Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Sebastian Rotella on the Bombay attacks and the ISI

    Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, a terrorist chief arrested for the brutal attacks in India, is still using a cell phone while in prison. Watch out.

  • Another foundation

    I have another treat for you: R J Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation. It has edu in its url, which is kind of funny. Anyway, it’s Dominionism. I chose an item almost at random – Joy as a Tool of Dominion for the Abused Woman. By Mrs. Gerald (Jennifer) W. Tritle – boy, you don’t see that much any more. Here is my article that I wrote, by Mrs Man’s Name (but you can call me Jennifer). So anyway here’s the Dominionist wisdom about what to do if you’re an abused woman, also why you are an abused woman in the first place. I bet you can guess – it’s because of feminism.

    Few greater challenges exist for the Christian woman who has experienced verbal, physical, and/or sexual abuse in her life than for her to obey God’s Word with a guilt-free and undefiled joy from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith (1 Tim. 1:5). To truly enjoy God, a Christian woman who has experienced abuse must, as every other believer, obey God’s Word and allow it to transform her mind.

    It is certain that abuses are not new under the sun. Nonetheless, this
    century has been characterized by fathers who have failed to lead and to
    discipline their families and by feminism, which has attempted to reverse God’s perfect creation order regarding male and female roles, and abuse in families is highly prevalent.

    See? That’s where abuse of women comes from – fathers who fail to boss and punish their families enough, and feminism.

    There’s Andrea Schwartz on god’s rules for women.

    God’s design for women is in a complementary and supportive role. Were men sufficient to carry out God’s dominion mandate alone, there would have been no need for a helpmeet.  The balance and insight that women provide allow men to fully step into their dominion roles. Yet, the Tempter’s plan continues to seduce women away from their God-appointed functions to arenas of life that distract them from their created design.  To remove women from their high calling in God’s basic institution of the family spells disaster.  It is noteworthy that, despite all attempts at eliminating gender designations in our culture, the method by which new people enter the world remains through a woman’s womb.

    Oh damn, she’s right! We forgot to fix that! God that was sloppy – we totally meant to, but I guess we got so hung up on explaining that no actually cooking one meal a week (and not cleaning up afterward) doesn’t count as sharing the domestic duties that it just slipped our tiny little girly minds.

    From the beginning of time, God has decreed that people be defined in
    terms
    of their gender rather than apart from it. For example, rather than
    describe myself as  an offspring, sibling, adult, spouse, and parent, it is
    Biblically correct  to identify myself as  a daughter, sister, woman, wife, and
    mother. Each of these clearly identifies the fact that I am female.

    Biblically correct? Really? The bible says women aren’t allowed to say they’re adults? The bible says women have to use words that clearly identify the fact that they are female? Where does it say that?

    One wonders if she’s ever met any feminists. She apparently thinks they say things like ”I am Kate’s sibling” and “I am Henry’s spouse.” No wonder she’s terrified!

    The Bible clearly states that women are not to serve as elders in the church.
    This mandate in no way indicates that men are superior to women in character or ability. This is an organizational difference by God’s design, outlining His hierarchy of authority and responsibility, not to mention jurisdiction. A woman’s role in the immediate and extended family is of such paramount importance, that to assume roles outside these areas is wasting her as the valuable resource she is. There’s simply too much to do in this arena for her to abdicate her position to areas of lesser importance.

    Riiiiiiiiiight. Everything except family work is of lesser importance…Is that what they told her? And she believed them? That would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.

    So that’s the Chalcedon Foundation. It’s some articles. Maybe I should start calling B&W a foundation – ya think?

     

  • Take that, rabble

    The UC Davis police chief has been placed on leave after the pepper spraying of students on Friday.

    On Sunday, the university said that two police officers had been placed on administrative leave with pay pending an investigation into Friday’s incident. In videos that were widely distributed over the Internet, two police officers in riot gear were seen dousing about a dozen protesters with pepper spray as they sat on a sidewalk with their arms entwined.

    Yup. That’s what happened.

  • UC Davis police chief put on leave

    After two campus police officers sprayed seated protesters with pepper spray during a demonstration aligned with Occupy Wall Street.

  • Having to promise

    A new thing for Christianists to worry about.

    Girls wanting to become Guides, Brownies or Rainbows currently promise to “love” God when signing up to the 101-year-old organisation.

    However, the association is considering reviewing the wording of its affirmation for new members, to remove religious references.

    The NSS says the story is bogus, but taking it as true for the moment…What of it? Why should children have to promise to love “God” in order to join a group that does fun things? Why should even children who do in fact love “God” have to do that? Why should even children of “devout” parents have to do that? Why have a requirement of that kind at all? It seems surplus to requirements. It seems intrusive and bossy.

    Atheists don’t make children promise to hate “God,” after all. Atheists don’t make anyone promise to hate “God.” Atheists don’t try to extort emotional commitments of that kind. Why do scouting organizations do so? What’s the attraction?

