30 Rock, Kiddie Porn, and Men Telling Me Other Women Are Jealous of Me

Alright, so I promised a post a few days ago and here it is. I've been following the show 30 Rock the past couple of years and I was enjoying it until recently. Not only has the dialogue become less funny but the jokes have become painful to witness. I am not going to use the word offended because that's not the right way to describe how I felt about the last episode (there is also a good post I found on how feminists and other groups use that word way too often when there are better and more meaningful ones to use...I will try to find it to post at the end of this post). For those who do not watch the show, here's information about it on tv.com. Comedian Tina Fey stars as the female lead, Liz Lemon, and is also credited as one of the writers.

Before I begin I need to bring up some of the questions and points I will also discuss at the end. I do recognize that, for the most part, 30 Rock's humour is satire. It pokes fun at current issues and people in the media. Therefore, when some of its jokes are disturbing and creepy, I am not sure whether to take issue with the writers of the show or whatever it is that it's making fun of. Turning popular Hollywood titles into porns is pretty common, so when the show turns the title of a book about the rape and murder of a child into a porn title, should I have a problem with the writers of 30 Rock or those who actually do this in the porn industry? When Jack suggests that porn for women consists of an attractive man nodding his head and pretending to listen, do I criticize the writers' ideas of what women find sexy, or the people who create the "Porn for Women" books with pictures of men doing housework? Does it matter that it is satire? Or is the show actually encouraging such beliefs to persist? What about the people who don't catch the references or realize that the writers are only mocking, rather than encouraging, sexist ideas?

Last week's episode, "Don Geiss, America and Hope," started off rather tame and then there was a reference to the book-turned-movie, The Lovely Bones. The context it was in, however, was when popular pay-per-view porn was being discussed. In this episode it was renamed "The Lovely Boner" (it might be some other sexual word play on "bone" and I remember it incorrectly - and if I do would someone please correct me - but it was along those lines). Other current popular films were also used as porn names and that would be fine... if The Lovely Bones was not based on a story about a young girl who is raped and then killed. Although this novel is a fictional story, it was written from a woman who was raped when she was a teenager. She, fortunately, was able to get away but it was later discovered that the man had raped another young girl around the same time and killed her. The novel is based off of this fact but the family the story revolves around is fictional. While I doubt Tina Fey and the writers of the show intended to make it sound like a kiddie rape porn - any title with "bone" in it can easily be turned into a porn title - I still was uncomfortable with this joke. However, it was a brief mention and the show continued.

(Ok, I hate when book covers are reprinted with the actors on the front but I thought this would be a good way to demonstrate just how creepy and disturbing a porn with this on the video cover would be.)

NEXT. Tracey Jordan then reveals that he does not actually have affairs and is embarrassed to let the public knows he is in love with his wife and would never cheat on her. Someone has threatened to publish this information so Jordan begins trying to find a woman to have sex with so he can keep up his image. He even says his wife tells him he better find someone to have an affair with or she is leaving him... or something along those lines. There is then a scene where he tries to seduce Lemon and when she discovers what he is trying to do she stops him and says she will never sleep with him because, "For one thing, I am not unconscious." Cue laughs. I don't find rape jokes particularly funny (in case you couldn't tell to my reaction to the first issue). I don't know why this had to be included as an option. If a woman was unconscious I did not believe she would actually be capable of "sleeping with" someone... that implies some sort of action on her part. Is she suggesting that option to Jordan though? No, I do not think the writers of this show are encouraging or condoning rape - or at least I *hope* they aren't - but that's already two rape jokes in one episode.

FINALLY, at the end of the episode Jack comes up with the idea that will win him recognition: Porn for Women! The men he suggests this to immediately counter with "Women hate porn" to which Jack replies that he means for an attractive man to stare out of the screen and nod his head. After listening to Liz complain about her relationship with a guy she does not like, Jack "realizes" that all women want is for a guy to listen to them complain about *their* issues without interrupting except to say "Uh huh," "really?," and "Oh, she's just jealous of you." Hm... There is a whole other debate I could get into about porn and women and feminism but that is not my point here. Is that really what men believe women to find pornographic or sexy? If so, there must be quite a few disappointed women. According to this idea, women do not actually enjoy or desire sex. Essentially, in this view, women apparently orgasm to a man telling her she is better than another woman or a man doing the dishes. This is a woman's sex life?


Once again, I am not sure the best way to approach these issues. I fail to find the humour in rape, whether or not it is mocking current rape culture. I also feel it's a bit of a problem that not everyone laughs at the show because of its satire, and instead find the jokes funny on their own. I also find my thoughts confusing and conflicting about what difference the writer being female has on my opinion of the jokes. I almost feel that because there is such a strong woman writing the jokes that the jokes should be held to a higher standard. By this I mean, she has the potential to fight against misogynistic jokes that are found in other sitcoms but still relies on rape humour. I also believe this is somewhat hypocritical of me for several reasons. First of all, why should I not also hold men to this standard? Men are just as capable of fighting misogyny as women - in fact, they are the ones writing a lot of the other sitcoms, they have a larger opportunity themselves to put a halt to this. Second of all, just because you are a woman doesn't mean you need to speak for all women. It would be nice to see a female writer stepping above these jokes, but just because she has a vagina does not mean she is feminist. I am not sure how to word my thoughts on this matter but thought I should present these unfinished/edited ideas to whoever is reading this.

Virtually Thinking

So as much as I have been enjoying SL lately I have been having a tough time finding exactly what to DO now that I have figured out how to change clothes and have joined activist groups that look interesting. I have been receiving messages from the groups about meetings and events and I have either felt like I am not prepared to participate or mix up the SL and RL times. One of the messages I received today when I just happened to be online at the right time was an invite to Virtually Speaking with Gloria Feldt, Lynn Harris, and Shelby Knox (here's the info). Feldt wrote The War on Choice which is a book that I have used for a few research papers in the past years so I thought I should check it out. I had some initial issues with sound and had to go through the Virtually Speaking radio blog to hear the discussion but I am really glad I did this. Of course I could have just listened to this talk online without SL but on SL the audience was able to type chat during the discussion which was a really great feeling. There are podcasts available from the discussion minus the audience input which is definitely worth checking out if you are at all interested in the topic. I thought I would include some of the comments that really stuck out, unfortunately I do not know which presenter said which comment.

When I finally got the sound working I heard one of them say "Feminists have more and better sex" which I thought was pretty awesome especially considering my earlier post about a few feminist theorists' thoughts about the incompatibility of feminism and heterosexual sex. I love when there are sex positive feminist discussions. Sex (either straight or queer) should not be seen as in opposition to feminism(s). Instead, feminism should allow for a greater discussion about sex and what the individuals want and feel safe with and enjoy.

The next discussion was about purity balls and one woman said how girls pledging themselves to a male god and to their father leaves no room for women's rights. Another woman asked that if a girl feels she must pledge anything, why not pledge to creativity and self worth? She then added that the idea of needing to pledge anything to a male god or your father is highly problematic but that there are alternatives to pledging virginity.

One presenter then went on to say that "femininity is a way of controlling." The imagery surrounding these purity balls are entirely about femininity and feminine qualities; the girls dress in white frilly dresses, their virginity and "purity" are celebrated, and so on.. This forced femininity is a form of controlling these girls, forcing them into this specific role. The presenter went on to say that women must be seen as "whole human beings... capable of making their own decisions," and these balls do not allow for that. If a girl wants to remain abstinent until marriage that's fine... as long as it's HER choice and she has not been forced into because of some ideal her father has for her.

At this point there was some great dialogue going on between the audience. Some were unaware of charity balls until this talk and everyone was really supportive in explaining it. The word "creepy" was used more than once about this phenomena.

One of the greatest comments from the presenters that I heard was when one of them was talking about her three year old daughter wanting to be a princess. Rather than telling her daughter this is "wrong" or "not-feminist" she allowed her daughter to continue with her princess dream but also challenged the typical little girl's understanding of a princess. She then told her daughter that she can be a princess but that to do this she must spend years studying foreign policy and learning at least eight different languages, and studying other topics important to national and political leaders. The audience response was unanimous with "LOL"s, "She's awesome," and so on.

Another important point that was made was in regards to how few young women wish to be identified as feminist. One presenter commented that it is important to examine how women's history is taught and how it leaves no room for role models for these young women to identify with themselves and feminism.

