Tag Archives: sexism

Sound and Fury

hail-trump
I’m sure he doesn’t know anything about these guys.

As many of you probably know, I am not a fan of our Dear Leader-to-be, Donald J. Trump. The reasons for my antipathy are many and varied, from his choice of the most anti-LGBTQ governor in America as his vice-president to his relationship with the alt-right, a group of racist trolls whose taint was mostly contained to the internet until the Tangerine Nightmare drew them out from under their bridges. And, of course, there are the temper tantrums he regularly throws on Twitter; all of which would embarrass the brattiest of three year olds.

One of more troubling actions of President-elect Trump’s (I throw up in my mouth a little every time I say that) is his refusal to reject the hateful ideology of the alt-right. Not only has he been silent on the matter, he has appointed their top propagandist, Breitbart’s Steve Bannon, as his chief adviser. And, yes, I realize referring to this as “troubling” is a lot like World War I “a little dust up”.

But, there is a break in these awful black clouds of doom, beloved. Last week, everyone’s favorite “short-fingered vulgarian” finally spoke to the country on this issue. In what only be described as “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” Trump “disavowed” the alt-right.

Last Tuesday, during an interview with New York Times staffers, the  PEOTUS was asked about the group and he said “I disavow and condemn them”. Sounds good, right? Well, I wouldn’t get too excited because he also said “It’s not a group I want to energize, and if they are energized, I want to look into it and find out why.” It appears our president-elect is the only person in the country who is unaware of how his candidacy and election has breathed new life into what we all hoped was a dying movement. Great, just frickin’ great.

What’s that? You think I shouldn’t criticize Mr. Trump’s remarks out of hand like that? Oh, don’t worry, Sparky, I have given careful consideration to what President-elect BabyHands said. But, the fact that you feel that way makes me think you haven’t. So, let’s take a look at how his statement last week lines up with with what he’s done so far:

  • During his campaign, David Duke, former Imperial Wizard of Ku Klux Klan, was very vocal about his support of Trump. When CNN’s Jake Tapper asked if he would repudiate the support of an avowed racist, the future leader of the free world said, “I don’t know anything about David Duke. Okay? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists.” (He was lying) But wait, there’s more!
  • After going through campaign operatives like a pothead goes through a bag of tacos, Trump hired Steve Bannon. Yes,beloved, the same Steve Bannon who bragged that Breitbart.com, the website of which he was CEO, was “the platform for the alt-right”. After he won the election and began putting together his cabinet, Trump’s first act was to appoint Bannon as his chief adviser.
  • His pick for Attorney-General, the cabinet official charged with enforcing civil and voting rights is Sen, Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama. This is significant because in 1986, a Republican Senate committee denied Sessions a federal judgeship after former colleagues testified that he “used the n-word and joked about the Ku Klux Klan, saying he thought they were ‘okay, until he learned that they smoked marijuana.’”

So, on one hand we have Trump’s statement that he is not allied with the racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, Neo-Nazi internet trolls who, after his election to the highest office in the land, are now slithering out from under the digital rocks to which they had been relegated. On the other, we have specific actions on his part which indicate that he may have actively courted the support of the alt-right; at the very least, he had no problem with them.Sure, Donald, you “disavow and condemn them” in the same way I “disavow and condemn” my mother’s chocolate cake while shoveling another bite into my mouth.

 

5 More Men Women Shouldn’t Marry

I know you gals have all sorts of questions and I'm here to answer them.
I know you gals have all sorts of questions about who to marry. And, lucky you, I’m here to help.

Not long ago, Dr. Stephen Kim wrote a blog post that is stirring up the interwebs. Not in the way he hoped, I’m sure; but, stirring it up nonetheless. The post in question is titled 10 Women Christian Men Should Not Marry. Saying that it has the ladies upset is putting it mildly. Google the title and you’ll find a plethora of responses to Dr. Kim and not one of them is written by a woman who would make his list. While there is plenty being said about “10 women” list, not much attention has been paid to Dr. Kim’s earlier post about the 10 men Christian women shouldn’t marry. What, you guys thought men were off the hook? Not hardly.

The good doctor, in his desire to be a proper shepherd to his flock, started down this road by trying help women choose the right man so they can fulfill their destiny on this earth. I mean, getting married and popping out a few babies is what it’s all about for you gals, right? Fortunately, Pastor Kim (and I use the title “pastor” loosely) has made it easy and given you a list of all the men you should avoid. Unfortunately, it’s not exactly what I’d call helpful.

After starting out with a clear prejudice toward his own fundamental, complimentarian evangelical faith with such  entries as the unbeliever (that whole “equally yoked” thing), the younger man (it takes an “extra measure of God’s grace” for a man to lead an older woman “as the natural fallen tendency of all daughters of Eve is to usurp their husbands’ authority”) and the divorced man (because adultery, duh), he turns into Captain Obvious by enjoining women to avoid “the angry man”, “the self-admirer”, “the dishonest” and “the addict”. What, women don’t have enough sense to stay away from douche bags like this? But, Kim is a pastor (and a doctor), so maybe he knows something I don’t. If that’s true, he left a few out. Here are some additions I came up with (which should be read with tongue firmly in cheek):

