#how to accommodate religion with feminism

[midnight-omega]

Male Omega hc

I wrote these a while ago and never posted them. Male omegas and female alphas are my favorite dynamics and my favorite pairing fr so I wanted to do an entirely separate post on my boys

Pretty long so bear with me under the cut also its fairly nsfw at some points reader beware

🍥 Omegas in general are considered a rarer dynamic but when adding primary gender to the statistic male omegas are one of the rarest of the 6 gender/dynamic combinations

🍥 Male omegas typically cannot impregnate. It can happen in extremely rare cases but it’s so unlikely no one really considers it a thing. They are biologically built to conceive and bear pups even tho this is a little more challenging for them

🍥 Male omegas have wider hips than an alpha or beta male, but narrower hips than a female beta or omega. This can make it difficult to give birth naturally. It’s possible and happens all the time! But sometimes it’s just too narrow and a c-section is needed

🍥 Male omegas have lower fertility rates than their female counterparts. They’re more on par with betas fertility wise which means they aren’t likely to have litters (3-4 pups) like females can. Males usually carry 1-2 pups at a time and anything more is considered a high risk pregnancy

🍥 Over the course of their pregnancy they do develop breasts

🍥 They’re much smaller than the other dynamics, more on par with a female alphas, but they do lactate

🍥 This is a permanent change! They do not reduce after the first pregnancy

🍥 This physically marks males who have carried a pregnancy at least until 3rd term, and those who haven’t

🍥 Unfortunately male omegas suffer from body dysphoria at a higher rate than other gender/dynamic combinations

🍥 There’s a lot that goes into this and it differs from omega to omega, but it boils down to masculine body parts that function and a more masculine stature vs how feminized the omega identity has become and the feminization of bearing children. 

🍥 Pregnancy and the development of breasts makes this a lot worse

🍥 Binders are rather popular and easy to find because of this. It’s highly recommended to use these instead of resorting to your own tactics to avoid any bodily harm

🍥 Top surgery is also available for male omegas who feel strong or crippling dysphoria, but they won’t be able to lactate afterwards. More traditional packs/religions frown on the surgery for this reason and prefer binders as a solution

🍥 Pharmacies, department stores, lingerie stores, anywhere you can buy a bra or healthcare products will probably sell some sort of postpartum binder!

🍥 Speaking of lingerie stores, stores that specialize in omega lingerie typically carry two styles of bottom for every top. One that accommodates afab anatomy and one that accommodates amab anatomy

🍥 Some omegas feel the opposite kind of dysphoria tho, where we just talked about those who are unsettled by their more “feminine” parts there are other’s who identify with their omegean side more and find their more masculine parts more upsetting

🍥 Tucking is a common solution, though this is kept kinda on the down low in omega only circles. You won’t find this sort of thing advertised in common media

🍥 I mentioned earlier that male omegas are p much sterile, so this makes them really popular hookups especially for other omegas going through a heat

🍥 In some areas male omegas are more demanded than alphas when an unmated omega wants a partner for heat

🍥 Not only is there really no pregnancy risk with them, but some argue they make better lovers in general since they understand the vulnerability of penetration/heat and how to work the anatomy since they’re built similarly 

🍥 The concept that male omegas do not get as much pleasure out of penetrating compared to receiving is a myth! Both kinds of orgasms are equally pleasurable and some males only enjoy penetrating just as others only enjoy being penetrated. Its a personal preference!

🍥 The omega micro penis is also a myth. Omegas are smaller on average but they’re really not much smaller than an average beta

🍥 Keep in mind that when concerning length most alphas are showers and most omegas are growers. Your omega man might end up bamboozling you :))

🍥 Omega cum is clear or opaque. No/little sperm = no white

🍥 Male omegas are at the very bottom of the unspoken hierarchy. Normally the male takes place above the female, but it’s not the case with omegas who’s primary biological function is to conceive. Since female omegas are better at that they’re considered above males

🍥 Male omegas are very rarely represented in leadership positions because of this. Even within packs it’s extremely rare to find a male omega in a place of power/respect

🍥 This also contributes to a lot of the adversity they face. Males are at a higher risk of mental illnesses, suicide, sexual abuse, drug use, and face higher incarceration rates

🍥 Lightening the mood a bit…

🍥 Males have a deeper purr than females. It tends to be quieter too, but that can vary from person to person

🍥 Male omegas growl at anything. Any small inconvenience or discomfort grrr… they can whine and keen like all omegas but on average they tend to be more gruff with vocalizations.

🍥 Male omega fashion varies widely from place to place. They can be more masculine coded or more feminine depending on the dominant culture of the area. Neck covering is popular with all omegas, so high necked outfits or matching chokers are always in style.

🍥 Weddings and mating ceremonies are similar in variation with options for more feminine coded or more masculine coded outfits. Jumpsuits with pants partially concealed by the top flaring down is the style for male omegas.

🍥 feminine coded examples:

🍥 A more masculine coded example thank you kpop ur visuals are unparalleled bc i could not find more masculine ones for the life of me until i remembered ab6ix the future world tour in seoul donghyun booby titty outfit:

🍥 Male omegas can be referred to as wife/mom or husband/dad depending on the preference of the individual. If someone needs to clarify which of their dads gave birth to them they’ll use the terms dam and sire, otherwise parental names are a toss up

🍥 All omegas have nesting instincts, if they don’t suppress them, but males and females have slightly different habits. Male omegas tend to pick very closed-in areas with one entry/exit. They also keep their nests extremely hidden, it’s unlikely you’ll know where it is unless you’re mated to or a child of theirs.

🍥 Males need just as much affection, attention, and physical touch as females do. If they’re aloof don’t let them fool you

🍥 If alpha male dude bros can be compared to overexcited dogs then omega males can be comparable to cats

[womenfrommars]

Hi I'm from France and I stumbled upon one of your posts about Islam. I'm genuinely sort of terrified of the future here. We finally achieved an atheist majority and fully separated religion from the state but Islam is quickly growing unquestioned. Somehow being antireligion in progressive circles has been fully turned into something bad.

And I don't think I can lie to myself anymore - muslim men are raised into an incredibly misogynistic environment and are strongly encouraged to never question it and benefit from it. I have had first hand interaction with those muslim men who sexually harassed me and pejoratively talked about my rights as a woman. On the French internet there is a massive mob of those same men being incredibly misogynistic everyday on how women dress and act.

And what is truly terrifying is that I'm told to endure it all. That it is just bad apples. Our leftists parties are in full support of it and gain voters from the muslim community, online and irl leftists constantly repeat "islamophobia" to every criticism brandished at Islam. Our discussions are getting americanized when their muslim minority is like 10 times smaller than ours and actually progressive over there. I'm so tired. There is no analysis of religion anymore. There is just choice feminism - choice to hide your body and be a property for men. And questioning the ever growing presence of men who desire to own us is somehow "white feminism". I'm lost and scared that eventually they'll become a big enough population that our laws will change to accommodate their regressive religion and take away my rights as a woman.

Somehow being antireligion in progressive circles has been fully turned into something bad.

Oh no you got that totally wrong. You can shit on Christianity all day long because it's seen as ''the white man's religion'', irrespective of all the non-white Christians who face persecution and subjugation in various parts of the world. And since October 7 it has become extremely normalised in progressive circles to demonise Zionism and by extension the Jewish religion, with false quotes from the Torah going around that all of us non-Jews are subhumans. It's only Islam that is being protected by the progressive left. They harp on about Islamophobia but Christophobia and anti-Semitism are not part of their vocabulary at all

On the French internet there is a massive mob of those same men being incredibly misogynistic everyday on how women dress and act.

Welcome in Europe in 2024! Muslims are not asking to be included, they are asking to be centered and catered to. They're not just asking for halal meat in supermarkets, they want to change European culture significantly. They want to get rid of secularism, sexual liberty, and the improved position of women in European societies. In the UK they're even handing out flyers asking people not to walk their dogs in muslim neighbourhoods because they consider dogs to be spiritually unclean animals. Muslim apologists are openly discussing child marriage online and the right for a muslim man to beat his wife. But leftists would rather talk about Christian misogyny (read: Christian women online sharing tips on how to dress modestly).

Our discussions are getting americanized when their muslim minority is like 10 times smaller than ours and actually progressive over there.

The USA has different immigration laws and mostly accept highly educated, liberalised muslims from Asia and the Middle-East. Almost all of their illegal migrants are from South America where Islam barely exists. The American muslim population is quite wealthy and highly educated as a result of the immigration laws whereas the European muslim population is lower educated and more dependent on social security, overrepresented in crime statistics, and not fully integrated into the culture as a result of the immigration policies from the 70s and the refugee crisis from 2015 and onwards. So to an American if you voice concerns about Islam specifically they see no reason to do so other than racism. I would like to see their reaction if their Christmas markets, concerts, and synagogues are blown up by Islamic terrorists. You'd think 9/11 would have been a wake-up call

And questioning the ever growing presence of men who desire to own us is somehow "white feminism".

Even when ex-muslims come out in favour of Western culture and against Islamic culture the left sees them as puppets because they think minorities cannot think for themselves. Unironically racist. Not to mention ex-muslims face extremely violent threats and social rejection from the Islamic community

I'm lost and scared that eventually they'll become a big enough population that our laws will change to accommodate their regressive religion and take away my rights as a woman.

Honestly I have had such thoughts myself, especially with mass migration coupled with the extremely high birth rate of muslim women. I think the best course of action is restricted immigration combined with intense integration efforts. And we must be willing to defend our Western values publicly even if it means we will be accused of right-wing nationalism or racism. Islam is fundamentally incompatible with secularism and equality between men and women

[323398149]

i don't know how I feel.

Which probs is a bad sign

I should probs be happy right?

I'm just scared

I'm scared of like abuse lol

Plot twist is that z probably right and I need to be in therapy for what happened with Uber because it might have had lasting impact and stuff that I should probs be working through

Lol like even just the fact that I think of Uber at all feels messed up since it's literally been 10 years and it was literally just 3 months but I'm always afraid of what if this new person ends up getting mad at me for something different every day. Like y'all remember what a chokehold dear John had on me right?

