The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

The Feminine Critique

February 10, 2006 | 81 Comments

A common atheistic criticism of religion is that it has made sex a dirty, shameful thing. God, goes the complaint, is a prude who scowls if carnal pleasure is pursued for its own sake, or outside of a loving marriage between two people. The greatest scorn is reserved for the concepts of chastity and abstinence. The notion that one should “save” oneself for someone special, for one’s ultimate life partner, is considered downright unhealthy, if not perverted. There’s no necessary connection between sex and love — except in the deluded mind of an imaginary, puritanical deity.

I fear this another unfortunate case of a good idea — in fact the very best — being rejected merely because it is embraced by people of faith. The late Betty Friedan, a likely atheist who won Humanist of the Year award in 1975, understood this well. In the Feminine Mystique, she decried the emptiness of loveless lust:

Instead of fulfilling the promise of infinite orgastic bliss, sex in the America of the feminine mystique is becoming a strangely joyless national compulsion, if not a contemptuous mockery. The sex-glutted novels become increasingly explicit and increasingly dull; the sex kick of the women’s magazines has a sickly sadness; the endless flow of manual describing new sex techniques hint at an endless lack of excitement. This sexual boredom is betrayed by the ever-growing size of the Hollywood starlet’s breasts, by the sudden emergence of the male phallus as an advertising “gimmick.” Sex has become depersonalized, seen in terms of these exaggerated symbols.

Most notably, while herself believing that God is dead, Ms. Friedan explicitly rejected Nietzsche’s charge that “Christianity had poisoned eros”:

Yet, the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, a woman herself becomes a commodity. This is hardly a woman’s great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, she now considers her body and her sexuality as the purely material part of herself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does she see it as an arena for the exercise of her freedom, but as a mere object that she attempts, as she pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness.

Ms. Friedan thus recognized that a disdain for an otherwise oppressive, paternalistic theism should not be used as an excuse to embrace a materialistic, libertine hedonism. I concur that the ideal place for sex is within a permanent, monogamous relationship. Neither men nor women are liberated by the liberation of hearts from loins. To seek a sexual partner for mere gratification or release is to reduce a human being to an object, a sex toy, a porn magazine, a prostitute.

However quaint and antiquated this may all sound, its essence is recognized by most people in their daily lives. Women view men who need sex dolls, pornography and prostitutes as pathetic, rather than idolizing them for their ability to divorce their feelings from reality. A wife whose husband excuses an tryst with “she meant nothing to me” rightfully wonders whether she means anything to him. A co-worker’s offer of a quickie behind the copy machine is not equated with an offer to pick up coffee. If God is dead because he is meaningless, then so is meaningless sex.

Comments

81 Responses to “The Feminine Critique”

  1. tarkovsky
    February 10th, 2006 @ 2:07 pm

    If God is dead because he is meaningless, then so is meaningless sex.

    Uh? WTF?

    Dead-God has nothing to do with sex nor meaning. Sex has meaning or has not meaning, depending on the individual. Sexual meaning is subjective, driven by biology.

    The original reason why religions find sex problematic in general is that promiscuous behaviour is not seen as a good survival strategy (think Sodom and Gomorrah as the classic example).

    Yet the 20th century has brought forward that we are biologically driven to procreate. So we must learn to balance the best survival strategy (i.e. monogamy as a positive social behaviour) and a healthy sex life (as a biological necessity).

    To me there is no contradiction. And feminism is right in reminding us that promiscuous behaviour is inherently bad.

    But the strict get-married-once-in-your-life meme is stupid. Surely one must carefully choose a mate. The current western divorce rate is a reminder that we haven’t quite got a grip on that one yet.

    Yet there is this nagging feeling in my head that female hair is very disturbing so perhaps we should cover it up with some cloth, or something. ;-)

  2. Roscoe
    February 10th, 2006 @ 2:19 pm

    One thing I learned when I became an atheist is the need NOT to imperialize thougts on actions such as morals/integrity/respect or any other word that has been given a spiritual meaning higher than its definition to another person or group of people. I don’t think you have learned this lesson yet. If you don’t want to be in a strictly sexual relationship then don’t but don’t pretend to be qaulified to make a broad statement critizing peoples choices.

    Funny thing is, I’ve only had sex with one woman and that woman is the one I will spend the rest of my life with. However that fact doesn’t make my life any better than if i had casual sex with 100 women before that. It makes absolutely no difference.

    Hedonism/materialism are wonderful, the first isn’t exactly for me but I dont have an insane notion that my feelings should be a moral code for others.

    An atheist blog that still practices the supremist theist values…. crazy

  3. benjamin
    February 10th, 2006 @ 2:41 pm

    I’m going to have to agree with the first two posts here. Just as atheism frees us from the ultimate Purpose purported by religion and let’s us choose our own purpose, it also frees us to choose our own attitude toward sex. So thank you kindly for the suggestion RA, though I am already engaged and take my commitment VERY seriously, don’t expect that everyone is going to abandon their promiscuous ways.

  4. David M
    February 10th, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

    So now the pieces start to come together. Anti-choice and anti-sex, surprise, surprise, surprise.

    I’m in a committed relationship that is also open. My SO and I love the unique sexual experience we have together; we also love the spice that casual sex offers. We understand that its not for everyone. Why can’t you realize that your views are the same?

    By the way, I’ve never had meaningless sex. I don’t expect a quickie in the back of a car outside a bar to have mind shattering implications, but the sharing of pleasure between two strangers is not meaningless.

  5. JP
    February 10th, 2006 @ 3:23 pm

    RA said: “Women view men who sex dolls, pornography and prostitutes as pathetic, rather than idolizing them for their ability to divorce their feelings from reality.”

    Do they? How would you know? I’ve known lots of women who liked pornography and played with sex dolls, toys, etc. I’ve known women who were more “liberated” than men. Why the broad generalization which obviously isn’t true in all cases?

    RA: “To seek a sexual partner for mere gratification or release is to reduce a human being to an object, a sex toy, a porn magazine, a prostitute. ”

    Really? What if I tie my wife up (after she asked me too) and I abuse here like a priest would a schoolboy, does that make her a prostitute or degraded? Does it matter if she likes it? What if I don’t like it, but I do it because SHE likes it?

    The belief that females of most species, including our own, strongly tend toward sexual fidelity is just as false as claiming that men are more promiscuous. Biology tells us that monogamy is rare in animals, and only a handful of mammals have been considered monogamous.

  6. simbol
    February 10th, 2006 @ 3:48 pm

    “Women view men who sex dolls, pornography and prostitutes as pathetic, rather than idolizing them for their ability to divorce their feelings from reality.”

    Then, what is your problem?

    Please don’t teach me morals. Keep it for yourself.

  7. Mister Swill
    February 10th, 2006 @ 4:07 pm

    Wow, everyone else said pretty much everything I had to say. But let me add this:

    Arguing about the values of monogamy vs. casual sex is like arguing over the superiority of chocolate ice cream vs. strawberry. Different people will have different preferences, and there are plenty of other flavors to choose from.

  8. Thomas
    February 10th, 2006 @ 4:07 pm

    Is there any room for moderation? Why must the choice be either abstinence-till-monogomy or meaningless carnality? Furthermore, for what reason would or should “an atheist”–as though we are part of the same belief system–push for promiscuity over chastity? Just to flip the bird to puritanical theists? Such a claim strikes me as an obvious straw man.

  9. twyg
    February 10th, 2006 @ 4:19 pm

    I like the fact that RA has his own mind and opinions, even if I don’t always agree with them. It shows that he is a free-thinker which is something I definately aspire to be in my own life. Expressing your opinion on something and stating that others would do well to follow your example and change their lifestyle is not necessarily a “bad” thing. Doing it at the point of a gun is but I don’t get the impression from the article that RA is calling for a constitutional amendment banning casual sex.

  10. Choobus
    February 10th, 2006 @ 5:48 pm

    Does this include anal or what?

  11. SBW
    February 10th, 2006 @ 6:23 pm

    I completely agree with RA.

    Lets identify something as “good” if it is the most beneficial choice for the individual and society as a whole. Something is “bad” if it the consequences of said action normally lead to negative effects on the individual and society as a whole.

    Using these definitions of good and bad, chastity and modesty in the arena of sexual affairs is the best choice because they are more likely to result in a positive outcome for all involved.

    There are some people that engage in polygamy and open-sexual relationships and these situations are satisfactory to the individual but much more often than not these situations do not work out.

    G.K Chesterton once said: Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.

    If you substitute the word “Christianity” and replace it with chastity then you will see the point I am trying to make. Remaining chaste and faithful is hard. Following your will and desire wherever it takes you is not. And so we often choose the easiest road for no other reason that the fact that it’s easy and doing what is probably best is the hardest thing to do.

  12. qedpro
    February 10th, 2006 @ 6:48 pm

    That means you’re equating something being difficult with something being good.
    What makes chastity better? Nothing. Just because its difficult to be chaste doesn’t mean its a good thing.
    That is soooo christian…….whip me please, the pain makes me better…..

  13. mycyrus1
    February 10th, 2006 @ 6:56 pm

    “If you substitute the word “Christianity” and replace it with chastity then . . .”

    “Christianity” is not hard. Beleiving in fairy tales and blindly accepting and following the teachings of savages from the past is not difficult at all. The only time people have a hard time following christianity is when they realize how simplistic, savage, unrealistic, and immoral it would is to follow it. Arguing that people don’t try christianity because it is hard is like arguing that people don’t jump off a cliff head-first–without a parachute–because it is hard. On the contrary, any fool can do that. The smart folks don’t jump because they realize the stupidity of the endeavor.

  14. SBW
    February 10th, 2006 @ 7:02 pm

    ///qedpro said: That means you’re equating something being difficult with something being good.////

    That statement means that you didn’t read what I wrote. I did not say that because something is difficult that it automatically makes it good. I said the the good thing is often the most difficult thing.

    ////What makes chastity better?/////

    The fact you don’t have to worry about pregnancy and std’s maybe? The fact that you don’t have to deal with the other stressors that come along with maintaining a relationship? The fact that the energy being put into a relationship that won’t last could be put into something more lasting such as helping the poor, or starting a company or doing something else worthwhile that will not only benefit you but others?

    ////That is soooo christian…….whip me please, the pain makes me better…..////

    My statement was soooo intelligent, which explains why you didn’t think of it.

