The Sheriff just got back from a lovely little jaunt to the Lone Star State to visit a just graduated Smithie and Albrighter in West Texas (speaking of my Sheriff identity, in the DFW airport I spotted a fabulously awful pink cowgirl hat with a tiara on it...damn shame I didn't buy it). Bluntly, I was surprised by how much I liked it: given that I spend most of my time in Northampton (and will be vacationing in Rehoboth Beach, a gay beach town, this week with more FF writers), I thought Texas would be a shock in a nasty way. But aside from a local in a bar who bought us a round and then asked our opinion on the Arizona immigration law, I found most of the people to be extremely friendly, if a little innocuously hyper-religious (our visit coincided with a Christian rock festival called Rock the Desert, and we ran into many Christian rockers clad in skinny jeans and hipster haircuts in the airport. I also found a stunning pair of leopard-print cross earrings!).
One experience that left me angry and ready to post occurred on our last night in town. We saw a show called Summer Mummers, a vaudeville-style show that was absolutely hilarious, and that encouraged audience participation in the form of throwing popcorn, both at the actors and other audience members (once a big fan of Rocky Horror, I love any chance to act unruly in a theatre). A group of older men in front of us noticed our obnoxious Yankee accents (or the fact that we were young, cute women, take your pick) and picked on us flirtatiously for the duration of the night, tossing bag after bag of popcorn at us.
Pretty harmless, except that their wives were sitting right there too. While I was three sheets to the wind and certainly didn't tell the men to stop, their poor wives sat there next to them, watching and laughing with tentative insecurity as their husbands flirted with much younger women and paid us far more attention than they did to their wives. It just reeked of such machismo and disrespect. But clearly, these women had adjusted to it and aside from jokingly calling their husbands creepers, they made no attempts to temper the behavior of their husbands. I found it sexist, disrespectful, and honestly a little sad that these women were so resigned to it.
But am I just judging harshly from my thoroughly Yankee perspective? Is this maybe not as dysfunctional as I'm perceiving? What say ye, dear readers?
Much love,
The Sheriff
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
fat ass, trick, thunder thighs, whore: insults of the female persuasion
Last night, I had the misfortune of having someone I was once very close to insult me by saying I had a "fat ass" (I don't believe in putting people on blast via the interwebs, so even though this individual in question has a pseudonym here on FF, I'll do my best to maintain their anonymity, despite their ludicrously immature language and behavior as of late). Obviously, given the fact that I have a deep and painful history with eating disorders and hating my body, this person knew this was a particularly potent insult for me.
And while it had (what I'm sure was) its desired effect of making me cry for a few minutes, it struck me strongly that people who are actually happy with themselves don't make such low blows, no matter how tempting. It reminded me instantly of this fable.
A Rabbi and his disciple were walking in the street. A man drove by in a carriage which abruptly pushed the Rabbi out of his way so that the Rabbi landed in a ditch filled with muddy water.
The Rabbi yelled after the man in the carriage, "May you have everything you want!"
The disciple was surprised by the rabbi's response.
“Rabbi, why did you say that to a man with such horrible behavior?” asked the disciple.
The Rabbi replied, “Because a happy man wouldn’t throw a Rabbi into a ditch.”
But personal lessons about maturity and anger aside, it made me reflect on how the perceived best way to insult a woman is to attack either her looks (fat ass, thunder thighs, etc) or her sexual history (dyke, slut, trick, whore, etc). We've been conditioned to put those aspects of ourselves first and foremost, and when someone takes a strike at those, it tends to hurt the most. If this individual in question had simply called me a bitch, or a cunt, or maybe even a liar, I wouldn't have shed a single tear; I'd have laughed and shrugged it off and probably made a crack back at their awful hair or faux-intellectualism. But being called fat or a whore inspires not only shame and hurt but also the desire to prove that person wrong: I initially wanted to fight back, explaining my tiny pants size and other statistics that somehow would quantify that I am not indeed a fat ass. If they'd implied I was promiscuous, I would've done the same thing, breaking down my average number of partners per year of my sexually active life to yield a low overall annual average like a credit card company instead of just owning the number and telling them to fuck off.
So why are these two kinds of insults so effective and so well-perpetuated? To me, the thing they both have in common is a desire to control women. Whether it's the size of our thighs or our sexual expression, both are ways of encouraging women to stay within the box of socially acceptable behavior through pressure to keep our bodies controlled. And that's just stupid. Even if you are the owner of a gut or a high number of sexual partners, those aren't negative traits, nor are they the sole ones defining who you are.
Oh, and for the record: I love my fat ass, so piss off.
Much love,
The Sheriff
And while it had (what I'm sure was) its desired effect of making me cry for a few minutes, it struck me strongly that people who are actually happy with themselves don't make such low blows, no matter how tempting. It reminded me instantly of this fable.
A Rabbi and his disciple were walking in the street. A man drove by in a carriage which abruptly pushed the Rabbi out of his way so that the Rabbi landed in a ditch filled with muddy water.
The Rabbi yelled after the man in the carriage, "May you have everything you want!"
The disciple was surprised by the rabbi's response.
“Rabbi, why did you say that to a man with such horrible behavior?” asked the disciple.
The Rabbi replied, “Because a happy man wouldn’t throw a Rabbi into a ditch.”
But personal lessons about maturity and anger aside, it made me reflect on how the perceived best way to insult a woman is to attack either her looks (fat ass, thunder thighs, etc) or her sexual history (dyke, slut, trick, whore, etc). We've been conditioned to put those aspects of ourselves first and foremost, and when someone takes a strike at those, it tends to hurt the most. If this individual in question had simply called me a bitch, or a cunt, or maybe even a liar, I wouldn't have shed a single tear; I'd have laughed and shrugged it off and probably made a crack back at their awful hair or faux-intellectualism. But being called fat or a whore inspires not only shame and hurt but also the desire to prove that person wrong: I initially wanted to fight back, explaining my tiny pants size and other statistics that somehow would quantify that I am not indeed a fat ass. If they'd implied I was promiscuous, I would've done the same thing, breaking down my average number of partners per year of my sexually active life to yield a low overall annual average like a credit card company instead of just owning the number and telling them to fuck off.
So why are these two kinds of insults so effective and so well-perpetuated? To me, the thing they both have in common is a desire to control women. Whether it's the size of our thighs or our sexual expression, both are ways of encouraging women to stay within the box of socially acceptable behavior through pressure to keep our bodies controlled. And that's just stupid. Even if you are the owner of a gut or a high number of sexual partners, those aren't negative traits, nor are they the sole ones defining who you are.
Oh, and for the record: I love my fat ass, so piss off.
Much love,
The Sheriff
Monday, August 2, 2010
maturity
After one month of handling constant urgent-but-not-important (usually) crises, such as "Can I have quarters?" "The printer's jammed." "Why do we have to do zumba?" "I've got bug bites," I am extraordinarily glad to have my life back. While I worked with fabulous people and had a lot of fun, being responsible for 100 kids is simply exhausting. It beat my body like the Congo (that one's for you, J). In short, I finally have the time, energy and privacy to write comfortably about sex and feminism again (yay)!
There are huge differences between high school girls and college age women (I'm talkin' fucking huge). First that I noticed was the fact that the interns and RDs simply looked like women. Even the girls who were more developed still had a childlike lack of hips. I once heard a 23-year-old stripper bemoan her age and that she no longer had her 18-year-old body, and with my voluptuous hips, I'm beginning to understand her meaning. Their delicate bodies made me even more angry at the men who catcalled or checked them out downtown. It was hard to fight the urge to run after their cars, screaming that they were children and to back the fuck off (but I refrained, as that would not be actin' right, and would set a pretty shitty example).
But even more potent of a difference was their complete moral certainty about sexual things. An intern with a class about women's health reported to me (and I heard myself through conversations with a handful of girls who brought this up on their own) that, according to some of the girls, when a woman wears revealing clothing, she is not only asking for attention but also for sex and is responsible for whatever happens to her.
The Sheriff did not like hearing this, but I tried not to push my very liberal ideas on the girls. I let them say what they thought, and added only that "clothing is NOT consent!" But I don't know that they understood my point. I know black and white thoughts about morality and sex, which are tragically tied together in our moral milieu, are easier to deal with at that age than developing a nuanced view of sex and sexuality. It's so much easier and it's encouraged by the media, parents, friends, everything to put all women somewhere on the virgin-whore dichotomy. There's no allowance for ambiguity, or God forbid, a morality for women that isn't based on sex and false ideas of purity (I say false ideas because there is no medical definition for virginity. None. This state of purity and innocence does not exist. Take that, virgin-whore complex!).
And again, I can hardly blame these girls for their immature views on sex. Consider this recent case, in which a judge determined that a woman gave consent for Girls Gone Wild to sexually assault her simply because she was dancing in a bar. Not dancing naked or for money (though that does NOT entitle someone with the right to touch you anyway!). Just dancing. Good to know my body is public property, and if I'm enough of a whore to go out and dance in a bar, clearly I'm askin' for it.
...
It makes me so deeply sad and intensely angry and fearful that these are the messages these girls are being bombarded with. These are smart, gifted girls. And even they're still susceptible to these backward ideas about our bodies and our right to inhabit them fully and simply exist unmolested. But my hope is that as they grow older and begin to encounter sex and situations that fall into the grey area of the black and white virgin-whore dichotomy, they'll develop an ideal of morality for themselves and other women that has nothing to do with their sexual activity, but everything to do with their character. Ya know, like the same criteria men are judged on?
Much love,
The Sheriff
There are huge differences between high school girls and college age women (I'm talkin' fucking huge). First that I noticed was the fact that the interns and RDs simply looked like women. Even the girls who were more developed still had a childlike lack of hips. I once heard a 23-year-old stripper bemoan her age and that she no longer had her 18-year-old body, and with my voluptuous hips, I'm beginning to understand her meaning. Their delicate bodies made me even more angry at the men who catcalled or checked them out downtown. It was hard to fight the urge to run after their cars, screaming that they were children and to back the fuck off (but I refrained, as that would not be actin' right, and would set a pretty shitty example).
But even more potent of a difference was their complete moral certainty about sexual things. An intern with a class about women's health reported to me (and I heard myself through conversations with a handful of girls who brought this up on their own) that, according to some of the girls, when a woman wears revealing clothing, she is not only asking for attention but also for sex and is responsible for whatever happens to her.
The Sheriff did not like hearing this, but I tried not to push my very liberal ideas on the girls. I let them say what they thought, and added only that "clothing is NOT consent!" But I don't know that they understood my point. I know black and white thoughts about morality and sex, which are tragically tied together in our moral milieu, are easier to deal with at that age than developing a nuanced view of sex and sexuality. It's so much easier and it's encouraged by the media, parents, friends, everything to put all women somewhere on the virgin-whore dichotomy. There's no allowance for ambiguity, or God forbid, a morality for women that isn't based on sex and false ideas of purity (I say false ideas because there is no medical definition for virginity. None. This state of purity and innocence does not exist. Take that, virgin-whore complex!).
And again, I can hardly blame these girls for their immature views on sex. Consider this recent case, in which a judge determined that a woman gave consent for Girls Gone Wild to sexually assault her simply because she was dancing in a bar. Not dancing naked or for money (though that does NOT entitle someone with the right to touch you anyway!). Just dancing. Good to know my body is public property, and if I'm enough of a whore to go out and dance in a bar, clearly I'm askin' for it.
...
It makes me so deeply sad and intensely angry and fearful that these are the messages these girls are being bombarded with. These are smart, gifted girls. And even they're still susceptible to these backward ideas about our bodies and our right to inhabit them fully and simply exist unmolested. But my hope is that as they grow older and begin to encounter sex and situations that fall into the grey area of the black and white virgin-whore dichotomy, they'll develop an ideal of morality for themselves and other women that has nothing to do with their sexual activity, but everything to do with their character. Ya know, like the same criteria men are judged on?
Much love,
The Sheriff
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The Secret Life...
I have a confession to make. I occasionally watch "The Secret Life of the American Teenager." (It's an ABC Family show about a 16 yr. old girl who gets pregnant and drama ensues.) During the commercial breaks, the actresses always do a public service announcement along the lines of "too many teens don't talk about sex with their parents until they are telling them that they are pregnant. Don't wait, talk now." And they list a few websites including stayteen.org. This morning, being bored (my internship finished and I have NOTHING to do!), I decided to visit stayteen.org out of curiosity. Unfortunately but not unexpected, I was pretty disappointed with the website. The site includes a bunch of information about abstinence and birth control and a blog (supposedly written by teens). ABC Family definitely has a more conservative agenda, so the show and the websites reflect it. My problem is that the website presents information in a way that completely denies teen sexuality and sexual agency.
Overall, the website (not unsurprisingly) pushes abstinence. The "Sex" subsection of the the "What's your relationship reality" gives reasons that teens have sex. It does not list "I wanted to, sex is fun, I like sex" as a reasons that teens give for having sex. Personally, I had sex at 17 because I wanted to. I never imagined that my relationship with surfer boy would last forever or that we would get married. And we used protection. The website continually denies teenage sexual desire. It ignores the desire that people feel when about to bang.
