A gay rights advocate hits back at Havens Church

Via Feminist Avengers:

"I kissed a girl and I liked it, then I went to Hell."

I love reading church message boards. There's one by the house I grew up in that was always good for a laugh. They put stuff up like: "The light of the world knows no power failures." But this one is the best I've heard in awhile.

For 24 hours, outside Havens Corners Church in Columbus, OH, the sign read: "I kissed a girl and I liked it, then I went to Hell."

The quote is taken from the pop hit "I Kissed a Girl," by Katy Perry (listen, watch). Apparently, Pastor David Allison said he was worried about the influence the song has on teen girls. He also mentioned the pornographic-y video.

He says he took the sign down not because it was a gay-bashing horror show, but because parishioners has no idea what the sign was referring to.

When I think of all the misogynistic trash out there, it's hard to believe that THIS song is the one Allison is concerned about. Okay...no...it's really not that hard to believe.

What's wrong with McCain's Palin choice

1. It undercuts his "no experience" argument against Obama.

2. Liberal and conservative mothers (ex. my mother) will have a problem with a woman with 5 kids (including a 5 month old baby with Down Syndrome who she's still nursing) heading into 2nd-in-line situation with a 72-year-old man. In other words, soccer moms aren't quite sure about this "hockey mom."

3. Sure, he gets evangelicals on board, but people who (for some reason) thought McCain was winking when he said he'd be "a pro-life president" are not so sure it's a joke anymore. He's losing the center.

4. As Kim Gandy said, "Not every woman supports women's rights." Palin belongs to Feminists for Life, an organization that believes "women deserve better than abortion." She believes abortions should be illegal, even for rape and incest victims. She also tried to hire a guy who had been reprimanded for sexual harassment. McCain's choice is offensive to many feminists and Hillary supporters who were actually thinking of giving their vote to McCain (as NUTS as that is).

5. Completely surface and cosmetic: her voice is grating. If she keeps speaking like that, she's going to lose her voice fast. I know it's silly, but that stuff gets to me, whether it's a man OR a woman speaking.

Yes, it's great that there's a woman on one of the tickets, it's just the completely WRONG woman. She just rounds out the McCain ticket and makes the choice easier for centrists everywhere.

Sure, McCain stole Obama's news cycle yesterday, but that's because the media was picking Palin apart. Biden has plenty to pick at, but it's already been done. This woman hasn't been vetted on a national scale yet...and the media only has 2 months to do it. In my opinion? This thing is going to crash and burn.

Missouri: the place to be if you're a fetus

This week, Missouri has given me not one, but two reasons to pull my hair. And that sucks, cause I really don't have that much of it.

Via Bush v. Choice, Missouri lawmakers want to reclassify EC as "abortion-inducing medication."

Legislation presented to a House panel last week would classify emergency contraception as an abortion-inducing medication, contrary to the definition used by the Food and Drug Administration.

The bill also would protect pharmacies from lawsuits and from punishment by state regulators for refusing to sell or fill a prescription for any drug defined as triggering an abortion.

First of all, it's just a lie. Plan B does not induce an abortion. RU-486 induces an abortion. You start taking Plan B "the morning after" intercourse.

Oh right, because the minute a guy's sperm enters some woman's body, there's a baby there.

And number 2: Via Feministing:

Missouri lawmakers are considering giving tax deductions to "parents" of stillborns for a year.

During a hearing on Monday, the bill's sponsor, Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, said he wanted to honor families' losses.

"This bill recognizes that the person was a child of this state, a child of a family of this state," he said.

Dempsey noted that the Legislature passed a measure in 2004 that allowed parents of stillborn children to receive a birth certificate. The state tax deduction, he said, is the next logical step.

So will all parents get tax breaks for their dead children, regardless of age? Or is it only non-people who get deductions? I'm sorry these people had to experience this, but come on!

What the HELL is wrong with Missouri?

