Today I watched the documentary, The Hidden Story of Jesus, produced by Channel 4 Television Corporation and hosted by Robert Beckford. I have to say that it was pretty excellent. Beckford mentions from the beginning that he is a Christian, so I was skeptical about the theist spin but I was very pleasantly surprised.
His quest is to understand who Jesus was, and examine the different beliefs about him from religions such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism. Very interesting stuff.
Of course, the documentary did not examine whether or not Jesus was an actual historical figure, or if God even exists, but it was still very honest when it stuck to the character of Jesus and his teachings.
I was very impressed at Beckford's bravery, being a Christian and all, to step outside the box and fearlessly research this subject with such open mindedness. Ultimately he concluded that it does not matter what you believe about Jesus or his divinity, but if you can focus on the positive aspects of his teachings, the world would be a better place.
By that narrow definition, I can definitely agree with that. If the only religious beliefs seriously pursued were of peace and love, etc. etc., the world would be better. Anyway, you can view the entire video for free here:
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Becoming Myself
Oh, what a selfish atheistic thing to do--giving yourself a pat on the back for being true to yourself--but that's exactly what I'm about to do.
Some people never grow a spine, and as bitchy as it may sound, I have little to no respect for people like that. I have little to no respect for people who have the opportunity to be themselves and live their own lives, yet who are too afraid and instead choose to live life for others' opinions (Nota Bene: there are people who do not have a legitimate opportunity to be themselves, e.g. children or women in the Taliban; my disdain does not apply to them).
Because of my lifestyle and lack of religion, my family sees me as the devil incarnate, and we do not have a relationship to speak of; their decision. I offer to agree to disagree and still be a family, but they refuse. Oh, and by "lifestyle", I mean having a boyfriend, graduating college Magna Cum Laude while holding down a full-time professional day job, being an entrepreneur of two starting businesses, consistently maintaining an orderly household, maintaining finances (complete with an IRA, sizeable emergency fund, and all my debt [including 2 vehicles] being paid off in 2 years from now)....am I missing anything? Oh yeah, and I worked my way through college without taking out one cent of student loans. When I got divorced, the only thing I took were my personal things and a bed; I wanted none of his money--even though I found out he lied to me about how much he made (it was about triple what he said). Ok, I could do more charity work, but you get the idea--I'm basically a very together person! This is me at 26, and I have plans to do ever more.
I was divorced Oct. '07 and started dating my boyfriend in May. '08, but they consider me to have been cheating on my husband since at the time I did not have my annulment. Now that I've gotten it, it's still not good enough, because according to them the Catholic Church hands out annulments like candy. So I'm still guilty.
I am not trying to brag. I know many of my peers who have outshined me times a million and I feel pathetic in their presence. My point is, I have worked my ass off in my education, financial goals and future career; I'm just getting started, but I'm not a bad, lazy, stupid or incompetent person. Yet they see me as evil, selfish, hedonistic, etc. etc. All because of one thing--religion. If I did nothing different in all areas of my life but were still a faithful Catholic, they would all be beaming with joy. Their hypocrisy is oozing out their pores.
Sometime I may briefly explain why I got married and divorced, but suffice to say it was for truly legitimate reasons. I promise.
On Christmas Eve my brother decided it was a good time to tell me that I had mental problems, that my entire life is a lie, that I've ruined my life, and that he knows that I'm not happy no matter how much I claim I am. *facepalm* That's right, brother, because you're an expert on others' happiness. Interestingly enough, whenever I demanded that he give me a specific reason on how I have ruined my life, his only reason is that I got divorced. That's "ruin". I got news for you, dude. I'm happily divorced! His evidence for my so-called "mental problems" were that I am unstable (which he would not define though I requested it), and that neurotic people such as myself cannot see their own psychosis (his words). Again and again, I asked for specific examples of my own self-ruin but he could not deliver. Well, if this is me ruining my life at the ripe old age of 26, sign me up. I like the way my life is going and I'm excited about my future.
Truly, what kind of arrogance do you have to have in order to think it is ok to say to someone that they are ruining their lives, and that they have mental problems? Even while he was telling me all this I kept a very calm, collected demeanor. I even told him I loved him, and asked him to believe that I am following my conscience and that for me to live my life in a different way would be to live it dishonestly. He's the one who thinks his morals is so superior, yet who is the one who said unkind and judgmental things? Take a look in the mirror, brother! But to be so spiritually pompous as to believe it is ok to judge someone else so freely and vocally...to be so arrogantly convinced that your way is the right way and ONLY way...to think it is appropriate to say those things--I don't understand it.
Now, my brother, as well as the rest of my immediate family, is a good person. A great person. But his judgments of my morality are not only unfounded but based on emotion. If he could say, "You ruined your life because your cocaine habit has destroyed your relationships" or "Your life is over because you shot and killed three people and now you're on death row"--well, he would have a point.