  1. The Gay Man _ Now, you’d think this one is a no-brainer, but there are cases of women falling for, and even marrying, men who play for the same team as they do. Of course, it doesn’t happen nearly as much these days, but just to be on the safe side, I felt obliged to include it.  There are advantages to marrying a gay man (you’ll always have someone to look at fabric swatches with), but in reality, it’s a bad idea. And, not just for the obvious reasons, but because there’s no way someone can be gay and be a Christian, right?
  2. The Workaholic _ Because who wants to be married to someone who’s more interested in work than you? Being a good provider is one thing (and make no mistake, ladies, that’s his job and not yours), but there’s no way a man who spends all his time at work can lead his household in a Godly manner. And, without proper headship, you gals would be lost, wouldn’t you?
  3. The Fatherhood Avoider _ Again, this one is kind of a no-brainer, but we gave up common sense with the original list. Ladies, we all know the reason for your existence is to be a human brood mare for the Christian faith (if we can’t convert unbelievers, we’ll outbreed them), so marrying a man who doesn’t want to have children can only deprive you of the joy that comes with fulfilling your purpose. And, that makes Jesus cry.
  4. The Feminist _ Really, this is covered under “The Gay Man” since no real man (i.e. straight) would ever call himself a “feminist”. But, there are men out there who pretend to be straight, yet believe women should be treated as equals. Ladies, be on the lookout for a guy who thinks this way. Marrying him might result in actual happiness on your part.
  5. The Immature Man _ You all know the man I’m talking about. He’s the one with an unhealthy attachment to his mother. Or, the man who spends every free moment working on his fantasy football league. Or, the man who is only interested in women that fall into a very narrow category defined by a complete misunderstanding of scripture. Avoid this man like the plague, ladies. Nothing good can come of marrying him.

Well, that’s it. If you’re a woman looking for a man to complete yourself, I hope this helps. If you’re a man who fits one of these categories, I hope you’ll step back and take a long look at yourself and make the appropriate changes. Oh, who am I kidding. We all know that’s not going to happen.

Glass Houses

snark_warningSo far, it’s been one of those days. Not in a bad way, though; my snark-o-meter has been going babies (that’s an Adventure Time reference for all you hopeless squares). It’s always a good day when that happens. As usual, I began my writing process with some procrastinating surfing morning reflection. Just a few minutes in, I found a link to Ship Your Enemies Glittera company that will (for a fee, of course) ship people you don’t like an envelope full of glitter. Since we’ve all had experience with the nuisance that is glitter, I’m sure I don’t have to say anymore than that. But, what about those times when a package full of irritating bits that get everywhere and stick to everything just isn’t enough? For those instances, there is Shit Express. Yes, friends, for the low, low price of $16.95, you can send your favorite(?) asshole a literal box of shit. And, here’s the best part: it customizable! You get to choose the animal and decorations for the box it will be delivered in. Can you say “awesome”?

As good as it already was, my morning got even better when I found that NASCAR douche bag bad boy, Kurt Busch, is bat-shit crazy. It appears that when Kurt’s relationship with his ex-girlfriend began circling the drain, he got a little physical and she requested a “no contact” order against him. While this sort of thing is a sad and all too common occurrence, it’s really not what you’d call “crazy”, is it? Well, hold onto your hats, beloved, because here comes the nuttery: in open court and under oath, Busch claimed that his ex, Patricia Driscoll, is a trained killer sent on covert missions around the world. Whether Busch actually believes this or if he’s attempting to wreck Driscoll’s credibility, I couldn’t say. But, it doesn’t really matter, does it? Either way, it’s some crazy-ass shit.

You might think that, after learning about all of this stuff, things would settle down. But, you’d be oh, so wrong. Within a few minutes of finding out the driver known as “The Outlaw” on the NASCAR circuit might have a few loose screws, I read an article quoting Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. According to Al, a couple recent scandals illustrate “the depth of the chasm that separates evangelical Christianity from more liberal Protestant denominations, in particular the Episcopal Church.” Nice, huh? Just wait, it gets better. A few sentences into this piece on Baptist News, I read this:

“Mohler acknowledged that evangelical Christians have their own share of moral scandals but said the two groups hold to a “different moral code”.

Way to take the high road, Al.

After a minute or two, I began to wonder if was it possible that he actually got this one right? Do liberal and evangelical Christians have different moral codes? Of course, any answer I could give here would be totally subjective, but that’s okay because Al’s statement is also totally subjective. That said, let’s look at a few of these “moral scandals”.

On the more liberal mainline side, Mohler’s already done our work for us, pointing out Episcopal Bishop Heather Cook’s recent charges for manslaughter and drunk driving. He also referenced the resignation the Very Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale as dean and president of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts after a rather turbulent term in that office. Reading the referenced article, I really didn’t see much of a scandal. But, when I went back to the Baptist News piece, I figured out what he was talking about: Rev. Ragsdale is “openly lesbian and pro-choice”,  which is a double whammy to guys like Mohler. Like I said, I don’t see it, but I’m feeling magnanimous today, so I’ll let have that one.

Now, for the evangelical side. Let’s see, a few years ago, an evangelical pastor by the name of Ted Haggard admitted to smoking meth and having sex with a male prostitute. And, evangelical pastor Mark Driscoll recently resigned as lead pastor of mega-church Mars Hill in the wake of revelations of power grabs, unsavory and distinctly unChrist-like comments (e.g. “penis homes” and “pussified nation”), plagiarism and sexual attitudes that make Mohler’s look positively enlightened. Turn the clock back a few years and we find scandals involving evangelical pastors Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart. Bakker allegedly raped a young woman and defrauded countless people. And, Swaggart? It seems that Jimmy, a good Assemblies of God pastor who preached more than a few sermons against “licentiousness” likes to visit prostitutes, being caught in the act twice. Wow.

So, on one hand we have an Episcopal bishop who has a history of driving while intoxicated and the dean of an Episcopal school who is gay and pro-choice. On the other, we have a long and sordid list of lies, sexual immorality, sexism, fraud, hypocrisy, law-breaking…, well, I think you get my drift. So, it looks like Al’s right: liberal and evangelical Christians do hold to different moral codes. Who’da thunk it?