Quickies
Quickies: Getting your MRS, women facing hunger, and the right to discriminate in Arizona
- College gals should make husband-hunting their major – Lindy West’s response to an odious Wall Street Journal article. From Moniqa.
- Arizona Senate passes “Right to Discriminate” bill – “Under the bill…individuals and businesses would be granted the legal right to refuse services to people or groups if they claimed that doing so would “substantially burden” their freedom of religion.” From miserlyoldman.
- Picturing hunger in America – So far 15 women are participating in a pilot program that, “gives digital cameras to food stamp recipients and asks them to chronicle what it’s like to be hungry in America.” From Sarah.
- Living in anti-gay areas is bad for the health of LGB individuals – This study shows a decreased life expectancy of 12 years for people in high-stigma areas as compared to people in low-stigma areas.
Actually, her advice doesn’t sound that bad (referring to the Wall Street Journal article). I think it would have come off better if it was written in a sex-neutral way. The advice applies just as much to men as it does to women, I think.
Like this paragraph – “College is the best place to look for your mate. It is an environment teeming with like-minded, age-appropriate single men [and women] with whom you already share many things. You will never again have this concentration of exceptional men [and women] to choose from.” That’s very true for most people in the US. College is a ‘target rich environment.” Almost everyone is single. Most people don’t yet have kids, or exes, or other baggage. Fast forward 10 years, and the environment is different and more limiting.
And, “Can you meet brilliant, marriageable men [or women] after college? Yes, but just not that many of them. Once you’re living off campus and in the real world, you’ll be stunned by how smart the men [and women] are not. You’ll no doubt meet some eligible guys [or gals] in your workplace, but it’s hazardous to get romantically involved with co-workers.” Very true.
And, “Not all women want marriage or motherhood, but if you do, you have to start listening to your gut and avoid falling for the P.C. feminist line that has misled so many young women for years. There is nothing incongruous about educated, ambitious women wanting to be wives and mothers. Don’t let anyone tell you that these traditional roles are retrograde; they are perfectly natural and even wonderful. And if you fail to identify “the one” while you’re in college, don’t worry—there’s always graduate school.” I think the use of the term “PC feminist” was a poor choice of words here. The gist of this paragraph, though, is consistent with feminism. There really is nothing “incongruous” about educated/ambitious women wanting to be wives and mothers. Just like there is nothing wrong with men wanting to be husbands and fathers. If someone says those things are “retrograde” — well, aren’t they wrong? Or, is being a spouse and parent really retrograde?
I don’t think the article was all that bad. Honestly,to me it was more “well, duh, of course a lot of our happiness is dependent on the spouses we choose — and the children that we have — and the home lives we make.” That is just plain obvious, just like a lot of our happiness is based on the jobs we choose. All that should be done as well as possible. It sucks up 16 or more hours of ever day (the time not spent sleeping).
The problem is precisely that she didn’t write it in a gender-neutral way. It’s retrograde because it puts the onus upon women in college to “catch a man”, which is incredibly backwards thinking. It would have been neutral and not necessarily as bad if it weren’t sexist.
I feel like I read a different article than you did. Her article was very specific toward women. In fact, one of the main points is that, in her opinion, well-educated men get more “desirable” as they get older, while well-educated women become less “desirable”, and that “Those men who are as well-educated as you are often interested in younger, less challenging women.” I’m not sure why I would have been interested in a man who preferred less challenging women. If I were to marry such a man, wouldn’t there be a ton of conflict in our lives?
Saying that the article isn’t so bad because you could apply the same thing to men I think misses the entire point of what she is trying to say.
I think she’s making some commentary on her opinion of our culture. Our culture may need changing, but is she way off base by noting that older men chase younger women? That’s really what she’s saying – she’s saying that when the hot, smart college woman turns 30, the 30 year old guys have their eyes on women who are still in their early and mid 20s. And, statistically, that does seem to be true. It’s very, very common in our culture to see older men with younger women, and it is far, far less common to see the reverse. For a woman in her 30s, she may find the pool of men to be rather less populated than it was when she was in her 20s.
