In what hopefully will end up in a victory against bigotry, a Springfield, MA athletic director was fired for getting gay married. Now, if my memory of case law is correct, Ms. Judd should have a decent sized check coming her way. Ms. Judd is, or was, not in a voluntary position. She signed up for a job (and one she’s done well for over a decade), not membership. The Church is acting as an employer, not a moral institution.
Not even getting into the Church’s stance, what is frightening is that this action is another example of the idea that gays are dangerous to children. Now maybe it’s just me and my privileged upbringing in middle class America, but I’ve not once had a teacher try to convert me to the gay lifestyle. Quite frankly, it’s rather ridiculous that this sort of thing has to be brought up.
So, here’s the story, be outraged, etc… I’m pretty sure you know what to do.
In what hopefully will end up in a victory against bigotry, a Springfield, MA athletic director was fired for getting gay married. Now, if my memory of case law is correct, Ms. Judd should have a decent sized check coming her way.Ms. Judd is, or was, not in a voluntary position. She signed up for a job (and one she’s done well for over a decade), not membership. The Church is acting as an employer, not a moral institution.
Not even getting into the Church’s stance, what is frightening is that this action is another example of the idea that gays are dangerous to children.Now maybe it’s just me and my privileged upbringing in middle class America, but I’ve not once had a teacher try to convert me to the gay lifestyle.Quite frankly, it’s rather ridiculous that this sort of thing has to be brought up.
So, here’s the story, be outraged, etc…I’m pretty sure you know what to do.
A lot has been said about the Disney Princesses and how they warp perceptions of beauty. Yet, with all the focus on how the group creates negative body issues and disempowers females, the converse is often neglected. Female villains, of which there are surprisingly few, layer another element of image issues on society. Barring sociopaths, not many people aspire to be the villain in the story and so you create a negative image of the feminine that helps to reinforce the cultural narrative of youth and skinny.
Out of the three big female villains, Ursula is the least complicated of the villains. She’s a hideous, overweight sea-monster. She has no vestiges of youth and there is nothing about her that could conceivably be considered pretty. In fact, age is a pretty common factor when it comes to Disney villains, outside of the three main female villains, most, if not all of the villains in the series are older. So what is developed is a connection between youth and goodness and between age and evil.
This relationship plays out with both Lady Tremaine (Cinderella) and the Queen (Snow White). These two characters also introduce the idea that older women are vain, bitchy, and, when faced with competing beauty of youth, extremely jealous.
In short, Disney Princesses not only enforce the idea of beauty through a direct example, but continue the work by portraying older, less attractive women as evil. There’s a warning to our children, if you grow up, you’re an evil, catty, bitch.
And this is without considering just how god-awful all their modern day programming is.
In response to your article, there is this entire field of study called anthropology. I do so invite you to read their literature and then never, ever, at all write another fucking word you ignorant fuck.
Instead, we need to be thinking about marriage’s role in sustaining the existence of the human species. When we do that, we’ll see the fundamental wisdom of the decision of the majority of California voters.
No, we sure as hell won’t see the wisdom because marriage has had fuck nothing to do with the continued existence of the human species. It has less to do with marriage than the, “exclusive benefit of couples in love, who wanted to share a life and a household,” that you claim the plaintiffs were suing for. If you’d taken the time to ever read one iota of literature you’d realize that marriage has a whole hell of a lot more to do with treating women as property for economic and status reasons. I do so invite you to read Toward an Anthropology of Women and write this horseshit again. Ten minutes of historical research on google would tell you how absolutely stupid your assertion that marriage is important to the survival of the species is.
Now, I don’t pretend to be the smartest person ever, but I kind of think that there’s only one thing really key to the survival of a species, reproduction. As for humans, that means popping out babies, and even the Palin’s prove you don’t need to be married to do that.
However, being that f’ing stupid wasn’t enough for you. No, you just had to go and prove yourself an absolute horse’s ass.
Marriage is about defending women
As if the above literature wouldn’t have proved how absolutely insane that statement is, you decided to just contradict your own point:
Among the many different versions of marriage in human history, very few of them have supplied the high-minded qualities that the plaintiffs feel is their right. The vast majority of marriages in the past, perhaps a majority even now, were dictated by families, clans, holy men or magicians, and enforced on the bride and groom by social pressure, enforced if necessary with brutality and violence.
