#and my religion is not a feminist political statement

[sunbeam--daughter]

This is partly a response to anon but yeah, this is genuinely not to start drama, but part of what attracts me to filianism is the traditionalism and conservative thought that exists as the foundation of the religion itself so it's sad to see it taken over by leftist thought like everything else nowadays.

[nesiacha]

Reflections on the Comments of Maximilien Robespierre and Manon Roland on Condorcet

Nicolas Condorcet (1743-1794)

A long time ago, I found on the excellent site Les Amis de Robespierre what Madame Roland and Robespierre thought of Condorcet. Here is the link: Les Amis de Robespierre. I will translate the thoughts of the different protagonists from this article and give my personal opinion.

Robespierre's Opinion on Condorcet: Condorcet and Robespierre often attacked each other on the issue of war in 1792. Robespierre said about Condorcet’s articles that he knows "nothing worse and more treacherous." After the arrest of the Girondins, when Condorcet fled, Robespierre apparently said, "This coward Caritat, who, like his friend Brissot, fled national justice, and who no less deserved it," and "The coward Condorcet began to fear the responsibility for his liberty-destroying impostures." A few days after the last statement, Condorcet died, either by suicide, from understandable stress, or, some say, possibly murder (I personally doubt the third hypothesis, but I mention it nonetheless).

In his speech on May 7, 1794, when Robespierre spoke about religion and morality based on republican principles, he released new cutting remarks against Condorcet: "A timid conspirator, despised by all parties," and whose writings are described as "the treacherous jumble of his mercenary rhapsodies." Such violent and cutting words against Condorcet. Yet, on the insult of cowardice, someone else who was initially allied with Robespierre before becoming an enemy would join him in this term.

Manon Roland's Opinion on Condorcet: The woman who was called muse of the Gironde had harsh words for Condorcet in her memoirs. She described him as "weak of heart and health," and added, "A brief note on Condorcet, « whose spirit will always be on the level of the greatest truths, but whose character will never be above fear." She concluded about him, "Such men should be left to write and never employed."

My Reflections: I thought these were heavy words. Of course, Condorcet also said very harsh things, and it must be said that my boundless admiration for him when I was very young (especially since the activist he was for gender equality could only please the future feminist in me) was greatly tempered when I read his equally cutting speech about Robespierre. Speaking of Robespierre in this way: "He talks about God and Providence; he calls himself a friend of the poor and the weak; he gets followed by women and weak-minded people. He gravely receives their adoration and homage, disappears with danger, and is seen only when danger is past. Robespierre is a priest and will never be anything else," I need not say more about what irritated me when he spoke of women this way. Firstly, there were many politically active women who did not follow Robespierre or necessarily the ideals of Condorcet. Should we, for example, speak of Albertine Marat who declared to Alphonse Esquiros, "She then spoke to me about Robespierre with bitterness. 'There was nothing in common,' she added, 'between him and Marat. Had my brother lived, the heads of Danton and Camille Desmoulins would not have fallen.'" Even if I slightly disagree with this part that if Marat had survived, Danton's head would not have fallen (Danton being a very corrupt character and Marat starting to doubt him greatly, especially according to the excellent biography of Danton written by Frédériche Bluche), we are far from admiration for Robespierre from an important revolutionary activist like Marat's sister. And this is just one example among many. We can profoundly disagree with men and women for their political convictions, but what makes feminism and above all gender equality is not imposing a woman's way of life, whether it be thoughts or convictions. I will make a provocation by paraphrasing Voltaire to transpose what I mean: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Although personally being cowardly, I would not do it to the death, this exactly reflects what a feminist person should be. And clearly, Condorcet did not respect this part, which makes his conception of gender equality totally imperfect (to put it mildly) by lumping many women together with Robespierre's speech and mocking their political convictions. I feel with him that as long as these women were in agreement with him, it was acceptable, but as soon as they had different political convictions, he cataloged and despised them.

However, do I agree with what Manon Roland and Robespierre said about him? Is everything to be discarded from Condorcet?

Regarding Robespierre, let's not forget that he was an adversary of Condorcet, so it should be taken with a LOT of caution. And let’s not forget that when Robespierre made his speeches, he himself committed acts that can be easily criticized.

Regarding Manon Roland, let’s not forget that Condorcet had positions that were quite difficult to situate within the Girondins and Montagnards split. The group we will call the Girondins did not like to be called that way, and there were more political dissensions between them, and Condorcet did not share all the positions of the Brissotins. So, her words should also be taken with some caution, and she too has things to be blamed for.

But let’s think, would a coward have moderated his criticisms on the moderation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the Constitution of 1791? Because he publicly showed strong criticism.

He was a fervent opponent of the death penalty and stuck to his principles to the end. While some Girondins tried to spare Louis XVI not out of abolitionist conviction or royalism – most were republicans, including some before their time, like Manon Roland – but to not further legitimize the day of August 10, 1792, Condorcet voted against the death penalty out of conviction, whereas Robespierre, who had been an opponent of the death penalty, voted for the death of Louis XVI, rejecting the reprieve. However, he also felt that Louis XVI’s high treason deserved an exemplary punishment, being one of the few to demand that he be condemned to the galleys. He also advocated very early for the rights of Black people. Furthermore, what hastened Condorcet’s end was his condemnation of the arrest of the Brissotins – although his end was accelerated by the fact that he fled, which led to his death sentence in the summer of 1793. To my eyes, a coward would not have condemned the arrest of the Brissotins publicly. He would not have voted in contradiction to his own camp for his convictions (on this point, there is a certain parallel to be made with Robespierre facing the Constituent Assembly of 1789-1791, as Robespierre often intervened against a large majority to make his political ideas and those of so many others triumph).

Of course, I find it unfortunate that in popular culture, Condorcet is often forgiven for his mistakes because he also made mistakes that endangered the French Revolution, particularly the question of war, or what he said about women when he attacked Robespierre. His Panthéonization, for me, is deserved given that he, along with others, advocated generous ideas, and in his biography by historian Antoine Resche, “a public instruction project which, if it was not taken into account under the Revolution, laid the foundations of the school as it has been conceived since the Third Republic, that is, necessarily widespread education, by degrees,” but it is unfortunate that popular culture forget, especially Louis Michel Le Peletier, who proposed a mixed, free, and compulsory primary project defended by Robespierre. When speaking of revolutionaries defending the rights of female citizens, Condorcet is highlighted but not Charles Gilbert Romme, Guyomar, Charlier, and many others. Even more so, we forget revolutionary women like Théroigne de Méricourt, Pauline Léon, Claire Lacombe, Simone Evrard, Albertine Marat, Marie-Anne Babeuf, and many others, as the list is long.

In conclusion, what do I think of Condorcet now that you know that my admiration for him as a teenager has long been greatly tempered and that he is not among my favorite revolutionaries? Well, I still have a fondness for him, a recognition, and a admiration for him like for other revolutionaries, including Manon Roland and Robespierre, although they are not in my top 20 either and not my favorites characters of the frev. They were, fundamentally, complex people caught in a complex period who made, of course , grave and even unforgivable mistakes, but as was said on Tumblr, faultless revolutionaries are quite rare ( (even if there are people in my eyes who are indefensible or rotten like Fouché, Carrier, Tallien, Barras, Charles X, etc.) especially during these during this hellish period of civil war, external and former leaders like Louis XVI who betrayed his people or ��migrés who were ready to do anything to destroy the necessary gains of the revolution. . And they are still considered today in a period that is a victim of a black legend that must be constantly combated .

P.S : Forgive me is there was an article Tumblr about what said Manon Roland and Robespierre about Condorcet I checked but I might have missed it

[rjtaylor]

VISIT TO THE TATE MODERN

PIECE 1: 

There were 4 black and white Photo portraits with a naked man’s body in 4 different poses and costumes. It made me reflect on my own body and left me feeling vulnerable with the subject of the photos, even with my clothes on. The photos were taken as “an aggressive assertation of sex positiveness.” The artist (who modelled for the pictures himself) posed in classical postures of ballet, having taken the images at the height of the AIDs epidemic, the poses helped to further reach the goal of “challenging the policing of the queer black body.”  

PIECE 2: 

The room has ornamental decoration all around it and in the centre of the room is a table set for tea with two chairs sitting across from one another. The artist wanted to reflect on the links between the UK and colonialised India and the role that drinking tea plays in each country, I think that the artist did well executing this as I felt comforted by the installation as it felt like a familiar space that I had been in before. When not an installation in the Tate Modern, it’s a performance, where the artist holds one-to-one conversations with another person, offering them a cup of tea she has grown and prepared herself. From there they will discuss, over tea, the impact that Britain’s colonialism and imperialism had on South Asia.  

PIECE 3: 

The art installation was 3 big bells hung with rope from wooden beams that were leant against iron bars. The installation made me feel overwhelmed as size of the installation and knowing how loud of a noise the bells could make. When looking into it, the artist wished to reflect on the impact of the church in European countries, using the bells to signify the everyday presence of religion in rural towns. With the bells now tied up they are silent but will always hold the power to ring again. Artist quote: “Bells represent language, a magnified human – and the enthusiastic roar of liberation.”  

PIECE 4: 

The painting is of a woman’s body with a helmet to the left of her, at the centre of the silhouette there is a zip opened revealing a woman’s naked body underneath. The painting is a depiction of the soviet cosmonaut, Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman in space. The artist decided to paint such a soft erotic image of her as a way to comment on her although being a feminist heroine, never really escaping the sexualised figure that she is, being a woman. The Artist’s work ahs been considered a ‘sexual revolution in art;’ combatting gender discrimination making a link between women’s political, social freedom and sexuality.  

PIECE 5: 

40 International article clippings, printed and framed, hung up alongside on another. The articles are some of the summaries of the first attacks when the Argentinian Videla military junta (a military dictatoship) came into power. Although an incomplete summary the articles give some insight into the otherwise censored time in Argentina. These articles were able to slip through the cracks and could explain the wrongly accused and secretly murdered, the crimes discussed are limited but to give some explanation into the wrongs committed by the FFAA in Argentina in 1976. The title of the installation comes from the statement made from those who were justifying the military at the time, stating ‘It will be for something’ an expression that was later replaced with ‘we did not know.’  

PIECE 6: 

A detailed illustration depicting people going around a maypole, with a person at the top of the pole, titled at the bottom ‘THE WORKER’S MAYPOLE’. The artist took inpiration from Walter Crane’s pieces of work from the socialist magazine The Clarion in 1894. The installation was done with permenant marker and drawn onto pieces of collated cardboar, to draw reference to the common materials used in protests by political activists to construct placards. The artist changed some of the slogans of Walter Crane’s work to better reflect the political issues we face today, ‘Adult Suffrage’ becomes ‘Equal Pay’ and ‘Neither Riches Nor Poverty’ becomes ‘Healthcare is a Human Right’. 

[religiononhellsite]

Real World Effects (Entry 05)

Who benefits from this research?

Tumblr fandoms can teach us about avoiding other pipelines which can have considerable real-world consequences for people, such as Women Against Feminism and ones leading to terrorist ideologies. What these will show us is that Tumblr is not just a mysterious digital black hole, but routinely intersects with real-world peoples and groups with beneficial and harmful material consequences.

Women Against Feminism, is a Tumblr blog which shares and provides heavy critique of feminism along with a noteworthy number of other blogs who also engage with tags like #women against feminism, #waf, and #anti feminist (Christiansen 71-72). Much of what Woman Against Feminism presents displays a fundamental ignorance towards feminism. This is evidenced by some of the common themes posted on these blogs, often prefaced with the phrase, “I don’t need feminism because…” Themes including statements like:

“I want the option to follow gender roles and not be ridiculed for following them” (Christiansen 74);

“Generation X and their identity politics ruined feminism for everyone. I reject the cult of victimhood” (Christiansen 75);

“Everything isn’t rape” (Christiansen 74);

“I can take responsibility for my mistakes instead of labeling myself a ‘victim’” (Christiansen 76);

“I don’t take offense to men complimenting me” (Christiansen 76);

“I don’t hate all men” (Christiansen 75);

“Been told, in the ultimate in irony and hypocrisy, that I should remember that ‘my personal experiences don't represent all women,’ even though the entire damn problem is that feminists are using their personal experiences to represent all women even though large numbers of us don't share those experiences!” (Christiansen 78);

“I have the same right as, or better rights than, men” (Christiansen 74).