Abstinence doesn't work (as a national campaign) and nor should it. Throughout human history and around the world, girls got married shortly after their first period. Men had more sexual license, but they also got married in their early 20's. So, this is the FIRST time in history that society has expected people to wait until their mid-20's to have sex. In general, there has always been an expectation for people to wait to have sex until marriage. However, people got married earlier (most girls around 15), and people had still had sex outside of marriage. New research shows that the number of people having sex outside of marriage has pretty much been stable since the early 1900's. Basically, by asking people not to have sex until marriage (currently average age around 25, I believe), we are asking the impossible, in my opinion.
There is nothing wrong fundamentally wrong with teenagers wanting to have sex. (Again, I'm not saying the losing your virginity is always smooth-sailing. Normally, it's not). Wanting to have sex doesn't make you a slut nor is it automatically a poor decision. I think that we need to restructure the conversation around teen sex. Right now, the conversation is not "Let's talk about sex" in a completely open, judgement-free environment. It's "Let's talk about sex," but I'm going to judge your choices. Currently, the conversation alienates teenagers because they ask their peers for information (possibly false) rather than talking to adults who would be able to help them when shit goes wrong. They hide their problems which only creates more. If we created an environment around sex which didn't deny teen sexuality, then I believe that we could more easily address the issues surrounding sex (date rape, abuse, pregnancy, birth control etc).
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
Overall, the website (not unsurprisingly) pushes abstinence. The "Sex" subsection of the the "What's your relationship reality" gives reasons that teens have sex. It does not list "I wanted to, sex is fun, I like sex" as a reasons that teens give for having sex. Personally, I had sex at 17 because I wanted to. I never imagined that my relationship with surfer boy would last forever or that we would get married. And we used protection. The website continually denies teenage sexual desire. It ignores the desire that people feel when about to bang.
Abstinence doesn't work (as a national campaign) and nor should it. Throughout human history and around the world, girls got married shortly after their first period. Men had more sexual license, but they also got married in their early 20's. So, this is the FIRST time in history that society has expected people to wait until their mid-20's to have sex. In general, there has always been an expectation for people to wait to have sex until marriage. However, people got married earlier (most girls around 15), and people had still had sex outside of marriage. New research shows that the number of people having sex outside of marriage has pretty much been stable since the early 1900's. Basically, by asking people not to have sex until marriage (currently average age around 25, I believe), we are asking the impossible, in my opinion.
There is nothing wrong fundamentally wrong with teenagers wanting to have sex. (Again, I'm not saying the losing your virginity is always smooth-sailing. Normally, it's not). Wanting to have sex doesn't make you a slut nor is it automatically a poor decision. I think that we need to restructure the conversation around teen sex. Right now, the conversation is not "Let's talk about sex" in a completely open, judgement-free environment. It's "Let's talk about sex," but I'm going to judge your choices. Currently, the conversation alienates teenagers because they ask their peers for information (possibly false) rather than talking to adults who would be able to help them when shit goes wrong. They hide their problems which only creates more. If we created an environment around sex which didn't deny teen sexuality, then I believe that we could more easily address the issues surrounding sex (date rape, abuse, pregnancy, birth control etc).
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
Saturday, July 17, 2010
hetero-izing Smith
One facet of the summer program I work for is that it exposes 100 girls to Smith College every year and, from the perspective of the admissions office, that's 100 prospective students to appeal to. In addition to heaps of other information about actin' right and schedules, we include Smith admissions pamphlets in their folders that the girls receive on their first day. As a Smithie who adores her school but has been disabused of many romanticized notions that I held as a high school student of what living and learning here would be like, I flipped through the information to see how they tried to portray Smith. And what I found pissed me off and disturbed me.
Of course, Smith talked about our wonderful educational resources and opportunities and how gorgeous our houses are (all true, unless you have the misfortune of living in Cutter, which resembles an office building and has showers that are so small, some obese students have had to move out!), but it also addressed the advantages of a women's college education, including that we're more likely to complete a graduate degree, be more self-confident and generally better prepared for careers and advancement than women who graduated from coed schools.
All lovely, right?
Wrong.
All of the images feature women who are attractive, smiling, and (of course) diverse. Except that only ONE of them has hair cut above her shoulders. Most of them are wearing jewelry and makeup.
