Yes, this is likely to be another post trashing the Vatican and the institution of Catholicism. If you have problems with this, I suggest you go and look a cute kittens or other baby animals of your choice and come back when I blog about something else.
Continue reading The Pope is in Spain
Fred Nile decided to have a hate filled rant today after Penny Wong shared her happy news that her partner was pregnant and thanked the IVF services that made this possible. I don’t want to give Fred Nile more air time, because I don’t think he deserves it, but I do want to focus on just one tiny point he’s made that is just so silly that it needs to be looked at.
She needn’t have made it public – it just promotes their lesbian lifestyle and trying to make it natural where it’s unnatural.
Fred Nile is clearly an arbiter of what is and what is not natural and he should be the man we all approach whenever we want to ask what is and what is not natural. Because really, what is “natural”?
If we go back to the Bible that Fred Nile believes that all of us (even those that aren’t Christian) should follow, it has a lot to say about what is good and what is bad, but doesn’t focus all that much on what is natural and what is unnatural. Clearly Nile believes that unnatural things are bad, so modern society with our reliance on technology, plastics and machines must be unnatural, since they are not directly from nature. I’m sure that Nile would agree that modern society is a bad thing, what with our desire for equality for the LGBTIQ community, so Nile must also be pushing to return modern society back to an agrarian age where we lived more in harmony with nature (including suffering from natural diseases and famines).
Perhaps Nile is suggesting that being queer is unnatural, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary in nature. After all plenty of animal species show evidence of homosexual and/or trans* behaviour, and nothing is more natural than animals in the wild. So if animals in the wild are busy shagging whatever takes their fancy, why is it unnatural that some humans are doing the same? What is so unnatural about same sex relationships when taken into broader consideration with the whole animal kingdom, especially as we evolved from an ape-like ancestor?
Even if Nile is a creationist (it’s hinted at in his Wikipedia profile), according to his beliefs god created every person in His image (capitalisation only for differentiation between Nile and god), so if god created queer people, then surely that’s god’s will. Who is Nile to say what is and what is not natural when god has created someone to be who they are?
In the end, surely what would be more unnatural would be someone who is same sex attracted forcing themselves to be in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex just to satisfy the desires of conservative Christian wankers.
I am related by marriage to the newly elected Democratic Labour Party senator for Victoria. This is not a happy thing. I wrote him a letter:
Continue reading The Democratic Labour Party
Hello everyone and welcome to the 38th Down Under Feminists’ Carnival. Thanks for all the fantastic submissions and to everyone who wrote all the fantastic articles I’m linking to.
If at any point I have misnamed, mislabled, or misgendered someone, please let me know immediately so that I can correct my error. If I have included a post of yours that you would not like included, please let me know and I will remove it. Should any of my links be broken, just let me know and I’ll attempt to fix it.
Continue reading 38th Down Under Feminists’ Carnival
Those who have been brought up with some kind of Christian background are likely to know the ideal of forgiveness – that the loving, “Christian” thing to do when someone wrongs you, is to forgive them. After all, Jesus came out with (amongst other things in the bible about forgiveness):
“Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you not seven times, but seventy-seven times.’” (Matthew 18:21–22 (NIV))
I have a problem with this, and it is as follows. If you are being called to forgive someone who isn’t sorry for what they’ve done, someone who isn’t aware that their actions or words have hurt or harmed you, how are you supposed to deal with that hurt or harm and forgive someone for sporking your eyes, being careless, making your world unsafe, etc?
That doesn’t really seem fair. I get that forgiveness would be a useful thing to push in a small community to ensure that cohesion is maintained, but it also is open for a lot of abuse, if the same powerful figures continually hurts or harms someone, and expects to be forgiven, where is the safety, justice or consideration for the hurt or harmed person?
I’m all for being angry at being sporked, angry for being hurt, and angry for harm caused. I don’t see any immediate need for someone to forgive, forget and move on with their life, especially if the action that caused hurt or harm is one that the perpetrator is either unconscious of, or not sorry for.
The weirdest bit is the guilt of not forgiving someone, or being rightfully angry that you have been sporked. Because the message that forgiveness is so important is laid on thick (at least it was in mine and several other Christian childhoods I know of), that when you refuse to forgive someone right away, it’s a very weird thing, in that you have to deal with both the guilt and the anger/hurt.
