I recently stumbled upon the Weblog of a friend of mine, a fellow Wenatchee-area teacher. The site has been dormant for a month or so -- that start of school can really knock the wind out of you -- but the Sept. 5 post is interesting, especially juxtaposed next to my "Sky Diving for Jesus" post, which raise da few hackles among the local Evangelical Christians who also read my Weblog.
So check it out and see whatcha think. And post a comment -- we need more updates from that perspective, and fast.
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I am sorry that this has nothing at all to do with your poast but I had to get this out there some where, so here it goes.
I have just come across a piece of blatant sexism in our government. And frankly it disturbs me. I have recently turned 18 and proptly was sent a letter telling me that I had to register with the Selective Service System or be hunted down and sent to jail for 5 years, fined $250,000, or both. Wow, to be 18. However I read in big letters outlined in a beautiful green hue, that "Men 18 through 25 years old are required to register if they have not already done so." This sentence got me thinking, what about the women? As I went into register(because needles to say, I do not have $250,000) my thoughts were confirmed with the words "Note: Current law does not permit females to register."
Why, do females not have to register for a potential draft? I have no fear about being drafted for the US military because I know a draft will not be created. The only thing I am angry about is that women do not have to do this as well.
I ask you. Are women to small and fragle to be drafted and sent ot war? Is it because they need to stay home and do household chores while the men go off and fight for their country? There is not a feminist out there that would agree with the above statements. So why have they not voiced their opnions about this Military Service Act. I am in no way suporting feminists however. Most of your issues are dumb. You women had a reason to be there when women could not vote or own laand, but everything is equal now, so go away.
And one more thing, I am another one of those "Evangelical Christians" and I figured I would put my piece in about how you are ridiculous and all.
To sum up, sexism is probably worse for guys than it is for girls now. Colleges are just one example of sexism and racism that just hacks me off.
"Your issues are dumb." How ironic that a post dealing with sexism quickly turns into a sexist rant.
You may want to check your facts before you make ridiculous statements such as "but everything is equal now so go away." Women are in no way equal to men in the workplace in terms of pay or access to executive positions. Women still earn an average of $0.87 for every dollar men earn for doing the same job, and the vast majority of executive postitions are held by men. On the homefront, even in households where both parents work, women do an average of 14 more hours of work around the house than men. How is this equality? Double standards still exist in our society and feminists need to make their voices heard instead of backing away because the word "feminist" has been demonized by ignorant fools who don't understand that a feminist is one who desires true equality between the sexes, not a society in which women control everything.
How are colleges sexist and racist? Yes, there are increasing numbers of women enrolling in college. In fact, women make up over 50% of those attending college even though men outnumber women in the general population. Is this sexist or is it merely a reflection of a shift in society? One of the main arguments against affirmative action (which was struck down) is that people who are "less qulaified" (usually minorities with lower grades and/or test scores due to poverty and little or no access to educational technology) were given preference over more "highly qualified" white students solely because of race. Now that affirmative action is no longer in play at most colleges, minority enrollment has decreased but female enrollment has increased. If acceptance to college is not determined by race or gender, then one could reasonably conclude that more women than men are qulaified to attend these colleges. I don't have the answer for why this is happening, but the numbers are there. I still do not understand your claim that colleges are sexist and racist.
I do agree with you on one point. The Selective Service System is outdated. If men are required to register, so should women. This is an issue that feminists have long struggled with. The feminist movement is largely responsible for opening up more job opportunities for women in the military even though they are still currently barred from full combat positions. This is not equality for the sexes and is something I have been saying for years.
As for your claim that anyone who is not an Evangelical Christian is "ridiculous and all," you may want to reread the part of the Bible where Jesus warns us not to judge others.
I hate to say this but in my classes the females outperform the males consistently. Also, the last collegiate statistics I read stated that for the first time ever, women recieved more college diplomas than men.
However, women are regularly denied access to some clubs in addition to earning less for the same job. Feminism should be alive and well, expecially with the religious, far right conservatives attacking the right to choose. Men seem to want to decide for women what they can do with their bodies. How is this fair?
