Gallery's Invitation to Deface Bible Brings Obscene Response
No shit, Einstein. What did you expect when you have a group representing human perversions invite people to deface a book denouncing human perversions?
And this, people, is why I hate contemporary art with such a visceral hatred in a nutshell. When all that qualifies as art is boiled down to mere process and statement, every single bit of bullshit will be called art.
Michelangelo calls shenanigans.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Can a "messiah" lie?
If he has to sell socialist health care, yes he can! Yes he can!
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office doesn’t agree that Obama’s budget has “reduced federal spending” at all. Quite the opposite. His budget calls for vastly increased spending, according to CBO.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office doesn’t agree that Obama’s budget has “reduced federal spending” at all. Quite the opposite. His budget calls for vastly increased spending, according to CBO.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Visual Arts
For the first time, I feel like what the readings are giving me consist of unmitigated, barely intellectually salvageable bullshit. Especially this Sullivan reading....good God, visual arts posing as a branch of cognitive research! How utterly useless! Doubly so since much of the subject matter is contemporary art, 90% of which is merely brain vomit intelligible only to a few dumb-ass artists. (Thank you, ARC, for retaining loyalty to the "figurative tradition" these frightfully self-centered moderns so ironically mock.)
This crap gives Chomsky and his cognitive science buddies a bad name. But then again, anything that makes Chomsky look like the crap shoveler he really is may be a good thing.
A warning to all who will be there when I report on this crap...the reporter will be a skeptic who, deep down, can't believe he has to take seriously what he just read. Do not expect much enthusiasm or verve.
This crap gives Chomsky and his cognitive science buddies a bad name. But then again, anything that makes Chomsky look like the crap shoveler he really is may be a good thing.
A warning to all who will be there when I report on this crap...the reporter will be a skeptic who, deep down, can't believe he has to take seriously what he just read. Do not expect much enthusiasm or verve.
Friday, July 10, 2009
This is Me in Foundations Class Earlier
Professor: I know some of your teachers and the things you've heard about Christendom, but I think it was a bad thing for the Church... (blah blah spiritual and temporal power blah blah)...just look at the Church today starting with Pope John Paul II, or maybe a few popes before him, look at the moral authority....(blah blah blah)
Me (in my head): Is this guy serious? I mean, really? Where did he expect this Church chock full of moral authority to come from? A vacuum? Sure, the source is Jesus Christ, ultimately and always, but you don't see Christ coming down and personally and physically piloting the ship now, do you? Christ works through Man. And Man works in the world.
Okay, so let's play with kid gloves and be charitable enough to assume that all he meant was "political Christendom". Now, if the Church had not attempted to assert some temporal authority in conjunction with the spiritual authority that was already rightfully within Her realm, what would happen? In other words, if the Church had not gone through political Christendom, would it still be that moral force this guy so lauds Her to be today?
First, let's look at a Christianity that never attempted to compete with the kings for temporal power. This was Eastern Christianity, centered around Byzantium.
What happened?
Caesaropapism. Yep, if the Church had not asserted any temporal authority, it would have been relegated to just another organ for some empire or kingdom. The current Church is a moral authority in the world today due in no small part to its independence from any single nation state. How would the Catholic Church be the moral force this professor claims it to be if it ended up as just another arm of France or Italy? (In fact, the Church did end up overtly attached to whatever secular ruler happened to let her be the main Church in his lands, but this was precisely because political Christendom had collapsed.)
The foundation of papal independence was built during the height of political Christendom (for a guy who teaches a class called "Foundations", you'd think he'd know this...), where She vyed with Kings for authority. If not for political Christendom, there would be no intellectual and experiential basis to divorce the power of the Church from that of whatever local lord or government She happened to find Herself under. The Eastern Church never developed one, so to this day you have Eastern Churches attached to every single Near-Eastern nationality.
And if he thinks the Church could have gone on its merry way without nary a thought given to political power, that would have been impossible. The only source of learning in the so-called Dark Ages would be a critical organ for any ruler worth his salt wanting to establish some sort of Imperium. The Church would find every single lord in Western Europe vying to control Her and the learning She commands, if only because rule and civilization would be impossible without it. So, the only solution other than political Christendom would be to eschew whatever made the Church attractive to barbarian lords. I do not think this intrepid professor would go so far as to suggest that, in order to avoid Christendom, the Church should just forget about manuscripts, literacy and book-keeping and all those stinking liberal arts, just so She would have no need to exert Herself temporally. What sort of liberal arts professor would think that...