Religion brainwashes people. It tells them what to think, what to believe, how to act. Not only does it try to explain away life's mysteries with the Invisible Man in the Sky theory, but an unintentional consequence (at least, in my family's case) is that they believe their beliefs are supremely superior to anything of mine, which gives them license to judge me, to spout malicious and blatantly untrue accusations against my character, to call me crazy and selfish and immoral--all in the name of righteousness, which apparently gives them a pass on "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Their hearts and minds are completely closed to anything other than Their Ways or Their Beliefs or Their Opinions because Their Religion has told them What To Think. To think otherwise would be a sin. To think otherwise would be to question, examine, and weigh the evidence--scary stuff! Scary stuff it is to be wrong, to have unknowns. But scariest of all is to be knocked off your righteous pedestal and have to wallow around in the mud like the rest of us.
I think that's when you finally grow a backbone--when you think for yourself, know who you are, and refuse to compromise for anyone. If I compromised, or tried to please others in every way, I would be lying to myself. Not only would that make me very depressed and unhappy, but it's the wrong thing to do. Unfortunately many, many people are so afraid what other people think that they ruin their lives by living for others. There's a quote I like, "To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing". This is what I believe. I will be myself no matter what anyone thinks.
Unfortunately in my case what happened is my family has rejected me. Do I regret anything? Absolutely, positively not. I am by no means perfect, and I do not have all the answers, and there are things that I may be wrong about; but I can honestly swear that I live my life with honesty, integrity, curiosity and a search for the truth. I do not search for Dogma, which is believing what others tell you to believe with no evidence. But I search for truth. If that makes me a horrible person, so be it. If tomorrow God came down from above and made himself known and told me to be a Catholic (or any other religion), I would do it, no questions asked. I don't care what the truth is, but I want what I believe to be the truth. What I mean is: no matter how unpleasant the truth is, if it is the truth and it can be proved to be so, I will believe it.
But I refuse to believe anything that someone, somewhere said so, just because.
--BadSec
Some people never grow a spine, and as bitchy as it may sound, I have little to no respect for people like that. I have little to no respect for people who have the opportunity to be themselves and live their own lives, yet who are too afraid and instead choose to live life for others' opinions (Nota Bene: there are people who do not have a legitimate opportunity to be themselves, e.g. children or women in the Taliban; my disdain does not apply to them).
Because of my lifestyle and lack of religion, my family sees me as the devil incarnate, and we do not have a relationship to speak of; their decision. I offer to agree to disagree and still be a family, but they refuse. Oh, and by "lifestyle", I mean having a boyfriend, graduating college Magna Cum Laude while holding down a full-time professional day job, being an entrepreneur of two starting businesses, consistently maintaining an orderly household, maintaining finances (complete with an IRA, sizeable emergency fund, and all my debt [including 2 vehicles] being paid off in 2 years from now)....am I missing anything? Oh yeah, and I worked my way through college without taking out one cent of student loans. When I got divorced, the only thing I took were my personal things and a bed; I wanted none of his money--even though I found out he lied to me about how much he made (it was about triple what he said). Ok, I could do more charity work, but you get the idea--I'm basically a very together person! This is me at 26, and I have plans to do ever more.
I was divorced Oct. '07 and started dating my boyfriend in May. '08, but they consider me to have been cheating on my husband since at the time I did not have my annulment. Now that I've gotten it, it's still not good enough, because according to them the Catholic Church hands out annulments like candy. So I'm still guilty.
I am not trying to brag. I know many of my peers who have outshined me times a million and I feel pathetic in their presence. My point is, I have worked my ass off in my education, financial goals and future career; I'm just getting started, but I'm not a bad, lazy, stupid or incompetent person. Yet they see me as evil, selfish, hedonistic, etc. etc. All because of one thing--religion. If I did nothing different in all areas of my life but were still a faithful Catholic, they would all be beaming with joy. Their hypocrisy is oozing out their pores.
Sometime I may briefly explain why I got married and divorced, but suffice to say it was for truly legitimate reasons. I promise.
On Christmas Eve my brother decided it was a good time to tell me that I had mental problems, that my entire life is a lie, that I've ruined my life, and that he knows that I'm not happy no matter how much I claim I am. *facepalm* That's right, brother, because you're an expert on others' happiness. Interestingly enough, whenever I demanded that he give me a specific reason on how I have ruined my life, his only reason is that I got divorced. That's "ruin". I got news for you, dude. I'm happily divorced! His evidence for my so-called "mental problems" were that I am unstable (which he would not define though I requested it), and that neurotic people such as myself cannot see their own psychosis (his words). Again and again, I asked for specific examples of my own self-ruin but he could not deliver. Well, if this is me ruining my life at the ripe old age of 26, sign me up. I like the way my life is going and I'm excited about my future.
