The BlogHer Con is taking place today! Be sure to check out the live blogging and chat!
Damn, but this is cool. I love recursive (or sort-of recursive) images. Via Crooked Timber (which also linked to the Zoomquilt, which “Alas” readers may remember from back in March, but if not you should look at that too!).
Far be it from me to proselytize for any religion, but I came across a unique and exciting movement that has entered the demand line for theory inclusion to battle it out against Evolution and Intelligent Design.
Apparently concerned Kansas citizen Bobby Harrison started out by writing a letter to the Kansas School Board and has since branched off into all out activism to vie for the inclusion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster universe creation theory. According to Bobby, the movement includes 10 million worldwide, and they are prepared to press the matter legally if need be:
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
One of the more interesting things about this particular worship group is the rather stringent dress code requirements necessary for proper respect to be shown in teaching this theory. Harrison explains that it is a necessity in order to avoid His wrath, and demonstrates through historical data how lack of compliance has affected society in the past:
I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
Thus far, Harrison has received two responses from Kansas School Board member’s expressing their understanding of the gravity of the situation:
Response from Mrs. Sue Gamble – District 2 – Received 6/26/05
Date: Jun 26, 2005 6:34 PM
Subject: ReplyDear Mr. Henderson, Thanks for your message. Thanks for the laugh. Your web site is fascinating. I will add your theory to a long list of alternative theories I intend to introduce when it is appropriate. I am practicing how to do this with a straight face which is difficult since it’s such a ridiculous subject; it is also very sad that we are even having the discussion.
I will be one of the four member minority who will be voting against the flawed science standards currently being proposed by the six member majority.
Sincerely, Sue Gamble
…
Response from Mrs. Janet Waugh – District 1 – Received 6/25/05
Date: Jun 25, 2005 6:34 AM
Subject: Response from a member of the Kansas Board of EducationThanks for your comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the supporters who have sent their support to members of the Kansas Board of Education. I am supporting the recommendations of the science committee and am currently in the minority. I think your theory is wonderful and possibly some of the majority members will be willing to support it.
Thanks again,Janet Waugh
In closing, Shiver me timbers, matey, this could get ugly! Aarrrghh!
The more I hear men’s rights activists fulminating about the unfairness of child support, the more I wonder how typical my situation is, and whether there are any general lessons to be drawn about expectations of men and women when it comes to child-raising.
My relationship with the father of my child ran into difficulties before my pregnancy was even confirmed. Initially, we hoped to live together, but it quickly became clear that there were too many barriers, both logistical and emotional, for this to be a viable possibility, at least for a few years. I did some research into the rights and obligations of a non-custodial parent and found that although I would be entitled to a certain level of support as a custodial parent, I wasn’t legally obliged to demand it.
I had no desire to take him for every penny I could get: he was someone I cared deeply about but couldn’t live with. Since bearing and raising a child would affect my ability to work, and since I hoped he would want to see his child well cared-for, I envisaged a compromise whereby he made voluntary support payments and was in other ways an active father.
I reckoned without his stubbornness and commitment to traditional family structures. He informed me that it would be better for the child if he was in no way involved, since this would free me up to find a stepfather I could live with and build an approximation of a traditional family. That I have emotional problems that would make the search for a stepfather the worst possible fate I could inflict on myself or the child did not enter into his thinking: the child needed two parents who lived together, and since we couldn’t provide that, he didn’t want to be involved.
Later, he tried to soften that approach by saying that we lived too far apart to make visitation practical. If I lived closer to him, he suggested, it would be far easier to work something out. When I finally ended the relationship, he said that he’d hoped we would be able to find a solution, although I’m not sure what that solution should have been. I can only assume it would have involved my seeing the light and moving halfway across the country to live close to someone who had proved himself incapable of respecting anything about me that he didn’t agree with.
When I look back over the uglier arguments, I’m struck by how often he tried to put both blame and responsibility on me for the fact that he’d fathered a child without being ready for fatherhood. My explanation that I hoped to get pregnant was rendered meaningless by my statement that I’m committed to a woman’s right to choose. That I told him I wasn’t using any birth control wasn’t enough: I should also have told him the date of my last menstrual period. He believes that a child needs a father figure on the spot, therefore I had to enter another relationship despite my own understanding of myself.
