Deathmatch: Social Conservatism v. Feminism

The definition of a Social Conservative has always been fairly clear in my mind. My personal definition of a Social Conservative is very easily expressed: Asshole. Perhaps this is judgemental of me, but I am not going to stop people from wanting to live permanantly in the 1950s, I'm just not going to hang out with these people. That's okay, this is America.

Today The Fair Goddess Echidne examines Social Conservativism in a much more complete manner[emphasis mine]:

Note the argument that social conservatives want to have laws which reinforce their beliefs and the argument that they don't have to resort to them. Note that social conservatism is whatever is regarded as traditional in a locality. Thus, bin Laden is a social conservative and so is Jerry Falwell. But this also makes the definition empty of practical meaning. What would be traditional in the United States is not traditional in Iran, and even within, say, the United States what is defined as "traditional" seems to vary by the speaker or writer. If the second wave of feminism took place thirty years ago, isn't the idea of gender equality traditional by now? And why does bin Laden have to dig back a thousand years to get at something he regards as traditional? More generally, a cursory study of history shows all sorts of egalitarian values to have existed at various places and at various times. Why are these not traditional? Why is the right to an abortion not part of social conservatism, given that it was only in the last two hundred years the church turned against the idea of early abortions being acceptable?

In short, social conservatism is not really conservative. It can be quite radical as the bin Laden example demonstrated. What it always seems to be is hierarchical. The view of the family social conservatives embrace has a father as its boss. The religious organizations are seen as determining how the masses live. The government is worshipped as an authoritarian power. And all these hierarchies use some sort of fixed identifiers: sex, race, age, for deciding who will be on top of the pile and who will support the whole pyramid.

Here is the link to feminism. Social conservative pyramids require that women have pre-ordained roles centered around fertility and the service of the home. Anything less is seen as causing chaos, and chaos is what social conservatives fear (unless it's caused by their own radical moves to return the world to some utopian era). Women can't have equal participation in politics and in the public sphere in general because who would then take care of the children? Someone else would have to pick up the slack and as these tasks are arranged at the bottom of the power pyramid this someone else would suffer a drop in power and social esteem.

Some of this may be a little out of context so the whole article is worth a read if you are interested. But I find especially interesting the link to feminism and I really think she is spot on. It is all about maintaining some kind of hierarchy so that life makes sense for the people on top. I personally think that the whole point of christianity before the 20th century was to distract the working poor (from serfs to factory workers) from how crappy their lives were by scaring them with damnation and promising a reward for good behavior. And that would fit right in with the whole Social Conservative schema.

Though it is hard for me to figure out why women or minorities buy into it, just like why would a woman go along with being a Mormon? Personally I find the idea of being bound for eternity to a man without whom I can never go to heaven kindof offensive, but y'know that might be because of the feminist brainwashing.

What Feminist Brainwashing? Ohhhh the kind women get at shelters for abused women. Didn't you know? They take them in and strap them in chairs and brainwash them into thinking that they are equal with men and that they should be able to live their lives and make their own choices without having the shit beat out of them. It's evil I tell you, Evil. Ilyka got a letter from a someone against the Violence against women act because "she" claimed:

Those women who accept aid are presented with a “solution” that requires divorce, and immediate application for various welfare programs. Clients and their children are indoctrinated with feminist ideology, which places blame for the problem entirely on patriarchal men, and presumes women are always victims in need of outside guidance.

Maybe that's because these women ARE the victims of "patriarchal men". I was reading the site it linked to and I nearly climbed through the computer and started abusing a woman myself, then "she" would have been the victim of a brainwashed feminist. (Theoretically the person who publishes this abomination is a woman, but this is the internet and I find that hard to believe especially after the whole Libertarian Girl fiasco. )

Anyway, while I'm sure that like all government things in this country the VAWA is fucked up, that doesn't mean it needs to go away. That means that we should push for reform, and for the acknoledgement that men get abused to. But women get abused more often and why is that? Oh it's because they are bitches who don't know to shut up when they are told? Right?