  15. SBW
    February 10th, 2006 @ 7:14 pm

    ////mycyrus1 said: “If you substitute the word “Christianity” and replace it with chastity then . . .”

    “Christianity” is not hard. Beleiving in fairy tales and blindly accepting and following the teachings of savages from the past is not difficult at all. The only time people have a hard time following christianity is when they realize how simplistic, savage, unrealistic, and immoral it would is to follow it. Arguing that people don’t try christianity because it is hard is like arguing that people don’t jump off a cliff head-first–without a parachute–because it is hard. On the contrary, any fool can do that. The smart folks don’t jump because they realize the stupidity of the endeavor.////

    Some of you all are so stupid you would chop off your noses to smite your face. You are so eager to talk about religion that you bring it up out of nowhere when that is not even the topic. I know paying attention is hard sometimes but I assure you that it is well worth your effort. My argument is that being chaste is harder than being promiscuous. When one is following every urge they don’t have to practice control like when you are chaste.

    Can someone argue the merits of the argument intelligently or am I just wasting my time feeding the peanut gallery again?

  16. MBains
    February 10th, 2006 @ 7:39 pm

    Using these definitions of good and bad, chastity and modesty in the arena of sexual affairs is the best choice because they are more likely to result in a positive outcome for all involved.

    LMAO!!! Yeah! For somepeople! If that’s what they really want. Aaahhhh… But now we get into the psychology of things. Let’s step back again.

    Who is better off? The woman in a relationship where “her man” sleeps with whomever he wants and treats her like a queen? Or the woman who’s man does the former but treats her like a fucktard, with no ability to take care of anything but the kids (barely) and His house?

    Or

    The woman married to an entirely wonderful and caring man who never seems to have any desire for her? Or the woman married to the guy that always wants to fuck but is, well, just okay to have around the house? Like, she doesn’t mind him there, but really wishes he’d go hang out with his friends or spend more time at work?

    Okay. This could take a while. Y’all got time for a couple hundred million more wildly different types of couples?

    Me neither.

    Show me some survey stats of thousands of couples which are correlating 1) Individual Happiness, 2) Happiness w/ Spouse a) w/ Sex Life b) w/ non-sex life (integrated what???) 3) happiness and personal success of children (according to income and their answers to the same survey.)

    Track the folks over time (you’d need their Family MDs or the like to maintain follow-up.) How does their Health progress? Income? Those “Happiness” questions? Are counseling or divorce occasioned? Do their children fit the ever more accurate profiles for aptitude for personal “success”?

    It’s pretty soft, though becoming better, science that RA is attempting to bypass in this post. Without being in his head, I can only imagine his motive is fair and I see enough anecdotals to know that, for many people, his reasoning works out fairly soundly indeed. I am in the group for whom sex is sex and gets old fast unless it helps developes into love or for whom love blossoms into sex from an unexpected directions.

    There really isn’t any way around either of those things. The only issue is whether the two folk involved are in agreement on whatever their personal goals vis-a-vie one another are at the time and for the future. If you’re gonna have kids, I’m gung-ho for committment ’til they’re, depending upon the family dynamics, about 16 to 20 yo and mature enough to deal with mommy and daddy breakin’ up.

    Again, you got time for a couple hundred million variations on that theme?

    Gimme a fuck-buddy who’ll have my back and appreciate me as I love her madly (or sometimes less so, lol but true!) for the rest of my life. Give me love.

    But don’t go suggesting I lock it down with someone with whom I am just not compatible in the long run. You might as well give me death.

    Numbers man! Gimme numbers!

    {-;

  17. Nokot
    February 10th, 2006 @ 9:25 pm

    “Some of you all are so stupid you would chop off your noses to smite your face. You are so eager to talk about religion that you bring it up out of nowhere when that is not even the topic.”

    Honey, you brought up religion in your post. TRA brought it up in the original post. It’s the topic of the blog. How does that escape you?

  18. Nokot
    February 10th, 2006 @ 9:41 pm

    “To seek a sexual partner for mere gratification or release is to reduce a human being to an object, a sex toy, a porn magazine, a prostitute.”

    But, libido and love *are* distinct. You can’t deny biology, TRA. It is comomon, natural, and normal to be sexually but not emotionally attracted to another person. Loveless sex is part of being human or of any animal. Besides, I like being a sex toy sometimes.

  19. MBains
    February 10th, 2006 @ 10:11 pm

    Let’s see if this one posts: It’s about a true Patriot and a man who knows how family life should be.

    errrmmm…. uhhh, or somethin’.

    (btw TRA, have I been the lucky “banned biatch of the month” or something? Or do you delete for length of comment? Just curiouser… )

  20. Tom
    February 11th, 2006 @ 3:00 am

    What makes chastity better? The fact you don’t have to worry about pregnancy and std’s maybe? The fact that you don’t have to deal with the other stressors that come along with maintaining a relationship? The fact that the energy being put into a relationship that won’t last could be put into something more lasting such as helping the poor, or starting a company or doing something else worthwhile that will not only benefit you but others?”

    How is an active sex life and all the things you’ve listed mutually exclusive? Our society’s problem is the way it relegates sex to the status of taboo, the way it turns sex into something dirty and perverted. When a person is made to feel shameful for his or her natural impulses, obsession follows. It’s the puritanical repression of sex, and the ignorance it breeds, that’s responsible for the glut of pornography, unintended pregnancy, spread of STDs, and all the misdirected energies you’re so worried about. Surprise! It’s the society we live in now. I’m not saying the solution is unfettered sexual promiscuity. I am saying that when a society matures, when its populace accepts the duty of keeping itself informed, when it practices forethought and moderation, and when each individual takes responsibility for his or her own actions, the negative consequences of sex will drop.

  21. mycyrus1
    February 11th, 2006 @ 3:18 am

    SBW,

    Get your head out of your ass, then reread your post, then respond. You brought up “Christianity” and implied that it was hard to follow because it was so god damned right, just like “Chastity.” So stop your stupidity and quit cutting off your ugly nose:)

  22. Mookie
    February 11th, 2006 @ 3:27 am

    Next thing we know he’ll become the Raving Theist.

  23. OneEar
    February 11th, 2006 @ 3:55 am

    You are correct about casual sex. However, I fear you are misreading Nietsche. God is not dead in the literal sense, only as it relates to the previous literary descriptions.

  24. Therese Z
    February 11th, 2006 @ 6:56 am

    I can’t put the two words “casual” and “sex” together in any meaningful way anymore. Not when I’ve tried to conceive children and couldn’t when I wanted to, and thought I HAD conceived when it just wasn’t “convenient.”

    Any human action with the power of creating life can’t be casual. You can’t fire a gun into a crowd of people “casually.” You can’t have sex casually, unless you are prepared to kill the life you might create, contraceptive methods notwithstanding.

    Unless you’re prepared for the consequences of a baby, then it’s hardly casual sex. I am sad to presume that the other commenters here are prepared to simply stop that beating heart, should they be given the gift of a child!

    It took being married to finally get it: sex within marriage is safe and free of any worries of what might happen. Makes it one heck of a lot more pleasurable, too.

  25. Roscoe
    February 11th, 2006 @ 1:06 pm

    Well maybe you can’t but I can… Casual Sex.

    I dont plan on ever having casual sex but I wish I could have before I met my fiance. There is no mysticism here, casual sex doesn’t change a thing.

    And abortions are awesome, they are just another medical advancement and human achievement that should be applauded. We have advanced our birth control methods and can now keep woman safer and healthier. I fail to see how an atheist can support abortions, if you dont believe the thing has a spirit, it’s just a fetus. A nothing, a know nothing physical manifestation of the body.

  26. SBW
    February 11th, 2006 @ 4:29 pm

    ////Nokot said: Honey, you brought up religion in your post. TRA brought it up in the original post. It’s the topic of the blog. How does that escape you?///

    Sugarpie, please reread my original post. The topic is not about christianity, it is about using non-religious definitions of “good” and “bad” to make the case for chastity and faithfulness. I used the quote from G.K Chesterton because I thought that the phrase would be useful if you take Christianity out of the wording. The problem is that certain people saw the word “christianity” and stopped paying attention to everything said afterward and before it.

    Furthermore, we are not discussing the topic of this blog, we are discussing the topic of my post. I attempted to explain the case for chasity in non-religious terms yet some people seem hell bent on bringing the subject constantly back to Christian morality. Once again, I am not discussing this issue from a Christian standpoint.

    ///mycyrus1 said: Get your head out of your ass, then reread your post, then respond. You brought up “Christianity” and implied that it was hard to follow because it was so god damned right, just like “Chastity.” So stop your stupidity and quit cutting off your ugly nose:)////

    Talking to you is like trying to explain calculus to a third grader. They just don’t have mind for it and any attempt will be futile.

  27. mycyrus1
    February 11th, 2006 @ 5:17 pm

    “Talking to you is like trying to explain calculus to a third grader.”

    Wow SBW! I’m surprised that a bird-brain dimwit like you has even heard of calculus. Then I remembered that many parakeets, who couldn’t distinguish the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground, could learn to say some words too.

  28. SBW
    February 11th, 2006 @ 5:30 pm

    ///mycyrus1 said: “Talking to you is like trying to explain calculus to a third grader.”

    Wow SBW! I’m surprised that a bird-brain dimwit like you has even heard of calculus. Then I remembered that many parakeets, who couldn’t distinguish the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground, could learn to say some words too.///

    ROFLMAO. Nothing smells as good as the sweet smell of victory. When your opponent can’t even argue anymore but is using their last gasps to hurl insults it really is a beautiful thing to witness.

  29. Viole
    February 11th, 2006 @ 9:12 pm

    Dearest Jamila,

    You really have got to teach me that technique. Not only did you manage to start the insulting–sorry, making fun of Christianity doesn’t count as insulting on an atheist forum–you managed to sneer arrogantly at someone else as if they’d started it. You have my admiration. I consider myself an expert at arrogant sneering, but you’ve completely humbled me.

    Respectfully Yours,
    Viole Kérinav

  30. mycyrus1
    February 11th, 2006 @ 9:48 pm

    LOL! SBW you are amazing! You truely are the victor, but I think you are just smelling your upper lip. Speaking of calculus, I will make no attempt to explain it to you even when you do get to the third grade–five years from now.

    Ok, ok, I’ll be nice, so I will let this be my last reply to you on on this thread.