Right, because marriage has, traditionally, had fuck nothing to do with love or protecting women and a whole lot more with economics and patriarchal control. That’s what makes your entire article so asinine.
In primordial terms, marriage only exists at all – in all of its permutations, pleasant or barbaric – because of the nature of human heterosexuality.
Uh, no, not at all. First of all your very consideration of what heterosexuality is permeated on western culture, which, well, happens to not be the dominate form of culture throughout history. And, once again, economics, economics, economics. How many times am I going to have to point out the economic component of marriage? When people are arranging marriages for status reasons of children that haven’t even been born yet, you’re going to have a very hard time trying to convince me that, “we need to protect female sexuality in order to assure ourselves of a future.”
Marriage is a necessary defense of a woman’s sexuality and her human liberty from determined assault by men who would turn her into a slave, a concubine – something less than fully human.
Yeah, like how many cultures treated marriage to a high degree. Instead of group assualt she had a dedicated assailant, her husband.
That’s why so many – even the most secular, gay-admiring, civil-rights-conscious among us – feel that something more is going on with the movement to turn marriage into a device to give couples self-esteeem – or, in Walker’s terms, status in society.
Having met some of the most secular, gay-admiring, civil-rights-conscious among us, I’d have to say, bullshit. You can’t even read an anthropology book, don’t even pretend to know what the far left is thinking. As for status, again, consult a Marxist theorist. They’ll give you a run down on marriage as a status symbol.
We are merely voicing a sensible desire to preserve an institution that recognizes and protects the special status of women.
How about we just pay women equal wages, promote better child-care legislation, work against patriarchal notions of society, and I don’t know, actually legislate for women’s rights. You know, maybe that would help protect the “special” status of women. Wait, by “special status” you mean “inferior and submissive to the authority of men,” don’t you?
5 Stupid, Unfair and Sexist Things Expected of Men: on the male side of gender issues, Greta Christina looks at the ways in which men are forced into a narrow gender definition. Besides, anybody who will point out that ”men get a clear social message that, in order to be manly, they have to be tall,” is certainly somebody I will highly consider somebody worth listening to. Trust me, it sucks being short.
We’re one step closer to bringing Anne Rice back into the fold: she’s announced that organized religion can suck it. Basically, since being Christian in America is quickly becoming synonymous with being a right-wing blowhard and Anne Rice, pretty much being a liberal, has had enough and has decided that she will follow Christ in however screwed up a manner as she pleases. Read the comments, they’re nice and full of people shouting “HOW DARE SHE?!” You know, because all the people she hates are either Catholics (as if the Vatican is the only problem with Christianity) or the fringe group that isn’t actually Christian. Cognitive Dissidence, they can has.
And the shocker of shockers, Republicans vote against small businesses and tax cuts. Why, because those mean ole democrats wouldn’t allow them to add such relevant amendments as the estate tax, nuclear loan guarantees, border security, and those Bush tax cuts for rich folk that are getting the boot. But don’t fret, a Republican did say something nice and hypocritical:
“This small-business bill should pass, and it should pass with relevant amendments,” Mr. LeMieux said. “Before I am a Republican, I am a Floridian and an American, and this bill is good for our country.”
So if it’s so good, why not vote for it to pass without such aforementioned, highly relevant amendments?
Suddenly Victorian literature has been vastly improved. Getting past the massive amounts of red ink that should be copiously applied to novels of the day, I’d much rather read this version of Sense and Sensibility. One of my biggest problems with Victorian novels, particularly in regards to women’s lib is that, while they recognize the constraints placed on women they tend to do fuck-all nothing to challenge them in the end. There’s very little empowerment. In fact, I’d love to see a remake of Jane Eyre as Kill St. John; if you haven’t read Jane Eyre, St. John is your stereotypical, patriarchal, religious prick on a mission to save the natives.
Quite frankly, the Victorian age could have used a women’s fight club more than modern society needed the male version. In fact, I’m not sure the male version is really all that benificial in terms of male gender identity. I read it as more of an anti-consumerism text anyways.