I’ve also been told by family members that I’m not being fair to him and should have done more to make the relationship work. I don’t know what more I could have done without sacrificing my self-esteem and my plans for the future on the altar of his personal convenience, but I suspect that is a sacrifice I was expected to make. Not for him, of course, but for the child. It would be equally reasonable to expect him to move halfway across the country to be closer to me, but no-one is demanding that. Because I have no job to leave? Because I’m a woman? Because all my reasons for not wanting to move have been sifted through the mesh of rationality and found wanting?
The bottom line is that we both made a choice when we engaged in unprotected sex, and that choice has consequences for both of us. I go through the discomforts and dangers of pregnancy and childbirth and have the joyful but heavy responsibility of a child at the end of it. He has to pay a percentage of his income to support the child.
And yet he’s the one who feels treated unfairly.
Too much drawing for me to post much today, but I did want to point out two threads on Family Scholars Blog.
First, check out this thread about a 22-year-old man who tried to marry his pregnant, 13-year-old girlfriend but got charged with statutory rape instead. What’s interesting is that one of the frequent anti-SSM comment-writers there is arguing that SSM is actually more despicable than this man’s statutory rape of a 13 year old. (Thanks to Josh Jasper for pointing this one out to me.)
Secondly, check out this thread, in which various anti-SSM folks argue that it’s not discrimination for doctors to refuse to administer artificial insemination to a woman because she’s a lesbian. (I couldn’t resist posting on this thread myself).
Remember the story about Zach, the young Tennessee boy whose parents, shortly after he came out to them, sent him to a Christian-based “reparative therapy” and “ex-gay” camp called ‘Love in Action’. Two days ago, Zach was released from the proverbial Room 101 and fascist-“make you hate yourself ’til you turn hetero or kill yourself”-camp–thankfully! P.F.L.A.G. has released this statement about the case, which also calls for a closer look at so called “reparative therapy” and other “ex-gay” programs that have been noted to cause a severe internalization of self-hate and lead to suicide in LGBT people–especially young people.
July 26, 2005 ““ Washington, D.C. ““ As Zach Stark, the Tennessee teen who recently gained national attention after blogging his fears of being sent to Love in Action, is released from the program this week, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) calls for an ongoing and substantive discussion about the effects of “reparative therapy” on young people and their families.[…]
The “reparative therapy” industry uses disproved medical theories to “cure” GLBT persons and preys upon those in pain and confusion about matters of sexual orientation. Their claims and methods have been roundly denounced by the American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychiatric Association (APA) and other medical professionals.
PFLAG applauds greater scrutiny of “reparative therapy”, “conversion therapy” or “ex-gay” programs. Because of the attention surrounding Zach’s story, the Tennessee Department of Health began an investigation and notified the unlicensed Love in Action that it was functioning illegally by claiming to offer therapy and could face prosecution by the district attorney.[…]
Zach’s fears were well-founded. According to the AMA and APA, “reparative therapy” does not work. But the dangers of these programs are real. At a minimum, those in “reparative therapy” must cope with the emotional damage of being relentlessly badgered with fear tactics and being told to change who they are. At worse they are at risk for self-destructive behavior including suicide.
Mary Lou Wallner and her husband Bob know the damage of “reparative therapy” all too well. Speaking at a recent PFLAG conference in Bothell, Washington, Mary Lou told the audience that her reaction when her daughter came out was based on the teachings of Dr. James Dobson, a leading “reparative therapy” proponent. “I raised my kids on Dobson. I read his books and listened to his radio broadcasts for years. In December of 1988, when she was about 21 years old, my daughter wrote us a letter and told us that she was a lesbian. I flipped out and…the next nine years were pretty stormy. Then in February of 1997, at age 29, she committed suicide.”[…]
B-but, it’s ‘love in action‘ and it “repairs teh gayness” in you, remember?!! So just believe in Jesus at little harder, really-really hate yourself, and it will work? Great, you’ll finally be heterosexual–then you’ll commit suicide. I hope for the best for Zach and his recovery from this hellish ordeal. His story is one out of the thousands, of LGBT teens who endure this kind malignant systematic anti-LGBT hate found within these bullshit pseudo-therapy and “camp” organizations and programs.