Second, another reason why the Church has the moral authority She has today is because She had at one time commanded the faith and loyalty of all Europe, and by extension, those other countries influenced by those loyal to Her. If there had been no political Christendom, there would have been no mass conversions of the European peoples. (If you can't convert the ruler, you can't convert the people en masse) With no mass conversions, there would be no Renaissance, no Enlightenment, and consequently, no modern world (or modern Church) as we know it. Those years spent contemplating Aristotle and building cathedrals would have been spent still trying to convert the Europeans piecemeal. Let's be generous and assume that the Church, because She stayed out of politics, would not be tarnished by the involvement. That means that She would still, to this day, be trying to convert the pagan tribes of Northern Europe. That is, if the Muslim overlords let Her.
Add to that the spectre of there being no scientific advance and none of the technological advantages that helped elevate both Western European (and consequently, Catholic) prestige and power in the world. How would the Church reach the Americas? Heck, how would She reach the Philippines? And yes, the Catholic Church and influence She held during the height of Political Christendom allowed Her to found universities and generally philosophically jumpstart what would become science as we know it today. No other civilization came close to matching this achievement. Centuries after first observing the stars, inventing the abacus and discovering gunpowder well before Europe, the Chinese had to wait for Christian Europe to introduce accurate star charts, the clock and the rifle. Don't get me started on so-called Islamic "science"....
Sure, political Christendom led to a slew of corrupt and lackadaisical clergy. Yes, there were abuses, which would lead to the Reformation and all the nuttiness that followed that. You cannot expect every scenario to play out with everybody coming in clean as driven snow. This is man we're talking about here. Man would still be sinful, even without political Christendom. I daresay that if we assume a continued spell of general clerical good behavior and a lack of abuse in both scenarios, one with and one without political Christendom, it would still require political Christendom for the Church to acquire the moral authority (which extends even beyond Catholics...just watch Obama try to court the Pope when The One visits the Vatican) that She enjoys today....
*long contemplation is interrupted*
Professor: I will see you next week....
Me: Class is over?
****
One breezed-over misconception, and I already have an entire semester's course outline's worth of material.
Yes, I am easily distract...
Oh!
What was I thinking again?
Bottom line, I personally just do not understand the hype surrounding this Professor. He's good... but to cavalierly dismiss such a crucial period of Western history as bad when it was crucial to the development of the Church the institution he heads actively seeks to defend... I dunno. I guess its just another case of Busted Halo for me.
Oh well. It's still a fun class though.
Me (in my head): Is this guy serious? I mean, really? Where did he expect this Church chock full of moral authority to come from? A vacuum? Sure, the source is Jesus Christ, ultimately and always, but you don't see Christ coming down and personally and physically piloting the ship now, do you? Christ works through Man. And Man works in the world.
Okay, so let's play with kid gloves and be charitable enough to assume that all he meant was "political Christendom". Now, if the Church had not attempted to assert some temporal authority in conjunction with the spiritual authority that was already rightfully within Her realm, what would happen? In other words, if the Church had not gone through political Christendom, would it still be that moral force this guy so lauds Her to be today?
First, let's look at a Christianity that never attempted to compete with the kings for temporal power. This was Eastern Christianity, centered around Byzantium.
What happened?
Caesaropapism. Yep, if the Church had not asserted any temporal authority, it would have been relegated to just another organ for some empire or kingdom. The current Church is a moral authority in the world today due in no small part to its independence from any single nation state. How would the Catholic Church be the moral force this professor claims it to be if it ended up as just another arm of France or Italy? (In fact, the Church did end up overtly attached to whatever secular ruler happened to let her be the main Church in his lands, but this was precisely because political Christendom had collapsed.)
The foundation of papal independence was built during the height of political Christendom (for a guy who teaches a class called "Foundations", you'd think he'd know this...), where She vyed with Kings for authority. If not for political Christendom, there would be no intellectual and experiential basis to divorce the power of the Church from that of whatever local lord or government She happened to find Herself under. The Eastern Church never developed one, so to this day you have Eastern Churches attached to every single Near-Eastern nationality.
And if he thinks the Church could have gone on its merry way without nary a thought given to political power, that would have been impossible. The only source of learning in the so-called Dark Ages would be a critical organ for any ruler worth his salt wanting to establish some sort of Imperium. The Church would find every single lord in Western Europe vying to control Her and the learning She commands, if only because rule and civilization would be impossible without it. So, the only solution other than political Christendom would be to eschew whatever made the Church attractive to barbarian lords. I do not think this intrepid professor would go so far as to suggest that, in order to avoid Christendom, the Church should just forget about manuscripts, literacy and book-keeping and all those stinking liberal arts, just so She would have no need to exert Herself temporally. What sort of liberal arts professor would think that...
