Jimmy Carter should join the Church of Trope
The Church of Trope. No women were harmed in the making of this religion.
Jimmy Carter was in the news this past week because of an editorial he wrote for the Observer about how godbaggism is used to oppress women. Carter is a lifelong godbag himself, but he left the Baptist Church some time ago when he realized that the dudes running the Southern Baptist Convention weren’t going to ease up on the misogyny any time soon. In fact, they were hunkering down and ordering in giant stocks of canned food for the long haul.
By the way, the timing of Carter’s editorial appears to be connected to something The Elders are doing. The Elders, of course, are a group of wizards who were sent by Valar to assist the people of Middle Earth in their contest with Sauron. Since the discords of Melkor they have sought to heal the world of strife and restore the harmonies of Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar.
At any rate, The Elders (love that name) are taking on equality for women and girls, which is an excellent thing. I am always happy and grateful for any attention to women’s rights paid by world leaders. Or wizards.
And Carter’s editorial is superb. There are two little things, however, I want to point out — not by way of criticism, mind you; just as matters of interest.
First of all, notice that in addition to all the woman-centric reasons Carter gives, he also says this:
It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for everyone in society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.
He’s absolutely right, of course. And every world leader who speaks on this topic makes the same point, including Hillary Clinton. What makes me tired is that this “not just women!” maneuver is still necessary. It makes me tired to realize that it’s still not enough to simply say, “women are human, and that’s why it’s wrong to oppress them.” We still have to make the case that other people — real people, presumably — will also benefit.
It reminds me of the First Wave of feminism, when these same arguments were being made in almost precisely the same terms. Emancipated women, the suffragists said, would make better mothers and wives, which of course would mean healthier children and happier husbands. That was the argument for treating women like humans: because it would benefit men and children. Two centuries on, and this is still where we are.
The other thing I want to note is that Carter severely underplays the misogyny present in the Magic Books he and the other wizards are so fond of. He’s right that interpretation is fluid (I’ve made that same point myself), but the fact is there is plenty of fuel in those books for all kinds of crazy shit.
So here’s a thought: bag the fricking books. They’re ancient. If God is real, then treat Her like a natural fact and begin a fresh investigation into Her nature. Be a scientist. Would you consult an ancient Babylonion astronomy text for a guide to the stars? No! So why in the hell are people, even religious-minded people, still reading the mush-brained ramblings of a bunch of primitive desert barbarians who lived 2000 years ago? These guys thought the sun revolved around the earth and flies came from rotting meat, and this is who you’re gonna consult for insight into the Ultimate Ground of Being? Jesus H. Christ.
97 Responses to “Jimmy Carter should join the Church of Trope”
-
Swannie says:
Are there any heads of any world, or even regional, … religion that are um women?? I can’t think of any, but if someone knows of any…….
July 19th, 2009 at 1:13 pm EST -
FLAConnie says:
But, but, Vi, The Bible is THE WORD OF GOD. The menz were only taking dictation, doncha know. It’s kind of like the Constitution, only older. Afterall, didn’t our all knowing White Fathers cover every possibility of the human condition in the original doctrine. That is what the strict constructionists (all hail Scalia! - snark) believe. I’m sure when the 2nd amendment was written, the omnipotent Forefathers were aware that semi-automatics would be coming down the road and should be in the home of every right thinking American.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
I suspect JC will always be the best former prez we’ve ever had, so I hate to pick on him, especially after reading that brilliant editorial, but …. why the hell did he support the Lightbringer over Hillary during the primaries? Or did I get that wrong? I seem to remember JC calling on her to do the Step Aside Maneuver for the man? This leads to one of my burning questions that still burns brightly from the primaries - why’d so many otherwise brilliant people get suckered by O? Some of us recognized almost immediately that he was nothing but a very talented bullshit artist who should’ve been a tv evangelist, but why’d so many people, who would normally spot a snake oil salesman from a mile away, get suckered? Fear of women having power over them, fear of being accused of racism - you tell me, I suspect both of these played a part, but I think it’s more than all that. I think some people just want to surrender to magical thinking with some combination of (quite patriarchal) authoritarianism thrown in, and until we figure out exactly what need was being met by the Lighbringer’s pitch, we’re doomed to repeat history and get fooled again.
Sorry to go back to the gaping wound the primaries still represent - I think JC’s editorial is a thing of beauty that should attract much attention and discussion (even moreso if it wasn’t in the Guardian). As far as I know, no lifelong patriarchal religionist has ever made such admissions as to their role in keeping women from attaining their (god-given) potential, and he should be roundly congratulated for stepping up.
-
anna says:
“Are there any heads of any world, or even regional, … religion that are um women?? I can’t think of any, but if someone knows of any…….”
Katharine Jefferts Schori is leader (Presiding Bishop) of the Episcopal Church. This, as well as the increasing acceptance of gay people in the Episcopal Church, has caused many godbags in America to split with the Episcopal Church (which is the Anglican church of America)and join with other Anglican churches which don’t allow ordination of women or gays.
-
Swannie says:
I think ancient tribal records are of significant archeological and historical interest … but to ascribe the spiritual and temporal power to them that has been the basis of the three patriarchal religions who all claim descent from the same patriarch ( the Abramic religions ) and who claw at each other in some chaotic family fashion for ascendency … is insanity, and needs to be recognised as such. yep …
The category of family dysfuncion beyond dysfunction is chaotic… -
Violet says:
I seem to remember JC calling on her to do the Step Aside Maneuver for the man?
Two things there. I think there is bad blood between the Clintons and Carter, though I’ve never understood entirely what it was all about.
Secondly, Jimmy Carter may mean well — I’m sure he does — but I think it is almost impossible for a man of his age and background to prefer a 60-year-old white woman to a 46-year-old black man for President.
-
Swannie says:
anna says:
re # 4 well that is very cool for the Episcoplians !! Thanks for answeringbeyond that some people do not think “jesus” was a real person who existed, and but a mythological entity , or even a composite of several people … and others beleive that the original message of that particular early sect was overtaken by the person called paul and go so far to call christianity “paulism ”
so much looking back to ancestors who had such limited knowledge … Even astrologers who read the stars and even may consult ancient babylonian scripts look to the present and the future…
when the very first gulf war began … and lasted into the holiday season .. i was thinking … hey we are bombing the folks on the ” christmas cards “ -
Honora says:
The Carter Institute in Atlanta is supposed to support democracy. Carter’s actions during the last DNC presidential primary, which supported the corrupt DNC powerbrokers over the voters, are inexcusable. He may be an old white guy, but obviously the ‘guy’ part is what he focused on. Now, he bemoans sexism. It is too little, too late.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
I believe JC does mean well, and I admire him immensely for taking on the apparently unsolvable I/P problem and calling it what it really is, but he has this habit of recalling incidents he’s proud of, that he really shouldn’t be, such as:
(from his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid)
At the end of his visit, he meets with Prime Minister Golda Meir and when asked to share his observations, responds to her as follows.
‘I said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government.’
Carter writes that she ’seemed surprised at my temerity.’