(This is a slightly edited version of a post that first appeared on The Iron-On Line)
Complete the following: “A mother is…”
a) An embodiment of what it means to be feminine.
b) Someone who gives birth.
c) A female parent.
Depending on the context, b) or c) could be the appropriate response. c) includes adoptive mothers, which I think makes it a better fit to what we usually understand by the term, but it’s not hard to think of a context where b) would be a better fit.
I’m very suspicious of a). The linking of motherhood and femininity is so intrinsic in some people’s minds that it seems insane to question it, but I’m questioning it. Motherhood as an ideal is only linked to femininity as an ideal because our culture has defined it thus. And therein lies the danger.
Some of the most painful emotional abuse I’ve suffered in relationships has come from men who see their mothers as goddesses on lofty pedastals. They respect women only to the extent that these women match the divine example set by their mothers. Any deviation from this, and the respect vanishes.
That’s the harm on an individual scale. On a cultural scale, the idea that any woman who is a fit mother will automatically be classically feminine hurts every woman who struggles to fit into the mould. Women who choose not to become mothers are seen as denying their femininity, hence the ubiquitous question, “But aren’t you worried you’ll be unfulfilled?” Women who are incapable of bearing children are objects of pity.
For those who choose motherhood but reject classical femininity, the world’s judgement can be even harsher. If a woman raises a child alone, whether through choice or acceptance of necessity, she cannot be classically feminine enough to satisfy certain groups. “Children need fathers” not just to provide them with positive male role models, so the logic goes, but also to protect their mothers from having their femininity – and therefore their motherhood – eroded by adapting to the practicalities of life.
And why is it so horrifying to consider a lesbian having a child by artificial insemination? Or even – God forbid – a trans man giving birth? It attacks the link between femininity and motherhood; it calls into question whether this link is really as intrinsic as it once seemed. And that’s an uncomfortable line of thought to go down; far easier to say that “those people” shouldn’t be allowed to have children.
When I first started to explore the question of gender identity in my fiction, I was drawn to the idea of an amazon-mother, a woman so masculine that her motherhood becomes masculine by contact with it. It has always fascinated me, and I’m sure it will continue to fascinate me as I move up into this category myself. Come November, barring miscarriage or other disaster, I will be a mother in sense b). To the extent that I’m female, I’ll also be a mother in sense c), although I probably won’t be in a hurry to pin that label on myself any more than I use any other female-specific label.
I will not be a mother in sense a). For the sake of my sanity and the sake of my baby, I’ll save my energy for the tasks that are not futile from the outset.
So I’ve been following the Roberts debate, as has the majority of the blogosphere with interest. I had to laugh when I came across an interview of Rick Santorum conducted by CNN Anchor Aaron Brown in which Santorum hotly contests the notion that Roberts should be obligated to answer any questions on Roe v. Wade. He invokes fairness as the reasoning:
BROWN: I saw a poll the other day that said 60 percent of the country wanted to know how Judge Roberts felt about Roe v Wade. It’s a settled case. Do you think the country’s entitled to know whether he believes that that case was decided correctly?
SANTORUM: You know my feeling is, you have to look at the standard of what’s been applied in the past. And what judges in the past have been forced to answer is, you know, how they felt about, you know, sort of the black letter law, if you will. Not really looking at, how would you rule in cases…
BROWN: I’m not asking how you’d rule. This is a settled case. Roe v Wade is a settled case, it is settled. Is this a fair question, do you agree that that case was settled correctly? Is that a fair question to ask him?
SANTORUM: Well, let me put it this way. That question was asked of Judge Ginsberg, it was asked of Judge Breyer and neither of them answered the question.
BROWN: So the answer is no you don’t think the country is entitled…
SANTORUM: Well I think, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, it’s remarkable that we have an ACLU lawyer, not just someone who — I mean, an ACLU lawyer who gets a pass on their ideology for the United States Senate and we have a lawyer who is really a lawyer’s lawyer, he’s been all over the place, is clearly not someone with an agenda and all of a sudden they have to answer litmus test kinds of questions. Is that fair? I would say it’s not fair.