Second, another reason why the Church has the moral authority She has today is because She had at one time commanded the faith and loyalty of all Europe, and by extension, those other countries influenced by those loyal to Her. If there had been no political Christendom, there would have been no mass conversions of the European peoples. (If you can't convert the ruler, you can't convert the people en masse) With no mass conversions, there would be no Renaissance, no Enlightenment, and consequently, no modern world (or modern Church) as we know it. Those years spent contemplating Aristotle and building cathedrals would have been spent still trying to convert the Europeans piecemeal. Let's be generous and assume that the Church, because She stayed out of politics, would not be tarnished by the involvement. That means that She would still, to this day, be trying to convert the pagan tribes of Northern Europe. That is, if the Muslim overlords let Her.
Add to that the spectre of there being no scientific advance and none of the technological advantages that helped elevate both Western European (and consequently, Catholic) prestige and power in the world. How would the Church reach the Americas? Heck, how would She reach the Philippines? And yes, the Catholic Church and influence She held during the height of Political Christendom allowed Her to found universities and generally philosophically jumpstart what would become science as we know it today. No other civilization came close to matching this achievement. Centuries after first observing the stars, inventing the abacus and discovering gunpowder well before Europe, the Chinese had to wait for Christian Europe to introduce accurate star charts, the clock and the rifle. Don't get me started on so-called Islamic "science"....
Sure, political Christendom led to a slew of corrupt and lackadaisical clergy. Yes, there were abuses, which would lead to the Reformation and all the nuttiness that followed that. You cannot expect every scenario to play out with everybody coming in clean as driven snow. This is man we're talking about here. Man would still be sinful, even without political Christendom. I daresay that if we assume a continued spell of general clerical good behavior and a lack of abuse in both scenarios, one with and one without political Christendom, it would still require political Christendom for the Church to acquire the moral authority (which extends even beyond Catholics...just watch Obama try to court the Pope when The One visits the Vatican) that She enjoys today....
*long contemplation is interrupted*
Professor: I will see you next week....
Me: Class is over?
****
One breezed-over misconception, and I already have an entire semester's course outline's worth of material.
Yes, I am easily distract...
Oh!
What was I thinking again?Bottom line, I personally just do not understand the hype surrounding this Professor. He's good... but to cavalierly dismiss such a crucial period of Western history as bad when it was crucial to the development of the Church the institution he heads actively seeks to defend... I dunno. I guess its just another case of Busted Halo for me.
Oh well. It's still a fun class though.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Maybe If He Could Moonwalk....
Yeah, way to work it, O. A few more handshakes and pats to the shoulder, the man with 13,000 nukes might actually deign to look at you.
At least Bush managed to look into Putin's eyes, even if that does sound kinda gay.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Blood and Soil
During a recent school graduation I attended, I was minding my own business when I was treated to the unexpected sight of a grown woman trying to hold back her tears while talking about loving her country.
Now, I do despise nationalism and the stupefying notions of self-aggrandizement that typically follow it, but there is something good to be said about notions of "blood and soil" that beat almost supernaturally in the hearts of men and women.
There is nothing inherently wrong with patriotism - that simple expression of love for the locality you happen to call home. Localism has certain very human charms that give character to one's memories. Long afternoons playing games you know are played nowhere else, days spent languishing around brooks, streams and caves only you and your friends know, climbing trees and eating fruit you know only your mom or the neighborhood den mother can prepare...these things are what many cherished memories are made of, and they create that image in the heart that remains indelibly in place whenever one speaks of one's hearth and home. The Romans sometimes called the Second Punic War (the one starring Hannibal) "the war of gods and demons", and they reserve a special hatred for the Carthaginians because they trampled on the very vineyards and gardens, the very town and country squares and the very homes they believed their household gods resided in. It was this appeal to the honor of the gods and the honor of the hearth of which they were patrons that spurred the patriotic appeal to resist Hannibal at all cost, and it is a force that not even the greatest general since Alexander the Great could overcome. The little localisms that we cherish are our own version of the household gods, and woe be unto any man who would trample upon them.