Lazy

I am completely unable to have enough energy to be interesting today. duuuuuuur

So here are some intereting other people to fill the void left by my silence:

Moon over pittsburgh comes through again today with a great post on the possible purchase of the Nationals by George Soros

PublicBrewery and DalyThoughts have a vulcan Mind Meld over the CNN/Gallup Overnight Poll re: GWB's speech. To sum up: No

And I don't know how you could possibly have missed this awesome Revenge against the Supreme Court for the Kelo Decision. But it makes me giggle so much that I have to link it.

And also YAY for Canada and Gay Marriage!

I think that's all the non-original thought I can come up with right now. Now I will go forth and attempt to rid myself of haloscan comments. Wish me luck.

Postlessness

Sorry I havent posted today. I'm having some weird health issues and spent most of the day trying to figure out my health plan. Such a news filled day. More tomorrow and look out for a future installment of Dumbass v. #Ninja.

Anti-American

For some reason I keep running across this concept today. Here with regards to the proposed Freedom Tower and here with regards to the media.

What makes something Anti-American? It seems to me to be a very subjective measurement. I know that there are people out there who are truly anti-American, like Osama Bin Laden, and sometimes I wonder about Jaques Chirac.

For Terrorists I think their hatred of America is founded in jealousy, in a need for something to fight against in order to make their lives less miserable. These people are truly Anti-American because their hate is not based on rational thought but on a need for something to hate in order to ease the misery of their existance.

But to say that the press, or proposed displays at the freedom tower are Anti-American brings up a whole new dimension. If something reflects negatively on America, does that make it treasonous, or simply factual?

I loved history in highschool but when I got to college I found out reams of information that had never crossed my page before. Things like how Christopher Columbus who has his own holiday murdered and enslaved native peoples, and how Lyndon Johnson's explaination for the Vietnam war was to whip out his dick. These things do not reflect positively on America and they make me sad. But they also provide motivation to ensure that these mistakes are not repeated. If Americans cannot look at our history and see the flaws in it and then move forward and strive to save ourselves from making the same mistakes, then we cannot survive as a country.

I love America, I really do, but does that mean I should ignore all of the horrible things that Americans have done/are doing/will do? I think that maybe in America we've confused the ideas of Like and Love. If you like something you have positive feelings about it and are generally happy. But if you love something you have to be willing to accept it as it is, acknowledge its flaws and push it to become better. Love Hurts, but it is certainly not Anti-Anything.

Rove Lied

Or maybe he was just wrong. But the Mystery Pollster takes some old poll results from right after 9/11 and points out that both Democrats AND Liberals wanted to go to war. Perhaps not quite as much as republicans did, but the majority certainly wasn't dragging its feet. So Rove's assertion that liberals wanted to give the terrorists therapy is not only offenssive but factually incorrect.

Surprise.

"Wrong? What did I tell you about talking back to me!"

Cheap Lines

The events of this week seem to have stirred up something among the Americans who are still actually paying attention to what the government does. Some People have taken the remarks of Dick Durbin and the similar remarks of Karl Rove and used them to attack the other side. Fortunately many others have recognized them for what they are; Rhetoric.

Karl Rove took the time to educate us on what the Republicans "stand for" (from Balloon-Juice)

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don't. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a "culture of life"; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

It is one thing to believe something and something else entirely to actually do it. I've been a girl long enough know to recognize cheap lines when I hear them, and those are some cheap lines Karl, this is what I am hearing;

"America, honey, you know I love you, you know I would never do anything to hurt you. I know your girlfriends think you should leave me because of what I did to you when we were in Guantanamo. But you know I love you and I promised I wont do it again, remember you were angry too. Your friends are trying to poison us. Deficit? Honey I know I told you I'd fix the deficit, but I've been so busy with the War on Terror. I'll fix it next weekend okay? Bin Laden! Honey I told you not to worry about that. Now I've got a surprise for you remember how I told you we were gonna go on Social Security Reform last January? Well how about we plan on doing that in August okay, it'll be great, just you and me and our private accounts. Now come on sweety......let's go to bed...........we can work on our Culture of Life."

