Last week, when introducing A---- to a group of academic colleagues, I floundered over what to call him. With this crowd, saying partner would have been perfectly acceptable, as would have been S.O. or even boyfriend, though some may have cringed at that (including me). So, I said to the group, “This is A----.” And, I left it at that, thinking they would figure it out.
Ten minutes later, the woman next to me asked, “So, who is this man?” and I told her that he is my partner, and she understood and laughed at me (not in a mean spirited way).
Introducing a “Boyfriend” has been a dilemma for me forever, well, since I’ve had “grown up” relationships with people. In this case, A---- is very tall and looks nothing like a “Boy,” which is one of the reasons why I find him attractive and love him. Even as a teen, I never went for the boys who couldn’t grow facial hair. I like men. And, since I am particularly close to this particular man, I CANNOT call him my “Boyfriend.” We are friendly, sure, but we are much more than that. And, despite the fact that I am slightly older, we are both over thirty, for goodness sake. Likewise, I abhor being labeled as a “Girlfriend.”
Back to my social gaffe, I’ve had difficulty because of the MANY connotations of all of the acceptable and even unacceptable names we give our “Special Friends.” One time I heard my aunt introduce him to someone as my “Special Friend,” and that person immediately turned to stare at poor A----. I’m assuming she thought he must have a disability, and she was checking him out to see what it could be as it wasn’t very obvious. My second cousin, who happens to be gay, also has a “Special Friend,” so there are several connotations to this moniker. When I hear relatives say this, I always insert the question, “What is her name? She’s such a nice person,” just to get across the idea that she has an identity beyond her gayness, but I think that is another story.
Once, when a student asked me where I went on vacation, I said, “My partner and I went to Chicago.” And, I could almost hear her mind working over whether or not I am gay. I’m not. And, I know that some people LIKE to use the ambiguous term “Partner” to cause confusion (people get their kicks in different ways) and to subvert sexist language and homophobia. I get it, but I don’t really want to do this. I’m not gay, and I feel no need to hint that I might be.
Another problem I have with the appellation “Partner” is that I sometimes feel like a cowboy when I say it. Once, on accident, I even used a twang when I said it, and so people probably thought I am a gay person into cowboy role-playing, since I am certainly not from Texas. I have been know to joke with greet A---- with “Howdy, partner,” just because it IS funny. But, in seriousness, this is another titleI have trouble saying.
“Significant Other” seems like a Spockism (the Vulcan from Star Trek). It is just too logical to convey the meaning I need. And, the term “Other” is such a buzz word in feminist, etc, theory. The attempt to make the title less cold and Vulcan-like, with the abbreviation S.O., is equally uninformative. WHY is this person significant? HOW significant? When a person says “husband” or “buddy,” we can get an idea about the relationship, but significant? It seems like the person is just trying, again, to subvert the language (this can be a worthy cause, but sometimes, I just want to say something that people will understand).
Now, I’ve toyed with the sobriquet “Lover,” but that is TMI for my taste. People have such dirty minds (and, really, we are lovers), but they don’t get the romance of this word. They just think—sex—which it is about sex but much more, too. I just want to tell people something with reference to A----, and I don't need to picture us doing it.
For the heck of it, I looked up “boyfriend,” “man,” and “lover” and here are some other choices: admirer, angel, armpiece, baby, beau, beefcake, beloved, blade, bloke, buster, chap, companion, courter, crush, daddy, darling, date, dear, dearest, dear one, doll, dude, escort, fellow, fiancé, flame, follower, gent, gentleman caller, gentleman friend, guy, heartbeat, heartthrob, honey, honeybunch, hunk, idol, idolizer, inamorato, love, loved one, lover, lord, main man, man, master, mister, number one, numero uno, old man, paramour, passion, pet, prize, rave, Romeo, spark, squeeze, squire, steady, stud, sugar, sugar daddy, suitor, suppliant, swain, sweet, sweetheart, sweetie, sweetie pie, tootsie, treasure, truelove, turtledove, valentine, wooer, young man
I must say that some of these would be fun to throw around and see reactions, including A----'s.
“How do you do? I’d like to introduce you to my idolizer and supplicant” or “Here is A----, my armpiece sugar daddy, beefcake, stud. He’s a nice chap of a fellow, a real Romeo and a prize bloke.” If we go out for Italian food, and I need to order for A----, I can say, “My numero uno inamorato will have the lasagna.” If I’m feeling especially loving in February, I could call him, “My valentine, heartthrob, passion pet.”