  31. SBW
    February 11th, 2006 @ 10:22 pm

    ////Viole said:Dearest Jamila,You really have got to teach me that technique. Not only did you manage to start the insulting–sorry, making fun of Christianity doesn’t count as insulting on an atheist forum–you managed to sneer arrogantly at someone else as if they’d started it. /////

    My equally dearest Viole, please go back and reread the comments. Our dear friend mycyrus1 called Christian believers “savages” before I had typed a word to him. I was not the one who began hurling insults in reply to another persons statement that I had not thoroughly read. Most importantly you cannot say that insulting Christianity (and any other religions) and the believers of those religions with slanderous name-calling is valid, yet when the tables are turned and you are the one being insulted the behavior now becomes arrogant sneering. Do unto others and you would have them do unto you. If you or any other atheists on this site do not want to be called names, think twice before you do it to someone else.

    I do not have problem with Christianity being critiqued on an atheist website. If I did then I would leave you all to your business. I do have a problem when people think that they will be allowed to make unfounded, slanderous statements and that they should not receive the same replies inkind.

    ///You have my admiration. I consider myself an expert at arrogant sneering, but you’ve completely humbled me.////

    Coming from you I take this as a compliment. I pride myself on giving as good as I get.

  32. ashli
    February 12th, 2006 @ 8:59 am

    women becoming commodities? a debasement of the human body? a lot abortion-advocating betty friedan would know about these.

  33. Dr. BDH
    February 12th, 2006 @ 2:13 pm

    Some (not all) religions promote the idea that sex, within or without marriage, is dirty and shameful. Some social systems do likewise. Some religions and social systems celebrate sex, sometimes within marriage, sometimes without, sometimes both. Some religions and social systems promote polygamy, some mongamy, and a few celibacy. For most people, the morality of sex is a reflection of which religion and/or social system they have accepted. Interestingly, even then, many people’s sexual activity is at odds with their moral beliefs. Truly, this is not a simple matter of “monogamy is best,” much less “monogamy is moral” or “monogamy is natural.” I believe all three of these statements are arbitrary. In an evolutionary, biological sense, the purpose of sex is procreation, which may speak to TRA’s feelings about abortion and marriage. Even there, however, monogamy is hardly proven best: it is estimated that 18 million of the people in Asia are descendants of Ghenghis Khan, while most of his contemporary males left no descendants alive today.

  34. Jody Tresidder
    February 12th, 2006 @ 7:32 pm

    SBW,
    You wrote: “chastity and modesty in the arena of sexual affairs is the best choice because they are more likely to result in a positive outcome for all involved. ”

    Fine and dandy.

    Except on your own blog you boast that your “breasts” are your finest physical attributes.

    Your cherished daughter is the result of a now regretted relationship, and your ex-boyfriend had another woman pregnant even while you were hooked up with him.

    Frankly, I couldn’t care less if your own life has been party central.

    But this “strait is the gate” stuff is pretty theoretical, no?

  35. mycyrus1
    February 12th, 2006 @ 7:41 pm

    Dr. BDH, I think you’ve put it best. TRA may feel monogomy is the best perhaps because that is the view of the larger culture that he has grown up with. Hey may have shunned his culture’s view on faith, but he seems to harbor some things from his culture still.

  36. Gathercole
    February 13th, 2006 @ 12:31 am

    The question of whether monogamy is more likely to make people happy than casual sex is an empirical one and should be answered through research. However, if there are some people who claim to be happy when having casual sex, what will we do to them? Tell them they’re lying? Or that their happiness is really just an illusion? Honestly, I thought one of the primary benefits of being an atheist was a willingness to answer questions through research and evidence, and to afford each person the right to pursue his or her own happiness.

  37. IA_
    February 13th, 2006 @ 8:03 am

    SBW
    ////Except on your own blog you boast that your “breasts” are your finest physical attributes.

    Your cherished daughter is the result of a now regretted relationship, and your ex-boyfriend had another woman pregnant even while you were hooked up with him.

    Frankly, I couldn’t care less if your own life has been party central.

    But this “strait is the gate” stuff is pretty theoretical, no?////

    Perhaps she knows more about this “strait the gate” stuff because she knows the consequences of not.

  38. twyg
    February 13th, 2006 @ 9:15 am

    StupidBlackWoman trolls on an ATHIEST blog and gets all worked up when her superstition is held up for ridicule… me thinks the lady needs a long night of casual sex! I’m sure Choobus and I could tag team it for a few hours this weekend! (as long as she will agree to anal as I’m sure Choobus will insist on it) :P

  39. hermesten
    February 13th, 2006 @ 10:43 am

    I find it highly amusing, and somewhat instructive, that the Bible-beaters, and a woman who is, perhaps, the all-time first-place bête noire of Christians, and in particular, the Christian-right “family values” crowd, are tuned to the same radio station on sexuality.

    But I guess it just makes sense. Sexuality is universal to human beings. It’s the one truly common language, since it can be practiced without formal education. Whether you’re just setting the “permissible” terms and limits, or actually prohibiting certain behaviors, everyone is a potential subject for control. Has there ever been a repressive regime that didn’t seek to define the “acceptable” boundaries of sexual behavior?

    The choice between monogamy and “materialistic libertine hedonism” is a false dichotomy. The funny thing is, Betty Friedan and the theists have found the same agenda useful for promoting opposite ends. For theists, the anti-sex agenda is useful tool for subordination, of women in particular. Friedan, on the other hand, perceives the anti-sex agenda as a useful tool for female liberation. And, even though I find her anti-sex agenda unpalatable, I can’t quarrel with its objective.

  40. Jody Tresidder
    February 13th, 2006 @ 1:06 pm

    Hermesten,

    There are indeed some aspects of Friedan’s objectives I can’t quarrel with.

    But I’m also damned if I can recognize my own sexual behavior as forming part of Betty’s “strangely joyless national compulsion”!!

    The sensible response, I think, of many adults to prescriptive theories about sex is pretty much “speak for yourself, sweetie”.

  41. twyg
    February 13th, 2006 @ 2:03 pm

    Hey herme, quit talkin all smart! you know that we atheist can only understand bathroom stall humor! and where the hell is lucy muff? I miss her gibbering. (and no, the comments of StupidBlkWhore don’t count as an appropriate substitute)

  42. shane
    February 13th, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

    This used to be a moderately interesting site to visit, but I won’t be wasting time here anymore. The lack of any real insight and the increasingly pedestrian and hackneyed pontificating (as witness this inane and silly posting about sex) has just become tedious.

  43. tarkovsky
    February 13th, 2006 @ 3:11 pm

    MBains said:
    There really isn’t any way around either of those things. The only issue is whether the two folk involved are in agreement on whatever their personal goals vis-a-vie one another are at the time and for the future. If you’re gonna have kids, I’m gung-ho for committment ’til they’re, depending upon the family dynamics, about 16 to 20 yo and mature enough to deal with mommy and daddy breakin’ up.

    A very interesting point.

    Morality (in the sense that it is conceived with our survival strategy in mind) is nothing else really but guaranteeing that the species survives. And that means of course protecting the children until they are old enough to fend off for themselves.

    And then of course there is the classic question: once your children are old enough, why continue to be “moral” ?

    Thank you MBains for hitting the target, I couldnt have said it better: monogamy is a better survival strategy… for about 20 years. Then comes the meaningless sex. ;-)

  44. hermesten
    February 13th, 2006 @ 5:20 pm

    Shane, why should we care? Why not just disappear and leave us all mystified about the great mystery?

  45. saintyago
    February 13th, 2006 @ 5:23 pm

    I went to my priest and showed RA’s post and he told me “tha’s fine”, then he asked , Why do you go to an atheist site? and I showed him the antiabortionist post. He told me “this is awesome. Looks like a covered christian site. Maybe the Opus Dei is behind, please give me the link!!”

  46. Lucy Muff
    February 13th, 2006 @ 9:09 pm

    you is right saintyago, RA is align with the christian way on matter of babykill. If he has be seen light of this maybe he wil acept jesi love and understand that jesus is loord. then big joke will be on all you atheist! me will say big ha ha to all then.

    and twg, you shits moith about smart black lady. Just because she has baby out of wedding no make her whore. She is now asking to jesus for forgive anyway so you can put your rudeword in hat and then eat the hat. theblack is right about yous all being unable to diss her argument so yous just diss her. Thats be proof that she be more cleverere than you so joke is on you from that!

  47. SBW
    February 13th, 2006 @ 10:17 pm

    ///Jody Tresidder said: But this “strait is the gate” stuff is pretty theoretical, no?////

    ///IA_ said:Perhaps she knows more about this “strait the gate” stuff because she knows the consequences of not.////

    That pretty much sums it up. And look around people, you don’t have to personally experience something when you see it everywhere you turn.

  48. Viole
    February 14th, 2006 @ 12:29 am

    Dearest Jamila,

    Personal experience helps. I say this, because sex seems to be one of the most subjective experiences in human nature, probably because it’s so universal. I’ve never known anyone who disliked sex, just certain sexual practices, and partners. That’s probably fair enough, but as outside my experience as promiscuity. Not that I think people should refrain from talking about things they haven’t experienced; the world would be awfully quiet if they did. Talking is fine. It’s moralizing that’s idiotic. Sure, I like monogamy, but I’m loyal by nature. Some people like variety.

    Which is why I refuse to pretend there’s something wrong with casual sex. As with anything else, one should have an understanding of what one is getting into. Abstinence-only education, after all, leads to more of your much-referenced consequences than does comprehensive sex education. However, that’s quite different from saying one shouldn’t get into it all. I certainly intended to sleep around a bit, though I don’t regret not doing so.

    I think the whole point here is about control, though. Which is why, Jamila, I don’t really consider you a feminist. If telling people what to do, and what not to do, was empowering, women wouldn’t have self-esteem problems. Make no mistake, we’re still told what to do often enough, and marginalized. Some things we just have to learn for ourselves. How to handle our own sexuality is one of them.

  49. SBW
    February 14th, 2006 @ 2:40 am

    //Viole said: Not that I think people should refrain from talking about things they haven’t experienced; the world would be awfully quiet if they did. Talking is fine. It’s moralizing that’s idiotic.///

    I disagree. I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with moralizing. I can’t think of who said it but there is a famous quote that says, “If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything”. I believe this to be true. I believe that when people engage in moral relativism it soon disintegrates into thinking that there is no such thing as definite wrong and right and this often further disintegrates into an anything goes mentality. If someone believes in their convictions there is nothing wrong with promoting and explicating those convictions to others. We all have the option to chose not to listen and to make our own morality, but to say that a person who believes morals to be definite is wrong for moralizing is just another form of moralizing itself. You’re are saying that your morals ( moral relativism) is better than their morals (moral absolutism).