Truly Disgusting

The biggest attack since the surge killedat least 98 people and wounded over 200 today.

Two women were sent in to busy Baghdad markets and exploded.

Notice I say "were sent." That's because they were MENTALLY DISABLED women. The bombs were detonated by remote control.

Before it was reported that the women were mentally challenged, I was complaining about the fact that all the headlines said "female suicide bombers." They never say "male suicide bombers." I know, I know, it's much less common for women to kill themselves this way, but still, it feels wrong.

But this is an entirely different story. I hate delineating good and evil, but jesus...this is pure, untainted evil.

Female Circumcision

Every so often, a new article comes out about female circumcision. Yesterday, it was the New York Times' turn.

The NYT takes us to Indonesia. And I mean they take us there, to the annual free circumcision fest. There's a slideshow and everything. (The pictures are from the slideshow. I weeded out the heartwrenching ones - a little too manipulative for my taste.)I'm horrified at the practice, and even more so because they don't care if they cut the clitoris. But we circumcise men. Is there that big a difference?

Well, yes, because rather than the original idea of circumcised penises, cutting doesn't mark you as "chosen" or "worthy." According to Lukman Hakim, the foundation that gives the free female circumcisions, the reasons are three-fold:

“One, it will stabilize her libido,” he said through an interpreter. “Two, it will make a woman look more beautiful in the eyes of her husband. And three, it will balance her psychology.”

Still, as far as I know, circumcised men feel less pleasure during intercourse than those who are uncircumcised.

The problem with cutting is that it stems from religious law that sees women as unstable temptresses. We're trying to get rid of a symptom of the problem, when we should be looking at the problem itself.

Some people feel it's right to call this torture, just like they call burkas oppression, but to dismiss someone's entire upbringing through your own paradigm is never excusable. Mothers who bring their baby girls to get cut are just doing what society expects of them.

It's like I always say, a lot of problems can be fixed with education. Let's help to educate these women, not by giving them a tirade on what's right for their children, but by showing them other options and creating those options for them.

Another parallel I can draw with out society is a topic I've been posting a lot about lately: plastic surgery. Some women are actually getting vaginal plastic surgery. Sure, the women aren't babies when they do this, but I wonder how many of them do it because "it will make a woman look more beautiful in the eyes of her husband."

I just don't think we should be so quick to paste our ideals on top of other countries. We have to look at the cause of the problem. Fixing the symptom will get us nowhere. Look at Iraq.

Is the UN actually helping?

There's a serious of articles that may prove the UN's Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women might be working in Saudi women's favor.

(US participation in the CEDAW is not yet ratified, natch)

On January 18th, the committee called Saudi Arabia, a participant in CEDAW, out, pointing out that women have basically no rights in the country.

The committee sited these examples of oppression(via AFP):

Without the presence of this tutor (guardian), a woman cannot study, access health services, marry, travel abroad, have a business or even access an ambulance in an emergency," said one of the experts, according to minutes from the meeting.

"What is the legal basis in Saudi society that justifies this guardian system?" asked the same expert. "Is it necessary to maintain this system in the 21st century?"

Members of the committee asked the Saudi delegation why Saudi women do not have the right to drive.

In addition, they raised the case that made headlines around the world of a woman -- since exonerated by King Abdullah -- who had been convicted to six months in prison and 200 lashings after being gang-raped.

Saudi Arabia's response:

The Riyadh delegation reminded the committee that the country signed the convention with amendments made for Islamic law.

The kingdom is governed by Wahabism, a strict interpretation of Islam that -- in the name of Sharia law -- imposes complete separation of the sexes. As such, it is illegal for a woman to be in the company of a man who is not in her immediate family.

In its report, Riyadh also wrote that "Islam, as a realistic religion, admits that total equality between man and woman is contrary to reality, as various scientific studies on their psychological differences have shown".

On the subject of polygamy, the Saudi representatives replied that in the kingdom, men are permitted by law to have up to four wives.