Truly, what kind of arrogance do you have to have in order to think it is ok to say to someone that they are ruining their lives, and that they have mental problems? Even while he was telling me all this I kept a very calm, collected demeanor. I even told him I loved him, and asked him to believe that I am following my conscience and that for me to live my life in a different way would be to live it dishonestly. He's the one who thinks his morals is so superior, yet who is the one who said unkind and judgmental things? Take a look in the mirror, brother! But to be so spiritually pompous as to believe it is ok to judge someone else so freely and vocally...to be so arrogantly convinced that your way is the right way and ONLY way...to think it is appropriate to say those things--I don't understand it.
Now, my brother, as well as the rest of my immediate family, is a good person. A great person. But his judgments of my morality are not only unfounded but based on emotion. If he could say, "You ruined your life because your cocaine habit has destroyed your relationships" or "Your life is over because you shot and killed three people and now you're on death row"--well, he would have a point.
Religion brainwashes people. It tells them what to think, what to believe, how to act. Not only does it try to explain away life's mysteries with the Invisible Man in the Sky theory, but an unintentional consequence (at least, in my family's case) is that they believe their beliefs are supremely superior to anything of mine, which gives them license to judge me, to spout malicious and blatantly untrue accusations against my character, to call me crazy and selfish and immoral--all in the name of righteousness, which apparently gives them a pass on "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Their hearts and minds are completely closed to anything other than Their Ways or Their Beliefs or Their Opinions because Their Religion has told them What To Think. To think otherwise would be a sin. To think otherwise would be to question, examine, and weigh the evidence--scary stuff! Scary stuff it is to be wrong, to have unknowns. But scariest of all is to be knocked off your righteous pedestal and have to wallow around in the mud like the rest of us.
I think that's when you finally grow a backbone--when you think for yourself, know who you are, and refuse to compromise for anyone. If I compromised, or tried to please others in every way, I would be lying to myself. Not only would that make me very depressed and unhappy, but it's the wrong thing to do. Unfortunately many, many people are so afraid what other people think that they ruin their lives by living for others. There's a quote I like, "To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing". This is what I believe. I will be myself no matter what anyone thinks.
Unfortunately in my case what happened is my family has rejected me. Do I regret anything? Absolutely, positively not. I am by no means perfect, and I do not have all the answers, and there are things that I may be wrong about; but I can honestly swear that I live my life with honesty, integrity, curiosity and a search for the truth. I do not search for Dogma, which is believing what others tell you to believe with no evidence. But I search for truth. If that makes me a horrible person, so be it. If tomorrow God came down from above and made himself known and told me to be a Catholic (or any other religion), I would do it, no questions asked. I don't care what the truth is, but I want what I believe to be the truth. What I mean is: no matter how unpleasant the truth is, if it is the truth and it can be proved to be so, I will believe it.
But I refuse to believe anything that someone, somewhere said so, just because.
--BadSec
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
This scares the crap out of me
Surprise baby - never wanted children, but....
Ugh. This seriously bothers me. The story of Greg and Janet could have happened to anyone. What if it happens to me?? Logically I know that I don't want kids, ever, but what if emotions and hormones plague me? What would I do? This is exactly what is happening to one of my best friends, and I hate watching her go through it. This woman is brilliant beyond anyone I know, a wonderful scientist, successful, happy, balanced, awesome marriage--and now in her late 20s she's been obsessed with baby rabies. She used to be even more anti-procreating that I am now, in fact at her wedding someone asked her when they were planning on having kids, and I overheard her say, "Oh, we're not that stupid!" Fast forward 2.5 years and her biological clock went in to effect full-force, making her obsessed. We talk about it a lot, and I encourage her in whatever decision she makes. At the same time, I don't personally think she would be happy to have kids, or enjoy the major life changes, or that she is very maternal...but who knows. I do believe it is 100% hormones and emotions. She doesn't even like kids! She is aware of the hormonal and emotional influence (which is temporary, in all likelihood, though it can last for years), and she remains logically opposed to having kids--in fact, she keeps saying how there is no logical reason for her to do so. She can list a thousand reasons why she doesn't want to, yet she admits that in the face of her emotions and hormones these reasons don't matter so much anymore.
So what if this happens to me? I don't feel that it would, but the truth is it might. I generally am very much in control of my emotions and make decisions with my mind, but it seems the maternal instinct is outrageously strong when it strikes. From the very core of my being, I don't want it to happen! I love my childfree life and don't want to screw it up!