It is important to state that whether or not feminism actually produces these realities is irrelevant for Woman Against Feminism, as these aspects of “feminism” are perceived as real and thusly are made real for the women who identify as anti-feminist. This then shapes the ways they interact with the real-world around them to produce something which does not challenge any form of social inequality, marginalization, or victimization (Christiansen 78-79). Another aspect to Women Against Feminism is how closely their common talking points align with the beliefs of “men’s rights” fandoms and tags like Men Going Their Own Way, #red pill, Pick Up Artist, #PUA, and incels. Additionally, both groups often have strikingly similar talking points on Tumblr as those of Christian purity culture/#biblical womanhood/#TradWife blogs and tags. It is interesting how anti-feminists in general seem to have an imagined view of feminism as some sort of corrupting force that is hurting women, men, civilization, and religion. These anti-feminist perspectives may not be widely or openly stated in public, but their presence on places like Tumblr indicates that they are nonetheless powerful influences over the believers’ real-world meaning-making processes, values, and relations around gender, women, feminism, politics, and religion (Lövheim 2, 5). Some examples of these intersections and similarities are seen below, including an interesting one from an anti-feminist transgender man.

Another group of Tumblr users whose views on the platform have serious real-world consequences for themselves and others are the Daesh/ISIS/ISIL supportive blogs who share Islamic terrorist imagery and beliefs. These blogs seem to be mostly run by Western Muslim women with Western Muslim women as their target audience and focus on the importance of women in jihad as they need to support, love, comfort, and marry a man engaged in fighting for the Islamic State, or a mujahid (Tait 179-180, 182). These blogs also bring their own critique of feminism as they frequently state that the gendered emancipation of the West and liberation of women from the home/domestic sphere opposes God’s/Allah’s designs for men and women, ultimately contributing to the ongoing crumbling and collapse of the United States and Europe (Tait 181-182). Thusly, terrorist blogs use anti-feminism as a core element to recruit new members and connect people through their shared extremist ideologies, all in support of the Islamic State’s broader goals (Tait 183-184). Interestingly, this biological-determinism and its importance to wider ideological claims and movements is not too dissimilar from many of the previously analyzed views expressed by both Christian purity culture and TERFs.

Unfortunately, Tumblr’s trans-technology helps create the perfect digital environment for terrorist blogs who are far more resilient than their physical counterparts and who are capable of disseminating information more quickly and to a wider audience than would be possible without the aid of the internet (Tait 183). I do not have the knowledge to successfully find content on Tumblr that is clearly a blog supporting Islamic terrorism or how to properly identify what is innocent content versus what is not, but below are two screenshots of the same Tumblr post which seems to be sharing content from another source pushing back against Western feminism from an Islamic perspective.

When evaluating the genealogies of queerness, feminism, purity culture, and religion on Tumblr, it becomes clear that problematic notions of “purity,” “gender roles,” and “religion” are found even within some of the most liberative fandoms. For some spaces like those around queerness, TERFs, and #cottage core, this indicates how harmful Christian influences may remain by masquerading as subversions to conservative purity culture. But this does not fully explain how these problematic notions, especially around purity and gender, are also present in non-Christian religious spaces like those of neopaganism/witchcraft and Islam. Rather what might be observed on Tumblr in all three religious contexts, as well as across the other analyzed fandoms/tags, given the predominately young adult and youth user-base, is actually a continuous process of seeking agency throughout social, organizational, and individual levels that is legitimized when a technologically-enhanced form of public authority is established (Lövheim and Hjarvard 216, 220-221). In other words, Tumblr’s inherent openness, change, separation, and realness contribute to people exploring themselves and various ideologies differently than they would in the real-world, which may then create an environment where they believe their beliefs to be “correct” through others’ engagement/support/disagreement with them in a kind of confirmation bias.

Fortunately this confirmation bias can be resisted because queer utopic visions, openly shared lived experiences, diverse sexual consent and pleasure, and resilience of relational humor all subvert universalized “correctness” and the power dynamics thereof by offering alternative ways of seeking that agency without falling down a harmful pipeline or believing there can only be one liberative outcome for all humanity. This also challenges the hegemonic and exclusivist goals of contemporary movements like Women Against Feminism and the Islamic State in addition to historically embedded exclusivist moralities like Christian purity culture which can all have powerful real-world consequences for many people. Thereby, Tumblr provides a benefit to both real-world people and to users of social media by modeling personally authentic and intersubjective ways of living, building community, and protecting oneself and others which embrace inherent multiplicities, dynamic fluidity, and congruent liberative views of the future that all upend dominant epistemologies and restrictive religious and bodily expectations.

Much of what has been evaluated in the previous entries has been put together by combining what little existing research is out there with anecdotal experiences. My own speculations about possible connections between the queer, feminist, religious, and purity culture genealogies on Tumblr to how they contribute to subversion, exclusion, community, and oppression leaves considerable room for more objective, concrete conclusions to be drawn. Hopefully this initial exploration of Tumblr genealogies will eventually lead to further scholarship.

Works Cited:

Christiansen, Alex Phillip Lyng, and Ole Izard Høyer. “Women Against Feminism: Exploring Discursive Measures and Implications of Anti-Feminist Discourse.” Globe 2 (2015).

Lövheim, Mia. Media, Religion and Gender: Key Issues and New Challenges. London ; Routledge, 2013.

Lövheim, Mia, and Stig Hjarvard. “The Mediatized Conditions of Contemporary Religion: Critical Status and Future Directions.” Journal of Religion, Media and Digital Culture 8, no. 2 (2019): 206–225.

Tait, Victoria, Joshua Clark, and Lena Saleh Engen, “Women in Dark Networks: A Case Study on Daesh-Supportive Tumblr Blogs” in Why We Fight by Robert C. Engen, H. Christian Breede, and Allan English, 9:158-188. Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2020.

[femdialogue]

welcome to the FEM newsmagazine dialogue & opinion section spring '23 blog!

we made the (kind of hilarious) decision to make a tumblr in 2023 as a space of our own to start and facilitate conversations about topics that matter to us. as a section, we are interested in exploring questions of gender, race, class, ability and accessibility, sexuality, and other matters of identity and local and global politics from the perspective of college students at UCLA.

after 4 years of being in FEM, i can confidently say that the work and the conversations behind running an intersectional feminist publication are messier, more imperfect, and more ambivalent than what makes it into print. i cherish the opportunity to learn from and share with my fellow members of FEM and i envision this blog as a space where curiosity and radical thinking born out of experience can blossom. over the course of the next 8 weeks or so, members of dialogue will be taking over this blog and sharing their expressions.

we don't know exactly what it will look like yet, but stay tuned!

FEM's mission statement: FEM, UCLA’s feminist newsmagazine since 1973, is dedicated to the empowerment of all people, the recognition of gender diversity, the dismantling of systems of oppression, and the application of intersectional feminist ideology for the liberation of all peoples. FEM operates within an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-racist framework. Our organization seeks to challenge oppression based on sexuality, gender, race, class, ability, religion, and other power structures. We create a wide range of compassionate multimedia content that recenters narratives often rejected or ignored within mainstream media. Beyond journalism, FEM engages in actionable praxes by building coalitions with other campus and community members. As self-reflective feminists, we are committed to unlearning and relearning alongside our global audience as the sociopolitical landscape in which we are situated continues to transform.

[redditreceipts]

hey :) it’s cool that you’re interested in feminism, but I would disagree with calling Catholicism a radically feminist religion, so the “RF” part of “TERF” would not be accurate. I have been a Catholic myself for the largest part of my life, and this is why I think that Catholicism is not radically feminist: 

Radical feminism, as defined by Wikipedia, is: “is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical re-ordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts [...].”  in the Bible, however, a woman’s position is defined differently: 

In Corinthians, Paul says that men are superior to women: 

1 Corinthians 11:3: But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 11:8–9: For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

In Num 31:15 - 18, Moses condones rape of female war captives: 

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

The Catholic Church also does not allow women to be priests, cardinals, bishops or the Pope. So I would not call Catholicism inherently feminist. 

So can you be a Catholic and be a feminist at the same time? I would say yes, because feminism is a political movement, while religion is a personal belief. This means that when I’m arguing about feminism, I am making statements about what should be done politically and socially. For example, I believe that no girl should suffer from FGM. I want policies enacted that prosecute and punish FGM in women and girls. The state should arrest people who engage in that crime. That is a political statement.

A religious person may believe that it’s better for people to go church on Sundays. However, this person does not want people to be prosecuted and punished if they don’t go. Not going to church should not be a crime. It is a personal decision that everyone has to make themselves. 

Following the law to not engage in FGM, however, is not a decision that everyone has to make by themselves. 

In the end, your religion is between you and God. It is not a societal issue. I think that reading the Bible and listening to what Jesus said can help a lot of people in their personal lives, and even though I am not a Catholic anymore, I agree with Jesus Christ more than I disagree with him. 

So yes, I would not say that you have to literally leave Catholicism (and you shouldn’t, if it helps you), and maybe you draw strength to be active in feminism from your relationship with Christ. But Catholicism in itself is not a social movement, and also not particularly feminist. Both religion and feminism can coexist in my opinion, but they should not be conflated.

made something for y'all

Merry Christmas or whatever you celebrate! 💕

[thedreamygirlx]

The audacity such people have to insult others from their own religion. You know, I actually started spending more time on Tumblr to avoid such people on instagram and twitter and I've had enough with such idiots. I'm tired of explaining everyone the same thing over and over again.

Tumblr is supposed to be a peaceful and safe place for everyone, I didn't expect it to become a second Twitter. I came here to run away from the toxic and negative vibes. And I did find the peaceful community, but then these people had to come and ruin it all.

I am a proud feminist, supporter of the LGBTQ community, hate the caste system, yet somehow my words were twisted and I was called out as a sexist, 'casteist bitch' and a homophobic, and worst of all a nazi just because I decided to speak up and defend my fellow people.

And don't get me started on the insults mentioned on this screenshot, this isn't even the worst of what they called me or my fellow companions. Bhakts, because we pointed out a minor error in their blog post or hindu nazis, because, well I don't really know why that word. Saying the word Nazi, doesn't really make sense over here, atleast to me, surely everyone can see who's the real nazi here?

This is one of the meanings of Nazi I came across: (slang, usually, pejorative, sometimes offensive) One who imposes one’s views on others; one who is considered unfairly oppressive or needlessly strict.

I have never in my life been insulted so badly, neither on twitter nor on instagram. These people can say whatever they want, but the moment I or someone else speaks up against them because they don't agree with their views, we become 'BHAKTS AND NAZIS'.

We will not sit quiet any longer and if you scaredy cats can't get it through those thick heads of yours, well, not my problem. Oh and for god's sake, just stop pouncing on everyone who doesn't agree with you or points out errors in your statements.

Incase yall didn't know, Kashmir has always been a part of India, therefore their problems are our own as well, but it seems some people don't see it that way. Kabhi India ka physical ya political map nahi dekha? School mei geography nahi padha kya?

I'm so highly disappointed of people from my own cultural group, more like disgusted of them and the type of language they use to communicate to press forward their opinions. Nobody is stopping you from saying anything, but the least you can do is behave civilly. And if you have the right to spout whatever bullshit you want to, we have to right to give our opinions as well.