"As for your claim that anyone who is not an Evangelical Christian is 'ridiculous and all,'"
OK... Does anyone actually read posts anymore or do you guise just make them say what you want them to say? Look at the above quote from Cheer girl and compare it to what I acctually said.
"And one more thing, I am another one of those "Evangelical Christians" and I figured I would put my piece in about how you are ridiculous and all."
Who can see the differance? Did I say everyone who is not Christian is ridiculous? The answer my friends, would be no. I said loganite was ridiculous for saying that Christians can not be patriotic and that we are trying to force Christianity on people. However, if you believe him, then you are ridiculous too.
Now that I have proven to you that you don't(or can't)* read, you now also know that I was not judging anyone. I just dissagreed with what Loganite was saying.
* Humor (just in case you wanted to attack any of my other flaws as a Christian)
I don't think Loganite is wrong when he discusses the tendency of many Evangelical Christians to confuse, or at least strangely juxtapose, religious faith and national patriotism.
If you think he's wrong, or making it up, here are cases in point, from this summer alone:
1) The large mega-church down the road that advertised on its readerboard "Celebrate God's Love for America. Service 10 AM" the week of July 4.
2) TBN's (what we call the Jesus Channel in my house) 24-hour Fourth of July bonanza, featuring red-white-and blue sequined singers and flags aplenty.
3) The "God Bless our Troops" bumper stickers with crosses and American flags.
I'm not sure how these conservatives managed to co-opt Jesus and turn him into some sort of flag-waving super-patriot. But it disgusts me, and shows a pretty cavalier attitude toward Jesus and his teachings, if you ask me.
Seriously, I don't know what Bible all of these folks are reading, because in my Bible, Jesus never waved a flag--and certainly not an American one.
Instead, he preached tolerance and love. He instructed his followers to love their enemies like they love themselves. He taught them to care for the poor and the sick, and to seek out the marginalized. He taught his followers to turn the other cheek, to give voices to the voiceless and hope to the hopeless. You know, those things that most of the evengelical Christians I know are too busy wrapping themselves in the flag to to care much about.
You're entitled to believe what ever you want. And if you want to be patriotic, more power to you.
But faith is faith. And patriotism is patriotism. For God's sake, don't get the two of them confused.
I never said that Christians could not or should not be patriotic. I was saying that the misappropriation of patriotic symbols, such as the American flag, by Evangelical Christians has come to imply that the Christians have exclusive rights to its use and therefore to patriotism.
That's my position, regardless of how it has been interpreted or misinterpreted or distorted in prior comments and partial quotes and poor summaries.
-- L.
"And one more thing, I am another one of those 'Evangelical Christians' and I figured I would put my piece in about how you are ridiculous and all."
The sentence above was not written in such a way that your meaning was obvious. If you wanted to say that those who agreed with Loganite were ridiculous, then that is what you should write. The use of the vague phrase "and all" leads the reader to believe you mean all of those who are not evangelical Christians are ridiculous. The use of logical transitions would greatly clarify your writing so that your meaning is not misconstrued by those who read it. Be concise so that there is no question as to your intent or meaning. Regardless of the intended target of the remark, you are still passing judgment on others because of their beliefs.
Continuing on:
"Now that I have proven to you that you don't(or can't)* read, you now also know that I was not judging anyone. I just dissagreed with what Loganite was saying.
* Humor (just in case you wanted to attack any of my other flaws as a Christian)"
This would have been much more funny if you hadn't misspelled "disagreed." If you want to tease someone for making errors, you need to make sure you are not making them yourself.*
*Humor (just in case you wanted to attack any of my other flaws as a human being)
"The use of logical transitions would greatly clarify your writing so that your meaning is not misconstrued by those who read it."
Cheer girl, the use of logical reasoning would greatly clarify your writing. That sentence was perfectly clear; how you interpreted it to mean that anyone who is not an evangelical Christian is ridiculous is a mystery to me.
