That feminist silence again
We all know that so-called feminists rarely whisper a word about the vast mistreatment of women in the Muslim world and in Africa -- so what I am about to relate should really be no surprise -- except that this concerns something that happened in the WESTERN world.
On 16th I put up on this blog a post headed as follows:
Feminists should like this one: Australian single mother sues slimy cop -- and wins
She represented herself in court against a range of top legal brains and beat them all
I have just Googled the phrase "single mother sues slimy cop" and found 98 links to the article. NOT ONE was from a feminist site. Only conservative sites took it up.
One would think that a story so encouraging to oppressed women would be greeted with gladness by feminists and seen as an inspiration to all women. But no such luck.
I have a confession, however: I put a landmine in the article. I included a picture of the plaintiff (Renee Eaves) in the article. Not to put too fine a point on it, Renee is a dream walking. She is a swimsuit model who has won many beauty contests.
So the boilersuit brigade would loathe her from deep in their bones, and praise for her would be anathema to them. But it does illustrate that feminism is not about women. It is just another tentacle of radical politics.
Renee's story is genuinely inspirational, however, so I am going to send a link to this story to Phyllis Chesler, the only sincere feminist I know. She may be able to circulate the story among women who could be encouraged by it.
British parents want more time with children (so much for Ms Jowell's working mum dogma!)
An overwhelming majority of parents want to spend more time at home with their young children. Asked in a survey if they agreed with the statement: ‘In an ideal world, one parent should stay home with the children’, more than 80 per cent of parents of all ages said ‘yes’.
In a bitterly ironic twist, the research was commissioned by MP Tessa Jowell for the Labour Party, which during 13 years in power repeatedly discouraged mothers from staying at home. Successive Cabinets in which Miss Jowell was a prominent minister pushed hard to persuade mothers of young children to go out to work. Her colleague Patricia Hewitt even described mothers of children under two who choose to stay at home as a ‘problem’.
The survey of 2,000 adults found ‘a yearning for traditional family values’, which many feel have disappeared, saying the ‘ideal’ family should have a mother and a father.
Many of those questioned called for a tax system ‘that rewards couples who stay together’ – a condemnation of Labour’s decision in 2000 to scrap the married couple’s tax allowance.
The report, from the consultancy Britain Thinks, reveals the devastating impact on family life of working parents.
Researchers said: ‘Mums often say they would have liked to have spent more time at home with their children in their younger years.’ It said mothers ‘valued time with their children’, adding: ‘Those who had needed to go back to work had some regrets.’
Deborah Mattinson, co-founder of Britain Thinks, said many mothers feel terrible guilt for returning to work just a few months after the birth of their baby. She said women would regularly become emotional and tearful during focus groups held as part of the research. They expressed their sadness that they wanted to enjoy a longer maternity leave, but simply had to go back to work to help pay the bills.
The report comes just days after a study by Unicef laid bare how exhausted parents are trying to buy their way out of guilt. It said many British parents are plying their children with expensive toys and gadgets in an attempt to make up for the lack of time spent together.
The Britain Thinks report also reveals the words those questioned would use to describe the ‘modern British family’. They are: ‘broken’, ‘juggling’, ‘hectic’, ‘fragmented’, ‘struggle’, ‘dysfunctional’, ‘disillusioned’, ‘diverse’, ‘under-pressure’, ‘skint’, ‘stressful’ and ‘stretched financially’. Just one person used the word ‘happy’.
Nearly one in three mothers with children as young as six months are working full-time, according to the latest data from the Office for National Statistics. Experts say it is the extreme pressure of the massive mortgages needed to buy a home which is forcing many women back to work.
Jill Kirby, a family expert and author of The Price Of Parenthood, said: ‘This survey shows how out of touch current political parties are with what families really need and what most women want. ‘They want more time with their children.’
Miss Jowell said the findings will ‘really help steer Labour’s policy review into family life’.
American Atheist Leader Calls for the ‘Eradication’ of ‘Fundamentalist Christians’
American Atheists, a non-profit that claims to protect the rights of atheists and to ensure the “absolute separation of government and religion,” always seems to find itself in the middle of controversy.
As if the most recent Ground Zero cross lawsuit the group launched isn’t enough to inspire widespread angst, an explosive new blog post on the organization’s web site advocating for the “eradication” of fundamental Christians (and Islamists) is certain to make waves.
In the post, Al Stefanelli, American Atheists’ Georgia State Director, makes a bizarre connection between radical Muslims and Christians. In speaking about “fundamentalist Christian and radical Islamic doctrines,“ Stefanelli says that both are ”dangerous, damaging and disingenuous.” Throughout the blog post, he continues to create ties between these two groups, but declines to truly define them.
Aside from making this comparison, he goes on to write that “most of these people” (again referring to both fundamentalist Christians and Islamists) “lack the maturity and intelligence” to act in “a socially acceptable manner.” Many of these adherents, he believes, are “sociopaths,” “psychopaths” or simply “delusional.”
