Vox Day: Women should rely on daddy to choose their husbands

Our ol’ pal Theodore “Vox Day” Beale, who’s never encountered a form of misogyny he didn’t take to and spin as a means of preserving (his grotesque ideal of) society, has a suggestion for stripping women of their most basic autonomy:

Who Nose asks a pertinent question:

"If you want to understand why women are not permitted serve in Church leadership, and why human societies do not survive more than a few generations of young women being permitted to choose their own spouses"

It begs the question: Who ought to choose their spouses?

The Church?
The Father?
The Mother?
The State?

The question is further begged: What kind of law would need to be passed to enforce the choosing of a spouse.

Finally, another question is begged: What would you do with the 99% of women who responded to the suggestion or the law with, "F*ck Off"?

1. The Father, with the advice of the Mother.
2. No law is necessary. Simply informing their daughter that a woman who is capable of choosing her own spouse is clearly also capable of paying for her own college education and supporting her own lifestyle decisions will suffice for most parents. If a woman is independent enough to insist on paying her own way in order to pursue a career, she's probably not wife-and-mother material anyhow and would likely end up a reproductive dead end regardless the options she is afforded. We can always hope that instead of children, such a woman will contribute some revolutionary Powerpoint slideshows to society, produce a cure for cancer, or introduce some truly ground-breaking HR policies that will change the world for the better.
3. I would simply wish them the best of fortune in their future endeavors. But the number won't be anywhere nearly that high because women are, first and foremost, the practical sex.

‘The Daily Show’ compares gun control in US and Australia

Nothing brings the US’s struggles with adopting even the most rudimentary gun safety measures into perspective better than taking a gander at other countries that have already enacted sensible gun control. Here’s a very revealing three-part series from The Daily Show where John Oliver heads goes Down Under for one heck of a study in contrasts, both societal and political:

NOM: Same-sex couples destroying marriage retroactively

It’s apparent that any wingnut group that could interpret data rationally and honestly would no longer be a wingnut group. Giving credence to this theory now is the virulently homophobic National Organization for Marriage, which recently posted this graph to their Facebook page:

It’s unsourced, so I can’t immediately confirm its credibility, but it appears to mesh with US Census data at a glance.

Now, a reasonable person might look at this data and understand that marital rates have been in a continuous and steady decline for at least 50 years (and presumably longer, given the rate of decline present at the start of the graph), presumably as a result of an increasingly liberal culture that rejects forcing partners to remain trapped in loveless or hostile unions and encourages people to wait until they’re more certain of who they are and what they want in life before deciding to settle down.

And then, there’s NOM’s interpretation:

Marriage rates down, out-of-wedlock birth rates up. Conservatives may have correctly predicted the consequences of same-sex marriage.

Amazing – gay and lesbian couples are so pervasive and noxious that they’re actually destroying society retroactively, starting decades before they were even allowed to marry anywhere in the world! Maybe these arch-conservative groups are onto something after all.

(Or just on something. Something with strong reality-altering properties.)

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Nostalgia Critic examines popular dislike of “princess” archetype

One of my favorite web series is the Nostalgia Critic, wherein Doug Walker of That Guy With The Glasses plays a cynical, often histrionic reviewer of old-timey flicks and assorted media. Lately, the series has added a recurring, bi-weekly opinion segment where the NC talks about some aspect or other of pop culture and its effects on society in general.

Today, he put forth a rather thoughtful look at the much-bemoaned “princess” archetype (especially as popularized by Disney) and the lackluster role model it generally provides to young girls. While I don’t agree with every argument he makes and I think he misses a few logical connections, it’s still an interesting and insightful perspective to consider:

Transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

NOSTALGIA CRITIC: Hello! I’m the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it so you don’t have to.

Hey, what’s with the “princess” hate?

Yes, most little girls fantasize about being a princess at some point. With their elegant beauty, kind heart and enchanted surroundings, the princess, for many, is the epitome of femininity. But there’s been a bit of a backlash in the past several years, saying that the “princess” stereotype is a more damaging fantasy than an encouraging one. Even I’ve had my rants on the overuse of it in media.

NC: (to a movie character) You’re not really a princess! You just took the title ’cause it sounds cute!

NC: So, is it just innocent make-believe, or is there really something to get angry about? Well, in order to answer this, we should probably look at what the majority of people take the most offense at. And I guess it’s only the most logical, albeit clichéd, to look at the most famous lineup of princesses: Disney.

Disney has practically reinvented the fairy tale. And seeing how their Princess line is the best-selling licensed entertainment character merchandise, it’s safe to say they have a clear understanding of what makes princesses so popular.

What do they have in common? Well, they’re all pretty; they’re all kind; they all have various clothes and accessories you can buy for them. But naturally, the intrigue in owning one has to come from their personalities formed in the movies, which many consider, from an ethical point of view, not the best role models. “They don’t do anything,” many complain, “they’re just damsels waiting to be rescued and never take responsibility in getting things done for themselves, instead relying on their status and/or beauty to get them what they want. Which, in most cases, is just a man.”