To the internationalist cynic, such quaint little mementoes of the memory (which he will almost always associate with some simplistic "jingoism") are the source of the world's many ills, from xenophobic tension to the violation of minority rights. What the cyinic does not realize is that man is fallen, and that the corruption takes hold even of such noble things as the love for blood and soil. The fault lies not in the localism but in the frail failings of the human heart. As such, no appeal to internationalism can fix these things. If any, appeals to go beyond localism have often succeeded in making local problems national (or international), and have often been the impetus behind the many ills the internationalist decries. It is one thing to say "we are the world, we are the children", it is quite another to indulge in the hypocrisy of forcing man to shed his humanity (of which localisms are an integral part) in order to be "humane". Love of blood and soil need not be mutually exclusive with love for wider humanity. Indeed, love of blood and soil need not be saddled by nationalism.
In honor of localism, here are two of my favorite localist anthems...
Sweet Home Alabama by pre-plane crash Lynyrd Skynyrd.
Georgia On My Mind by the great Ray Charles.
I wish I had some local anthem to sing along to. "Sweet Home Mandaluyong"?
Now, I do despise nationalism and the stupefying notions of self-aggrandizement that typically follow it, but there is something good to be said about notions of "blood and soil" that beat almost supernaturally in the hearts of men and women.
There is nothing inherently wrong with patriotism - that simple expression of love for the locality you happen to call home. Localism has certain very human charms that give character to one's memories. Long afternoons playing games you know are played nowhere else, days spent languishing around brooks, streams and caves only you and your friends know, climbing trees and eating fruit you know only your mom or the neighborhood den mother can prepare...these things are what many cherished memories are made of, and they create that image in the heart that remains indelibly in place whenever one speaks of one's hearth and home. The Romans sometimes called the Second Punic War (the one starring Hannibal) "the war of gods and demons", and they reserve a special hatred for the Carthaginians because they trampled on the very vineyards and gardens, the very town and country squares and the very homes they believed their household gods resided in. It was this appeal to the honor of the gods and the honor of the hearth of which they were patrons that spurred the patriotic appeal to resist Hannibal at all cost, and it is a force that not even the greatest general since Alexander the Great could overcome. The little localisms that we cherish are our own version of the household gods, and woe be unto any man who would trample upon them.
To the internationalist cynic, such quaint little mementoes of the memory (which he will almost always associate with some simplistic "jingoism") are the source of the world's many ills, from xenophobic tension to the violation of minority rights. What the cyinic does not realize is that man is fallen, and that the corruption takes hold even of such noble things as the love for blood and soil. The fault lies not in the localism but in the frail failings of the human heart. As such, no appeal to internationalism can fix these things. If any, appeals to go beyond localism have often succeeded in making local problems national (or international), and have often been the impetus behind the many ills the internationalist decries. It is one thing to say "we are the world, we are the children", it is quite another to indulge in the hypocrisy of forcing man to shed his humanity (of which localisms are an integral part) in order to be "humane". Love of blood and soil need not be mutually exclusive with love for wider humanity. Indeed, love of blood and soil need not be saddled by nationalism.
In honor of localism, here are two of my favorite localist anthems...
Sweet Home Alabama by pre-plane crash Lynyrd Skynyrd.
Georgia On My Mind by the great Ray Charles.
I wish I had some local anthem to sing along to. "Sweet Home Mandaluyong"?
Yes, This Type of Thing Is Not Beneath Me :)
The San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant shows off its...assets....
:D
In case you're still wondering what this is about, here are a few synonyms:
You may be wondering, "Jonathan, you charismatic stallion you (okay, maybe not that), why are you now trafficking in such low-brow humor fit only for plebeians?"
Well...
One, I'm as much a pleb as the next guy. Long live my bread and circuses.
Two, there may come a time wherein the appreciation of such things becomes illegal, thanks to your friendly neighborhood ideology.
Three, I just like cans, knockers, jugs, milk factories, boobies and great, stonking ***s.
Oh, and nuclear power too.
Have nice day. :)
:D
In case you're still wondering what this is about, here are a few synonyms:
You may be wondering, "Jonathan, you charismatic stallion you (okay, maybe not that), why are you now trafficking in such low-brow humor fit only for plebeians?"
Well...
One, I'm as much a pleb as the next guy. Long live my bread and circuses.
Two, there may come a time wherein the appreciation of such things becomes illegal, thanks to your friendly neighborhood ideology.
Three, I just like cans, knockers, jugs, milk factories, boobies and great, stonking ***s.
Oh, and nuclear power too.
Have nice day. :)
Saturday, July 4, 2009
I Don't Know What to Call This
I'm at a loss for a title for this post.