    ///Which is why I refuse to pretend there’s something wrong with casual sex. As with anything else, one should have an understanding of what one is getting into. ///

    To have an understanding of what one is getting into and to be casual concerning the matter are antithetical. When we call someone a casual observer it is because we see that person as having a superficial understanding of the reality of a situation. You can’t casually play with a loaded weapon, casually play with someones emotions, or casually play with your sexuality and not expect mayhem to ensue. To be casual with something that is of the utmost seriousness is inviting disaster. One night of casual sex can result in any number of diseases or pregnancy. There is nothing casual about HIV.

    If someone has an understanding of what they are getting into and is taking responsible precautions I don’t see how their behavior can be called casual.

    And of course there are exceptions to every human behavior. Some people have sex on their first date and end up in long-term relationships or married. However for every couple that enters into a sexual relationship responsibly and with their eyes open regarding expections there are dozens of others that end up with std’s, unintended pregnancies, or a world of regret. These situations where things end badly are the norm, not the exception.

    ///I think the whole point here is about control, though. Which is why, Jamila, I don’t really consider you a feminist.///

    Let me get this straight. You’re telling me I’m not a feminist and at the same time talking about control? Oh I get it, the only feminists are the ones that agree with you.

    ///If telling people what to do, and what not to do, was empowering, women wouldn’t have self-esteem problems. Make no mistake, we’re still told what to do often enough, and marginalized.///

    Like how you just told me that I wasn’t a feminist because I don’t agree with you? Is that the kind of marginalization that you were referring to? Tragically many feminists today have gotten so far away from what the first feminists were fighting for that they don’t even know what the original aims of feminism were. The movement was co-opted in the 60’s and 70’s by lesbians, upper and middle class white women, and the medical establishment that saw abortion as a cash cow. Many women took the bait hook, line, and sinker and we (women, men, and children) are paying for that mistake now. Some of us still don’t see it yet though.

  50. Jody Tresidder
    February 14th, 2006 @ 8:34 am

    SWB,
    You wrote: “If someone believes in their convictions there is nothing wrong with promoting and explicating those convictions to others.”

    Pretty words, but – and not to get too Clintonesque here – what exactly do you mean by “believe”? Or indeed “conviction”? Or “promoting” for that matter?

    You represent yourself – here and on your own blog – as a spunky single mother who got knocked up by a guy who wasn’t your husband and who already had a pregnant ex-girlfriend.

    So your own circumstances don’t “promote” the “convictions” you claim to hold dear.

    So all we are left with is your “belief” in a bunch of scolding platitudes, and some childish swipes at an evil triumvirate of posh white chicks, doctors and lesbians?

  51. twyg
    February 14th, 2006 @ 9:15 am

    oh lucy, you had me at shits moith! i have a big loveing for you and i’m glad to see you back. i was a-skeered you had left! but now i see that jesus is lord and he wants me and you to run off to jamaica together this weekend. I’ll pick you up at 8.

  52. Viole
    February 14th, 2006 @ 1:43 pm

    I disagree. I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with moralizing. I can’t think of who said it but there is a famous quote that says, “If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything”. I believe this to be true. I believe that when people engage in moral relativism it soon disintegrates into thinking that there is no such thing as definite wrong and right and this often further disintegrates into an anything goes mentality. If someone believes in their convictions there is nothing wrong with promoting and explicating those convictions to others. We all have the option to chose not to listen and to make our own morality, but to say that a person who believes morals to be definite is wrong for moralizing is just another form of moralizing itself. You’re are saying that your morals ( moral relativism) is better than their morals (moral absolutism).

    Not really. As RA points out, that would require an absolute. Moral relativism is just more based in facts. Absolutism is just wishful thinking. Sure, I’d love it if everyone treated each other with respect and kindness, but Jamila, we’re living in a capitalist would. Screwing other people is our way of life. If there is any economic system which requires moral relativism, it’s capitalism. As RA pointed out correctly, sexuality in popular society has increased, and it’s made us nearly immune to the small doses of earlier years.

    Your conviction that unless everyone does as you say, society will collapse into anarchy reminds me of something out of low-grade christian apologetics.

    To have an understanding of what one is getting into and to be casual concerning the matter are antithetical.
    When we call someone a casual observer it is because we see that person as having a superficial understanding of the reality of a situation. You can’t casually play with a loaded weapon, casually play with someones emotions, or casually play with your sexuality and not expect mayhem to ensue. To be casual with something that is of the utmost seriousness is inviting disaster. One night of casual sex can result in any number of diseases or pregnancy. There is nothing casual about HIV.

    It’s possible to be casual and careful at the same time. You seem rather tightly-wound, to me, so I’ll forgive your ignorance on the subject. I’ve gone through life with a laissez-faire attitude, taking care of causes when I could, and consequences when I had to. It works well enough. Excessive caution is probably safe, but it’s also dull.

    “Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow.”
    -Albert Einstein.

    [F]or every couple that enters into a sexual relationship responsibly and with their eyes open regarding expections there are dozens of others that end up with std’s, unintended pregnancies, or a world of regret. These situations where things end badly are the norm, not the exception.

    Which is precisely why people need more opportunities to learn about themselves. The average American citizen, cooped up in their safe little lives, ends up just as silly and ignorant as when they were born. They’re just cogs in a machine. Excuse me if I don’t respect that.

    ///I think the whole point here is about control, though. Which is why, Jamila, I don’t really consider you a feminist.///
    Let me get this straight. You’re telling me I’m not a feminist and at the same time talking about control? Oh I get it, the only feminists are the ones that agree with you.

    Something like that. As I pointed out, feminists don’t agree on everything. However, someone who pines for a past that was somehow ‘better’ or ‘more secure’ lacks an understanding as to the past, and an unwillingness to strive for a better future. The former is common enough, even among those who don’t have a vague sense that things were ‘better back then.’ The later is the mark of a conservative. Unless I’m very much mistaken, we’ve not made enough progress to have conservative feminists.

    However, if I were trying to label you, I’d have said straight out that you aren’t a feminist. Call yourself what you will, but I’ll reserve the right to call you what I think is more appropriate. If anyone can be a feminist, then I’m a christian.

    ///If telling people what to do, and what not to do, was empowering, women wouldn’t have self-esteem problems. Make no mistake, we’re still told what to do often enough, and marginalized.///
    Like how you just told me that I wasn’t a feminist because I don’t agree with you? Is that the kind of marginalization that you were referring to?

    Have I tried to tell you what to do? Have I marginalized you in some way? Am I marginalizing Bush if I point out he isn’t a conservative, with his rampant spending and abuse of executive powers?

    Tragically many feminists today have gotten so far away from what the first feminists were fighting for that they don’t even know what the original aims of feminism were. The movement was co-opted in the 60’s and 70’s by lesbians, upper and middle class white women, and the medical establishment that saw abortion as a cash cow. Many women took the bait hook, line, and sinker and we (women, men, and children) are paying for that mistake now. Some of us still don’t see it yet though.

    This is more what I was talking about. Fortunately, I’m used to people thinking I’m evil, and generally dismiss them as ignorant gits. I’ve heard this before, of course. If only the homely women had been asked out to prom, and not just the hot ones! You’re just barely short of saying women shouldn’t be allowed to work outside the home. I’m not sure what you think feminism is supposed to stand for, but you’ve definite managed a surprisingly idiotic logical fallacy, here. My half-hearted no true scotsman argument has nothing on your amazing suggestion that the entire feminist movement is not a feminist movement at all.

    And then, of course, we have your arrogant presumption that you know better than anyone else.

  53. Alfredo
    February 14th, 2006 @ 3:40 pm

    Medical establishment seeing abortion as a cash cow? That must be why I can walk into any hospital or clinic and order up an abortion for dollars, no questions asked!

    Oh, wait, SBW is just a moron.

  54. twyg
    February 14th, 2006 @ 4:51 pm

    yeah, i think Viole proved that quite nicely

  55. SBW
    February 14th, 2006 @ 10:40 pm

    ///Viole said: Not really. As RA points out, that would require an absolute. Moral relativism is just more based in facts. Absolutism is just wishful thinking. Sure, I’d love it if everyone treated each other with respect and kindness, but Jamila, we’re living in a capitalist would. Screwing other people is our way of life. If there is any economic system which requires moral relativism, it’s capitalism. As RA pointed out correctly, sexuality in popular society has increased, and it’s made us nearly immune to the small doses of earlier years.///

    I think that there is a marked difference between recognizing that there will always be those in our society that take advantage of others and between saying “screwing other people is our way of life”. This sort of belief system reflects the attitude of many of the second wave feminists that the only way for them to achieve success within the culture was to screw other people (namely lower class women and those women that dared to disagree with them) in the way that men were in many ways screwing women in general. I don’t believe that women or men just have to accept that we live in a society that endorses screwing other people over.

    //Your conviction that unless everyone does as you say, society will collapse into anarchy reminds me of something out of low-grade christian apologetics.///

    I never said that everyone had to do as I said and I never used the word anarchy. As a whole, everyone would be better off if our society encouraged chastity and modesty as much as it encouraged permissive sexuality. I don’t make up the statistics for abortion, out of wedlock births, child abuse, divorce, and std infection. To deny that these things are highly correlated if not directly caused by lack of sexual mores is to choose to ignore the facts.

    //It’s possible to be casual and careful at the same time.///

    No, its not. I staunchly disagree.

    ///You seem rather tightly-wound, to me, so I’ll forgive your ignorance on the subject.///

    I say the same thing about you, except I don’t forgive ignorance on the subject. I think that you should read a bit more about feminism, especially the writing of authors such as bell hooks and the original feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Wollencraft.

    //I’ve gone through life with a laissez-faire attitude, taking care of causes when I could, and consequences when I had to. It works well enough. Excessive caution is probably safe, but it’s also dull.///

    I never used the word excessive either. I said that one should be aware of the seriousness of their actions and the consequences too. There are plenty of people that have made it through life with a laissez-faire attitude and they are doing fine and there are plenty of others that did the same thing and it ended up costing them dearly. Those people that manage to make it through life successfully and never take at least some things seriously are the minority and they do not reflect the reality for the vast majority of people that followed in their footsteps.

