woman teach men and boys classes. No wonder America has turned “Sodomite”. Too many young men have had too many woman as their voice of authority.

Second, they are commanded to shut up concerning the Administration of the Church. Usually when I start dealing with the business of leadership in the church most pastor’s bow their heads. Why? Because Pastor’s all across this this land are allowing woman to hold positions that they have no right to hold. It makes me sick to watch a woman stand on a platform and lead a choir with men in it, or even worse to see a woman lead the whole congregation! Singing is an important part of the worship service. This office is not a calling, but it should be led by a man with leadership ability. .

Many Baptist churches have even put women on their pulpit committees. Can you imagine going to a church in view of a call and having a woman asking you questions concerning your doctrinal stand? Someone needs to tell them to sit down and shut up!

Third, women are commanded to shut up concerning the Apparel of the Church. 11 Timothy 2:9 commands the woman to dress in modest apparel. I have personally seen that in a large percentage of churches, the long tongued, rebellious, bobbed-haired, preacher-hating, pants-wearing, liberal-minded women have determined the standard of dress for the church. The cowardly preacher is afraid to cross this group. He knows if he does, these loud-mouthed women will take their weak husbands and go to another church. Sadly, most woman pull their hair, grit their teeth, and even yell back when the preacher deals with modest dress. Some will even get mad just reading this article. I say to you, SHUT UP!

In conclusion, I wish to defend the women of our churches for one reason. The fact that women are taking the leadership in our churches is the result of sorry men that will not get involved and do their part. At least some woman are willing to do something! So, you good-for-nothing, hen-pecked men that have been laughing your way through this article, you need to get off your lazy back-side and do something for God. Your wife runs the home because you are too sorry to run it yourself Lady, when your sorry husband dies, please marry a man next time.

This guy is entertainingly ridiculous.  Unfortunately, it seems that he’s got some pretty hardcore followers who think he’s pretty great.  Let’s just agree to disagree.





Congrats Charles Bolden, Jr.!

25 05 2009

bolden

Last Saturday, May 23rd, President Obama nominated Charles Bolden, Jr. to  be the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  When the Senate confirms this nomination, Bolden, Jr. will be the first African-American to head NASA.

Bolden, Jr. is a retired Marine Corps General who was a NASA astronaut for thirteen years.  He “logged 680 hours in space on four shuttle mission, piloted the shuttle and was mission commander on two from 1980 to 1994.”

John Logsdon, professor emeritus at the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, has said, “Charlie Bolden is well known to everybody in the space community from the human spaceflight side of the house, where he’s had extensive shuttle experience, to the science people he worked with as he was part of the crew that launched the Hubble telescope.”








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers