What else can I think, when reading Echidne of the Snakes, I run across this astonishing gem of self-loathing femininity.
If you could change one thing about the world, regardless of guilt and politics, what would you do? Hoo-boy, this is where I get in trouble, and that starts with "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "pool." I'd like to jump in a pool right now. Some may tell me to jump in a river for this one: I would remove women's suffrage, and I might even consider making voting rights tied to property ownership.
Well, actually, she doesn't get in trouble: read the comments and everyone is quite supportive, and think that disenfranchising the majority of Americans is simply a wonderful idea. It would clear the roles of all those worthless welfare queens who always vote for Democrats, dontcha know. Women aren't supposed to vote or run for office or do anything other than serve their families.
And they're very, very happy about it all.
As you might guess, when you've got a popular idea this stupid, that makes people content to lobotomize themselves and throw away the basic privileges of a democratic society, there's one thing behind it all: religion. The site cites the The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, a lovely short document that will fit in well in the Republic of Gilead. And of course, coupled with this, we find as usual crazy ideas about the history of the world.
You know, this kind of thing just reinforces my belief that religion is a deep-seated evil in the world. And before all you moderate, liberal sensible Christians start yelling at me for tarring you with a broad brush, tell me: how many of you criticize the insane wings of your belief systems? Have you gotten off your butts to police this broad institution you call sacred, that you believe has a holy duty?
- Log in to post comments
So remind me, what was the year when Heinlein's Nehemiah Scudder was elected president? We're getting close, aren't we?
It was either 2008 or 2012, Steve, so yeah, pretty close. And unlike Lazarus Long, we can't run off to Mars for the next hundred years.
OMG - I finally caught a spello on Pharyngula!
(Voters' lists are kept on rolls, not on those things that contain actors.)
Given how rapid and prolific PZ is - even while researching, teaching, and familying - and how deft his choice of words, I'd been sure he had supernatural blogging assistance. Now I won't be able to use him to claim that million bucks from The Amazing Randi...
If she's that stupid, we're all better off if she doesn't vote. The only mistake is extending that to all of womankind.
Well, I do. Police the lunatic fringe that is. But the lunatic fringe of Episcopalianism is, well, not THAT lunatic. At least in the USA, mileage could differ when one includes certain African bishops. But even then I can't begin to imagine a woman from anywhere in the worldwide Anglican Communion writing something like this.
How about this: Anyone who believes that women shouldn't be allowed to vote should have their voting rights permanently revoked.
Those people live in the alternate universe with Evil Spock and his goatee. How batshit crazy do you have to be to TAKE AWAY YOUR OWN RIGHTS?
not that I'm any kind of christian, or any kind of religious at all, but this: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=20971
seemed like a small step in the right direction.
And be all chipper and happy while you're doing it?
There must be some powerful ingredients in those Prairie Muffins.
Nice of them to wrap the comment in a preamble which my brain, bless its little neurons, simply cannot parse with any grace. It's like a little warning that I'm entering the magical land of someone else's cognative dissonance.
Just out of curiosity, where in the Bible does it say that some form of representative democracy is good, or even acceptable? I can't say I've read the whole damn thing, but most of it seems to promote monarchy (sanctioned by God, of course). Why don't the just come out and demand a king?
Not enough. They should get it all inclusive. Their genitals should be mutilated, their feet broken, teir breasts ironed, neck should be stretched to two feet lenght, and as a special bonus they should get lobotomized with an ice pick.
Nymphalidae:
Actually, from their perspective, they're not really endorsing taking away their own rights; those are rights that they already feel they don't have. What they are doing is scarier, though: these are people who already let their husbands decide their vote for them, and what they want is to enforce that every other woman has to do the same. They are people who believe that they have the right to decide for all other women whether or not those other women can have meaningful opinions.
This sort of attitude isn't unique to the religious, and being religious doesn't necessarily lead you to having this attitude, but yeah, when I read something like this, I have to fight to force myself to remember that.