What is this beast that it can make logical women make decisions on emotions, all the while knowing it isn't what they want, and they do it anyway? I guess it's a lot like falling in love with the wrong person; except when the love hormones fade away and you find that you're fundamentally incompatible, you can end the relationship. You can't give the baby back, and there's no refund.
--BadSec
Ugh. This seriously bothers me. The story of Greg and Janet could have happened to anyone. What if it happens to me?? Logically I know that I don't want kids, ever, but what if emotions and hormones plague me? What would I do? This is exactly what is happening to one of my best friends, and I hate watching her go through it. This woman is brilliant beyond anyone I know, a wonderful scientist, successful, happy, balanced, awesome marriage--and now in her late 20s she's been obsessed with baby rabies. She used to be even more anti-procreating that I am now, in fact at her wedding someone asked her when they were planning on having kids, and I overheard her say, "Oh, we're not that stupid!" Fast forward 2.5 years and her biological clock went in to effect full-force, making her obsessed. We talk about it a lot, and I encourage her in whatever decision she makes. At the same time, I don't personally think she would be happy to have kids, or enjoy the major life changes, or that she is very maternal...but who knows. I do believe it is 100% hormones and emotions. She doesn't even like kids! She is aware of the hormonal and emotional influence (which is temporary, in all likelihood, though it can last for years), and she remains logically opposed to having kids--in fact, she keeps saying how there is no logical reason for her to do so. She can list a thousand reasons why she doesn't want to, yet she admits that in the face of her emotions and hormones these reasons don't matter so much anymore.
So what if this happens to me? I don't feel that it would, but the truth is it might. I generally am very much in control of my emotions and make decisions with my mind, but it seems the maternal instinct is outrageously strong when it strikes. From the very core of my being, I don't want it to happen! I love my childfree life and don't want to screw it up!
What is this beast that it can make logical women make decisions on emotions, all the while knowing it isn't what they want, and they do it anyway? I guess it's a lot like falling in love with the wrong person; except when the love hormones fade away and you find that you're fundamentally incompatible, you can end the relationship. You can't give the baby back, and there's no refund.
--BadSec
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Children as insurance in old age
Today I had a brief conversation with an acquaintance about having at least one child so that you will have someone to take care of you when you're old.
*facepalm*
He works in the local shipping office, and as I was waiting for the other fellow to finish wrapping up my boxes, the subject of dogs came up. Of course I had to whip out my iPhone and show pictures of my adorable chocolate lab. I resisted the urge to show more than two pictures because while I love my dog and find him interesting, these guys probably don't. This was fresh on my mind because just yesterday my old boss insisted on showing me pictures of his granddogs, and after the 7th picture I could not utter, "oh, how cute!" any longer.
Anyway, this train of thought made me think of how it must be like for others when people insist on showing them a dozen pictures of their children at every chance. So I laughed and said, "You're lucky I don't have kids or else I'd be boring you with their pictures, too!"
To which the guy said sympathetically, "You'll have them someday."
"Oh, I don't want them."
"What!! (incredulous look) Everyone needs at least one."
"No, they're not for me."
"Who's going to take care of you when you're old?!"
"Myself. With the money I've saved by not blowing it on kids, I will have so much more money to save and invest towards my retirement. I'll be able to pay for my own care when the time comes."
Again, he insisted. "But you don't want to do that!"
"Sure, I do. Besides, having kids as an insurance policy is a bad idea. They may not be around, or able, or willing to take care of me and if for some reason we have a bad relationship they're definitely not going to want to take care of me."
After that the conversation turned elsewhere, thankfully. It was all very lighthearted, though, which I appreciate. Another important point that I didn't mention to this gentleman is that it is grossly unfair to children to bring them into this world and expect them to care for you. I know that's what many people do, especially in the past when children were expected to be workers for the family, but I don't think that it is right. Or secure! Many children have wonderful relationships with their parents, but many don't. It's not exactly a reliable insurance plan.
I wasn't offended by this guy's reaction at all. In fact, I found it amusing...and saddening. It was like he had never before had the thought about voluntary childfreedom. Maybe today planted a seed that choosing not to have children is every much a real, legitimate and desirable option as choosing to have them.
--BadSec
*facepalm*
He works in the local shipping office, and as I was waiting for the other fellow to finish wrapping up my boxes, the subject of dogs came up. Of course I had to whip out my iPhone and show pictures of my adorable chocolate lab. I resisted the urge to show more than two pictures because while I love my dog and find him interesting, these guys probably don't. This was fresh on my mind because just yesterday my old boss insisted on showing me pictures of his granddogs, and after the 7th picture I could not utter, "oh, how cute!" any longer.
Anyway, this train of thought made me think of how it must be like for others when people insist on showing them a dozen pictures of their children at every chance. So I laughed and said, "You're lucky I don't have kids or else I'd be boring you with their pictures, too!"