Aaand … sometimes that’s true.

Sleeping Beauty, for example, I still stand by as one of the most forgettable characters in Disney history. Yeah, we all know the iconic image, but her fantasy extends to her doing absolutely nothing while her true love comes to save the day. And what, of course, happens? She does absolutely nothing while her true love comes to save the day. And on top of that, she has nothing else to make her stand out, be unique, or have any specific characteristics. So, yeah, the argument is pretty valid there.

But fuck it, I’m gonna defend the other ladies a little bit. Not that they’re always the best, but there’s^[sic] still good virtues that we can learn from them. Snow White kindness and helpful nature, for example, serves as a second mother for the dwarfs. And anyone that says being a mother doesn’t make a hard-working, responsible woman clearly has never been one. It’s work, and worst about it is that you don’t even get paid for it. So the fact that she can still be pleasant while also teaching the dwarfs responsibility may not be major, but it’s still something.

But, many would argue, it’s one thing for one of them to fall in that category. What about three?

We mentioned Sleeping Beauty before, but Cinderella is often the biggest offender to the “sit back, do nothing and let someone else save the day” routine. Again, to her defense, she’s working her ass off. I mean, like, every second she’s on-screen, she’s doing something. And in the end, she’s rewarded for her hard work and kindness, even in the face of such nastiness.

And if your argument is this is still not a good role model, that it wouldn’t inspire people to go out there and achieve, guess who’s favorite fairy tale this was? Yup – the “D-man” himself who supposedly started this whole controversy: Disney. He said Cinderella was his favorite because he often felt like her: Working as hard as he could every day until destiny finally gave him a chance, and that hard work and kindness can result in a virtuous reward.

But what does that arguably-greatest-businessman-creative-genius-and-heartwarming-icon know? Pfft. Slacker.

Now, granted, while I don’t think these characters are that bad, it’s clear to acknowledge that these women were limited to the roles that women were expected to have at the time. In the following years, the princess would be a little more proactive, taking more chances and forming more definitive personalities. But even that can take some flak, too, particularly Arial, the Little Mermaid, who many complain is just a whiny teenager who needs a man to save the day. And while she can at times certainly be her own teenage drama queen, people forget, at the time, she was praised as being much more independent than the past Disney princesses. She traveled, she explored, she broke the rules, she left the house, she had a distinct personality, she was curious.

ROGER EBERT: The character is active. She’s not just a little girl that things happen to. She’s up there, she’s gonna go to the surface, she’s gonna find her prince, she’s gonna take care of business, and so, you can really identify with her.

NC: And on top of that, while the prince does save the day in the end, she saves his life not once, but twice in this movie. Hell, if we wanna get technical about it, I’m surprised more people weren’t pissed off at Jasmine. I mean, yeah, she fights for her independence once and even takes a chance at living her own life, but she quickly returns to the world she said she hated, stays in it, and constantly lets her boyfriend save her.

But nevertheless, the complaints were heard, and the Princess brand over the years has made an effort to try and make their lady more and more independent, having them save the male just as many times as the male saves them, while still keeping true to the kind and moral virtues that – let’s face it, people – are enforced in every Disney character, not just the princesses: Be nice, be kind, be true to your heart. When has that not been a major part of the lesson in a Disney film?

So, after looking them all over, I’m not sure if it’s entirely Disney’s fault for the negative stereotype. Okay, it didn’t always help, but in many respects, it did help. They’re still trying to teach the importance of patience and kindness, which are great virtues for any gender. And Disney is even pushing harder to make their most marketable icons be a symbol of strength and honor, as see in these recent ads:

GIRL: I am a princess. I am brave even when I am scared. I believe compassion makes me strong. Kindness is power.

NC: So, if the virtues that the massive Disney’s promoting isn’t the problem with the princess icon, what is? I’ll admit, something was rubbing me the wrong way for years about girls wanting to be princesses. I just couldn’t put my finger on it. But then, the answer came to me when I saw Bridge to Terabithia, which is a godawful flick, by the way. (Right, note to self: Review Bridge to Terabithia.)

When our main lead brings his little sister into his fantasy world.

SISTER: Is there a king? Are you the king, Jess?

BROTHER: Only if you’re princess.

NC: Wait a minute. Why is he King, and her Princess? Shouldn’t it more logically be King and Queen? In fact, even more recently, in Wreck-It Ralph, why is it when the king is destroyed, again, it’s a princess who rules the land, and not a queen?

In fact, how come in a lot of nostalgic shows and movies I’ve reviewed, even if the original ruler is gone, they still hold the title “Princess”? Yeah, Princess Sally, Princess Lana; hell, even Princess Leia. All their parents are out of commission, and yet, they still hold onto the title of Princess and not Queen. Why does that seem more marketable for some reason?

And that’s when it suddenly hit me. It’s not necessarily the virtues of the princess that piss people off. Maybe it’s the title. Why do so many boys want to be King? Because they want the power and responsibility to control and change things.