Anyone see the creepy item at the end of the list?
24. What would you want God to say to you when you reach the pearly gate? "Now I can tell you...all your children and grandchildren will be joining you before you know it."
Wishing for the death of your children and grandchildren (because they'll be in a "better place") is not unlike a suicide bomber thinking that he and his whole family will be allowed into heaven. Small wonder these people don't care about women's voting rights--they want to get life over with as quickly as possible.
WE DENY that matter, the physical universe, angels, and souls can exist of themselves or have existed eternally.
Look out, Renaissance lit folks! They're coming for you next:
"Dinanzi a me non fuor cose create
se non etterne, e io etterno duro."
("Before me there were no created things/That were not eternal, and I endure forever.") Inferno 3:7-8, the inscription over the gate of Hell.
On the other hand, I've got to give her credit for one thing--personally, I don't think I could cram that many non-sequiturs into that few words no matter how hard I tried.
What's really creepy is that the whole thread is interspersed with a side conversation about the love of purple fabric as if that's at the same level of seriousness as the voting rights discussion. "Oh Madge, I love your curtains, and how shiny your silverware is, and that lovely paisley pattern on your napkins, and isn't it silly how some women want to vote and icky things like that?"
"Just out of curiosity, where in the Bible does it say that some form of representative democracy is good, or even acceptable? I can't say I've read the whole damn thing, but most of it seems to promote monarchy (sanctioned by God, of course). Why don't the just come out and demand a king?"
Good question-- There's nothing in the Old Testament that seems to me to be about representative government in the way we know it today. But according to the story in 1 Samuel Chapter 8, God did not sanction the decision of the Jews to have a king.
The story says the people insisted to Samuel on having a king: "Give us a king to judge us" (verse 6)." The story continues by saying that God told Samuel, ". . . protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them" (verse 9). So Samuel warned them that a king would dominate them and use them, their families, and their properties for his own benefit. Verses 19 and 20 say, "Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations . . . ."
As for the early Christians, they did not choose a king or similar ruler, but according to the story in Acts 2, "had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (verses 44 and 45).
Prairie Muffins.
Prairie Muffins? Aren't "prairie muffins" the same thing as cow chips?
Okay, I looked. I'm going to echo the Reverend BigDumbChimp here ... Is it possible for me to un-see this site?
Look at the list of books for sale. A book they have for sale about insects "Does have a small amount of evolution, otherwise a great living book". Another book about horses has "has some evolution at the beginning,but full of information to please any horse-lover". A third book (which is praised) "even contains a subtle anti-evolution message".
(see http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/salebooks.php?science )
The rest of the site has some rather ... bizarre notions of government, living, religion, etc cetera. Plus, the whole "prairie muffin" thing.
http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/PrairieMuffinManifesto.php
Where I come from, that's a name nobody would self-apply.
My question was, don't they know that "muffin" is sort of a naughty word?
Somewhere (I wish I could remember where!) I read an article detailing the struggles of "saved" women and their unsaved spouses, whom the wives are now exhorted to "obey." Well, how does a good Christian wife obey a heathen husband who doesn't care if there's a God or not? The newly-evangelized wives are frustrated by their spiritually lackadaisical husbands' refusal to order them around as they wish their men to do. In addition, since the husband is not saved and thus going to hell, it's the wife's duty to "witness" to him, but then there's that snaggy Bible verse, "Suffer not a woman to teach," etc. So he's right, because he's the man, but he's wrong; and yet, she cannot point out that he is wrong, because she is to obey him, but must suggest that he is, or she won't see him in heaven. She wants him to dominate her, but he won't, and since he's the man, she must submit to her inability to submit... It's Kafkaesque! It was quite an interesting read. (I felt pretty sorry for the men, who themselves felt oppressed by it all.)