I am glad that I was able to participate in this. I will try to attend more live conferences and participate in group discussions more often. I could have just listened to the online radio version of this discussion but it was made interactive with SL through the audience chat. This way when there were issues of understanding or questions we could all help one another out. It also got a bit repetitive when some few vocal people became obsessed with discussing women's shoes. One guy said something along the lines "women should know better" many other audience members immediately took offense to what he said and the audience discussion began ignoring the three presenters. While this was not ideal, I could turn my attention to the presenters and keep an eye on the chat.

Comments:

Lockness-Lockstone:
Interesting how you mention and noticed the comment on "how few young women wish to be identified as feminists". I wonder how many young men would identify as feminst? For some reason, granted the ubiquitous nature of how feminist literature necessitates being female as a precursor to being feminist, I might hazard to guess that very few young men have identified as feminist(including my younger self). It wasn't until I read rather heavily on feminist theory that I was able to safely identify as feminist. I think this is a problem. We need to start using the term "we feminist", rather than "we women feminist"-- this is divisive and commits the same mistake of white male dominant hegemonic ideologies: that being, creating an us and them (I female feminist, and the other-- all men). But worse, becasue by always using the term women to identify feminists, we are always leaving out the possibility that male feminists would be a good thing. At least it seems that way upon first glance.

Student Magazine

So I really do want to address that National Post article in more detail but I just came across this. The article in question, in case the link does not go directly to the page, is "Student MD: Your Sex Questions Answered!!" and is on page 9 of the Fall 2009 issue of this student publication. The article begins respectable enough, addressing possible health concerns of sex such as STIs, "bumps, scraps, the odd bite mark, fingernail tracks, rug burn, latex or massage oil allergies, hair pulling, leg-cramping and/or burning sensations due to friction..." Scraps? Do they mean scrapes? Or scraps as in fights? OK. Re-reading that part I don't feel they even address the STI issue properly. I do not mean to advocate for abstinence only, I do not mean to argue that sex is "bad" because there is no way I feel that way. However, to put STIs, and not just less harmful ones but "incurable and fatal" ones, on the same level as allergies and minor physical pain is highly problematic. Another part that sounds like there is potential for good discussion is when lots of sex for women is advocated. In my previous post I comment on Catherine MacKinnon's stance that all straight sex is rape. I might be jumping to conclusions this early in the article that the author, Justin Sharpe, is referring to straight sex, but the sentence at the end of the article confirms this, which I will get to. Sharpe uses Dr. Claire Bailey's research from the University of Bristol which states that there,

"is little or no risk for females on 'overdosing' on sex. There are in fact gender specific health benefits associated with having lots of sex, such as improving posture and firming the abdomen."

I am all for promoting healthy sexual lives and establishing a culture that celebrates female sexuality rather than condemns it. At the same time, it should be an individual's choice whether to have sex or not, and with whom, and when. They should not be scared into having sex because of medical research showing that,

"...women who abstain from sex may face greater risks later in life. The opening of the vagina narrows from disuse and in post menopausal women, a condition called Dyspareunia is much more prevalent among sexually inactive women. Dyspareunia is characterized by pain associated with intercourse and could result in vaginal scrapes, should they choose to have sex."

I will not deny there are issues when arts students take on medical issues and vice versa but the way this article is set up is problematic to both fields of study. Women should be able to enjoy sex. They should not feel guilty for wanting and enjoying sex. They should also not feel obligated to have sex because doctors tell them they should. The same applies for men, I just am discussing female sexuality right now because that is what this particular part of the article addresses.

The article continues to say that there are potentially more health risks for men 'overdosing' on sex than women. This is interesting in that there is normal an expectation of men to enjoy sex at anytime and all the time and this article is questioning that assumption. Is it though? It is not questioning social and sexual expectations of men but is instead pointing out potential health risks. These health risks are also considered not much more concerning than the occasional "scrap" suffered during sex though according to this article.

My main concern and point of contention with this article is the conclusion. Until this point, although there are different issues, the article itself is just a piece of harmless fluff. It even has the potential to create discussion around expectations of sex, even if it is as medical concerns rather than social ones. Sex should be discussed. It should be something that is no longer taboo, and if it weren't for the conclusion, this article could potentially be seen as an aide to this, despite its problems. This is how it ends:

"So now it's time to face the facts. STUDENT does not condone whoring by any means, but ladies, for health's sake, now just might be the time to let loose... I'll be at Tap House, Fridays at 11."

I understand this is meant as a joke. I really do. This is meant to be a humorous wrap-up to an article that might be embarrassing or awkward for some people to read. But there is just so much wrong with this, and it being a joke makes it possibly even more problematic. First off - whoring? Really? You just spent a decent time discussing the benefits for women to have as much sex as possible, which I was even willing to give you some credit for maybe wanting to create a space for women to feel comfortable with their sexuality and you then cut it down to "whoring." A practice that you just argued was healthy for women, you are now using derogatory terms to define. Not only that but you say you don't want them to go so far as whoring, as in there is a limit still to how much sex you can enjoy before it becomes whoring. My Mac dictionary defines a whore as "a prostitute; a promiscuous woman." The verb is "(of a woman) to work as a prostitute" but "(of a man)" is "to use the services of prostitutes." Alright, so I could make a whole blog entry about that definition, and maybe I will, but I need to finish something for another class still tonight. So STUDENT doesn't advocate for women being promiscuous? Current social understandings of promiscuous women vary from sex before marriage to various sexual partners is a certain period of time...and all these understandings are hypocritical and problematic. All of these definitions apply only to women. From the dictionary understanding, for a man to whore it only means to have sex with a prostitute. So what counts as whoring to STUDENT? Female students sleeping with more than one guy (and I do stress "guy" because this article is only discussing heterosexual sex) in a school year? A month? A week? A night?

And another thing - "for health's sake"?? Obviously it is for Sharpe's sake alone that this line refers to. Is this the only way he can get women to sleep with him? Advocate that he is only sleeping with them for their benefit? Who is the one whoring here? If that's the term he wants to use, the only "whoring" seems to be Sharpe to the entire female population of UWO. Again, it is a joke but it is a terribly condescending one, and not even a funny one at that. And to assume that all sex women engage in is with a man. Or do the same health benefits not apply to lesbian sex?

For those who haven't seen this yet..

I am not sure this article merits a response or deserves my time but I am going to try to respond to the following: Women's Studies is still with us. While responding to this, I am going to pick out particular arguments they make and attempt to understand where they are getting these ideas. At best, I can guess that they may have flipped through an introductory women's studies' textbook and taken it with the assumption that because a student reads one particular theory he or she must automatically believe it. This was written by the National Post Editorial Board - I am not entirely sure who or how many individuals this means. The article begins with stating,

"The radical feminism behind these courses has done untold damage to families, our court systems, labour laws, constitutional freedoms and even the ordinary relations between men and women."

I am always skeptical when people use the term "radical feminism," especially when they then apply to mean "all feminism" and "all women's studies students." The term "radical," defined by the dictionary application on my computer, means, "relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough... characterized by departure from tradition; innovative or progressive." Another definition: "advocating thorough or complete political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a political party" and, "of or relating to the root of something." Defined this way, "radical feminism" is an attempt to find the root of female oppression and may involve complete social or political reform. From Wikipedia:

"Patriarchal theory is not always as single-sided as the belief that all men always benefit from the oppression of all women. Patriarchal theory maintains that the primary element of patriarchy is a relationship of dominance, where one party is dominant and exploits the other party for the benefit of the former. Radical feminists have claimed that men use social systems and other methods of control to keep non-dominant men and women suppressed. Radical feminists believe that eliminating patriarchy, and other systems which perpetuate the domination of one group over another, will liberate everyone from an unjust society."

