Archive for the ‘Gender’ Category
This is Shaznaz Bibi. A muslim women who was not sufficiently docile.
An isolated incident? There are more photos in an article called Terrorism that’s Personal.
Since 1994, a Pakistani activist who founded the Progressive Women’s Association to help such women “has documented 7,800 cases of women who were deliberately burned, scalded or subjected to acid attacks, just in the Islamabad area. In only 2 percent of those cases was anyone convicted.”
The article makes the point that terrorism is not a distant political movement. It is real murder, mutilation, and horror for millions of men and women.
Today also brought news of a couple stoned to death in Afghanistan.
It is all very well to say that these events are not representative of Islam, which is a religion of peace, yada yada yada.
But religions are a reflection of those who founded them. Jesus was gentle, forgiving, truthful, giving, respectful in all his relationships.
Mohammed was a serial murderer and rapist, a torturer who had sex with a nine year old girl when he was fifty-four.
These comments from a Muslim website are typical of the veneration given to him by Muslims:
… we look to divine guidance in order to define for us good manners and character, exemplified by the Prophet, as God said:
“Surely, you (O Muhammad) are upon a high standard of moral character.” (Quran 68:4)
God also said:
“Indeed in the Messenger of God you have a beautiful example of conduct to follow…” (Quran 33:21)
Aisha, the wife of the noble Prophet, was asked about his character. She replied:
“His character was that of the Quran.” (Saheeh Muslim, Abu Dawud)
The Koran authorises violence against women, Mohammed exemplified violence against women, including the rape of women captured in war.
So how is disfigurement, rape and murder contrary to the ‘real teaching of Islam?’
If the Quran and the example of Mohammed are not the real teaching of Islam, what is?
And if this violence is wrong, a defaming of Islam, where are the protests and outrage from real Muslims at this misrepresentation of Islam, on a scale anything like the vengeful wrath expressed over the cartoons of Mohammed a few years ago?
Wow, that George Christensen is anti everything. Well of course he would be, he’s a liberal party candidate.
At least, that’s the impression you might get from this article in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Some of the comments quoted really are obnoxious. Only one of them is actually attributed to Christensen. The rest were in a magazine he edited.
All date from 1998, when he was a university student.
Sorry, when? 1998. Twelve years ago. Christensen was a teenager at the time.
There are a few things to note here. Firstly this was twelve years ago. Christensen was a teenager.
Secondly, some of the opinons expressed by Christensen as a teenager are simply sensible.
Is it really extreme, anti-gay, or anti-women to suggest there is something wrong with using tax-payer funds to pay for a sex change operation for a bloke who thinks he’d like to be a lesbian?
Thirdly, this was twelve years ago, and Christensen was a teenager at the time.
Fourthly, even the most extreme views expressed in the magazine edited by Christensen are no match for the personal attacks, obscenity and sheer nastiness exhibited on an ongoing basis by such left-wing luminaries as Marieke Hardy and Catherine Deveny, without so much as a disapproving murmur from the mainstream media.
Finally, if what you thought at university can safely be held to be what you think now, we are really in trouble with Ms Gillard, who is therefore still a ‘revolutionary leftist’ (her own words), committed to undermining capitalist society.
I feel much more confident that Christensen does not now hold the juvenile views he did twelve years ago than that Ms Gillard does not hold the radical views she did.
Christensen has acknowledged that some of what he said was inappropriate. He says those remarks were made in jest, or to generate discussion. They are not representative of his views now. And he has apologised unreservedly.
Julia is still to tell the truth about the extent of her involvement in communist groups.
I know who I’d trust first.
I just bought a copy of the Australian Women’s Monthly.
I didn’t want to, but the current edition hasn’t yet made it to the doctors’ surgery, or to the library.
Julia Gillard is made to look very attractive.
There has been a bit of photo-shopping. In the photos, this makes her look younger and softer. In the text, it makes her look more caring and trustworthy.
I asked a random sample of female friends what they thought of the article, and of Julia.
One answered that she was lovely, and it would be great for Australia to have a female Prime Minister, just like it is wonderful that America has a black President.
This respondent is obviously a complete dimwit.
I didn’t point out that Australia already has a female Prime Minister, or that voting for someone on the basis of race is, well, racism. And besides, that’s worked out just peachy for all concerned, hasn’t it?