DUKE NUKEM: Hail to the King, baby.

NC: Well, then, why do so many girls not want to be Queen, then? In fact, we’re almost anti-Queen, aren’t we? The more research I did, the more I found there aren’t that many fictional queens that are kind, heroic women. They’re usually the villains.

Which brings us back to the question: Why do so many girls prefer Princess to Queen? Well, maybe because being a princess not only indicates you’re younger, which often translates to prettier, but also that you have a position of power with responsibility, but not too much responsibility. “Oh, I’m just holding the spot for the King until he returns. I still have the title of youthful innocent who has power, but not all the power, thus projecting an image of daintiness and elegance who makes everybody cookies instead of an image of strength and determination who makes powerful changes.”

It’s the same thing as calling a grown man a “boy” and a grown woman a “girl”. If you call a grown man a “boy”, they’ll usually be pissed off. Why? Because they want to be seen for strength and responsibility over youthfulness and innocence. Whereas sadly, many women who prefer it the other way around, valuing the youthfulness and innocence over strength and responsibility. Oh, don’t get me wrong; there’s many who don’t, but you all know out there, there’s plenty that do.

Now, why this is is a whole other argument. Is it society over nature, nature over society, a combination of both; it’s a whole other issue. And I’m also not forgetting that prince and princess are not made-up titles; they really exist. It’s not titles we created to keep people in certain roles; they’re actual royal positions.

But what is obvious is that a reinforcement seems to be that princesses are young, beautiful and try to live in an innocent world free from conflict. And if one does arrive, it’s somebody else’s job to take care of it. With that said, no matter how tough, action-packed or honorable you make your heroine, by keeping your “princess” title a very popular title, it’s still reinforcing that youth and the need not to take responsibility are the best virtues.

And don’t get me wrong; I know men and women are different. I know, instinctually, we’re gonna have a different emphasis on different values; men are from Mars, women from Venus; etc., etc. But the world is changing more and more every day, and we’re seeing much more variety in our female characters than we have in the past. So, maybe it’s time to really look at the changes happening around us and see which virtues we really want to enforce. And, at least, making it very clear that there’s a definite option that any female can be as powerful as she wants to be. And that second place, or being under somebody else’s wing, is not the furthest you can go.

Because, let’s face it, guys: With so many female characters that are good, strong, interesting, funny, entertaining, intelligent, responsible and just as compelling as male characters, perhaps it’s time for the princess in so many people to stop living in fairy tales and look at the reality that is unfolding around us.

I’m the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it so you don’t have to.

(I have got to start writing shorter summaries …)

I would personally take it a few steps further than he dared to and posit that one reason for the historical popularity of the “princess” role model, particularly instead of the much more logical role of “queen”, is that it’s essentially another subtle manifestation of that ol’ bugaboo, the patriarchy. It only makes sense for a society that’s long been geared towards emphasizing male dominance in most fields (especially leadership) to depreciate the value and contributions of women in society at large. This would also help explain the long-running trope of the “evil queen”, given the precious few good queen characters that exist in our culture. (I can’t even think of any off the top of my head, though that may well just be my own ignorance showing.)

Daily Blend: Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Pres. Barack Obama

Sorry for the repeated link dumps, only there’s this awesome story I just … must … finish …

President Obama ^[pictured] finally proposes some basic, obvious, commonsensical gun control regulations.
(via Pharyngula)

… Which, of course, means he’s out to disarm Americans to make it easier for the government to kill them all! (Seriously, Vox, take a toke.)

California lawmakers present bill to fix ridiculous legal loophole used to exculpate rapists posing as someone’s partner.

Radley Balko has a great write-up about the inordinate and dangerous amount of power and immunity granted to U.S. prosecutors.

And finally, I don’t agree with everything in it, but Robert Brockway at Cracked has an interesting piece about the U.S.’s culture of glorified violence and the role of videogames as a symptom.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: Thursday, December 13, 2012

PZ Myers

If crap like this doesn’t convince you that the U.S. criminal justice system is an absolutely hideous farce, nothing will.
(via @ggreenwald)

I can’t wait for the usual dolts to quote-mine PZ Myers’s ^[pictured] (discomforting but incontrovertible) assertion that “[i]f you’re white, you’re racist”.

Meanwhile, the man must be damn near a saint if harmless, sex-positive jokes are the blackest dirt the anti-Freethought Blogs ilk can dig up on him.

And finally, here’s your amazing wildlife video of the day:
(via @DiscoveryCanada)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Donohue prefers employment discrimination to basic decency

Bill Donohue

Catholic League blowhard Bill Donohue reacts to a Business Review Europe piece about fostering harmony in multicultural offices during the holidays:

“If one of your colleagues wants to put up a picture of Jesus, but he works next to a Buddhist,” [Richard] Fausta advises, “there may be some sensitivities involved to deal with.” We can’t relate to that [Catholic League VP Bernadette] Brady said. “We don’t hire Buddhists.”