One important issue of radical feminism (and it is important that just as radical feminism is a branch of "feminism," there are still many branches of radical feminism) is to challenge heteronormative beliefs; that is the social assumption that heterosexuality and other qualities such as monogamy and reproduction are normal relationship standards. This obviously does not mean that each woman graduating from Women's Studies rejects relationships with men and it also does not mean every lesbian is a lesbian because she hates men or wants to be a political statement. There are theorists, however, such as Catherine Mackinnon, who go on to construct all of heterosexuality as a dominance of men over women. MacKinnon was very important to current understandings of rape and did much work to bring this topic into the public arena and to draw attention to how often rape happens. She then went, at least from my perspective, a bit too far to suggest that all heterosexual sex is rape. She does still bring up some interesting ideas. In her essay, "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State," she writes,

"To be clear: what is sexual is what gives a man an erection... All this suggests that what is called sexuality us the dynamic of control by which male dominance - in forms that range from intimate to institutional, from a look to a rape - eroticizes and thus defines man and woman, gender identity and sexual pleasure." (Feminisms 354)

This quote on its own might still have merit. I think definitions of sexual are changing in today's culture, not always towards a feminist expression but not always on man's terms. At the same time, however, much of what is defined as "sexy" is essentially what advertisers expect men to find sexy. I word that intentionally. To say all men agree on one definition of sexy is highly problematic but I do see some merit to what MacKinnon says.

HOWEVER. And this is an important however, MacKinnon then continues to argue,

"Male sexuality is apparently activated by violence against women and expresses itself in violence against women to a certain extent." (355)

MacKinnon does not define what she means by violence here...it could be violence to women's intelligence, independence, etc or it could be physical violence. She continues:

"Rape and intercourse are not authoritatively separated by any difference between the physical acts or amount of force involved but only legally, by a standard that centers on the man's interpretation of the encounter." (356)

MacKinnon raises an important issue of creating a space for women to discuss and define their own sexualities and what they find sexual, but I do not see why she must compare ALL heterosexual sex as rape. Perhaps she feels there is no space at all for women to speak up and only do what men want. The point here, is that when I read this I do not automatically agree with MacKinnon. I instead read the article and find points that I can agree with and parts that I must question and wonder where she is coming from. Is this what the National Post means when they write,

"Over the years, Women's Studies scholars have argued all heterosexual sex is oppression because its "penetrative nature" amounts to "occupation."" ??

MacKinnon has only come to my attention because I have done quite a bit of research on violence against women and rape but obviously there has not once been a professor presenting her theory, or any theory for that matter, as fact. Not one of my professors has told me I am oppressed because I have a boyfriend, and not once has a professor tried to tell the class that we should all become lesbians. This is why I feel there is no point responding to this article. All of this seems so obvious. That being said, this will probably be followed by another post to respond to more of the article.

Is feminist "craft" possible?

Stella Minahan and Julie Wolfram Cox describe the growing movement/ collective called Stitch'n Bitch as, "...the global movement where women meet virtually, through the internet, and physically, often in local cafes and hotels, to socialize and share their craft" ("Stitch 'n Bitch" 6). Of most interest to me in this conversation is the traditional belittling or condescending views of "women's craft," or of craft in general. Minahan and Cox write that, "Craft is often seen as solely physical labour, messy and dirty, without an intellectual or aesthetic component and a perceived minimal contribution to cultural development" (11). In terms of craft, such as knitting and embroidery, being labeled as "women's art," Gisela Ecker writes that “What has been imposed on women through oppressive social conditions or prejudice should not be made part of our definition of woman’s art and thus be further perpetuated (Feminist Aesthetics 16). Ecker does not believe that what we call craft should be considered feminist or women's art as these are practices that women were relegated to when they were not allowed into the "real" art world. Ecker does not consider a reworking or redefining of such craft possible to fit feminism. She holds the same dismissive view of craft that Minahan and Cox outline. Minahan and Cox even discuss their issues with the continued, and often more severe, practice of relegating women to this craft: "It appears that while crafts such as stitching and embroidery may be a positive and social occupation for many, there are still far too many women around the world who are required to work at these tasks for poor pay rates and in difficult conditions" (15).

What then can be conclude from these statements? Can "craft" be feminist? Does it matter? As Minahan and Cox argue, there is a growing sense of community between women online in this movement. Is that not something positive for women? Many of those involved may not even identify as feminist but find strength among other women and are able to discuss important issues because they feel a connection with one another over this particular craft.



Marianne Jorgensen began this particular project to protest the Dutch military involvement in Iraq. Jorgensen asked for people worldwide to crochet tiny pink hearts and squares to cover a tank and then stitched these pieces together. She says that “…the tank is a symbol of stepping over other people's borders. When it is covered in pink, it becomes completely unarmed and it loses it's authority. Pink becomes a contrast in both material and color when combined with the tank.” For a full description of the project please click on this link to the artist's personal website.

I use this as an example because this is one potential site of feminist intervention using networks similar to those described in "Stitch 'n Bitch." What, however, makes this feminist? Fran Lloyd maintains that “…feminist art [is] any intervention in the dominant system of artistic production and reception which has historically excluded or marginalized women” ("Painting" 38). Jorgensen, however, takes a traditional feminine craft that has historically held little or no meaning, and used it as a site of intervention against war. This craft is seen as traditionally feminine, and war, although its meaning has changed more than once over the past century, is traditionally associated with the masculine. By playing on this relationship, is her protest successful? Could it be argued this protest piece is feminist?

Comments:

Sarah:
have thoughts on this, which I don't have time to write all out now, but it reminded me of a comment on on a debate about whether or not fanfiction makes women poor because they don't sell it/don't (always) become professional writers -- it circulates in a gift economy. This is a chunk of the quote:

"I still think that the fanfiction community is the most amazing women's art culture I've ever experienced, and quite possibly the most amazing there has ever been, just in terms of sheer numbers and output. And perhaps that is enough; perhaps one of the foundation-stones of the fanfiction community is that it doesn't have to engage directly with capitalist imperatives, and messing with that ethos might unbalance everything."

(I'd link you if I could find the link right now, but that would take some doing).

Maybe part of what makes "craft" a possible site of feminist intervention is not only that it brings women together (to talk about feminist things or not), but that it interacts with the capitalism-patriarchy hegemony in a possibly subversive way?

Gazing Online

I came across this post, How objectification silences women - the male glance as a psychological muzzle, when I was reading Jezebel this morning. I find it interesting and problematic that this is presented in a scientific study even if the original website it was posted on calls itself "Not Exactly Rocket Science - Science for Everyone." The study was conducted in the following manner:

[Tamur Saguy] recruited 207 students, 114 of whom were women, on the pretence of studying how people communicate using expressions, gestures and vocal cues. Each one sat alone in a room with a recorder and video camera. They had two minutes to introduce themselves to a male or female partner, using a list of topics such as "plans for the future" or "four things you like doing the most". The partner was supposedly sat in the next room and either watching the speaker from the neck up, watching from the neck down, or just listening on audio. The camera was tilted or blocked accordingly.

These are the results:

Saguy found that women talked about themselves for less time than men, but only if they thought they were being visually inspected by a man, and particularly if they thought their bodies were being checked out. They used the full two minutes if they were describing themselves to another woman (no matter where the camera was pointing) or if they were speaking to a man who could hear but not see them. But if their partner was a man watching their bodies, they spoke for just under one-and-a-half minutes.

And the importance:

The fact that men didn't react in the same way is important. For a start, it shows that it's a man's gaze and not just any downward glance that affects a woman's behaviour. It also puts paid to the false equivalence arguments that are often put forward when discussing gender issues (i.e. "women look at male bodies too").

The article does not go into much more detail to explore the implications of these findings. I said I found this problematic because it is presented as "scientific." Maybe it is just me but when I read "science" I hear biology when examining gender differences. Although it is not said or written in the article, by labeling this science I feel like these results are to be interpreted as biological differences, that is consequences of the participants' biological sex. I have a difficult time believing that women are born with a particular trait that makes them more subdued when speaking with a man than another woman. Similarly, I do not feel men are necessarily born lacking any self-conscious gene in their bodies.

Theorists such as Laura Mulvey and John Berger critically explore the relationship between gender and the gaze and come to the conclusion that "Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at" (Berger, Ways of Seeing). Although Mulvey explores how this is maintained through film, Berger attempts to look at this phenomenon in both the art world and everyday life. He argues that "...to be born a woman has been to be born, within an allotted and confined space, into the keeping of men." To Berger, it is not an inherent female trait that makes women passive to the gaze, but rather it is the society into which she is born that produces this effect. Therefore, I feel it would be much more productive to explore why the results of this study were this way, than simply proving that women feel dominated or objectified by men. What social constructs are there that create this?