Unfortunately the reason there is still so much domestic abuse in the world is because not all people can recognize a load of bull when they hear one.

Blogging Nekkid Day!

Happy Blogging Naked Day.

You should go over to Lone Tree on the Prarie and check out the list of other naked bloggers. I'm at work, so I shall have to save my naked blogging for later in the evening. (Although I guess that WOULD be an interesting way to quit, hmmm).

And when you're done with that go Here and Vote for the Hottest US Senator (not counting Obama) There are only four left in the running: Robert Byrd D-W.VA, Chuck Hagel R-Neb, Evan Bayh D-Ind, and Joe Biden D-Del. Which one is your hottie?

A Cure!!!

At last, a cure has been found for those suffering from the affliction commonly known as THE GAY!

And the cure is? God or some crap.

Riiiight. Maybe the Christians should spend less time curing the gay and more time curing things like aids, poverty and cancer. Just a thought.

So here are my thoughts. I know you're just dying to hear them. Being heterosexual or Homosexual (or inbetween which applies to some of us) has a lot to do with who you love. Gay people happen to love people who are of the same gender, and enjoy having sex with said people. Straight people tend to fall in love with members of the opposite sex and likewise enjoy making babies together. So it really has a lot to do with who you fall into love (or lust) with, and less to do with evil, sinfullness and other stuff that seems to end up getting talked about.

Some might say that I'm oversimplifying the whole sexual identity issue, but I think that the reason it has become complicated is because we made an issue out of it in the first place.

I don't like this Christian conference because I think that it probably in some ways capitalizes on shame or guilt that is frequently felt by homosexuals. Some gay people struggle with their identity for a long time before acknowledging it, and even then they can feel large amounts of shame because society says their is something "wrong" with them. They can use that shame to make themselves live lives with people they do not love as so many people have done in the past, or they can pursue a dream of a happy fulfilling relationship.

I hope that the people involved in this conference can find someone they love of either gender and be happy with them, because in the end lables like Gay, Ex-Gay or Straight aren't what matter. What matters is being happy while we can.

A rare moment of spirituality: God has given us the gifts of love, and in my opinion it would be a sin to throw away his gift of love for another person just because that person happend to be of the wrong gender.

Too.... much ....sentimentality....... must .......... Kill.......... Things.

AHHHDSLFKJ:OWI

Today is the worst day at work EVER!!!!


I fully agree with John Cole

And Hubris is my Hero

Time wasting

Apparently this quiz thinks I have some kind of problem;




::grumblegrumble:: *gnaw on Robitussin bottle*

What pisses you off?

Created by ptocheia

You IDIOT!

I was going to post on the lost Cub Scout, but Moon has a peice that is probably much better written than mine would have been, entitled One Lost Cub Scout and the Death of Critical Thought.

Co-ed Naked Blogging

Bloggers do it on their desks.

Blogging Nekkid Day this Friday, I'll be joining in before or after work, or both if you're lucky. You should too!!

The O'Reilly Fucktard

Speaking of Inconsequential Rhetoric, How's this for fair and balanced? Bill O'Reilly had some choice bits: (Via Atrios)

O'REILLY: And when he [Durbin] went out there, his intent was to whip up the American public against the Bush detainee policy. That's what his intent was. His intent wasn't to undermine the war effort, because he never even thought about it. He never even thought about it. But by not thinking about it, he made an egregious mistake because you must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9-11, is a traitor.

Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.

Is anyone else confused?? What I want to know is how Billy differentiates between undermining and dissenting, cause I certainly wouldn't want to be arrested as a traitor. Actually if disagreeing with the war meant that I was a traitor I WOULD want to be arrested. Maybe they'll deport me!

ATTACK!

Today Jeff at Protein Wisdom has a post about some Democrat's latest stance on Gitmo.

Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats are now claiming (rather too adamantly for my tastes) that they support the troops serving in Guantanamo Bay?which, it follows, then, that they are not prepared to blame actual camp guards for the what they insist is the egregious and systematic torture of Islamic freedom fighters being detained there, but rather wish instead to hold accountable only those higher-ups in the military and Defense Department (with Donald Rumsfeld the chief villain) responsible for the prescribing camp policy.