Would he have had the ‘temerity’ to ask such a question of a male prime minister? I’m thinking no. Also, the sheer godbagism of the question! I guess it makes that editorial and his leaving the SB conference even more a break from his lifelong religiosity, but I have to wonder what was the exact event that brought all this on? Maybe he’s seen Hillary’s work on advancing a global feminist agenda and has seen the errors of his (previous) ways? Yeah, I can still dream, and I hope I’m not the only one.
I’ll have to look into the whole Carter-Clinton rift - that could explain much of his seemingly inexplicable behavior during the primaries. One thing I greatly admire about Carter is his radical problem-solving intellect - he goes after root causes rather than addressing symptoms - so I suspect he had some reason other than ‘Hillary is a grasping she-devil’ to oppose her being the nominee.
-
yttik says:
What’s really depressing is that Carter is so revolutionary. He’s actually had to stick his neck out and risk a great deal to advocate for his “radical” positions, like women should have the right to teach Sunday school, it’s okay for homosexuals to attend church, and it’s wrong to stone women to death in the ME. How can any of these things even be considered controversial?? They are.
Carter’s article sure beats that lecture by Obama about how the US Gov supports a woman’s right to wear a hijab. It was so weak it made Bush’s speech in Egypt sound like it was delivered by a radical feminist.
-
Branjor says:
JCarter signed legislation during his presidency which eliminated Medicaid funding for abortions for poor women, blandly noting that “life isn’t fair” as he signed it.
-
anna says:
“Jimmy Carter may mean well — I’m sure he does — but I think it is almost impossible for a man of his age and background to prefer a 60-year-old white woman to a 46-year-old black man for President.”
Why is that?
-
Michele Braa-heidner says:
“It makes me tired to realize that it’s still not enough to simply say, “women are human, and that’s why it’s wrong to oppress them.” We still have to make the case that other people — real people, presumably — will also benefit.”
I recently had a debate at a “Feminism” site, regarding this exact subject. I was trying to make the point that women in our society are not considered autonomous beings, separate from “man”, the default sex. We are essentially thought of as a kind of appendage of “man” (a rib comes to mind here). Consequently, it’s never enough to just stand up for woman’s rights, without somebody feeling the need to talk about how bad the oppression of women is for men too, this omission then makes the cause real because men (the real people) are involved. It’s frustrating because in patriarchy, every second, every minute of every day represents men exclusively; therefore, why is it so horrible when we try to represent women exclusively?
The only reason I can think of that keeps people thinking that women and their issues aren’t human but something “other” is that historically and traditionally in our patriarchal society, men have been promoted to pursue their own self interests and to build strong identities and women have been promoted to take care of others at the expense of their own self interests and their own identities. This of course benefited patriarchy economically because men were able to pursue what they wanted as individuals and women helped men to do this by taking care of all of the domestic duties such as taking care of them, their children & societies sick and the elderly. Of course domestic work was never paid work therefore economically this was equivalent to our white forefathers keeping slaves.
Not only are women not considered autonomous from “man”, we are also guilty by association for male violence. The belief that humans are flawed because we are violent and self serving is prevalent in our society; hence, I hear this statement all the time: “violence and war are human nature”. This belief dismisses entirely the nature of women and is only considering his-story, a tradition of war and violence exclusive to men. This is not surprising because for the last five thousand years after the birth of patriarchy, its book religions & written language, our entire history is completely void of women and what women have done and is composed primarily about men. This history that has excluded half of the human population is unfortunately where our “false” beliefs have been derived from about human nature.
P.S. A good book that explores the “book” religion (the Bible) and its historical relationship with patriarchy, patriarchal language & the oppression of women, is “The Alphabet VS The Goddess” by Leanard Shlain.
-
JeanLouise says:
I wonder how many of The Elders are women.
It’s an impressive article but I agree with the “too little, too late” comment. Carter ignored voter fraud in our own country which disenfranchised women. How can he be viewed as a leader when he co-signed that action?
-
anna says:
There are 11 Elders and 5 of them are women. This is not counting Aung San Suu Kyi who is an honorary Elder; she can’t actually do anything because she’s under house arrest in Burma.
-
Toonces says:
“I think some people just want to surrender to magical thinking with some combination of (quite patriarchal) authoritarianism thrown in, and until we figure out exactly what need was being met by the Lighbringer’s pitch, we’re doomed to repeat history and get fooled again.”
Whatever it is, it was also filled by Reagan, which I often think is not coincidental. I’m personally very turned-off by that kind of fluff + strongDaddy stuff, but it’s exactly what Reagan pitched. I would like to survey all the people who luv Obama, and also thought Reagan was a pretty good guy even if they disagreed with him. I suspect a lot of them come from kind of Daddy Knows Best, mainstream America, let’s pretend like we live in a TV show in the 50’s kind of background (like where they spend themselves into $150,00 of debt rather than just not buy the newest must-have) and so they find this crap comforting. I’ve always found pretending like things are okay when they’re not very uncomfortable and I think that’s why I was personally resistant to some of the marketing coming from the O campaign. Oprah’s Cult of Shoptimism might give some clues, as well.
-
seattlegal says:
Question: why would any spiritual person (male or female) seek a position of power within a bureaucracy that essentially separates people from God? Anyone who is looking for God through a bureaucracy (although the bureaucracy would probably prefer to use the term hierarchy,) is looking in the wrong place, imo.
-
madjuana says:
I love your masthead, it transports me. Wasn’t it Carter who kicked Bella Abzug out of power? I find it difficult if not impossible to take heart from the words of men, but I’ve enjoyed the photos of Hillary with the women of India, a genuine delight!
-
quixote says:
(”Cult of Shoptimism” ROFLMAO!)
Ahem. Where was I?
Yes. Right up front, I want to say I do agree that “sexism is bad for menz too!” is used by people who can’t see women with a telescope. There’s an alternate hypothesis, though.
People have gargantuan issues seeing things as zero-sum situations. Somebody wins, somebody else has to lose.
It’s pathetic to use the “fairness benefits men” argument if that’s based on the fact that women don’t exist in the speaker’s world. But it’s good to use it when the point is to blow up the zero-sum fallacy. This is a lose-lose or win-win situation. There is no way to win while somebody else loses.
That really does need pointing out. A lot. The only people, men or women, I’ve met who get it are feminists. I think perhaps that’s why they’re feminists.
-
Remembering Seneca Falls « Grab and Keel says:
[...] 19, 2009 by roofingbird Note-Violet over at the Reclusive Leftist had a great blog today and her redesigned site looks [...]
-
Lori says:
Yeah, Carter was not good on women’s issues. He moved the office of women-something-or-the-other run by Midge, uh, can’t remember her last name, to the basement of the White House and she was never seen again. Long time ago.
The bad blood between the Clintons and Carter goes back to Carter’s trip to North Korea where he was negotiating without having been given the authority to do so, and was publicly called on it.
Carter has a massive ego and you cannot cross him without hell to pay. That being said, the bad rap he’s been given - being the hawk that he was now portrayed as a wet noodle - probably burns. It should be noted that it was the Carter administration that created the policy of arming the Mujahadeem to attack the Soviets, thereby luring them into Afghanistan. Zbig’s thinking was that he could mire the Soviets in the kind of conflict in Afghanistan that we had been through in Vietnam. Reagan gets the credit for that stinking policy, but it’s Carter to whom it belongs.