[softlyfiercely]

im sorry i couldn't let this go, i've seen this come across my dashboard THREE TIMES NOW and you all need to grow some critical thinking skills, please, i am begging you...anyway i just screenshotted this cause i really don't wanna get into it with anyone but this is the stupidest most ignorant thing i've read regarding religion in a long ass time.

placing this under a cut to be polite and save everyone's dashboards - I'm a Jew who converted to Christianity, so i guess my Jewish desire to be polite and considerate managed to override my christian religious mandate to be an asshole on this day...you're welcome everyone

first of all, judaism is a culture and faith that is six thousand years old, and christianity is two thousand years old, and both have spanned entire continents, so it is impossible for any quick rambly tumblr post to be able to remotely capture the reality and nuances of either one.

for example! claiming that in "judaism," divorce is totally accepted and acknowledged and women are free to just up and leave their man and it's some kind of feminist utopia is laughably bullshit! structures of patriarchal oppression use Jewish divorce law to control women - there's even a word, agunah, which means "chained woman." there are currently, as you read this, Jewish women in America who are trapped in this system, and it often leads to all sorts of violence and other nonsense!

also...the story of Leah and Rachel and Jacob is part of Jewish scripture and it isn't exactly a "rah rah women aren't men's property" moment, is it? it's almost like this is a complex subject with lots of nuance!

what about christianity? this brilliant theological scholar claims that divorce is a sin in christianity, just, flat out, period, end of sentence. it's good and allowed in judaism but bad and forbidden in christianity. is that true? of course not!!! most contemporary branches of christianity currently recognize divorce and accept divorced members in their congregation. Jesus is cited multiple times in the Gospels making statements about marriage and divorce that are, let's say...open to interpretation (see Matthew 5, Matthew 19, John 4). hell, we have an entire branch of christianity that partly started because some dude really, really wanted to divorce his wife.

so it makes no sense to say that judaism is totes cool with divorce but christianity is super mean about it. in reality, both religions have believers who use their laws/traditions to oppress women and uphold patriarchal structures, and followers of both religions have found their way to more progressive understandings of marriage and divorce.

also, love the citation of "puritans" as an example of what "christianity" is. puritanism was a small, radical offshoot of christianity - they were run out of entire countries, as you may remember, for being weird and extra about stuff. plus puritanism only appeared in the 1500s, so christianity had been bopping around developing some other theology for a while until then. and while much of american christianity can be traced back to puritan roots, you won't exactly find many practicing "puritans" running around in the 21st century.

so using "puritans" as the platonic example of What Christianity Is just makes no historical sense. if you want to talk about puritan ideas, go ahead. if you want to compare puritan thought to a specific era or sect of Jewish thought, that would be interesting! but you can't just say "some dudes in the 1600s did stuff, and that's what all christians do and believe"

it is also absurd to claim that christian faith makes no room for questioning. again, this person seems to be either citing very specific contemporary evangelical attitudes, or ahistorical caricatures, as a broad strokes representation of a 2000 year old, global religion. in fact, there's been a LOT of excellent christian thought and writing about wrestling with God, struggling with doubt, and asking questions. don't believe me? check out this overview in a popular contemporary christian publication.

also, it's silly to say that asking questions or challenging one's faith is 100% encouraged and accepted at all times "in judaism." google "off the derech" or check out some of these sources. Neither christianity or judaism, as a whole, is a pure perfect innocent cinnamon roll uwu of a religion.

the thing is that people use religion and religious institutions for their own purposes. power, wealth, control, etc. they will use the one most convenient and relevant to their purposes. it is not a feature unique to christianity.

and i can't even TOUCH that last bit. the notion that everything we find yucky about various historical iterations of christianity were nowhere until a bunch of jesus freaks just thought them up? what??? the idea that the entirety of christian thought and belief came about because some Very Nasty People just woke up one day and decided to be cruel and destructive? are you for real???

that's not...how things work. that's not how anything works. you are not "stating the obvious" because you are making such an absurdly false statement that it just...have you ever read, like, a book?

the history of western christianity is thousands of years long, and it includes hundreds of different influences, from plague epidemics to corrupt rulers, and there have always been a ton of people writing, thinking, talking, and arguing about what it means to follow Jesus.

there is a LOT of christian thought and history that does exactly what this person claims never happens in christianity - celebrates the body, honors the dignity of every person, upholds joy and pleasure as sacred, etc. OP i think is referring to the ideas of thomas aquinas who was JUST ONE DUDE in the 1200s and does not represent everything that every christian has ever believed, done, or taught. check out the writings of St. Teresa of Avila, Gerard Manley Hopkins, or Julian of Norwich.

there are some christian practices and beliefs that arose from people's good faith efforts to follow a loving God. there are some that arose from people in power trying to cling to their own privilege. and most of them come from a combination of both! guess what - this is also true of judaism! turns out, both christianity AND judaism have really messy, complicated, nuanced backgrounds! one is not just a bunch of people saying Let's All Be Cool And Make The World Nice And Good vs. a competing bunch of people going Let's All Be Dicks And Ruin Everything. that makes no sense! think about the things that you are saying!!!

if you're curious about this, or if you want to be able to have a more nuanced opinion about whatever you think "christianity" is, i'd recommend a book called Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. It's a great place to start for an in depth, heavily sourced study of exactly how christian thought about a specific issue changed, developed, and solidified. there, you'll see that there is no way to summarize what "christianity" does, believes, or says, because it's wide ranging and ever changing. you'll also see that certain problematic attitudes or beliefs don't just spring up because Christians Are Assholes, but because of competing pressures and influences from inside and outside the church.

if you want a free copy of that book, PM me and I will send you one. seriously. even if you hate christianity, had terrible personal experiences with a contemporary church, etc. it's a great read. there are sexy love letters between gay monks. im serious.

[thepro-lifemovement]

Speaking For the Unborn (9.2)

You are just anti-woman, a misogynist

Arguments 38, 39, and 40: “You men should mind your own business!” “Abortion is purely a women’s issue.” “No uterus? No opinion!”

First Rebuttal: Nonsense. Abortion is a human issue, not a gender issue. Facts, logic, reason, and compassion have no anatomy. Whether men or women support these views is no more relevant than whether they're supported by blacks or whites. To believe otherwise is simply bigotry and sexism. You didn't have to be black to oppose slavery or a Jew to oppose Nazis. As Martin Luther King Jr. said regarding moral issues, "A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice." Ref1. Ref2. Ref3. 

Second Rebuttal: Abortion is a human issue, not a gender issue. My personal identity has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. I don't surrender the right to take a stand on moral or political issues simply because of my skin color or gender. To suggest otherwise is racist, sexist, and bigoted. Ref.

Third Rebuttal: I would echo the sentiments of both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln—that it would be cowardly and immoral to permit anyone to silence you on critical moral issues based on your skin color, your religion, or your sex. And to suggest otherwise is racist, sexist, and bigoted.

Argument 41: “The pro-life movement is just another example of men subjugating women.”

First Rebuttal: That's nonsense. First, opinion polls show that men are actually less opposed to abortion than women. Second, the overwhelming majority of Pro-Life workers and volunteers are women, not men. Third, the leader of nearly every national Pro-Life group is a woman! So the notion that the Pro-Life movement is a weapon used by men is pure fiction. Source.

Second Rebuttal: That's a demonstrably false statement—debunked by even a cursory review of the facts. The Pro-Life movement is led by women, not men (2021): 

March for Life: Jeanne Mancini

Susan B. Anthony List: Marjorie Dannenfelser

Live Action: Lila Rose

And Then There Were None: Abby Johnson

Students for Life: Kristan Hawkins

Americans United for Life: Catherine Glenn Foster 

New Wave Feminists: Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa

Right to Life: Carol Tobias

Ref. Source.

Third Rebuttal: Men are at their best when they exercise deep loyalties to women and children—when they take responsibility to protect and defend them. When men violate these duties, they are at their worst, becoming either abusers or cowards.

Argument 42: “If abortion is made illegal, thousands of women will die in back-alley and clothes-hanger abortions.”

First Rebuttal: That's a fiction based on the false testimony of former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, who once said that “5,000-10,000 women died of back-alley abortions each year prior to Roe." He now admits that he completely made up this number. In the years prior to Roe v. Wade, the actual number of abortion deaths of the mother was about 250 a year. Also before Roe, 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by physicians in back offices with surgical instruments, not in back alleys with clothes hangers. If abortion were once again made illegal, the small percentage of women seeking to break the law would resume this same “back office" medical practice. So "thousands of women dying from back-alley abortions and clothes hangers" is pure fiction.

Second Rebuttal: We must not legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous. . . . we don't try to make kidnapping or child abuse safe and legal. If abortion kills children, our goal should not be to make it as safe and legal as possible, but to provide alternatives and legal restrictions that help avoid it in the first place.

Third Rebuttal: We know from other countries that restricting abortion does not cause an increase in maternal deaths. Ireland and Malta, for example, have some of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world despite their tight abortion restrictions. And Poland experienced a documented decrease in maternal deaths when abortion was made illegal. Source.

Credit.

[wyvern-of-the-evening]

JKR isn’t a radical feminist, she’s gender critical but that’s not what inherently makes one a radfem. The same thing can be said about LBGA, and an added point that men cannot be radfems, so the gay men can’t be radfems. Neither of them are funded by heritage foundation. That would, however, be WoLF, which most radical feminists don’t support, for that very reason. The right wouldn’t fund LGB alliance because they’d be funding a gay rights group, which isn’t, as the chronically online would like to believe (not talking about you btw just general) an anti-trans group, it’s for protecting LGB rights. When it comes to JKR we’re talking about a woman they condemned for “spreading witchcraft” and “turning children to the devil”. They agree with her on a singular issue, not for the same reasons, but agreeing on a singular issue doesn’t make her funded by conservatives. She runs charities meant for women’s well being and protecting children, things conservatives don’t care about.

Are trans politics somehow not also backed by political groups? Are we pretending that they haven’t gotten as far as allowing males in female prisons. The things being demanded of people are not rights. Males don’t have a right to go to the women’s bathroom. It isn’t a right that they be called a particular set of pronouns or a specific name. If they were fighting against employment/housing/medical discrimination, that’d be admirable. I could get behind that, but telling me I have to harass other LGBs for not wanting to date them, being told I have to share a changing room with a male and that if I leave because said male is there that I’m transphobic, etc. why would I support any of that? When they threaten to rape and kill women they don’t like.

There is no difference between racists. A racist is a racist and has government backing because racism is just one of the heads on the hydra. We at least actively call out racism within our community. I can’t say as much for TIMs because anytime they’re outed for wrong doing, the person revealing their actions is told they’re making the community look bad. That’s not always the case I’m sure, but that’s what I’ve seen now, and from my own time back when I was in your position.

I’ve never heard of a conservative preferring a gay child over what could potentially be seen as a “straight” child. Radical feminists wanting gay children to know it’s okay to be gay isn’t the same, and it’s dishonest to portray it as such. Saying “you shouldn’t have to feel distressed or ashamed for being same sex attracted, you don’t have to be straight because homosexuality is normal” isn’t the same as conservatives saying “my child is a sinner who needs to be fixed because their attraction makes them an abomination in the eyes of the lord”. I do agree with your last statement to an extent. Their rights aren’t being wiped out unless they’re experiencing the discrimination I’ve already mentioned above, they aren’t being arbitrarily arrested for being trans, they aren’t tortured in prisons (especially when put in the same housing as the very people they harmed to get put there), they aren’t being enslaved.

People are disagreeing with the medical malpractice happening to those people. The amount of uninformed “consent” and life long medicalization, and rampant misogyny and misogynoir is what’s turning the leftists like myself. The right really didn’t need much convincing. Moderates are feeling that way because the ever-changing rules are exhausting to keep up with and grow more and more ridiculous by the day. The dysphoria discourse is a good example of that. If people don’t need dysphoria to be trans, what distress are they experiencing from any of this? Self ID instantly makes being trans a choice (something being SSA is not), and what’s to stop me from just identifying as trans and telling you not to speak over me on this issue? That is why the trans community is losing support. Conservatives base it off religion. My disagreement is based off what I’ve seen them do to women’s rights and gay rights, as well as the life long medicalization of humans who weren’t fully informed by greedy doctors.

Radfems are often told to make our own spaces by TRAs. And yet when we do, they TRAs and TIMs throw massive fits about it, and try to invade it. Unfortunately this time they’re doing it. Giggle was supposed to be a female only platform, now being invaded by TIMs and their handmaidens, for being a female only platform. Posting pictures of someone spreading their asshole, literally. Funny how you don’t see this in male only spaces. Why is that I wonder

[innerstar-u]

Okay, AG did terrible with the HP line, regardless but I am a conservative trying to understand.. are people just mad because she doesn't have the same POV, because what I got from her tweets was she was being so polite about having a different opinion, even saying she supports lgbt, more than AG even is.. and as for her racism.. is this only because of fictional racist commentary? because it's fair to acknowledge it is a problem also in the fictional world too.. doesn't mean the author is in fact...

all that being said and I still think she leans left, probably is feminist anyway, and did not support trump or the conservative party even in Britain.. so are we all just going to assume she is all the above... as in are we to assume conservatives are as such, and that she must be one ??

my other question is, who is JKR talking about... like is she actually referring to trans women who are using the platform wrongly, as in taking advantage of women's sports and privacy? or is she really meaning harm to the entire community... I just think there needs to be context considered, and rules as well as exceptions because we do have young girls to protect either way. most importantly why are we buying AG when they never show their support for LGBT to begin with.. ever..

Just to make it clear to everyone who follows me, this is an American Girl blog. 

I don’t want it to become a political blog. That’s why I’m responding to a bunch of asks in one post so it doesn’t clutter up the dash more than the previous asks already have. The only reason I’m even discussing JKR or trans issues is because of the AG x HP collab. Bear that in mind before sending me another ask in the future. 

Read the entire post below the cut before sending me another anon about JKR, trans issues, or religion as it relates to views on LGBTQ+ issues. 

Also I genuinely have no idea who sent what anon, so I’m going to reply to a few of the asks in my inbox that all have the same kinds of questions. I’ve put them in the order I think they go in. I think there are two of you at least? A couple of these messages are more polite than others, so going forwards don’t come at me making assumptions, regardless of who sent each one. 