You paint me a blue sky And go back and turn it to rain And I lived in your chess game But you changed the rules every day

^ I never ever want to live that ever again. That is one of my biggest fears and such a fear that I've been too scared to experience life since then because what if that happens. And everyday I'm desperately trying to convince someone not to be mad at me. And then I'm mad at them and it goes in circles and is miserable 90% of the time. And ur just always apologizing to each other and sometimes it's good but mostly it sucks and there's just heavy mental illness and lack of confidence all around in the air

Yesterday night I was feeling super positive like it'll all be fine and I need to not over think it and just roll with the punches

Then this morning I was like but if you're already not happy and afraid of them being upset like that's not a good sign. They should be wooing you right now and trying to get YOU to like THEM. If you're ALREADY doing the opposite and trying to say the right thing, that doesn't seem healthy 😞

I shouldn't like a person more than they like me. THAT was where I went wrong that first time. Low-key it's where I went wrong with Joe and capstone lol. I'm always the one that people pleases and nobody wants that. Nobody deserves that. People want to interact authentically as well.

They probably don't want ppl to go the extra mile for them and be thoughtful and considerate??? Lol idekm but that's what branch used to tell me. He'd always tell me that I was too nice and accommodating and that's why uber ended up being mean to me because he knew I'd still be nice and that I'd take it. Lol until they finally feel bad enough about what they're doing and I put them in an awkward spot where they don't want to be shitty to me and they know I don't deserve it so they let me leave like Uber did.

ANYWAYS whatever the point is I need to get help lollllll I'm not emotionally well when it comes to men. And I don't know how I can be like a good Muslim girl but protect myself from abuse. Cause the line gets so blurry. A good Muslim girl is supposed to follow all these rules that COULD put her in a place of abuse and once she's in the road out is difficult af. So then what do you do? Be Haram? Idek where I stand on these things. I know God is obviously the most divine and his rules have wisdom. I'm just hesitant to believe that they're being interpreted that right way. Cause that way doesn't compute for me. I genuinely don't believe that God would want to isolate women and make them susceptible to abuse. I feel he's the most merciful and he loves us and he wouldn't do that to us. So then what am I left with lol how do I stand by that? Idk I'm confused

The funniest part is how Uber used to argue this very thing with me about feminism and how it contradicts islam lol apparently his views are popular and idk how to feel about that. I thought he was a one off and young and our generation would grow up to be better than men of the past. But I was too hopeful lol they all still want to use religion to push us down. It's so hurtful because they're taking something I love and turning it into a knife and turning the knife towards me. I see the faith as the beautiful connection you get to have directly with God. To me it's a sense of safety and comfort. And now.... I'm like oh it's being used to isolate me. Cut me off from the world. I'm supposed to be happy in a small safe isolated bubble WHICH I AGREE SOUNDS LIKE THE INTROVERTS DREAM. But back to what I started out talking about at the top - I'm just scared of if I end up in that bubble with a meanie who changes the rules every day and then I'm stuck and can't get out. That sounds like hell. And I need to decide I'm willing to take that gamble and step into the bubble and allow it to be sealed up around me. I need to decide if I'm ready to gamble on if this person is gonna be another uber or not. For one Uber DID make me feel happy af at the beginning so maybe this person keeping it real and not having me all head over heels is a GOOD thing. Because love bombing is toxicity101 and this is definitely not that.

So yeah writing it out tells me that I should listen to myself from last night and just trust the process and be ok with whatever comes my way lol. I can't control everything and Imma have to take a gamble. All good and bad comes from Him so I just gotta accept whatever happens in the bubble and step in because apparently he wants me to be in it. All I gotta do is have the right intention. So even if ppl misinterpreted his words to serve themselves well He will know that I put myself in that place because I believed that it's what He wanted of me and hopefully that will be rewarded in a way that makes it worth it lol. I just gotta pray and trust that He wont send me back into a dear John typa situation unless he knows I can handle it and has a bigger plan for me in the long term.

Lol ok inshallah we will check back with amms in a year and she'll be happy and thriving lollllll

[floatingbook]

Hey there! It's potential buzz anon again but I have a different question this time, sorry. I've spent my whole life as an unorthodox Jewish woman but I really struggle with the idea of belonging to a religion whilst also believing in feminist ideology. They are not easily compatible. I noticed you were Roman Catholic and was curious about if you had any advice or weight on the subject? I'm finding separating myself and my true beliefs from my familial religion a little difficult 😓

Oh love, that is a truly complex question.

A bit of context first. I was raised in the Roman Catholic faith by people who were in it for the “love thy neighbors” bit, not the “stone homosexuals and adulterous women to death” part. I went to mass every week from age six to a little beyond my eighteenth birthday, and I still lived with extremely religious people (the “homosexuals will burn in hell” and “abortion should be banned” and “a woman’s place is at home raising a brood of kids” kind) for an additional two years.

I’ll skip through all my agonized questioning and doubts over god’s existence and philosophical revelations. My understanding today is that, whether god exists or not, I don’t care. I don’t want to live my life in fear of divine retribution after death; I want to do the right thing because it is the right thing, not because I’m scared of hell. Now, if the Roman Catholic church was all love everybody and yadi yada, I might have stayed. But I do not want to give support to a misogynistic, homophobic, corrupt and morally bankrupt institution that still does a lot of harm to this day. I don’t want to devote my life’s energy to reforming it from the inside. I’d rather burn it all to the ground.

So in practice, what does all this means for me? I no longer go to mass, I don’t pray to a god I don’t believe in. I’ve made my stand very clear to most of my family, and they’ve accepted it, being as I said not part of the extremist kind. Discussing my reasons and the recent coming to light of pedophilic abuse in the church has actually led my mother to distance herself from the cult too.

For you, here’s my advice. First, determine whether or not you believe in god. Second, does it matter? If god exist, do you want to worship? What would it bring you? What would it cost you? Third, is worshiping a big part of your social practice? Would you loose family members, friends, if you didn’t see them during religious gatherings? If you take the time to answer those questions, to truly ponder what you look for in religion, whether you can safely leave your religion, then you can come to a decision regarding the place of religion in your life.

That being said, feminist ideology is in total opposition to patriarchal religion, you will likely have to let go of one of them, otherwise you’ll always be pulled into two conflicting directions, dragged around and stretched thin by compromises.

[queer-academic]

Spring Semester Updates!

What is up my dudes, dudettes, and other dude-ly folks?

It is now the end of week #2 of the spring semester, and I’m gonna share some updates on what this semester is looking like so far.

-I’m taking an Astronomy course because I’m required to have a natural science course on my transcript. So far, it is very interesting.

-I’m taking The United States in Global Context, which is a Sociology course focusing on exactly what it sounds like it focuses on. It’s a pretty okay course, thus far.

-I’m taking Feminism and Social Change, which is a WGSS course focusing on various political activist movements. I’m really enjoying this one, although there are no lectures, which is kinda weird.

-I’m taking Religion in American Society, which is a Religious Studies course, and focuses on how various religions have impacted the culture of the U.S. This is also an okay course, though seems a little slow-paced, thus far. 

-I’ve been diagnosed with Dyscalculia by my therapist, and plan to try out some accommodations to assist with that in the Fall. If I’m still unable to pass a math class (I’ve tried twice since starting college, and one of those courses was a remedial course), then I’ll get a psycho-educational evaluation so I can substitute my algebra courses with personal finance.

[commonplaceprojkelseyh]

Reflection!

Kelsey Harper

Professor Dr. Richards

(ENG-3298-01, WGS-3298-01, GBS-3298-01)

July 30th 2021

Individual CommonPlace Book & Reflection Paper

Feminism & Gender Equality

Did you know that eight out of the top ten countries have a larger female gender population compared to the male gender yet the percentage of women within the workforce was at 28% since 1959 up until 2020? That means for every 1 male, there are 7 females to that one male, making the population higher for women. It is sad to report considering I have been a part of that percentage since 2000.  To think that an entire race of extraordinary females for more than just one reason are not on the same working tier as man, even though woman represent a great deal larger within the population compared to men is astonishing. I know what you are thinking, it is due to our past ancestors that made the corporate world, “a man’s world” however, so much has changed in today's society to encourage women that they are just as equal to man in more than one way!

I, for one, grew up in a “both my parents work” home situation, which ultimately left my brother and I with a lot of babysitters. For many other people like me, that can be normal right? Well, what I didn’t know for the longest, was that my mom was working as a Merrill Lynch Financial Advisor managing over 500 million dollars in assets which ranks her in the top one half percent of all females and more importantly males in her industry. Ironically she has been doing this for over 34 years and the percentage of women who are at her level in the investment business has never moved past 15%. Making her one of only 200 other women in the entire industry at her level(which made her job an everyday event to consistently prove herself to the men around her.) She picked a career that was based on meritocracy, so there was very little subjectivity to her advancement. Basically, she was responsible for her own success, the harder she worked, the better she did. This inspired me at an early age because my mom never seemed to think that whatever she was searching for, shooting for or hoping for was unreachable. If anything it never even crossed her mind to not work as hard as she could to be within her industry and have the reputation she has built up to today. She has made it her mission to bring up other women to follow in her path. Okay, so you may ask well how does this even relate to our class? Well, part of the reason I was so interested in taking the class in the first place was the title, which is, “Woman’s Writing Worldwide”, which stood out to me because of the first word. It stood out because of that five letter & two syllable word that can make or break a human coming into the world. For others, within third world countries, like the ones we have been reading about, that word defined one from the jump and almost pre-decided that female's destiny. As much as I would like to say it is different in the United States, it is similar in the way that being a woman in today’s culture is a huge ever-growing adjustment because men are only making it harder for us to speak our truths and claim our spots within the working class. Trust me, I may sound like a hater on the male race, but I am eternally grateful to a lot of them for making me the person I am today, however if men truly understood woman, like we do them, the world would be a much fairer place because it is not a competition all the time like men tend to make it to be.