Kristine - and don't forget all the pity the "unequally yoked" get from the church. I knew several of these women through my time in fundiechurch, and they were the object of whispers and pity and sorrow all 'round. The "out" for it is that women should obey their husbands "...except for something that goes directly against God's teaching". Not that that part's in the Bible, but it makes the whole thing wash down better somehow.
The whole men's movement in fundamentalism is really scary - there are several books out and weekend retreats and the like about how to properly take charge of your home and your woman, and many of them have companion studies for women on how to enjoy it.
Somewhere (I wish I could remember where!) I read an article detailing the struggles of "saved" women and their unsaved spouses, whom the wives are now exhorted to "obey."
What usually happens when the configuration is reversed? Surely there must be couples in which the man is a religious fundamentalist and the woman isn't.
The Bible does not have anything close to representative democracy or even councils of aristocrats. Instead the main forms of government in it are absolute monarchy and theocracy. True, some kings are criticized as bad kings, but others are praised as good kings, and nobody every suggests replacing the Israelite monarchy with some other system.
And theocracy? Moses and Peter were both theocrats. Moses got lots and lots and lots of laws from Mr. G., and Peter was something of a Stalinist. When Ananias and Sapphira refused to turn all their property over to Peter, they mysteriously dropped dead.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are concepts totally absent from the Bible -- the only "freedom of religion" is the "right" to practice the One True Religion, whatever it might be.
And the Bible has some blatant sexism, like
1 Timothy 2:11-12 -- women are not allowed to teach men or have authority over them.
1 Corinthians 11 -- The chain of command: God is the head of Christ, who is the head of man, who is the head of woman.
1 Corinthians 14 -- Women should shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them.
People crave familiarity, uniformity, rules, and structure. (Yes, they sometimes also crave the opposites of all those things, but averaging across time and across populations yields a distinct love for primate hierarchial social structures.)
Even when all those things victimize them.
It's bad enough when men oppress women (and vice versa, which does happen on occasion), but it's truly pathetic when men and women oppress themselves.
Praise the Lord, she has responded to all the attention:
"You have been quite insulting to me on your websites, but what I want is not to pick a fight with you--I want to tell you the truth so that you can have the opportunity to be free of the bitterness and anger with which you seem to be filled. I have experienced some major trials in my life, but despite that and my oppression of being saddled with this passel of children and stuck in a rut at home (*big-time sarcasm here, good-natured, of course*), I am full of inexpressible joy and contentment. This contentment is not due to my accomplishments (and yes, I have a few), nor because of my circumstances (though I am blessed in those circumstances), but because I belong to my faithful Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
More: http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1565
Which is creepier - women who think like that, or men who want women who think like that?
Anyway, I feel all icky after reading that crap.
Heinlein hit it, scarily right on the nail - 2016 for "Nehemiah Scudder"
- two terms of Hilary, then the christians (just) get power, suspend your constitution, etc ....
What scares me is that they would then organise an Anschluss in Britain, using alll their wonderful church members we've got infesting our cities.
From the booklist, a book on babies:
[quote]One picture with mommy breastfeeding baby.[/quote]
The horror...
PZ:
Scott Hatfield here. I won't ask you how big the brush you're tarring with is if you'll concede that the target that you ask me to 'police' (the 'broad institution' of religion) is actually beyond my personal abilities to manage. Imagine how non-plussed you'd feel if you were asked to 'police' the entire atheist community, which (you've pointed out on more than one occasion) has more than it's share of fringe types.
I do think, however, that there a lot of folk standing with you against the crazies, especially in the mainline churches. I posted earlier this week on the question of whether creationists love or hate science, and while doing so made it pretty clear that the theology that animates many fundie types (their twisted version of the 'priesthood of the believer') was goofy. And, you know, I've debated some of these guys in public and I get hate mail, etc. So in my own little corner of the universe I think, yes, I do stand up and speak out against the fringe.
I do wish more Christians would do the same, though. It seems to me that we're far too quick to excuse even the most mendacious trolls on the grounds that they, too, are believers and that their perceived enemies (rationalists like yourself) are our enemies, as well. Obviously, I don't share that sentiment.