To which the guy said sympathetically, "You'll have them someday."
"Oh, I don't want them."
"What!! (incredulous look) Everyone needs at least one."
"No, they're not for me."
"Who's going to take care of you when you're old?!"
"Myself. With the money I've saved by not blowing it on kids, I will have so much more money to save and invest towards my retirement. I'll be able to pay for my own care when the time comes."
Again, he insisted. "But you don't want to do that!"
"Sure, I do. Besides, having kids as an insurance policy is a bad idea. They may not be around, or able, or willing to take care of me and if for some reason we have a bad relationship they're definitely not going to want to take care of me."
After that the conversation turned elsewhere, thankfully. It was all very lighthearted, though, which I appreciate. Another important point that I didn't mention to this gentleman is that it is grossly unfair to children to bring them into this world and expect them to care for you. I know that's what many people do, especially in the past when children were expected to be workers for the family, but I don't think that it is right. Or secure! Many children have wonderful relationships with their parents, but many don't. It's not exactly a reliable insurance plan.
I wasn't offended by this guy's reaction at all. In fact, I found it amusing...and saddening. It was like he had never before had the thought about voluntary childfreedom. Maybe today planted a seed that choosing not to have children is every much a real, legitimate and desirable option as choosing to have them.
--BadSec
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Oh, at last! At last!
I'm so excited, and I just can't hide it!
I've heard here and there of religious nutjobs throughout history who have claimed to know the end of the world, but most have been dead and proven wrong before I was even born. Save for the minor hysteria of the year 2000, I've not been alive during any predictions (that I know of)--and back then I was too young to be interested.
...until now!!!!!!!!!
On a recent trip out of town, I was thrilled to see one of the billboards hosted by Family Radio.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is officially Almost the End of the World. Jesus is coming back to Earth on May 21, 2011, and the righteous shall be sucked up into heaven. The rest of us heathens will wallow in misery for another 4 months until Jesus straps dynamite to the world and blows it up on October 21, 2011, just a few days before my 27th birthday. Well, dammit. If I had known that this past birthday would have been my last, I would have done something more memorable. Like streaking. Drunk. In a church.
No use crying over lost opportunity; it's time to get serious about our eternal souls. You can learn about your impending doom--or rapture--by visiting We Can Know. For a thorough explanation of how the Bible predicts these events beyond a shadow of a doubt, visit Judgment Day! May 21, 2011. Don't get left behind!
You just don't know how much I am looking forward to this. This is the first time in my life that I have been freed from the silliness of religion so that I can fully be most amused by some End of the World lunacy. To aid in the excitement, Ask an Atheist has created a spoof site, We Can't Know, with a handy dandy "Countdown to Backpedaling" clock.
It is with much ecstatic glee that I will follow this group, and I'll be throwing a "I Survived the Apocalypse" party on May 22.
Ok, ok, let me be serious for a moment. My heart really does go out to the poor Christians who believe this gibberish and are fearing for their lives, especially the young people. Yes, the day will come and go and everything will be fine, but what about the damage done to these people psychologically? What if some of them commit suicide over this? Hopefully they will either (a) believe suicide is a sin and not do it no matter what, or (b) be confident that they are "saved" and will look forward to May 21 because it means they're going to heaven. Consequently the fact that the day will come and go without any catastrophe/miracle may be mightily disappointing.
Anyhow, I am so excited to see what backpedaling they have to say for themselves on May 22, and I hope that the exposure causes many religious to come to their senses and reject religion outright.
--BadSec
I've heard here and there of religious nutjobs throughout history who have claimed to know the end of the world, but most have been dead and proven wrong before I was even born. Save for the minor hysteria of the year 2000, I've not been alive during any predictions (that I know of)--and back then I was too young to be interested.
...until now!!!!!!!!!
On a recent trip out of town, I was thrilled to see one of the billboards hosted by Family Radio.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is officially Almost the End of the World. Jesus is coming back to Earth on May 21, 2011, and the righteous shall be sucked up into heaven. The rest of us heathens will wallow in misery for another 4 months until Jesus straps dynamite to the world and blows it up on October 21, 2011, just a few days before my 27th birthday. Well, dammit. If I had known that this past birthday would have been my last, I would have done something more memorable. Like streaking. Drunk. In a church.
No use crying over lost opportunity; it's time to get serious about our eternal souls. You can learn about your impending doom--or rapture--by visiting We Can Know. For a thorough explanation of how the Bible predicts these events beyond a shadow of a doubt, visit Judgment Day! May 21, 2011. Don't get left behind!
You just don't know how much I am looking forward to this. This is the first time in my life that I have been freed from the silliness of religion so that I can fully be most amused by some End of the World lunacy. To aid in the excitement, Ask an Atheist has created a spoof site, We Can't Know, with a handy dandy "Countdown to Backpedaling" clock.