One person that spoke volumes to this exact subject was Meghan Markle, in her speech that specifically dealt with her first encounter with being a woman’s right advocate at the early age of 11. In that speech, she essentially told the audience that she was watching a TV show in grade school, when a commercial came on for a dish liquid with the tagline, “woman all around America are fighting greasy pots and pans,” when two boys in her class quickly said after that commercial, “yeah that is where women belong, in the kitchen.” She was so bothered with this that she wrote to the first lady, then Hilary Clinton, Linder Elerby, Gloria Albred and the soap manufacturer, Proctor and Gamble to change the tagline to, “people all over America are fighting pots and pans.” When in fact, a month later they in fact did change the tagline and opened the doorways for Markle to really understand the magnitude of her actions within this topic. She then goes on to even say that, “women need a seat at the table, they need an invitation to be seated there, and in some cases when a seat is unavailable then they have to make their own. It is said that girls with dreams become women with vision. May we empower each other to carry out such a vision because it is not enough to simply talk about equality and it is not enough to simply believe in it, one must work at it. Let us work at it together, starting now.” I absolutely loved her entire story because it really hit home for me who was mesmerized by her willingness to stand up and say something. Without that willingness from women such as her, women as an entire race will never have a seat at the table. I am thankful to her and for the blessed opportunity to come across that story which inspired me to start a club chapter of CHAARG(changing health, attitude, actions to recreate girls) to encourage women to speak their truths, focus on themselves and be inspired by the powerful woman around them to step up and not only prioritize their mental health & wellness but their eating, their exercise, their self care, their mental health and overall happiness.

Another important factor to add, is that it has been observed in women's fight for equality in the workforce,  that there are a lot of women that fall into the category of being a part of the “sandwich generation.” This generation of professional working women have been tasked with both caregiving for their children and their aging parents. This has caused breaks within their career paths and deferred promotions. This is particularly felt within the wealth gap of income disparity between men and women. Recently, I have noticed a corporate trend towards improving this disparity. Corporations are offering more flexible work hours to accommodate these “sandwich generation” working mothers.

One speaker that really spoke volumes to this exact subject was the Msimang TED talk, where she described a time in her life where she had something taken from her by the opposite gender and felt for the first time the extreme difference between a boy’s perspective and a girl’s perspective. A great quote from our actual syllabus by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie was, “The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue but that they are incomplete. They make one story be the only story.” I enjoyed this quote because both the story by Msimang and the quote by Adichie, touch upon a common goal, equality in every form. Another element that really moved me within Msimang’s TED Talk was her inner passion for storytelling and really trying to capture what makes a good story. I also was really inspired by the TED Talk by Dalia Mogahed, a religious muslim that spoke heavily on the idea of Muslims within America. Although her topic wasn’t exactly about gender equality but more so about racism in general, she spoke about a time in her life when she felt embarrassed to not only be a muslim but also a female muslim. Her story about being scared for her life after the 9/11 attacks, was the first time in her life, she said, that she was afraid to be her true self. I felt for her in this way that I too, felt similar when walking down a city street by myself as a young adult female. Although the two are still very different, in the moment while watching her speak about her story, this was the first image that popped into my mind.

Most importantly, I enjoyed the TED Talk by Kavita Ramdas, with her extraordinary opener, which was: “ Given my TED profile, you might be expecting that I'm going to speak to you about the latest philanthropic trends -- the one that's currently got Wall Street and the World Bank buzzing -- how to invest in women, how to empower them, how to save them. Not me. I am interested in how women are saving us. They're saving us by redefining and re-imagining a future that defies and blurs accepted polarities, polarities we've taken for granted for a long time, like the ones between modernity and tradition, First World and Third World, oppression and opportunity.” This got me thinking more and more about gender equality as a whole and just how important and influential women are in society. Countries such as China, took a very long time to find this out, as many of new born baby girls were sold to the States for money because in their culture, “boys were the only ones that could work to bring the family up, girls are an embarrassment and are only here for one thing, reproduction.” However, after several years, they grew to know that they ended up needing more women because they were running out of women to bear children, hence the population drop in 2019 into 2020.

To combat that however, it has been proven through the last century that intellectually women are naturally more nurturing & emotionally smarter than men, just like the saying that “women develop maturity faster than men do”. So women tend to outshine men in industries such nursing.  However, men tend to rely more heavily on their physical strength in order to obtain certain jobs that are not typically where women fit into the picture such as construction and engineering. I, for one, have never viewed it like that because I have always believed that no matter the race or ethnicity, age, gender, religion, sexuality or financial standing, everyone deserves to work a job they love in any industry and that all judgement should be shoved out the window without reason.

In conclusion, I believe in the strength of women as a whole race to be able to one day never have to speak of women's rights. I envision a time within my life that women will have a seat at the table, they will be heard, understood and most importantly treated equal to men. I believe it starts with women empowering other women first and then men following that trend.

[novicetypewriter]

Religion: what it is supposed to be and what we have made it

Religion is supposed to be an intimate guide of a person, extremely personal and beyond the reaches of anyone else than the person itself. This would’ve been my ideal judgment of the affair had it been similar to its definition in real world.

A religion expresses a person’s ideal code of conduct as an individual and a part of the society. It shapes the conscience, morality, conduct and lifestyle of any person. We have tons of religions in our world that means we have tons of codes of conduct which may be complacent or conflicting with one another. This also means that we as humans have an inalienable choice to make, of either choosing any religion or none at all. It should not be of anyone’s concern as to why a person is following that religion and not mine; hello…it’s none of your business because it is what that person feels is right for them.

My own opinion is that this whole complex tangle of religion is abhorrent. As mentioned earlier, there are so many religions that are out there, mostly with conflicting views, or so it seems pragmatically. This leads to hatred among the followers of somewhat “polar” religions (mind it, they may not be polar in their ideals but have been made so by most of the preachers) and then, follows a race of establishing superiority of one over the other. I think most of the conflicts in the world, particularly in the Middle East and South Asia, definitely have an attribute of religion too, that keeps the fire burning. This also brings me to my conjectural conclusion that conflicts over religion mostly occur in places where at least one religion has its origin at.

I absolutely have no interest in discussing religion because I consider myself an atheist. But it disturbs me listening to instances of violent, communal riots, especially in my country which is a fucking developing country and all people talk about is this smallest aspect of one’s fucking personal life. This has a lot of reasons such as illiteracy among the citizens (especially, men; I will justify this later), obsolete yet unconditional love towards the religious preachers (not the religion, but the preachers because as it turns out people assume that they connect with them and the preachers teach the ideals, which is mostly not the case), and the most powerful of all, ‘people in power struggling to make religion a public issue and shamelessly declaring their religious identity in space and slandering other religions’. There are a lot of other reasons too, but these are issues I consider are at the forefront of them.

In most of the cases, the conflicts are seen in the developing world that is struggling to develop using available resources. And since, these countries comprise a huge share of illiterate population, there are certain popular arguments which are used against minority groups. One of them is xenophobia. The minority groups are often of foreign origin or from regions in the peripheral areas. The majority (that, mostly, comprise the native religion) feels this unjustifiable superiority complex that they are the sole inheritors of the land they live in. This theory itself reflects roots of illiteracy because these are given by people who are struggling in the country, and who hence, may not be having access to better education. To further bring the perspective of feminism in this argument, we need to know the fact that the modern religions (and this time it is the ideal concept of almost all the religions, besides the accentuation by the preachers) have their origins in a society dominated by men. The modern religions are simply anti-paganistic; be it Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Each and every religious epic was written by men, with men protagonists and addressing men solely. Women were just represented symbolically, and that too reinforcing the fucking ideas of fragility, subordinance, and for the pleasure of men protagonists. It is very rare to see strong women in these epics as compared to zillions of men counterparts and that too probably, just to satisfy feminists. But guess what: this is not helping feminism even a bit. Firstly, men think that the women gods are superior to real women in the world, thus having an unanticipated effect; those gods are majestic which women in real world are not, logically, yes fuckers, because this is real world and that’s why they are fantasies. Secondly, a more direct consequence of the representation of women as fragile and delicate creatures in these epics has made men to believe that women NEED men to protect them and that their honor is central to men’s honor and courage. This really pisses me off because again fuckers, those epics are fantasies, women in the modern world are not those women, you are really backward, women know how to protect their own honor, they do not give a fuck about your honor and you are the ones we need protection against, so won’t it be a simple task to control your testosterones and remain within your boundaries. If we compare men and women living in exactly the same conditions except for their genders, women are much more aware of this fact and they do not need men to interfere in their affairs; they are being toxic. For example, in India, honor killings are a widespread practice in some of the rural areas. It arises when a woman marries a man, consensually, but the family of woman thinks that the man trapped her. Unsurprisingly, this would not have been a problem if the man belonged to the same religion or caste as the woman. It becomes a problem if the man is of an alien religion, mostly a Muslim, or of a lower caste. Then the family, without asking the woman for her fucking conviction, goes on to kill the man through mob-lynching and surprisingly, the woman is killed too because she was being difficult and rebellious. And mind it that things never even reach to this point; even if the woman is seen with a man of the same kind as mentioned above, the man will be lynched and woman confined to the house. Rumors are spread that a woman of one religion was raped by the man of another religion and the man is lynched. In the backdrop of all of this, is the man’s political dream of being masculine as preached by their religion; but YOU ARE BEING FUCKING LEECHES ON WOMEN AND WE DON’T LIKE IT, SO FUCK OFF AND DIE SOMEWHERE FAR.

