Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘religion’

What is it with the French government and thinking that the solution to ensuring women aren’t being forced to cover their body in a particular way, is forcing women to cover their body in a particular way? Seriously, people, even if you think religious clothing for women is inherently and universally oppressive (which it’s well fucking not), how, tell me, HOW is the solution to impose different limitations on women’s clothing?

“Well, see, those damn Ismuhlamics were telling you nice ladies what to wear, but because we don’t like what you’re wearing, it’s now mandatory that you wear something of our choice instead. Ok?”

If they think it’s a breach of women’s human rights that they’re being forced to wear the burqua, why don’t they work on the problem instead of issuing a blanket ban on an item of clothing that women may be freely choosing to wear? Furthermore, how is banning an item of clothing ever a solution to anything?

Come on, French government, get creative. Find something else to blame as the supreme hellmouth of all antifeminist evil. Like … the Pussycat Dolls! Blowjobs! Pink! See? All on about the same level as blaming the burqua itself.

Read Full Post »

I’m probably already on the record somewhere as saying that marriage sucks, but I thought I’d have another go at it, given that some hatemongering scumracket judges in California decided that homos aren’t allowed to get married to eachother. As indicated by the first half of that sentence, I too do not think homos should be allowed to get married, although my sentiment is only coherent for a highly specific value of the word ‘marriage’ (and yes, I do happen to love discussing highly specific values of otherwise everyday words). I know saying that you’re against gay marriage, in the leftist world, is commensurate with vomiting into a large tub every day for five years and then flooding a happy rainbow unicorn land with your saved up puke, but give me a minute to make a list of some stuff.

1. Under the current system, all marriage sucks. It’s an inherently exclusionary way of validating one kind of highly specific relationship and awarding it benefits based on outdated criteria. It rests on a set of heteronormative assumptions (possibly the most heteronormative assumptions of all, unless you count the ones in ads for washing detergent), mostly to do with the production of children. Married hetero couples, it is assumed, produce the most and the best of society’s children; therefore, the union itself must confer special, glittery benefits upon its partakers. Of course, those of us with giant communist brains realise that unmarried hetero couples, unmarried homo couples, single men, single women, polyamorous people, and various combinations of the above all take care of children in our diverse modern society. Some would suggest that taking care of children may be the best criterion for assessing whether a person should receive benefits for taking care of children, but shh. Don’t tell Family First.

2. Marriage privileges some kinds of interdependent relationships over others. Namely, ones in which the participants are assumed to be fucking. This is a clever social fiction that I don’t fully understand, and which mirrors another, more deeply rooted (lol sorry) social fiction: if you don’t fuck eachother, it’s not a real relationship. It’s funny and/or absurd to think of two people getting married who don’t fuck eachother, isn’t it? To think of two people living together, declaring next of kinship, having children, and demanding social recognition of their interdependence, without fucking eachother? I find this attitude totally bizarre. What if two siblings, or three or four siblings, want to raise children together, or just live together? A group of female friends? A couple and their friend? A polyamorous relationship with three people, one of the partner’s parents, and a cousin from interstate?

All of these are de facto possibilities, and, I think, possibly better possibilities. Who knows how many people would be happier in some kind of alternate arrangement that didn’t involve a socially compulsory man-fucking-a-woman, or, in places with gay marriage, person-fucking-ONE-other-person. Hey, kids, guess what? It’s okay to  have kids with whomever you want. It’s okay to not fuck that person, it’s okay to not fuck anyone, and it’s okay to live by yourself, hate kids, and use your fertile years to build giant sculptures of zombie pirates out of Lego. 3… 2… 1… go.

3. Marriage at the moment is a weird, squishy consolidation of church stuff and state stuff. Instead of bitching about that, check this out: France has a pretty good solution, even if it’s in its infancy and has a while to go before you can let it out of the house on its own. The idea is that “marriage” is definitely a religious thing, and specific religions can impose whatever wacky norms they want on it. Civil unions, on the other hand, are definitely a State thing, and imply, socially speaking, nothing about whomever is seeking to be a party to one. You can have one, both, or neither, depending on what you had for breakfast this morning.

Obviously, the glaring omission in the French version is that only two people can enter into it at a time, and it suffers from conflating adult interdependency with caring for children. I think the solution is that someone smarter and more hard-working than me has to invent either a new kind of union, or a modified Civil Union, that specifically refers to the responsibility of spooning mashed veggies into a snotty infant after 1.5 hours of poor quality sleep.

4. The gay marriage movement ignores many of its own. It ignores many of the reasons gay people might want to get married. ‘Gay people can’t marry eachother for immigration status!’ Well, maybe you should think about reforming your shitty immigration system. ‘Gay people can’t access their partner’s health insurance!’ Stop me, but maybe you should reform your shitty health insurance system. etc. It ignores polyamorous people, and in fact seems to spend a lot of its time refuting the conservatives who say that it might lead to poly marriage. This is pretty stupid, because they’re right: consenting adults, blah blah blah. It ignores the rights of trans people, who might have a lot more complicated and traumatic legal bullshit than cis gay people if they want to get married. In short, it’s pretty fucking bourgeois.

So that’s why Eleanor Carnivore is against gay marriage. There’s another post in here somewhere about whether or not gay marriage can be seen as a kind of baby step on the way up to something that actually resembles equality, but I’ve got dinner to eat and an assignment that was due yesterday to write. Also: I’m officially asking for submissions for another Ask Aunt Carnivore, which appears to have been my most popular post. So, are you bored? Gassy? Lonely? Angry? Email me at shesacarnivore@gmail.com ! I want to turn your problems into a mildly amusing and ideologically motivated blog post help!