-
octogalore says:
“Secondly, Jimmy Carter may mean well — I’m sure he does — but I think it is almost impossible for a man of his age and background to prefer a 60-year-old white woman to a 46-year-old black man for President.”
Out of curiosity, what aspect of his background do you think makes that almost impossible? My dad is a decade younger than Carter and has a good friend Carter’s age; both voted HRC in the primary. (My mom, almost a decade younger than my dad, and supposedly in HRC’s demographic, voted for Obama).
-
Michele Braa-heidner says:
“It makes me tired to realize that it’s still not enough to simply say, “women are human, and that’s why it’s wrong to oppress them.” We still have to make the case that other people — real people, presumably — will also benefit.”
I recently had a debate at a Facebook “Feminism” site, regarding this exact subject. I tried to talk about women exclusively in regards to their plight in patriarchy and I got hammered by men and women who deemed me to be a “man basher” and or sexist because I generalized about the male gender and didn’t have a lot of sympathy for men in patriarchy who also suffer. Barf! Needless to say, I’m going to get out of that group pronto!
I think the reason for this men-tality that women’s issues don’t count unless we include “real people” (men) into the equation is the belief that women in patriarchy are not considered autonomous or independent from “man”, the default sex. We are essentially thought of as a kind of appendage of “man” (a rib comes to mind). Consequently, it’s never enough to just stand up for woman’s rights, without somebody feeling the need to talk about how bad the oppression of women is for men too, which then of course makes the cause real because men (the real people) are involved. It’s frustrating because in patriarchy, every second, every minute of every day represents men exclusively; therefore, my question is, why is it not taken seriously when we try to represent women exclusively?
The only answer I can come up with is that historically and traditionally in our patriarchal society, men have been promoted to pursue their own self interests and to build strong identities and women have been promoted to take care of others at the expense of their own self interests and identities. In the book “The Feminine Mystique” by Betty Friedan, Frieden hypothesizes “that women are victims of a false belief system that requires them to find identity and meaning in their lives through their husbands and children. Such a system causes women to completely lose their identity in that of their family.”
And Nancy Folbre, a Feminist Economist, wrote in her book, The Invisible Heart, “Traditionally, most societies have assigned women primary responsibility for the tasks of caring for children, the sick, and the elderly. Indeed, for centuries, women were largely denied opportunities to pursue their own interests, discouraged from even thinking of themselves as autonomous beings….Historical scholarship details the many laws that gave fathers and husbands property rights over daughters and wives, enforced male control over female wealth and income, restricted womens access to education and systematically excluded them from access to lucrative jobs. It is difficult to explain why such coercive rules evolved, if not because of some big differences between what men wanted women to do and what women would have chosen on their own……. Economic dependence made women’s welfare contingent on the welfare of their fathers and husbands—a powerful incentive to pay attention to other people’s needs. Those who are denied a cultural conception of themselves as individuals may not even think of themselves as separate persons.”
This of course benefited the patriarchal system greatly. Men were able to pursue what they wanted as individuals and women supported them by taking care of all of the domestic duties such as taking care of them, their children & the sick and elderly. Of course domestic work was never paid work therefore economically this was equivalent to our white forefathers keeping slaves.
This idea that women were put on this earth to serve “man” is still to this day strong enough to keep women invisible in our society. Our concept of women is so thoroughly inundated with the “Adam’s rib” mentality that separating women from “man” would mean amputating a part of “man”, a part that “man” isn’t willing to let go of without a fight.
-
Violet says:
People have gargantuan issues seeing things as zero-sum situations. Somebody wins, somebody else has to lose.
Then why aren’t all human rights movements phrased in those terms? “Free the Kurds because it will help the Turks!”
This is an issue of patriarchy. Men = real people. Women = things to be used.
-
Violet says:
Octogalore and anna:
As several commenters have noted, Carter’s embrace of feminism is a pretty late development in his life.
Carter’s background is the world of men. His personal sense of justice was formed in the intellectual ferment of the 60s, and his most noteworthy achievement as Governor of Georgia was his civil rights stance. He’s also a lifelong godbag and, until he became a roving ex-President, was really pretty conservative.
To a man like that, no matter how much he consciously tries to be a feminist, on some level a 60-year-old white woman just looks like a wife. But Barack Obama is the second coming of Martin Luther King.
-
Mari says:
Yup. Man = person, woman = support staff / sex slave / caretaker / possession. And it’s scary how the patriarchy can make women support it, try to force other women to do so, fight other women who are trying to help them, follow religions that have sexism as part of their dogma and say women can’t be priests etc.
I guess what it all comes back to is, how can you fight that system when the slightest thing you do to fight it will lead to other women attacking you? Obviously, women need to realize what the patriarchy is and how much of their life is poisoned by it. And they need to be shown that there’s an alternative, i.e. feminism and having power in their own right. But the whole thing feels like a cross between “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, “The Matrix” and Kafka’s “The Castle”.
-
Briar says:
My objection to the “fairness benefits real people too” argument stems more from the other assumption it represents: that there is no such thing as altruism or integrity and people act only out of enlightened self interest. The notion that people are only “incentivised” by the prospect of personal gain or benefit strikes me as damaging to society.
-
FLAConnie says:
Seems to me that the indoctrination process under Patriarchy is the Stockholm Syndrome on a massive scale. “We” - the prisoners/captives - identify with our captors. How well we’ve been assimilated varies, from not so much to living, breathing Stepford Wives. Maybe as prisoners of war, we should organize a major hunger strike!
-
seattlegal says:
Violet said in opening post:
So here’s a thought: bag the fricking books. They’re ancient. If God is real, then treat Her like a natural fact and begin a fresh investigation into Her nature. Be a scientist. Would you consult an ancient Babylonion astronomy text for a guide to the stars? No! So why in the hell are people, even religious-minded people, still reading the mush-brained ramblings of a bunch of primitive desert barbarians who lived 2000 years ago? These guys thought the sun revolved around the earth and flies came from rotting meat, and this is who you’re gonna consult for insight into the Ultimate Ground of Being? Jesus H. Christ.Well, entrenched materialists will argue that even social sciences and psychology are not true science, because they are not studying material things. If you can’t “truly scientifically” study the mind and social behavior, how are you going to scientifically study God?
As for tossing out scriptures: many of the things I’ve read on this blog have brought scriptures from the Tao Te Ching, various Buddhist suttas, and even the bible to mind, but I’ve remained silent regarding them, and have tried to only make scientifically based comments. This has made my spiritual side like it’s being oppressed by my scientific side just as women have been oppressed by men.
The interesting thing about science and scripture is that they both rely on analogies to get their points across, such as the scientific realm’s illustrations of the rubber sheet being stretch by a bowling ball to describe the warping of space to produce gravity; and the ballon (the surface only of which represents space/time) being blown up to describe inflationary theory, to the many different parables and illustrations used to convey psychological and spiritual ideas contained in the scriptures of all of the different religions.