The second important issue is the personality cult around the priests and preachers of different religions. People are illusioned in front of these “mystical” leaders who know this fact and use this to facilitate hatred among religions. When I wrote about the feministic problems earlier, it must be noted that the men with those toxic beliefs are disciples of these preachers. So, ultimately, the preachers are the overlords. They just need to speak a word slandering any other religion and this rat race of disciples start to run behind it. These preachers are in no way propagating religion and they have absolutely no idea what a religion is. They are bestowed upon the responsibility of interpreting the religious texts in accordance to present context and try to accommodate different religious ideologies so as to attain overall peace and harmony. This is exactly what a religion should do- peace and harmony. But this may come as a surprise to almost everybody, as this is not what religion in the real world means. It more likely to be a phenonmenon upheld by a group of fanatics, radicals, bloody orthodox terrorists. That’s what a religion is today. (again this is a general idea; there are many people within these religions who are against this mainstream approach, including some priests too)

Any sensible person will not believe wholly in any one religion; rather they would consolidate the good virtues of all religions and create their own personal religion. Every other insane person will be wholly devoted to a particular religion and act as a robot in the hands of fanatic overlords.

The last yet the most worrying issue is the knowledge of the religion of people in power and their open declaration about it. Democracy is supposed to be a consolidating force and the people in power should be symbols of this consolidation. This means that they need to suppress their personal opinions and act as an absolutely neutral person. But guess what threatens this argument: the people in power being more personal than public and in the worst case, BLOODY PREACHERS BEING BROUGHT TO POWER. Can you believe this? The fundamentals of secularism, fraternity, liberty, freedom, equality, and every other political principle being endangered by giving the power in the hands of these people. This scenario is an extensive combination of all the other issues I have mentioned in this article; think about it. And this is the only reason my country is observing so many riots, communal clashes, police brutality, women objectification, and loss of hundreds of thousands of innocents lives every fucking year.

This is my take on religion and again, I personally do not give a fuck about religion. But those who do, please know what a religion is supposed to be and what we have made it. (and for those leeches, get your act straight otherwise you are the ones who’ll need protection; FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING DIRTY LIVES.)

[jbauer21ahsgov]

Blog Post #3

Republican: In their statement, Republicans claim to support women in the workplace as well as in the army. They are anti-abortion and pro-life and believe that abortion is to commit “infanticide”. The Republican party believes that parental consent is necessary during abortion-related circumstances and that the father of the child has equal say in the birth of the child. Republicans support health and safety standards in abortion clinics, although they do not fund or subsidize abortion processes. The party believes in equal responsibility between the mother and father over their child and support those who help women fleeing abuse. Republicans are against the U.N. women’s rights movement.

Democratic: Democrats feel very strongly for the women’s rights movement and will fight for equal rights for women. The party believes in the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and will take “aggressive action” to end unequal pay by developing penalties against companies who discriminate against women. The Democratic party believes that women deserve quality healthcare, which includes a safe and legal abortion and “will fight” laws that are anti-women’s rights and anti-abortion. They also claim that they will take action for women’s rights in the workplace and believe women deserve reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, recent birth, and breastfeeding within the workplace. Democrats believe in paid sick days and universal paid family and medical leave. They support LGBTQ+ members and honor women in uniform, such as those in the military.

Libertarian: The Libertarian party has an overarching ideology that, as long as people aren’t discriminating or hurting others, people should be able to do what they want. This includes the idea that the government should not be involved in abortion, and should rather be carefully considered by the person giving birth. The party recognizes how sensitive the topic of abortion is and respect parental rights that a child can be raised however the parent wants regarding religion and beliefs. Similarly, Libertarians are anti-abuse and anti-neglect for children and believe people deserve equal treatment from government regardless of their status or identity. Libertarians are for the decriminalization of prostitution and believe that people are born equal.

Green Party: The Green Party supports women-owned businesses, equality, and believe that there are far too few women in elected office. This party promotes greater opportunity for women ownership in media outlets and acknowledge the increase in trafficking, particularly toward women. They support the punishment and consequences of traffickers. The Green Party supports abortion and is pro-choice. They also believe that women require more resources and availability when it comes to their reproductive rights.

Peace and Freedom: The Peace and Freedom party believes that men and women have equal status. This group is committed to women’s rights and feminism, as well as being pro equal pay and pro women in the workplace. The Peace and Freedom party believes that birth control information and education should be free for women at any age and that violence against women needs to be ended. They believe that unions need to do more to support and promote women’s leadership. Finally, Peace and Freedom believe in safe parental care and that women should get to choose their preferred birth alternatives.

Reflection: The party I identify the most with in regards to women’s rights is the Democratic party. I originally thought that I would most support the Libertarian party because that is the party I usually identify with. However, I noticed that the Democratic party most clearly and descriptively explained their unwavering support for the women’s rights movement. I usually identify more independently than toward a specific party because I often do not entirely agree with everything one side or the other says, but I really respect and appreciate the points the Democratic platform covered. They were surprisingly progressive! I would definitely vote for this party’s candidate if they for this supported all the points brought up in their statement. 

Presidential Debate Assessment: Women’s rights was briefly discussed during the debate in regards to healthcare and the economy. Biden stated that removing healthcare would be hurtful toward women because it would make surgeries relating to pregnancy less obtainable. Although healthcare was not directly written about in the Democratic platform, Biden’s support for women’s reproductive rights is applicable to the statement, yes.

[hathsinners]

It’s obvious that Imane lied, not because she couldn’t confide in Jamila but because she couldn’t bear to face the fact that their situations were the same and that Jamila had been right in a way. Of course we know it’ll be alright in the end, but as far as Imane knows, it’s been almost 2 years and the girls never showed interest in her, her life, her religion or her interests:

- Daphné has always made islamophobic/racist remarks and at this point is getting condescending thanks to Ingrid’s influence since her prejudices are finally being validated by someone in the group, contrary to before where she was called out.

- Emma just doesn’t care, is too self-centred at this point and can’t figure out what she wants to pay attention to what’s going on in other people’s lives. She just want to have fun and from where she stands, Imane’s refusing to accommodate with Ingrid’s antics is stopping that.

- Alexia is carefree and while she is shown to remember things (like Ramadan), she also would rather Imane accommodates with everything to have fun, much like Emma, than truly get involved/interested in her.

- Manon is the only one that has been shown time and time again to have the sensibility it takes to reach out. She’s the friend who notices, she’s the friend who knows. However, she would rather stay neutral in any situations than take sides (which is great if we analyse the Noora character as the embodiment of white feminism... She’ll bite at any mention of gender issues but stay silent on race issues). She obviously feels bad for Imane, but fails to truly understand how alienating the girls’ behaviour is for Imane.

Thus I do believe that if Ingrid hadn’t been there to shed light on those facts (and subsequently, I hope, open the girls eyes on their shitty behaviour), Imane’s relationship with the crew would have ended just like Jamila and her friends did. Simply because as a WOC and a muslim, there’s only so much you can take. Nobody wants to feel like they don’t belong. So for now their relationship is in jeopardy, right, but the fact that Imane is in denial about how bad the situation is also shows a willingness to keep her friends because as shitty as they are right now, she loves them and want to believe that they can actually be better, that her situation will change.

Starting now, I only see two outcomes for this season: Either they will show the girls (and Lucas if they keep that mess of bench speech from OG) truly try to understand what Imane went through, reflect on their behaviour, call out Daphné AS WELL as Ingrid AND their own behaviour, and try to make amend (as much as I loved the Los Loser bus scene, the lack of closure for Sana was frustrating as hell, the girls NEEDED to properly apologise).

Either they will follow the path of OG and we’re going to have Lucas and the girls invalidating Imane’s feeling while having Imane and the girls apologise as if they were on equal terms (I repeat, Sana and here Imane are NOT in the wrong and should NOT be vilified for being rightfully angry).

I really hope it’s the first outcome. This fandom NEEDS more than ever to be educated on race and how race relations work and reflect on their behaviour just like the girls. (I’m looking at all of y’all who would rather vilify Imane and can’t even identify your own prejudices let alone the girls’).

[fuckyeahradicaled]

Sandra Dodd, big name in the unschooling community, is incredibly transphobic/transmisogynistic and ableist.

A lot of people have been quietly avoiding her for years, because her views are incredibly hateful, and because she’s cruel to a whole lot of people for a whole lot of shitty reasons. More and more the conversations have been happening publicly though, and I hope others will join me in not giving her a platform any longer, not sharing her quotes, or linking to her writing. Please help protect vulnerable people--vulnerable children--from her and the people who believe the vile she’s spewing. Please help make our community a safer and more welcoming place. I’m including several screenshots below, each followed by the text the images contain. CONTENT WARNING FOR TRANSPHOBIA/TRANSMISOGYNY AND ABLEISM.

[TEXT READS] There are pockets of unschoolers (mostly girls, I believe) who are also claiming (some with pressure) that they really are boys in female bodies. In their case would it be rebellion? I think it's beyond rebellion to something else, and I think it will pass, too.

Recent years have seen AA / ADHD, and then lots of people wanting their kids to be dyslexic (like it gives them a bye in life, and a "not my fault" for the parents). There wasn't medicine for dyslexia, but there was for ADHD, BIG money, legal issues, and harmful effects.

There were a few years when parents claimed (hoped) that by controlling diet they could control behaviour and change personality. That hasn't been suggested in discussion for years now, but it used to happen every few days.

"Indigo children" didn't affect unschooling discussions too much, but it was there, and that was more about the parents (how worthy they had been to have been chosen to host such an enlightened being and all). That has wound down.

Asperger's Syndrome (no longer a legitimate term) came in a wave and a frenzy with parents wanting to change the behaviour of everyone else around their children without coaching their children to be more courteous, saying "He can't, he's Asperger's; you're rude not to accommodate him."

Food as religion is still around, but the heat of it is subsiding.

I probably am forgetting one or two of them.

But transgender is the scariest so far because it's involving parents agreeing to chemically stunt growth, and potentially agreeing to surgery (and paying thousands of dollars) for irreversible damage to a healthy body. There are people agitating to change laws and policies so that the children have the "right" to these things regardless of parental wishes, in some places (Canada, it seems, from that BBC special).