In the end, I suspect that moving on, not dwelling on the issues, getting over it, whatever the process is for you, is a kind of forgiveness – however, there is no need to forget. I may eventually move on from things and people that have pissed me off/hurt me/harmed me over the years (as I’ve moved on from many, there are some that I have not yet done so), but I consider each sporking incident educational and not something that I should ever forget.
I wasn’t going to blog about this, I really wasn’t. Of the three topics I had handed to me on Friday (swearing fines, Penny Wong being miaowed at, and Rip Roll), I decided to focus my efforts somewhere other than this topic – as it had been covered very nicely in the media as well as elsewhere. But then the ACL stuck their head up again today, and I can’t not smack them for it.
Lyle Shelton, an apologist for the ACL it seems, had a piece published on ABC’s The Drum, today called, “Abusive labels and slurs no substitute for real debate” (user comments afterwards really good). Excuse me while I take this apart.
Continue reading Rip and Roll – the continuation
*Trigger warning for discussion of rape*
I was at slutwalk yesterday, and as I’d volunteered to be a marshall at the Melbourne event, apparently I was a “slut wrangler” – thanks The Age. It was a fantastic event and the organisers did a great job liaising with the police and the city council regarding the march, getting great speakers and keeping everything together. This post isn’t about the great signs, fantastic people, great speakers and the courage that everyone showed by marching or attending yesterday, no, this post is about the protesters to the march who just don’t get it.
As reported in The Age today:
Two lone Christian protesters holding signs saying ”Rape is horrifying but so is immodesty” and ”God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble” were the only visible opponents.
Rape is horrifying but so is immodesty
So, apparently being immodest, is as bad as being raped. I take it that the author of this sign hadn’t:
a) thought for more than 5 seconds;
b) been raped;
c) know anyone who has been raped (though if they do, they probably think that it was the victim’s fault); and/or
d) listened to the experience of someone who has been raped/sexually assaulted and asked why/how the rapist could do that.
The author of that sign also clearly missed the entire point of the march. The fact is, that regardless of what women wear, rapists will rape. I was (sadly) briefly friends with a woman at university who was raped at knifepoint when walking home from school one day. She had her throat slit during and was incredibly lucky to survive. She was wearing her school uniform and carrying her school bag – she was not dressed immodestly. I was raped by my then boyfriend. I was partially naked at the time, which I suppose is considered immodest, but given I was in a relationship with him, then again no – any more than I’d be immodest if I was raped today by a partner (which wouldn’t happen).
Before I started reading this post I thought I’d do a little bit of reading about modesty (on wikipedia of course), to make sure I understood what the protesters were talking about. There are some very interesting quotes in the wikipedia article on modesty which I thought I’d share.
Modesty may be expressed in social interaction by communicating in a way exhibiting humility, shyness, or simplicity. The general elements of modesty include:
- Downplaying one’s accomplishments;
- Behavior, manner, or appearance intended to avoid impropriety or indecency
…
Standards of modesty vary by culture, or generation and vary depending on who is exposed, which parts of the body are exposed, the duration of the exposure, the context, and other variables.
…
Proponents of modesty often see it as a demonstration of respect for their bodies, for social norms, and for the feelings of themselves and others. Some people believe modesty may reduce sexual crimes. Some critics assert that modesty reflects a negative body image, and there may be a correlation between repressive body attitudes and undesirable outcomes such as sexual crimes, violence, and stress.
…
Most discussion of modesty involves clothing. Issues of modesty and decency have arisen especially during the 20th century as a result of the increased popularity in many countries of shorter dresses and swimsuits and the consequential exposure of more of the body. This has been more pronounced in the case of female fashions. Most people consider the clothes that they are wearing to be modest. Otherwise, they would not wear the clothes. What is considered “modest” in this context will depend on the context when the clothes will be worn and can vary between religions, cultures, generations, occasions, and the persons who are present. [emphasis added]
Modesty is such a fluid concept, it changes year to year, and what is considered modest now, would be considered highly immodest 100 years or more ago. The fact that modesty has different rules depending on which gender you present is also incredibly suckful and unfair, and good reasons for it to be ignored. Immodesty is not as horrifying rape, I’d happily walk naked across the CBD of Melbourne, but I’d not happily be raped.