—–quizote wrote in post #19:
It’s pathetic to use the “fairness benefits men” argument if that’s based on the fact that women don’t exist in the speaker’s world. But it’s good to use it when the point is to blow up the zero-sum fallacy. This is a lose-lose or win-win situation. There is no way to win while somebody else loses.It’s pathetic to use the “fairness benefits men” argument if that’s based on the fact that women don’t exist in the speaker’s world. But it’s good to use it when the point is to blow up the zero-sum fallacy. This is a lose-lose or win-win situation. There is no way to win while somebody else loses.
That really does need pointing out. A lot. The only people, men or women, I’ve met who get it are feminists. I think perhaps that’s why they’re feminists.
Michele Braa-heidner says in post #23:
And Nancy Folbre, a Feminist Economist, wrote in her book, The Invisible Heart, “Traditionally, most societies have assigned women primary responsibility for the tasks of caring for children, the sick, and the elderly. Indeed, for centuries, women were largely denied opportunities to pursue their own interests, discouraged from even thinking of themselves as autonomous beings….Historical scholarship details the many laws that gave fathers and husbands property rights over daughters and wives, enforced male control over female wealth and income, restricted womens access to education and systematically excluded them from access to lucrative jobs. It is difficult to explain why such coercive rules evolved, if not because of some big differences between what men wanted women to do and what women would have chosen on their own……. Economic dependence made women’s welfare contingent on the welfare of their fathers and husbands—a powerful incentive to pay attention to other people’s needs. Those who are denied a cultural conception of themselves as individuals may not even think of themselves as separate persons.”This of course benefited the patriarchal system greatly. Men were able to pursue what they wanted as individuals and women supported them by taking care of all of the domestic duties such as taking care of them, their children & the sick and elderly. Of course domestic work was never paid work therefore economically this was equivalent to our white forefathers keeping slaves.
This idea that women were put on this earth to serve “man” is still to this day strong enough to keep women invisible in our society. Our concept of women is so thoroughly inundated with the “Adam’s rib” mentality that separating women from “man” would mean amputating a part of “man”, a part that “man” isn’t willing to let go of without a fight.
Northwest rain says in post #15 from the Comments from the Giant Thread entry:
ALL of the major religions are involved in controlling women to some extent (except perhaps Buddhism).This is how Buddhism gets around sexism:
Soma SuttaBuddhists have a whole different idea of personhood. Anatta, or no-self. It seems like the patriarchial system has tried to thrust this idea upon women without adapting it themselves. (More shadow projections? I dunno. Perhaps.)
Maybe I just don’t belong here. However, I’m glad that this place exists. It gives my mind a good stretching, even if I can’t express half of what results from the stretching. :)
Apologies for the ramble.
-
yttik says:
“This has made my spiritual side like it’s being oppressed by my scientific side…”
If women were to become 50% of the equation, I bet there wouldn’t be a need to separate the two. I think women could bring balance so that the emotional/spiritual was not viewed as anti-science or the two mutually exclusive. I’ve lost a lot of faith in science, the bias, the politics, the patriarchal influences are all there and yet it’s held up as some sort of pure form of thought. Masculine, rational, when of course burning witches and believing in a flat Earth was anything but. Not to mention hysterectomies and lobotomies. Science is a convoluted mess of politics and emotion, primarily male dominated.
Women tend to bring a wider view to the table. The personal is political, the emotional is part of the equation. The bible for instance I believe is poetry and metaphor and was never intended to be read as a law book or a scientific journal. But because it is only patriarchally perceived it is misused and misinterpreted, taken literally, used to bash people over the head with. Because of this, the beauty that is in the bible is nearly lost.
-
slythwolf says:
The Elders, of course, are a group of wizards who were sent by Valar to assist the people of Middle Earth in their contest with Sauron. Since the discords of Melkor they have sought to heal the world of strife and restore the harmonies of Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar.
*swoon*
Run away with me.
-
Andi says:
I’m with Seattlegal on this one. The social sciences are not science, and science is not the end-all be-all of understanding. In fact, the dependence upon science, and scientists, reminds me of the type of thoughtless acceptance of church doctrine that is criticized here.
And, btw, if we had thrown the old Book out - I would still be a patriarchal woman who thought she knew the place and use of women.
fwiw
-
SarahG says:
“Not to mention hysterectomies and lobotomies.”
The day I’m having, both of those sound great.
-
Andi says:
clarification to #32: that just came out all wrong… like I’m STILL a patriarchal woman who thinks she knows the place and use of women. No No… If I hadn’t read the big Book for myself, then I would still, now, be like a was, then, … a patriarchal woman who thinks she knows the place and use of women.
Good Lord, if I confuse myself this much I can only imagine what I’m doing to ya’ll!
-
sharon says:
You know, I hate that argument that whatever we do to elevate women has to benefit men, or it won’t sell. Bollocks. I think it’s a mistake to ’sell’ feminism. No other group does this with their movements. I never heard the NAACP say, ‘hey, advancing the rights of blacks so they can have the same access in society as whites will be good for whites’. That would have never flown. The NAACP pursued a very masculine strategy of moving ahead with their agenda without checking in with every other group if this was ok with them.
I’ve noticed a lot of women, trapped in patriarchal thinking without even knowing it, trying to negotiate and bargain their way forward. It’s a strategy you’ll see little girls use on a playground: ‘I’ll be nice to you and give in a little if you’ll play the game I want to play’. It makes me crazy. I’ve had girlfriends go to the divorce table already giving away their strength and position so as not to anger their soon-to-be-ex. If I’ve learned one thing in the world of men, it’s to push ahead with your agenda and don’t bother asking anyone else what they think about it. I don’t like this strategy, but if the structure you’re up against is patriarchal, and they’re not making room for you at the table, you have to be ready to shove your way in and not care about anyone else’s ‘feelings’ about it. Feminism has to get that mindset - it’s about WOMEN, damn it, and not everybody else.
I just got an email from Barbara Boxer to support the hate crimes bill. As I read all the provisions in it against the heinous crimes committed against gays, I wondered why there wasn’t a bill like that for women.
On a side note, my 77 year old British dad LOVED HRC and wanted her to win it. My 30 year old Latin boyfriend voted for Obama because he was black. Then he asked me if I was a racist for not supporting him. I went off. In my mind, he was the racist for picking a candidate solely on skin color. I at least bothered to research their policies, power backing, etc. She came out on top every time, but I switched ranks and voted for McCain in the general only because of Palin. I wanted a woman in the White House, darn it. Some of my 40+ girlfriends did the same, while some of them retreated in hysteria to Obama, fearing we’d lose abortion. Jesus Christ.
Now, my boyfriend thinks Obama is the anti-christ. But before, he thought, like many Hispanics in my area, that black culture goes first, then Hispanic. So getting a black man in the White House paves the way for a Hispanic man in the future to get it.
Women, apparently, do not advance others in advancing themselves. So let’s get over it, and move ourselves forward without trying to bring everyone else, shall we?
-
Violet says:
A few points:
Science is a way of acquiring knowledge. It’s a good way, based on empiricism. Of course it’s prone to be misused, like anything humans do, but it seems to me pretty damn useful on the whole.
Pure science is confined to the study of physical systems. But the scientific approach can be applied to human behavior, and is just as useful there. If I want to know whether women talk more than men, the scientific approach is to measure the words coming out of their mouths. The non-scientific approach is to say, “sure they do, because I think they do and hell, my mother-in-law never shuts up.” I’m voting for the scientific approach.