The “Lord” and “Master” thing just couldn’t work for me, and I know A---- would puke if I called him a “Tootsie” or “Turtledove."
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Sushi--Does not equal Russian Roulette
Sushi lovers, don't despair. The latest scare tactic is just that--you can still eat your sushi.
While drinking my morning coffee, I read on msn "Skip the Sushi--It might be bad for you" and my heart plummeted. As I kept reading, though, I realized that this is yet another scare--like eggs are bad for us, food coloring is bad, no, wait, eggs ARE good for us, but the special eggs that come in what look like cream containers are even better (and more expensive) for us. Some scientist does some kind of small test, usually on a poor defenseless mouse and then has this revelation about how this type of food or material will cause cancer, deformity in unborn children, or whatever else they can think.
Now, some of these findings have been legit--like aluminum coated pots and pans can lead to Alzheimer’s. But, then, we have that other scare--the wax from milk cartons, you know, the ones we all drank out of every day for 12 years. It causes cancer, but usually only if the person ingests SOOOO much of the waxy material and for so many years. Maybe some people were more into their milk than I was; I usually stopped and tossed the container when the milk was gone. Never, not once, did I scrape the wax off and eat it. Anyway, my thought was thanks for the warning, but really, do this kind of test BEFORE we have already ingested this stuff, and then, put a nice little label on the side of the carton showing the dead lab mouse and the explanation that this poor mouse was shot up with the equivalent of 80 cartons worth of wax.
Okay, a warning about the possible dangers of high mercury in the TUNA would be appropriate for sushi lovers or even those who are giving sushi a try. A warning would let people know that they should have better variety in their sushi selections--not all tuna. That is pretty easy to do (if you are uninitiated to the world of sushi and still think it is all raw fish and gross). The variety of sushi is great, and one need not gorge on tuna. There is salmon, shrimp (cooked even), mackerel (which is fish that got the idea of sushi going in Japan), red snapper, halibut, eel, octopus, crab (usually cooked as well or that fake stuff made out of white fish), lobster, abalone, fish roe, scallops (just to name a few). And, this is if you want some kind of fish.
If one wants to stay away from fish altogether, that is an option. One can have an omelet, cucumber, avocado, carrots, diakon (radish), asparagus, and I've even seen broccoli. Oh, and, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that sushi can even be vegan--nori (seaweed), rice, vinegar mixture, and veggies. Um, sounds like a salad to me and not really a danger.
The msn article quotes a representative from gotmercury.org, a part of California-based Sea Turtle Restoration Project, Eli Saddler: “Eating sushi has become the new Russian roulette.” Excuse me, I don't see any bullets in a veggie maki roll or even one loaded up with shrimp and eel. This statement is much too vague and broad to carry merit. I'm unsure if it is Reuters (from whom msn acquired the article) taking Saddler's warning out of context or if it is Saddler himself who needs to qualify this statement, but whatever the case, sushi, in and of itself, is NOT dangerous. One might want to watch tuna (or other large, salt water fish) intake to avoid too much mercury, and even the tuna is okay in moderation. People can continue to enjoy their spider rolls without fearing that the crab is leveling a revolver at them as they bring the delectable morsel to their mouths.
While drinking my morning coffee, I read on msn "Skip the Sushi--It might be bad for you" and my heart plummeted. As I kept reading, though, I realized that this is yet another scare--like eggs are bad for us, food coloring is bad, no, wait, eggs ARE good for us, but the special eggs that come in what look like cream containers are even better (and more expensive) for us. Some scientist does some kind of small test, usually on a poor defenseless mouse and then has this revelation about how this type of food or material will cause cancer, deformity in unborn children, or whatever else they can think.
Now, some of these findings have been legit--like aluminum coated pots and pans can lead to Alzheimer’s. But, then, we have that other scare--the wax from milk cartons, you know, the ones we all drank out of every day for 12 years. It causes cancer, but usually only if the person ingests SOOOO much of the waxy material and for so many years. Maybe some people were more into their milk than I was; I usually stopped and tossed the container when the milk was gone. Never, not once, did I scrape the wax off and eat it. Anyway, my thought was thanks for the warning, but really, do this kind of test BEFORE we have already ingested this stuff, and then, put a nice little label on the side of the carton showing the dead lab mouse and the explanation that this poor mouse was shot up with the equivalent of 80 cartons worth of wax.