Funny but Sad? Britain Ruled (And Soon to Be Populated) by the Stupids? Horrors in Public Education? "Where's Your Holistic Education Now"?
In any case, I found this story to be dripping in hilarious irony.
STUDENTS who failed to understand the words “despotic tyranny” have been complaining about their history A-level exam.
It is claimed the question “How far do you agree that Hitler’s role 1933-45 was one of despotic tyranny?” was too confusing for some students to understand.
A protest group called Despotic Tyranny Ruined My Life has been set up on Facebook.
So far 1,151 people have joined the group, leaving comments such as “My life is DESTROYED because of this exam. Seriously” and “This exam made me sad”.
The essay question featured on an Edexcel A Level exam paper sat last week.
A number of teachers have also posted comments on an online history teachers’ discussion forum, claiming that their students would not know what the words “despotic” and “tyranny” meant.
Waaah! But my teachers told me I was a "higher ability" student!
Oh, and if you ever feel like kicking someone in the nuts, drop by their Facebook page and give them the definition of a "despotic tyranny".
Or, simply punch out a British public educator. They're the ones responsible for this plague of stupidity.
Funny but Sad? Britain Ruled (And Soon to Be Populated) by the Stupids? Horrors in Public Education? "Where's Your Holistic Education Now"?
In any case, I found this story to be dripping in hilarious irony.
STUDENTS who failed to understand the words “despotic tyranny” have been complaining about their history A-level exam.
It is claimed the question “How far do you agree that Hitler’s role 1933-45 was one of despotic tyranny?” was too confusing for some students to understand.
A protest group called Despotic Tyranny Ruined My Life has been set up on Facebook.
So far 1,151 people have joined the group, leaving comments such as “My life is DESTROYED because of this exam. Seriously” and “This exam made me sad”.
The essay question featured on an Edexcel A Level exam paper sat last week.
A number of teachers have also posted comments on an online history teachers’ discussion forum, claiming that their students would not know what the words “despotic” and “tyranny” meant.
Waaah! But my teachers told me I was a "higher ability" student!
Oh, and if you ever feel like kicking someone in the nuts, drop by their Facebook page and give them the definition of a "despotic tyranny".
Or, simply punch out a British public educator. They're the ones responsible for this plague of stupidity.
Between Marx and Freidan, Freidan is the Greater Evil
This essay, from one Stephen Baskerville PhD, makes the case that feminism (indeed, sexual politics of any kind) is a far greater danger to civilization than Marxism ever was.
I find the case persuasive on two levels.
First, Marxism as an ideology disrupted the relations between classes. While this in itself is a catalyst for widespread misery and suffering, it can often be mitigated by lots and lots of money. Increased standards of living for all classes tend to lessen class conflict. However, any form of politicized sexuality disrupts something infinitely more intimate and inescapable; the relationship between individual men and women. This relationship, upon which all civilization springs forth, is the explicit target of feminism and other forms of politicized sexuality (GLBT month!), with its destruction as its ultimate goal.
From the essay:
Many have discerned a similarity between feminism and Marxism, but few appreciate how feminism extends the socialist logic and may actually exceed its intrusive potential. “Women’s liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible,” writes Ruth Wisse of Harvard. “By defining relations between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.
Even Marxism can foresee a replicable (even if nigh impossible at this stage) restitution for its grievances. After all, humanity was indeed a classless society at one point in its long prehistory. But man has never been without woman, and woman without man. To destroy the relationship between these two by reducing the timeless reciprocity and cooperation of both with the other into a dialectic of competition and power acquisition is to undermine something of the very nature of humanity itself. Where feminism wants to go, no human being has ever, and can ever, go. I don't care how much the academe bleats about the potency of feminist frameworks (for one can always assert the same thing about any framework that suits one's hard-coded biases), feminism is both intellectually dishonest and practically insane. It is one thing to want the right to vote or to want equal pay; it is a different matter entirely to talk about one's vagina while the world burns.
On another level, Marxism as an ideology was very beatable. It may have taken 70 years, but I did see the Berlin Wall fall on TV. Feminism, on the other hand, has subtly undermined our way of living in so many ways that we barely realize. From casual sex and contraception to the ongoing break up of the family (and coming soon, ultimate gender neutrality, brought to you by the Vikings' nuttiest descendants), these are changes and compromises that have taken hold of our lives unopposed. Lenin at least had to fight the White Army. Feminism steamrolled onto our lives and we never had a choice in it. Russia could become capitalist to some degree; even China is getting there. But I do not see how we can go back to an age without feminism and sexual politics. You can shoot a Red Army soldier, but you cannot just shoot a girlfriend who decides to "liberate" herself from "patriarchal tyranny" by shacking up with her butch women's studies prof.