BROWN: All I want to know is if — it’s really a simple question.
SANTORUM: I’m giving you the answer. The answer is no. If it wasn’t answered in the past, it shouldn’t be answered in the future.
Well, to an extent this seemed reasonable – why after all should we hold SCOTUS nominee’s to different standards with regards to questioning when it comes to divisive issues. But then I came across several posts of outrage, that indicated Ginsburg and Breyer had both answered the question in a way that allowed for some transparency (especially in the case of Ginsburg). I had to do some digging, but I found two interesting things – first of all, it seems that the Federalist Society is championing their amnesiac brother, Roberts. They have published an attack based breakdown of the Ginsburg hearing, coupling it with talking/arguing points that the conservatives might be able to use in order to shield Roberts from answering any questions put to him, as well as omitting the answers she gave that might prove detrimental should he answer them with the same candor she did .
Thankfully I was able to find the testimony that the Federalist Society omitted on her responses during her senate hearings to the issue of abortion at Issues2000.org:
Senator Hank Brown asked Ginsburg about equal rights for men and women on the question of abortion.
Ginsburg: I will rest my answer on the Casey decision, which says in the end it’s her body, her life, and men – to that extent – are not similarly situated. They don’t bear the child.
Brown then asked her to explain further about whether the rights of men and women are not equal in this case.
Ginsburg: I said on the equality side of it, that it is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.. The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality.
Breyer was vague and called it ‘settled law’, which implied at least that he personally had no desire for it to be revisited. Quite honestly, I’d have liked more transparency, but then again Breyer didn’t have the same questionable background issues regarding this particular issue of ‘settled law’ that Roberts does.
Ultimately it showed me that this in fact was considered not only a valid line of questioning, but also worthy of weight with regards to the Senatorial hearings, and their conclusions of particular nominee’s. With regards to the other answers Ginsburg refused to entertain or answered in a general manner, the responses also included detailed explanations of why her answers were thus.
In some questions regarding Antitrust issues, she indicated non-expertise having only 12 of such cases under her belt, but then offered further explanation on a particular case to give an example of her beliefs. This hardly constitutes an example of her attempting to stymie the process of fact finding.
Consistently she attempted to be specific to give ideas of her general ideology without addressing cases that as she stated were slated on the current or potential dockets.
While conservatives are attempting to paint a similar picture, what seems stunningly evident to me is that her answers were not so much evasions, like Roberts, but instead attempts to answer with transparency while respecting the integrity of the system. That’s my interpretation, at any rate.
If Roberts becomes (and he probably will–don’t expect much from the cowardly Dems) the next justice on the highest bench in the land, how would it effect LGBT civil rights and liberties? Certainly there is a possibility he could face cases such as same-sex marriage, LGBT adoption, civil unions, equal employment opportunities and protection, and anti-LGBT hate crimes. Human Rights Campaign, National Stonewall Democrats, P.F.L.A.G., Log-Cabin Republicans, LAMBDA Legal, and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have released statements on Roberts’ nomination voicing some concern due to his conservative ideals. So given his conservative leanings how do think he would rule on them (yes, I’m asking you to “prejudge“)? There already has been speculation on the news that perhaps his Catholicism would play a part in his rulings–so, how do you think he would rule on LGBT issues? Would they be beneficial or detrimental to the LGBT Community? And yes, I really did have to ask because I have to post something on Roberts today other than reproductive rights. “Prejudge” and speculate away.
From Wonkette:
…We’re shocked at how little it took for our observation about Roberts’ wrestling/drag career to morph from “heh-heh” to “HEL-LOOO, MARY!” We’re been trying to get people to buy Bush as a dog-fucker for years and Powerline has yet to write an outraged editorial.
Okay, serious now: We don’t actually think Roberts is gay. We totally wish he was, though! Someone needs to keep Souter company.
I want to put that WORDS poster on a t-shirt!
While Bob Hope was indeed an immigrant, white anglo saxon protestant male immigrants are explicitly welcomed by the current shitocracy…
I bet I.C.E. comes back for them later.
I'm surprised the Tin Man, Scarecrow, and Cowardly Lion aren't getting arrested seeing as they are not U.S. citizens. I…
LOL, thanks!