Sticking it under a cut because this could get very long. Also TW for discussion of sexual assault and general transphobia. 

--

First thing I'm going to say is I don't really care where JKR leans on other political issues. I'm not interested in talking about conservatives vs liberals. I'm talking about transphobic views specifically. At no point have I referred to JKR as a conservative, so I’m not sure how this got brought up in this discussion. 

I’m also not interested in discussing trans rights and personhood as a whole through the lens of potential criminality. The number of transgender people “using the platform wrongly” is so, so, so small, if it even exists at all. 

- We have literally no evidence that there has ever been a trans person who assaulted a cisgender woman or girl in a bathroom. Or a locker room. Or anywhere that’s designated as being exclusively a space for women. Or really anywhere. (It doesn’t even matter how someone identifies in whatever bathroom because sexual assault is still illegal. Please just let people pee comfortably while minding their own business.)

-  Transgender people are far more likely to be sexually assaulted than cisgender people. Full stop. 

- There is not enough research done on transgender athletes to make a blanket statement about whether they should be allowed in sports or not. We are doing the research now. From what we know right now, trans women have some advantages in sports...but they also have some disadvantages as well. I strongly suggest you read the article in full because it’s the most thorough, least-biased article I’ve found on the topic. 

While we’re here, did you know that cisgender women undergo hormone replacement therapy all the time? After menopause, many cisgender women have to take hormones (the same ones prescribed to transgender women) to replace estrogen no longer made sufficiently by their own body. You didn’t bring that up at all, but I’m bringing it up because I think it’s always important to remember that the dividing line between "cis person things” and “trans person things” isn’t so clear-cut. We’re not some foreign species. Trans people are just like you. 

Now, onto JKR. 

You ask “is she really meaning harm to the entire community” and to that I say it doesn’t really matter. She IS harming the entire community. Her rhetoric has been used to strike down important protections for LGBTQ+ people. 

The number one concrete thing that tells everyone that JKR does not support trans people is her repeated support of the LGB Alliance. This organization claims to support lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and other individuals under the gay umbrella. However, the LGBA is an anti-trans hate group. If you don’t believe me, name one single campaign that the organization has funded that does not involve trans people or gender identity. Everything they put money into has to do with blocking transgender people from accessing healthcare and other necessary services, rather than helping gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. 

She has expressly denied the fact that transgender women are women and gotten upset at others for affirming that fact. This brings me to some issues with how she and other trans-exclusionary feminists define womanhood. Are we really defining “woman” as a set of genitals? That seems demeaning, especially given that there are many people out there who are literally born without functioning reproductive organs. What about the idea that men are physically stronger than women? What happened to the feminist ideals from the 1970s where “women can do anything men can do”? Also I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to cross someone as strong as Rhea Ripley, regardless of what gender I was assigned at birth. JKR’s narrow definition of womanhood denies the womanhood and even personhood of people who don’t fit the stereotypical ideals of the female sex. That’s not just trans-exclusionary. That’s blatant sexism, probably of an internalized variety. You know a woman is having a tough time in life when she’s stereotyping and demeaning her own gender. 

Additionally, another not-so-great thing JKR does to both trans and cis people: whenever someone agrees with her views on transgender people being some sinister threat to women, she’ll post their support message in a screenshot where she blocks out their username. When she doesn’t agree with them, however, she puts them on blast, retweets them directly, and sends her supporters after them to harass them. That’s dangerous behavior. 

You ask “are people just mad because she doesn't have the same POV” and to that I say it’s certainly not about that. A “different viewpoint” does not demean other people. We call it hatred and bigotry. A normal, healthy, different viewpoint is something like “I think we should put tax money into space exploration programs,” not “I think transgender people are criminals who shouldn’t be a legally protected group.” And that’s exactly how many people see us. That’s how JKR talks about us. JKR makes it clear at every turn that she sees transgender people as criminals waiting for an opportunity to attack someone in a bathroom, even though studies show we do not do that. How is that a neutral viewpoint? How is that just a different POV that should be respected? I don’t respect people who demean others for just living their lives. 

As for her racism, it’s not just the core Harry Potter books. It’s not just allusions to chattel slavery and antisemitism, though those are pretty bad if you actually reread the books through a critical lens. Her expanded-world “American” wizards take a questionable turn. She rewrites Native American/Indigenous legends and claims them as her own. Imagine if your family wrote a really good story and then some wealthy woman who doesn’t share your history or culture decides to rewrite it, misrepresent you and your family, and claim the royalties as her own. Native American and Indigenous people from tribes all across North America have been begging for all people to treat their stories with respect for generations. However, a rich, white, British lady is making bank off of stories that she isn’t even representing properly. That’s not cool. Rewriting a culture’s history for one’s own benefit is a racist thing to do. 

--

while i understand people are capable of being religious and good, then why do we have a hard time accepting JKR or some conservatives that share differences, but both to me can be respectful about it, unless you think only small minded about conservatives or conservative leaning. because it just seems like you don't share the same feelings about politics, even though we know just like you said, religious people can be allies, or otherwise be respectful people why are you not extending the same treatment? it just seems hypocritically biased, and on top of that how do you believe in any religion that shares the commandments that openly talk against lgbt still..like do you just ignore it..?

This ask makes no sense because we jump from religion to JKR to me not being conservative to the Ten Commandments. I don’t know where to start on this ask because I’m not totally sure what the question is. 

I think you’re asking “If religious people can respect LGBTQ+ people, why can’t you respect JKR for having a different viewpoint?” If I’m reading that right, that doesn’t make sense. Those are two separate issues. It seems you are equating JKR and transphobia with having religious views, despite the fact that she has never cited a religious reason for being against rights for trans people. 

We’re still not talking about conservatism as a whole. We’re not talking about religion as a whole. If this is the anon who sent that first ask about religion, AG, and LGBTQ+ rights to me, you apparently did not read my response at all. You can be religious and/or conservative and also support human rights, something that you state and then proceed to forget in the above ask that I’m responding to now (once again assuming this is the same anon). 

Also you need to read the Ten Commandments again because they say literally nothing about being LGBTQ+. Literally nothing. The parts in the Bible that some people interpret as talking about being gay likely had more to do with temple prostitution, rape, and incest. (TW for anyone reading that link for discussion of those topics.) And there’s some theological evidence that Adam and Eve were the first transgender people. I can’t find a link for that (I’ll update this post when I do), but in summary some theologians consider this because Eve, a woman, came from the rib of Adam, a man. In order for this to happen, Eve would have to be transgender and/or Adam would have to be initially genderless. 

--

btw I am a different anon, that other one was rude, doubt they are conservative also. 

??? So everyone whose tone you disagree with is not conservative? Maybe check that logic, anon, because I think you’ll find that many people, conservatives included, can be jerks on the internet.  

--

like if you say boycott Jkr, but aren't telling people to quit religion that purposefully won't marry lgbt couples, and believe you're sinning..and  then the same with supporting AG who is obviously supportive of jkr.. I just mean to say your hatred towards one woman, who was abused by her first husband btw, is more than the religious leaders that enforced conversion therapy etc... like how is that something to get past? 

You’re making assumptions and putting words in my mouth. Where have I said that people should keep beliefs that are homophobic under the guise of religion? Where have I said I support conversion therapy or the refusal to marry LGBTQ+ couples? 

People can follow a religion and not hold homophobic or transphobic beliefs. People who do hold those beliefs should challenge them and work to become more supportive of people who are just trying to live their lives. End of discussion. 

Where have I even said I hate JKR? I actually feel sorry for her because of all the times she has made it clear that she doesn’t have faith in women to be strong and make their own decisions in life. I hate some of her views, not her. Views can change with time, but I won’t be supporting her financially until change happens. JKR actually holds a few views that I agree with, but she disagrees with my mere existence. She demeans me and my fellow transgender people. She insults the intelligence and strength of female-bodied people. As a result, I don’t want her or her works in my life, and I think any other rational person shouldn’t either. Simple.

--

I am still open to talking about the above issues, though future replies may be much shorter or simply a link to this ask because I feel like I’ve said most of what needs to be said already. Read the whole post and the links before sending me another ask on these topics. 

As per usual, anything that is directly and obviously transphobic or otherwise bigoted will not be published or responded to. I won’t reward purposeful and open hatred with attention. 

Genuinely, I hope this post was helpful to people who actually want to learn. I hope those people have a good day. 

[woman-loving]

Islam, heteronormativity, and lesbian lives in Indonesia

Selections from Heteronormativity, Passionate Aesthetics and Symbolic Subversion in Asia by Saskia Wieringa, 2015.

These passages discuss some general social developments related to sexuality and gender in Indonesia, and then describe stories from different (mostly lesbian) narrators. They also touch on the creation of a religious school for waria (trans women), and include two trans men narrators, one of whom talks about his struggle to get sex reassignment surgery in the 70s. I also included a story from a divorced woman whose sexuality was questioned when her husband complained that she couldn’t sexually please him. Accusations of lesbianism can be directed toward any woman as a method for managing her sexuality/gender and prodding her into compliance with expectations of sexual availability.

In spite of protests by religious right-wing leaders, Islam does not have a single source of its so-called 'Islamic tradition'. There are many different interpretations and, apart from the Quran, many sources are contested. Even the Quran has abundant interpretations. Feminist Muslim writers, such as Fatima Mernissi (1985), Riffat Hassan (1987), and Musdah Mulia (2004 and 2012), locate their interpretations in the primary source of Islam--the Quran. According to those readings, sexuality is seen in an affirmative, positive light, being generally described as a sign of God's mercy and generosity toward humanity, characterised by such valued qualities as tranquillity, love, and beauty. The California-based Muslim scholar Amina Wadud (1999) describes the jalal (masculine) and jamal (feminine) attributes of Allah as a manifestation of sacred unity. She maintains that Allah's jamal qualities are associated with beauty that, although originally evaluated as being at the same level as Allah's masculine qualities that are associated with majesty, have en subsumed in the 14 centuries since the Quran was revealed.

The Quran gives rise to multiple interpretations. Verse 30:21 is one of my favorites:

“And among Allah's signs is this. That Allah created for you spouses from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity whit them, and Allah has put love and mercy between your [hearts]: verily in that there are signs for those who reflect.”[2]

The verse is commonly used in marriage celebrations, and I also used it in my same-sex marriage ritual. It mentions the gender-neutral term 'spouse,' which leaves room for the interpretation that same-sex partners are included.

Indonesian waria (transwomen) derive hope from such texts. In 2008, Maryani, a well-respected waria, opened a pesantren (traditional Islamic religious school) for waria, named Al-Fatah, at her house in Yogyakarta. After her death in March 2014, it was temporarily closed, but fortunately soon reopened in nearby Kotagede. A sexual-rights activist, Shinta Ratri, opened her house to waria santri (santri are strict believers, linked to religious schools) so they could continue to receive religious education. At the official opening, Muslim scholar Abdul Muhaimin of the Faithful People Brotherhood Forum reminded the audience that, as everyone was made by God: "Everyone has the right to observe their religion in their own way...", and added: "I hoped the students here are strong, as they must face stigma in society."[3]

Prior to her death (after she had made the haj),[4] Maryani herself, a deeply-religious person, said: "Here we teach our friends to worship God. People who worship are seeking paradise, this is not limited to our sex or our clothing..."[5] So far, hers is the only waria pesantren in Indonesia, perhaps even globally, and may be due to the fact that Maryani was an exceptionally strong person who spoke at many human-rights meetings. In October 2010, I also interviewed her and was struck by her warm personality, courage, and clear views.

In spite of those progressive readings of the Quran, women's sexuality is interpreted in light of their servility to men in practice, and has been linked to men's honour rather than women's pleasure. Although marriage is not viewed as too sacred to be broken in Indonesia, it is regarded as a religious obligation by all. An unmarried woman over the age of 20 is considered to be a perawan tua ('old virgin'), and is confronted by a continuous barrage of questions as to when she will marry.

Muslim (and Christian) conservative leaders consider homosexuality to be a sin. Women in same-sex relations find themselves in a difficult corner, as exclusion from their religion is a heavy burden. Some simply pray at home, privately hoping that their God will forgive them and trusting in the compassion taught by their holy books. However, outside their private space, religious teachers and society at large denounce their lives as sinful and accuse them of having no religion.