Sometimes the sexual appetite of a man is not satisfied by his wife and he must take another wife to satisfy this, otherwise he would be obliged to satisfy it an illegal manner, outside of marriage, explained the delegation.

Yikes.

But something may have gotten through to Saudi Arabia. The Telegraph reports today that women will soon be allowed to drive, and four hours ago, the AP reported that Saudi women can now stay in hotels alone.

(I guess it makes sense not to let women stay in hotels by themselves. I mean, they're much better off sleeping on the streets.)

Are these just small concessions to keep women from revolting? To keep the UN off their backs? To keep the world out of their business? Or are things really changing. I find the latter pretty hard to believe.

Let's not move backwards

This BBC News story reports that abortion clinics in Spain are on strike. Doctors are trying to change a law allowing abortions only to women for whom the pregnancy poses a risk to their mental health. More restrictions are placed on rape victims and women with malformed fetuses(!)

Dr Roland Ledea, who runs a private abortion clinic in Madrid, told that BBC that "we are now in 2008 and the law was made in 1985 - society has changed a lot".

"I think abortion should be free, depending on the woman that is pregnant, nothing else."

Those Roman Catholics, they do things right. Best of luck to the strikers.

Abuse is okay. The Qu'ran tells me so.

Picture (right) and story via the The New York Times.

Abused Muslim American women aren't much different from regular abused women, except that their religious text condones the abuse (it's usually public abuse of women that's condoned in the Christian bible.

The current interpretation of Chapter 4, verse 34 in the Qu'ran gives "husbands the right to strike their wives as the final step in an escalating series of punishments for being rebellious."

The problem is widespread. Even more so because within the Muslim community, the abuse is accepted. Even by women. If a woman asks for help, she is usually met with a cleric who offers marriage counseling (WITH the abusive husband) and/or family telling her to suck it up and be obedient.

If an American Muslim woman seeks help at a shelter, her faith is held in question. The article details this woman's story:

After enduring seven years of beatings from her husband, a young Yemeni-American woman recently fled to a local shelter, only to find that the heavy black head scarf she wore as an observant Muslim provoked disapproval.

The shelter brought in a hairdresser, whose services she accepted without any misgivings. But once her hair was styled, administrators urged her to throw off her veil, saying it symbolized the male oppression native to Islam that she wanted to escape.Instead the woman, who asked for anonymity because she feared further violence from her relatives, decamped to the Hamdard Center for Health and Human Services in suburban Chicago, a shelter that caters mainly to Muslim women by not serving pork and keeping prayer rugs handy. Such shelters are extremely rare nationwide, activists say, because Muslim Americans only recently began confronting the issue of spousal abuse.

Do we really need separate shelters for Muslim women? That's really sad. A shelter shouldn't be a place to question someone's beliefs. A woman comes to a shelter seeking help, and that's what she needs. She doesn't need someone to tell her that her entire life is based on something that oppresses her. And this woman filed for divorce, sought help from imams and family, and endured tremendous abuse because of it. The headscarf does not equal oppression for this 29-year old woman. The husband and family do.

It's good that she had a place like the Hamdard Center to go, but it's extremely sad that she needs it. Shelters are hard to start in Muslim communities, because they like to pretend it's not a problem. Well, I guess it isn't if the verse you take literally tells you it's okay.

People are working to change the interpretation, but it doesn't look good. I guess we should feel lucky that Christian and Jewish fundamentalists are a little wishy-washy on the whole literal thing. If I had to leave the city every time I had a period, I would probably have to kill someone.

From Allende's Lips to Blears' Ears

Muslim Women in Whitehall (UK) could get a voice soon. (via the Sunday TImes)

Hazel Blears, community secretary, is requesting a piece of the 70 million pound government fund set up to combat extremism be put towards courses for Muslim women. The courses would teach "confidence building, communication and mediation skills."