    //Which is precisely why people need more opportunities to learn about themselves. The average American citizen, cooped up in their safe little lives, ends up just as silly and ignorant as when they were born. They’re just cogs in a machine. Excuse me if I don’t respect that.///

    Where do you get the impression that the average American citizen is cooped up in their safe little lives? 99% of people have sex before marriage. 1 in 4 people has an std as we speak. 37%-43% of all American women will eventually have an abortion. Seems to me as if sexually speaking Americans are having a good time. Half of America is drowing in debt and who can remember the last time that the federal government didn’t owe money. This tells me that people are also enjoying themselves financially whether they can afford to or not. The facts of the matter do not corroborate what you are saying to be true.

    ///However, someone who pines for a past that was somehow ‘better’ or ‘more secure’ lacks an understanding as to the past, and an unwillingness to strive for a better future. ////

    Not if in the past certain things were in a better position than they are now. I believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and Doe v Bolton went further in the wrong direction. I do strive for a better future for women and I also recognize that all so-called progress is not necessarily a move in the right direction. The original feminists were anti-abortion at a time when child birth was much more dangerous than it is now and half of all children died before the age of 5. They realized that widespread availability of abortion would be just another way to subjugate women and for many women it has been just that.

    ///Unless I’m very much mistaken, we’ve not made enough progress to have conservative feminists.///

    IMO, you are mistaken. The feminists of the 60’s and 70’s differ incredibly from many of the original feminists and many of the so called third wave feminists harken back to the original feminists.

    ///However, if I were trying to label you, I’d have said straight out that you aren’t a feminist.///

    You said that you do not consider me a feminist. The language you are using may be slightly different but the meaning is not.

    //Have I tried to tell you what to do? Have I marginalized you in some way?///

    Telling someone that you do not consider them a feminist because they do not agree with your idea of feminism is attempting to marginalize them and discredit what they are saying because you do not feel that their ideas are acceptable. It is marginalization because no part of being a feminist requires that someone need be prolife or prochoice for that matter.

    //This is more what I was talking about. Fortunately, I’m used to people thinking I’m evil, and generally dismiss them as ignorant gits.///

    I, for one, do not think that you are evil. I don’t presume to speak for others.

    //You’re just barely short of saying women shouldn’t be allowed to work outside the home.///

    Don’t presume to tell me what I am barely short of saying. The only thing that you can be sure of is what I have said. For the record I think that women only being allowed to work in the home is ridiculous. I could have told you this sooner if you had asked instead of presuming to know what I was “just short of saying”.

    //I’m not sure what you think feminism is supposed to stand for, but you’ve definite managed a surprisingly idiotic logical fallacy, here.///

    If you don’t know what I think that feminism stands for then don’t you think it best that you stop trying to play fortune teller and just ask? Your opinion of my thoughts, which is based on half-assed assumptions on your part, makes your entire opinion half-assed and completely false.

    //My half-hearted no true scotsman argument has nothing on your amazing suggestion that the entire feminist movement is not a feminist movement at all.///

    More assumptions based on ignorance with no basis in actual fact.

    ///And then, of course, we have your arrogant presumption that you know better than anyone else.///

    I’ve never said that I know better than anyone else. Somethings I do know more/better than others and some things I don’t. If I don’t know something then I acknowledge that I don’t know but if I’m assured that what I am saying is right then I will not allow myself to be brow beaten and told that I am wrong. I don’t say that everyone else has to follow my rules of right and wrong but I will not allow others to tell me that I am wrong for having an opinion that they disagree with.

  56. SBW
    February 14th, 2006 @ 11:01 pm

    ////Jody Tresidder said: Pretty words, but – and not to get too Clintonesque here – what exactly do you mean by “believe”? Or indeed “conviction”? Or “promoting” for that matter?///

    Believe:To accept as true or real
    Conviction: A fixed or strong belief
    Promote:To urge the adoption of; advocate ;To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity

    //You represent yourself – here and on your own blog – as a spunky single mother who got knocked up by a guy who wasn’t your husband and who already had a pregnant ex-girlfriend. So your own circumstances don’t “promote” the “convictions” you claim to hold dear.///

    My circumstances are why I hold my convictions. Although you aready asked the question before I suppose you didn’t understand the response. I’ve lived that experience so I know exactly what I’m talking about.

    ///So all we are left with is your “belief” in a bunch of scolding platitudes, and some childish swipes at an evil triumvirate of posh white chicks, doctors and lesbians?///

    If you want to know about feminism and the beginnings of NARAL and NOW then some good books for you to read would be “Ain’t I A Woman: Black Women and Feminism”. Another excellent book by the same author is “Feminist Theory: From Margin To Center”. Both books are by bell hooks, an extremely popular and erudite black lesbian feminist with a Ph.D who has been writting about feminism for over 20 years. Another good book for you would “The Cost of Choice: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion” and the works of the earlier feminists such as Wollencraft and Stanton.

    I could explain the complicated history of feminism to you but it would be better if you found it out for yourself. Hopefully you will read these books and thus won’t be wallowing in a cesspool of ignorance regarding feminism for the rest of your life.

  57. SBW
    February 15th, 2006 @ 4:12 am

    Jody Tresidder,

    After I typed my response to you I got to thinking real hard and accepted that you probably aren’t going to take the time to read those books because you’re already dead set in your ways. I’m feeling angry and preachy so I’m going to take this time to get my point across.

    You either don’t know or don’t care about the fact that the vast majority of the leaders of the feminist movement had marginalized the roles of non-white women and lowerclass women from the very beginning. It is no secret to anyone that cares to know that the earliest feminists such as Stanton were as racist as they could be towards black women and women of the lower classes. Stanton expressed outrage when it appeared that black men would be able to get the right to vote before white women. She said, and I quote, “If saxon men have legislated thus for their own mothers, wives and daughters, what can we hope for at the hands of Chinese, Indians, and Africans?….I protest against the enfranchisement of another man of any race or clime until the until the daughters of Jefferson, Hancock, and Adams are crowned with their rights”.

    At the beginning of the 20th century white women suffragists were eager to advance their own cause at the expense of black people. In 1903 at the National American Womens Suffrage Convention a suffragist urged the enfranchisement of white women on the grounds that it “would insure immediate and durable white supremacy”.

    Sojourner Truth often spoke at womens suffrage conventions and on every occasion groups of white women were there to protest it. White women openly and actively sought to gain the right to vote and few thought of black women because they didn’t want to be associated with them. The earliest feminists were largely pro-life but many, such as Carrie Chapman Catt, were openly racist and did not want anything to do with non-white women. They made it crystal clear that feminism was their ( white women) movement, and not a movement for all women to change the very nature of society. Were there exceptions to this rule? Sure, but they were not the majority.

    In the 60’s and 70’s black feminist authors such as Toni Morrison, Toni Cade Bambara, and Michelle Wallace wrote numerous articles and openly spoke about the fact that they did not feel welcomed within the feminist movement and that their issues were largely ignored. The way that black women were treated by the white feminist majority in the past is why many non-white and lower class women do not want to be associated with feminism to this very day. The fact that many women are still doing the same thing today to other women in the form of, “I don’t consider you a feminist” is not helping to mend the rift between women.

    As far as abortion goes, abortion rights activist and author Larry Lader and gynecologist Dr. Bernard Lathanson ( who later became pro-life) admitted that they made up a lie that thousands of women were dying every year from illegal abortions to convince the leadership of NOW that abortion needed to be made a top priority. They used the same lie to convince Betty Friedan that abortion was the only way to fully empower women. The numbers were nowhere near the thousands that they were claiming. Germain Greer, writer of the Female Eunuch and The Whole Woman said that abortion had become just one more oppression by the male dominated medical establishment. She should know, she admitted later that several abortions left her sterile.

    If you actually read Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton ( the little known companion ruling to Roe) you might be surprised by how little they say about protecting women and are more concerned with protecting doctors. The following quote comes directly from The Cost of Choice pp. 7: That is because much of the pressure for these rulings came from the medical profession. Many people have forgotten that by 1973, with the sexual revolution well under way, licensed doctors were increasingly performing elective abortions for their patients. These doctors were quite worried about criminal and civil liability. Justice Blackmun, who had been counsel for the Mayo Clinic, wrote much of the Roe majority opinion in the clinics’ library. He grounded the decision on a supposed constitutional “right to privacy” in the physician-patient relationship. It was not until years later that the Court majority went so far as to describe abortion as a womans right…..

    Do I need to get into Margaret Sangers close ties to the eugenics movement and her role in the legalization of sterilization of over 65,000 people mostly women against their will?

    So Judy, my beliefs are well grounded in facts. Perhaps you should read literature on abortion that isn’t a pro-abortion manifesto or books about feminism that tell the whole story and maybe your beliefs will be based on fact too.

  58. twyg
    February 15th, 2006 @ 8:07 am

    Damn. I just learned something! I knew there was a reason I kept coming here to listen to people argue. (besides playing the troll for my own personal amusement)

  59. Lily
    February 15th, 2006 @ 8:27 am

    Excellent, Jamila! Preach more often, please!

    Particularly in regard to abortion, the lies the legalization crowd spread that are, to this day, accepted as “revealed truth” are amazing. Dr. Mary Calderone (director of Planned Parenthood in the 50s) had the integrity to publish research showing that the vast majority (90%) of abortions performed, pre-legalization) were done by doctors, nurses, and others with some medical training). “Coathangers” were excedingly rare. Death rates from abortion were never even a fraction of the 5000-10,000 the proaborts claimed.

    I have argued before (elsewhere) that “feminists” have never given a damn about anyone other than professional class women. As you see, that heresy provokes squawks of righteous indignation. Thanks for countering it so well!

  60. jahrta
    February 15th, 2006 @ 10:10 am

    SBW said the following:

    “After I typed my response to you I got to thinking real hard and accepted that you probably aren’t going to take the time to read those books because you’re already dead set in your ways. I’m feeling angry and preachy so I’m going to take this time to get my point across. ”

    This from a woman who comes on an atheist blog site to proclaim her conundrum over whether or not to “follow her heart” and become a christian, a week before becoming the black female equivalent of Billy Graham. Fantastic. The hypocrisy is as full and fragrant (not to mention flagrant) as a fine full-bodied wine.