Peace...SH
I... I *want* to join in the mockery, but I'm afraid they outsmarted me:
---
Hoo-boy, this is where I get in trouble, and that starts with "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "pool."
---
What. the. hell?
Oh wait! I got it! It's an example of "logicality". Trouble to T to P to pool. Ok, got it. Yeah, agree that this person should not vote.
But according to the story in 1 Samuel Chapter 8, God did not sanction the decision of the Jews to have a king.
Julia - well, quote the whole thing, it's great! Read it out loud in your best preacher voice. Samuel warns them -
"This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
"And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
"And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
"And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day."
All unnervingly true...
ST - In case you weren't kidding, the t to P to pool line is from "The Music Man."
SH - Since Atheists don't claim to have any unifying source, there is no expectation that PZ or anyone could police us. We have nothing intrinsically in common. Christians, on the other hand, claim to believe in the same dude. Therefore you have something in common, and should have some ability to persuade the crazies to knock it off.
ajay,
"Read it out loud in your best preacher voice"
"Teacher voice," rather, for me. Having spent 40 years as a schoolteacher, I do have a tendency to answer questions if I happen to know the answer and no one else has supplied it. (Xerxes1729 asked, "where in the Bible does it say . . . ")
"All unnervingly true"
I agree. It's a pretty good warning against the dangers of monarchy.
I'm surprised that anyone with any knowledge of human events can ask this question without the answer immediately occurring to them: violence happens. A lot.
In the case of the woman who isn't being dominated the way she wants, I'm tempted to say that neither one deserves sympathy because they got themselves into it (at least in societies with no forced marriage), but in the reverse case, this principle seems not to apply.
women should obey their husbands "...except for something that goes directly against God's teaching"
Is anyone else vaguely reminded of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics? Perhaps this is the Three Laws of Female Fundies:
1. Obey the church
2. Obey the husband, except where it conflicts with law 1.
3. (Oops. There doesn't seem to be a law mandating that women protect themselves or obey their own consciences. Not even one making exceptions for laws 1 and 2.)
(Oops. There doesn't seem to be a law mandating that women protect themselves or obey their own consciences. Not even one making exceptions for laws 1 and 2.)
Correct. And then, if one manages to get out of that system as an adult, it takes a lot of psychotherapy to convince oneself that one's own opinions are worth something, and that occasionally thinking of what one needs oneself rather than what everyone else wants isn't entirely evil.
I mean, I think that's how it is. Not that I know firsthand or anything. {ahem}
CCC:
The women, definitely. Men who want sapient blow-up dolls are just jerks. Women who've autolobotomized to the point of wanting to be sapient blow-up dolls have mental processes too alien to contemplate.
That whole world is deeply alien to me. Check out the first twenty or more responses on that thread, and count the number of times the word "bible" comes up. "The Bible says this", "but the Bible also says this", etc. There are other books, you know. The bible doesn't seem to say much about governance, so I hardly see why it should be the manual for governance. The bible won't tell you what tax rates should be. And this country isn't governed by the bible anyway. But try telling that to them. Oh no, the majority of people in this country are Christian, and the majority of the founding fathers were at least nominally Christian, so therefore we're a Christian nation!
It's not just science that we need more of, it's civics. And history. Anyway, that concludes my late spleen-venting.
Yes, PZ, a great many have. How many authors' names, conferences, liberal churches, civic actions, and denominational battles would you like me to list? I'm pretty sure I can come up with any reasonable number you might want.
As a scientist, you really ought to be more sensitive to sampling error. Which do you think you're more likely to hear about on the news: the conservative Christian wackos and their latest plan to take away the rights of non-Christians, or the liberal christian groups, churches, and individuals who oppose them? Which will sell more newspapers? You should consider these issues whenever you start swinging that broad brush of yours. The fact is there are a great many liberal Christians opposing the conservative agenda.