Okay, a warning about the possible dangers of high mercury in the TUNA would be appropriate for sushi lovers or even those who are giving sushi a try. A warning would let people know that they should have better variety in their sushi selections--not all tuna. That is pretty easy to do (if you are uninitiated to the world of sushi and still think it is all raw fish and gross). The variety of sushi is great, and one need not gorge on tuna. There is salmon, shrimp (cooked even), mackerel (which is fish that got the idea of sushi going in Japan), red snapper, halibut, eel, octopus, crab (usually cooked as well or that fake stuff made out of white fish), lobster, abalone, fish roe, scallops (just to name a few). And, this is if you want some kind of fish.
If one wants to stay away from fish altogether, that is an option. One can have an omelet, cucumber, avocado, carrots, diakon (radish), asparagus, and I've even seen broccoli. Oh, and, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that sushi can even be vegan--nori (seaweed), rice, vinegar mixture, and veggies. Um, sounds like a salad to me and not really a danger.
The msn article quotes a representative from gotmercury.org, a part of California-based Sea Turtle Restoration Project, Eli Saddler: “Eating sushi has become the new Russian roulette.” Excuse me, I don't see any bullets in a veggie maki roll or even one loaded up with shrimp and eel. This statement is much too vague and broad to carry merit. I'm unsure if it is Reuters (from whom msn acquired the article) taking Saddler's warning out of context or if it is Saddler himself who needs to qualify this statement, but whatever the case, sushi, in and of itself, is NOT dangerous. One might want to watch tuna (or other large, salt water fish) intake to avoid too much mercury, and even the tuna is okay in moderation. People can continue to enjoy their spider rolls without fearing that the crab is leveling a revolver at them as they bring the delectable morsel to their mouths.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Abortion is a Necessary Choice in Our Society
This subject is fraught with emotion and a complete disregard for rhetorical practices, and it is always full of logical fallacies. There's no way to win the argument of “I’m right.”
Abortion is bad. The whole process is hurtful in a multitude of ways.
When people defend it and fight for the right to have it as a choice, it seems like they are blood thirsty and on the side of the “devil,” whatever anyone’s devil may be. Some of these supporters of abortion as a choice are pretty religious and accept the idea of abortion as something necessary, as a choice. These people are called pro-choice, but that term doesn’t really belong to them; here in the US, we all make choices and have the right to make choices about our health and bodies.
Those who oppose it can claim to be on the side of God or what they call morality. They base their opposition of abortion on their personal, societal moral systems (which often do not match up), and religious foundations. They take the title of pro-life, but that term does not belong to them exclusively, just as not all pro-lifers are Christian or Republican.
Here is the quagmire. The fact is that both sides are right and both sides are wrong, depending on each individual. Both sides can make valid arguments, and both sides can use emotions to distort and hurt the other side. Some rhetoricians claim that we cannot argue faith, that it belongs to each person, and I wonder if that is true. But, then we have this issue of the legality of abortion in our country, and we HAVE to argue it.
In the US, we have freedom to think, feel, speak, worship, and abort. How can we have all of these rights without stepping on toes or disregarding someone else’s beliefs? If people believe that abortion is murder, then we can't tell them not to believe it. It is their right to believe this. And, if others think that abortion is the best choice for them and it is legal, then how can we tell them THEY are wrong?
We have been given the freedom, by our government, and many would say by God, to make choices. Are they "right" choices? Not all of them. People choose to rob banks. They shoot people in fits of passion. People choose to go to college and learn how to be doctors. People choose to have sex. Are there consequences to these choices? Yes, good AND bad. Do we hurt people or even end their lives with these choices? Yes. Can we not make these choices? Sure, but we HAVE to make choices in this world, and we have to base these choices on what we feel is right. It's up to us.
The idea of abortion does not make me feel good, and I don’t know many women (or men, and I must say that there are plenty of men who support abortion) who feel good about the idea of abortions. Moreover, I cannot accept the idea of not having the choice if I am raped (by stranger or relative). And, no matter how much I take care of myself, by not walking down dark alleys or by going out in groups, I could be a victim. The are HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of these victims. Rape happens.
