« Celebrating Katharine Schori | Main | Is the USA "them"? A reflection on soccer and politics »

June 20, 2006

Comments

bmmg39

"What's your response to the thread on Catherine Schori? Or don't those men's words count as 'fact'?"

So, in that thread, Glenn Sacks and/or Hugo Schwyzer suggested that women aren't fully human beings? I'll have to check that out and see.

mythago

That's just my own personal experience and I realise YMMV.

Irony alert!

whose awarding of custody to their unquestionably white supremist mother has been applauded by many feminists

"Many feminists", in this case, being "imaginary feminists we drag out and parade around because we don't like the real ones".

I'm not sure why you chose to miss the point on my example of affirmative action. The subject was 'disagreeing with friends', not 'the ways in which people associate motives with particular political views'. If you don't know whether Friend A's views on affirmative action stem from racism or not, you're hardly friends.

perplexed

Sam, we're talking about spirituality and 2000+ years of women's souls viewed as flawed, inferior, and the originators of sin.

QGrrl, I have to say : big deal - suck it up. You know why I say that so flippantly? Because I know of many belief systems that class me as an infidel, unclean, inferior etc. I shrug my shoulders and think "whatever, doesn't effect me". What does effect me are laws that view me suspiciously because of my gender - guilty until proven innocent. I can cite specific examples of this if you like. What does effect me are the way my gender is neglected in law because of feminist myths. Again, I can cite examples (these are much discussed before, I don't want to dredge up a laundry list again but if you really want to, just request these examples and I'll put them in my next post).

That's just my own personal experience and I realise YMMV.

Irony alert!

We have another Alanis Morissette in the house - perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word. The statement is more of a tautology than an irony.

Back to my previous question (as yet, unanswered): can anyone here give me specific examples of where Glenn Sacks is a misogynist? I understand misogyny to be the hatred of women. The term is used an awful lot by feminists. The problem is - when you reply "OK, perhaps you can give me a specific example of where this person is being a misogynist" - they never do. Few people truly understand the meaning of the word. It's used more as a shaming device than a truly descriptive noun. Are non-feminist women misogynists? What about female MRAs?

The Happy Feminist

Whoa. This thread seems to have drifted into a free for all.

Since Gonz cited my post on the Gaede twins, I will respond briefly to that for purposes of clarification. The Gaede twins are the tween Nazi pop stars. Mom was teaching them white supremacy so dad sued for custody. He was accused of having a past history of domestic abuse.
My post had nothing whatsoever to do with feminism or gender. My point was that a parent's ideology, no matter how repugnant, should not be relevant to the custody decision because then we are all fair game to have our ideology questioned as perhaps bad for our children -- including all you sexists out there. While I mentioned the dad's history of abuse in my post, that wasn't the point although my wording may have implied that it was. Prior abuse certainly would be relevant to the judge's decision but its weight may depend on the nature of the abuse, of which I am unaware. Again, the point I was trying to make had nothing to do with gender or feminism; it was about how our values should be weighed in custody decisions.

I also don't think that allowing anti-feminists to comment here is evidence at all that Hugo is not committed to feminism. I think it's great that there are some blogs for feminists only and I also think it's great that there are some blogs that are more free-wheeling, where everyone can comment. The free-wheeling ones (including my own) piss me off sometimes but they are never boring, and I can go to the feminist-only ones when I need a break.

The Happy Feminist

And I don't think either I or Red State Feminism could be said to be "applauding" the fact that these Gaede twins are being raised as a white supremacist mother. The whole point of our posts was, "Ouch, this really sucks but you can't deprive someone of their kids based on their ideology."

perplexed

You can only decide custody on a case-by-case basis - therefore, there might be cases where a parent's ideology affects the well-being of their children. An ideology that finds the amorality of modern life abhorrent may manifest itself as a child being isolated from his or her peers - perhaps forced to do home-schooling and never allowed out to play - you have to consider mental abuse as well as physical.

The Gonzman

Mom was teaching them white supremacy so dad sued for custody. He was accused of having a past history of domestic abuse.

So - what then would be the reaction if, say, we had a custody case where Dad belonged to a very strict, conservative, and fundamentalist chuurch which effectively did make women second class people, and mom had some past convictions for drugs and asault, and he won custody of his girls - which meant they would be raised to believe they were to be meek and obedient towards men?

Would you regard that as irrelevant, or since it is your own ox being gored...?

mythago

Your analogy is a little off, Gonzman. The girls in this situation are being taught hateful ideas, but their racist mother is not teaching them that they are inferior or are second-class people, as in your analogy.

If it were a more apt situation, say where Dad was raising two boys to be male supremacists and drug-abusing, violent Mom were challenging him for custody? All other things being equal, I'd pick Dad every time. Violence and drug use are far greater threats to any child than bad politics.

Sorry to disappoint. Maybe you can find some imaginary feminists who disagree. :D

The Happy Feminist

Gonz, on the thread at my site someone asked:

What if the ideaology was that females should serve the males?

Let's say that after the marriage and/or birth of kids, Dad joins a church that promotes the man being in charge and females shouldnt question the males.

Same view?

My response:

Yep.

I think Mythago makes an apt distinction, but ultimately it's tough to justify the state getting involved in the values parents choose to teach their kids, repugnant though I personally find the concept of female submission.


perplexed

What if an ideology results in a child becoming depressed, anxious, withdrawn etc for his or her entire childhood? For example, a child who is forbidden to leave the house and is told to study at home because of his or her parent's ideology? Thoughts are fine if they remain thoughts (theories) - but ideologies rarely remain just thoughts - they tend to manifest themselves into actions - actions that can end up mentally or even physically abusing others.

mythago

What if an ideology results in a child becoming depressed, anxious, withdrawn etc for his or her entire childhood?

It doesn't really matter what the ideology is, then, but the fact that whatever the parent's doing, it has a horrible effect on the child. Are you really saying that we should divide up custody based on the parents' political views? That parents should have to prove that their beliefs are the "right" ones?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004