And my favorite: the pamphlet features a picture of a long-haired student, strolling through the botanical gardens, hand-in-hand with a man who appears to be wearing a UMASS t-shirt. This is featured just beneath the heading Great Social Life (Really!).
...
Because we couldn't possibly have great social lives without men.
What further pisses me off about this is that this brochure gives no hint of gay, lesbian, trans or otherwise non-hetero identity on this campus. While Smith is by no means the gay sex fest it's often stereotyped as (students identifying as LGBTQ made up about one third of the student body of 2600, according to a recent survey done by Howard Gold of the gov department), to ignore it does a disservice to both the very active gay community on campus and to prospective Smithies.
If one of Smith's most appealing aspects to you is the idea that it might be a haven for people not identifying as strictly hetero, you'd never have that hope reinforced by the brochures Admissions is handing you, full of seemingly hetero chicks and UMASS boys(I say seemingly, since as a long-haired someone who is attracted to both men and women, I'm well aware that short hair is not the only way to be gay). And honestly, the gayness might be a turn-off for some, and while I will privately judge and glare and disapprove of you, that just means Smith is not the right place for you if you can't learn to accept people, regardless of whether they get down with the ladies, men, both, or neither.
I'm not really sure why Admissions feels the need to "de-gay" Smith. It's a piece of our identity as a women's college in Northampton, and it's a wonderful one at that. To try to whitewash over it with cheerful hetero students (who are absolutely part of our community too, but not a part that needs to worry about representation or visibility as much) is bullshit, plain and simple, and likely simply motivated by wanting to keep more conservative alum happy by not ruining their vision of Smith as a place of white gloves and afternoon teas and dress codes.
Public image can be vastly different from the real, authentic feel of a place, as evidenced by the Admissions office's sad attempts to distance itself from the sexual, romantic and social realities of Smith's student body.
Much love,
The Sheriff
Of course, Smith talked about our wonderful educational resources and opportunities and how gorgeous our houses are (all true, unless you have the misfortune of living in Cutter, which resembles an office building and has showers that are so small, some obese students have had to move out!), but it also addressed the advantages of a women's college education, including that we're more likely to complete a graduate degree, be more self-confident and generally better prepared for careers and advancement than women who graduated from coed schools.
All lovely, right?
Wrong.
All of the images feature women who are attractive, smiling, and (of course) diverse. Except that only ONE of them has hair cut above her shoulders. Most of them are wearing jewelry and makeup.
And my favorite: the pamphlet features a picture of a long-haired student, strolling through the botanical gardens, hand-in-hand with a man who appears to be wearing a UMASS t-shirt. This is featured just beneath the heading Great Social Life (Really!).
...
Because we couldn't possibly have great social lives without men.
What further pisses me off about this is that this brochure gives no hint of gay, lesbian, trans or otherwise non-hetero identity on this campus. While Smith is by no means the gay sex fest it's often stereotyped as (students identifying as LGBTQ made up about one third of the student body of 2600, according to a recent survey done by Howard Gold of the gov department), to ignore it does a disservice to both the very active gay community on campus and to prospective Smithies.
If one of Smith's most appealing aspects to you is the idea that it might be a haven for people not identifying as strictly hetero, you'd never have that hope reinforced by the brochures Admissions is handing you, full of seemingly hetero chicks and UMASS boys(I say seemingly, since as a long-haired someone who is attracted to both men and women, I'm well aware that short hair is not the only way to be gay). And honestly, the gayness might be a turn-off for some, and while I will privately judge and glare and disapprove of you, that just means Smith is not the right place for you if you can't learn to accept people, regardless of whether they get down with the ladies, men, both, or neither.
I'm not really sure why Admissions feels the need to "de-gay" Smith. It's a piece of our identity as a women's college in Northampton, and it's a wonderful one at that. To try to whitewash over it with cheerful hetero students (who are absolutely part of our community too, but not a part that needs to worry about representation or visibility as much) is bullshit, plain and simple, and likely simply motivated by wanting to keep more conservative alum happy by not ruining their vision of Smith as a place of white gloves and afternoon teas and dress codes.
Public image can be vastly different from the real, authentic feel of a place, as evidenced by the Admissions office's sad attempts to distance itself from the sexual, romantic and social realities of Smith's student body.