Recent Indonesia legislation strengthens the conservative, heteronormative interpretations of Islam. Apart from the 2008 anti-pornography law (discussed below), a new health law was adopted that further tightened conservative Islam's grip on women's reproductive rights and marginalised non-heteronormative women. That 2009 health bill replaced the law of 1992, which had no chapter on reproductive health. The new law states that a healthy, reproductive, and sexual life may only be enjoyed with a 'lawful partner' and only without 'violating religious values'--which means that all of our narrators would be banned from enjoying healthy, sexual, and reproductive lives.[6]

Conservative statements are also made by women themselves; for example, members of the hard-line Islamic group Hizbut Tahrir, who not only want to restrict reproductive services (such as family planning) to lawfully-wedded heterosexual couples but also see population control as a 'weapon of the West' to weaken the country.[7] They propose to save Indonesia by the imposition of sharia laws. Hard-line Islamic interpretations are widely propagated and creep into the legal system, thus strengthening heteronormativity and further expelling non-normative others.

Yet strong feminist voices are also heard in Indonesia's Muslim circles. Even in a relation to one of the most controversial issues in Islam--homosexuality--a positive, feminist interpretation is possible. Indonesia's prominent feminist Muslim scholar, Siti Musdah Mulia, explains that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon as it was created by Allah, and thus allowed by Islam. The prohibition, however, is the work of fallible interpretations by religion scholars.[8] In her 2011 paper on sexual rights, Mulia bases herself on certain Indonesian traditions that honour transgender people, referring to bissu in south Sulawesi, and warok[9] in the reog dance form in Ponorogo. In those cases, transgender is linked to sacred powers and fertility. She stresses that the story of Lot, always cited as evidence of Quranic condemnation of homosexuality, is actually concerned with sexual violence--the people of Sodom were not the only ones faced with God's wrath, as the people of Gomorrah were also severely chastised even though there is no indication that they engaged in same-sex behaviour. Nor is there any hint of same-sex behaviour in relationship to Lot's poor wife, who was transformed into a pillar of salt. Mulia advances a humanistic interpretation of the Quran that stresses the principles of justice, equity, human dignity, love, and compassion (2011: 7). Her conclusion is that not Islam itself but rather its heterosexist and patriarchal interpretation leads to discrimination.

After the political liberalisation (Reformasi) of 1998, conservative religious groups (which had been banned at the height of the repressive New-Order regime) increased their influence. The dakwah ('spreading of Islam') movement, which grew from small Islamist usroh (cell, family) groups and aimed to turn Indonesia into a Muslim state, gathered momentum.[10] Islamist parties, such as the Partai Kesejahteraan Sosial (PKS), or Social Justice Party, gained wide popularity, although that was not translated into a large number of seats in the national parliament (Hefner 2012; Katjasungkana 2012). In the early Reformasi years, official discourse on women was based on women's rights, taking the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action as its guide, but recent discourse on an Islamic-family model--the so-called keluarga sakinah ('the happy family')--has become dominant in government circles (Wieringa 2015, forthcoming). The growing Islamist emphasis on a heteronormative family model, coupled with homophobia, is spreading in society. During KAN's [Kartini Asia Network for Gender and Women's Studies in Asia] September 2006 TOT [Training of Trainers] course in Jakarta, the following conversation was recorded:

“Farida: Religious teachers go on and on about homosexuality. They keep shouting that it is a very grave sin and that people will go straight to hell. My daughter is in the fifth form of primary school. She has a best friend and the two were inseparable. But the teachers managed to set them apart, as they were considered to be too close. The mother of my daughter's friend came to me crying; she was warned that she had to be careful with her child, or else she might get a daughter who was different. And now the new school regulations stress that a woman must wear the jilbab [headscarf].[11] This has put a lot of stress on tomboyish girls. They cannot wear the clothes they are comfortable with any more. Zeinab: When we were taught fiqih [Islamic law], we never discussed homosexuality. When we studied the issue of zinah [adultery], one of our group asked: "But how about a woman committing zinah with another woman, or a man with another man?" Our teacher just shook is head and muttered that that was not a good thing. The only story we learnt was about the prophet Luth [Lot]. But when we went to study the hadith [Islamic oral law], we found the prophet had a very close friend, Abu Harairah, who never married, while all men were always showing off their wives. There were some indications that he might have had a male lover. Yet the prophet is not known to have warned him. So, while the mainstream interpretation of Islam is that they condemn homosexuality, there are also other traditions that seem to be more tolerant, even from the life of the prophet himself.”

The above fragment shows how fundamentalist practices creep into every nook and cranny of Indonesian people's lives--the growing suspicion toward tomboys, forcible separation of close school friends, and enforcement of Muslim dress codes. But we also see a counter-protest arising. At the TOT training course, the women activists realised that patriarchal interpretations of religion had severely undermined women's space, and started looking for alternative interpretations, such as the story of the prophet's unmarried friend.

However, for many of our narrators, religion is a troubling issue. Putri, for instance, does not even want to discuss the rights of gays and lesbians in Indonesia; she thinks the future looks gloomy, with religious fundamentalism on the rise, and her dream of equal rights is buried by the increasing militancy of religious fanatics. [...]

Women-loving women

Religion is a sensitive aspect of the lives of our women-loving-women narrators, who are from world religions that, although propagating love and compassion in their distinct ways, interpret same-sex love negatively. In some cases, our narrators are able to look beyond the patriarchal interpretations of their religions, which preach hatred for what are emotions of great beauty and satisfaction to them, while others are devastated by guilt and shame. [...]

Indonesian male-identified Lee wonders why "people cannot see us as God's creatures?" but fears that Islam will never accept homosexuality. He knows the story of the prophet Lot, and how the city of Sodom was destroyed by God as a warning so others would not commit the sin of sodomy. Lee was raised as a good Muslim, and tries to follow what he has been taught are God's orders. For some time, he wore a man's outfit for praying.[16] At that time, he thought that religious duties--if conducted sincerely--were more important than his appearance but, after listening to some religious preachers, he felt that it was not right to wear men's clothing: "Sometimes I think it is not right, lying to myself, pretending to be someone else. We cannot lie to God, right? Even if I try to hide it, definitely God knows." So, after attending religious classes, he decided to wear the woman's outfit--the mukena--when praying at home.

Lia grew up in a strict Muslim family. When she pronounced herself to be a lesbian, it came as a shock to her relatives, who invoked the power of religion to cure her. When her mother went on the haj, she brought 'Zamzam water' from Mecca. The miraculous healing powers of the liquid from Mecca's Zamzam well were supposed to bring Lia back to the normal path. Dutifully, Lia drank from it and jokingly exclaimed: "Ah, my God, only now I realise how handsome Delon is!"[17] Yet she found succor in her religion when she went through a crisis in her relationship with Santi:

"When Santi hated me very much and avoided me, I prayed: "God, if it is true that you give me a guiding light, please give me a sign. But if it is a sin...please help me..." Was my relationship with Santi blessed or not? If it wasn't, surely God would have blocked the way, and if it way, would God broaden my path? As, after praying so hard, Santi and I became closer, God must have endorsed it. Does God listen to my prayer, or does God test me?"

So, even though she got together again with Santi after that fervent bout of praying, uncertainty gnaws at Lia, who realises that mainstream Islamic preachers prohibit homosexuality. Ideally, she feels that a person's religion must support people, but Islam does not do that because she is made to feel like a sinner. But, she says, the basic principle that Islam teaches is to love others. As long as she does that, Lia sees nothing wrong in herself as one of God's creatures. She realises that, particularly in the interpretation of the hadith (Islamic oral tradition), all manner of distortions have entered Islamic values, and wonders what was originally taught about homosexuality in Islam. She is aware that many Quranic texts about the status of women were manipulated in order to marginalise them, and avidly follows debates on feminist interpretations that stress that the real message of the Quran does not preach women's subordination.

Lia knows that there are lesbians in the pesantren who carry out religious obligations, such as praying and doing good deeds. If someone has been a lesbian for so long that it feels like natural character, and has been praying and fasting for many years, they cannot change into a heterosexual, she decided.

Religious values are also deeply inculcated in Sandy, who is tortured by guilt and shame about her lesbian desires. Although masculine in appearance and behaviour, she wears the mukena while praying both at home and at the mushola (small mosque) that she frequents. Since she was 23, when her mother died, she realised that what she did with her lover, Mira, was a sin and started reading religious books to discover what they said about people like her. She accepted the traditional interpretation of the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom. When she was 25 years old, Mira left her to marry a man. Sandy was broken hearted and considered suicide. In that period of great distress, she realised that God prohibits suicide and just wanted her to give up her sinful life. She struggled hard against her desires for women and the masculinity in her:

"If I walk with women, I feel like a man; that I have to protect them. I feel that I am stronger than other women. But I also feel that I am a woman, I am sure that I am a woman, that is why I feel that I am different from others. I accept my own condition as an illness, not as my destiny. ... Yes, an illness, because we follow our lust. It we try to contain our lust, as religion teaches us, we would never be like this. So I try to stay close to God. I do my prayers, and a lot of zikir.[18] I even try to do tahajjud.[19]"

Sandy believes in the hereafter and does not want to spoil her chances of eternal bliss by engaging in something so clearly disproved of by religion, although she has not found any clear prohibitions against lesbianism in either the Quran or hadith.

Bhima, who considers himself to be a secular person, was brought up in a Muslim family. His identity card states that he is a Muslim, which got him into serious trouble when he went for his first sex-change operation at the end of the 1970s. He went through the necessary tests but the doctors hesitated when they looked at his ID, fearing the wrath of conservative clerics. Bhima was desperate:

"Listen, I have come this far! I have saved up for this, sold my car, relatives have contributed, how can you do this to me? Tell me what other religion I should take up and I will immediately get my identity card changed. I have never even been inside a mosque. I don't care about any institutionalised religion!"

The doctors did not heed his plea, instead advising him to get a letter of recommendation from a noted Muslim scholar. Undaunted, Bhima made an appointment with a progressive female psychologist who had been trained in Egypt and often gave liberal advice on Muslim issues on the radio. He managed to persuade her to write a letter of introduction to the well-known Muslim scholar Professor Hamka. Letter in hand, Bhima presented himself at the gate of Hamka's house, and was let in by the great scholar himself. Bhima pleaded his case, upon which Hamka opened the Quran and pointed to a passage that read "when you are ill, you must make all attempts to heal yourself":

"Are you ill?" Hamka asked. Bhima nodded vehemently. "Fine, so then tell them that the Quran advises to heal your illness." "It is better, sir," Bhima suggested, "that you write that down for them."

With that letter, Bhima had no problem to be accepted for the first operation, in which his breasts were removed.

Widows [...] In Eliana's case religion played an important role in her marriage--and subsequent divorce. While still at school, she had joined an usroh group (created to teach students about religious and social issues in the days of the Suharto dictatorship). Proper sexual behaviour played an important role in their teachings. According to usroh, a wife must be sexually subservient to her husband and accept all his wishes, even if they involve him taking a second wife. Eliana felt close to her spiritual leader and tried to sexually behave as a good Muslim wife would. She forced herself to give in to all her husband's sexual wishes, including blow jobs and watching pornography with him. Yet the leader blamed Eliana for not doing enough to please her husband, saying that is why he needed a second wife. Her teacher even asked if she was a lesbian, because she could not satisfy her husband. As both her spiritual leader and husband agreed that it was not nice for a man to have an intellectually-superior woman, she played down her intelligence. Eventually she divorced her husband.

Internalised lesbophobia and conservative-religious (in this case, Muslim) norms prevented Jenar for enjoying the short lesbian relationship that she had between her two marriages. It is interesting how she phrases the conversation, starting on the topic by emphasising how much she distrusted men after her divorce (because her husband did not financially provide for their family). The relationship with her woman lover was not long underway, and had not advanced beyond kissing, but she immediately felt that, according to religion, what she did was laknat (cursed). Anyway, she added, she was a 'normal,' heterosexual woman and did not feel much aroused when they were touching. A middle-aged, male friend added to her feeling of discomfort by emphasising that she would be cursed by God if it would continue. He then took her to a dukun (shaman), where she was bathed with flowers at midnight in order to cure her. That was apparently successful, for she gave the relationship up. However, even though she had stressed that she was 'normal' and did not respond sexually to her lover's advances, she ended the conversation by saying that she felt lesbianism was a 'contagious disease'. That remark stresses her own internalised homophobia but also emphasises her helplessness and lack of agency--contagion is something that cannot be avoided. It also hints at the strength of the pull she felt for a contagion that apparently could not be easily ignored. The important role of the dukun indicates that she follows the syncretist stream of Islam, mixed with elements of the pre-Islamic Javanese religion--Kejawen. [...]

Women in same-sex relationships [...]