My two other friends said the fact that Julia is a backstabbing schemer who may have broken up a marriage, isn’t able to solve any of the problems currently facing the government, and seems willing to promise anything with taxpayers’ money to stay in power, is more important to them than that she is a woman.
They weren’t impressed with her domestic arrangements either. How is her consort going to be introduced? Please welcome Mr Tim Mathieson, the guy who’s currently shagging the Prime Minister?
It may sound snobby, but most Australians won’t sit comfortably with the idea of the Prime Minister shacking up at the Lodge with her hairdresser boyfriend.
Is this fair? Should politicians’ personal lives be up for discussion?
It is important that our leaders be intelligent, energetic, capable. Julia is all of those things. So was Kevin Rudd. So was Mussolini.
Those things alone don’t make good leaders.
People also want to know that the Prime Minister is stable, truthful, compassionate, willing to honour commitments.
If a politician is willing to deceive friends, betray colleagues, lie to partners, make promises he can’t keep, why should voters have confidence he will keep his promises to them?
If the Women’s Weekly really thinks that faithfulness, integrity, stability, and kindness are less important to its readers than having nice hair and a vagina, it has seriously underestimated the intelligence of Australian women.
Tony Abbott was asked a question.
It has been interesting to read the outraged remarks that followed his answer.
The question was “What advice would you give your three daughters about sex before marriage?”
The answer was ”I would say to my daughters, if they were to ask me this question … it is the greatest gift you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don’t give it to someone lightly.”
It all seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The question was “What would say to your daughters…”
Not “What advice would you like to give to Australian women?”
The answer was prefaced with “… if they were to ask me this question… “
It was not even gratuitous advice to his daughters.
Yet Julia Gillard immediately jumps in to tell the world that ”Australian women want to make their own choices, and they don’t want to be lectured to by Mr Abbott.”
Senator George Brandis quite rightly and respectfully points out that “Julia Gillard who is – has chosen not to be a parent – and, you know, everybody respects her right, in the vehemence of her reaction in fact shows that she just doesn’t understand the way parents think about their children when they reach a particular age.”
But judging from the further outrage occasioned by Senator Brandis’ comments, it is clear the left wing believes Mr Abbott and his personal choices and beliefs are fair game, but Ms Gillard’s are not.
Even more absurdly, leading nitwit, sorry ‘leading feminist,’ Eva Cox says that by encouraging young people to value themselves and their sexuality, and to wait until marriage Abbott “is commodifying women, by saying their sexuality was something to trade.”
Of course, Mr Rudd’s attendance at a New York strip club, where he was reportedly told off for attempting to touch the girls, but was so drunk he claimed he couldn’t remember anything, is an example of non-commodifying respect for women, where trading in sexuality is the last thing on anyone’s mind. Obviously he was only there to get the ladies’ opinions on climate policy.
Then there are the bullhorn bellows of ‘hypocrite’ from the ‘I’ll do what I want when I want and don’t anyone dare tell me I can’t’ crowd.
Is Mr Abbott a hypocrite?
Only in the same way that a bank robber who told a young person tempted to a quick solution ‘That wasn’t the right thing to do. It wasn’t good for me or the people I loved. If I had my time again I would make a different choice,’ could be called a hypocrite.
And here’s the heart of the matter: Tony Abbott is right.
Giving yourself to someone wholeheartedly, completely, emotionally and physically, is something wonderful and precious.
Complete physical giving of oneself only makes sense, can only be really complete and wonderful and joyful, as it is meant to be, when there is also an unreserved commitment of life, love and time.
In other words, in marriage.
You can be a party girl or boy, and have sex with anyone you fancy, because it’s your choice, and everyone else is doing it, and there’s no harm in it, and no one can tell you what to do. Or you can have a deeply fulfilling, faithful, life-time commitment to one person.
You cannot have both.
With increasing age, it becomes clearer that the path of lifetime loving commitment is the one that brings real happiness and trust and fulfillment. That is wisdom that comes from thought and experience, often painful and regretful.
So when parents ask their children to be careful, to treat themselves and their bodies as something precious, and to wait for the love and commitment of marriage, it is not because they want to spoil their children’s fun, nor because they are hypocrites.
It is simply because they care.
I don’t know where I heard that phrase. I think was in a blokey discussion of the arts – Australia versus the US.
Wherever it was, the consensus amongst the blokes was that our poofters were indeed better than their poofters. There was even a touch of pride in some of the accomplishments, say, of Sir Robert Helpmann and Peter Allen.