There’s no problem with metaphor, and I don’t quite see what people are having a problem with there. Of course science uses metaphor. All human communication uses metaphor: science, philosophy, religion, ethics, even language itself, which is at bottom built upon metaphor.
I have no problem with spirituality, which seeks meaning through myth, poetry, and metaphysics. However, even spirituality should be measured against some kind of common sense and basic empirical understanding of reality. If your spiritual guru says the earth rests on the back of a turtle and women are sub-human creatures from Mordor, you might want to question that.
But all this is kind of beside the point, because people who rely on Magic Books make sweeping claims for their truth. That’s my point. Why on earth should these ancient books be “true” in any sense whatsoever, scientific or otherwise? Obviously they’re full of nonsense when it comes to the nature of physical reality, which is not surprising given their age and authorship. But why should they be any more “true” when it comes to spiritual insights?
Finally, as for God itself: if God exists, then she should properly be a subject of study. Why not scientific study? If you say that’s impossible, then you either don’t think God exists, or you’ve made an a priori assumption that “God” is just a spiritual metaphor.
-
Branjor says:
Sharon said:
***Women, apparently, do not advance others in advancing themselves. So let’s get over it, and move ourselves forward without trying to bring everyone else, shall we?***Agreed 100%, finally someone said it. I was just about to say the same thing, only not so well.
-
anna says:
So how would you scientifically study God?
-
Sis says:
But if we want to follow Sharon’s plan which I htink is great, with one teeny flaw, remember never to have children. Because sure as hell, they’ll hold your kids hostage and you’ll give to save/protect your child(ren). They know you will, and you know you will. All the power you hold dissolves when there are children involved. So all you young women who are of child-bearing age and so sure and strong; remember how they can get you to become whimpering begging sniveling bug under their heel.
-
m Andrea says:
http://www.godisimaginary.com/index.htm
It’s not that someone studies god scientifically, but that someone studies the impossibility of god scientifically. Read enough logical arguments scattered around the internet and eventually all that faith and belief juju disappears. We might as well believe that the magic sky fairy wears sparkly purple spandex and underwear on his head.
-
soopermouse says:
god is richard simmons?
-
sonia says:
“Women, apparently, do not advance others in advancing themselves. So let’s get over it, and move ourselves forward without trying to bring everyone else, shall we?”
I have to jump on this quote, too, because it is indeed so awesome.
hellz ya!!! anything else is a waste of time-
-
octogalore says:
Violet re #25 — that makes sense.
It’s interesting looking at how sexist men either stay that way or move away from it, or possibly only inflict it on the women in their immediate sphere. My dad’s vote for HRC was not a late-in-life realization about feminism; he had similar liking for other women in power and has voted for women for other political positions or academic positions, while not being feminist in dealings with his sisters or first wife (my mom) during times he was supporting women for positions of power.
I know other men like that — not Ms. Feminists of the Year (joke), but no problem voting for women. Donald Trump, certainly no feminist, gave $7K to HRC and $1K to McCain (nothing to Obama) before mid-08. At that point, he began focusing on McCain. He also gave heavily to Kristen Gillibrand.
-
leis says:
soopermouse-I read your comment five minutes ago and just now stopped belly laughing. Fricking hilarious! Oh, no wait, just started laughing again.
-
sister of ye says:
This is off the trend of the thread, but I’ve been watching retrospectives on the first moon landing and this quote has been running thru my head: If we can send a man to the moon, why can’t we send them all?
I’m part of a non-religious “religious” order, the Sisters of Ye of Little Faith (hence the nym). That was three cradle Catholics in various stages of (dis)belief trying to cope with some tough financial and personal times. We talked tongue-in-cheek about formalizing and making money off it, but none of us had the heart to try to deliberately rip people off.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
Lori, I had forgotten about Carter getting dressed down for the Korean diplomatic faux pas. And yeah, thinking you’re the one who’ll solve the I/P conflict (mission from god, maybe) requires sizable ego, no doubt. OTOH, if you think you can’t do a thing, you never will. Which gets back to women asking permission rather than forgiveness as a path to equality - won’t happen that way. We need to elbow our way into the room, like we’ve always belonged there, then act like we have a purpose. Due to my personal timidity, I’ve been given this advice more than once (by men, of course).
Toonces, I came to believe that O sleeps with a picture of Reagan under his pillow due to his frequent praise of the man. Also alarming was his belief in the mythology of a golden past where there was gentlemanly civility amongst high-minded politicians and only feminists had abortions. His marrying into the perfect Leave it to Beaver family that he was denied as a child was also one of the creepier aspects of my 3-hour foray into Audacity of Hope. Believing in a golden past that never was is one of the hallmarks of fascism, along with scapegoating someone for killing off the golden past that never was. I won’t ever get why otherwise intelligent people were raving about that book.
I hear what people are saying about selling feminism, and don’t think it shouldn’t be done, either. Most people are women, and practically speaking, women are responsible for the care and feeding of most other people. We need to put our oxygen masks on first, with no apologies. As for the men, as Robert Jensen once said, feminism is a gift to men who are smart enough to accept it. I think I’ll just take his word for that, he’s been right often enough.
-
Andi says:
Violet #36,
A few counter points:
“If I want to know whether women talk more than men, the scientific approach is to measure the words coming out of their mouths.”
That is Baconesque and a minimalist understatement of what science is. A survey is not science, it is information gathering. If you want to apply the scientific method in all of its glory, you do not survey the world to confirm a generality. You predict an objective truth that holds firm for all time, in all places, and you test that hypothesis, using a method that can be replicated in its entirety.
“Pure science is confined to the study of physical systems. But the scientific approach can be applied to human behavior, and is just as useful there.”
When a Sociologist can state, exactly, what the crime rate in NY City will be in the year 2019, have his methodology reviewed and verified by independent Sociologists, and then be proven right in the year 2019, you may have a point.
“if God exists, then she should properly be a subject of study. Why not scientific study?”
Well, that’s sorta where science came from - the study of God. But, if God exists (I believe he/she does), then God is metaphysical and beyond the realm of the physical sciences.
But, really, the Book of my choice (Genesis) is not ‘about’ physical reality or the nature of God. It is about humankind and what/where we went wrong. That’s not really something the sciences can prove or disprove either.
-
cellocat says:
Wasn’t Carter one of those who said a couple years before the Obama run that he (Obama) wasn’t ready, and that he wouldn’t have the necessary experience? I remember seeing a clip.
There are a number of politicians who reversed themselves in that way, and they have, imo, thereby lost any claim to credibility. It’s one thing to decline to support Hillary. It’s another thing to publicly support an inexperienced guy instead, so soon after having publicly declared him to be inexperienced and unqualified.
But that is the way the patriarchy is constructed. And that is the way it will continue as long as we, as has been stated above, continue to try to bring everyone along with us in our drive for the advancement of feminism.
-
RKMK says:
“Women, apparently, do not advance others in advancing themselves. So let’s get over it, and move ourselves forward without trying to bring everyone else, shall we?”
Quote of the year!
-
Violet says:
A survey is not science, it is information gathering.
Thank you. And a single sentence in a blog comment isn’t a description of the scientific method, but a brief allusion to the importance of empiricism versus bullshit.