I also am interested in exploring what happens with the "male gaze" in an online world. Does the gaze disappear or is it multiplied? As previously posted, I felt embarrassed and exposed when my avatar was naked and on display. This was not only a result of others being able to see "me" this way, but also because I was watching "myself" in this situation. Berger writes"The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object – and most particularly an object of vision: a sight." If women already turn themselves into objects by viewing herself in the outside world, what happens when we are viewing not only ourselves but also some online self as well?

Initial Thoughts about Second Life

I created an account on SL a few months ago but couldn't figure it out and let myself get frustrated and give up. I am trying it again now and it starting to make sense since I have learned how to communicate with others online and travel around SL. Even being new to SL I am surprised with some of the reactions I have. For instance, I was experimenting with how to change outfits and was on one of the freebie islands with free outfits (skins?) and I did not know I could drag and drop outfits on top of other ones to change. Instead, I used the "take off" option before changing outfits and all of a sudden my avatar was exposed, completely naked in a very "public" place. My initial reaction was shock and embarrassment. I was then surprised at this. Technically, that is only an image on the screen of a "not real" person/avatar - it is not actually myself naked in the middle of a shopping mall. At the same time, however, despite only being online for less than an hour I felt like part of myself was already a part of the avatar or at least represented by it, so it felt like it was myself naked and exposed. At least the avatar had some clothes on by the time Professor Farber showed up, although it was in the first free outfit I could find and it resembled something a stripper might wear. I feel like my avatar should be dressed in a "decent" fashion that I myself might wear when I have a meeting with a professor. I also recognize that SL is a chance to recreate oneself, or to completely create a new person/character. It should just seem like images on a computer screen that really do not matter, but it does. I also feel somewhat superficial using my first entry to blog about clothes, even if they are online clothes, but I think the relationship between myself and the avatar might be an interesting one to explore.

Comments from the other blog:

Lockness-Luckstone:
Perhaps clothes in reallife mean more to you than you think?!

I had a similar expeirience my first time in Second Life. TG helped me out though and was not in any way put off by my second life immaturity. But I however felt super embarrased that I didn't know what the hell I was doing.

Regardless your making the right move by changing your clothes. There is a newbie prejudice in second life that can be annoying if you don't figure it out. As you know, newbies are "born" with one of 12 possible avatars. If you don't change the visual characteristics they can become easily recognizable to a long term sl resident.

I always wondered why so many SL residents walked the other way when I approchaed them, until I realized they did not want to be the ones to orrient me to the world. Questions like "How do I change my clothes", "where are the sex clubs" blah blah blah, must beceom annoying. Like a new kid at school.

Anyway, I think your off to great start.

Peace out!

Feminist blog will be added to this one

I've remembered the email I used to create this blog and want to keep it updated from now on. I'm writing a blog for my cyber feminism class right now and am copying and pasting those posts into this one. This blog will now incorporate a variety of issues, including religious institutions, feminism, sexual reproduction rights, and whatever else I feel like writing about.

U.S. Court Allows Abuse Case vs. Vatican

U.S. Court Allows Abuse Case vs. Vatican

Just wanted to add this up here before I go back to writing another essay...According to the Wallstreet Journal, this is the first time the Vatican has been held liable for sexual abuse cases in a court this high.

"The appeals court found that the church government may be held liable for actions taken in the U.S. based on the Vatican's policies or directives.

"What the court has allowed us to do is proceed against the Vatican for the conduct of the U.S. bishops because of the bishops' failure to ... report child abuse," said William F. McMurry, the attorney for three men who claim they were abused as children by priests in the Louisville, Ky., archdiocese. He is seeking class-action status in the district-court case.

The ruling marks the first time that a federal appeals court recognized that the Vatican could be liable under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a 1976 law that governs when a foreign nation or its agents can be sued, said Marci Hamilton, a constitutional-law scholar who is part of the legal team in the Louisville case.

"If someone can crack that barrier of immunity, it opens the door to other claims against the Catholic church," says Jonathan Levy, a Washington, D.C., attorney who represents concentration-camp survivors in a suit against numerous parties including the Vatican bank. The Vatican, in that case, prevailed in its claim of sovereign immunity."

Children and Religion

So I am in the middle of essays and exams but did not want to neglect this for too long. A problem that I have with religious groups is how there is so much attention given to indoctrinating the children. Focusing on Christianity here, regardless of what your belief is of "interpreting" the bible - whether you take it literally or not - there are still some horrific stories in there. I say 'horrific' deliberately. When children are taught about the bible these stories are conveniently left out and they are given only the message "love one another." Now, before anyone gets upset with that statement and starts accusing me of wanting to read violent stories to kids, let me explain. While that message, "love one another," is a very peaceful and important message, that is not all that is the bible. There are rules demanding that raped women be stoned to death or forced to marry their rapist, that disobedient sons be stoned to death, and then there are the stories of slaughter. Before children can rationalize their beliefs they are presented with a clean happy notion that god means love and therefore Christianity, and only Christianity, means happiness and love as well. By the time these kids can read the bible for themselves they either feel that it has been explained well enough and see no need to read anything else in it, or force themselves to either ignore it or somehow interpret it to mean something entirely different. What is wrong with this? one may ask. If you were to wait for a certain age for children to be introduced to the bible and religion and they could read all the way through it, how many do you think would choose to believe in this particular god or at least the teachings of this book? Why can you simply not tell children to love one another rather than saying to do so because a god tells them to? I am not saying that no one would choose Christianity after an undoctrinated childhood - I know people who were raised without religion and chose this particular religion later on in life - I just have a problem with this being forced into children's minds as fact. What would happen if stories from the bible were read as bedtime stories alongside fairy tales, either presenting both as a way of life or both as simply stories?

 The image I have included is a religious tract from Chick publications intended to convert children to Christianity and can be found at www.chick.com. 

A comparison...

Alright, so I am not entirely sure I wish to bring this UPS article up once again but I think it is interesting to compare to another article I found linked from the Muslimah Media Watch website. Here's the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6565145.stm
This took place in Cairo rather than Canada but discusses the rights of Muslim women ignored by a news company. In 2002, two women news presenters wore their hijab head pieces and were not allowed on the air. This article does not cite the reasons given by their employers other than the the employers "objected" to this. In the Toronto UPS article it cites the full dress being a safety risk. I do not deny that there is racism or cultural intolerance within areas of Canadian life, nor do I think religious discrimination should be allowed, however, should credence not be given to safety concerns if they are legitimate? However, with this case in Cairo, what harm is there in respecting a religious freedom to wear the headpiece? Were they concerned about presenting one religious ideal over anther? If this is the case, one should look into whether they allow other presenters wear crosses or any other religious paraphenalia. No reason is given and even the court ruled in the women's favour, demanding that be allowed on the air. To me there is a major difference between the case with UPS in Toronto and this news agency in Cairo. The article from the Toronto Star is lacking in details as to whether the women were actually discriminated against becase of their religion on top of these safety concerns, or if it truly is only a safety issue. However, it appears with the Cairo case that there is no reason for this dismissal, at least given in the article, rather than religious discrimination.

Religious Change

For this post, I am going to try to take a step back and look at what religious groups are doing to change and point out their own issues within their religions. It is true that I have been critical of religions as this is a blog meant to critically analyze them but it is also important to recognize that not all Christians are a homogeneous group, nor are all Muslims or Jews. While I do not understand fully how (and here I am focusing on Christianity because that is what I am most aware of) Christian sects can interpret the Bible differently, when there are passages saying it cannot be interpreted, and still claim divine power connected to it when it is humans openly admitting to controlling what beliefs to follow and such, I still think it is important to acknowledge that some changes have been made to better fit with rights of equality. These churches, such as the United Church, recognize gay marriage and allow women to lead as well as men, do not say that by doing so their right to religion is being impeded. It is definitely worth checking out the United Church website at http://www.united-church.ca/ and I have quoted them on their views of abortion. I am compiling a list of other religious groups which openly come out and say they feel they can be true to their religion yet question their church to better respect equality and other rights.

Catholics for Choice is a group which tries to separate itself from specific teachings of the Vatican, specifically on abortion. I do not know what their view on homosexuality is or on women working in the Church but that is probably worth an investigation.

See Change : "We believe that the Holy See, the government of the Roman Catholic church, should participate in the UN in the same way as the world's other religions do—as a non-governmental organization."