[TEXT READS (formatting is what is used in image, not mine)]  National Geographic was sold and is NOT anything like it was. The Transgender issue was an odd one. But they have TV show and did a segment on a woman who pretends to be paraplegic, and goes around in a wheelchair, but can walk. At the bottom of the article (which Charlie Rae linked elsewhere in this forum), there is a quote from a Newsweek article, but the link didn't work. _________________ “Some conservative voices in the medical community feel that the normalization of sex-change surgeries was the start of a slippery slope. “You keep pushing the envelope of impaired people who aren’t in touch with reality in some fashion, who develop ideas about their normalcy,” says Dr. Mark Schiller, a psychiatrist and past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “Essentially from just claiming that something’s the case, people just accept somebody’s distorted version of reality and then we get surgeons and others responding to the point of mangling normal bodies.” The second reason it is unfortunate the show failed to mention the fact that Chloe is male is that this is yet another instance where outrageous male behavior is being reported as female behavior. As I said before, when a “woman” was reported to be living her life as an “adult baby”, messing herself and selling porn about it (and “she” turned out to be a dude): when you hear about a female doing something really wack, or read about it in a newspaper or on a website, and it just “doesn’t sound right” to you: It’s probably a male transgender. _________________ The whole show seems to have been about this woman who pretends X, without saying "This is a MAN pretending to be a woman who, further, pretends X."

[TEXT READS] A man with breasts and feminizing face surgery and a penis and testes... This is another sort of person. Surgically enhanced cross-dressing seems as far as it should go. Having a female name, I don't mind. Living and working as a woman, I don't mind. But claiming to BE, without reservation, that's not honest.

[rametarin]

@mignoralsky​ Abuse comes in many forms. Abuse also comes from being told lies about the relationship between male and female humans and how it works, the history of how it has historically worked, and doctoring its interpretation to fit a philosophy.

In this case, the abuse comes from the, “enlightenment,” of radical feminism that posits that A.) Class Struggle Theory is real and objective and true. B.) That it means just by being men and women, one is oppressed and the other is the oppressor, and because women are not equal to men, women are inherently oppressed even in a society where all laws are gender neutral to equal and we even make sexist accommodations to aid women. C.) That because women are, ‘inherently oppressed,’ that means they’re free to project and amplify ever perceived inconvenience not just as an annoyance, but an injustice they declare must be compensated for by society, or else they’re being actively oppressed. D.) That because they’re oppressed, they can reap the rewards of their position with impunity and be considered victims and subjects and slaves, not co-conspirators and co-beneficiaries, for doing so.

They have these extremist logical takes because some of them apply really shitty logic to their own lives. Because the people formulating them take issue with organized religion, capitalism and have a hard on for arbitrary worship and idolization of anything they consider to be a minority being underdogged by a big bad evil majority, which they fetishize, put on a pedestal, purely to preach ‘how dare you’ at the people they’re trying to emotionally and mentally subjugate and lead and control.

Radfems have always had this weird, “the true creator of our heavens and universe is a woman because women can be pregnant and make babies and all men can do is destwoy uwu” mentality about them. Ignoring the fact that in their ridiculous microcosmic vision of people and gods, human women can’t create shit without the sperm of a man in their bodies, or the productivity of a man to fill their “societies.” There are no purely female societies for this reason, while you can have infertile but productive societies built by men where women just show up to live.

Radfems adopt and endorse bad beliefs like this because Marxists actively encourage bad logic and culture like this deliberately to disrupt existing religiousity culture, existing social culture and existing relationships on other premises to impose their dialectical materialist POV on them. And they focus on women, because if you disrupt the minds of the generative half of the species and get them languishing in a mirror or mourning imaginary collective slights, you effectively slow down reproduction and weaken quality of life. Which they then blame on capitalism for why they’re suddenly more and more miserable. And they’ll believe it, because what else could it be?

Whenever I see radfem takes about anything spiritual it’s always glaringly obvious that the underlying issue here is narcissism. Those who turn from God always end up worshiping themselves in one way or another.

[marcusssanderson]

50 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quotes on Standing for Justice

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes collection will inspire you to stand for what’s right.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States who is credited for successfully fighting against gender discrimination and unifying the liberal block of the court.

Born on March 15, 1933 in Brooklyn, New York, Ginsburg’s early life was heavily influenced by her mother who instilled a love of education in her. She excelled in academia, graduating at the top of her class at Cornell University in 1954, and again graduating first in her class at Columbia Law in 1959.

Ginsburg has faced a lot of adversity in her life, including the death of her beloved mother the day before her high school graduation, gender-based discrimination, and having to care for her cancer-stricken husband while maintaining her studies at Harvard Law.

But despite all these challenges, Ginsburg has still flourished. She has not allowed her personal struggles to deter her from reaching and exceeding her goals and dreams.

Still among the most avid questioners on the bench today, Justice Ginsburg has proven time and again that she is a force to be reckoned with. In that respect, here are some powerful Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes to inspire you.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes on standing for justice5

1.) ”We have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world, and it starts out with three words, ‘We, the people.’” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

2.) ”Fight for the things that you care about. But do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

3.) “Rabbi Alfred Bettleheim once said: “Prejudice saves us a painful trouble, the trouble of thinking.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

4.) “I don’t say women’s rights—I say the constitutional principle of the equal citizenship stature of men and women.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

5.) “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

6.) ”Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. It shouldn’t be that women are the exception.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

7.) “We should not be held back from pursuing our full talents, from contributing what we could contribute to the society, because we fit into a certain mold ― because we belong to a group that historically has been the object of discrimination.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

8.) ”The emphasis must not be on the right to abortion but on the right to privacy and reproductive control.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

9.) ”Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

10.) ”Feminism… I think the simplest explanation, and one that captures the idea, is a song that Marlo Thomas sang, ‘Free to be You and Me.’” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes to inspire you to stand for what’s right

11.) ”America is known as a country that welcomes people to its shores. All kinds of people. The image of the Statue of Liberty with Emma Lazarus’ famous poem. She lifts her lamp and welcomes people to the golden shore, where they will not experience prejudice because of the color of their skin, the religious faith that they follow.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

12.) ”You think about what would have happened … Suppose I had gotten a job as a permanent associate. Probably I would have climbed up the ladder and today I would be a retired partner. So often in life, things that you regard as an impediment turn out to be great good fortune.”- Ruth Bader Ginsburg

13.) ”Dissents speak to a future age. It’s not simply to say, ‘my colleagues are wrong and I would do it this way,’ but the greatest dissents do become court opinions.”- Ruth Bader Ginsburg

14.) ”We care about this institution more than our individual egos and we are all devoted to keeping the Supreme Court in the place that it is, as a co-equal third branch of government and I think a model for the world in the collegiality and independence of judges.”- Ruth Bader Ginsburg

15.) Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that changed their abortion laws before Roe are not going to change back. So we have a policy that only affects poor women, and it can never be otherwise.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

16.) ”I do hope that some of my dissents will one day be the law.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

17.) ”I think our system is being polluted by money.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

18.) ”People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

19.) ”Members of the legislature, people who have run for office, know the connection between money and influence on what laws get passed.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

20.) ”Promoting active liberty does not mean allowing the majority to run roughshod over minorities. It calls for taking special care that all groups have a chance to fully participate in society and the political process.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes that prove she’s a force to be reckoned with

21.) ”Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution’s] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

22.) ”Prisons should be co-ed because separate quarters are discriminatory.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

23.) ”A prime part of the history of our Constitution is the story of the extension of constitutional rights to people once ignored or excluded.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

24.) ”There is a Constitutional right to prostitution.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

25.) ”A constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

26.) ”So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

27.) ”I am a judge born, raised, and proud of being a Jew. The demand for justice runs through the entirety of the Jewish tradition. I hope, in my years on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, I will have the strength and the courage to remain constant in the service of that demand. – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

28.) ”Generalizations about the “way women are” and estimates of what is appropriate for most women no longer justify denying opportunity to women whose talent and capacity place them outside the average description.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

29.) ”I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.” Interview with The New York Times in 2009. – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

30.) ”Anger, resentment, envy, and self-pity are wasteful reactions. They greatly drain one’s time. They sap energy better devoted to productive endeavors.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes to inspire you in your career

31.)” So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

32.) “A gender line… helps to keep women not on a pedestal, but in a cage.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

33.) ” You can disagree without being disagreeable.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

34.) ”All I can say is I am sensitive to discrimination on any basis because I have experienced that upset.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

35.)” The Sixth Amendment secures to persons charged with crime the right to be tried by an impartial jury reflecting a fair cross-section of the community.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

36.) ” I try to teach through my opinions, through my speeches, how wrong it is to judge people on the basis of what they look like, color of their skin, whether they’re men or women.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

37.) ” I think unconscious bias is one of the hardest things to get at.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

38.) ”People who have been hardworking, tax paying, those people ought to be given an opportunity to be on a track that leads towards citizenship, and if that happened, then they wouldn’t be prey to the employers who say, ‘We want you because we know that you work for a salary we could not lawfully pay anyone else.’” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

39.) ”We still have many neighborhoods that are racially identified. We still have many schools that even though the days of state-enforced segregation are gone, segregation because of geographical boundaries remains.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

40.) ”Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

More Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes to inspire you

41.) “I always ask my law clerks, in addition to reading all the briefs, including all the amici briefs, that if there’s a good law review article, they should bring it to me.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

42.) ”I’m a very strong believer in listening and learning from others.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

43.) ”If you want to influence people, you want them to accept your suggestions, you don’t say, ‘You don’t know how to use the English language,’ or ‘How could you make that argument?’ It will be welcomed much more if you have a gentle touch than if you are aggressive.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

44.)” If you’re going to change things, you have to be with the people who hold the levers.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

45.)” When a thoughtless or unkind word is spoken, best tune out.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

46.) ” It is not women’s liberation, it is women’s and men’s liberation.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

47.) ” Racial discrimination in elections in Texas is no mere historical artifact. To the contrary, Texas has been found in violation of the Voting Rights Act in every redistricting cycle from and after 1970.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

48.) ”Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

49.) ”People who think you could wave a magic wand and the legacy of the past will be over are blind.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

50.) ”I would like to be remembered as someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability.” – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Did you enjoy these Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes?

Despite all the adversity she’s faced in her life, Ginsburg’s career is inspiring to say the least. She is incomparable and should be every woman’s hero.