You predict an objective truth that holds firm for all time, in all places, and you test that hypothesis, using a method that can be replicated in its entirety.
Gracious. Now that is a minimalist view of science. It’s the kind of cartoon version of the scientific method that children learn in books, and that excludes the natural sciences entirely.
Science is a means of acquiring knowledge, based on evidence and systematic methodology. Really.
-
Andi says:
m Andrea,
“It’s not that someone studies god scientifically, but that someone studies the impossibility of god scientifically.”
You cannot disprove the existance of God, only certain concepts of God.
“Read enough logical arguments scattered around the internet and eventually all that faith and belief juju disappears.”
Read enough scientific journals (especially in the fields of quantum cosmology and quantum computing) and all that assuredness in materialism may disappear.
“We might as well believe that the magic sky fairy wears sparkly purple spandex and underwear on his head.”
It’s a dirty little scientific secret that’s been hidden in a closet by men of stature for over fifty years - if spandex wearing fairies were necessary for life, then spandex wearing fairies would exist.
I am curious about a grouping of feminists who so readily accept reductionist dogma formulated and written within an historically male dominated field.
-
Violet says:
I am curious about a grouping of feminists who so readily accept reductionist dogma formulated and written within an historically male dominated field.
I would answer you but I don’t know what you’re talking about.
-
Andi says:
“Gracious. Now that is a minimalist view of science. It’s the kind of cartoon version of the scientific method that children learn in books, and that excludes the natural sciences entirely.”
The joy of conflict.
“Science is a means of acquiring knowledge, based on evidence and systematic methodology. Really.”
Like I said, ‘baconesque’. I’ll add Aristotelean also.
Knowledge without understanding and/or replication is a mere footnote describing what was where and when. Whatever scientific advances we hold dear were not the end result of observing phenomenon. They were a result of observation, prediction, and replication.
Sociology may have the first part down pat (maybe not, considering its subjectivity), but the other two parts simply defy inclusion.
In my opinion, it is a dangerous game to play - convincing oneself that humankind is understandable in all of its complexity.
btw, since this is a debate being held within Sociology departments, I feel confident that neither my cartoon version nor your baconian version are childish. Quite adult, in fact.
“Thank you.”
No, thank you.
-
m Andrea says:
“That is Baconesque and a minimalist understatement of what science is. A survey is not science, it is information gathering. If you want to apply the scientific method in all of its glory, you do not survey the world to confirm a generality. You predict an objective truth that holds firm for all time, in all places, and you test that hypothesis, using a method that can be replicated in its entirety.
If your own definition of “science” is limited to “those who predict future events” then the apocolyptic end-timers are “scientists”.
What you are describing is the method to verify hypothses, which is but one step in the scientific process. Scientisty people first gather facts and measure them, and then validate the results, before they ever develope any theory. That’s why they call it a “process”.
And oftentimes it is not necessary to get to the theory stage, sometimes the only purpose is to show that people’s perceptions of reality do not match reality. Which is why a sociologist who uses good research methodology is still a scientist, while I am merely an opiniated fleabag arguing over definitions.
-
m Andrea says:
Andi, if I am not mistaken your assertion appears to be “scientists can’t know everything, therefore scientists can’t know anything, therefore god exists.” Is this correct?
-
Violet says:
This conversation is getting weirder and weirder. I’m talking about the natural sciences, and Andi is talking about sociology and predicting human behavior and knowledge without understanding. Yeah, that’s a good description of most sociology, but who the fuck is talking about that?
So if I believe the Laramide orogeny happened — and I do — this makes me a “Baconian”? Jesus. Weirder and weirder.
-
jz says:
Hi, those are challenging questions you’ve posed, so I’ll take them on.
Faith and science are complementary; not exclusive of each other. We can’t use science to prove a belief system.
So why do I believe my Christian faith, you ask?
1) From reading the Bible, I discover that the mind of God is different than the way man thinks. The bible wasn’t inspired by man. Man doesn’t think that way. EX: forgiveness rather than revenge, right makes might, monotheism rather than polytheism, eternal life rather than rot with death.
2)first hand testimony in the gospels of witnesses to Christ’s life and miracles
3)corroboration of #2 by the Roman historian Jesephus.
4)the statistical improbability of life at the cellular level without a creator. For this I defer to biologists like Denton, Dembski, Behe, Polkinghorne.So, my faith is just faith, but supported by psychology, history, statistics, and biology.
-
Violet says:
Stick test!
-
yttik says:
Reductionist dogma is what I was trying so sloppily to complain about. I do believe that science as an institution has often been as biased and irrational as some people’s approach to religion.
When Violet said “be a scientist”, I was thinking you can’t take the same group of screwed up patriarchal humans and move them from religion to science and expect different results. They would simply carry over their misogynistic impulses and it would influence their observations and interpretations.
Reductionist dogma deals in absolutes. I was trying to say that women in general have a broader view of things and that perspective is what has been traditionally lacking in both science and religion.
-
Andi says:
ME: I am curious about a grouping of feminists who so readily accept reductionist dogma formulated and written within an historically male dominated field.
“I would answer you but I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
I was referring to the fact that Einstien was wrong and God (metaphorically speaking, or not) does play dice, and probability exists outside of the material world. Instead of science disproving the existance of God, science is proving the existance of anthropic meaning.
It is a field of study that flies in the face material determinism - and opens the door to an understanding of ancient beliefs in a more holistic way.
Maybe when quantum encryption is fully developed and marketed, the cat will be out of the bag. Until then, quantum physicists are being encouraged to “shut up and measure”.
It has occurred to me that this dictate of silence is coming from a bunch of crotchety old men, trying to save their own constructs from crumbling underneath them. I’m just sure, somehow, that quantum wavefunctions do not support a male dominated understanding of the world. If they did, those crotchety old men would sing its wonders from the rooftops.
-
Andi says:
m Andrea,
“Andi, if I am not mistaken your assertion appears to be “scientists can’t know everything, therefore scientists can’t know anything, therefore god exists.” Is this correct?”
Not at all. I have no mathematical or observational proof for the existance of God. That is a personal matter, outside of science.
Nor would I ever claim that science cannot know anything. I am merely objecting to the scientific dogma of reductionism and material determinism, and putting forth that reality is KNOWN, scientifically, to be more holistic then current dogma teaches.
Strong anthropic principles, under scientific development, lend themselves to a greater understanding of the ancient books that are so denigrated here - paradoxially, using science.
[the social sciences conflict is a whole other conversation that seems to be worming its way into this one]
-
Violet says:
I said “be a scientist” — not “follow Einstein!” or “reject the Copenhagen interpretation!” Science is a method, an approach; it’s not dogma. You’re reacting as if I said “follow the Koran!” or “obey the dictates of Ra!”
To be a scientist is to try to figure things out. Scientists right now are trying to figure out quantum theory, which nobody fully understands.
By the way, it’s “shut up and calculate” — and it’s not a conspiracy to keep the cat in the bag. It’s a response to the fact that quantum theory is astoundingly accurate — and is necessary for the modern world of technology — but profoundly inexplicable.
probability exists outside of the material world.