It is with much ecstatic glee that I will follow this group, and I'll be throwing a "I Survived the Apocalypse" party on May 22.
Ok, ok, let me be serious for a moment. My heart really does go out to the poor Christians who believe this gibberish and are fearing for their lives, especially the young people. Yes, the day will come and go and everything will be fine, but what about the damage done to these people psychologically? What if some of them commit suicide over this? Hopefully they will either (a) believe suicide is a sin and not do it no matter what, or (b) be confident that they are "saved" and will look forward to May 21 because it means they're going to heaven. Consequently the fact that the day will come and go without any catastrophe/miracle may be mightily disappointing.
Anyhow, I am so excited to see what backpedaling they have to say for themselves on May 22, and I hope that the exposure causes many religious to come to their senses and reject religion outright.
--BadSec
Atheist's Wager...?
I'm so tired of hearing about the damn Pascal's Wager. I lived the first 24 years of my life as if I had taken his wager! I think it's a waste of time--but it's also dangerous. If you completely open yourself to believing in fairy tales, you run the risk of brainwashing. But the smart people will survive in the end.
Well, I have my own twist on Pascal's Wager. I propose that the atheists make their own challenge: we ask the theists to be a non-believer for a year. Be skeptical. Really examine all the nonsense you believe and ask yourself why.
I doubt many will try it because to do so, to even attempt to think outside the religious box, would be a sin. But if they ask it of us, why can we not ask it of them?
Just an idea...
--BadSec
Well, I have my own twist on Pascal's Wager. I propose that the atheists make their own challenge: we ask the theists to be a non-believer for a year. Be skeptical. Really examine all the nonsense you believe and ask yourself why.
I doubt many will try it because to do so, to even attempt to think outside the religious box, would be a sin. But if they ask it of us, why can we not ask it of them?
Just an idea...
--BadSec
Thursday, December 9, 2010
SAHMs
Woohoo, I sense a highly offensive post!
I got an email yesterday forwarding me to this link, Sarah Palin Says Issue Of Wife/Mom Being Keeper Of The Home Is A “Petty Little Superficial Meaningless Thing”. Regardless what you think of Palin, I knew from the title that this was a lot of bogus bullshit. For one, that's not Palin's style--to be blatantly offensive to an innocent housewife; for another, if you actually read what she said, that's not what she said. But of course the religious hardly ever take time to study things, do they? Oh, and in the YouTube interview, Palin's hair is bitchin' awesome.
The excerpt quoted at the American View starts at 6:50 on the YouTube video, and Palin says, "There are still the Neanderthals out there who pick on the petty little superficial meaningless things, like looks, like whether you can or can’t work outside of the home if you have small children. All those type of things…I would so hope that at some point, those Neanderthals will evolve into something a bit more with it, a bit more modern and a bit more understanding that, yes, women can accomplish much."
Ok, what is the issue here?? Palin is not saying that staying at home and caring for your children is a superficial, meaningless thing. What she's saying is that people who get hung up on the discussion of whether or not women can work and still have a family--that is what's so damn petty. And I totally, completely agree with her. Feminism is about CHOICE. If a woman chooses to stay at home to cook, clean and change diapers, fine. That's her choice. But if I woman chooses to have a family and have a career, fine. That's her choice. Palin's point is that obsessing over whether or not women should be allowed to do both is rather Neanderthalish, and she's completely right. I posted this very thought on the page under an alias... I'm sure it will be removed or I'll be cast into hell.
Anyhow, now that I've bitched out my little rant, I'm going to take this into a slightly different direction: my opinion on Stay At Home Moms and its relationship to feminism. And why, I personally, do abhor the activity of women staying at home to keep house and make babies.
First let me clarify a bit. Every situation is very unique and individual, so I am not condemning everyone across the board--I am not condemning anyone at all. Everyone has their own very personal reasons for what they do, and I'm not out to judge women who choose this lifestyle. But I do have the right to assert my opinion, and my opinion is that SAHMism is generally anti-women.
I said above that feminism is about choice. I stand by that. It's also about equality and respect and other things of that nature. If you are a woman who voluntarily chooses to not have a career, and to make housekeeping and childraising your sole pursuits, more power to you. To me, that lifestyle is totally repulsive. It feels like giving up. It feels like throwing all the progress back into the face of the the courageous women before you, who have shed blood and tears to ensure that you could make something of yourself.