If she had listened to other people’s expectations of her, Ginsburg would not be the most successful litigator on the Supreme Court bench today. So hopefully, the above quotes have inspired you to go after your dreams no matter what your critics think or say.

Which of these Ruth Bader Ginsburg quotes was your favorite? Do you have any other inspiring quotes to add? Let us know in the comment section below.

The post 50 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quotes on Standing for Justice appeared first on Everyday Power Blog.

[kraut-und-ruam-4-diversity]

Women and Work – The Capabilities Approach

I have read the Article „Women and Work – The Capabilities Approach“, written by Martha C. Nussbaum and I would like to introduce you to her thoughts.

 Starting the article, the author briefly describes the lives of two Indian women – Jayamma, who has spent her life working hard, carrying heavy bricks day by day, and who has settled down in a slum-like district. She gets no social benefits from the government – she has two sons, thus, the government won’t give her rent. It does not matter, that these sons live far away and have no intention of helping her. She has been trying to fight the government over it, but her case is not getting any attention and the government is not siding with her.

 The other woman is Vasanti, who has a higher, social class than Jayamma, but despite this, she had to face her own difficulties, as her husband was an alcohol addict who physically abused her. In order to divorce and regain some of her personal freedom, she had to borrow money from her male family members. Her family might have been supportive, but still she felt like she wasn’t being independent at all.

However, there is the SEWA – “Self-employed Women’s Association” – and it’s a group made of women, for other women. They have been around for a while and by now even have a bank and are able to give credits of different sizes to women in need. Vasanti was able to repay the debt she owed her family and instead took a loan at the SEWA bank.

Knowing she was owing this money to no one different than a bank meant a lot to her – she was able to take her time saving up and repay the debt, and as time went on, she was also able to start a tiny business of her own. All these steps were important for her personal road to a sense of self-worth and self-confidence.

In India, both sexes are ‘officially’ worth the same – they have the same rights, however, in the real life and out in the open, women still face discrimination in both job and education, to name just two examples.

It is not possible to fully grasp the entire extent, meaning and weight behind the stories of these two women, if you don’t understand what it means to belong to different social classes, which all come with their own sets of rules and expectations. We don’t understand what it means to live in the city – versus what it means to live on the countryside. We don’t know what SEWA means to the local people and which traces they have left – we don’t know how the government treats the situation, we don’t know what it feels like, to live the way these two do.

This also extends to the problems of other women. It is almost impossible to fully understand a person’s life and hardships, if you were brought up in a different way and a different country. However, what many women have in common is the desire to be on their own – to make their own money, with their own work and to use said finances as they please, to shape their life in a way they want.

Intercultural Norms are an attempt of setting standards and measuring which groups of people need what kind of help – and how much of it.

Emancipation is often seen as something ‘western’ – but women fighting for their rights is not strictly western and such thoughts should be abandoned, for women’s rights movements come in many shapes and colors.

Also, Emancipation and Feminism do not want to forbid women to live in a traditional way. If they choose to be devote and to follow what is considered tradition, they shall be free to do so. However, feminism wants them to be able to make this choice – therefore, there also needs to be an option to live in a different way. There need to be standards – and even a traditionally living house-wife should have the same access to benefits, education, health programs – et cetera.

 In the article, a comparison is drawn from Languages to Tradition. Humanity values different languages and recognizes them for their individual beauties. The same should go for different traditions – even if some seem strange to us, or even contradict some of ours, they still have their own value.

What also must be noted is, that languages don’t harm people, whereas some traditions do.

If a tradition says it is okay to hit women, it is a tradition which we must get rid of – we cannot preserve it, only because it is old.

This leads us to the next issue, though – who are we, to forbid people from following what they consider right? Does this not clash with the saying, that people know best what they need for themselves? Can we preach tolerance, freedom of religion and so on, while saying that some traditions - because we deem them bad – must be gotten rid of, in the same breath?

  Freedom of Choice is more than just ink written on paper – there must be more than written law in a dusty book.

Even if women might be allowed to receive education – if they lack the means of transportation, the financial funds, or if they don’t have anyone who might care for their children while they are away, they still have no access to education.

The government must actively enable these women and do it’s best to support them. The author preaches to open as many paths for people as possible – and to then give them the choice which they want to walk.

The Capabilities approach tries to find a way to measure the life quality of women – and to find the answer to the question of what a woman is able to do – and what she is able to be.

Humans have dignity – they are free and they should be free to shape their own lives.

 To name only a few points of the list of the Capability Approach: - Physical Health (enough food, proper accommodation,)

-       Living your life to its full length

-       Emotions

-       Being able to create and shape your own environment

-       …

 These needs and points are all flexible and it depends on the country and culture in what ways these needs might be answered.

Also, this list is not complete and always subject to change, as people all over the world continue trying to shape intercultural norms. Humans have base skills – they are born with these and these are the foundation for strengthening and developing these skills.

They have intern skills – and they have combined skills.

An example would be: A woman who was not subject to genitalia mutilation (who is thus physically able to have children) has lost her husband at young age. She is not allowed to re-marry and thus she can never have children – even though she physically could.

  There is a difference between doing something and being able to do something.

A strictly religious person can have enough food, but still choose to fast.

This person has a choice – while a different person has to fast, for there just is no food.

It is the same with female genitalia mutilation – these women can never make their own choice over whether they want to be sexually active, or not.

The decision has been made for them.

 To end the summary, let’s look at Vasanti again.

She got beaten and abused by her husband, who followed a tradition. This tradition however was in conflict with, what would be described as the norm for physical safety and protection of violence. Vasanti had to live in fear and it took the SEWA for her to be truly able to be independent. She might have been owing money – but she owed it to a bank, not a family member.

She gained control over her life, her expenses and her own money – she found a loving community and friends among these women, who only aim to support their fellow sisters. In the end, this is what the Capability Approach is about – Vasanti was given a huge range of new possibilities for shaping her own life – and from there on, she could make her own decisions.

She is now independent.

 My personal thoughts on this matter are, that this article addresses many problems we are facing nowadays.

On the one hand, we are taught to be tolerant – and freedom of religion is being held high, as well as multi-culturalism.

Contradicting this though, are traditions which hold women down and harm many members of this society. Thus, what are we to do? According to Nussbaum, we are to save and preserve and value traditions, which don’t conflict with the Capability Approach, thus, which don’t subtract from the life-quality of others, while aiming to support those who suffer.

I also agree that it is not possible to find a go-for-all answer. Problems and people and situations and communities are unique. A drug problem in my town might have completely different reasons, factors and possible answers, then a drug problem next town.

It is similar with women who face oppression on all parts of the world.

It is humble and down to earth, by admitting how difficult, if not downright impossible it is, to fully grasp the entire extent of certain cases, situations and problems - and it tells us, that it is okay.

I find this approach to be well-balanced and I like how it is still subject to change – how it is able to react on international changes.

I too have worked in children’s education before – and as an aspiring social worker I agree that we must do our best to give people as many opportunities as possible.

We should work together with our clients to tear down as many obstacles as we can, so people might make their own decisions for themselves.

- Mod Magical Mario

[janiedean]

Do you believe in the statement "Islam is a religion of peace"? I think it's a ridiculous statement and I'm sick of people repeating it over and over. Saying it doesn't make it true. I have NOTHING against Muslims as people but the Koran is no better than the Bible when it comes to violence and pretending otherwise is just ridiculous to me. I came across a gifset the other day of a Muslim woman insisting that Islam is "the most feminist religion of all" and it just doesn't make sense to me.

man you’re talking to an atheist so obviously my answer is biased, and I read the bible but not the koran (I read bits not all of it) so my opinion is what it is, but:

given that I think that the bush jr policy of demonizing islam post sept 11th was the dumbest shit he could have done and I’m happily blaming that for 90% of the mess we’re in today and that I don’t think islam is inherently more violent than christianity given that as you said violence in holy books is about that same level

and given that a lot of the koran has been (purposefully or not) misquoted to justify terrorism/fight against terrorism

and given that 90% of the parts of the sharia law we find more abhorrent (ie the ones condemning lgbt+ people, allowing child brides and so on) aren’t actually in the koran but are holy because some interpreters who were also holy men declared them so so a lot of it is - as with christianity - stuff added by the organized part of the religion (like, there isn’t ONE line in the bible openly condemning abortion unless you don’t interpret the sermon of the mount in a specific way but honestly, but according to the catholic church and christianity in its worst incarnations abortion is A SIIIINNNN)

I also think that everyone automatically tries to delete the worst parts of the religion they believe in and the likes and at the same time it’s really hard to question things you were taught since the day you were born. and going like yES BUT THIS LINE IN THE BOOK SAYS THIS doesn’t mean anything because another says the contrary ten pages after and a lot of religious ppl in general haven’t even read either the koran (see: a lot of isis recruits) or the bible (see: most people who tell me that if I read it I’ll convert, then I tell them I did and if they remember the dismembered concubine from the book of kings and they fall from the clouds. aha) and they tend to stick to the parts that are *safer*. ie for christianity everyone moderate says it’s all about the best parts of the gospel (and no one ever remembers my two favorite bits ie when jesus told people who *went around talking in his stead* that he didn’t know them from adam and when he said to one of the two thieves crucified next to him that he had a place in heaven with him hahahahhahahahaha) and never about the worst parts of them or of the old testament (for one, did you know that with the plagues of egypt the pharaoh refused to let moses go because god directly influenced him because he wanted to show how much more powerful he was in comparison to the pharaoh’s false gods, because the poor guy actually would have let moses leave after the sixth plague? YEAH I DIDN’T UNTIL I READ IT EITHER) same as a lot of moderate muslims focus on the best parts of the koran like the peace message and so on and ignore the worst.