“One survey found 85 percent of companies that decorate their offices have had to adjust policies as a result of complaints about the decorations,” Fausta said. “We can’t relate to that Brady said. “We only hire Catholics.”

In other words, to avoid complaints of discrimination in the workplace, be sure to discriminate when hiring. Either that or tell the whiners to get a life.

So, because the Catholic League hires from an exclusively homogeneous religious subset, the solution is thus for all employers everywhere to select only candidates of a common societal category to make sure they’d never risk exposure to other traditions or beliefs. Because God forbid anyone should bother to exhibit any sensitivity towards coworkers with differing cultural backgrounds. That goes directly against narrow-minded Christianists like Donohue believe in, after all.

(And by the by, while I’m often harsh on theists’ and conservatives’ sensibilities on this blog, my point is always that subjective feelings and opinions are never a good argument against treating others equally and fairly just because they feature ethnic, sexual, religious or other traits that differ from the culturally established norm. I may well think Islam is ridiculous and harmful, but I would still avoid featuring a stuffed pig centerpiece should I ever play dinner host for some Muslim guests. That’s just common decency.)

Daily Blend: Sunday, November 25, 2012

Ac Tah

PZ Myers explains why evolutionary psychology fails to explain behavioral differences between men and women (it mangles genetics and doesn’t consider cultural upbringing).

Could it be that this Mayan elder ^[pictured] is deliberately trolling in order to undermine “Doomsday 2012” believers? The idea that he might be serious is almost too painful to bear.

And finally, for free hugs, go to kitty:
(via @BuzzFeedAndrew)

[full size (500×375)]

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: Monday, October 01, 2012

Jack Wu [source]

The king always feels he is being wronged when the starving peasants rise up and oust him from his throne. #MaleDecline

Stephanie Coontz at The New York Times destroys the myth that men are being treated as inferior to women in this modern society. I wonder if I’ll receiving some more amusing anti-feminist attempts to refute established facts in my Twitter @mentions feed.
(via atheismplus | Reddit)

Massive earthquakes in Indonesia signal the impending break-up of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate … over the next few million years.
(via The Daily Grail)

“If you're mainstream, you're going to hell”: Westboro Baptist Church attendee ^[pictured] runs for Kansas Board of Education seat.
(via @BadAstronomer)

Australia’s ABC program Media Watch rips into WIN News’s false-balance-driven promulgation of “vaccines cause autism” garbage from Meryl Dorey from the antivax Australian Vaccination Network.
(via @BadAstronomer)

And finally, the Discovery Channel is set to embarrass itself again, this time with an ode to the U.S.’s gun craze hosted by reactionary flywheel Ted Nugent.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Stephanie Coontz • men • women • male decline • tectonic plates • Indo-Australian plate • earthquakes • Jack Wu • Westboro Baptist Church • Topeka, KS • Kansas State Board of Education • ABC News • Media Watch • WIN News • Meryl Dorey • Australian Vaccination Network • AVN • Discovery Channel • Ted Nugent • Ted Nugent's Gun Country

Ray Comfort is horrified by moral deterioration as evidenced by “effeminate” and “weird” kids who listen to crappy music

Ray Comfort

God-botter extraordinaire Ray Comfort recently visited a mall and was so unimpressed by the boringly grotesque appearance of kids these days that he took to his blog to describe how they’re a sign of the coming moral apocalypse (or something):

In front of me was a mother and son. She was kindly buying a music CD for her boy. He was about 15 years old—the age where peer pressure, music, and fashion are strongly influential in his search for identity. It was evident that he was finding it, with his effeminate-look, weird hairstyle and his earrings. He was typical of millions.

Oh noes, effeminate-looking hair and weird earrings? Clearly, this is a kid who’s lost his way in life.

As we walked through the mall, I saw another youth. This one was wearing a T-shirt with a picture of two pretty girls kissing each other on the lips. Nothing unusual there.

Yet somehow notable enough for you to feel the need to point out how wrong it is. For some reason. (Oh, wait – it’s because of that part in the Bible where God said that “thou shalt not lay thy lips upon the lips of another girl if thou also beith a girl”, right?)

When I exited the mall I heard the familiar sound of booming rap music, thoroughly laced with what we now comfortably call the “F-bomb.” It was an uneventful day at the mall.

Fear the …! Wait, actually, I hate that crap, too. Not because it’s overly profane or another sign of the impending doom of an increasingly godless humanity, but because it’s just a bad excuse for music.

Of course, the solution to all this is obvious: Ray Comfort should stay away from malls from now on.

Tags: Ray Comfort • teenagers

Vox Day loves his slippery slope: Brazilian polygamy edition

Vox Day

That really didn’t take long. Barely a day after reports broke about Brazil’s consideration of three-way unions, here comes our favorite slippery slope enthusiast, Theodore “Vox Day” Beale:

The advocates of homosexual "marriage" have been proven to be completely wrong, as the push for polygamous marriage has gotten rolling before homogamy has even been made legal in most states.