"This would have been much more funny if you hadn't misspelled "disagreed." If you want to tease someone for making errors, you need to make sure you are not making them yourself.*"
That part would also have been a lot FUNNIER if you had used proper grammar. "More funny?" It's possible that "dissagreed" was nothing more than a typo. Your error, on the other hand, demonstrates a lack of grammatical knowledge. Way to go, Miss English Teacher.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Loganite, but the point of this blog is not to proofread other entries. Attack other people's ideas if you must, but not their spelling and grammar.
(In this case, though, I couldn't resist. It's pretty funny when an English teacher picks on a student for a spelling error even though she can't write properly herself).
"More funny" is appropriate in the context just as "funnier" would've worked as well.
Anonymous, your attacking tone prompted the harsh reply. Plus, she was correct that your entry was vague, and the lack of specificity led to the misinterpretation. Just because you know what you meant does not mean we know what you wanted to say.
Some points to consider:
I can not locate where Loganite said "Christians can not be patriotic." Clarify this, please.
Feminist issues are not "dumb" and exceedingly relevant today, especially for those of faith. Many denominational literalists believe women to be inferior to men and relegate women to a lower social staus and deny opportunities for women.
Everything is not "equal now."
There is no way to prove that sexism is worse for men than women. In fact, there would be more evidence to disprove your claim than to support it.
Count Ferrugula nailed some easy to observe (though frequently overlooked) examples, which I noticed were ignored.
It would be nice to be able to identify speakers beyond the numerous "Anonymous" bloggers. I still feel anonymous bloggers simply don't feel convicted enough to commit their names to opinions.
I interpreted it the same way. Personal attacks don't win you praise, Pibb (and anonymous the many). I could just as easily attack you as a person, yet I don't. Plus, it's easy to attack someone else when you don't even attach your name to the note. Anonymity has its advantages and its implications as well. While I recognize not everyone wishes to identify themselves, it's much easier to throw stones from the shadows.
The fact that anonymous, for no real reason I understand, began his sentence with his stance as an evangelical Christian and finishes with "you are ridiculous and all" creates an implied "us and you" connotation to the phrasing. This is where the misinterpretation arises. I now understand the intention, but that does not mean he/she was clear from the start. There is a rule of thumb in writing that if the audience has even one question relating to clarity, then the author has failed in the attempt.
Obviously, the wording is not clear as two bloggers (well four if you count two who did not respond but I spoke with at school) read it one way and you and anonymous read it another.
Pibb,
This will be the last time I correct grammar on here as it is not the intended topic; this thread has severely veered from the intended topic.
Funner is not correct as the adjective was monosyllabic and uses a rule exception. Monosyllabic adjectives normally recieve -er (and possibly a doubling of the final consonant) in the comparative cases. However, fun does not fit into this rule as it is one of many exceptions in the English language.
Normally polysyllabic adjectives receive one of two alterations for the comparative case. The first (and most popular) manner of adjusting the adjective is to drop the y (for those ending in y) and to add -ier, thus funnier as you stated. However, a second allowance exists for polysyllabic adjectives (such as funny). This is where more can simply be placed before the modifier, as in "That was much more funny the first time" or "That joke was more funny yesterday." Both are acceptable, even if one is more popular.
This is similar to the word angry. I was angrier yesterday than today. I am more angry than I was yesterday. Both are technically correct.
As you stated I have now corrected grammar twice, and I notice you did not mention finding "more funny" as incorrect, only not preferred on the google search. As an English teacher I do know this topic well.
OK fellas -- thanks for increasing my Site Meter hit count, but I think we're done on this topic. We've all learned a lot, including about grammar. I think people should post their name and check their grammar before posting, but I am not going to hold it against them if they don't do those things. If I could correct the grammar on comments, I would (at least mine), but I can't.
-- 30 --
-- L.
Despite any differences of opinion, Pibb, I'm curious what you might blog about.
Do you have any plans to begin your own series of blog topics on your own site?
Just for the record...
"Women still earn an average of $0.87 for every dollar men earn for doing the same job..."