As in India, the human-women's-lesbian-rights discourse is gaining momentum in Indonesia. It could only develop after 1998, when the country's dictator was finally forced to resign and a new climate of political openness was created. The new sexual-rights organisations not only opened a public space to discuss women's and sexual rights but also impacted on the behaviour of individuals within their organisations (as discussed in more detail in chapter 9). Before Lee joined a lesbian-rights group, he had decided to undergo sex-reassignment therapy (SRT) to physically become a man as much as possible. Activists warned him of the operations' health risks and asked whether he really needed such a change in order to live with his spouse. Lee feels secure within the group, and is happy to find like-minded people with whom he can share many of his concerns. Lee actively sought them out after reading a newspaper article about a gay male activist: he tracked him down at his workplace and obtained the address of the lesbian group. Lee is less afraid of what will happen when their neighborhood find out that Lee's body is female--as he says: "I have done nothing wrong, I haven't disturbed anyone, I have never asked anyone for food." However, Lee is worried about the media, where gay men and lesbian women are often represented as the sources of disease and disaster.

Lia had no idea what a lesbian was when she first fell in love with a woman. There were many tomboys like her playing in the school's softball team, and she once spotted a female couple in another school's softball team. Her relationship with Santi developed without, as Lia says, any guidance of previous information. Only at college in Yogyakarta did she start reading about homosexuality on the internet. Through the Suara Srikandi portal (one of the first lesbian groups in Jakarta), she came to know of other Indonesian lesbians. Another website that she frequently visited was the Indonesian Lesbian Forum, and one of her lecturers introduced her to the gay and lesbian movement in her city. In 2004, she publicly came out at a press conference. She first joined the KPI, which has an interest group of sexual minorities, but found the attitude of her feminist friends to be unsupportive and decided to join a lesbian-only group. The women activists only wanted to discuss the public role of women and domestic violence, and told her that lesbianism was a disease and a sin.

Lia wants to broaden the lesbian movement. She feels the movement is good in theory but lacking in practice--particularly in creating alliances with other suppressed groups, such as farmers and labourers. In focusing only on lesbians, not on discrimination and marginalisation itself, she asserts that it has become too exclusive. By socialising with other movements, she argues, they will better understand lesbian issues, and, in turn, that will help the lesbian movement. It is true, she concedes, that lesbians are stigmatised by all groups in society but, since 1998 (the fall of General Suharto), the country has seen a process of democratisation. "We must take up that opportunity and not be scared of stigma," she exhorts her friends in the lesbian movement. Lia herself joined a small, radical political party, the PRD,[33] and faced stigma ("we have a lesbian comrade; that's a sin, isn't it?"), but feels that she has ultimately been welcomed. Now, her major problem is to find the finances to conduct her activism. At the time of the interview, she had lost her job and could not find the means to print handouts for her PRD comrades.

Lia is a brave forerunner. At the time of the interview, her lesbian friends were too scared to follow in her footsteps and told her that she was only dreaming. However, her heterosexual friends (in the labour movement) said that they were bored with her, and found her insistence of a connection between the struggle for sexual and labour rights to be too pushy.

Lia dreams of equal rights for lesbians. First, she would like to see a gay-marriage law implemented in Indonesia, which would ensure that the property rights of surviving spouses are protected in case one passes away. She also would like to set up a shelter for lesbians, as she knows many young lesbians who have been thrown out of their family homes and are in need of support.

Sandy is rather hesitant about the rights she would like to see introduced to Indonesian society. Most of all, she wants to be accepted as a normal human being, where no one says bad things about or harasses lesbians like her. What women do in the privacy of their bedrooms is one thing. Women should have the right to have sex, for it comes straight from the heart--it is pure love. But, in public, their behavior should be impeccable: no kissing, no hugging, no holding of hands. However, Sandy thinks that marriage rights for lesbians will not happen in Indonesia, and are only possible in Christian countries. But, minimally, she hopes to lead a life without discrimination or violence:

"If they see us as normal, they won't bother us. We are human, but if we act provocatively then it is ok for them to even hang us ... [I just hope they] won't harass us, or humiliate us. That is all I ask, that if we are being humiliated there is a law to prevent it. That a person like me is protected. To be laughed at is okay, but it is too much if they throw stones at us and if we are not allowed to work."

Sex workers want the right to work without being harassed, and women in same-sex relationships want to be treated like 'normal' human beings and enjoy socio-sexual rights, such as health benefits or the right to buy joint property. Yet the state does not provide those rights and does not protect its citizens in equal measure. As a major agent of heteronormativity, it restricts its benefits and protection to those within its margins. Couples with social stigma and conservative-religious interpretations, some of our narrators have reached deep levels of depression.

[comrade-meow]

This is a transcript of a speech by developmental biologist Dr Emma Hilton delivered on 29 November 2020 for the ‘Feminist Academics Talk Back!’ meeting. This talk was originally published by womentalkback.org

Sex denialists have captured existing journals We are dealing with a new religion

Thank you for the invitation to speak today, as a feminist academic fighting back.

As ever, let’s begin with a story. And, trust me, by the end of this talk, you’re going to know a lot more about creationism that you expected:

1. In the 1920s, in concert with many other American states, the Tennessee House of Representatives passed the Butler Act, making it illegal for state public schools to: “teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible.” In other words, banning schools from teaching the theory of evolution.

Three months later, Tennessee science teacher John Scopes was on trial, charged with teaching the theory of evolution, a crime he was ultimately found guilty of. He was fined £71 – about £1064 in today’s money – so it could have been an expensive affair for him, had he not got off on a really boring administrative technicality.

Yet, despite the evidence against him and his own confession, he was an innocent man. Scopes was not guilty of teaching the theory of evolution. He admitted to a crime he had not committed. He even coached his students in their testimonies against him. So why would he admit to this wrongdoing of which he was entirely innocent? Why would he contrive apparent guilt? In protest. In protest against a law he viewed as fundamentally incompatible with the pursuit of scientific truth.

2. The history of creationism and education laws in the US is turbulent and often opaquely legalese, especially for those of us unfamiliar with US law. Some of the methods of the wider creationist movement, however, will be immediately recognisable as they are employed by a new movement, one which seeks to erase another scientific truth, the fact of sex.

Method 1. The framing of human classifications, whether it’s species or sex, as “arbitrary”. This leads to the premise that such phenomena are “social constructs” that need not exist if we chose to reject them. That truth must be relative and consensual. Never mind that these “arbitrary” classifications appear to be surprisingly similar classifications across all cultures and civilisations.

It also necessarily spotlights tricky boundary cases – not really a personal problem for the long-dead evolutionary missing links, but a very real problem in the modern world for people whose sex is atypical and who are constantly invoked, even fetishized, as “not males” or “not females” to prove sex classification is somehow no more than human whimsy.

People with DSDs have complex and often traumatic medical histories, perhaps struggling to understand their bodies, and they deserve more respect than to be casually and thoughtlessly used as a postemodernist “gotcha” by the very people so horribly triggered by a pronoun.

Method 2. The distortion of science and the development of sciencey language to create a veneer of academic rigour. Creationists invented “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” while Sex denialists try to beat people over the head with their dazzling arrays of “bimodal distributions arranged in n-dimensional space”.

Creationists, unable to publish in mainstream science journals because they weren’t producing, well, science, established their own journals. “Journals”. Sex denialists have captured existing journals – albeit limited to more newsy ones and to occasional editorials and blogs about gender (which is not sex), about how developmental biology is soooo complicated (which does not mean sex is complicated – I mean, the internal combustion engine is complicated but cars still fundamentally go forwards or backwards), about how discussing the biology of sex is mean (OK, good luck with that at your doctor’s surgery). Many such blogs and articles are written by scientists who simultaneously deny sex to their social media audience while writing academic papers about how female fruitflies make shells for their eggs (no matter how queer they are), about the development of ovaries or testes in fish and about how males make sperm.

The current editor-in-chief at Nature, the first female to hold this position, studied sex determination in worms for her PhD, and she now presides over a journal with an editorial policy to insert disclaimers about the binary nature of sex into spotlight features about research on, for example, different death rates in male and female cystic fibrosis patients.

The authors of the studies are not prevaricating or handwaving about sex, but the editorial team is “bending the knee”. I used to research a genetic disorder that was male-lethal – that is, male human babies died early in gestation. I’d love to know if this disclaimer would be applied there.

Method 3. Debate strategies like The Gish Gallop. This method is named for Duane Gish, who is a prominent creationist. What it boils down to is: throw any old argument, regardless of its validity, in quick succession at your opponent and then claim any dismissal or missed response or even hesitation in response as a score for your side. In Twitter parlance, we know this as “sealioning”, in political propaganda as the “firehose of falsehood”, although Wikipedia also suggests that it is covered by the term “bullshit”. So, what about intersex people? what about this article? what about an XY person with a uterus? what about the fa’afafine? what about that article? look at this pretty picture. what about what about whataboutery what about clownfish? The aim is not to discuss or debate, it is to force submission from frustration or exhaustion.

Method 4. The reification of humans as separate from not just monkeys but the rest of the living world. The special pleading for special descriptions that frame humans as the chosen ones, such that the same process of making new individuals, common to humans and asparagus, an observation I chose because it seems superficially silly – it could have been spinach – requires its own description, one that accounts for gender identity.

3. In the Scopes trial, which saw discussion of whether Eve was actually created from Adam’s rib and ruminations on where Cain got his wife, Scopes was defended by a legal group who had begun scouting for a test case subject as soon as the Tennessee ban was enacted. This legal group claimed to advocate for:

“Freedom of speech for ideas from the most extreme left such as anarchists and socialists, to the most extreme right including the Ku Klux Klan, Henry Ford, and others who would now be considered more toward the Fascist end of the spectrum.”

The legal group so keen to defend the right to speak the truth, in this case a fundamental, observable scientific truth? The American Civil Liberties Union, a group whose modern day social media presence promotes nonsense like:

“The notion of biological sex was developed for the exclusive purpose of being weaponized against people.”

and

“Sex and gender are different words for the same thing [that is] a set of politically and socially contingent notions of embodied and expressed identity.”

and shares articles asserting that biological sex is rooted in white supremacy.

Since the Scopes case, the ACLU have fought against many US laws preventing, or at least compromising, the teaching of evolution. I cannot process the irony of a group of people historically and consistently prepared to robustly defend the truth of evolution while now denying one of the most important biological foundations of evolution.

4. How do we fight this current craze of sex denialism? A major blow for creationism teaching was delivered in 1986 while the US Supreme Court were considering a Louisiana state law requiring creationism to be taught alongside evolution. The Louisiana law was struck down, in part influenced by the expert opinions, submitted to the court, of scientists who put aside their individual and, as one of them has since described “often violent” differences on Theory X and Experiment Y, to present a unified defence of scientific truth over religious belief. 76 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science and a handful of scientific organisations all got behind this single cause, and made a very real change.

Support for creationism has slowly ebbed away and the US is in a much more sensible position these days, although I still meet the occasional student from a Southern state who didn’t learn about evolution until college.

Sadly, one of the Nobel laureates has highlighted how unusual this collective response was and that he could not imagine any other issue that would receive the same groundswell of community support. Although he forged his career listening out for the Big Bang, so maybe I need to go through the list and find the biologists.

Part of the problem petitioning biologists to speak out is not necessarily fear of being cancelled or whatever, but simple lack of awareness of the issue, or incredulity that it is being taken remotely seriously. I’ve been working on a legal document and was discussing with a colleague about my efforts to find a citation for the statement, “there are two sexes, male and female”. He laughed at the idea that this would require a citation, told me to check a textbook, then realised that this statement is so simple that it would not even be included in a textbook.

And he’s right. I can find chapters in textbooks and hundreds of academic papers dedicated to how males and females are made, how they develop, how they differ, yet very few that feel the need to preface any of this with the statement “There are two sexes, male and female”. It is apparently something that biologists do not think needs to be said.

But of course, I think they are wrong, and that we live in a time where it does need to be said, where some aspects of society are being restructured around a scientific untruth, and where females will suffer.

Without recognition of and language to describe our anatomy, and the experiences that stem from that anatomy, mostly uninvited, we can neither detect nor measure things like rates of violence against women, the medical experiences, the social experiences of women and girls.

And, as for creationism, the reality of sex perhaps needs to be said by those with scientific authority, in unambiguous terms. Otherwise, we are living in a society that tolerates nonsense like there is no such thing as male or female, that differences evident to our own eyes are not real, that anatomies readily observable and existing in monkey and man alike do not actually exist. I’m sure this last assertion has the full support of the creationist community. And perhaps, as for creationism, a true tipping point will be tested when it is our children being taught these scientific untruths, or worse, when it is illegal to say different.

5. At the end of his trial, the only words Scopes uttered in court were these:

“Your honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom—that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of personal and religious freedom.”