Condoms 4 Life :"Condoms4Life is an unprecedented worldwide public education effort to raise public awareness about the devastating effect of the bishops’ ban on condoms. The campaign was launched on World AIDS Day 2001 with the display of billboards and ads in subways and newspapers saying, “Banning Condoms Kills.”" This group also does not discriminate against homosexuals and says that consensual sex between people not married happens and is not immoral. They add that even to those who feel sex must be shared only between married couples, sexual education and condom use must exist and not be prohibited.

I will keep another list of links for this subject.

Michael Valpy's "Seismic Tremors: Religion and the Law"

Getting back to a relevant issue to Canadians and religion, I turn once again to the collection of essays in Uneasy Partners: Multiculturalism and Rights in Canada. This essay is Michael Valpy's "Seismic Tremors: Religion and the Law" and he expands upon Janice Gross Stein's "Searching for Equality" which focuses mostly on women's rights (or more specifically, the lack thereof) in traditional religions. He questions how we, as Canadians, must solve conflicts between religious rights and equality rights and discusses how these often conflict with one another. Before discussing the main issues he states: "I do not want a Canada that turns its back on multiculturalism" (p. 123) making it clear that he is not against multiculturalism or individuals' rights to it, but then brings up issues associated with this as well. He discusses the statistics in Canada relating to religion (only about 20% of the population regularily attend religious services while 85% claim to follow a specific religion) and how these figures fail in properly portraying a the increase in religious orthodoxy. British writer, Karen Armstrong, interviewed by The Globe and Mail, says that this religious fundamentalism exists as a "natural byproduct of a secular liberal society" and that "In particular... the emancipation of women has fuelled fundamentalism in all major religions, and Christianity has been 'the worst religion in the world for integrating sexuality and gender with the sacred'" (pg. 126-127). (I am quoting, I don't know what evidence she gives of this and that might be worth looking into, comparing Christianity to Islam and Judaeaism in their treatment of homosexuals and women). Valpry then brings up a series of recent religious incidents in Quebec. These include a Montreal YMCA frosting windows in a workout area so Muslim girls can exercise without men seeing them in their exercise gear, as well as a mix-up in pool schedules where there was a Muslim female swim class at the same time as a children's swim lesson which parents regularily watch but the fathers were forced out at the Muslim women's demands. At another community centre, he writes, men had to leave their partners in a prenatal class because a Muslim woman objected to their presence, and then also includes an incident where an Orthodox Jew, because of claims he needed to be home for the Sabbath, was allowed to cut in front of already waiting patients to see a doctor (pg. 128).

I do understand, especially in a country which supports multiculturalism, by bringing up such issues there is a need to exercise caution in my wording so that there is no mistaking criticism of specific incidences for an objecion to multiculturalism as a whole. The frosting of windows, to me, seems like a fair and not an unreasonable compromise as I am sure there are many women, not just Muslims or for religious reasons, who prefer privacy from men in a workout room. However, to look at this in the reverse if there was a request for a seperate men's gym this would be dismissed as being sexist, no? Same goes for the swimming lesson. If the women were promised a specific pool time away from the eyes of men, I understand how the gym would feel a need to honour this promise, but also how did the fathers feel being told that because they were born with a penis they could not watch their sons and daughters' swim lessons? If it were the mothers who were kicked out, there would have been protests against sexual discrimination. As for the prenatal classes, please correct me if I am wrong, but is it not important for the father or partner to also know what to expect? I am not sure what prenatal classes include but I am sure I can safely guess they focus primarily on the actual birth, which more men are choosing to be present for and assist with at least emotional support, as well as perhaps care for the newborn. With more women working today, men are also expected to help care for the child and should know what to expect and how to properly care for their child. I wonder if the community centre then offered men-only classes? I realize a male-only prenatal class may sound absurd but I think it would be interesting to see if the community centre offered any compensation for this. Perhaps too it could have offered a seperate class which was intended only for females at another time, but this too is problematic as it is still discrimination and also could take up more the centre's funding paying an instructor for the additional time, as well as maybe interferring with other events that would otherwise be taking place in that room. As for the case at the doctors office... was the same consideration given to patients who said they needed to pick their child up at a specific time, or make it to a meeting, or go grocery shopping before the store closed?

I have just added a new selection to the Suggested Books list but I must admit I have not read it or been able to find a copy of it as of yet. This book is Sumbul Ali-Karama's The Muslim Next Door: The Qur'an, the Media, and that Veil Thing, recommended by Muslimah Media Watch (click here for the link to the article). I have not read it yet but the website I found this article on is critical of their own religion (these articles are written by Muslim women) and are also wary of how this religion is portrayed. Another article I found was reviewing another book which supposedly stated there is nothing sexist in the Qur'an and the reviewer immediately dismissed this notion. I state this as opening, only because I know very little specific details about this religion and know that I should not just take anything posted online as fact. Also obviously the review I found is written by someone religious but it must be noted that the majority of the site is critical of it. Anyways, I just thought I would include this because even though this blog is meant to critically analyze religion, it is still important to look at some other arguments. I do not mean to say this one book changes my mind on religion nor does it all of a sudden, in my opinion, justify the sexist passages in the Quar'an (which even the author takes issue with), but I think it is worth a look, as well as does the rest of the site I've linked to.

A quick summary of the book, quoted from the review:

"This book is basically what you wish you can give to those people who ask you all those questions that you have to answer over and over again. Now you can just hand them this book and trust that it’ll answer their questions.

Ali-Karamali doesn’t shy away from difficult questions, or gloss over them. She splits up her book into 11 chapters, and tackles the issues the media loves to talk about (veiling, stoning, jihad etc). She takes the major misconceptions about Islam and deconstructs them into base elements before explaining them.

The first half of the book introduces Islam to the non-Muslim reader and delves into more detail as the book progresses. The second half tackles the meaty topics: women in Islam, jihad and fundamentalism, stealing and adultery in Islam, American Muslim reactions to 9/11 and a concluding chapter on why misconceptions persist."

If I can get ahold of this book, I promise my own personal review when I read it.

For this post, I am going to diverge from my main points to hopefully answer a question posed by Chris. He says, "Can we hope to have any ethics or morality based in something other than various religious teachings? Even though I'm an atheist, my sense of what is right and wrong were confirmed by a somewhat Christian childhood..." For this, I am going to rely on the writings of Christopher Hitchens. This particular selection comes from his book, god is not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything (published by McClelland & Stewart Ltd in 2007).

"The argument that religious belief improves people, or that it helps to civilize society, is one that people tend to bring up when they have exhausted the rest of their case. Very well, they seem to say, we cease to insist on the Exodus (say), or the Virgin Birth or even the Resurrection, or the 'night flight' from Mecca to Jerusalem. But where would people be without faith? Would they not abandon themselves to every kind of license and selfishness? Is it not true, as G.K. Chesterton once famously said, that if people cease to believe in god, they do not believe in nothing but in everything?

The first thing to be said is that virtuous behavior by a believer is no proof at all of - indeed is not even an argument for - the truth of his belief. I might, just for the sake of argument, act more charitably if I believed that Lord Buddha was born from a slit in his mother's side. But would not this make my charitable impulse dependent upon something rather tenuous? By the same token, I do not say that if I catch a Buddhist priest stealing all the offerings left by the simple folk at his temple, Buddhism is thereby discredited. And we forget in any case how contingent all this is. Of the thousands of possible desert religions there were, as with the millions of potential species there were, one branch happened to take root and grow. Passing through its Jewish mutations to its Christian form, it was eventually adopted by the Emperor Constantine, and made into an official faith with - eventually - a codified and enforceable form of its many chaotic and contradictory books. As for Islam, it became the ideology of a highly successful conquest that was adopted by successful ruling dynasties, codified and set down in turn, and promulgated as the law of the land. One or two military victories the other way - as with Lincoln at Antietam - and we in the West would not be the hostages of village disputes that took place in Judaea and Arabia before any serious records were kept. We could have become the votaries of another belief altogether - perhaps a Hindu or an Aztec or a Confucian one - in which case we should still be told that, strictly true or not, it nonetheless helped teach the children the difference between right and wrong. In other words, to believe in a god is in one way to express a willingness to believe in anything. Whereas to reject the belief is by no means to profess belief in nothing." (pp. 184-185)

He continues...