So in that same spirit, I would like to wish Mr Byron Adu, Australia’s regional winner, all the very best of luck as he represents us in the Worldwide Mr Gay competition in Oslo in a few weeks’ time.
When I was at Flinders University in the early 80s I spent most of my time in the Philosophy Department. It was a Marxist department.
Being a unique individual who was able to think for myself, I thought exactly what I was told, and became a Sandinista supporting, land rights demanding, tree hugging member of the Socialist Workers’ Party – the only political party of which I have ever been a member.
I enrolled in Women’s Studies (and I was dutifully grateful for the opportunity to do so – not every university allowed men to participate).
I only lasted a couple of months. Not because I found it challenging – I had already read Greer and Friedan, and knew that men, especially white men, were the scum of the earth, rapists and pillagers who had never done anything good – but because even as an obedient little left-wing clone, I found it mind bogglingly dumb.
Mary Daly was a leader in the mind-bogglingly dumb, Elvis has left the building version of feminism. Germaine Greer was strikingly obvious, but not competely nuts, so I had no trouble with her.
Ten years later doing post-graduate studies at the University of Queensland, we were still being invited to draw from the deep well of Dalyan drivel.
Here are a couple of samples of drivel from an article on the Millenium Project:
It is also of obvious significance that other lethal purifying medicine is working to ensure an even earlier extinction of women. Now that the model of female moral purity has been converted into pure sexual availability, the Purifiers have produced The Pill. This is known to increase risks of …[long list of claims] … Premenopausal Pill-popping thus prepares the way for premature death, the ultimate purification.
(The writer of the article notes: One of the feminists loons that I was forced to associate with told me that using only female subjects in clinical trials of contraceptive pills was an example of how the patriarchy treated women as disposable, worthless objects. My questions about the usefulness of including men in trials designed to test the disruption of embryo attachment to the endometrium were brushed aside as examples of patriarchal ignorance.)
Dreadful, Deadless Women are the ones who have never stopped trying and who have continued to Hope. Our Hope is vigorous and active, and it is sustained and continually inspired by the Outrageous Courage of our Sisters/Foresisters who are ever more intensely Present to us, beckoning and Daring us to move further into The Fifth Spiral Galaxy. They are Calling us to continue our work of Metapatriarchal Metamorphosis Here and Now. This will require a New/Archaic Awakening.
It is never right to rejoice in the death of another, and I don’t rejoice in Mary Daly’s. I am sorry that so much of her life was wasted in pointless resentment and silliness.
I hope now that she knows the truth, she is able to find peace, and accept the certainty of being loved and valued by the Father God she so vehemently rejected on Earth.
There were widespread reports yesterday that the death of an unborn child had brought Victoria’s Christmas road death toll to 12.
Quite right. The child was a person, and its death is a tragic loss.
But what makes this child a person, and another child at the same stage of development an object which is inconvenient, and which can be destroyed and disposed of?
There is no difference in the child – just in the parents’ attitude to it.
Is that all it takes to make one a person, and one not?
I’m with Horton – a person’s a person, no matter how small.
A few belated suggestions for Tiger and the plastic playmates.
Some women chase sports stars, or anyone who is rich and famous.
When women approach you and offer to have sex with you, this is not because they like you, care about you, or want to get to know you better.
Women want to have sex with you because you are a trophy. The purpose of a trophy is to be displayed. So don’t expect them to keep quiet about it.
You make most of your money from sponsorships – manufacturers and retailers paying you to endorse their products.
They pay you to endorse their products because the they think the public trust you, and will believe you when you say that a product is of good quality and worth buying.
But if you show that your word means nothing, even when given to the people you love, why should the public believe you when you tell them to buy a certain brand of sneakers, or car, or life insurance?
And if there is no reason for the public to believe what you say, there is no reason for sponsors to pay you to say it.
If you dress, walk, talk, and generally act as if you think the only important thing about you is your sexuality, don’t be surprised if some men agree with you.
This means that instead of relating to you as a person with ideas and values and perspectives worth considering, they will relate to you only with an interest in the pleasure they imagine they could get from your body, that is, as a kind of masturbation aid.
This demeans both you and them.
It also almost certainly means that while you will be appreciated as a party girl, someone to date, a good sport, you will not be a person most men would want to have a long-term relationship with, one in which you and your thoughts and feelings are valued.