  61. Slartibartfast
    February 15th, 2006 @ 11:05 am

    Very interesting discussions. I am however surprised that the atheists in this thread have not stressed the importance of neurobiology as it pertains to sexual morals. For example, let us examine two mammalian species. The prairie voles are highly monomagous. In fact, the male vole becomes intensely jealous if his female consort ogles that sexy Brad Pitt vole who lives in the hole next door. This may be in part related to the release of oxytocin from the hypothalamus to the brainstem centers which regulate pain and pleasure. Now, let us look at a different species. The bonobo monkeys live in a matriachical society. The women of the species are highly promiscious. In fact most conflicts among them (eg. scarcity of food) are resolved through group sex. Also bear in mind that the bonobos are very compassionate. The primatologist Dr. Franz der Waals has repeatedly shown what appear to be acts of kindness among these animals. As an example, an elderly female bonobo with heart failure would be cared for by a young male. It would be downright stupid for any on this thread who uphold “chastity” and monogamy as being “good” to say that the prairie voles are more “moral” than the bonobos. What defines each of us sexually is our nature and nurture. Only those who violate the rights of another (and this includes both the promiscuous and the chaste) through whatever means (eg. rape, torture, etc..) should we secularists point fingers at and regard them as immoral. Otherwise, you or I have no right to enforce our morals or lack of them on a person X just because he/she is promiscuous and masturbates to porn or whatever. I get the sense that some of the folks on this thread have hidden totalitarian tendencies and take it upon themselves to define what is “good” and “bad” for the masses. It should be an individual choice to live the life of the prairie vole or the bonobo.

    Cheers

  62. Jody Tresidder
    February 15th, 2006 @ 11:39 am

    SBW,
    One calm word – to counter so many of your angry ones: CONTEXT.

    You say: “Stanton expressed outrage when it appeared that black men would be able to get the right to vote before white women.”

    I say: yep,when, in March 1867, the Kansas legislature put two popular referenda on the November election ballot, one for black suffrage, the other for woman suffrage – the choice was a bitch, wasn’t it, for pioneer feminists like Elizabeth Stanton (and indeed Susan. B. Anthony…)?

    Feminism was also a bit of a bitch at times for freed male slaves, wasn’t it? You know, the ones who refused to be taught to read by “mere” females?

    You are simply offering an ethnocentric selective history of feminism – which forces you to blunder into the usual, sweepingly simplistic errors such as: “At the beginning of the 20th century white women suffragists were eager to advance their own cause at the expense of black people.”
    I counter with: “From the beginning of the Kansas campaign, where they strongly advocated universal suffrage, to the end, when, motivated by anger, desperation, and resentment, Stanton and Anthony encouraged Train’s racism, a tremendous change had taken place in their attitudes.”

    Without context, Jamilla, you can’t hope to explain why there were many black supporters of Stanton, can you? Either they were stupidly self-hating – OR they understood the complicated nature of the double “isms” of the period – entrenched racism AND sexism.

    So -what on earth CHANGED Stanton and co’s campaign for universal suffrage? Could it have been the politics of the period that forced them to pick their fights AND the prevalent racism of the time?

    You say the earliest feminists were “as racist as they could be”. That is garbage. They certainly made profound tactical mistakes for reasons we should all find offensive today, they certainly alienated many supporters, and their abolitionist mentors- but you do an absurd disservice to their courage and work by describing them the way you do.

    You also, personally, insist your moral convictions arise from the mistakes you have made. Why not try extending that understanding to history’s pioneers?

    And quit boasting about your fabulous “breasts” in your own blog, for a start:)

  63. Viole
    February 15th, 2006 @ 2:31 pm

    Jody,

    Excellent post. I’m getting the impression that Jamila is as selective in her history as she is with her religion. What she believes must be true, and she even found a book that agreed with her…

    Jamila,

    We’re getting to book-length posts, here. I’ll try and cut down a bit, and I apologize in advance if I skip something you consider important.

    I think that there is a marked difference between recognizing that there will always be those in our society that take advantage of others and between saying “screwing other people is our way of life”. This sort of belief system reflects the attitude of many of the second wave feminists[…]. I don’t believe that women or men just have to accept that we live in a society that endorses screwing other people over.

    No, no. We can always keep lying to ourselves. In case you missed it, I don’t advocate screwing people over, I advocate changing out way of life. That’s why I’m a communist, you know?

    I never said that everyone had to do as I said and I never used the word anarchy. As a whole, everyone would be better off if our society encouraged chastity and modesty as much as it encouraged permissive sexuality. I don’t make up the statistics for abortion, out of wedlock births, child abuse, divorce, and std infection. To deny that these things are highly correlated if not directly caused by lack of sexual mores is to choose to ignore the facts.

    Dubya never said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of 11 September, 2001, either. All of your statistics, of course, are pretty much preventable. We could, with a little effort, eliminate unwanted pregnancy. We’ve already shown that diseases can be eradicated, and some effort toward the same could be done with STDs. As to divorce, perhaps the problem is a dominant view of sex that requires marriage for legitimacy. Essentially, people are being forced to make a commitment that they shouldn’t in all honesty be expected to keep. They’re marrying for that casual sex you keep saying doesn’t exist, not for love, or a desire for the entailed commitments. I can’t blame them if things fall apart.

    I say the same thing about you, except I don’t forgive ignorance on the subject. I think that you should read a bit more about feminism, especially the writing of authors such as bell hooks and the original feminists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Wollencraft.

    Did you know that a common argument in favor of slavery was that it is more humane than wage labor? After all, the master had to feed, house and clothe his slaves. The capitalist(in the original sense) had only to pay them, and let them find such things on their own. I don’t agree with this assessment, but it does raise some interesting issues.

    Never suppose that I am ignorant. I’m well aware that a good portion of Puerto Rican women were sterilized under policies Margaret Sanger supported. I’m aware that she used the island as a ‘cage full of ovulating females’ in which to test birth control drugs. I seem to recall she was also a devout Catholic.

    I find it incredibly amusing that you hold women to a higher standing than men. I admit to this myself. However, any given person, even if they disagree with society on a few points, will agree with it on most of the rest. It takes a rare person indeed to place themselves entirely at odds with society. For example, a good part of the success shown by social movements in the sixties and seventies can be put down to the fact that they became mainstream enough to be cool. Don’t believe me? Go to a protest today. Half the people aren’t there out of any serious moral conviction, they’re just hoping for sex.

    I never used the word excessive either. I said that one should be aware of the seriousness of their actions and the consequences too.

    Insisting on monogamy is definitely excessive caution.

    There are plenty of people that have made it through life with a laissez-faire attitude and they are doing fine and there are plenty of others that did the same thing and it ended up costing them dearly. Those people that manage to make it through life successfully and never take at least some things seriously are the minority and they do not reflect the reality for the vast majority of people that followed in their footsteps.

    There’s a big difference between laissez-faire and not taking anything seriously. I take just about everything seriously. Some people have to plan everything out in order to function. Most people do not.

    Where do you get the impression that the average American citizen is cooped up in their safe little lives? […]The facts of the matter do not corroborate what you are saying to be true.

    Actually, the facts corroborate what I’m saying precisely. Someone with a viable connection with reality doesn’t spend money they don’t have if they’ve any kind of choice. The live lives that show an absolute lack of comprehension towards the consequences of their actions.

    Not if in the past certain things were in a better position than they are now. […] I do strive for a better future for women and I also recognize that all so-called progress is not necessarily a move in the right direction.

    The recent past is idealized. Always. It’s something even I’m guilty of, in part, and I despise reactive politics. All progress might not be equal, but it is always better to move forward than back.

    The original feminists were anti-abortion at a time when child birth was much more dangerous than it is now and half of all children died before the age of 5. They realized that widespread availability of abortion would be just another way to subjugate women and for many women it has been just that.

    I believe you also pointed out that they were racist? You also fail to provide context, again. In any case, you’re delightful in your selective support of these original feminists of yours.

    IMO, you are mistaken. The feminists of the 60’s and 70’s differ incredibly from many of the original feminists and many of the so called third wave feminists harken back to the original feminists.

    Did you know that the former Soviet states(there’s one in particular, but I can’t remember which) refused to release the statistics on gender equality because women only made, on average, ninety-seven percent of what men did? They feared the West would persecute them for this failure.

    Of course, statistically, the average American woman today makes seventy percent of what a man will in the same position. But at least they can hold those positions, right?

    Telling someone that you do not consider them a feminist because they do not agree with your idea of feminism is attempting to marginalize them[…]. It is marginalization because no part of being a feminist requires that someone need be prolife or prochoice for that matter.

    I made no claim that your pro-life stance excluded you from feminism. In fact, I said specifically my reasoning was your preference for the past over the present.

    I, for one, do not think that you are evil. I don’t presume to speak for others.

    No, you just said that people like me corrupted feminism. That sounds pretty evil to me.

    Don’t presume to tell me what I am barely short of saying.

    Don’t presume to tell me what I can and cannot say. I will continue to tell you exactly what you sound like. You are perfectly free to disagree with me.

    The only thing that you can be sure of is what I have said. For the record I think that women only being allowed to work in the home is ridiculous. I could have told you this sooner if you had asked instead of presuming to know what I was “just short of saying”.

    Woosh! That’s the sound of a strawman going up in flames. Funny how no one is ever concerned about their rights. I never, not once, made any claims as to what you believed.

    If you don’t know what I think that feminism stands for then don’t you think it best that you stop trying to play fortune teller and just ask? Your opinion of my thoughts, which is based on half-assed assumptions on your part, makes your entire opinion half-assed and completely false.

    Because it really doesn’t matter what you think feminism is supposed to stand for. It merely matters that they differ from reality.

    And I will point out again, I’ve expressed no opinions on your thoughts. I expressed opinions on what you wrote. So stop making completely-assed statements on my psychic abilities.

    I’ve never said that I know better than anyone else.

    Most people don’t. They just act like it.

    [I]f I’m assured that what I am saying is right then I will not allow myself to be brow beaten and told that I am wrong. I don’t say that everyone else has to follow my rules of right and wrong but I will not allow others to tell me that I am wrong for having an opinion that they disagree with.

    Yes, and if what you know is right, and what other people know is right, is entirely at odds…

    That’s what I love about truth. It’s so subjective.