[…]

As I pointed out, correctly, once you start messing around with the nouns in "one man + one woman", you eliminate all the grounds for not messing around with the numbers too. Besides, the multiculti idiots have no choice but to support polygamy, since their precious third-worlders both practice and demand it.

Today’s lesson in logic: Some other country is thinking about maybe someday debating a change to some of their laws, which can only mean that your country is now on the brink of legalizing some behavior you personally find questionable. Mark my words. (Or, well, his.)

Of course, that’s not even mentioning the question of why polygamy is thought of as wrong or should be illegal in the first place. There’s nothing bad about polyamory in itself; easily one of the most fundamental truths in our modern society is that people have the right to love whoever they want and for any reason, regardless of what current local expectations may be. Some people simply have too much love to give (to phrase it in admittedly simplistic terms), or else may feel torn between two people they love equally; who are lawmakers or pearl-clutchers to decide who they may or may not be with?

Granted, this particular debate is more about legal recognition of unions rather than romantic attachment in and of itself, but the overall point remains the same. And as of now, the only argument anyone opposed to polyamory/polygamy has bothered to bring forward (beyond the tautological “that’s just wrong!”) is whining about how progressives are trying to “redefine” marriage, which is absurd for any number of reasons. There have been more types of legal marital unions throughout human civilization than can be counted, so that’s obviously not an issue; not a single critic has ever advanced a credible explanation as to why broadening the scope of marriage beyond “one man and one woman” would be deleterious to anyone else, anywhere, and the continued existence (if not prosperity) of the various countries (notably my own motherland) that presently allow for married same-sex couples categorically debunks any fantasy about non-heteronormative legal unions harkening the demise of society, itself.

The entire crux of a loving relationship, recognized under the law or not, is that it’s a romantic bond between two or more individuals based on mutual affection and consent. Anything else is mere details and background noise. And until the critics and haters have anything more to present than tired and profoundly irrational canards serving as thin cloaks for their bigotry, then all the rest of us can do is point and laugh as they inexorably quibble and splutter themselves out of existence.

Tags: Brazil • polygamy • polyamory • Theodore Beale • Vox Day

World’s best dad wears a skirt for his crossdressing son

Nils Pickert & son

In which a German father and his five-year-old boy see your childhood taunt of “My dad can beat up your dad!” and raise you this magnificent example of loving courage:

"My five year old son likes to wear dresses," says German dad Nils Pickert.

Back when he lived in West Berlin, it was certainly a conversation-starter, but not much more than that. Now, however, Pickert and his son live in a "very traditional" South German village where his son's predilection for dresses is the talk of the town.

"I didn't want to talk my son into not wearing dresses and skirts," Pickert tells the German feminist magazine EMMA. "He didn't make friends in doing that in Berlin already and after a lot of contemplation I had only one option left: To broaden my shoulders for my little buddy and dress in a skirt myself."

From the translated article at the first link, above, we see that Mr. Pickert well and truly gets it:

Yes, I’m one of those dads, that try to raise their children equal. I’m not one of those academic daddies that ramble about gender equality during their studies and then, as soon as a child’s in the house, still relapse into those fluffy gender roles: He’s finding fulfilment in his carrier and she’s doing the rest.

Wait, you mean he came to the conclusion that forcibly imposing rigid gender roles upon children and preventing them from expressing what they truly feel like inside may be corrosive to their development all on his own, without being corrupted and pussified by all those crazy, hysterical feminazis and queers with all their crazy ideas about equal treatment? Fancy that.

And the best part is how the ending to this tale is sure to send a thousand conformists’ heads ass-plodin’:

And what's the little guy doing by now? He's painting his fingernails. He thinks it looks pretty on my nails, too. He's simply smiling, when other boys ( and it's nearly always boys) want to make fun of him and says: "You only don't dare to wear skirts and dresses because your dads don't dare to either." That's how broad his own shoulders have become by now. And all thanks to daddy in a skirt.

You know, slippery slopes aren’t all bad, really. And while no-one who’s been through grade school can deny that little Pickert Jr. is undoubtedly in for some rough times ahead, he’s incredibly lucky to have a father who’s ready to go to bat for him whenever needed. I do think he should be just fine.

And at any rate, how’s that for a rejoinder? “Oh, yeah? Well, my dad has the guts to wear a skirt in public because he loves his son enough to allow him to wear a dress. Does yours?”

(via @GodlessPoutine)

Tags: Nils Pickert • crossdressing • EMMA • gender roles

Atheism+: Welcome to the third wave of godlessness

It’s no secret to anyone who deems themself part of the atheist movement that our ranks have been suffering through several (and no longer facetiously named) Deep Rifts^TM over the past couple of years. More and more godless activists and bloggers are taking up the mantle of social justice issues, including that bugaboo of far too many so-called peers, feminism. An increasing number of women (and male allies) are daring to speak up about such controversial subjects as the need for anti-sexual harassment policies at major conferences and the importance of keeping in mind how one shouldn’t allow their carnal desires to affect anyone else’s public experience. Because, as we’ve all seen, merely asking people to display a modicum of respect and consideration for others is now cause for years’ worth of arguments, broken alliances, and death threats.