"An even more graphic example is afforded by the case of Rwanda, which in 1992 gave the world a new synonym for genocide and sadism. This former Belgian possession is the most Christian country in Africa, boasting the highest percentage of churches per head of population, with 65 percent of Rwandans professing Roman Catholicism and another 15 percent adhering to various Protestant sects. The words 'per head' took on a macabre ring in 1992, when at a given signal the racist militias of 'Hutu Power,' incited by state and church, fell upon their Tutsi neighbors and slaughtered them en masse." (190)

Here he does not mean to state that because the Church was in Rwanda, that the Church is necessarily evil, rather that a religious presence does not mean there is a purely ethical and moral community. Just as he says one corrupt Buddhist priest does not discredit the entire religion, this does not discredit Christianity as a whole. It does however discredit the notion that religion, and only religion, means ethics and kindness.

Let me make myself clear...

I feel I must reiterate or make clear my points that I have not yet made perfectly clear to some. I DO NOT hate or wish to incite hatred towards anyone, whether they be religious or not. I DO NOT anywhere claim to be unbiased and uncritical, so therefore it should not be a shock to anyone reading this blog that I have a certain view. I find it problematic that religion, on the basis of being religion so often is placed above national and legal authority. So far one of the best texts I have found relating this problem in a Canadian context is Uneasy Partners: Canada and Multiculturalism. The first writer, Janice Gross Stein, admits to being a Jew but still finds problems with her own synagogue which systematically discriminates against women. She says that most religious institutions are considered "private" and as such are not subject to the Rights and Freedoms which are guaranteed to ALL Canadian citizens. She then points out, however, that most religious establishments do not need to pay property tax and also receive charity status for tax purposes. Therefore, while one could argue that the place is funded by the public, one could also say that they are able to so easily receive funding because the people donating receive compensation from the government, and therefore the institution is not so private.

It is obvious what my views are on religion but please note I am not making any statements about the existence of any god or gods; I do not claim to be all-knowing about existential matters, I merely want to point out human issues that are obvious to anyone looking at these religions critically. Institutions that force women to sit at the back of a room, or exclude them from a job on the basis of being female are considered discriminatory and should be considered so without exception.

Here are my main issues:

- Catholic schools are funded by the government in Ontario (one of the few, if only, Canadian provinces with this benefit)... Why should this be allowed?
- Many religions discriminate against women, gays, and even people of other religions, and are allowed to do this on the basis of freedom of religion. I do not believe that freedom of religion should be taken away, but rather equality freedoms be placed above it.
- Many religious institutions are exempt from certain taxes and can even receive charity status to more easily fund themselves. I do not deny that many religious groups are part of charities which benefit people in Canada and around the world, but I also feel this is an insult to humanity that we must claim we need religion to do "good." I also acknowledge that many of these institutes function as community centres, but other community centres which do not claim religious affiliation do not get to benefit also from this privilege.
- While we are guaranteed freedom of religion, the very document this comes from states there is some form of a god. I do not wish this to be changed to "there is no god", but rather omit this mention or tie it back to a more humanist and earthly inspiration.
- I also wish to bring to light the fact that there are many horrific (and I do use that word purposely despite the suggestion I avoid opinionated adjectives, because this is my opinion) passages in the Christian Bible. Such passages include the stoning of rape victims, the stoning of disobedient sons, the "dashing" of babies' heads against rocks, to just name a few. Obviously and with good reason, from what I can see, Canadian Christian churches today do not follow such laws, yet claim they must follow the other sexist and homophobic laws because the Bible is "divinely inspired". If human reason can oppose the examples I gave, to the extent that the Church no longer preaches them, why then cannot it be applied to other laws as well?

I will repeat: I am not arguing for forced atheism or punishment for belief, but rather an emphasis of value on equality rights. There are too many times where hate speech is tolerated against homosexuals because it is the "Church" saying it. There are too many times where women are denied jobs within their own church, synagogue or mosque because of the religion. It is problematic that many religious "values" contradict rights and freedoms.

Perhaps I went a bit off topic with the last post so let me please tie it into the issues. I will admit I wrote it on very little sleep and should have put it through an editing process. I did not realize that people reading my blog would be shocked that I have an opinion and am not approaching this completely unbiased. Nowhere do I claim this virtue. I was expressing an opinion. It was not a xenophobic or hateful opinion against the women fighting UPS; I was upset that once again, religion seems to trump other laws on the basis of being religion. It seemed rather hypocritical that these women were claiming they were discriminated against for being female, when their very religion does this. I do not mean that UPS has a right to be sexist, not at all.

Once again, I do not hate religious people, nor do I wish to incite hatred against them. The goal of this blog is to bring up events and concepts which I (I personally, I with an opinion) find problem with. Nowhere do I claim to hold divine power or to be all-knowing. I am a concerned citizen, that is all. I am not naive enough to actually believe that my opinion is the only "right" one, or the only one for that matter. I truly do appreciate feedback, but it also saddens me what some people are taking away from what I am saying.

UPS and Discrimination?

"UPS dress code case settled: 8 Muslim women claimed discrimination in firing"
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/538235

I found this article and decided to post it since most of my research has been on Christianity. Basically, there are 8 devout Muslim women claiming they were fired from UPS on the basis of religious and gender discrimination. They refused to hike their dresses above their knees for safety reasons (i.e. climbing up ladders 6 metres high) and UPS claims this could have resulted in injuries and accidents. At this point, apparently the sides have reached an agreement but it is yet to be published.

There are plenty of women employed by UPS today and they are not claiming they are victims of gender discrimination. It is the women's choice to follow these strict guidelines of their religion. I do understand that it is also a culture thing so they could possibly face discrimination at home, but they are choosing to remain there and choosing to follow the rules even at work. UPS did not fire them because they were Muslim, but because they wore unsafe clothing at work. I do not think it right that, if this is a valid concern, that these women believe themselves to be above safety regulations. If any other female (or male) were to wear long dresses, whether they were Muslim or not, they would face the same problem. If they were to fall off the ladders and become injured, they could possibly sue UPS or be out of work for awhile and still receive injury pay. There is no reason why UPS should have consented to this, if it is a valid safety concern.

This article also brings up another problematic issue, which is the charitable status bestowed on most religious institutions. This means that the institution is able to raise money easier through the public and claim to be funded by its followers rather than the government, and therefore argue it is private and can follow religious laws rather than actual Canadian laws against discrimination. This specific mosque which these women attend issues slurs on Jews and still has this charitable status. Furthermore, the majority of mosques demand that women be seperated from the men and continue to discriminate against women. The clothing is only one example of this. Women cannot be imams in traditional mosques and until recently (in some more liberal mosques) women cannot lead prayer to a group of mixed gender or men. These women should be suing their mosque for gender discrimination, not UPS.

Freedom from Religion?

In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms it is clearly stated that everyone is guaranteed "freedom of conscience and religion"(2b). However, it also states at the very beginning "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..." While this does not mean it must be the Christian god or the Jewish god or the Muslim god, it does mean that these laws are based on the fact that some singular god does exist. We are given freedom of religion, but we are also given freedom of conscience which can mean abstaining from religion too. I found an interesting group called Freedom from Religion which claims that not only is it important that we have the right to choose religion, we must also have the right to be separate from religion and not forced into it. This would mean removing the opening statement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The freedom of religion would remain but those of us who wish to abstain from it do not need to "recognize the supremacy of God".

"God" is also found in the Canadian anthem. So often in school they make children singing a mismatched bilingual version, never telling the students that the French one is not at all a translation of the English one. Therefore, when you switch between the French and English one, you are actually singing two very different things. The French version translates into this:

O Canada! Land of our forefathers
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.

Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights.

(Taken from: http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm#a8)

Not only does this mean children could be singing about being willing to go to war for their country at the age of 7 (or however young they are when they first sing it), it also makes them state they are willing to carry the cross. This is referencing directly the Christian faith so even those of other religion, not just atheists and agnostics, should be concerned.

Important to Note

I feel it very important to stress the fact that this blog is not intended to incite hatred or violence against current people involved in religious groups. I have some friends who are religious and I do not hate them for their beliefs, and there are many kind people involved in religious groups. What I have a problem with is the way in which religion holds so much power today in society, on the belief that it is god-inspired and therefore above regular law, such as churches denying people their equal rights at marriage, not having to pay taxes, requiring separate schools, and so on. Furthermore, the churches which are more liberal (such as the United Church), while I am very happy that they are changing to be less oppressive, I must laugh at such attempts to change with the times as it is a sign that the religion is very much one that is created and established by humans alone, and not some divine almighty creator. How can the church claim to be based off of the Bible if they can pick and choose which beliefs to follow? Either way they are still connected to something that is very racist and sexist, and are not needed.