And I don’t blame them.
But I seriously doubt it.
Six male members of the Mohler family in Missouri have been charged with various sexual offences after being accused of raping and sodomising a group of children over many years.
Such things do happen.
But in this case, the accusations rested initially on ‘recovered memories.’ In other words, likely fantasies.
I have seen people severely psychologically damaged after being told by therapists that people with eating disorders (depression, forgetfulness, diffculty sleeping, etc, etc) have often suffered sexual abuse as children, and that if the client does not remember being abused he or she (usually she) probably was anyway, and should try to recover those memories, and that doing so will help her find the cause of her illness, and then recover.
The only things we know for certain about ‘recovered memory therapy’ is that the memories recovered rarely have any basis in reality, and that the longer a client stays in such ‘therapy’ the worse his or her mental health will become, for example:
Suicidal ideation or attempts by patients increased by a factor of 6.7 during therapy, from 10% to 67%.
Hospitalization of patients increased by a factor of 5.5 during therapy, from 7% to 37%.
Self-mutilation increased by a factor of 8, from 3% to 27%.
Other people have since come forward to support the first complainant’s story in the Mohler case. They have told stories which, if true, would be able to be confirmed by clear physical evidence.
But so far, despite a week of intensive searching around the Mohler house and yard, no phyiscal evidence has been found.
The police must investigate, of course. But the media focus on this story has all the hallmarks of Salem type, Azaria Chamberlain type, witch hunt hysteria.
A referendum in the US state of Maine has rejected homosexual marriage.
There are five states in the US in which homosexual couples’ co-habitation can legally become a marriage. In the majority of those, the necessary changes to the law have been a result of court decisions.
Wherever the people have had a say, the answer has been no.
California and Maine were probably the best chance to get the nature of marriage changed by a popular vote. There is intense disappointment and anger amongst gay lobbyists at the Maine vote.
Does this mean that the majority of people in the US are anti-gay? I don’t think so.
The best man at my wedding, one of my best friends, is gay. One of my brothers is gay, as is my brother in law. I love them dearly, and want them to have stable, long lasting relationships in which they can find security and happiness.
But those relationships are not, and cannot be, a marriage. Marriage is between male and female.
That’s it. That is the way it is.
The word itself does not matter. You could have a law which decrees that homosexuals are entitled to be ‘married.’ The law could define any relationship in which two or whatever number of people of whatever gender who have made a public commitment to one another, as a marriage.
But then you would need to find, and people would find, another word for real marriages.
Because they simply are different, and changing the word won’t change the reality, whatever Wittgenstein may say.
A twelve year old girl has given birth to a baby boy after having become pregnant to her fifteen year old live -in boy friend.
Live in boyfriend? Yes. The girl lives with her mother, who was apparently unconcerned by the ongoing statutory rape/molestation of her daughter.
The girl’s father was concerned, and repeatedly asked DOCS to intervene. Nope. Too busy. And anyway, he was only her father.
What is most alarming about this is not just another appalling mess which DOCS was too ideologically blinded or too lazy to address, but the comments from DOCS minister Linda Burney which make it clear that nothing will change:
“I’m treating this very much as a private matter… the role of community services is to make sure that the young girl and her baby and her mother are getting all the support that they need.”
Actually DOCS has another role, which includes acting on complaints of child sexual abuse, and taking steps to ensure children are not repeatedly raped in their own homes.
And the girl’s mother? How much can her care be relied on to ensure this new baby’s safety and well-being?
Maryam and Marzieh are Christian women. They are from Islamic families. They live in Iran.
So of course, they are in jail.
They are denied medical care or contact with the outside world. One of the prison guards told them they should be executed for apostasy. They were arrested in March. Neither has yet been charged, but when they are, the death penalty is a real possibility.
Elam is a Iranian Christian ministry and advocacy group. Support them if you can.
A study of more than 12, 000 British children between the ages of seven and nine has found that children who spend large amounts of time in daycare because both parents (or a sole parent) work, are significantly more likely to become obese, and to suffer other long term health problems.
Naturally there are howls of outrage. An article in the Australian says the results have been refuted by Queensland mums. No they haven’t. To refute something means to show it is untrue. A couple of working mothers saying ‘Well my kid’s healthy, and eats salad and stuff’ does not refute the findings of an independent study of over 12,000 children.