I read about a study by a guy named Dr. Farrell that says if you factor in actual hours worked, experience, hazards, commuting, and performance evaluations women actually make more.
Furthermore, it's been found that white males are the ones seeking job counselors about not getting hired and not getting into college and women are less willing to put in the hours it takes to rise to the top and take executive positions.
Colleges enroll more women because they probably feel that women are underrepresented in society and need a boost. Huh...everywhere I turn it's breast cancer awareness this, women need more rights for that. Looks like women are sitting high and mighty to me...not to mention they live several years longer than men on average, but we won't hear a thing (especially in the mainstream media) about the opposing argument. Women's rights groups and activists are just trendy...trendy to be in and trendy to support. It'll all blow over when people realize they're bogus and stupid.
Ahh, Adam. It's been a while since I've heard the voice of the elitist, white male. Yes, I'm attacking a bit because you always play the Limbaugh card.
I'm curious about the women not wanting to rise to the top. First off, I don't buy it. That's why the term "the old boys' club" developed. Women are denied access or promotion regularly because of the all mighty male ego. Women are also pressured not to get pregnant to keep jobs and, when they do, they are then expected to stay home with the kids when a man could stay home just as well.
Your use of "probably" definitely shows you have no evidence to back up your conjecture. It's just something you think is true.
Sheesh!
I keep waiting for you or anonymous to throw out the "feminazi" attack next.
Actually I was basing my facts on what psychologists/counselors have reported about women NOT wanting to put in the effort to rise to the top. And what's wrong with women staying home to raise kids? Hasn't it worked the past several thousand years? Women have the nuturing side to them. Hell I'm talking to a woman right now who knows what she's talking about. So since you don't think women should HAVE to stay home with the kids, I'm guessing you oppose women having maternity leaves. Or maybe you're just a hypocrite.
I've never met or dated one NICE girl who has shared those views. Sounds like you like to date the kind of girl who bitches and calls you a patriarch when you try to pay for a meal, and then bitches about how you're not a man when you don't have enough money to take them out. True story...on many accounts. Which brings my next point...why are men expected to pay for meals all the time? I've never met a guy who has ever bitched about having to do it...unless they were demanding too much...Unlike feminists who will bitch and be power hungry as all hell about every last thing.
Why can't people accept the fact that men and women ARE DIFFERENT!? And what's wrong with associating feminists with Nazi's? Hitler did good things for Germany for the better as Feminists did great things for women....a long time ago. Same thing goes with the civil rights movement. Guys like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, along with hardcore feminists are comparable with Hitler in that they set out to do great things, and did, but now want more and more and more than they've bargained for and are so power hungry I lose sleep over it every night.
Remember, the sex war is what brings us together. Successful marriages are more successful when the sexes play the traditional roles.
Adam, I love you man.
Adam,
I don't even know what to say to that rambling, baseless rant. (But I'll try.)
How you equate my position on women not having to work and maternity leave is absurd. There are physical reasons for maternity leave beyond the emotional. I know many MEN who take paternity leave as well.
Sounds like you need to date more, Adam. Your unfounded suppositions and generalities fall flat once again.
You obviously know very little about feminism, too. What it actually is and what connotations are attached to it are completely different. Feminism is about equality, not superiority. Geez, Adam. Is there any group you aren't paranoid about?
Notions about marriage are changing, have been, and will continue to do so. Either people have to evolve with it or live bitterly in the past. The only constant is change.
Any comparison with Hitler elicits images of horror, malevolence, and genocide. It's an awful comparison unless that's the intent. Plus, I never mentioned him.
Have you noticed, Adam, that you constantly enter these discussions with generalities, stereotypes, and groundless attacks? Then when rebuffed, you fall back on more (including misrepresenting opinions and attributing your own words to others)? Someone who is uneducated or inexperienced in seeing this may fall for your tactics, but I'm going to call you on it.
DrPezz, every time I make serious points, good analogies, and show the logical side of things, you unload several slough-filled (oxymoron intended) showing your desperation to be right.