There’s a staggering amount more to be said about the matter, but it’s all pretty much been discussed, debated and (for some) settled by people far more involved and pertinent than myself, so I shall abstain. But in the meantime, these Rifts continue to grow, with some people declaring that secular activists should limit their focus to purely atheism-related matters and ignore anything else regarding diversity and inequality, and ever-more who passionately disagree. At this, I command you to read Jen McCreight’s utterly brilliant post on the matter, and why it’s time to let those Deep Rifts continue to spread and form our own, grander, healthier movement:

I don’t want good causes like secularism and skepticism to die because they’re infested with people who see issues of equality as mission drift. I want Deep Rifts. I want to be able to truthfully say that I feel safe in this movement. I want the misogynists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and downright trolls out of the movement for the same reason I wouldn’t invite them over for dinner or to play Mario Kart: because they’re not good people. We throw up billboards claiming we’re Good Without God, but how are we proving that as a movement? Litter clean-ups and blood drives can only say so much when you’re simultaneously threatening your fellow activists with rape and death.

It’s time for a new wave of atheism, just like there were different waves of feminism. I’d argue that it’s already happened before. The “first wave” of atheism were the traditional philosophers, freethinkers, and academics. Then came the second wave of “New Atheists” like Dawkins and Hitchens, whose trademark was their unabashed public criticism of religion. Now it’s time for a third wave – a wave that isn’t just a bunch of “middle-class, white, cisgender, heterosexual, able-bodied men” patting themselves on the back for debunking homeopathy for the 983258th time or thinking up yet another great zinger to use against Young Earth Creationists. It’s time for a wave that cares about how religion affects everyone and that applies skepticism to everything, including social issues like sexism, racism, politics, poverty, and crime. We can criticize religion and irrational thinking just as unabashedly and just as publicly, but we need to stop exempting ourselves from that criticism.

Daily Blend: Tuesday, August 07, 2012

Pat Robertson

Today in stupid misogynistic assholes who make me ashamed of my gender.

Meanwhile, Soren Bowie at Cracked.com exposes four “unhealthy mentalities the Internet turned into movements”, including the MRA/PUA slime.

New Hampshire court: “Sorry you were raped twice … and that we then accidentally gave your home address to your rapist.”
(via @radleybalko)

And finally, did you know that those terrible God-hating atheists are behind the Sikh Temple shooting? Pat Robertson ^[pictured] says it, so you know it’s true:

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Jennifer McCreight • misogyny • misogynists • women • women • sexiness • attractiveness • Roosh • RooshV • MRAs • Men's Rights Activists • PUAs • Pick-Up Artists • Cracked.com • Soren Bowie • drunk driving • drunk driving advocacy • gang-stalking • infidelity • cheating • Ashley Madison • Wilton, NH • Rebekah • rape victims • rape • Joseph Martell • Pat Robertson • atheists • Sikhism

Bigots’ fears about gay marriage apocalypse debunked (yet again)

Slate takes a look at the facts surrounding the LGBT marriage equality debate and points out the obvious: U.S. states that have legalized same-sex marriage aren’t crumbling into oblivion, nor are they host to any more drug-fueled gay orgies than before (as far as we know, anyway). The article starts with overall marriage rates:

Start with Massachusetts, which endorsed gay marriage in May 2004. That year, the state saw a 16 percent increase in marriage. The reason is, obviously, that gay couples who had been waiting for years to get married were finally able to tie the knot. In the years that followed, the marriage rate normalized but remained higher than it was in the years preceding the legalization. So all in all, there’s no reason to worry that gay marriage is destroying marriage in Massachusetts.

The other four states that have legalized gay marriage—New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire—have done it more recently, somewhere between 2008 and 2011. But from the little data we have, it looks as if the pattern will be more or less the same—a temporary jump in marriage followed by a return to virtually the same marriage rates as before gay marriage became legal. Washington, D.C., which started accepting same-sex marriages in March 2010, saw a huge 61.7 percent increase in marriage that year, though it’s too soon to see where it will settle. Again, no signs of the coming apocalypse.

Another shocker: Straight couples in those same states aren’t seeing their heteronormative unions magically dissolved, either:

Another measure of the health of marriage is a state’s divorce rate. Have those changed since gay marriage was introduced? Not really. In each of the five states, divorce rates following legalization have been lower on average than the years preceding it, even as the national divorce rate grew. In 2010, four of the five states had a divorce rate that was lower than both the national divorce rate and the divorce rate of the average state.