God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble
I’d just like to laugh at the irony of this statement. Humility is nicely defined as:
Humility (adjectival form: humble) is the quality of being modest, reverential, even obsequiously submissive, and never being arrogant, contemptuous, rude or even self-aggrandizing.
I’d like more Christians to be humble, and to not attempt to dictate to others what they should and should not do.
I was on the edge of a conversation the other day in which one person asked why atheists target Christianity specifically (there was more to the conversation, but this is the bit I want to focus on). The answer is quite simple, well the answers, because there are several simple points, which I can easily address.
Yes, this post will focus on Australia, because that’s where I live and I can draw a bow to other English speaking, Western nations (such as the UK, Ireland, Canada, and the USA, because there are some ways in which we’re all similar).
The majority of Australians are Christian
Sadly, 64% of Australians identify at Christian (2006 census), and around 20% identifying with no religion. So with that in mind, many people who are leaving a faith are more likely to be leaving Christianity than other religions – that’s just maths. This also translates across to other English speaking, Western nations, where Christianity is the religion of the majority.
Christianity is a privileged religion in Australia
Christianity has it’s major religious feast days recognised as public holidays, having government funding delivered to private schools – mostly Christian, and the default assumption is that you are Christian (particularly if you are also white). There are no social penalties for being Christian and in fact many people assume that everyone else knows about Christianity – which takes my to my next point.
Christianity is an accessible religion in Australia
If the majority of Australians are Christian, and the Special Religious Instruction/Education in schools is Christian, and the default assumption is that everyone is Christian, then Christianity is the easiest religion to critique – because it is all over the place, loudly claiming to be persecuted because some of the privilege formally given to Christianity is slowly being chipped away (fault free divorces, abortion rights for women, the demand that public education be religion free, etc), and because there are less Christian people about the place. Also if many new non-believers are formally Christians, then it’s easiest to critique what you know.
Christianity is overwhelmingly white
Christianity is the default religion of the white-Anglo Australian. If your circle of friends and acquaintances, and the blogs you read reflect the dominant voice, then your exposure to non-white atheism, and non-Christian focused atheism is going to be lessened. That said, even non-white, non-formally-Christian atheists in Australia may write on Christianity because it is the majority religion in Australia and is easier to critique given its privilege and number of arsehats involved (who do stupid things in public).
So, it’s not that atheists particularly hate Christianity (except where Christianity attempts to enforce its religious strictures on our lives), but rather it’s the biggest target. And not all atheists are former Christians, but many white atheists are. If your circle of friends is limited, perhaps consider reading outside your sphere to find different stories and different points of view.
I’ve struggled with calling Kevin Donnelly racist, versus what he wrote being racist – but given the repeated racism in his article at the ABC, I can only say that he is racist based on his beliefs. I also thought about whether or not I should even give Donnelly airtime, but then decided that calling out his racist arsehattedness (yes, that is a word) was important – even though the commenters on the ABC piece did a great job of doing that anyway. Michael Stuchbery‘s response piece is also fantastic, and had it not been for his response, I wouldn’t have seen the original article.
The article penned by Kevin Donnelly was first written in July 2010, and what we’re reading is a revised version – so clearly he stands by his racist comments and sees nothing wrong with them…. Unlike me.
Continue reading Mr Kevin Donnelly is racist
Dear Mr Shaw (and Mr Baillieu),
I am appalled that you responded to Mr Quilligan’s email with the following:
You state that you ” want to work, live and love freely during the course of my life, and I want to do that without thinking that I can’t”. What if I loved driving 150kms per hour in residential areas? What if there was a convicted sex offender who stated that, or a child molester? Can they still do what they want? Under your statement the answer is yes.
You equated a consensual adult relationships to two illegal activities. Last I checked (regardless of what you actually feel about the topic), same sex relationships were not illegal – however paedophilia and speeding are both illegal activities with a great deal of societal harm attached to them. So you suggested that Mr Quilligan’s desire to “love freely during the course of [his] life” was the equivalent to a paedophile or sex offender raping someone. Seriously? Were you thinking straight when you said that?
Continue reading An open letter to Geoff Shaw and the Victorian Liberal Party