When someone can promise me (and a lot of other concerned men and women) that there will be no more rape, no more incest, no more sex trafficking, no more drugs that make people so addicted that they sell sex for drugs, no more guilt about having sex or being a sexual being, no more sexual objectification of women, men, or children (porn or car commercials that show a woman’s body), and no more abstinence only sex education that keeps people stupid and in the dark about how to prevent pregnancies (and more), then I need the choice. There needs to be a choice so people can protect themselves. Such a promise of protection would be a lie. No one can make this promise, and changes in sentencing, rehabilitation, or even better education will that kind of hate go away.
Abortion is bad. The whole process is hurtful in a multitude of ways.
When people defend it and fight for the right to have it as a choice, it seems like they are blood thirsty and on the side of the “devil,” whatever anyone’s devil may be. Some of these supporters of abortion as a choice are pretty religious and accept the idea of abortion as something necessary, as a choice. These people are called pro-choice, but that term doesn’t really belong to them; here in the US, we all make choices and have the right to make choices about our health and bodies.
Those who oppose it can claim to be on the side of God or what they call morality. They base their opposition of abortion on their personal, societal moral systems (which often do not match up), and religious foundations. They take the title of pro-life, but that term does not belong to them exclusively, just as not all pro-lifers are Christian or Republican.
Here is the quagmire. The fact is that both sides are right and both sides are wrong, depending on each individual. Both sides can make valid arguments, and both sides can use emotions to distort and hurt the other side. Some rhetoricians claim that we cannot argue faith, that it belongs to each person, and I wonder if that is true. But, then we have this issue of the legality of abortion in our country, and we HAVE to argue it.
In the US, we have freedom to think, feel, speak, worship, and abort. How can we have all of these rights without stepping on toes or disregarding someone else’s beliefs? If people believe that abortion is murder, then we can't tell them not to believe it. It is their right to believe this. And, if others think that abortion is the best choice for them and it is legal, then how can we tell them THEY are wrong?
We have been given the freedom, by our government, and many would say by God, to make choices. Are they "right" choices? Not all of them. People choose to rob banks. They shoot people in fits of passion. People choose to go to college and learn how to be doctors. People choose to have sex. Are there consequences to these choices? Yes, good AND bad. Do we hurt people or even end their lives with these choices? Yes. Can we not make these choices? Sure, but we HAVE to make choices in this world, and we have to base these choices on what we feel is right. It's up to us.
The idea of abortion does not make me feel good, and I don’t know many women (or men, and I must say that there are plenty of men who support abortion) who feel good about the idea of abortions. Moreover, I cannot accept the idea of not having the choice if I am raped (by stranger or relative). And, no matter how much I take care of myself, by not walking down dark alleys or by going out in groups, I could be a victim. The are HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of these victims. Rape happens.
When someone can promise me (and a lot of other concerned men and women) that there will be no more rape, no more incest, no more sex trafficking, no more drugs that make people so addicted that they sell sex for drugs, no more guilt about having sex or being a sexual being, no more sexual objectification of women, men, or children (porn or car commercials that show a woman’s body), and no more abstinence only sex education that keeps people stupid and in the dark about how to prevent pregnancies (and more), then I need the choice. There needs to be a choice so people can protect themselves. Such a promise of protection would be a lie. No one can make this promise, and changes in sentencing, rehabilitation, or even better education will that kind of hate go away.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Disregard of Women's Legal Rights
I have amended my title (from "Women Haters") because I want people to better understand my point, rather than get angry about it and not understand. Also, I would like to add a note here. I've read much of the other sides of this issue, and even people on "my side" have different views. In fact, I want to make the point that pro-life and pro-choice are really vague constructs, and I do not want to stand behind either because I am both. My point in this blog was to argue the ideas of putting faith in front of legality and that our culture really pushes horrible images of women and yet expects us all to achieve this ideal of womanhood that is not realistic nor healthy nor in line with our beliefs. Do we want our children to show their naked bodies on TV or to think that sex is bad?
I just want people to read another view. The only way we can come to an understanding of each other--which is important--is to really listen, read, and respond to each other. We can learn from each other.
Here are my points, though I may be preaching to the choir; however, maybe some pro-lifers will read this, too.