From the essay:
I find the case persuasive on two levels.
First, Marxism as an ideology disrupted the relations between classes. While this in itself is a catalyst for widespread misery and suffering, it can often be mitigated by lots and lots of money. Increased standards of living for all classes tend to lessen class conflict. However, any form of politicized sexuality disrupts something infinitely more intimate and inescapable; the relationship between individual men and women. This relationship, upon which all civilization springs forth, is the explicit target of feminism and other forms of politicized sexuality (GLBT month!), with its destruction as its ultimate goal.
From the essay:
Many have discerned a similarity between feminism and Marxism, but few appreciate how feminism extends the socialist logic and may actually exceed its intrusive potential. “Women’s liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible,” writes Ruth Wisse of Harvard. “By defining relations between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.
Even Marxism can foresee a replicable (even if nigh impossible at this stage) restitution for its grievances. After all, humanity was indeed a classless society at one point in its long prehistory. But man has never been without woman, and woman without man. To destroy the relationship between these two by reducing the timeless reciprocity and cooperation of both with the other into a dialectic of competition and power acquisition is to undermine something of the very nature of humanity itself. Where feminism wants to go, no human being has ever, and can ever, go. I don't care how much the academe bleats about the potency of feminist frameworks (for one can always assert the same thing about any framework that suits one's hard-coded biases), feminism is both intellectually dishonest and practically insane. It is one thing to want the right to vote or to want equal pay; it is a different matter entirely to talk about one's vagina while the world burns.
On another level, Marxism as an ideology was very beatable. It may have taken 70 years, but I did see the Berlin Wall fall on TV. Feminism, on the other hand, has subtly undermined our way of living in so many ways that we barely realize. From casual sex and contraception to the ongoing break up of the family (and coming soon, ultimate gender neutrality, brought to you by the Vikings' nuttiest descendants), these are changes and compromises that have taken hold of our lives unopposed. Lenin at least had to fight the White Army. Feminism steamrolled onto our lives and we never had a choice in it. Russia could become capitalist to some degree; even China is getting there. But I do not see how we can go back to an age without feminism and sexual politics. You can shoot a Red Army soldier, but you cannot just shoot a girlfriend who decides to "liberate" herself from "patriarchal tyranny" by shacking up with her butch women's studies prof.
From the essay:
The early feminist attack on marriage and the family is now largely forgotten or dismissed. “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage,” Ms. magazine editor Robin Morgan wrote in her 1970 book, Sisterhood is Powerful. Sheila Cronin, head of the National Organization for Women, said that “Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage. Linda Gordon elaborated in a famous 1969 article in WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation. “The nuclear family must be destroyed,” she declared:
The break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.… Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests.… Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their “true” role.… No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children.… Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people’s needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all.
While such statements are often dismissed as the ranting of extremists, a glance at the state of marriage and the family today reveals that this is precisely what feminists have achieved. But they achieved it in ways much more subtle than these screeds indicate. While Germaine Greer famously urged women to refuse to marry, that strategy could achieve nothing. It was by participating in marriage that feminists destroyed it.
It is easy to destroy a distant ideological enemy. It is easy to condemn a Stalin, or a Pol Pot, or a Mao Zedong. But, how does one condemn a wayward wife, or sister, or husband, or brother? The fact that it hits so close and destroys relationships so intimate, while being so hard to escape from, makes feminism far more nefarious and insidious than Marxism can ever hope to become.Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Will There Be a Month For My Deviant Desires?
June, according to America's Superhero-in-chief, is GLBT Pride month. Can somebody run me through the logic of this?
So, we're celebrating a group's sexual perversions for no good reason. What about the perversions of the wider population?
July: National Pedophile Pride Month
August: National Guys Who Like Girls With Eyeglasses Pride Month
September: National Guys Who Like Girls in Sci-Fi Uniforms Pride Month
October: National Guys Who Like Watching Lesbians Pride Month
November: National Donkey Show Pride Month
December: National Furry Pride Month
So, we're celebrating a group's sexual perversions for no good reason. What about the perversions of the wider population?
July: National Pedophile Pride Month
August: National Guys Who Like Girls With Eyeglasses Pride Month
September: National Guys Who Like Girls in Sci-Fi Uniforms Pride Month
October: National Guys Who Like Watching Lesbians Pride Month
November: National Donkey Show Pride Month
December: National Furry Pride Month
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)