I don’t just own the company, I use the product, too!
2 Likes
And yet I absolutely, positively guarantee that there is no similar shaming or admonition for men who dye the grey from their hair, put lifts on their shoes to appear taller, or do any of the equivalent “defrauding” to attract women.
Because they consider women to be non-sentient property.
Because these people are vile.
9 Likes
Is it wrong that this made me horny?
I
think I might have had enough of the Duggars, pro and con, to last the
rest of my life. I’m not fond of Christian fundamentalism (or any other
religious fanaticism) but I don’t think it makes us non-fanatics look
very good to be kicking a down dog. So the Duggar family isn’t perfect.
Is that really a surprise? Is it a surprise that the behavior of some of
its members contradict their stated beliefs? To how many of us can this
phenomenon also be applied? Too, this article’s excerpt, to me, seems
relatively inoffensive, and it actually contains a shred of science
(see: studies do suggest men are more reactive to visual stimuli than
women). Basically the paragraph cited sums up a fairly commonly held
belief in many religions – i.e., that sex outside of marriage is a sin,
it’s a culture’s responsibility to avoid sin, and it’s also an act of
compassion for members of a society to help each other avoid sin. I
don’t share the belief that extra-marital sex is automatically a sin,
but I do strongly support anyone’s right to profess his/her beliefs.
Even if they differ from my own. Let’s lay off the Duggars unless what
we say actually helps in some fashion.
and free hot wings and beer afterward
I think what we say when we blast what they say does “help in some fashion,” since what they so often say is not only so very ridiculous – it’s also pernicious. Plus, what they say is not as innocuous and limited-to-them-and-their-lives as you seem to think. Make no mistake, they’re proselytizing, and they’re condemning others, and they’d have no problem at all with instituting still more laws that reflect their own beliefs, thereby imposing them on people who don’t share those beliefs.
As for the “shred of science” you find in that statement, puhleeeze. So what if men have been socially conditioned into being more reactive to visual stimuli? The “male gaze” is a socially constructed bit of nastiness that in so many ways harms women, and I have no patience for any apologetics for it. Let alone for injunctions that women cover themselves up because otherwise, they’ll be “defrauding” men who just can’t be expected to control themselves. THAT’S the issue, right, their supposed inability? Not their supposed reactivity to visual stimuli.
10 Likes
What it sounds like you are saying is that it is okay for some groups to use the Inducement argument, even though you don’t agree with it.
I simply don’t find that line of reasoning accurate, supported by science, or fair to parties involved. It weakens all parties–men are now expected to be subservient to implied sexuality, and women become less human since they as a class have rights removed.
I don’t think we should even tacitly or passively support groups that operate in this manner. Dress how you want to dress,and don’t judge.
8 Likes
I came across this article on gawker last night:
The Creepy Fundamentalist Homeschool Cult That Trained the Duggars
“Train” is an odd choice of words for “educate” but I suppose that it’s meaningful in certain rather unhappy contexts.
In it, a page spread from one of these textbooks is exhibited, showing how a single Bible passage is used to impart lessons on Linguistics, History, Science, Law and Medicine.
Most of the examples are quite forced, and are wrong besides. It’s very possible that their definition of “fraud” is similarly distorting-- because in the context of the bible it is somehow useful, and all other shades of meaning are beside the point.
7 Likes
Blame the victim and make them wear burkas.
1 Like
1921? Are you forgetting about the flappers? The 20s saw a huge revolution in dress of young women that were far more risque than their parents generation:
6 Likes
I picked the wrong decade. Maybe I should have gone with 1901. I was tempted by 1891, but I thought things got a little better during the “gay '90’s”. Or maybe it’s just the name.
3 Likes
I think you need to go back to Victorian England for sexual attitudes this repressive.
2 Likes
Intestingly, there was also a resurgence of religous faith that went along with the rise of the flapper/new woman in this time. Sister Aimee Semple was a preacher, who was also very modern in presentation and employed mass media in her religious campaigns (so did what’s his name, Father Coughlin):
I dunno. I’ve been very interested lately in this notion that there are “multiple modernities”, meaning that being a modern person doesn’t necessarily mean capitalism, liberal democracy, secular, technologically savy, etc. It can be employed in a number of ways…
3 Likes
Oooo… except for all the debauchery and weirdness going on - the Victorians were rather obsessed with Sex, actually:
2 Likes
And that’s women’s fault? Fuck that noise. People can be religiously oriented and still understand that women are not to blame for their own abuse.
8 Likes
Well, shit. Can’t look to the dark ages, middle-ages or pre-Christianity, either. Great FSM, is now the most sexually repressive time evar?! Get me off this planet, I don’t want to live here anymore.
Yeah, I fell down quite the rabbit hole when I stumbled upon the ACE / Beka Books that these Christian Patriarchy families use for homeschooling.
Indoctrination is apparently quite the cottage industry, providing one-stop shopping for racism, sexism, climate-denying, et. al.
7 Likes
I don’t know if we’re all that repressive either, other than rhetorically (and of course, things are better in other countries) - gay marriage is gaining momentum (though you can argue it’s a heteronormantive movement), more people are putting off marriage or never marrying, even if they have kids, having children out of wedlock is far less stigmatized, except within certain circles, we have much work to do for full gender equality, but we’ve made impresssive strides towards normalizing core issues of women’s rights… there are some reactionaries, and they are having their day, too, but most of us are getting on the business of living our lives as we want to live them. Not that there isn’t something to be said about groups like these assholes or not that they aren’t dangerous, especially to the women living within these families, but it seems to me that part of the reason they are so very vocal is that they are on the losing side of history and they know it.
5 Likes
So. Much. ANKLE!
7 Likes
Down, boy.
5 Likes