Point one--we have freedom of religion. Keep yours to yourself. Yes, it is part of who you are, agreed. No matter who you are, you CANNOT force it on me or make laws that force it on me. Leave religious "rules" out of the secular field. That is the way the country is set up.
My second point is that democracy means making laws according to the people. So, if we all vote to make the USA a country based on a particular faith and the tenants of that faith, THEN religious rules are applicable. And, for those who argue that the Constitution is based on Christianity and the "faith" of the founding fathers, then you need to go back and hit the books. Some of these "fathers" might have been Christians, but they were of many different belief systems. They also agreed on freedom of religion and put that into the document. Yes, they used phrases like "under God," and those are common phrases to use. Basing an argument on the phrase "under God" or what is written on currency is NOT realistically studying constitutional law, and constitutional law is how our system, a democracy, works.
My third point is about this hatred of women that is oh so strong in our culture and is splattered about the news and our televisions. People are taking away women's rights to abortion, but they are not making equal laws to prohibit men from impregnating women. They do not enforce mandatory child support or parenting classes of either parent, and they do not make any laws about the "father" sticking it out with the child. So, the woman is vilified if she seeks to abort, while the male involved is, well, whatever he wants to be. He could be the one who wants the abortion, he could be clueless, he could be an abusive father or other relative/family friend, he could be a rapist, or he could be a complete stranger. The thing he is not is held accountable like the woman. The woman is hated. She is bad if she keeps the child and begins a process of poverty and abuse. She is hated if she sticks it out and raises a child on her own. She is hated if she gives up the child to someone else. She is hated if she has to have a "shotgun wedding" because she and the boyfriend go pregnant. She is hated if she aborts. She is hated for having sex in the first place. Geez, why don't we just all wear burkas so people don't have to see us since even existing is hateful?
Disturbing Issues of Woman Hatred in Our Democracy
First, we have lawmakers in South Dakota who hate women; a man makes a decision to ban abortions (thanks Gov Rounds and cronies). Oh, but if the woman is in danger of dying from a tubal pregnancy or wicked diabetes, they will "let" her have an abortion. Thanks.
Is it just me, or are we in the dark ages again? Back when people didn't wash their hands and threw their waste into the streets and passed around venereal diseases? Are people really, seriously this uneducated and this unforgiving?
We have Roe v. Wade. It is there for a reason. People have sex. Yes, they do. They even enjoy it (a different argument). And, people have had sex and enjoyed it forEVER. There have also been rapes and incest forEVER. And, forEVER, people have made personal choices about their bodies--women and men. When people have sex, they can get pregnant. And, that is their business. It IS. It is a choice (in many cases, but think back to the rape and incest (probably also rape). Why is this a choice? Well, number one, we live in the United States of America, home of the free and brave. We live where we proclaim and boast (to the world, I might add) of our many freedoms. We even try to get other countries to practice democracy (Iraq? Afghanistan?) when we see that repressive regimes take away people's rights.
Are we back to the old idea of "men being created equal"? Is that the problem? Can we not see that women are equal anymore? I thought we did, and I thought that was some of the justification for helping Iraq and Afghanistan with democracy--to help the women who have been objectified and enslaved by religious fanatics, forced to live and breathe according to sadistic laws created by people misusing scripture to keep people down and weak. HELLO! This is what they are doing in South Dakota and in Mississippi.
Second, we have lawmakers in Mississippi who are joining the fight to hate women, especially poor women and their children. And, again, there is no mention of an equal law for the men who impregnate these women. Great work, Steve Holland—a democrat btw. When your state is suffering from the wounds of Katrina, from low quality education and even lower teacher pay, from poverty, and from a backlash of segregation practices, you think you are making strides by legislating hatred of women? Way to help your state. Way to come across as being backward and way to waste taxpayer money with the lawsuits you are inciting because your state can really afford any of this.
My final point about woman hating, though there are so many more to mention. Imette St. Guillen is dead. She was brutalized in every horrible manner because someone hated her. Someone hated her enough to hurt her, make her fight for her life, rape her, mutilate her genitals, chop off her hair, tape her face, and kill her. Someone hated her enough to leave her on a roadside. This person hated her for being a woman. And, the frightening thing is that the minute “certain people” read the article and see that she was out at bars (yes, more than one) until early in the morning, that person will think, “Oh, well, she had it coming to her because women who frequent bars are loose.” That person is also a woman hater. No one has the right to kill, we all know this. Or cut, or rape, or even to hate to the point of violence. No one has that right, but people feel like they have that right. Why? Because there are people who pass laws and who pass judgments on women for having sex, for going to bars, for having children, and for deciding not to have children. When woman hating is all over the media (in all its mediums), it is easy to believe that most people think it is okay.