now, personally I think that religious books are written in such a way that you can find anything and its contrary inside them. the bible is BOTH old and new testament but even if you decide that the old doesn’t matter because you only follow jesus’s teachings, okay, paul in some of his letters says exactly the contrary of what jesus meant but paul’s letters are in the NT and no one’s taking them out yet. st. augustine is one of the church’s Fathers with the capital F but he came up with predestination (which is a thing that is absolutely not in the NT) and the catholic church ignores it because it eventually rejected that vision. and so on. it’s not surprising that moderate muslims see their religion as a religion of peace and the jihadists use it to fuel terrorism because both interpretations have their valid points. if you’re moderate and want to say muslim religion is peaceful you have your quotes, if you’re not you have others. and so on. so like, I personally think that since to me it’s all about stuff that doesn’t exist it’s all very ridiculous and I honestly can’t conceive killing themselves in the name of someone whose existence you cannot prove never mind that it’s basically the same God just with a different name and a different theological interpretation so like, wtf guys. I don’t think any religion is inherently peaceful or warmongering, I think people make of it what they want and that you need it separated from the state in any case because if that doesn’t happen it’s always going to coincide with someone’s political interests and fanatics will breed more easily.

re the feminism, I have issues in that sense and maybe a clearer opinion tho that might be that there’s things I cannot chalk to cultural relativism to justify, but like: it’s true that in theory islam is not... well, anti-women at its core because let’s all remember that in the middle ages muslim women on paper were better off than europeans unless my high school books lied about that, but it’s true that a lot of the **sharia** law mentioned above is NOT fucking feminist - whatever you mean with it - and I’m honestly... I mean, I get cultural relativism, but like let’s just take the veil. in theory if it’s an imposition it’s not even valid because you have to choose to wear it and it’s all good, but do people choose to wear it in countries like idk taliban afghanistan? do people have a choice about it when it’s not just the veil but covering your whole damned body and you can’t touch someone else’s hand without your husband’s permission? and saying that it’s also valid for men makes me lol because I haven’t seen men under a burqa yet. like everyone has the rights to choose what they wear or not, but when it’s de-humanizing like that (bc burqas are de-humanizing to me sorry) and it’s people who have been taught since they were born that they have to wear it... is that a choice? and like, yeaaah in saudi arabia eight year old girls can marry people thrice their age and if I have a vagina I can’t drive a car, but that’s feminist? like where I teach, one morning each week it’s just women and only women can teach because some don’t/won’t come if men are attending as well and won’t be taught by male teachers. and like... I understand they do it because otherwise they don’t come, but I feel really iffy about accommodating a thing that to me is out of this freaking universe, especially because you get veiled women coming to regular class without a problem. shit like that imo is just backwards and the fact that it happened here fifty years ago as well means that while I won’t judge muslim countries too harshly on that sense... well, we moved past it and we have equality on paper, shouldn’t they have it too? (admittedly I don’t think attaching ideologies to any religion is a good idea because what the hell does FEMINIST RELIGION even mean, catholics are crazy when it comes to worshipping mary so they’re also feminists?? and religion are used to prop up other ideologies every other day so like.... I’m iffy on that period) so on that topic I honestly can’t agree but because I don’t agree that religions are inherently any -ism.

tldr: I think everyone picks and chooses when it comes to religions so saying that it’s THIS OR THAT is ridiculous (christianity from the westboro baptists is not catholicism to say one and they have the same holy book) and that you need to separate them from politics before doing any kind of this discourse. I also don’t agree with this policy of ‘since bush jr policy was BASHING ON ISLAM FOR EVERYTHING’ now we have to do the contrary and ‘EXCUSE ISLAM FOR EVERYTHING’ because it doesn’t help - you have to condemn the bad apples of the bunch and not alienate the good ones, and that means also criticizing where it’s due.

I mean, ffs, it was on the news here the other day but some girl in bologna who came from a muslim family who didn’t want to wear the veil was forcefully shaved by her mother (like shaved all her hair) and she told her teachers saying she didn’t want to live with them anymore because they were pushing the veil and the religion on her and she didn’t want that, and now she’s with the social services. she’s fourteen. that’s feminist? I don’t... really think so. and the fact that I’m atheist and I don’t get it from the pov of a religious person doesn’t mean that I can’t say it’s fucked up when it’s fucked up.

[postolo]

Women’s Day | Warrior’s Manual

“History, despite its wrenching pain, cannot be unlived, but if faced with courage, need not be lived again.”

-Maya Angelou

Over the years Indian Law together with legal conscience and jurisprudence has developed in a way to accommodate women’s rights, following is the list of important laws and statutes that every person interested in furthering the cause of protecting women and their development should be enlightened about:

Women-Specific Legislations:

 Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961) (Amended in 1986)

The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986

Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

Maternity Benefit Act, 1961

Equal Remuneration Act, 1976

National Commission for Women Act, 1990

Women-Related Legislations:

The Penal Code,1860

The Evidence Act,1872

This day is not just about celebrating the warriors fighting every day, in fact, it is a day to recognise the powers entailing for our protection around us and to be aware of the same with the motive of strengthening the slightly weakened bones.

Eminent women in the legal industry have been successful in breaking the glass ceilings and pushing forward through the path ‘not-so-easy’ by being an inspiration for several.

“Women are the largest untapped reservoir of talent in the world”

-Hilary Clinton

Women in the legal fraternity have in their own remarkable ways been able to meaningfully contribute to the society on various issues such as the most recent one being Section 377 IPC; Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 then Bhopal Gas Tragedy, Section 66-A IT Act, 2000, Women Entry-Sabarimala, etc. As a part of this esteemed field, Women have in their own ways tried to make a difference, to put in a nutshell, the words of Nelson Mandela suits the best, i.e.,

“As long as outmoded ways of thinking prevent women from making a meaningful contribution to society, progress will be slow. As long as the nation refuses to acknowledge the equal role of more than half of itself, it is doomed to failure.”

Justice R. Banumathi | In a span of 70 years, she is the 6th Woman Judge [Breaking the stereotypes]

Nirbhaya Verdict: She was the only woman Judge on the bench which decided against the question of review of the decision in the most barbaric gangrape and murder case of the 21st century. Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 8 SCC 149.

Justice Indu Malhotra | Only female lawyer to be appointed directly to the Supreme Court of India

Being part of the recent landmark judgments i.e. Sabarimala and Section 377 IPC she stated that

“History owes an apology to the members of the LGBTQIA community.”

With a dissenting opinion in the Sabarimala decision, Justice Indu Malhotra stated that,

“What is essential practice in a religion is for the religion to decide, it is a matter of personal faith. India is a land of diverse faiths. Constitutional morality in a pluralistic society gives freedom to practice even irrational customs. Religious practices cannot be solely tested on the bedrock of equality.”

Justice Indira Banerjee | 8th Woman Judge of the Supreme Court of India

Indira Banerjee, J., with her strong personality and her entry as the 8th woman judge in the Supreme Court of India surely marked a page in the history of “fearsome warriors”.

An all women’s Judge Bench comprising of R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ., had set aside a Delhi High Court Judgment by stating that :

“Even in cases where there is some material to show that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no inference like the victim being a woman of ‘loose character’ is permissible to be drawn from that circumstance alone.”

Indira Jaising | Story of “Fearless”

She has fought some of the most high-profile legal cases of the last half-century, such as the case for compensation for the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising is not just limited to Bhopal Gas tragedy as she has innumerable feathers attached to her cap which gives “courage” a whole new definition.

Menaka Guruswamy | Unbeatable stride

Phenomenal Arguments in the case which was beyond “Gender, Race, Caste and Sex”

“These young people need to be unafraid to love and be loved, and they should be protected by this Court.”

“How strongly must you love knowing you are unconvicted felons under Section 377 IPC?”

Karuna Nandy | Altruism is her source of happiness 

Fought for survivors of Bhopal Gas tragedy

One of her significant achievements also involved the famous —Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1; Section 66 A of IT Act, 2000 was declared unconstitutional. She also played a significant role in drafting the Womanifesto and framing of the anti-rape bill after the Nirbhaya Delhi gang rape.

According to the Huffington Post,  Karuna Nandy’s decision on coming back to India, she said,

“I felt that here is where I could make the biggest contribution—not just in human rights work, but also as a general lawyer. I felt this is where the need was. I have a visceral understanding of these various layers [here], in terms of language, in terms of nuance, and information…It is also a court of ideas, as much as it is a court of facts. It has been quite a leader when it comes to economic and social rights.”

The only stereotype that needs to be broken on this Women’s Day is that we as women are way beyond the word “feminism”. As feminism for us is not us above any other gender, it is “us” walking that path with “everyone” and for them.

Tweet

The post Women’s Day | Warrior’s Manual appeared first on SCC Blog.

Women’s Day | Warrior’s Manual published first on https://sanantoniolegal.tumblr.com/

[republicstandard]

How Feminism Destroyed the Family

Last month the American conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson called attention to the importance of the family. How if we want to have happy, functioning societies the wellbeing of the family should be a central concern of political life.  That was part of his message to which most of us could sign up.

More controversially for some, he argued that the unfettered operation of the free market could hurt the family. In particular, he suggested that where men didn’t earn decent wages, women didn’t want to marry them. The absence of marriage eventually leads to the breakdown of the family  - to fatherlessness and single parenthood. Even a cursory glance at the data confirms that many our social ills follow from that.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

The data amply support the link which Carlson highlighted between male employment and marriage (see here, here and here). But by making a link between employment markets and marriage he highlighted an unresolved tension in conservative arguments –  that the free market can weaken the very families it relies upon to thrive.

Right-wing commentators  David French and Ben Shapiro were quick to defend the market from any ideas which might curtail its freedom. If people had disorganized families, this was down to individual agency. They tried to make sure that the separation between our personal lives and the economy remained intact.

Others were more interested in exploring the questions which Carlson provoked. JD Vance (author of Hillbilly Elegy)acknowledged the conflict which Carlson’s argument pointed to, by demonstrating that what was good for the market was not necessarily good for the nation but needed careful working out. Others showed that his arguments about the family were essentially right. Eli Finkel made the point that the poor want to be married just as much as everyone else. Writing in the Federalist Willis L. Krumholz, explained that government measures had however made marriage impossible for the least well off. Suzanne Venker weighed in confirming how marriage is put beyond the reach of the poor because, as she demonstrated with a barrage of evidence, women prefer to marry decently earning men. The result is, as academics Bradford Wilcox and Samuel Hammond have shown marriage has become a privileged institution almost jealously guarded by the middle class.