Much love,
The Sheriff
Friday, July 16, 2010
Female Priest= Sex Offender
I was reading the Washington Post this morning, and this article caught my eye: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071501453.html. It discusses the new policy issued by the Vatican relating to priests accused of child abuse or molestation. The new rules put priests who use child pornography and those who abuse the mentally ill in the same category of pedophiles. Good! However, the new regulations also state that any attempt to ordain women is a grave crime which is the same word to describe sex abuse. So, the Vatican basically equated ordaining women with molesting children. Also, the Vatican failed to accept a zero-tolerance policy for priests accused of sex abuse meaning that priests will not be forced out of ministry after one case of abuse.
The article quotes Erin Saiz Hanna of the Women's Ordination Conference saying this in response: "The Vatican's decision to list women's ordination in the same category as pedophiles and rapists is appalling, offensive, and a wake-up call for all Catholics around the world.. The idea that a woman seeking to spread the message of God somehow 'defiles' the Eucharist reveals an antiquated, backwards Church that still views women as 'unclean' and unholy."
About a month ago, I read an opinion piece in the New York Times about a nun who was excommunicated in Arizona (possibly New Mexico). She sat on the ethics board of a Catholic hospital. Under her direction, the board approved an abortion for a woman who would have died if she carried the baby to term due to a heart condition. The bishop of Arizona excommunicated the nun saying that the life of the baby is more important that the life of the mother. WTF!!! The woman who wrote the opinion piece said that the case points out how out of touch the leaders of the Catholic Church are with the their followers. Personally, I think that both of these issues point out that the patriarchy is alive and well (especially since neither of issues were national news). Why is it o.k. that a nun can be excommunicated for approving an abortion to save a woman's life, but very few of the priests are excommunicated for molesting children??? (In fact, most of them are just transferred to a new parish and allowed to continue preaching) Why is a woman preaching in the church the same crime as a priest molesting a child??
I am a practicing Christian, and I believe that God created men and women equal. (The patriarchy however thwarted this plan.) The Catholic Church (and a ton of other Christians) argues that women should not be allowed to preach because Paul said that women should not be allowed to speak in a church. Personally, I believe that the Bible was written by men and reflects the social norms of the day. Jesus was killed because he claimed to be the son of God. He tried to advocate for women's rights, and if he had said women are totally equal, he would have been killed a hell of lot faster. (In my opinion) The status of women aside, what's more important? Should the Catholic Church be worried about women becoming ordained or its priests molesting children? Clearly, It needs to get its priorities straight and start protecting children.
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
The article quotes Erin Saiz Hanna of the Women's Ordination Conference saying this in response: "The Vatican's decision to list women's ordination in the same category as pedophiles and rapists is appalling, offensive, and a wake-up call for all Catholics around the world.. The idea that a woman seeking to spread the message of God somehow 'defiles' the Eucharist reveals an antiquated, backwards Church that still views women as 'unclean' and unholy."
About a month ago, I read an opinion piece in the New York Times about a nun who was excommunicated in Arizona (possibly New Mexico). She sat on the ethics board of a Catholic hospital. Under her direction, the board approved an abortion for a woman who would have died if she carried the baby to term due to a heart condition. The bishop of Arizona excommunicated the nun saying that the life of the baby is more important that the life of the mother. WTF!!! The woman who wrote the opinion piece said that the case points out how out of touch the leaders of the Catholic Church are with the their followers. Personally, I think that both of these issues point out that the patriarchy is alive and well (especially since neither of issues were national news). Why is it o.k. that a nun can be excommunicated for approving an abortion to save a woman's life, but very few of the priests are excommunicated for molesting children??? (In fact, most of them are just transferred to a new parish and allowed to continue preaching) Why is a woman preaching in the church the same crime as a priest molesting a child??
I am a practicing Christian, and I believe that God created men and women equal. (The patriarchy however thwarted this plan.) The Catholic Church (and a ton of other Christians) argues that women should not be allowed to preach because Paul said that women should not be allowed to speak in a church. Personally, I believe that the Bible was written by men and reflects the social norms of the day. Jesus was killed because he claimed to be the son of God. He tried to advocate for women's rights, and if he had said women are totally equal, he would have been killed a hell of lot faster. (In my opinion) The status of women aside, what's more important? Should the Catholic Church be worried about women becoming ordained or its priests molesting children? Clearly, It needs to get its priorities straight and start protecting children.
Lots of Love,
Lady Lola
Monday, July 12, 2010
picture says a thousand words
I promise a real post will be forth coming. Exhaustion is not good for creativity.
Also, FF has officially surpassed 100 posts (this is 102!)! Thank you so much for reading and I hope that we continue to provide you with food for thought :)
Much love,
The Sheriff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)