It is not okay. Imette is dead. Women in South Dakota and Mississippi are having their rights taken away. Women are being hated and hurt and un-equalized.
Oh, yes, and the latest research says that people know more about the Simpsons than the constitution. Yes, it shows.
I just want people to read another view. The only way we can come to an understanding of each other--which is important--is to really listen, read, and respond to each other. We can learn from each other.
Here are my points, though I may be preaching to the choir; however, maybe some pro-lifers will read this, too.
Point one--we have freedom of religion. Keep yours to yourself. Yes, it is part of who you are, agreed. No matter who you are, you CANNOT force it on me or make laws that force it on me. Leave religious "rules" out of the secular field. That is the way the country is set up.
My second point is that democracy means making laws according to the people. So, if we all vote to make the USA a country based on a particular faith and the tenants of that faith, THEN religious rules are applicable. And, for those who argue that the Constitution is based on Christianity and the "faith" of the founding fathers, then you need to go back and hit the books. Some of these "fathers" might have been Christians, but they were of many different belief systems. They also agreed on freedom of religion and put that into the document. Yes, they used phrases like "under God," and those are common phrases to use. Basing an argument on the phrase "under God" or what is written on currency is NOT realistically studying constitutional law, and constitutional law is how our system, a democracy, works.
My third point is about this hatred of women that is oh so strong in our culture and is splattered about the news and our televisions. People are taking away women's rights to abortion, but they are not making equal laws to prohibit men from impregnating women. They do not enforce mandatory child support or parenting classes of either parent, and they do not make any laws about the "father" sticking it out with the child. So, the woman is vilified if she seeks to abort, while the male involved is, well, whatever he wants to be. He could be the one who wants the abortion, he could be clueless, he could be an abusive father or other relative/family friend, he could be a rapist, or he could be a complete stranger. The thing he is not is held accountable like the woman. The woman is hated. She is bad if she keeps the child and begins a process of poverty and abuse. She is hated if she sticks it out and raises a child on her own. She is hated if she gives up the child to someone else. She is hated if she has to have a "shotgun wedding" because she and the boyfriend go pregnant. She is hated if she aborts. She is hated for having sex in the first place. Geez, why don't we just all wear burkas so people don't have to see us since even existing is hateful?
Disturbing Issues of Woman Hatred in Our Democracy
First, we have lawmakers in South Dakota who hate women; a man makes a decision to ban abortions (thanks Gov Rounds and cronies). Oh, but if the woman is in danger of dying from a tubal pregnancy or wicked diabetes, they will "let" her have an abortion. Thanks.
Is it just me, or are we in the dark ages again? Back when people didn't wash their hands and threw their waste into the streets and passed around venereal diseases? Are people really, seriously this uneducated and this unforgiving?
We have Roe v. Wade. It is there for a reason. People have sex. Yes, they do. They even enjoy it (a different argument). And, people have had sex and enjoyed it forEVER. There have also been rapes and incest forEVER. And, forEVER, people have made personal choices about their bodies--women and men. When people have sex, they can get pregnant. And, that is their business. It IS. It is a choice (in many cases, but think back to the rape and incest (probably also rape). Why is this a choice? Well, number one, we live in the United States of America, home of the free and brave. We live where we proclaim and boast (to the world, I might add) of our many freedoms. We even try to get other countries to practice democracy (Iraq? Afghanistan?) when we see that repressive regimes take away people's rights.
Are we back to the old idea of "men being created equal"? Is that the problem? Can we not see that women are equal anymore? I thought we did, and I thought that was some of the justification for helping Iraq and Afghanistan with democracy--to help the women who have been objectified and enslaved by religious fanatics, forced to live and breathe according to sadistic laws created by people misusing scripture to keep people down and weak. HELLO! This is what they are doing in South Dakota and in Mississippi.