I do not exaggerate when I say we are dealing with a new type of religion, a new form of creationism and a new assault on scientific truth. I also do not exaggerate when I say it may take a high profile court case to rebalance the public discourse around sex. There is only so far letters and opinion articles can go.

Two things I predict: 1. It will not be defended by the ACLU, and 2. With the recent proposals on hate speech law, it will probably involve a Scottish John Scopes, who finds themself in front of a judge for the seditious crime of discussing the sex life of asparagus at their dinner table.

Dr Emma Hilton is a developmental biologist studying aspects of human genetic diseases, and her current research focuses on a congenital motor neurone disease affecting the genitourinary tract, and on respiratory dysfunction in cystic fibrosis. She teaches reproduction, genes, inheritance and genetic disorders. Emma has a special interest in fairness in female sports. A strong advocate for women and girls, Emma tweets as @FondofBeetles.

[septemberadical]

Especially considering we are NOT in the dark ages, and like I said; Christianity has become a very complex and abstract belief with so much variety within it. I wanted to give a different perspective on how Christianity negatively impacts feminism, because historical context teaches us that in the grand scheme of things, that’s incorrect.

But this last part is wrong, religion has been used as a justification for the subjugation of women worldwide and for centuries. If it was truly a feminist religion, why didn't the thousands of years of Christian domination in Europe for example include equitable leadership? Why was adultery a crime punished by death and the virginal state of little girls of paramount social and political importance? Even if you argue that Christianity is more complicated now (an issue that I have been debating with the other commenter and yourself) I argue that hardly matters since by that logic you can interpret the bible to mean anything you want. If your religion requires a complete overhaul of the word of your god in order to be palatable, maybe you should consider throwing the whole god out. "Historical context teaches us that in the grand scheme of things", that's a hedging statement if I've ever heard one. Many feminist suffragettes were Christian, but every Crusader was Christian as well, playing the "historical context" and "grand scheme of things" card seems especially risky don't you think?

But of course, that went right over your head. I made the mistake of assuming you have a decent respect for sociological and historical perspectives, anthropological understandings of religious psychology, and just a general respect for everyone’s right to believe what they do.

"Anthropological understands of religious psychology" - please elaborate. I understand psychologically that human beings are prone to believe in the correlation between unconnected events and have a tendency to attribute the unexplainable to the supernatural. And I understand anthropologically this magical thinking plays an integral role in religious belief and practice (x). Is that what you mean? Because that does not bode well for religion on the whole. I also do respect you as a person, just not the beliefs you are promoting, because they're wrong. You are entitled to respect (unless you do something truly heinous which I don't think you have), your beliefs are not.

Instead, all you have to offer is little jabs at how hurdur I am because I must believe we came from monkeys, and asking me over and over again to explain biblical details that nobody has cared about since Protestantism took the west and modern spirituality became commonplace.

I'm all turned around, are you angry because I implied that you believe in evolution? Or angry that I didn't? Or angry that I said you must? If it's the latter I'll point out I never said you must believe in evolution, I said that's what I believe in, and you are entitled to call it stupid and break it down all you want. But I have a feeling I would be able to defend it. " How do you know god exists and how do you know he is speaking to you through the bible?" is my basic critique of your argument, is this is a biblical detail that nobody has cared about since Protestantism was founded? I would argue that's not true. Or do you mean that the quote about the submission of women is not relevant since Protestant women took the west? Because that's also not true, those Christian suffragettes were very concerned with that passage and so were the legislators who jailed and force-fed them. The debate around women's suffrage is a smorgasbord of Christian apologia and grovelling to their god to please save them from the harpy women!

If I were an atheist, I would be embarrassed at your absolute lack of basic comprehensive skills to understand the nuance of our conversation. You would be mad AF in any college level sociology or philosophy class. To see how many religious philosophers (including the one quoted in my post) contributed to this conversation, alone. This is my whole point here.

Ah, so you're not an atheist! I'm learning more every second. I'm sure there is nuance and debate in the trenches of Christian theology, I'm sure it's just as interesting as the theology of the body, or the eucharist, etc. but we can't get there until you prove to me that this interpretation is grounded in logic and reason. And it is, in fact, the best way for women to live their lives, which is the basic premise of submission and why Christians argue for it. This basic premise has not been proven yet, so how are we supposed to proceed to all the juicy complicatedness you're talking about? I've been shown arguments related to vulnerability as a justification for submission and the theology of the body as a justification, but we seem to be hitting a wall when I ask how you know it should be this way. Because god said so, how do you know god says this, because of the bible, how do you know god wrote the bible, because god says that he did. Do you see the problem? But even beyond that, I have given you the benefit of the doubt when you say that women are vulnerable and so should be in the home, and then I disproved that sentiment with real data and numbers that show that women are actually at their highest risk in their home with no money, no opportunities, and few means of escape! And that doesn't even touch god's other proclamation that women should be submissive - what does vulnerability have to do with submission? Nothing is answered, so how can we move on to other, more nuanced topics? But I digress, I do believe that theologians have a lot of interesting things to say, for example, here is another quote by Augustine for your consideration:

"Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one." –Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430)

Or if you don't like that one, let's get a little spicy:

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman. . . I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." –Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430): De genesi ad litteram, 9, 5-9

Ah yes, the pinnacle of feminist thought. I always had a feeling feminist Jesus would be a bald 4th century virgin in a stupid hat. But in all seriousness, I do believe theologians have something to say on ethics, and some of it I even agree with. It doesn't change the fact that their worldview comes from a misogynistic text, and it requires bending over backwards to justify any treatment of human beings that wouldn't be considered abhorrent by today's standards. William Wilberforce was a British citizen and a Christian and he argued passionately for the abolition of slavery in his country on the basis of his faith, and yet for nearly 300 years before that good, English Christian slavers maintained the trade and found justification for it directly in their holy books. Who interpreted it correctly, I bet I can guess your answer, but how do you know? The answer is you simply don't.

And frankly, what I believe is none of your business. Me posting a quote LITERALLY about men and women being equal under the eyes of god, does not warrant a book long explanation as to why I’m actually not an idiot to some stranger on tumblr. That is just nonsense if I’ve ever heard it.

Again, you posted a quote, I asked a question about the history of Christian theology (that you seem so passionate about) and you answered. If you didn't want to get into a discussion about my question, the history of that theology, and your own beliefs, don't answer or better yet, don't post it. Or after you read all of what I just wrote and get really, really angry - block me and this will all be over. I was having a very nice chat with the other commenter about her beliefs, and while I still maintain they're wrong that doesn't mean it wasn't informative or interesting. I also don't think you're an idiot, I think your beliefs are idiotic (again, if you believe that women are inferior to men on the same line as Augustine which we still haven't established). Don't do things you don't want to do, man, you can just walk away. It's okay.

[a-man-for-hire-and-his-archives]

TV Review: Preppers is a raucous satire

★★★★☆

Nakkiah Lui and Gabriel Dowrick's ABC comedy series is fully committed to its satirical targets, and it made Mel Campbell laugh.

written by Mel Campbell

In 2019, in the season-two finale of parody morning chat show Get Krack!n, Nakkiah Lui and Miranda Tapsell played Aboriginal lifestyle TV hosts whose bland, smiling banter quickly gives way to political rage. Perhaps this was the inspiration for Charlie, the breakfast TV-host character Lui plays in her new six-part comedy series Preppers.

We first see Charlie fleeing through the bush. Then she wakes up on what she thought was her grandmother’s land, only to learn it’s now ‘Eden 2’, where an assortment of doomsday preppers are led by a wily old man named Monty (the delightfully impish Jack Charles), who claims to have been close to Charlie’s Nan (played in flashback by Miranda Tapsell). Monty calmly informs Charlie he has signed a 10,000-year lease on the property.

‘I just want my land back!’ Charlie says.

‘We’re Aboriginal people – we all want our land back,’ says Monty.

Preppers has a satisfying premise: that having survived the crisis of colonisation, Aboriginal people are well placed to cope with any future catastrophe. But not all the Eden 2 preppers are Aboriginal – as Monty explains, the others are there to help pay the rent.

The first Eden 2 preppers Charlie meets are Guy (Meyne Wyatt) – a surly survivalist and self-styled Aboriginal tough man – and Fig (Luke Arnold), an enthusiastic white himbo who just wants to be accepted. Then there are Kirby (Eryn Jean Norvill), the secretive white host of conspiracy-theory podcast Agent of Truth, and Jayden (Aaron McGrath), an earnest, relentlessly political youngster who can’t wait for an apocalypse to usher in Aboriginal self-determination. And Kelly and Lionel (Ursula Yovich and Chum Ehelepola) are a mixed-race couple of reformed swingers who found Jesus and are now saving themselves for marriage or the rapture – whichever comes first.

But what has made pampered city girl Charlie run away from her life? While everyone else at Eden 2 lives in a state of readiness, Charlie’s in the throes of a personal doomsday she barely saw coming.

She co-presents a breakfast TV show deliciously called Wake Up Australia, and is engaged to her smarmy white producer, Thomas (Grant Denyer), who constantly sidelines her in favour of her white co-host Sophie (Brooke Satchwell). But when Charlie pitches an on-air Invasion Day editorial, Thomas talks her out of it – isn’t Charlie’s mere onscreen presence enough of a political statement? Why not let Sophie ‘be an ally’? When Charlie is prodded into participating in a gimmicky Australia Day outside broadcast, and comes to suspect Thomas is cheating on her with Sophie, she snaps on live TV – and her rage goes viral.

Some of the best moments in Preppers are at the expense of the casually racist Australian TV industry –

and Denyer and Satchwell are clearly enjoying this chance to subvert their familiar onscreen personas. Satchwell’s white-teary appeals to Charlie’s feminist solidarity are a particular highlight.

The supporting characters are broadly drawn, especially in Episode 1 when their shtick hasn’t yet been well established and so they mainly seem annoying. But they offer Lui and her co-writer Gabriel Dowrick some fun opportunities to satirise sanctimony on many fronts: race, sex, class, religion, gender, media, conspiracy thinking and wellness hucksterism – even the ideological rigidity of activism.

There’s some slyly hilarious and very dark Frontier Wars humour when the gang kidnaps an ‘Aboriginal Aboriginal archaeologist’ (Luke Carroll) to help identify a skeleton in an unmarked grave. And an absolute series highlight is Kate Miller-Heidke’s guest appearance as the legendary Penrith Panther. But there are also fraught moments when the limitations of Charlie’s soft politics become clear, as when staunch activist Casey (Shari Sebbens) calls her out for her complicity with white supremacy. And in the final episode, an all-white bourgeois prepper community, Shangri-La, offers a ‘treaty’ with Eden 2 that may be yet another land grab.

The series is cleverly structured so that the full scope of Charlie’s January 26 meltdown is revealed gradually, in social-media fragments and flashbacks prompted by her interactions with the preppers, and only reaches its raucous, fiery climax in Episode 6. The persistence of this scandal in the news cycle is what keeps Charlie at Eden 2, where she gradually comes to better terms with her Aboriginality and her hippie mum, Marie (Christine Anu), and finally feels like she’s somewhere she belongs.

However, I was a little hazy about what would be involved in the ‘bounty on her head’ being advertised by a rival network. I mean, are they going to offer Charlie a job, or stalk her with paparazzi… or kill her? Never mind – it’s comedy! Preppers is fully committed to its satirical targets – and most importantly, in an industry where comedy is often just ‘quirky drama’, it frequently made me laugh.

4 stars ★★★★

PREPPERS Creators: Nakkiah Lui and Gabriel Dowrick Executive Producer: Liz Watts and Margaret Ross Producers: Sylvia Warmer Writers: Nakkiah Lui and Gabriel Dowrick Director: Steven McGregor Six episodes showing on ABC and ABC iView.

Source: ScreenHub Australia

[tinyshe]

Witchcraft 101

by Michelle Arnold  • 7/1/2008 Catholic Answers

What springs to mind when someone mentions “witchcraft“? Three hags sitting about a cauldron chanting “Double, double, toil and trouble”? A pretty housewife turning someone into a toad at the twitch of her nose? Or perhaps you think of Wicca and figure that it is witchcraft hidden beneath a politically correct neologism.

Witchcraft has become a hot topic in recent years. From J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books to self-described witches agitating for political and social parity with mainstream religious traditions, Christians have had to re-examine witchcraft and formulate a modern apologetic approach to it.