I don't have a problem with what Jeff is saying, but I think that his post points out an ongoing problem with the conversation between the left and the right and so I'm going to use it as an example and I hope he wont be mean to me because only 10 people read this blog anyway.

If you have ever been in a position opposing a war in the US, you will be very familiar with the idea of "Supporting the Troops." If you don't remember all of the "Supporting the Troops" propaganda that was trotted out around the beginning of the Iraq war then I think you should be checked for Alzheimers. Any statement against the war, wasn't a statement against the decision to go to war, it became a statement against the Troops, against American fighters who were just doing their best to protect the country and ipso facto proved that you were a communist or something.

And now, the same logic is being used in reverse, how can you support the troops, when you don't support what they are doing in Gitmo? If Nancy Pelosi had come out and been negative towards the guards at Gitmo I would bet money that we would have heard about how she hated American troops who were just following orders.

And I think that at some point we are going to have to start listening to the point people are trying to make without spinning everything we can in order to invalidate their statements. Both Liberals and Conservatives are guilty of doing this. It is much easier to invalidate someone's statement because, say they used the word Nazi, than it is to actually converse about the point they were trying to make. And so then any possible conclusion or compromise that could have been made becomes lost in a sea of bullshit.

All of this crap is just a distraction from the real problem. What is the real problem? I don't know yet, I'm still filtering through reams of inconsequential rhetoric.

Unnecessary Levels of Scariness

The top article on CNN.com today is Survey: 'High risk' of WMD attack within decade and the blurb that appears there:

The chance of an attack with a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the world in the next 10 years runs as high as 70 percent, arms experts have predicted in a U.S. survey. The most likely scenario is a nuclear attack by terrorists with a weapon made of black-market materials. Most of the more than 80 experts surveyed also believed that as many as five countries could join the nuclear club during the next decade.

Please excuse me while I go build a bunker in my basement, oh wait, I live in a basement. Fuck.

This is a terrifying statistic at first glance. (Well I think it is, maybe I'm a scardey cat, I'm too young to die.) But we have to keep in mind a number of things. This statistic is based on a survey of experts. And while I think experts are great, surveying an expert isn't exactly the same as; estimating the number of terrorists in the world, and estimating how many nuclear/other wmd type materials they could get ahold of and then estimating how likely they are to actually attack successfully and using those estimates to come up with a probability. Hopefully this is what the experts did when they answered the questions, but who knows. My faith in "experts" is very low.

And also 70% is a really big number, so we should recognize that 70% is the percentage for an attack anywhere in the country. If you live in a place like Butt-fuck Idaho is probably significantly less than that try like .01%. Places like NYC, LA and Washington are probably at 70% though. It has a lot to do with where you live.

Also 70% represents any kind of attack with a weapon, like a dirty bomb or a Chemical weapon. Which would obviously be horrible regardless, but not as horrible as say, dropping one of our own weapons on ourselves. Did you know that between 1960 and 1990 the US built 70,000 nuclear bombs? At one point we had enough fire power to blow up the earth 32 times.

It is important that we don't allow the media to use these statistics to make us afraid. I think that the people are beginning to awaken from the fear that started after 9/11, we cannot let them use surveys and statistics to bring it to the forefront again. Even though we are living in dangerous times we have to keep our wits about us.

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. -Dune, Frank Herbert

Good Morning

This is funny.

Also, you should take this survey from MIT if you have a blog.

Sometimes

it is good to look like an idiot. This weekend I brought home a foster cat who had an infection and she wasn't eating. I tried to feed her everything tasty I had but she showed no interest, and then she had what I thought was a seizure. I called the shelter and they said to see how she did the rest of the afternoon, but not long after that she had another and I panicked and took her back to the shelter. Today they call and tell me she's fine, no more seizures, and they think I'm nuts. I'm going to go pick her up later this afternoon. I have never been so happy to look like a total moron in my whole life. Wooo!