Of course, no amount of real evidence will ever dissuade anyone of the idea that allowing gays and lesbians to marry won’t somehow contaminate or weaken heterosexual unions (much less society as a whole) if they’re stupid or delusional enough to believe that in the first place. But there’s always hope for more reasonable individuals and fence-sitters to see reality for what it is and come down on the rational side of the issue.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Tags: gay marriage • same-sex marriage • marriage equality • conservatives • bigots • homophobia • Massachusetts • New York • Connecticut • Iowa • Vermont • New Hampshire • divorce

Daily Blend: Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Pres. Barack Obama

Nobel Peace Prize laureate and “leader of the free world” ^[pictured] declares that “all military-age males in a strike zone” are “militants” and can be slaughtered with impunity. I’ve been gradually souring on the President for a long time, but this is just sick. Even Bush & Cheney were never this brazen about their bloodlust.

Ed Brayton provides some clarification – and mild reassurance – about the recent Gallup poll about abortion rights attitudes.

Some hope for Oklahoma as the state legislature shitcans three Creationist and anti-global warming education bills.
(via @BadAstronomer)

WorldNetDaily “exclusive”: Kooks declare that “miracles” in Men in Black 3 make the case for Creationism!
(via Joe. My. God.)

Great write-up about the decline and refitting of churches in Québec, Canada.

Hannibal Lecter and Will Graham to star in upcoming TV series, while Clarice Starling gets slotted on Lifetime (blech). I am perplexed.
(via Fark)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Barack Obama • Obama administration • militants • terrorists • Gallup • pro-choice • pro-choicers • pro-abortion • anti-choice • anti-choicers • anti-abortion • anti-abortionists • pro-life • pro-lifers • Oklahoma • SB 1742 • HB 1551 • HB 2341 • Men in Black 3 • Intelligent Design • Creationism • WorldNetDaily • WND • Drew Zahn • Quebec, CA • Quiet Revolution • churches • Christianity • Catholicism • Hannibal Lecter • Will Graham • Clarice Starling • Hannibal • Clarice • Lifetime • TV series

Daily Blend: Monday, May 21, 2012

George Tierney

House grand finale tonight. No more Jack Bauer, no more Walter Bishop (at least, until next season, which’ll also be the last), and now, no more grouchy gimp – I’m running out of halfway decent shows to watch.

New Jersey woman sued for sending a text message to someone who she didn’t know was driving and who then crashed.

Bill Donohue: Lawsuit to force the Obama administration to codify the Catholic Church’s stance against abortion rights is “a great day for those who believe in religious liberty”.

Two U.S. representatives want to remove ban on airing pro-U.S. propaganda. Because all that “American exceptionalism” twaddle doesn’t count?
(via ThinkProgress)

George Tierney ^[pictured] of Greenville, SC, wants his hideously sexist attacks to be stricken from the Google. Let’s send a few hearty laughs his way.
(via @todayspolitics)

The only thing better than John Scalzi’s brilliant post explaining straight White male privilege in videogaming terms is seeing Vox Day kvetch about it.

Incredible maverick fiscal genius Newt Gingrich is five million dollars in debt.
(via ThinkProgress)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Morris County, NJ • Shannon Colonna • Bill Donohue • Catholic League • Obama administration • religious liberty • religious freedom • Mark Thornberry • Adam Smith • United States • United States • USA • propaganda • Smith-Mundt Act • Foreign Relations Authorization Act • George Tierney • TBogg • Sandra Fluke • misogyny • Google • John Scalzi • Vox Day • Theodore Beale • privilege • Newt Gingrich

Daily Blend: Thursday, May 17, 2012

Carlos DeLuna

Texas executed another innocent man ^[pictured] in 1989. One wonders how many more such revelations it will take before death penalty supporters start to reconsider their selective trust in the government.
(via @radleybalko)

Maybe someday, James O’Keefe will do something that won’t leave him looking like an incompetent, lying dumbass. Maybe.

Insightful video on the importance of vaccines and the threat of antivaccination bullshit.
(via @BadAstronomy)

Smithsonian blogger stomps a hole of science right through the heart of the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens. (cc: Jen McCreight)
(via The Daily Grail)

Ottawa museum forced to raise age limit for sexuality exhibit after underestimating how prudish people are.

48 things that make you realize you’ll never never feel young again.
(via Joe. My. God.)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Texas • Carlos Hernandez • Carlos DeLuna • capital punishment • wrongful executions • Los Tocayos Carlos • Columbia Law School • James O'Keefe • voter fraud • antivaccination • antivaccine • antivax • antivaxxers • Dana McCaffery • Ancient Aliens • History Channel • Brian Switek • Giorgio Tsoukalos • Science and Technology Museum • Sex: A Tell-All Exhibition • Yves St-Onge • Institute for Marriage and Family Canada • BuzzFeed • nostalgia

Bill Donohue goes on the anti-gay offensive

If there’s one good thing to be said about Bill Donohue (and god knows there aren’t many), it’s that he doesn’t shy away from speaking his mind as openly and bluntly as his disregard for basic decency allows him to. While most homophobes try and pretend that they don’t want to discriminate against gays (and instead just really wish they’d sit down and stay quiet all on their own), the Catholic League’s doughy face of hate goes on CNN to make his virulent bigotry exceedingly clear:

Transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

Transcript via CNN (slightly edited):

PIERS MORGAN: Bill Donohue, you don’t agree with this. What was your reaction to what the President did today?