However, the free market should not be held responsible for the decline of the male wage.

For in all this discussion hardly any mention was made of the almost universally accepted ideology, feminism, whose central and explicit aim has been to dismantle the supportive role of the male in the family and the family with it. And this is important because our understanding of the impact of both state intervention and the free market on the family is significantly flawed if we leave feminism and the consequences of feminism out of the equation.

This is because state intervention and its destructive effects have been enormously amplified by having to accommodate what is essentially feminist policy.  And while the free market should be treated as a tool rather than a religion as Carlson wisely suggests, it is the same source, feminism, which has disastrously exacerbated the free market’s most harmful effects.

For when the family is eroded through the mechanisms of feminist state policies, it can no longer protect its individual members from the excesses of the market. Individuals become vulnerable to debt, drugs and the lure of material goods as family relationships are broken and family resilience is lost.

To understand what has happened to marriage and the family and the political implications of this we need to recognize that we have been in hock to an ideology which has actively sought to undermine the male breadwinner role within the family and the family within it for nigh on 70 years.

And it is this male breadwinner role which middle-class women, often feminists themselves, benefit from, both through marriage and then when they get divorced. Working class women, on the other hand, do not get married as the forces ranged against their men mean they are unable to provide support.

Feminists have always made it clear that they regard men providing financial support for women as the root of all evil. Quotations are easily harvested from the wealth of feminist writings, here, for example, is Selma James, who set up the International Wages for Housework Campaign, speaking in 1983:

‘The wage relation is not only a power relation between waged worker and employer but between those workers who do and those workers who do not have wages. This is the material basis of the social antagonism between the sexes. Whether or not we are in a relationship with men, let alone a dependent relationship, women’s dependence in society generally sets the terms of the relationship between all men and all women. Whether or not money passes hands between any particular individuals, the “cash nexus” binds the sexes to each other and into society. Women, the poorer sex are the socially weaker sex; men, more powerful financially, can exercise social power against us in every area of life’.

This is the nub of ‘patriarchy’ – seen as the oppression and exploitation of women by men based on the economic ‘power’ of the husband and father in the home.

And feminists have been clear that they want to get rid of it. For example here is Germaine Greer in The Female Eunuch:

“Women’s Liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state; … so let’s get on with it”.

Or Kate Millet who was also influential in her day: “Why are we here today?” “To make revolution.” “What kind of revolution?” she replied. “The Cultural Revolution.” “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” “By destroying the American family!” “How do we destroy the family?” “By destroying the American Patriarch.” “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” “By taking away his power!”

Male support for the family or ‘patriarchy’ as feminists like to call it was (and is) regarded as a cause of many problems. Here in the UK, it was described as the cause of marital breakdown in a highly influential policy document, without any supporting references.

‘Inequality is not a recipe for wedded bliss. It is, on the contrary, one of the main causes of marital breakdown’.

Now we know that marriages are happier and stronger where the woman earns less than the man.

Male support for the family was described as the cause of violence against women by the United Nations, and therefore the ‘economic independence of women was regarded as crucial’.

Jessie Bernard  regarded it as psychologically crippling: “The wife of a more successful provider became for all intents and purposes a parasite, with little to do except indulge or pamper herself. The psychology of such dependence could become all but crippling.”

It is even given as the explanation for men ‘abandoning their children’; “Men who are out at work for nine hours or more, five days a week, are effectively exiled from their children. If men feel that they have not role except as financial providers, it is scarcely any wonder that so many abandon their children….”

A central aim of feminist policy has therefore been to dismantle ‘patriarchy’ or male support for the family and feminists advocated various measures to achieve this. One of them is to abolish marriage. Professor Carol Smart CBE explained in 1984 that  while abolishing marriage might sound unpopular or unrealistic tackled indirectly, it could be done:

“It would be far more effective to undermine the social and legal need and support for the marriage contract. This could be achieved by withdrawing the privileges which are currently extended to the married heterosexual couple. Such a move would not entail any punitive sanctions but would simply extend legal recognition to different types of households and relationships, and would end such privileges as the unjustified married tax allowance. Illegitimacy would be abolished by realizing the right of all women, whether married or single, to give legitimacy to their children. Welfare benefits and tax allowances would also need to be assessed on the basis of individual need or contribution and not on the basis of the family unit”.

Another popular option was to get rid of the father. Eminent journalist Polly Toynbee suggested in 1989 that:

‘Women and children will suffer needlessly until the state faces up to the reality of its own inability to do anything about the revolution in national morals. What it can do is shape a society that makes a place for women and children as family units, self-sufficient and independent’.

And Anna Coote, a government policymaker also  explained in 1991: ‘The father is no longer essential to the economic survival of the unit. Men haven’t kept up with the changes in society; to they don’t know how to be parents. Nobody has taught them: where are the cultural institutions tell them that being a parent is a good thing? They don’t exist. At the same time, women don’t have many expectations of what men might provide’.

Another solution is to increase the economic clout of women while reducing the relative value of male earnings. This can be done either by reducing the relative share of male employment (done) or reducing their hours (done),  or by reducing the value of the male wage (done). Also important is of course simply increasing female earnings.

This is why feminists are so unrelenting about the gender pay gap even when it is acknowledged that women are paid the same for the same work. It is not about equality but about women and children being able to survive independently of men.

Finally, the system of taxes and benefits can be manipulated in such a way as to render female dependency on males all but impossible, make single motherhood a viable lifestyle and get all mothers out to work.

This was the approach adopted in 1990 by some well-known feminists, Anna Coote, Harriet Harman, and Patricia Hewitt. They produced a document for a government think tank called ‘The Family Way’. This explained that the Labour Party wanted to remove the discriminatory nature of the Married Couples Tax Allowance so that it could be used equally by both spouses. However, these feminists argued against this because such a measure would still provide financial support for marriage which they regarded as ‘indiscriminate’. It would be far more ‘efficient – more ‘targeted’’, they explained, to use public resources to support children and those who care for them [i.e., women] rather than discriminate according to the parent’s legal status.

They recognized that  ‘A shift of resources away from the married couple’s allowance would, of course, affect married men’s take-home pay’. They acknowledged that this might be politically unpopular but discussed various strategies by which it might be done. After a continuous barrage of pressure arguing how The Marriage Tax Allowance was unjustifiable and should be spent on needy mothers the feminists had their way in 1999. What they did was set up a system where even married families with children were treated as individuals. The family of two working individuals living with their children would benefit infinitely more from the personal tax allowance liability and from the higher rate tax bracket than a single earner family with a similar income. On top of this, they manipulated Child Benefit, Tax-Free Childcare Allowance, Child Benefit Tax Charge in ways which ensured that any family where the woman dared not to work would very substantially miss out. It is detailed here.

The result has been a Marginal Effective Tax Rate of nearly 73% - higher than any other OECD country. Consequently poverty has been heavily concentrated among single earner families and of course families with more children where the mother is least likely to be able to work. It also means that the primary breadwinner is unable to increase his or her income because it would merely mean taxes would increase and benefits decline. This destroys the rewards of work and undermines the incentives to get on. It also means that employers have little incentive to raise wages because only the taxpayer will benefit. The result is dependence on welfare and a mother who is forced out to work.

(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

At the same time processes are in place to discourage marriage or even couple formation as a ‘tax trap’ means that some families are financially better off living apart. The Institute of Fiscal Studies said in 2010 that 95 percent of all single people would incur a couple penalty if they married or started to live together as a couple. Half of these would face a penalty of £101 per week. , but the situation is not about to significantly change.

Patricia Morgan explains how the expansion of means-tested or ‘targeted’ welfare has meant that further and further up the income distribution, the state outbids husbands and fathers transforming them into liabilities. This may be why although the affluent are very much more likely to be married than the those with lower incomes the trend away from marriage is gradually working its way up.

The result of these policies has been that the UK has the highest rate of family instability in the developed world which comes with the concomitant problems associated with fatherlessness and poverty such as poor social outcomes in education, employment, and mortality, crime, further family breakdown and drugs. This has been estimated to cost the UK 51 billion a year in tax, benefits, housing, health, social care, civil and criminal justice, and education.

Feminism is the quack doctor on hand to sell its poison as the cure. Rather than strengthening the position of the male so that marriage once again becomes viable for the less well off his relative position is further weakened. For example, a Joseph Rowntree report noting that “male employment has fallen and earnings among low to mid skilled men have grown relatively weakly” proposes women’s employment as the solution: “for couple families having both partners in work offers strong protection against poverty even when wages are low. Given the uncertain prospects for future wage growth, women’s employment will continue to be vital for lifting families out of poverty.”

I don’t know how relevant this little case study is to the situation in the States. But I know that the paper on which Carlson based his data refers to a male’s relative earnings and the paper itself said the decline in manufacturing was part of the process. This seems an acknowledgment that there are other processes at work.

We need to stop pussyfooting around these issues. These changes are not a result of the culture of modernity or of some zeitgeist over which we have no control. They are the result of 70 years of an ideology which has been explicit in its aim to destroy the breadwinning role of the male and the family. The progressive ideologies which have helped to destroy marriage have been the complicit handmaidens to this process as have the armies of Social Workers who feed off it.

Feminists have rent apart the fabric of society and we should, to borrow a feminist expression, ‘call them out’ for it. By identifying and naming feminism, by understanding its workings we can together labor to repair the deep wounds to society.

At the same time, we need to be careful to rescue any useful babies that might be swimming in the bathwater, for they are there. We also need to try to understand the psychology of feminism and the motivations that have propelled them.

If we can do these things, we can move forward to a healthier society where family and community is at the center. And feminism will become a fascinating period in history, an example of a hugely destructive movement but one from which a great deal can be learned.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine http://bit.ly/2EgN3xk via IFTTT