"Muslim women will be offered work placements with business leaders and top athletes (?) to imbue assertiveness and leadership and help them to advance their careers. Funding will be available to set up local Muslim women’s groups to provide a “safe space” where they can discuss their concerns."

"Half of all Muslim women have never worked..."

Some people are scared shitless: “The government at first wanted our imams to act as spies on young British Muslims and now they seem to want Muslim women to do the same,” said Inayat Bunglawala, the council’s assistant secretary-general.

Comments below the Sunday Times article reveal a distinct dislike of the "Labor left," which they feel this is a product of.

Sure, Muslim women have basically no rights, but this could give them a voice. Whether they're mothers, laborers, or government workers, this could give them the confidence to fight back. I'm finding it hard to believe anyone could think this is a bad thing.

I've long held the belief that education is extremely empowering. If this actually happens, it will give these women the opportunity to increase their influence and make their voices heard.

"Women Make Great Propaganda"...

Mohammad Hafiz told the AP (via the Huffington Post). It's not what you think. He's a professor at the University of Missouri, who specializes in Muslim extremism.

I've been reading articles on this subject, but this one is wrapped in a pretty bow.

The article is about the recent prevalence of female al-Qaida suicide bombers (2% since May 2005).

That's the thing about extremists. They get obsessed with one thing and forget all the pomp and circumstance. al-Qaida doesn't care that women shouldn't be involved in war according to Muslim taboos. They care that women can get through security checkpoints easily because male security guards are too conservative to give them a good pat-down.

I disagree with any type of extremism. I've always tried to see everyone's point of view, but I can't see how you get to whatever heaven or glory you're looking for by killing people.

Okay, off of my soapbox for tonight.

The article mentions that al-Qaida's use of women as suicide bombers could be an act of desperation. I don't have any primary knowledge or anything, but I don't think so. More women are getting angry or getting "spiritual," and, as Hafiz says, "women make great propaganda."

Does this mean fetuses are allowed to have guns?

Fetusii? Fetus'? I don't know the plural. Anyway...

Rock on, Veracifier




Does anyone else want to punch Kristi Burton in the face? She's kind of unbelievable.

Yikes

The Washington Post today includes a press release from Temple University.

Apparently, Joanna Maselko, an associate professor of public health at Temple, found (with her team) that women who stay "religiously active" have less anxiety/depression.

Who the hell studies this stuff? Okay, I guess this is my answer. But why?

I don't know much about the logistics of studies, but 718 adults doesn't seem conclusive to me. Men were less likely than women to have this disorder, no matter what their religious habits, and "about 7 percent of the women who were always religiously active could be categorized as having generalized anxiety disorder, compared with 21 percent of those who had ended their religious activities."

Okay, so that looks bad. But there are too many variables here. Maselko explains that the greater prevalence in women is probably because women make more social ties through religious institutions. But the release goes on to say, "Women are two times more likely to suffer from anxiety disorder than men."

So is this a story about mental illness? Gender differences? Society? Or religion? I think religion (or "religious activity") is least likely to account for the findings in this study.

Fuck a Huckabee

Okay, so Huckabee is rocking the polls. Doesn't change the fact that he's a religious Republican who, according to Newsweek, has an explosive temper.

Who knows why he signed the evangelical ad in USA Today confirming his belief in the '98 Southern Baptist Convention's statement on family. ("A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church ... A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."..."You are right because you called husbands to sacrificially love and lead their wives. You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership.")Aside from completely confirming that I don't like Huckabee, this quote means a little more to yours truly. I've actually been to a wedding...where the minister...wait for it...quoted this affirmation.

As you can imagine, I was speechless and aching to scream at the same time. I'm good friends with the guy who was getting married and, yes, he's an evangelical, but I didn't expect this. I don't know why. I couldn't believe any woman would agree to this. Servant leadership? Submit? How can you say "I do" to something like that?