There are many Christian groups which are around the world trying to help those in need in developing countries. This is not a "point" for Christianity but for humanity. There are also many groups doing the same thing without dragging along Bibles with them. To be an atheist is not to be without morals. Christianity did not invent morals such as not killing or stealing; these existed long before, and even still are not carried out by all Christians today. This is not to say that all atheists are moral people, but I do not think it right that Christianity become a synonym for morality and good.

One more point, as I previously stated, this blog is not intended to be attack against Christianity alone but rather a critique of all established religions/cult which claim to have been inspired by god or some other mythical being. Christianity is one of the more popular religions in North America and the one which I am most familiar with, so the majority of the posts will be dealing with that religion. However, I sincerely do not mean for this to be used by other religions to attack Christianity and to claim superiority over it, because all religions err in the similar ways, as they are all *human*

The Vatican and the Christian Family

I found this article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/06/world/main1687068.shtml) on the CBS News website summarizing a document released by the Vatican in June 2006 declaring that "Family is under attack" due to gay marriage, birth control, and artificial insemination. I have never understood why the Vatican has such an obsession with sex (read the Vatican's Declaration on Sexual Ethics for a laugh) perhaps it is because no one in the administration is supposed to be having any sex that they feel the need to talk about it incessantly. I also have never understood how two men or two women being happy together can represent such a threat to the Vatican. Either way, no pope or cardinal has any right to declare that these are the reasons that the traditional family is being "destroyed". In the New Testament, Jesus takes full responsibility for this (capitalized words are how they are found in the text):

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." (Matthew 10:34-37)

What traditional family is the Pontifical Council for the Family discussing then? How can they argue that the modern world is destroying the family, when their supposed leader claims that to love him or god requires sacrificing the family?

Change of Venue

This blog is now reorienting its focus on the larger issues of religion. Religion is undeniably man-made (and I do mean "male" most often), and as such is subject to horrible human error and prejudices. I do not mean to direct attention to any one religion, however as Christianity is more the dominant religion in Canada (including its various sects and divisions) it will most likely receive more criticism than others. This is not really too far a stretch from the initial topic, as it is religion that provides most of the outcry against abortion, and from what I've observed it is in the terms of religion that information on the subject is manipulated.

Anti-Abortion Protest

So today was the first Sunday of October so it was the "Life Chain" where religious groups go out and stand by a main road with their generic photocopied signs stating "Abortion hurts women" and "Abortion kills babies." My main issue with this was inescapable this year because of course the person protesting in front of my house had her 3 year old daughter with her. I asked some of the people protesting what their opinion on having children at the protest was. For the most part these people were very kind and easy to talk to (minus the one man in a lawn chair muttering "not even jesus will save your soul") but none really presented any original ideas. As for their opinions on children at the protests, many admitted to having their children there or in past years, and one said the only reason her younger children weren't there was because there wasn't enough room in the van because she took her older children and their friends with them. One said that her four year old granddaughter "knows" what abortion is, that it means "the mommy has a baby growing in her tummy and that she has decided to kill it." I asked if the granddaughter was curious as to why some women would seek this option, and she said that the question hadn't been raised but when it is in the future, she would inform her granddaughter that "sometimes a girl isn't ready for a baby, but that it is important to know that she can go through with the pregnancy and give the baby to someone who really wants it." Both this grandmother and a young mother agreed that young children cannot fully grasp the concept but should be informed of "Christ's love for the unborn."

When I asked why they were out protesting today I got varied but similar answers. One woman said she was there to "bear witness to christ." Another said to "spread Jesus's love" and another said "to inform." I asked one woman why she agreed with her sign, "Abortion hurts women" and she said that she feels some women seek abortions without knowing their full options and are hurt afterwards.

What was most interesting, was the students' responses, which ranged from indifference to anger. One house held a sign saying "Pro-CHoice" since the protestors were standing directly in front of the house. I was told though that the sign in it's entirety said "Pro-Choice...Bitches" so it may not have been taken seriously. A lot of cars drove by and honked, but these could have been honks of approval or anger. There were many who shouted out windows at these protesters telling them to go away. Most of those with signs ignored this and kept smiles on their faces. I wanted to place a "Pro-Choice" sign in my window but I couldn't find a marker, and was also in a rush to work or I would have spent much more time talking to them, and also to the students in obvious disagreement.

One thing that went across my mind was how I wanted to tell the protesters to get off my lawn because while I agree with their right to protest, I don't want it to seem anyone living on this property agrees with their opinion. However, the person sitting on my lawn was a girl no older than 5 with her mom, holding a sign saying "Abortion kills babies". How could I accuse a 5 yr old of trespassing? But if you think of it this way - her mother obviously thinks she is old enough to comprehend abortion and hold a fully developed opinion on it, like any other activist she must be ready to deal with the consequences. Not that it really needs to be said, but I did not even attempt to press charges but it was an interesting idea nonetheless.

London Birthright

I started trying to contact various organizations today to get some different opinions, as well as to gain some knowledge on the different options out there. I thought that since most churches operate on Sundays that today would be a good day to talk to the church leaders and organizers. However, when I showed up at the United Church this afternoon all the doors were locked. I originally planned to show up for the service at 10:30 and then talk to the pastor/priest afterwards. However, I know from when I have gone to church with my grandparents that the pastor is normally occupied with congregants questions and discussions afterwards and I did not feel it right to take up his/her time being a first time visitor. I guess I waited too long though, and will have to try during the week.

Since I could not talk to anyone in person today, I decided to start some research and what I found today is actually very upsetting. I typed in “London Ontario + abortion” for Google, and the first link to show was for Birthright (www.birthright.org). The website advertises this group’s services as “We are here to help you in making a decision about your pregnancy” and “We want you to know the many options available to you.” They also claim to offer “Non-judgmental and caring advice.” The website also says “Birthright is a fully independent organization, not affiliated with any church or public agency.” All this sounds really good as they offer a 24 hour helpline for pregnant girls. HOWEVER, when I called the helpline and made sure to immediately inform the woman that I was not in crisis and did not want to tie up a line that someone else may need, I asked if there was another line I could call for some answers for an assignment, the woman gave me the number to a Right to Life clinic.

Right to Life (http://www.right2life.ca/) is an organization devoted to criminalizing abortion and is the group that organizes the "Life Chain" which is the anti-abortion protesters. Maybe, I am missing something, but if a group claims to not be affilatted with any church or public agency, how can they give me this number?? Furthermore, when you look into the Birthright website, under services they provide, it quickly becomes obvious which way their counsellors are likely to push these girls towards. They provide "maternity and baby clothes", as well as information on "prenatal development", "adoption", and "pregnancy and childbirth." Nowhere is abortion even mentioned on this website.

Catholics for Choice

I came across this website tonight: http://www.catholicsforchoice.ca/

I find it very interesting.. one of the main issues I have with the anti-abortion movement is their means of protesting. I believe that it is every person's right to make their opinion heard but I don't agree with these protesters using their young children to hold sign like "abortion kills babies" when I seriously doubt these three year olds have formed their own well-informed decision on the topic. Every time I see this I want to ask one of the kids if they know what abortion truly is and why some women seek them. Maybe I am generalizing but I cannot see each one of these parents sitting their toddlers down and explaining to them this situation.

This group I found includes this in their "about us" section:

"The Toronto Catholic District School Board, following the Vatican's lead, has decided to end support to UNICEF (the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund) at Halloween. Instead of allowing trick-or-treating children to carry UNICEF boxes, the Toronto Catholic School Board agreed to allow the children to carry boxes to collect money for "Aid to Women". CFFC-Canada denounced this move, and exposed "Aid to Women" as an anti-abortion group whose members harass and intimidate girls and women who try to enter a legal abortion clinic in downtown Toronto. The name "Aid to Women" is misleading and without the information provided by CFFC-Canada, people donating at Halloween may have thought that the money was to go to a women's shelter. Indeed many principals and teachers at Catholic elementary schools were of the same mistaken belief."


I'm glad that there are people willing to speak out against the main beliefs held by their religion, even when coming from the top (i.e. the Vatican). It is important for me to remember while I work on this project not to see people only as the group they belong to and to know that not everyone in a group shares the uniform ideas. I have to admit though that I am a little skeptical of a Catholic group being fully pro-choice but from what I have seen on this website it seems to be a good and interesting step forward for the church, even if it is just a select few from such a large and conservative religion.