    I suppose the question is otiose, because the promise dates from 1910, so it’s a “why did they” question rather than a “why do they” one, and it’s not really pressing to know why they did. But it ought to be possible to re-think a social practice of that kind, and then why-questions do become relevant. “Why should we keep doing this? Hmmm, can’t really think of a good reason. Let’s bag it.”

    The promise is optional but only girls who have taken it can be awarded the movement’s highest badges.

    Christian campaigners yesterday warned that the 600,000-member association risks losing its values if it abandons the religious element of the oath.

    “It would be terribly sad,” said Mike Judge, spokesman for The Christian Institute.

    “The Girl Guides has always embraced all people but has its roots in Christian values, which is what has made it so popular and successful.

    “It will be very difficult for it to maintain its values if it removes the ethics from where those ideas spring from. It would change the character of the Guides for the worse.

    “Sadly, I think this is symptomatic of a much wider problem in Britain, which stems from a culture of embarrassment about being Christian.”

    How would it change the character of the Guides for the worse? It wouldn’t stop anyone from being Christian, or loving “God.” It would just stop requiring a promise to do so, which shouldn’t be its business in any case.

     

     

  • DR Congo is a failed state

    Ordinary citizens are poor, hungry and under-informed. The government can’t provide decent education or health services. Rape is endemic in eastern provinces.

     

  • Four-fold increase in polio in Nigeria

    In 2003, northern Nigeria’s Muslim leaders leaders opposed vaccinations, claiming they could cause infertility.

  • Who elected Grover Norquist?

    No one, but he runs the show anyway.

  • A look at Schumacher college of woo

    We are told we will learn “How to use inter-disciplinary scientific information in combination with knowledge gained from sensing, feeling and intuition”.

  • Blot her out

    It’s a hard job obliterating women from the landscape. People have been trying for centuries but it’s like weevils or mildew…there’s always a bit you miss and then before you know it – the big chomping jaws come through the wall and eat you.

    The Saudis are struggling with this problem now, and they’ve decided there’s no help for it, they’re just going to have to cover up the eyes too. Otherwise – munch munch.

    Saudi women with sexy or “tempting” eyes may be forced to
    cover them up
    , according to a spokesperson for the Committee for the
    Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, the news site Bikyamasr
    reports.

    Bikyamasr quotes a spokesman of the Ha’eal district, Sheikh Motlab al-Nabet, as saying the group has the right to order women whose eyes seem “tempting” to shield them immediately.

    It seems inconvenient, because women will be walking into walls or holes in the ground or getting run over, but if you think about it they’re really not supposed to be outside anyway, so it’s ok. If they’re turbulent enough to insist on going outside they’ll just have to have their eyes covered up along with the rest of them.

    They understand this in Jerusalem, ironically enough.

    The segregation of women is nothing new amongst the ultra-orthodox community who itself lives segregated from the rest of the population, by choice. In the downtown Mea She’arim neighbourhood that’s populated by Haredi Jews, signs warn women not to enter the quarter dressed “immodestly”.

    A woman’s appearance is “immodest by nature”, said a Rabbi who insisted he would remain anonymous for fear of “offending sensitivities”. “Our demand isn’t geared at oppressing women – the opposite. Our intent is to protect their honour and dignity.”

    By announcing that their appearance is immodest by nature; funny idea of honour and dignity.

  • Saudi religious police will cover women’s eyes

    The men of the committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice will interfere to force women to cover their eyes, a spokessheik said.

  • Abuse of privilege

    Simon Singh finds Charles Windsor less than reasonable on the subject of alternative “medicine.”

    The heir to the throne will not accept that treatments such as homeopathy, acupuncture and chiropractic therapy do not work in the vast majority of cases, according to Simon Singh.

    Speaking at the Hay Festival in Kerala, India, Singh said that hundreds of scientific studies had concluded that alternative medicine is ineffective.

    Yet despite this, the Prince of Wales continues to believe the therapies can help patients because of his ideological commitment to the natural world, Singh said.

    ‘He only wants scientific evidence if it backs up his view of the natural treatment of health conditions,’ he said.

    ‘We presented evidence that disputes the value of alternative medicine and despite this he hasn’t changed his mind,’ he told the festival, which is sponsored by The Daily Telegraph.

    This is because he is ‘ideologically fixated’ about the benefits of nature, he claimed. ‘It’s a shame, because he’s so influential.’

    Exactly so, and he abuses his (unearned, inherited) influence to persuade credulous people to use bogus medical ”treatments.” It’s an outrage, and he should be wracked with shame.

  • Simon Singh says P Charles is fixated about alt med

    PC refuses to accept the failings of alternative medicine, despite compelling evidence that it provides little benefit to patients, because he is ideologically fixated.

  • Jerusalem: women push back

    It’s an essential fact of life here: women have simply disappeared from the city space, as if it were solely inhabited by men.

  • Mehdi Hasan urges empathy for Iran

    Via a bold thought experiment: “Imagine, for a moment, that you are an Iranian mullah.” A mullah? Why a mullah? Why not, say, a woman?