  64. SBW
    February 15th, 2006 @ 2:54 pm

    ///jahrta said: This from a woman who comes on an atheist blog site to proclaim her conundrum over whether or not to “follow her heart” and become a christian, a week before becoming the black female equivalent of Billy Graham. Fantastic. The hypocrisy is as full and fragrant (not to mention flagrant) as a fine full-bodied wine.///

    Another person speaking from a state of blissful ignorance. I was asked to come here by The Raving Atheist himself and allow some of my postings from my blogs to be made into topics. I didn’t need confirmation or approval from atheists to do a damn thing and I personally couldn’t care less what anyone here feels about my faith.

    ///Jody Tresidder said: SBW,One calm word – to counter so many of your angry ones: CONTEXT.///

    Judy, I’m not angry. I’m just amazed at your ignorance regarding the truth about the history of feminism.

    ///I say: yep,when, in March 1867, the Kansas legislature put two popular referenda on the November election ballot, one for black suffrage, the other for woman suffrage – the choice was a bitch, wasn’t it, for pioneer feminists like Elizabeth Stanton (and indeed Susan. B. Anthony…)?///

    The choice wasn’t a bitch for them at all. They wanted equality with white men for themselves, screw everybody else. I guess it would have been too much to ask that they want equality for EVERYONE because that would have made them equal with black women and they sure as hell didn’t want that.

    ///Feminism was also a bit of a bitch at times for freed male slaves, wasn’t it? You know, the ones who refused to be taught to read by “mere” females?////

    Please provide a reference of this. Furthermore, let’s say that this is true. Is it really surprising that black male slaves would harbor fantasies of domination over women in the way that they saw white men dominating not only women but everyone? They were living in a patriarchal culture that taught everyone to marginalize women, even apparently women themselves as the white feminists provide a willing example.

    ///You are simply offering an ethnocentric selective history of feminism – which forces you to blunder into the usual, sweepingly simplistic errors such as: “At the beginning of the 20th century white women suffragists were eager to advance their own cause at the expense of black people.”I counter with: “From the beginning of the Kansas campaign, where they strongly advocated universal suffrage, to the end, when, motivated by anger, desperation, and resentment, Stanton and Anthony encouraged Train’s racism, a tremendous change had taken place in their attitudes.”////

    I will provide with you with as many examples of white feminists not giving a damn about anyone but themselves as you like from 1870’s all the way up until the 1970’s. I provided plenty of literature for you to read and to find this out for yourself but I guess being a white women you don’t want to want to hear anything about the white feminist majority unless it’s about how they all got together to sing kumbaya.

    ///Without context, Jamilla, you can’t hope to explain why there were many black supporters of Stanton, can you? Either they were stupidly self-hating – OR they understood the complicated nature of the double “isms” of the period – entrenched racism AND sexism.

    So -what on earth CHANGED Stanton and co’s campaign for universal suffrage? Could it have been the politics of the period that forced them to pick their fights AND the prevalent racism of the time?///

    Stanton for starters wasn’t as bad as Catt and many of the others. And although there were black women who supported the white suffragists its plenty clear that for the most part they didn’t receive that support in return. Thats why they had to start their own feminist organizations specifically for black women and campaign for their own causes. Like black men who supported patriarchy by thinking that if they tried to subdue their women like white men that they would gain a higher place in pecking order regardless of the fact that white men looked down on them too. At least they would gain a higher position in relation to someone, right?

    Perhaps I’m asking to much for you to acknowledge that promoting the empowerment of white women at the expense of black women and other groups was racist, sexist, and utterly patriarchal. They didn’t want to change the system, they just wanted a better position in it. If that mean’t screwing black women and other groups over, just for a little while so that they could get theirs, then so be it.

    ///You say the earliest feminists were “as racist as they could be”. That is garbage. They certainly made profound tactical mistakes for reasons we should all find offensive today, they certainly alienated many supporters, and their abolitionist mentors- but you do an absurd disservice to their courage and work by describing them the way you do.///

    Racism is a “profound tactical mistake”? Sounds to me like using the phrase “collateral damage” to describe dead babies and women that get blown up during a war. I am just telling the truth about these women and sometimes the whole truth hurts. If you only wanted to hear about the good that they did then you should have said so. I would have spared you knowledge of their racist, sexism agenda.

    //You also, personally, insist your moral convictions arise from the mistakes you have made. Why not try extending that understanding to history’s pioneers?///

    That I know of, none of them ever said that they were wrong for the way that they treated black women or the way that they sought to expand white supremacy. Stanton supported black women when it was expedient for her, but then she would turn around and sign public letters against the empowerment of black women. I completely understand that she was in a tough predicament, but lets call a spade a spade and say that she and the other women were out for themselves first and foremost. Why they did this can be disputed but the fact that they did cannot be.

    ///And quit boasting about your fabulous “breasts” in your own blog, for a start:)//

    Hey, feminists have great breasts! What can I say?

  65. Lily
    February 15th, 2006 @ 3:15 pm

    Viole:
    I liked it much better when you stuck to hit and run sneering. There are so many factual errors here that I cannot begin to correct them all. Let me start with this: Sanger, while born into a Catholic family, was a socialist and an atheist. Neither one of them are compatible with being a devout Catholic.

    Women do not earn 70% of what men do. When length of uninterrupted work history is taken into account and similar jobs are compared, women earn $0.97 for every dollar a man earns.

    You can twist it and talk about context all you like. Sanger’s “Negro project” cannot be wished away. How come you are ready to give the feminists a pass for their racism based on the “historical context” but not the crusaders based on the historical context of their times? Ye gads! Strive for consistency.

    I won’t even touch on your communism. Who knew that you were such an old-fashioned girl?

  66. Michael Bains
    February 15th, 2006 @ 3:20 pm

    “feminists” have never given a damn about anyone other than professional class women.

    Caring about “professional class” women is far different from NOT caring about any other class of folk, Lily.

    That class-warfare type of attitude is from ignorance and intolerant towards those who aspire to being more than a slog-thru-life and hope-for-the-best kind of animal. I simply love playing with my admittedly moderate intellectual capabilities. I’m sure there are plenty of Joe Sixpack and Suzy Homemaker type of folk with the capacity for genius if they didn’t despise, or at least disregard intellectual prowess.

    It was such prowess that brought our ancestors through millions of battles with less intelligent, and much more physically capable animalian competition for limited resources.

    And thanks tarkovsky (what you wrote sounded sincere so thusly I took it. {-;) The only addition needing adding to your summation is that the 20 year (or so) time-span can occur at any time in a fecund human’s life. College years are the best, but as more and more divorcees are realizing, 40 somethings frequently have a wealth of worthy sexual experiences to share with their peers.

    Finally, man I miss reading Viole and hermesten!!! There are others as well, but you two are always so cool in your wisdoms shared! TRA does wax quite profound, despite a slight propensity to confuse morality with emotionalism, but there are also a variety of free and rational thinkers contributing here and you two stand out even amongst them. Sehr kool!

  67. Jody Tresidder
    February 15th, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

    Lily,
    FYI, best, quick research indicates that Catholic-born-and-raised Sanger was passionately Catholic UNTIL her middle teenage years. Then she dropped her faith when she embraced other convictions.
    (I don’t use “passionately” in any snarky sense. I think one gets a pretty strong impression she wasn’t lukewarm about anything.)

  68. Lily
    February 15th, 2006 @ 4:07 pm

    Jody: I don’t think we are disagreeing, basically. I only wish she had remained a devout Catholic!

    Michael: I don’t think I understand your point. By caring only about professional-class women (let’s be honest, we are talking about white, upper middle class women), feminism has worsened the lot of just about every other women. Just ask the waitress or the hotel housekeeper who sure as hell would prefer to stay home and raise her children. But in this era of no-fault divorce most women can’t afford to stay home, no matter how hateful and dead-end their “careers” are.

  69. Viole
    February 15th, 2006 @ 4:08 pm

    Lily;

    You did get me on the one point. I admit, it’s been a while since I studied Sanger, and I knew the Catholics were in there as the opposition.

    However; context is terribly important. You can’t pretend that society hasn’t changed in the last hundred and fifty years and expect to get an accurate view of history. Don’t mistake that for apologetics. If I hold Christians to a higher standard, it’s because they claim to be better than the rest of us.

    As for the wages… sorry, but you’re wrong. From “Social Inequality” by Marger:

    Changes are occurring, but significant discrepancies remain. Over the past twenty years, women’s earnings have increased as men’s have declined. […] Still, women earn, on average, slightly more than seventy-eight percent of what men earn. The comparison is evident whether comparisons are made by education, occupation, age, or race/ethnicity.

    […] Wheras white women earn seventy-six percent of what white men earn, black and Hispanic women earn eighty-six percent of what black and Hispanic men earn.

    […] Skipped some stuff you’d agree with, about experience and occupation, largely dependent on childbirth.

    Many sociologists, however, point to continuing discrimination, albeit in more subtle, institutional forms than in the past[…]. They emphasize that the increasing convergence of men’s and women’s wages is the result primarily of changes in societal views of women’s abilities, as well as affirmative action and other legal measures[…]. Also, they explain the narrowing gender gap in some part as simply a result of the decline in men’s earnings.

    […]Comparable worth refers to the proposition that men and women should be paid the same for jobs of equal or comparable worth. […] Presumably, implementing it would serve to increase earnings of workings in occupations that are heavily dominated by women, which are currently undervalued.

    As for communism… what’s that of not speaking about things you don’t understand?

  70. Lily
    February 15th, 2006 @ 5:36 pm

    Comparable worth is the kicker and completely illegitimate child in the equation. There is no way to rate men and women’s jobs in the way that “comparable worth” proponents wish. Women tend to take jobs that are more flexible (in terms of hours) and less dangerous than many men’s jobs. What primarily female occupation would you compare to such overwhelmingly male jobs as, say, logger (#1 on the on-the-job fatality list–118 per 100,000 or 26 times the national average), miner or bomb squad member? Heck, commercial fishermen have the 2nd highest on-the-job fatality rate (71 per 100,000). How many women have jobs that come close?

    No, what the statistics you cite deliberately ignore is comparisons in the same job/job categories among men and women with the same credentials and the same length of service. The disparity virtually disappears when those comparisons are made.

    We are in complete agreement about this: You can’t pretend that society hasn’t changed in the last hundred and fifty years and expect to get an accurate view of history. Don’t mistake that for apologetics. I just say that it is not apologetics to be consistent in trying to understand the people, the era, and the culture of any historical event one is discussing.