Probability exists inside the material world, and in fact seems to be a fundamental feature of existence. I do not know what you mean by “outside of the material world.” But at any rate, material determinism is obsolete.
As for the anthropic principle, you seem to be referring to the Strong version, which is hardly proved by quantum physics. It is only one possible solution.
-
yttik says:
LOL, I interrupt this deep metaphysical debate to bring you a link posted at TGW about the Elder’s “equality for women and girls.” It’s pretty good
-
seattlegal says:
Andi says in post #53
In my opinion, it is a dangerous game to play - convincing oneself that humankind is understandable in all of its complexity.And in post #60
I was referring to the fact that Einstien was wrong and God (metaphorically speaking, or not) does play dice, and probability exists outside of the material world. Instead of science disproving the existance of God, science is proving the existance of anthropic meaning.
It is a field of study that flies in the face material determinism - and opens the door to an understanding of ancient beliefs in a more holistic way.
Regarding it being a dangerous game to play in convincing oneself of these things: the Buddha observed much the same thing.
A good thing to remember in avoiding madness and vexation over these things. (Or as Violet says, “This conversation is getting weirder and weirder.”)Andi continues in post #60:
Maybe when quantum encryption is fully developed and marketed, the cat will be out of the bag. Until then, quantum physicists are being encouraged to “shut up and measure”.It has occurred to me that this dictate of silence is coming from a bunch of crotchety old men, trying to save their own constructs from crumbling underneath them. I’m just sure, somehow, that quantum wavefunctions do not support a male dominated understanding of the world. If they did, those crotchety old men would sing its wonders from the rooftops.
Don’t they just remind you of the unobserved electron passing through two slits at the same time and interfering with itself? ;) (You’d think they’d get the message from Young’s two slit experiment…)
-
seattlegal says:
Oops! I meant “unobserved photon” above, instead of “unobserved electron.” :o
-
Violet says:
Jesus Christ, people, not everything is a conspiracy theory. You actually believe there is a “dictate of silence” from “crotchety old men” in physics not to discuss the wave function?
-
Andi says:
I did clarify ’strong’ in my post, and I never claimed it was ‘proven’. In fact, I said the principle was under development - which disqualifies it as proven.
As to the Copenhagen interpretation, the interpretation is not necessary to understand that current scientific dogma is outdated by current scientific knowledge.
“profoundly inexplicable” is no excuse for the passive propogation of willful ignorance.
And, finally, because I am seriously late for work… when I said, “outside of the material world”, I meant, “not being a material thing”… unless you think there really is a spandex wearing farie rolling dice in the sky.
-
seattlegal says:
Violet says:
Jesus Christ, people, not everything is a conspiracy theory. You actually believe there is a “dictate of silence” from “crotchety old men” in physics not to discuss the wave function?
I don’t know about a “conspiracy” of the physicists, but saying the wrong thing could cost you your research finding. (That would put the conspiracy upon the crotchey old men of the governments and corporations that decide whom to fund, and whom not to fund…)
-
Violet says:
You said this:
Instead of science disproving the existance of God, science is proving the existance of anthropic meaning.
That’s the comment I was replying to. Your second comment posted at the same time as mine.
As to the Copenhagen interpretation, the interpretation is not necessary to understand that current scientific dogma is outdated by current scientific knowledge.
“profoundly inexplicable” is no excuse for the passive propogation of willful ignorance.
Okay, I get it. Andi, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re throwing around these phrases but you don’t understand what they mean. You don’t know what the Copenhagen interpretation is, you’re not familiar with modern physics, and you don’t understand that modern physics hasn’t propagated a deterministic view of the universe since the early 20th century.
There’s nothing wrong with not knowing about these things, but you’re just wasting my time here.
-
Violet says:
I don’t know about a “conspiracy” of the physicists, but saying the wrong thing could cost you your research finding.
This is true, but the inexplicableness and uncertainty (heh) in quantum physics is not “the wrong thing.” It’s the cardinal feature of quantum physics! It’s the great topic, the thing that dominated 20th century physics and is still there, still unknown. This notion that uncertainty is some kind of secret thing that physicists don’t want people to know about is just bizarre.
-
Swannie says:
here is what I KNOW to be true … it is very difficult to dance naked around a bonfire for hours on end in a trance if you are carrying books , even one large one :)
-
seattlegal says:
Violet says
This is true, but the inexplicableness and uncertainty (heh) in quantum physics is not “the wrong thing.” It’s the cardinal feature of quantum physics! It’s the great topic, the thing that dominated 20th century physics and is still there, still unknown. This notion that uncertainty is some kind of secret thing that physicists don’t want people to know about is just bizarre.
Hey, the formulas developed for classical physics still work, even though the old speculative theories do unravel at the quantum level. Now, let’s get really bizarre:
Swannie says:
here is what I KNOW to be true … it is very difficult to dance naked around a bonfire for hours on end in a trance if you are carrying books , even one large one :)
Like the statue of Shiva at the Large Hadron Collider? :D {To bring it back to the thread title and the Church of Trope, where the Mope does look somewhat like Shiva’s pal Kali.} :P
Some folks have a wry sense of humor…
-
m Andrea says:
“I have no mathematical or observational proof for the existance of God. That is a personal matter, outside of science. “
Claiming that any particular subject is off-limits to analysis, or possibly claiming that any particular subject is “beyond the capability of analysis” is an excuse. More precisely, it’s an avoidance mechanism.
So here’s the pattern so far: make a vague assertion, get refuted, don’t rebut, change the subject, name-drop like mad, rinse, repeat.
My prediction is that Andi is a first year grad student. The stringing together of disparate whachamacallit references, tofu Bacon paradigm Kafaesque gobbledeegook, is a big clue. By the time folks actually know what they are talking about, they stop doing that crap.
“I am merely objecting to the scientific dogma of reductionism and material determinism, and putting forth that reality is KNOWN, scientifically, to be more holistic then current dogma teaches. “
Reducing things to their simplist form is the easist way to weed out non-logic. So your concern is that science doesn’t take human emotions into account? Science is quite aware that humans are chock full of irrational contradictory emotions — that is what renders us human.
But I suspect your real objection, if you were interested in continuing this discussion, is that you don’t like the conclusion.
-
thistle says:
Andi, you’re just too funny. :)
-
Branjor says:
***the inexplicableness and uncertainty (heh) in quantum physics is not “the wrong thing.” It’s the cardinal feature of quantum physics!***
That’s true. It’s even got a name in physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
-
Gayle says:
Howdy! Love the new look!
A bit OT, but a fun little inside story nonetheless:
I worked at the DNC convention in Boston in 2004. Team Kerry didn’t want any “Bush bashing” at the convention so every speech was vetted and edited to make doubly sure no one broke this less-than-golden-rule. Every speaker agreed to have their speech edited, except for one. Jimmy Carter refused to show his speech prior to his reading and, if you can find it, you’ll see it’s the only speech during the convention that openly criticizes George Bush. When asked for his speech, Carter gave an empathic, “No, you can’t see it beforehand. If you insist, I won’t speak at all.” I loved him for that. People think Carter is a pushover; they are mistaken.
When asked why he supported Obama, Carter said he had never seen a candidate so loved by the young people and that his kids (or grandkids, I can’t remember) wanted him to support Obama. I do believe there is a racial element to his support. I also agree there was some bad blood between him and Bill Clinton that probably spilled over (unfortunately) to Hillary.