  • You know how you tell your little woman to bring you a beer, and she brings you the dog instead?

    Via Dana’s open letter to Nature amiably titled “There is a Crucial Difference Between Being Contentious and Being a Misogynistic Asshole,” we read Anne Jefferson’s open letter to Nature amiably titled “You got a sexist story, but when you published it, you gave it your stamp of approval and became sexist too.”

    A post by Anne JeffersonDear Nature,

    “Womanspace” by Ed Rybicki is the most appalling thing I have ever read in a scientific journal. When I read the Futures (science fiction) piece you published on 29 September 2011, about how the hero and a man friend were unable to cope with a simple errand and how that led them to discover the existence of parallel universe inhabited by women that naturally endowed women with their domestic prowess, but which women were too dumb to observe until the great men of science made their discovery, I checked to make make sure I was still on nature.com. To my dismay, I was.

    The story hearkens back to the “good old” sexist days when men did important things (like write books about virology) and women did unimportant things (like keep their families fed and clothed); when men couldn’t be bothered to be useful around the house and even when women did manage to get science degrees they were better employed as cooks and errand runners. The writer makes the explicit assumption that all of his (and, thus Nature’s) readers are male and have a “significant female other” who helps with their shopping. The story uses a cliched trope that women have an alternate reality, but then adds the extra punch that we aren’t even smart or observant enough to know it. As a woman scientist reading this article, it seems in every way designed to make me feel othered and excluded from the scientific academy.

    That’s how to tell them.

    I particularly loved the bit about the explicit assumption, because I often think that apart from my friends Claire and Mary Ellen, no one else notices those assumptions when they appear. Here’s how this one appeared, in Rybicki’s story:

    At this point I must digress, and mention, for those who are not aware, the profound differences in strategy between Men Going Shopping and Women Going Shopping. In any general shopping situation, men hunt: that is, they go into a complex environment with a few clear objectives, achieve those, and leave. Women, on the other hand, gather: such that any mission to buy just bread and milk could turn into an extended foraging expedition that also snares a to-die-for pair of discounted shoes; a useful new mop; three sorts of new cook-in sauces; and possibly a selection of frozen fish.

    And the interesting thing is — and this is what sparked the discovery — that any male would be very hard pressed to say where she got some of these things, even if he accompanied her.

    Have you never had the experience of talking to your significant female other as you wend your way through the complexity of a supermarket — only to suddenly find her 20 metres away with her back to you? And then she comes back with something you’ve never seen before, and tosses it in the trolley as if nothing has happened?

    See? He’s assuming that the reader is male (and straight). He’s assuming that women are too busy foraging for shoes to read science magazines, or perhaps anything at all.

    It’s a good thing we have all these waves of feminism (what is it now? 23? 37?), because the first two or three certainly didn’t finish the job.

     

  • Vatican to sue over pope kissing sheikh photo

    Benetton said the idea was to combat hatred, but the Vatican isn’t having any of that blasphemous nonsense.

  • A burgeon too many

    And another thing. What does this remind you of?

    The rise of the Haredim  has been disastrous for the country’s economy,  according to Gershom Gorenberg, author of The Unmaking of Israel.

    Gorenberg writes that  Israel’s ultra-Orthodox community is becoming ever  more dependent on the state and, through it, on other people’s labour.

    ”By exempting the ultra-Orthodox from basic general educational  requirements, the democratic state fosters a burgeoning sector of society that  neither understands nor values democracy.

    Quiverfull, and the homeschool movement. The democratic US state is fostering  a burgeoning sector of society that  neither understands nor values democracy – or secularism or human rights.

  • Deface them

    How do you know when the theocrats are winning? Women start to disappear, and at the same time, the ones who haven’t disappeared yet are subject to spittle-flecked hatred…including those who are six years old.

    An Ultra Orthodox Jewish man walks past a vandalized poster showing a woman, in Jerusalem.

     Like that. Posters that feature women have been “defaced” in Jerusalem, the SMH article says, and by defaced it means defaced, as you can see. That poster says, “You think you’re pretty, bitch? I’ll give you pretty, you whore. How pretty do you think you’ll be after I stick a razor in your eyes, you cunt?”

    That’s not “segregation”; it’s not “modesty”; it’s not “religious obligations”; it’s just loathing.

     A torn poster of a woman is seen in Jerusalem. Images of women have vanished from the streets of Israel's capital.

     ”Shut your filthy mouth, bitch.”

    Not content with segregated streets, queues and buses, extremist members of  the Haredi  have turned their attention to the city of Bet Shemesh, 30  kilometres to the west of Jerusalem.

    Here, Jewish girls as young as six, wearing a  conservative uniform of skirts below the knee and shirts to the elbow, are being targeted by the Haredi, called  ”pritzas” (prostitutes) for being ”immodestly dressed” as they walk into  Orot girls school, a state-funded religious-nationalist school. The Haredi are demanding the girls cover up.

    That’s how you know when theocracy is winning – when men start calling little girls prostitutes. In public. Outside a school. At girls on their way to school.