So if feminism is about choice, and if a woman chooses to be a SAHM, it's all good, right? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that she freely chose that life (and being brainwashed into believing that if you're a woman, God's highest purpose for you is to be a wife/mom is not free choice). But ultimately, no. When a woman gives up her power and is dependent on someone else to provide for her, she has lost her choice, even if she made the choice initially. 99.9% of the time, that provider will be her husband. She doesn't make the money so her opinion on how it should be spent or saved means a lot less. Sure, there are men who let the little woman manage the finances, but if he loses his job, what kind of power does she have then? She's run out of other people's money to spend. Unfortunately most of the time, the moneymaker is going to assume authoritative control of the household; this behavior is directly encouraged by many biblical denominations.
If the provider loses his job, or if the provider decides to run off with that cute little 18 year-old, the wife is left powerless and penniless. Even if she gets a divorce with alimony, it's not going to be enough. She's going to have to work, but by now she's got all these mouths to feed, no resume, and no experience. My biggest problem with housewifery is that it makes the woman completely dependent on someone else, and I think that's a ridiculous risk. Even if the man treats her well, what if he suddenly dies or is too ill to work? These are very real possibilities and if a woman gives up her independence, she can find herself in one hell of a pickle one day. Not that said pickle can't be overcome, but why do this to yourself?
I think the loss of empowerment, even voluntary, is dangerous and stupid. Yes, stupid. In this context empowerment means a career, and that's no small thing. Why would you risk your financial future, your livelihood and sanity, your children's future just so that you can have time to drive them to soccer or be the privileged one to clean the toilet? I realize that there are undeniable advantages to being at home with your kids. Supposedly you can keep your house clean (though I've yet to meet a clean household maintained by a SAHM, and I've seen a lot). You're there for your kids, emotionally and physically, and enjoy greater ability to be involved in their education and recreational activities.
Being a mother isn't about cooking, and cleaning and chauffeuring your kids to their activities. Let's get real, honey: anyone can do those things, and if you think you are making a difference in your kids' lives just by "being there", you're deluding yourself. Being a mother means to be there spiritually and emotionally for your children; to guide them and inspire them in their life and life choices; to love them unconditionally and cheer them on; to build them up and create happy, productive little people. The cold, hard reality is that you can do those things and still have a career--and keep your independence. You might not have the house as clean, or as many homemade meals made, or be able to be there for every event in their life...but that's ok. Your kids aren't going to grow up deranged or hating you because you worked and they had to eat pizza more than what was ideal. Your husband will get over the pile of laundry. His lazy ass isn't helpless, you know.
I get supremely annoyed at two things: 1) the idea that women must be SAHMs just because they were born with a vagina, and 2) when SAHMs think they are so special and are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
The last one really gets me. Not to say that there isn't a ton of work involved in being a SAHM, because they're surely is. But putting a price tag on housekeeping and childbearing is a bit pompous. If that makes you feel good about yourself, yay for you. Definitely, someone should be paying you for all the grueling work you do. But they don't. Know why? Because you're an idiot who does this shit for free.
The bottom line is this: just because you have a vagina your fate should not be automatically dictated at birth to be a maid, wife and baby factory. You should be able to choose and design your own fate.
But please embrace your modern feminine power and don't be someone's slave by choice. I'm not a feminist from the 1960s who is trying to tell you that you can have it all and it will all be great! Whatever path you choose won't be easy, and there will be work involved. You can make it happen, if you set your mind to it, but you're going to have to delegate your efforts, and spend time on what's most important. If you are successful, and you view the sky as your limit, you can have money and independence, a family--and a clean house, too, because you can afford to pay a housekeeper.
I got an email yesterday forwarding me to this link, Sarah Palin Says Issue Of Wife/Mom Being Keeper Of The Home Is A “Petty Little Superficial Meaningless Thing”. Regardless what you think of Palin, I knew from the title that this was a lot of bogus bullshit. For one, that's not Palin's style--to be blatantly offensive to an innocent housewife; for another, if you actually read what she said, that's not what she said. But of course the religious hardly ever take time to study things, do they? Oh, and in the YouTube interview, Palin's hair is bitchin' awesome.
The excerpt quoted at the American View starts at 6:50 on the YouTube video, and Palin says, "There are still the Neanderthals out there who pick on the petty little superficial meaningless things, like looks, like whether you can or can’t work outside of the home if you have small children. All those type of things…I would so hope that at some point, those Neanderthals will evolve into something a bit more with it, a bit more modern and a bit more understanding that, yes, women can accomplish much."
Ok, what is the issue here?? Palin is not saying that staying at home and caring for your children is a superficial, meaningless thing. What she's saying is that people who get hung up on the discussion of whether or not women can work and still have a family--that is what's so damn petty. And I totally, completely agree with her. Feminism is about CHOICE. If a woman chooses to stay at home to cook, clean and change diapers, fine. That's her choice. But if I woman chooses to have a family and have a career, fine. That's her choice. Palin's point is that obsessing over whether or not women should be allowed to do both is rather Neanderthalish, and she's completely right. I posted this very thought on the page under an alias... I'm sure it will be removed or I'll be cast into hell.