Certainly some would agree that Islamic extremists (and perhaps fringe Christian believers) are sociopaths or psychopaths, but Stefanelli’s comments are so vague it’s impossible to discern who the targets of his rage truly are. Without a clear definition of who, exactly, he’s referring to, one’s mind runs wild with wonderment.
After all, the problem of radical Christianity is – in the views of many – a non-factor here in America (“radical” here essentially means “violent” or “dangerous”). So, who are these villains that Stefanelli is so frustrated by? Radical Islam is certainly a fear in many places across the globe, but the way he speaks about it one would assume it’s knocking on his front door. In one of the most bizarre portion of his text, he writes:
The fact is that fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims are not interested in coexisting or getting along. They have no desire for peace. They do not want to sit down with us in diplomatic efforts to iron out our differences and come to an agreement on developing an integrated society.
He then claims that radical interpretations of the Bible and the Koran require that believers “kill the infidel,” but he provides no evidence that Christians here in America are seeking to do anything along those lines.
He encourages “mainstream believers” within both faiths to be “intolerant of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam.” Based on his writings it seems Stefanelli also takes issue with atheists and non-believers who are content accepting the beliefs of those he finds so unintellectual and radical.
It doesn’t take long for Stefanelli to take aim at conservative media and political leaders (including Glenn Beck), either. He writes:
The atheist community gets angry when we read about the antics of idiotic, ignorant and imbicillic [spelling his] politicians and celebrities like Palin, Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh, Pawlenty and Santorum. We post our thoughts on our social networks and our blogs and try to expose these creeps for exactly what they are. Most of the GOP, just about all of the Tea Party movement and even some Democrats and Independents should be ashamed of themselves for going out in public wearing the equivalent of an intellectual diaper. We criticize them for their rejection of science in favor of their fairy tales and write our letters and support our advocate organizations when our legal rights are abrogated.
He quickly turned up the volatility, continuing:
But the underbelly of fundamentalist Christianity and radical Islam does not operate in the legal system. They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated.
Considering his group’s involvement in fighting Christians and conservatives on a variety of issues, one wonders what, exactly, he means by “eradicated.” Also, the fact that he laments believers refusal to cower to lawsuits and the like seems to show that his beliefs are rooted in a stance against a more general, non-radical American Christianity.
American Atheists most recently launched a legal complaint against a steel cross that was found at Ground Zero following the September 11 attacks (here’s a post Stefanelli wrote on the matter). According to the group (the same organization that coordinated July 4 plane banners in cities across the nation), the cross’ inclusion in the 9/11 Memorial and Museum constitutes an “impermissible mingling of church and state.”
California City Fines Couple for Holding Bible Study in Their Home
A southern California couple has been fined $300 dollars for holding Christian Bible study sessions in their home, and could face another $500 for each additional gathering.
City officials in San Juan Capistrano, Calif. say Chuck and Stephanie Fromm are in violation of municipal code 9-3.301, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a permit. Stephanie hosts a Wednesday Bible study that draws about 20 attendees, and Chuck holds a Sunday service that gets about 50.
The Fromms appealed their citations but were denied and warned future sessions would carry heftier penalties. A statement from the Pacific Justice Institute, which is defending the couple in a lawsuit against the city, said Chuck Fromm was also told regular gatherings of three or more people require a conditional use permit, which can be costly and difficult to obtain.
“How dare they tell us we can’t have whatever we want in our home,” Stephanie Fromm told the Capistrano Dispatch. “We want to be able to use our home. We’ve paid a lot and invested a lot in our home and backyard … I should be able to be hospitable in my home.”
According to the Dispatch, the Fromms live in a neighborhood with large homes and have a corral, barn, pool and huge back lawn on their property, so parking and noise aren’t a problem.
“There’s no singing or music,” Stephanie said. “It’s meditative.”
The Dispatch reported a code-enforcement officer gave the Fromms a verbal warning about the meetings in May, then returned to issue citations in June and July. According to the paper, the city’s code-enforcement department is reactive, meaning they only respond to complaints.
Stephanie said most of their neighbors are very supportive, although she said one has voiced concerns in the past.
“We don’t like lawsuits, but we have to stand up for what’s right. It’s not just a personal issue,” she said. “Can you imagine anybody in any neighborhood, that one person can call and make it a living hell for someone else? That’s wrong … and it’s just sad.”
San Juan Capistrano’s religious roots run deep — the city is best known for a historic Catholic mission built in the 1700s.
“Imposing a heavy-handed permit requirement on a home Bible study is outrageous,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “An informal gathering in a home cannot be treated with suspicion by the government, or worse than any other gathering of friends, just because it is religious.”
“We cannot allow this to happen in America, and we will fight as long and as hard as it takes to restore this group’s religious freedom.”
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.