  71. Choobus
    February 15th, 2006 @ 8:26 pm

    Lily, aqre you trying to clam that there is no sexism in the job market?

    I knew you were mentally unstable but you really did get well and truly Roved didn’t you!

    silly silly cow.

  72. SBW
    February 15th, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

    ///Viole said:Jody,

    Excellent post. I’m getting the impression that Jamila is as selective in her history as she is with her religion. What she believes must be true, and she even found a book that agreed with her…///

    Viole, I won’t say that your memory is selective. You just think that ignorance is complete and utter bliss. I provided an entire list of books for you to read ( but of course you won’t because then that would make you educated on the subject and we all know you don’t want that).

    ///No, no. We can always keep lying to ourselves. In case you missed it, I don’t advocate screwing people over, I advocate changing out way of life. That’s why I’m a communist, you know?///

    Perhaps your memory is getting a bit hazy but “screwing other people is our way of life” were your exact words, not mine. Your exact words are: Sure, I’d love it if everyone treated each other with respect and kindness, but Jamila, we’re living in a capitalist would. Screwing other people is our way of life. If there is any economic system which requires moral relativism, it’s capitalism. You don’t advocate screwing people over but you just accept that it comes with a capitalist economy? riiiiiiigggght….

    ///Dubya never said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of 11 September, 2001, either.///

    Who cares? What does that have to do with the cost of apples in Antarctica or this conversation?

    ///As to divorce, perhaps the problem is a dominant view of sex that requires marriage for legitimacy.Essentially, people are being forced to make a commitment that they shouldn’t in all honesty be expected to keep. ///

    Whom considers this the dominant view? Definitely not the 99% of people that have sex before marriage or the 50% that end up divorced or the millions people cheating on their spouses.

    //Essentially, people are being forced to make a commitment that they shouldn’t in all honesty be expected to keep.///

    People are not forced to do anything, especially get married. I would think that the divorce and infidelity statistics more than demonstrate that many honestly don’t expect to stay in a faithful marriage.

    ///Never suppose that I am ignorant. ///

    I don’t have to suppose it. I read the things you say and know it to be true.

    ///I find it incredibly amusing that you hold women to a higher standing than men.///

    More nonsense with no basis in fact.

    ///Insisting on monogamy is definitely excessive caution.///

    No its not. Ask someone who got an std from their unfaithful parner and see what they have to say.

    ///Actually, the facts corroborate what I’m saying precisely. Someone with a viable connection with reality doesn’t spend money they don’t have if they’ve any kind of choice.The live lives that show an absolute lack of comprehension towards the consequences of their actions.///

    Just admit that you will attempt to misconstrue facts in any way possible to support your false hypothesis. Your straining and its showing. If people are enjoying themselves they don’t have a viable connection to reality and if they aren’t enjoying themselves by staying within their means then they are just cogs in a wheel.

    /// SBW said: Not if in the past certain things were in a better position than they are now. […] I do strive for a better future for women and I also recognize that all so-called progress is not necessarily a move in the right direction.

    Viole replied: The recent past is idealized. Always. It’s something even I’m guilty of, in part, and I despise reactive politics. All progress might not be equal, but it is always better to move forward than back.///

    Using selective attention again I see. Notice I said “certain things” and you just managed to ignore that part of my statement. Not once did you ask me what “things”, you just presummed to be a mindreader. I believe that Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton were wrongly decided. If you had wanted to know all you had to do was to ask.

    //I believe you also pointed out that they were racist? You also fail to provide context, again. In any case, you’re delightful in your selective support of these original feminists of yours.///

    I’ll have to remember the word “context” that people here keep pulling out of their behinds when they don’t have a leg for their argument to stand on. I’ll just say, “Hey, I’m not wrong, it’s all about CONTEXT!”. I’m not going to recite US History for you everytime I state a statistic. Perhaps I’m wrong for assuming that most of us here passed 7th grade history and understand the context of early feminism ( or not).

    Sometimes you spout complete foolishness and other times your ideas have a hint of intelligence. I don’t just write off everything you say because I think some of it is highly suspect and other times blatantly wrong. If your right I’ll give credit where it’s due and other times I’m gonna call your tripe what it is.

    For clarity’s sake, are you trying to say that the early feminists were correct in being sexist because of the time frame? If thats your point then just say so.

    //Did you know that the former Soviet states(there’s one in particular, but I can’t remember which) refused to release the statistics on gender equality because women only made, on average, ninety-seven percent of what men did? They feared the West would persecute them for this failure.///

    Wonderful, but what does that have to do with anything? Especially since you can’t even put it into “context” and name the Soviet state?

    ///Of course, statistically, the average American woman today makes seventy percent of what a man will in the same position. But at least they can hold those positions, right?///

    Yes it’s good that women can do anything a man can do. However please provide a link from a reputable source that says women make 70% of what men make in the same position that accounts for all the factors that Lily named.

    ///I made no claim that your pro-life stance excluded you from feminism. In fact, I said specifically my reasoning was your preference for the past over the present.///

    And what about my preference for certain things makes me anti-feminist in the big book of Viole? Where have I ever expressed a general preference for the past over the present?

    ///No, you just said that people like me corrupted feminism. That sounds pretty evil to me.///

    Viole, you tell so many lies it’s not even funny. I don’t know whether you are just projecting the comments that other people have said to you on me or what. Where have I ever said that you corrupted feminism? I do however recall that you said women like me helped oppress other women.

    ///Don’t presume to tell me what I can and cannot say. I will continue to tell you exactly what you sound like. You are perfectly free to disagree with me.///

    I never presume to tell people what they can and can’t say. I just call a liar what he/she is.

    ///Woosh! That’s the sound of a strawman going up in flames. Funny how no one is ever concerned about their rights. I never, not once, made any claims as to what you believed.///

    How fast we forget! You said I claimed that people like you corrupted feminism. That is one claim you made that was false. Viole you also claimed that I expressed a preference for the past over the present. Thats lie number two. Need I continue to outline your claims on what I believe?

    //Because it really doesn’t matter what you think feminism is supposed to stand for. It merely matters that they differ from reality.///

    Some people don’t have a viable connection with reality anyway right? Do you know anyone like other than yourself?

    ///And I will point out again, I’ve expressed no opinions on your thoughts. I expressed opinions on what you wrote. So stop making completely-assed statements on my psychic abilities.///

    You expressed plenty of misperceptions and downright lies. I was hoping that you had some psychic ability and weren’t just too lazy to look for the truth. Sorry I gave you too much credit.

    ///Yes, and if what you know is right, and what other people know is right, is entirely at odds…///

    Then someone is wrong and unless they can prove their point then I will continue to believe that the wrong person is not me.

  73. SBW
    February 15th, 2006 @ 9:03 pm

    ///Viole said: That’s what I love about truth. It’s so subjective.///

    My dearest Viole,

    Denying the existence of truth was original when Nietzsche did it. When you do it everyone sees if for the veiled attempt that it is for being a blatantly liar.

    Sincerely,

    Jamila

  74. Choobus
    February 15th, 2006 @ 10:16 pm

    Jamila you unintelligent skank, how dare you even address Viole. She cold best a half wit like you while sleeping, and as for your attempted character assassination, you not only live in a glass hose but you are arse naked (in keeping with your propenswity to open your cellulite ridden legs for any marines lookiing to dump a ballsack full of spooge). You are an arrogant hypocrite with an estimated IQ in the range 66-75 . Therefore, it would be best if you shut your gob (and your legs) and beg for forgiveness from your betters. (Viole, Hermesten, in fact any atheist).

    By the way, if you wold like to find a sucker to look after your bastard you ought to learn that your opinions are worthless and your best bet for acceptance is to continue as a semen receptacle, but get your tubes tied and your vocal chords removed.

    Good day,

    your pal Choobus

  75. Viole
    February 16th, 2006 @ 10:18 am

    Dearest Jamila,

    Are you sure it makes me the liar, and not you? Though I am not so spiteful as yourself. I would simply call you ignorant, not deliberately misleading.

    Otherwise, I’ll just endorse what Choobus said.

    Truly Yours,
    Viole

  76. Viole
    February 16th, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

    You know, Jamila, I almost considered responding in detail to your latest hate-fest, but then I read this:

    ///Dubya never said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of 11 September, 2001, either./// Who cares? What does that have to do with the cost of apples in Antarctica or this conversation?

    Come back when your capable of following a conversation, hmm?

    Truly Yours,
    Viole

  77. Lucy Muff
    February 16th, 2006 @ 11:15 pm

    Choobus be devil person. Hateful thing what is said of black lady is just rudeness for no. Why is it that atheist always say the nastyu? It be obvious that there be no love in hart of these bigf meanie, and the fun is to be had now but then at the laters it not be fun for you will be to burn in hell for this. Is it be worth it to burnings inm hell just to say nasty like that? What is it for? If you know loveof Jesus then I bet you anythng you not be saying such terrible sayings, but instead be good person with Love and joy and eternal life. I is to be sad for you chobus, and vole for you too is had to said the nasty.

    Jesus is Lord

  78. SBW
    February 18th, 2006 @ 5:06 pm

    //Viole said: Are you sure it makes me the liar, and not you? Though I am not so spiteful as yourself. I would simply call you ignorant, not deliberately misleading. Otherwise, I’ll just endorse what Choobus said.///

    Yes, I’m sure it makes you a liar. Not the kind of liar that says incorrect things due to ignorance but the kind that attacks things that they know are true simply because they don’t want to believe the truth.

    As far as endorsing Choobus…..Small minds think alike.

  79. Choobus
    February 20th, 2006 @ 12:24 am

    the thing is SBW, I have no doubt that I could wipe the floor with you because you have proved yorself top be a fucking idiot on so many occasions that it is not even a matter of opinion: it is by now a matter of public record, you loathesome cunt. Thus, referring to me as small minded is like calling you a genius. you’re basically a skanky ho with marine semen perpetually dripping out of your well used gaping fish hole, and as such all your comments are pointless. A fart in an elevator is more welcome than you, godidiot.

  80. hermesten
    February 20th, 2006 @ 10:32 am

    See the “Can’t we all get along” thread to see SBW lying about Bill Maher, calling him an “atheist” when he has said that he believes in God on more than one occassion. I guess she just doesn’t want to believe the truth that there are people who believe in God and still think people like her are nuts.

  81. anon
    February 23rd, 2006 @ 5:01 pm

    What do you call a godless fundamentalist? A raving atheist.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links