BILL DONOHUE: Well, it all started when our friend, Mr. Joseph Biden from Delaware, on Meet the Press, didn’t it? He brought the guy out and asked to come clean. As you probably said, Obama’s always liked the idea of two men getting married. He had to change because he wanted to become president and he said he invoked his Christian moorings, right? He said he was a Christian, and Christians don’t believe in two men getting married.

Now, today, he had to wiggle with that, didn’t he? So he said, “Well, I'm going to invoke the golden rule.” The problem with the golden rule idea is that it covers the marriage of Patricia and Allen Muth. Patricia and Allen Muth are brothers and sisters. They went into the courts and argued that they have a right to get married.

Now I want to ask this gentleman here, does he have a problem with that?

MORGAN: OK. Well, do you have a problem with that?

CHAD GRIFFIN: Look, I – the gentleman brings up the golden rule. And the golden rule really is something that most all of us were taught. I know my mom taught me the golden rule.

DONOHUE: What about the Muths? What about the Muths? (crosstalk) The brother and sister who want to get married? Do you have a problem with that, sir?

GRIFFIN: I find – I find –

MORGAN: Answer his point.

GRIFFIN: Sure. I find what he’s saying to be ridiculous, and I don’t support that –

DONOHUE: It’s in the courts!

GRIFFIN: – and I don’t think any Americans would support that. This is about two loving couples –

DONOHUE: You discriminate then, don’t you?

GRIFFIN: – wanting to make the lifetime commitment of – wanting to make the lifetime –

MORGAN: Well, let me ask you, Bill Donohue, what essentially is your problem, personally –

DONOHUE: Oh, it’s very simple.

MORGAN: – with two loving Americans getting married?

DONOHUE: It’s absolutely very simple. I have a doctorate in sociology from NYU and I know what the literature says. The literature is definitive. There’s one gold standard. One gold standard for children. That is, there’s no substitute for a marriage between a man and a woman.

I want the law to discriminate against straight people who live together – I used to call it shacking up, now it’s called cohabitation. I want the law to discriminate against all alternative lifestyles, against gays and unions. I want to promote, and to put in a privileged position, that institution of marriage between a man and a woman which has been shown over and over and over again to be the gold standard, the blue chip standard.

The key bit:

I want the law to discriminate against straight people who live together – I used to call it shacking up, now it’s called cohabitation. I want the law to discriminate against all alternative lifestyles, against gays and unions. I want to promote, and to put in a privileged position, that institution of marriage between a man and a woman which has been shown over and over and over again to be the gold standard, the blue chip standard.

One has to wonder what sort of quality that “gold” standard is, given that absolutely nothing in the long history of researching has ever turned up any results remotely similar to his claims. In fact, every credible study published in recent memory unequivocally declares the exact opposite: children raised by same-sex parents are every bit as well-adjusted as their heterosexually raised counterparts, with some studies even suggesting they display less behavioral problems on average, including intolerance. I guess that makes LGBT parenting the platinum standard, then.

Study: Younger generation more frustrated with Christianity

A 2007 study reveals more about how the Millennial generation feels about Christianity, and the results, while slightly outdated, are both interesting and heartening (though not for Christians):

A new study by The Barna Group conducted among 16- to 29-year-olds shows that a new generation is more skeptical of and resistant to Christianity than were people of the same age just a decade ago.

[…]

The study explored twenty specific images related to Christianity, including ten favorable and ten unfavorable perceptions. Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions were negative. Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%) - representing large proportions of young outsiders who attach these negative labels to Christians. The most common favorable perceptions were that Christianity teaches the same basic ideas as other religions (82%), has good values and principles (76%), is friendly (71%), and is a faith they respect (55%).

Even among young Christians, many of the negative images generated significant traction. Half of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.

What’s more, the continuing demonization of gays and lesbians is taking its toll:

Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.

You mean that hearing Christian leaders constantly pound on the anti-gay war drums is starting to drive more sensible young people away? Who woulda thunk it …

Now, none of this is particularly surprising, at least not to anyone who keeps minimally aware of current social and religious trends. But what makes it rather interesting is that the organization that conducted the study, The Barna Group, is actually an evangelical Christian firm, itself, whose goals are to produce research that can be used to improve the influence and public opinion of Christendom. It’s somewhat heartening to see that even Christians – those who aren’t blinded by delusions of dogmatic infallibility, that is – are able to recognize that in the greater scheme of things, their side is losing ground, and with increasing speed. (And even then, these numbers are five years old, which makes it clear that they’ll have only continued in favor of secularism.)

In the end, what this study shows is that in the culture war between dogma and modernity, the camp with an actual vested interest in morality and human dignity will inevitably – and soon – relegate the narrow-minded Christian creed into as distant a position of relevance in our culture as the Bronze Age from whence it and its morals originated.

(via Rob F)

Tags: The Barna Group • Christianity • Millennials • Millennial generation • Generation Y • Christians