Read Full Post »

You know all those comforting fantasies we all have about the 1950s? When men smoked pipes, chuckled heartily, and drank Scotch in their slippers? When women used upright Hoovers, baked cakes, and turned to Valium to numb the existential pain of enforced domestic servitude? When disobedient children could be disciplined in the proper, loving, Christian manner of being hit by someone bigger and more powerful than them? Well, fantasise no more, because Christian schools in Queensland have looked deep inside their shrivelled, reptilian hearts, and decided to continue the tradition of teachers giving students a good, hard whack-around when they’re being unruly.

Bundaberg Christian College principal Mark Bensley said corporal punishment had become a drawcard for some parents because of a “lack of boundaries” at other schools.

“A growing number of parents come to our school and say the school got their attention because it uses the paddle,” Mr Bensley said.

[…]

“It is always administered in a loving way. In fact, we pray with them afterwards.”

Whoa, whoa, people. Premeditated violence perpetrated against somene less powerful than you is an expression of love? What is this, 1984? If you say it often enough, do you start believing it’s true? And then the poor kid has to kneel down in front of God and pray with the person who just whacked them!  The Creeposaurus Rex factor here is off the charts! Institutionalised coercive violence alert! Abort! Get Jesus and the rest of the dino-riders in, quick!

So this is in Independent schools, right. Corporal punishment in State schools in QLD was “banned” in 1995, if by “banned” you mean “incurred the mild, tut-tutting, non-binding disapproval of some lazy politicians”.

In Queensland corporal punishment was banned in schools by a cabinet decision of 1995, but this is still not legally binding, and the paradoxical situation has arisen, where, in spite of the school ban, teachers can:

“…continue to have defence to a criminal charge of assault if their conduct is determined to be reasonable under the circumstances.” (Personal communication R. Welford, Attorney General, Queensland, Feb 21, 2002).

So not only did the Queensland Cabinet in 1995  fail to care a ha’-penny about pupils in Independent schools, they also didn’t think it was necessary for abusive tachers to suffer any kind of, you know, punishment. Which is highly amusing to your narrator this morning! Teachers who disobey the Cabinet’s bannination of violence potentially suffer no actual consequences, but if your kid is being too unruly during playlunch, you’d better belive that’s a paddlin’.

This seems to be something relatively peculiar to Queensland, if this article is anything to go by. It details the various ways in which government schools in the sunshine state are “cracking down” on students doing heinous, disruptive things like not wearing scrunchies:

“I tell them their hair can be any colour that is found in a human being. The girls have to have their hair tied back in a ribbon or scrunchies. The boys have to have their hair cut above their collar.”

I remember back when I was a young’un at school, a whopping 18 months ago, the massive learning difficulties I suffered because my school didn’t enforce gender normative hairdos. Undoubtedly I would’ve been at an advantage if all the girls had worn beehives, and a military barber was contracted to shear the boys’ ears off. Just think, the principal whipping out a metre ruler, using it to make sure all the beehives were at least 10cm off the scalp, and then giving you a right smack round the calves if they weren’t. Now that’s the kind of wholesome, egalitarian learning experience that schools are trying to cultivate in Queensland.

Read Full Post »

Q. How is Fox like the Pope?

A. They’re both influential institutions endowed with the cultural and moral authority to shape the fabric of our society, and they both GET ELEANOR’S KNICKERS IN A RIGHTEOUS TWIST.

Let’s go with il Papa first, shall we: Pope wants humanity ‘saved’ from homosexuality

Usually, like most people with a limited capacity for paying attention to fucked-up bullshit, I tend to ignore the Pope. This behaviour has one distinct advantage: I save my Sanity Watchers points. Sanity Watchers is a top-notch self-preservation system invented by the estimable Kate Harding over at Shapely Prose, whereby the individual following the program must restrict themselves to a certain number of soul-destroyingly idiotic happenings per day. I find that if I go over my Sanity Watchers points allocation, which I assign based on exactly how much liquefied brain goo has passed out my ears while reading the item in question, I am left a burnt-out shell for the rest of the day, unable to give attention to even the most mild of stupidities. Usually the miscellaneous, offensive pronouncements of the Pope score a high, rather than extreme, amount of points, because, despite their reprehensible content, they are so reliable as to have become mundane. Nevertheless, there go ten of my twenty-five points for today.

(Still not as good as the time he took precious minutes of his life to remind everyone that they’re actually, really going to Hell. None of this pissweak ‘Hell is a state of mind’, ‘Hell is the absence of god’ sissy fake-Hell fluffiness. FIRE and BRIMSTONE and TORTURE and shit. I still respect him a bit for that.)

And Fox: Fox Greenlights Manhattan Werewolves Dramedy, Bitches

I know I’m supposed to be angry about this, but I just can’t muster up the outrage today. Sure, if Rupert Murdoch traded his destructive cultural influence for a teleporter and suddenly appeared in my lounge room, I’d still tape him to a post and shove a box of cereal up his nose. But … it’s television. Television is already home to the basest and most mildewy, disgusting sexism, so much so that I’ve reverted to the parentally-imposed restrictions I had when I was nine and stopped watching it. This isn’t even the show; it’s just the name of the show! Even if the actual program is as bad as its moniker, it won’t top the pond scum that’s shown every night of the week. Maybe if they made an Extreme Makeover spinoff called Surprise Vaginal Reconstructions: Nipping and Tucking Your Shame Cave, I’d get stuck into being offended by the name of a TV show. Right now, however, I’m far more disturbed by their blatant use of the word ‘dramedy’, which is not a real word. It is, in fact, so far from being a real word that the linguistic result of me closing my eyes and bashing the keyboard with my left breast would be more legitimate. fhergbqer. <——- There. Look. I told you.

Read Full Post »