Semi-Annual Semi-Feministic post

Seems like it is that time of year again where we start talking about "gender issues." And I watched sorority boys yesterday, so I'm all revved up to talk about it, okay not really.

Today on MSNBC I found an article on a study of the female orgasm, which shows that they can tell the difference between a real and fake orgasm in women based on the parts of the brains that are active.

When women genuinely achieved an orgasm, areas of the brain involved in fear and emotion were deactivated. Those areas stayed alert however when women were faking it.
The researchers also found that the cortex, which is linked with consciousness, is active during a fake orgasm but not during the real thing.

“The deactivation of these very important parts of the brain might be the most important thing necessary to have an orgasm,” said Holstege.

“It means that if you are fearful or at a very high level of anxiety, then it is very difficult to have sex because you really have to let yourself go,” he added.

Now, I have been telling my uptight friends this for years, (I did my own "research") But now there is documented proof by some scientific people, that in order to have an orgasm women have to fucking RELAX. Which, is nearly impossible for some women even when clothed and especially when naked, so this explains why the female orgasm remains so "elusive".

I wonder if the nature of the female orgasm is in any way related to what Echinde of the Snakes has been discussing over at her blog. Her post On Being Easy examined why women who like sex are labled "easy." I wonder if this is because any man with a realistic view of the world knows that women don't always have orgasms during sex, and I think to a man having an orgasm is probably the whole point of sex (having never been a man I cannot state this, I merely theorize, correct me if I'm wrong). And according to this article on MSNBC on how female orgasms are related to genetics.

“Factors influencing the ability to (reach) orgasm vary from woman to woman. What we do know is that psychologically women are more complex sexually,” Sadock said. “For women, being in a relationship where they feel loved and feel secure, is a big factor. Other big factors are how they feel about themselves and about sex and what their first experiences were.”

So it is possible that the perception is that women having casual sex are unable to have an orgasm and are therefore doing it for some reason besides sexual fulfillment. I don't know, I'm making this up really. I just wonder if the difference between how men and women experience sex could begin to explain why it is percieved differently.

Also there seems to be a misconception on the part of some men that women don't like sex as much as men. And while I think part of this is related to the feminine Ideal, that women aren't supposed to like sex as much as men I also wonder if the perception stems from the fact that some women do not always reach orgasm. This, is not true, As the above quoted article points out:

And even if they can’t, that doesn’t mean there’s no joy for them in sex, Berman added. A survey she recently conducted found that among women enjoying satisfying sex lives, orgasm did not rate as a key element for fulfillment.

Also Echidne did some research and discovered plenty of female porn at the library. So I don't think the real issue is the female libido.

I wonder if the issues is the Patriarchal ness of our society. As Ilyka's post on the somewhat homogenous makeup of the "editorial board" of Pajamas Media points out

Because listen, middle-aged white guys, nothing against y'all, but you do realize: Those of us who are NOT middle-aged white guys have been listening to middle-aged white guys in positions of authority for, gosh, all our lives?

So maybe it is their perceptions of sex and sexuality that we are inheriting and not anything based in reality. I tried to get in on the editorial board action at pajamas media (Or maybe even some data analysis) but unsurprisingly they weren't particularly interested. Tragic.

Fortunately Prarie Biker has finally realized that women tell dirtier jokes than men. Period. LOL So at least we're winning somwhere.

How DARE she!

How DARE Ann Althouse Directly address Neal Stephenson!!! (Not that anything she said was rude or untrue) But you can't blog about Him unless.... unless... something..... Yeah, how DARE She. Just because Glenn Reynolds likes you doesn't mean the rest of us do, so THERE! He is the almighty Stephenson, you don't just talk about him like he is some kind of mortal.

Also, How DARE Dell make me wait 8 days for a new computer since all attempts to fix my old one have failed miserably. Dude, Hurry the Fuck up Dell! I'm having World of Warcraft withdrawl symptoms!

Election time!

It's time to vote!!!! Who is your pick for the hottest US Senator?

I picked Santorum, not just cause I live in PA.