Second, we have lawmakers in Mississippi who are joining the fight to hate women, especially poor women and their children. And, again, there is no mention of an equal law for the men who impregnate these women. Great work, Steve Holland—a democrat btw. When your state is suffering from the wounds of Katrina, from low quality education and even lower teacher pay, from poverty, and from a backlash of segregation practices, you think you are making strides by legislating hatred of women? Way to help your state. Way to come across as being backward and way to waste taxpayer money with the lawsuits you are inciting because your state can really afford any of this.
My final point about woman hating, though there are so many more to mention. Imette St. Guillen is dead. She was brutalized in every horrible manner because someone hated her. Someone hated her enough to hurt her, make her fight for her life, rape her, mutilate her genitals, chop off her hair, tape her face, and kill her. Someone hated her enough to leave her on a roadside. This person hated her for being a woman. And, the frightening thing is that the minute “certain people” read the article and see that she was out at bars (yes, more than one) until early in the morning, that person will think, “Oh, well, she had it coming to her because women who frequent bars are loose.” That person is also a woman hater. No one has the right to kill, we all know this. Or cut, or rape, or even to hate to the point of violence. No one has that right, but people feel like they have that right. Why? Because there are people who pass laws and who pass judgments on women for having sex, for going to bars, for having children, and for deciding not to have children. When woman hating is all over the media (in all its mediums), it is easy to believe that most people think it is okay.
It is not okay. Imette is dead. Women in South Dakota and Mississippi are having their rights taken away. Women are being hated and hurt and un-equalized.
Oh, yes, and the latest research says that people know more about the Simpsons than the constitution. Yes, it shows.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Censorship
Censorship is a serious issue, and the term should not be bandied about without just cause and without thinking of the other side.
The former managing editor at France Soir misuses the term censorship, and he does so in an irresponsible way. He claimed to be fighting censorship when he re-printed the infamous cartoons. However, his support is not valid for such a claim, and his support shows that he is not, indeed, fighting censorship but is rather contributing to sensationalism and doing a bit of censorship of his own.
According to the MSNBC article “Editor fired after publication of Islam cartoons,” this editor (not named) wrote: “The best way to fight censorship is not to let it happen…. In these circumstances, that meant publishing these drawings.”
“These circumstances” are not very clear. The Danish paper DID publish the infamous caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. In point of fact, they WERE published, not censored. I, and I’m sure many others, looked these up online. So, they weren’t censored there. In fact, I found at least five sites the posted these pictures within seconds. I would call these pictures EASILY ACCESSIBLE, not censored.
Did the editor really fight censorship when the information was readily available to anyone with access to the WWW? Did the French, who have been recently blasted about discrimination issues, really need to offend citizens by re-printing these pictures? If the pictures had been suppressed and unavailable, then perhaps his action could be appropriate. However, the pictures were not suppressed. Furthermore, these pictures, which ARE offensive to many people, are not something that we need to see, like perhaps pictures of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or pictures of the coffins of troops being sent home from Iraq (which HAVE been suppressed).
For those who have protested the pictures, Muslims and anyone else, they are NOT calling for censorship. The pictures HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED. Rather, they have tried to explain, to many deaf ears who only hear “CENSORSHIP”, that to make any form of drawing of the Prophet is a form of idolatry and is against their religious convictions. So, not only is it rude to draw these pictures, it shows disrespect for someone’s beliefs. And, certain people in the media continue to show this disrespect, like poking a stick, by re-publishing the pictures so that they won’t be censored. Ironic, since they have been published ALL OVER.
The editor is further quoted in the MSNBC article: “Imagine a society that added up all the prohibitions of different religions. What would remain of the freedom to think, to speak and even to come and go?"
This editor fails to see a major flaw in his reasoning for publishing the cartoons in the name of fighting censorship. Yes, we have a right to the freedom of press and freedom of speech. We have these rights in a democracy so we may take actions to keep our democracy safe and just, as well as to make changes according to our needs. However, we also have freedom of religion. This is NOT freedom to disrespect another’s religion. It means we have a right to worship as we believe and to practice the tenants of that faith without interference from the government or other citizens. No, we should not limit our freedom of speech, but that freedom of speech goes both ways and should not forsake the freedom of religion. So, if “the media” publishes pictures (which were hardly respectful or flattering) that go against someone else’s religious beliefs, then the media should expect this group to raise voices in protest. It’s their right. And, the media has no right to censor their protest and make into something it is not—it is not fundamentalist or in support of terrorism to protest these cartoons.