Previous studies have found that extensive time in daycare in the early years can have long term negative effects on vocabulary acquisition and behaviour – effects which may be cause children to struggle at school and in later life.
Time to think again about subsidised daycare.
My general rule is that if something needs to be subsidised, it probably shouldn’t be.
For example, South Australian taxpayers pay about $2 for every $1 a commuter pays for a train or bus ticket in Adelaide. I travel 100 kilometres to work and back each day, with petrol prices on the island about 30% higher than in the city. So why should I be asked to subsidise the transport costs of people who travel 10 kilometres to work and back each day, and already pay less for petrol?
Likewise, why should parents who make the decision to sacrifice income so that one of them can parent their children full-time, be asked to subsidise parents who both work? The only reason would be that doing so provided some clear benefit to the wider community. But the now well established negative effects of long term early day care make it difficult to see any such benefits.
Parents shouldn’t be stopped from sending their children to daycare, of course. But they shouldn’t expect other people to pay for it.
A Brisbane lawyer and mother of four children, Mrs Tempe Harvey, agrees. She is establishing a lobby group for children’s welfare, the Kids First Parents Association of Australia. One of their policies is the scrapping of childcare subsidies. Good news.
The two major Australian grocery retailers are both currently running offensively sexist ads.
The Coles ad is the less offensive of the two. ‘You shouldn’t be taxed for being a woman’ it says. So Coles will pay the GST on the whole range of feminine hygiene products.
How nice. I don’t think I should be taxed for being a man, either. So why aren’t they paying the GST on shaving products, or hair restoring products?
I also don’t think I should be taxed for having to eat, or having to wear clothes, but I doubt any retailer is going to say ‘Well that’s unfair, we”ll pay the GST on life’s essentials.’
Women spend most of the family income, so it is natural that retailers should target advertising to women. But suggesting that women are somehow being victimised by the taxation system, and that they, Coles, are bravely and generously remedying this injustice is dishonest nonsense.
The Woolworths ad is even worse.
A woman is making scones. She talks about the ingredients, and then says that recipe doesn’t say anything about fancy packaging. Then she looks at her husband, and says ‘I’ve never been worried about fancy packaging.’
Imagine the uproar if the ad went like this instead:
A bloke is in his toolshed. He says that every tool is in its place, and every tool has its purpose. He adds that tools don’t need fancy packaging, and then looks at his wife and says ‘I’ve never been worried about fancy packaging.’
People would recognise this for what it was – a deliberate putdown. They would complain. And they would be right to do so.
So why is it OK for advertisers to belittle men?
Last week India passed legislation decriminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults. This has not been entirely popular.
The world’s most popular guru, Swami “Baba” Ramdev, (he has an international TV audience numbering about 85 million) has said a number of things that the gay community will not like. Particularly, that being gay is a defect.
Homosexuality is a curable disease and that sufferers could seek a cure. “It can be treated like any other congenital defect. Such tendencies can be treated by yoga, pranayam and other meditation techniques,” he said.
The legalisation would have a “negative effect” on the young, while increasing the prevalence of HIV/AIDs. “These are unnatural acts not designed for human beings. The decision of the High Court, if allowed to sustain will have catastrophic effects on the moral fabric of society and will jeopardise the institution of marriage itself. This offends the structure of Indian value system, Indian culture and traditions, as derived from religious scriptures.”
I pretty much agree with him. Except maybe about homosexuality being curable through yoga.
Homosexual desire, expecially if a person is only attracted to members of the same gender, is an ‘objective disorder.’
I know many gay men and women find such a view offensive.
Gay men and women should not be judged for their disorder. We are all disordered in some way. But it is still a disorder.
I have often heard arguments along these lines: ‘This is who I am’ (well, life is pretty tragic if your identity comes from only or even primarily from who you want to have sex with). ‘I can’t help these feelings, I didn’t choose them’ (quite possibly so, but neither do pedophiles or habitual gamblers choose to have the feelings they have). ‘I was made this way, so these feelings are natural, and because they are natural, they are good.’
Not necessarily. Natural is not always good. We live in a fallen world. Even for a non-Christian, knowing this is true is simply a matter of looking at the natural world.
That falleness affects all of us in different ways. It affects all of us. We are all less than we could be. So it behoves us not to judge others if they are tempted in ways we are not.
But that does not mean we should not be clear about what is right and what is wrong, or settle for saying that wrong is right.