The problem with "groups" are that they never go away when the problems are solved. They become power-hungry. The LAWS are equal for men and women. If a company doesn't want to pay a woman more, it's probably because she doesn't deserve it. If it's because she's a woman, then her sexist boss can rot in hell and she can go get a different job. The answer is not activist groups who overhype and overplay everything because they have a giant incentive (ie money, power, etc.) to stay in business.
Unless substance-induced leftist feminism is brainwashed into someones mind, the natural incentive for humans is the traditional role. There is something to be said in a man being a MAN.
I know you never mentioned Hitler, but you mentioned the term "Feminazi". How are Nazi's not affiliated with the rule of Hitler? That was a lame attempt to try to make me look bad.
You attempt to use a name with an absolutely negative connotation to express a positive. I used "feminazi" to reveal your extremism, which you then defended and proved.
You have chosen poorly, as the knight guarding the Holy Grail says.
Laws may declare equality, but that does not make it so. That's why there was a Civil Rights Movement, why racial profiling is unconstitutional, why those of the Islamic faith are now battling current (un)lawful practices, and why feminism is still necessary. Why should a woman have to switch jobs when her boss violates her rights to equal pay for equal labor?
Your use of "probably" once again shows your reaching, baseless conjectures. You need to go see "North Country" to see what this issue was. While the use of sexism is not as overt or even as extreme, it is still present everywhere.
I'm not even going to get into the nature-nurture debate with you over your "traditional roles" claims.
The term "Feminazi" is obviously used to reveal feminist extremism.
Right, we need more groups. Power-hungry extremist and government funded groups solve problems; Nobody else does.
Why do you think the value of marriage has declined synonymously with the ascending of feminism? And I don't want to hear anything about marriage being a joke and women being opressed and unhappy back then because I know a LOT of old women who will tell me the exact opposite.
Oh, and another problem I have is playing the race/sex card. I didn't get hired because I'm a woman. I got pulled over because I'm black. Why should we allow this incentive to be used for illegit claims? It just adds to the tension and divides more.
I don't think the value of marriage has changed, but I do think people's perceptions of marriage has changed. Marriages are no longer lifetime bonds where the woman could not leave them because of social double standards. Women can now freely voice displeasure, dissatisfaction, and disharmony unlike yesteryear. While you may have anecdotal evidence to back up your claim, there are just as many instances where the reverse is true.
Marriage rates are dropping right now. The reason: more couples are living together first and then deciding if marriage is for them. However, this does result in a higher percentage of successful marriages. If gays were allowed to marry, I also believe the success rates (overall) would rise, possibly an initial drop and then a steady rise until the numbers plateau.
Being in the majority makes it easy to disparage the plight of minorities. I have personally observed instances in the high school I work in where Hispanic students are written up for offenses White students are not. This happens in the general public as well.
Everything you just said in that last post proves my point about civil rights' groups.
"While you may have anecdotal evidence to back up your claim, there are just as many instances where the reverse is true."
So if the instances of it happening are equal on both ends, why have civil rights' groups? White people might decide to start hating blacks because they dislike the NAACP. Black people might start hating whites because the NAACP (or other civil rights' groups) shoves biased statistics and stories down their throats. The same applies with feminism.
The laws are one thing and personal stories are another. Laws and rules stating certain minorities or sexes aren't aloud to do X or Y are different than people thinking they aren't aloud to do X or Y because somebody is discriminating. The written rules battle has been solved and anything more will only create more tension and hatred. Civil rights groups won't go away if the problem is solved.
Problem ain't solved, buddy. Thus, we need the civil rights groups.
Anonymous,
I just reread your comment. Are you saying that if there is an equal amount of discrimination for and against both sexes, it's ok?
What you quoted from my opinion was in response to women in marriages and the perception of marriage.
BTW, just because a law is written does not mean it's followed.
My point about civil rights' groups is that a lot of people perceive them as an attack on their race/sex. Extreme feminist groups make me feel like I should be guilty and it gives me the feeling that a lot of them hate men.
Post a Comment