These protests against the caricaturization of the Prophet could, if the media lets them, be informative. The reasons for protest could be an insight into a faith and a culture. But, when the media or others see this protest as censorship, ironically, they do not realize that they disregarding the protesters’ rights and/or are misinterpreting their meanings. When the media does this, they are the ones doing the censoring. Why shouldn’t devote Muslims protest the caricature of the Prophet? If they think it is morally wrong, then why shouldn’t they speak up?
I typed this several weeks ago, and I am sticking with this argument. There are people who are, on both sides, using this issue to fuel several fires, but the initial argument remains. There was not censorship, and people do have to right to protest. I do not, however, condone violence on either side.
The former managing editor at France Soir misuses the term censorship, and he does so in an irresponsible way. He claimed to be fighting censorship when he re-printed the infamous cartoons. However, his support is not valid for such a claim, and his support shows that he is not, indeed, fighting censorship but is rather contributing to sensationalism and doing a bit of censorship of his own.
According to the MSNBC article “Editor fired after publication of Islam cartoons,” this editor (not named) wrote: “The best way to fight censorship is not to let it happen…. In these circumstances, that meant publishing these drawings.”
“These circumstances” are not very clear. The Danish paper DID publish the infamous caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. In point of fact, they WERE published, not censored. I, and I’m sure many others, looked these up online. So, they weren’t censored there. In fact, I found at least five sites the posted these pictures within seconds. I would call these pictures EASILY ACCESSIBLE, not censored.
Did the editor really fight censorship when the information was readily available to anyone with access to the WWW? Did the French, who have been recently blasted about discrimination issues, really need to offend citizens by re-printing these pictures? If the pictures had been suppressed and unavailable, then perhaps his action could be appropriate. However, the pictures were not suppressed. Furthermore, these pictures, which ARE offensive to many people, are not something that we need to see, like perhaps pictures of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or pictures of the coffins of troops being sent home from Iraq (which HAVE been suppressed).
For those who have protested the pictures, Muslims and anyone else, they are NOT calling for censorship. The pictures HAVE ALREADY BEEN PUBLISHED. Rather, they have tried to explain, to many deaf ears who only hear “CENSORSHIP”, that to make any form of drawing of the Prophet is a form of idolatry and is against their religious convictions. So, not only is it rude to draw these pictures, it shows disrespect for someone’s beliefs. And, certain people in the media continue to show this disrespect, like poking a stick, by re-publishing the pictures so that they won’t be censored. Ironic, since they have been published ALL OVER.
The editor is further quoted in the MSNBC article: “Imagine a society that added up all the prohibitions of different religions. What would remain of the freedom to think, to speak and even to come and go?"
This editor fails to see a major flaw in his reasoning for publishing the cartoons in the name of fighting censorship. Yes, we have a right to the freedom of press and freedom of speech. We have these rights in a democracy so we may take actions to keep our democracy safe and just, as well as to make changes according to our needs. However, we also have freedom of religion. This is NOT freedom to disrespect another’s religion. It means we have a right to worship as we believe and to practice the tenants of that faith without interference from the government or other citizens. No, we should not limit our freedom of speech, but that freedom of speech goes both ways and should not forsake the freedom of religion. So, if “the media” publishes pictures (which were hardly respectful or flattering) that go against someone else’s religious beliefs, then the media should expect this group to raise voices in protest. It’s their right. And, the media has no right to censor their protest and make into something it is not—it is not fundamentalist or in support of terrorism to protest these cartoons.
These protests against the caricaturization of the Prophet could, if the media lets them, be informative. The reasons for protest could be an insight into a faith and a culture. But, when the media or others see this protest as censorship, ironically, they do not realize that they disregarding the protesters’ rights and/or are misinterpreting their meanings. When the media does this, they are the ones doing the censoring. Why shouldn’t devote Muslims protest the caricature of the Prophet? If they think it is morally wrong, then why shouldn’t they speak up?
I typed this several weeks ago, and I am sticking with this argument. There are people who are, on both sides, using this issue to fuel several fires, but the initial argument remains. There was not censorship, and people do have to right to protest. I do not, however, condone violence on either side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