Abortion in the News

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080930.ELECTIONABORTION30/TPStory/?query=abortion

So with time in between classes, I decided to look up what there is recently in the news about abortion. Just today, an article was in the Globe and Mail about Stephen Harper promising not to reopen the abortion debate if he is re-elected. "He said then that he would not introduce legislation amending the abortion law but that Conservative MPs had a right to their own beliefs, leaving the door open for private member's bills." His spokesperson, Kory Teneycke, adds to this: "We can't prevent private member's bills from reaching the floor...But the government would not support them."

http://www.thestar.com/article/508645

The Toronto Star goes into more detail on this matter, including the fact that Harper wants the bill proposed by Ken Epp, The Unborn Victims of Crime Act to be rewritten. What this entails, I am not sure, but it is important to note that while Harper says he does not wish to pass anything affecting the abortion laws, he wants this one rewritten but not scrapped all together. For those who don't know, a basic summary of this bill is that it is intended to protect the unborn in crimes, so that those who murder a pregnant woman are charged with 2 counts of murder. When I read up on this, it seems that both counts of murder would be served together so I don't understand what the point of this is. There is a clause that states it would not affect abortion laws, but once the "unborn" is considered a person who can be murdered, how can the abortion laws stand?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=849260

The National Post has a lot less optimistic view on this as it's article on this topic is called "Abortion ban in Tory plan." In this article, Gilles Duceppe states that he believes the Conservatives will try to criminalize abortion on the basis of Epp's bill. In this full article, only one line is given to state Harper's stance: "During an Ottawa news conference yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his government has no plans to reopen the abortion debate or change Canada's abortion laws."

United Church of Canada

I found this on the official United Church of Canada website: http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/poli

cies/1980/c511

2. Abortion

1. We affirm the inherent value of human life, both as immature in the foetus and as expressed in the life of the mother and related persons. The foetus is a unique though immature form of human life and, as such, has inherent value. Christians should witness to that value by stressing that abortion is always a moral issue and can only be accepted as the lesser of two evils. Therefore, abortion is acceptable only when, after careful consideration, the medical, social, and/or economic situation makes it the most responsible alternative.
2. The previous law, which required a hospital therapeutic abortion committee to authorize an abortion was unjust in principle and unworkable in practice.
3. We do not support "abortion on demand." We believe that abortion should be a personal matter between a woman and her doctor, who should earnestly consider their understanding of the particular situation permitting the woman to bring to bear her moral and religious insights into human life in reaching a decision through a free and responsive exercise of her conscience

They also include this:

1. Massive Contraception Program

1. A child has a right to be wanted, so that it may have some assurance of this essential element in human development. Bringing unwanted children into the world is irresponsible.
2. Thus, family planning, including vasectomy and tubal ligation is Christian duty. Our Canadian society has to make every effort to ensure that contraception is the only completely acceptable form of birth control. Some practice of abortion is inevitable for the next few years while contraceptive techniques are imperfect and contraceptive ignorance is widespread, but the aim of all education, research and social pressure must be always to reduce the incidence of abortion and to promote effective contraception.
3. To anticipate the use of abortion as a form of birth control and therefore neglect to practise contraception is medically and morally deplorable and socially expensive. Such intentional use of abortion by individuals or governments is morally wrong.

That was from 1980 and they have expanded on the idea of the importance of sexual education in a more recent edict/declaration in 1990: http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/1990/a111

"WHEREAS prevention of abortion is best accomplished by the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, the aim of education, research and social action must always be to promote effective contraception and thus reduce the incidence of abortion;"

I think it's amazing that a religious group is able to step forward and say that even though they don't necessarily agree with abortion but understand that they cannot judge every situation or declare it absolutely evil. However, rather than just saying "yes, go ahead with the abortion" they are stressing the importance on sexual education so then contraceptives can be used more effectively. They even include the fact that they want better access to abortion clinics in Canada:

"WHEREAS many provinces have a high incidence of teenage pregnancy and Saskatchewan has one of the highest;

WHEREAS accessibility to abortion is inadequate in certain geographical areas in Canada as evidenced by:

• Prince Edward Island provides no access to abortion services;
• Newfoundland: one doctor in St. John's performs abortions;
• New Brunswick: no services north of Moncton;
• Nova Scotia: one Halifax hospital performs over 80 per cent of abortions;
• Quebec: 70-80 per cent of abortions are done in Montreal;
• Ontario: access concentrated in the southern cities;
• Manitoba: services available primarily in Winnipeg;
• Saskatchewan: women outside Saskatoon have little chance to obtain abortions;
• Alberta: abortions done in Edmonton, a few in Calgary, and fewer still in Lethbridge;
• British Columbia: situation precarious because of anti-abortionists elected to hospital boards; and

WHEREAS abortion is a medical act and the provinces are required to provide medical services according to federal standards of comprehensiveness and availability; and

WHEREAS under the Canada Health Act, the federal government can withhold health transfer payments from provinces which fail to provide medical services on a comprehensive, accessible, universal basis:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 33rd General Council:

1. urge the Government of Canada under the Canada Health Act to monitor the provinces' provision of contraception and abortion services in the light of federal adequacy standards of comprehensiveness and availability; and if found inadequate to pressure the provincial governments to bring these services up to Canada Health Act standards;
2. urge all conferences to request their provincial governments to provide adequate contraceptive and abortion education, counselling and services; and to report on their actions and results to the 34th General Council"

Not only are they acknowledging freedom of choice, they are trying to make a difference in how the government regulates abortion as well and are asking for more involvement to better provide this service to Canadian girls. I do not agree with government and religion mixing but I think this way, the United Church can be seen like any other activist or lobby group, not fighting for Church rights, but for women's rights.

abortion = lynching and holocaust??

Something that really upsets is how different "pro-life" groups attempt to scare people away from abortions by associating it with horrible events in history where large groups of people were killed. I just came across one on the Pregnant Pause website: http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/lynch.htm
This group compares the number of lynchings from 1882 to 1968 (3446) to the number of abortions chosen by African-Americans from 1973 to 1994 (approx. 10,000,000). This is an insult to those who were violently murdered because of racism and also to these women who have chosen to abort for various reasons. In one of my classes this semester we had to look at images of lynchings that happened in the 20th century in the South. Painful to look at, these were clearly crimes of violence and hatred with the intent to oppress and destroy an entire group of human beings who had lives and families of their own. Comparing a lynching to an abortion is disgusting. Although I cannot claim that all abortions are chosen for reasons that all could agree are "legitimate", abortion clinics do not exist to wipe out an entire group within a population out of hatred and ignorance. However, I do know that there were eugenics movements when birth control was becoming popular in the States to sterilize African Americans and I think this is an atrocity. It is not right though to claim that abortions today have anything to do with a racist movement. One very important fact that is being left out is that these African-American fetus which are aborted are happening because the woman (who is most likely African-American, unless this is just from the father's side) chose to do so. Lynchings happened to African-Americans by ignorant white southern people. Clearly the second is one group doing violence against another, and the first is a conscious decision, not to wipe out one's own group.

A more common comparison is to the Holocaust, which is equally disgusting. On the London, Ontario Right 2 Life website (http://www.right2life.ca/aboutus_aims.shtml) under "Our Aims and Objectives" there is a quote from John Mallon. "Why should the slaughter of six million Jews and countless others qualify as genocide but not the slaughter of 45 million unborn children?" According to John Mallon's personal website (http://www.johnmallon.net/) he has been a Catholic writer for the last 25 years. I can see how he makes the comparison, if you go with the belief that the moment the sperm meets the egg there is a human being. He is claiming that neither the fetus nor the Jews were able to defend themselves and were subjected to another's desire to kill them. However, these people who were killed in the Holocaust were living and breathing human beings with their own lives, their own dreams, their own ideas, and family and loved ones. They were tortured in numerable and horrifying ways. They were targeted for being Jews. There are numerous reasons why women seek abortions but to wipe out an entire group such as the Jewish community is not one of them. This is an insult to the memory of those killed in Death Camps, as well as to the women and doctors who have made the decision to abort. Mallon seems to think that every person who chooses or assists in abortion is another Hitler, capable of killing millions of conscious human beings. How can people even make this comparison?!