-
yttik says:
I wonder if this is Carter’s way of saying, WTH was I thinking?? Geesh, we could have had Hillary who is over in India right now speaking my language!
Kim Gandy, too, yesterday was her last day as prez of NOW. She wrote a goodbye letter that told of all the work she had done for Clinton and how she went on to support Obama because Hillary had asked people to.
Who knows? There just seems something kind of regretful in both articles.
The Elder’s take on women’s rights is fabulous. The fact that women are actually “elders” too, is great news. LOL, I read the website and knew right away Carter didn’t come up with any of that on his own.He has an inkling about what women’s rights are, but not that good.
-
sister of ye says:
Criminy! I’ve studied science and theology, and you people are making my head hurt.
Oddly enough, I reached the same basic truth in both disciplines - I’d never make my living at it. [*shrugs*]
Well, someone has to do the boring grunt work, I guess.
-
octogalore says:
“When asked why he supported Obama, Carter said he had never seen a candidate so loved by the young people and that his kids (or grandkids, I can’t remember) wanted him to support Obama.”
That’s scary. If I’d voted for my kid’s pick, I’d have written in Princess Jasmine.
Then again, looking at the current sitch, that may not have been such a bad idea….
-
Branjor says:
That’s like Caroline Kennedy. She also supported Obama because her kids liked him.
-
m Andrea says:
So the parents and grandparents supported the candidate that their kids and grandkids chose — okay, I suppose that’s a reason of some sort. But why didn’t the younger folks support the candidate that their parents and grandparents chose?
-
Monchichipox says:
“Jimmy Carter may mean well — I’m sure he does — but I think it is almost impossible for a man of his age and background to prefer a 60-year-old white woman to a 46-year-old black man for President.”
My father is the same age. When I was younger and Geraldine Ferraro made her acceptance speech he didn’t allow us to watch this “bitch” make her speech. He’s changed. During the primaries he actively supported Hillary and seems to be the first one in a gathering that will call someone on sexist bullshit jokes or remarks. I remember the first time I heard him call Hillary “a real fine lady” after watching her on the news. I was very proud.
-
DancingOpossum says:
Sebelius said the same thing.
When did the opinions of children become the defining rationale for the voting choices of presumed adults?
-
yttik says:
It truly is bizarre that so many people supported Obama based on their children or grand children’s opinions of him. I heard that over and over again.
-
Sis says:
And who were their children getting their opinion of Obama from?
Jon Favreau.
-
octogalore says:
Speaking of children, look at how the Silicon Valley boyz club made its decision. These reasons are so idiotic, even those of actual children could hardly be worse:
“He was the person who was encapsulating the energy, the message, and everything else, but it was going to be an election from the ground up.”
“Even frickin’ Gavin Newsom, she had him by the balls. Obama had to have a new way to raise money and blow her away.”
(get ready to barf) Christine Pelosi [yes, related]: “It’s the difference between having someone who leaves tech stuff to the interns and someone who understands the Internet’s libertarian streak.”
“You can’t out–General Motors Hillary Clinton, right?”
“I heard Maria Shriver say that if Obama were a state, he’d be California. It’s kinda hokey but true on a lot of levels—mixed and young and forward-thinking.”
“A bold new brand”
-
Sis says:
Oh I love it: “A bold new brand”. That says it all. Right out of the marketing/communications department.
-
gxm17 says:
Holy crappoly. I’m trying to figure out how we got from Carter to Heisenberg. Is there a wormhole in this thread?
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
gxm17 - don’t you just love it? I think it’s the space alpacas who are responsible - and of course, the eclipse most likely influenced the wormhole, too.
-
Nadai says:
“I heard Maria Shriver say that if Obama were a state, he’d be California.”
Yeah, broke and headed by a Republican. Just what the Democratic Party needed.
-
Unree says:
Didn’t Claire McCaskill say she went for Obama because her daughter had threatened not to speak to her again if she supported Clinton?
-
cellocat says:
Unree: yes, she did. *gag*
-
seattlegal says:
88.gxm17 says:
Holy crappoly. I’m trying to figure out how we got from Carter to Heisenberg. Is there a wormhole in this thread?
89.TheOtherDelphyne says:
gxm17 - don’t you just love it? I think it’s the space alpacas who are responsible - and of course, the eclipse most likely influenced the wormhole, too.
My theory is that you create one by suggesting that you scientifically examine God.
Anyone up for trying to test this hypothesis by attempting to replicate this technique? (It’ll probably lead to more madness and vexation, though.) :P
-
TeresaINPa says:
use science to study God or prove God does or doesn’t exist? Science isn’t up to the job. People who think otherwise seem to be missing a dimension to their thinking.
Other than that, I feel like I am back at DU or dkos with all the childish remarks about magic sky fairies and such. -
Hammer of the Dyke says:
The scientific method is a useful tool, but in the hands of the patriarchy, it can be quite vile. In the male mindset, to “know” is to dominate and to control. How else can we interpret Oppenheimer’s insane statement, “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds?” or the references to the bomb as “the baby boy.” This mindset dominates scientific research (that and the corporatocracy). Also note the direct exclusion of women in science and the theft of women’s work (Rosalind Franklin was awarded the Nobel Prize posthumously, along with the reprobate misogynists, Watson and Crick, for the discovery of the structure of DNA). Clearly, the application of the scientific method requires moral (not religious) guidance, not only the ravening desire to know, to own and to conquer.
That said, there are many forces in American society which produce a grossly anti-intellectual, rationality-hating milieu. Only in America do people believe that global warming is up for debate and hasn’t long been settled. My beloved partner is a PhD candidate in mechanical engineering whose instructor told her that they were very lucky to obtain any research grants in her field because, frankly, the USA is no longer the seat of scientific research in much of anything at all. I don’t think that research has to be a competition, exactly, but the point is that there exist few scientists here, adequately prepared, to do the research. Maybe all of those saddled-up dinosaur with human dioramas, combined with No Child Left Behind, produced an ill effect? As Lewis Black says, “I can’t be kind about this because these people believe the Flintstones is a documentary.”
Still, it is good of the Baptists to consider granting women fully human status. From a scientific standpoint, there is only a single chromosome that differentiates male from female. This is the Y chromosome (an incomplete X, of which the female has 2), and it is probably a mutation. The Y chromosome carries very little information, but it does produce a male by ramping up testosterone production early on. Here are some facts which neither the scientific (I’m talking to you, Larry Summers), nor the religious establishments, can wrap their minds around. Males are, biologically, created from the “side” of the female - not the other way around.
I’m with Stephen J Gould on the question of the Creator in science. I don’t think it is something that can be subjected practically to experimentation. Let’s find a cure for patriarchy first.
-
Sis says:
I think you meant “not” awarded the Nobel Prize. Posthumously or at all.
“(Rosalind Franklin was awarded the Nobel Prize posthumously, along with the reprobate misogynists, Watson and Crick, for the discovery of the structure of DNA).”
-
NewOrleansPuma says:
Is what you just wrote here supposed to be an elightened improvement on Ancient Texts?
God help us all if it is.