In an age of science and skepticism, it may be difficult to understand why intelligent people would be drawn to witchcraft, which encompasses both a methodology of casting spells and invoking spirits and an ideology that encourages finding gods and goddesses both in nature and within the self. In her “conversion story,” self-described Wiccan high priestess Phyllis Curott, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who was raised by agnostics, describes her journey from secular materialism to Wicca as a rejection of the idea that humans are made for mammon alone:

I discovered the answers . . . to questions buried at the center of my soul . . . How are we to find our lost souls? How can we rediscover the sacred from which we have been separated for thousands of years? How can we live free of fear and filled with divine love and compassion? . . . How can we restore and protect this Eden, which is our fragile planet? (Curott, Book of Shadows, xii)

These are indeed important questions that deserve answers, answers that can be found in their fullness in Christ and in his Church. In a homily then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave at the Mass just before his election to the papacy, he famously observed:

How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves—flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth.

Witchcraft has been around for centuries, perhaps even millennia, but is emerging once more from the shadows as one answer to skepticism, to materialism, even to self-absorption. It is, so to speak, the wrong answer to the right questions; it is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “gravely contrary to the virtue of religion” (CCC 2117). Catholics should not discourage these questions but must be prepared to offer the only answer: Christ and his Church.

Witchcraft’s apologists like to claim that they are the misunderstood victims of centuries of religious prejudice. Unfortunately, all too many Christians make such claims credible when they misunderstand witchcraft and craft their rebuttals of it based upon those misconceptions. If someone you know is dabbling in witchcraft, here are five things you should know before starting a conversation with him.

Witches do not believe in Satan.

If there is one belief common to witches everywhere, it is that they do not believe in Satan and that they do not practice Satanism. Witchcraft’s apologists are quick to point this out.

Denise Zimmermann and her co-authors of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Wicca and Witchcraft emphasize, “Witches don’t believe in Satan! . . . The all-evil Satan is a Christian concept that plays no part in the Wiccan religion . . . Witches do not believe that negativity or evil is an organized force. . . . Neither do Wiccans believe there is a place (hell) where the damned or the evil languish and suffer” (13).

Christian apologists should acknowledge that witches do not consciously worship Satan and that they do not believe he exists. But this does not mean that Satan needs to be left entirely out of the conversation. A Christian apologist should point out that belief in someone does not determine that person’s actual reality.

One way to demonstrate this is to ask the witch if she believes in the pope. “No,” she’s likely to answer. “The pope is a Christian figure.” True, you concede. But there is a man in Rome who holds the office of the papacy, right? Your belief or disbelief in the papacy does not determine whether or not the papacy exists. Put that way, a person will have to acknowledge that something or someone can exist independently of belief in its reality. That’s when you can make the case that Satan exists and that he does not require belief to determine his reality or his action in someone’s life. In fact, disbelief in him can make it easier for him to accomplish his ends.

In the preface to The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis notes that “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.”

While it is true that witches do not directly worship Satan or practice Satanism, their occult practices, such as divination, and their worship of false gods and of each other and themselves—which they explain as worshipping the “goddess within”—can open them to demonic activity. To make the case though, it is imperative to present it in a manner that won’t be dismissed out of hand.

Witchcraft and Wicca are not synonyms.

Wicca, originally spelled Wica, is the name given to a subset of witchcraft by its founder Gerald Gardner in the 1950s. Although some claim the word Wicca means “wise,” in her book Drawing Down the Moon, Margot Adler states that it “derive[s] from a root wic, or weik, which has to do with religion and magic” (40). Adler also says that the word witch originates with wicce and wicca. Marian Singer explains the difference between Wicca and witchcraft this way: “Witchcraft implies a methodology . . . whereas the word Wiccan refers to a person who has adopted a specific religious philosophy” (The Everything Wicca and Witchcraft Book, 4).

Because witchcraft is often defined as a methodology and Wicca as an ideology, a person who considers himself a witch but not a Wiccan may participate in many of the same practices as a Wiccan, such as casting spells, divining the future, perhaps even banding together with others to form a coven. This can make it easy for an outsider to presume that both the witch and the Wiccan share the same beliefs. But, if someone tells you he is not a Wiccan, it is only courteous to accept that. The Christian case against witchcraft does not depend on a witch identifying himself as a Wiccan. (There are also Wiccans who reject the label “witch,” but this is often a distinction without a difference. Even so, use the preferred term to avoid alienating the person with whom you are speaking.)

Several strands of Wicca attract followings, including: Gardnerian, Alexandrian, and Georgian, which are named for their founders; Seax, which patterns itself on Saxon folklore; Black Forest, which is an eclectic hodgepodge of Wiccan traditions; and the feminist branch known as Dianic Wicca after the Roman goddess Diana. Knowing the distinctions among these traditions may not be important for the Christian apologist, but he should keep in mind that there are distinctions and that he should not make statements that start out with “Wiccans believe . . .” Rather, allow the other person to explain what he believes and then build a Christian apologetic tailored to that person’s needs.

Witches question authority.

When dealing with self-identified witches, remember that no two witches will agree with each other on just about anything. Witches are non-dogmatic to the extreme, with one witch apologist suggesting “[s]ending dogma to the doghouse” and claiming that “[r]eligious dogma and authority relieve a person of the responsibility of deciding on his or her own actions” (Diane Smith, Wicca & Witchcraft for Dummies, 32).

Generally speaking, witches prefer to give authority to their own personal experiences. Phyllis Curott, author of a book titled Witch Crafting, puts it this way: “Witches, whether we are women or men, experience the Goddess within us and in the world all around us. I love what Starhawk [witch and popular speaker and writer] said about this: ‘People often ask me if I believe in the Goddess. I reply, Do you believe in rocks?’” (121, emphasis in original). In other words, witches know “the Goddess” exists because they can experience her by at least one of their five senses. Faith in such a material deity calls to mind the demon Screwtape’s longing for hell’s “perfect work—the Materialist Magician” (Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 31).

Throwing a bucket of cold water on a witch’s “personal experiences” will not be easy, particularly since one of the frightening.aspects of witchcraft is that some witches do have, and blithely report, extraordinary preternatural experiences. Incidents that could and should scare away many dabblers from playing with forces beyond their control are recounted by witchcraft’s apologists as affirmative of their path. Curott tells of a man who once dreamed of “being prey” of a monstrous creature; ultimately, in the dream, he was captured by the creature. Rather than taking this as a sign he should reconsider the path down which he was heading, he awoke “deeply transformed” by the dream’s ending because he believed “tremendous love” was felt for him by the creature. He eventually became a Wiccan priest (Witch Crafting, 154–155).

How can a Christian argue against a belief like that?

Ultimately, it may be that a Damascus-road moment might be necessary to sway someone that deeply entrenched in traffic with preternatural creatures. To those who are not as enmeshed, a Christian can point out that sometimes apologists for the occult have warned their readers not to be taken in by their experiences with spirits.

In a section of his book titled “Practicing Safe Spirituality,” author Carl McColman gives a checklist of “some common-sense precautions” occultists should be aware of “while meditating, doing ritual, reflecting on your dreams, or doing any other spiritual work that may involve contact with spirits.” The first item on the list is “Don’t automatically believe everything you hear. Just because a spirit says something doesn’t make it so” (The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Paganism, 129).

Witchcraft is an inversion of Catholicism.

Observers of witchcraft have claimed that it is remarkably similar to Catholicism. Catholic journalist and medievalist Sandra Miesel called it “Catholicism without Christ” (“The Witches Next Door,” Crisis, June 2002). Writer and editor Charlotte Allen noted that “Practicing Wicca is a way to have Christianity without, well, the burdens of Christianity” (“The Scholars and the Goddess,” The Atlantic, January 2001).

It’s easy to see why the assertion is made. Allen notes that as witchcraft cycles through its “liturgical year,” many of its adherents honor a goddess who births a god believed to live, die, and rise again. Fraternization with apparently friendly preternatural spirits is encouraged and eagerly sought. The rituals of witchcraft call to mind Catholic liturgies, particularly the libation and blessing ritual alternately known as “Cakes and Wine” and “Cakes and Ale.” Like Catholics collecting rosaries, scapulars, statues, and prayer books, witches have their own “potions, notions, and tools” as Curott calls them —some of which include jewelry, statues and dolls, and spell books and journals.

But to say that witchcraft has uncanny similarities to Catholicism is to understate the matter. Witchcraft is an inversion of Catholicism: Catholicism emptied of Christ and stood on its head. This is most readily seen in witchcraft’s approach to authority.

In his book Rome Sweet Home, Scott Hahn compares authority in the Church to a hierarchical pyramid with the pope at the top, with all of the members, including the pope, reaching upward toward God (46–47). With its antipathy to authority and its reach inward to the self and downward to preternatural spirits, witchcraft could also be illustrated with a triangle—every adherent poised at the top as his own authority and pointed down in the sort of “Lower Command” structure envisioned by Lewis’s Screwtape.

Witchcraft is dangerous.

In my work as an apologist, I have read a number of introductory books to various non-Catholic and non-Christian religions. Never before my investigation into witchcraft had I seen introductory books on a religion that warn you about the dangers involved in practicing it. The dangers that witch apologists warn newcomers about are both corporal and spiritual.

In her book, Diane Smith includes a chapter titled “Ten Warning Signs of a Scam or Inappropriate Behavior” (Wicca & Witchcraft for Dummies, chapter 23). Her top-10 list includes “Inflicting Harm,” “Charging Inappropriate Fees or Demanding Undue Money,” “Engaging in Sexual Manipulation,” “Using Illicit Drugs or Excessive Amounts of Alcohol in Spiritual Practice,” and “Breeding Paranoia.” Smith claims that such a need to be wary is common to religion: “[U]nscrupulous or unstable people sometimes perpetrate scams or other manipulations under the guise of religion, and this situation is as true for Wicca as for other religious groups” (317).

However true it may be that there can be “unscrupulous or unstable people” involved in traditional religions, most practitioners—Christian or otherwise—do not experience problems with these behaviors to such an extent that religious apologists see the need to issue caveats to proselytes. That Smith does so suggests that these problems are far more widespread in witchcraft than in traditional religion.

We noted one paganism apologist who warned his readers to “practice safe spirituality.” McColman goes on to caution that the “advice” of spirits “must be in accordance with your own intuition for it to be truly useful.” He goes on to say, “You remain responsible for your own decisions. Remember that spirit guides make mistakes like everybody else!” (Paganism, 128).

Catholics concerned about loved ones involved with witchcraft may not be attracted to witchcraft themselves, but there is danger for them in pursuing dabblers down the road to the occult in hopes of drawing them back. In preparing themselves to answer the claims of witchcraft, they may feel the need to read books like those mentioned in this article. If they are not fully educated and firm in their own faith, such Catholics may find their own faith under attack. Three suggestions are in order.

Not all are called to be apologists. If you are not intellectually and spiritually prepared to answer the claims of witchcraft, leave such work to others. Search out knowledgeable Catholics with whom your loved one can speak.

Prepare yourself. Common sense indicates that if you are about to rappel down a cliff, you do so with safety ropes firmly attached and in the presence of someone you trust who can help you if you are in danger. Don’t even think of rappelling down a spiritual cliff without seeking to fortify yourself intellectually and spiritually—particularly spiritually. Inform your confessor or spiritual director of your plans to study and answer the claims of witchcraft. Ask trusted Catholic friends to pray for your work. Regularly receive the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist. If you need to stop or take a break from this area of apologetics, by all means do so. And, most importantly:

Pray. Whether or not you are called to personally minister to those involved in witchcraft, the most fundamental thing you can do to help witches and other dabblers in the occult is to pray.

Saints whose intercession you can seek include Bl. Bartholomew Longo, the repentant former satanic priest who returned to the Church and spent the rest of his life promoting the rosary; St. Benedict, who battled pagans and whose medal is often worn in protection against the devil; St. Michael the Archangel (Jude 1:9), invoked especially by the prayer for his intercession commonly attributed to Pope Leo XIII. And, of course, there’s St. Paul, who reminds us: “For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39).

SIDEBARS

The Catechism on Witchcraft

There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” (CCC 1852)

God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. Improvidence, however, can constitute a lack of responsibility. (CCC 2115)

All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. (CCC 2116)

All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others—even if this were for the sake of restoring their health—are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another’s credulity. (CCC 2117)

Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Further Reading

Charlotte Allen, “The Scholars and the Goddess,” The Atlantic, January 2001 (Available online: www.theatlantic.com)

C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (HarperCollins)

Sandra Miesel, “Who Burned the Witches?” Crisis, October 2001 (Available online: www.catholiceducation.org)

Sandra Miesel, “The Witches Next Door,” Crisis, June 2002

Catherine Edwards Sanders, Wicca’s Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality (Shaw Books, 2005)

Donna Steichen, Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism (Ignatius, 1991)

Alois Wiesinger, O.C.S.O, Occult Phenomena in the Light of Theology (Roman Catholic Books)