Anyhow, now that I've bitched out my little rant, I'm going to take this into a slightly different direction: my opinion on Stay At Home Moms and its relationship to feminism. And why, I personally, do abhor the activity of women staying at home to keep house and make babies.
First let me clarify a bit. Every situation is very unique and individual, so I am not condemning everyone across the board--I am not condemning anyone at all. Everyone has their own very personal reasons for what they do, and I'm not out to judge women who choose this lifestyle. But I do have the right to assert my opinion, and my opinion is that SAHMism is generally anti-women.
I said above that feminism is about choice. I stand by that. It's also about equality and respect and other things of that nature. If you are a woman who voluntarily chooses to not have a career, and to make housekeeping and childraising your sole pursuits, more power to you. To me, that lifestyle is totally repulsive. It feels like giving up. It feels like throwing all the progress back into the face of the the courageous women before you, who have shed blood and tears to ensure that you could make something of yourself.
So if feminism is about choice, and if a woman chooses to be a SAHM, it's all good, right? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that she freely chose that life (and being brainwashed into believing that if you're a woman, God's highest purpose for you is to be a wife/mom is not free choice). But ultimately, no. When a woman gives up her power and is dependent on someone else to provide for her, she has lost her choice, even if she made the choice initially. 99.9% of the time, that provider will be her husband. She doesn't make the money so her opinion on how it should be spent or saved means a lot less. Sure, there are men who let the little woman manage the finances, but if he loses his job, what kind of power does she have then? She's run out of other people's money to spend. Unfortunately most of the time, the moneymaker is going to assume authoritative control of the household; this behavior is directly encouraged by many biblical denominations.
If the provider loses his job, or if the provider decides to run off with that cute little 18 year-old, the wife is left powerless and penniless. Even if she gets a divorce with alimony, it's not going to be enough. She's going to have to work, but by now she's got all these mouths to feed, no resume, and no experience. My biggest problem with housewifery is that it makes the woman completely dependent on someone else, and I think that's a ridiculous risk. Even if the man treats her well, what if he suddenly dies or is too ill to work? These are very real possibilities and if a woman gives up her independence, she can find herself in one hell of a pickle one day. Not that said pickle can't be overcome, but why do this to yourself?
I think the loss of empowerment, even voluntary, is dangerous and stupid. Yes, stupid. In this context empowerment means a career, and that's no small thing. Why would you risk your financial future, your livelihood and sanity, your children's future just so that you can have time to drive them to soccer or be the privileged one to clean the toilet? I realize that there are undeniable advantages to being at home with your kids. Supposedly you can keep your house clean (though I've yet to meet a clean household maintained by a SAHM, and I've seen a lot). You're there for your kids, emotionally and physically, and enjoy greater ability to be involved in their education and recreational activities.
Being a mother isn't about cooking, and cleaning and chauffeuring your kids to their activities. Let's get real, honey: anyone can do those things, and if you think you are making a difference in your kids' lives just by "being there", you're deluding yourself. Being a mother means to be there spiritually and emotionally for your children; to guide them and inspire them in their life and life choices; to love them unconditionally and cheer them on; to build them up and create happy, productive little people. The cold, hard reality is that you can do those things and still have a career--and keep your independence. You might not have the house as clean, or as many homemade meals made, or be able to be there for every event in their life...but that's ok. Your kids aren't going to grow up deranged or hating you because you worked and they had to eat pizza more than what was ideal. Your husband will get over the pile of laundry. His lazy ass isn't helpless, you know.
I get supremely annoyed at two things: 1) the idea that women must be SAHMs just because they were born with a vagina, and 2) when SAHMs think they are so special and are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
The last one really gets me. Not to say that there isn't a ton of work involved in being a SAHM, because they're surely is. But putting a price tag on housekeeping and childbearing is a bit pompous. If that makes you feel good about yourself, yay for you. Definitely, someone should be paying you for all the grueling work you do. But they don't. Know why? Because you're an idiot who does this shit for free.
The bottom line is this: just because you have a vagina your fate should not be automatically dictated at birth to be a maid, wife and baby factory. You should be able to choose and design your own fate.
But please embrace your modern feminine power and don't be someone's slave by choice. I'm not a feminist from the 1960s who is trying to tell you that you can have it all and it will all be great! Whatever path you choose won't be easy, and there will be work involved. You can make it happen, if you set your mind to it, but you're going to have to delegate your efforts, and spend time on what's most important. If you are successful, and you view the sky as your limit, you can have money and independence, a family--and a clean house, too, because you can afford to pay a housekeeper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)