If your point is that every single sentence in her article isn’t filled with sexist or false dreck, then you might have a point. But that’s not the basis of your criticism. Sure, if you excuse all of the sex-negativism, the fact that she made it specific to women, the fact that she misrepresented “PC feminism,” and a few other wrong-headed thoughts and ideas, it’s not a half-bad article. But the criticism is that she did all of those things, and in fact, she did do all of those things. They weren’t a tiny tangent to the article, but the focus of the article.
Other than that, how’d you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
You are commenting on basically every single post, nit picking, and trying to explain to us why we’re “wrong”, and then you move the goal posts around. Every. single. post.
You are not doing a very good job of trolling. We seee youuuu.
Sorry, “But that’s not the basis of her criticism.”
We are blowing up our Governor’s phone here in Arizona.
Amanda,
Arizona Senate passes “Right to Discriminate” bill. “Under the bill…individuals and businesses would be granted the legal right to refuse services to people or groups if they claimed that doing so would “substantially burden” their freedom of religion.”
I really hope the courts strike that law down ASAP. The idea that its designed to protect Christians from discrimination is utterly stupid. That’s like arguing that not allowing white supremacists to refuse to serve non whites is discrimination against white people. Laws that require business to serve LGBT people as would serve non LGBT people do not force Christians to stop being Christians. They don’t even force homophobes to stop being homophobes.
The courts can’t strike it down unless it’s a law. Right now, it only passed the state Senate. It’s not a law yet. And I’m crossing my fingers it won’t be, and will be writing to “my” governor immediately. It’s basically a conscience clause writ large. It’s not good enough that only pharmacists can do it; now everyone wants their religious claims to help them weasel out of things.
Annabolic,
I’m aware. I should have been more clear, and said if it becomes law. Thanks for pointing that out anyway. I might have confused someone now that I think about it.
I hate Arizona. I hate that Jan Brewer has almost the same name as me. I hate that I’ve been stopped by cops enforcing Arizona’s immigration laws. (I don’t know what’s worse, that they think I’m here illegally or that they think states can pass immigration laws.) I hate Sedona in general on principle. I hate Joe Arpaio’s guilty until proven innocent philosophy. I’ve found a new reason to hate Arizona.
All shitty. But damn, I love the lightning in the desert in August.
seriously, did all these people forget that whole satanism scare in the 80s?
cause, this whole ‘sincerely held religious belief’ bullshit would completely clear the way for all those imagined offenses they were shitting their pants over trying to pass laws to prohibit a couple decades ago.
or like, how a muslim could refuse them their order for a fucking mcbaconburger or whatever.
If only we could arrange some trade agreement with Russia, or Uganda or something, where they ship us all their LGBQT folk, and we ship them our bigotted asshats, and then everyone else lives happily ever after…
The right to discriminate if discrimination is required by a person’s religion. That big puzzles me. What mainstream religion requires discrimination in order for a person to practice or adhere to it? It’s basically a law spearheaded by Christians, but the basic tenets of every major denomination of Christianity is to embrace sinners. In the Bible, Jesus was criticized for fraternizing with sinners, so on a “What Would Jesus Do?” note — he’d invite sexual sinners to dine with him. Luke 15:7 “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.”v—-Luke 15:2 “And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
If Christians believe gay sex is a sin (much like any sex outside of wedlock) then shouldn’t they treat all such sinners with kindness, and simply try to deliver their message that the behavior needs to change? And, if a person has to avoid gays in order to comply with Chritianity, then don’t they also have to refuse service to all sexual sinners? What about divorced people? Many Catholics believe that a divorced person who remarries is living in adultery. Should divorced people be refused service at restaurants and bars, if the proprietor thinks that divorce and remarriage is a sin?
What about people who have sex but never marry? What about people who eat shrimp and shellfish? Should Jews be able to refuse service to Christians at a Kosher deli?
This Arizona law is an embarrassing abomination. It should be revolting to any thinking person. It should be especially disconcerting to Christians, in whose name this nonsense has been enacted. If I could propose a movement, I would propose that whenever this topic comes up with a supporter of such a law — bow your head in an expression of sadness — and discuss how low people have sunk when Christians claim that they must judge others in order to be good Christians — when Christians would want Jesus to refuse to dine with sexual sinners — when Christians would choose meanness over kindness, harshness over mildness. What kind of Christianity is this? I would ask. Where in the Bible does it say for Christians to shun only certain sinners, rather than welcome them with kindness? What did Jesus do?