Although I normally think the Brits are more reasonable than those of us in the United States — colored by characters like Mary Poppins and enhanced by the British Broadcasting Network — I have been utterly proven wrong.  It seems that people all over the world are complete idiots when it comes to sensitive topics like, say, rape.

“Britain’s most hard-hitting, controversial and politically incorrect bog” is apparently written by “Britain’s most perceptive, honest and intelligent political commentator.”  That commentator is British National Party member Nick Ericksen writing under the pseudonymn John Bull.  The title of the blog piece is RAPE: LIES, LIES, LIES.

I don’t have to tell you that rape is a serious crime.  A serious crime usually not given enough attention by the media or by politicians.  Ericksen apparently agrees that “violent rape by a stranger on the street is a terrible crime” but he goes on to say that “feminazis [have] built ‘rape’ up as a serious offence” and have included date rape and husband rape in the category of old-fashioned-violent-street-rape-by-a-stranger kind of rape, which is apparently much better than other kinds of rape.

Mr. Ericksen needs much more than a slap on the wrist (he was sackedfrom his candidacy) for perpetuating the myth (to use his words) that rape by one’s husband or partner is not rape.  Rape is sex without the permission of one party, period.  Which means that men can be raped too, Mr. Ericksen, despite what you might think (although, as we all know, women are much more often the victims of violent crimes).  Our society has built up a culture of rape that allows men to feel that they control women and that, as Mr. Ericksen says, “rape is simply sex” (for more on this topic, please read Transforming a Rape Culture).

Let’s examine a little of what Mr. Ericksen said, just for the fun of it, shall we?

An analysis was recently conducted by the Forensic Science Service of over 1,000 cases where women had complained that their drinks had been spiked.  Not one showed any trace of Rohypnol.  NOT ONE.

However, by examining the actual press release from the FSS about this study, one finds that

In 31 per cent of cases (315) alcohol only was detected, in 19 percent of cases (189) an illicit drug only was detected and in 15 per cent (155) of cases both alcohol and an illicit drug were detected.

While no uses of the drug Rohypnol specifically were found, there were plenty of cases of other drugs used.  No where in the article does it say, as Mr. Ericksen suggests, that women were to blame for drinking excessively and taking recreational drugs on their own.  However, even if the study had found what Mr. Ericksen seems to think, his argument would still be underminded by the fourth conclusion of the FSS study:

Irrespective of whether a potentially sedative drug was found, high alcohol concentrations and/or the presence of illicit drugs and/or pharmaceutical drugs can interfere with a person’s ability to give ‘informed consent’.

Too bad, Mr. Ericksen. 

Mr. Ericksen then does something that I teach my composition student never to do.  He commits a dangerous fallacy:

Given that only 6% of rape allegations are upheld by the courts, we can see that 94% of rape allegations are lies.

Just because only 6% of rape allegations are upheld does not mean that the rest are necessarily lies.  Our culture holds a perpetrator innocent until proven guilty and puts the burden of proof on the plaintiff.  But Mr. Ericksen takes this argument further claiming that

modern feminazi women [are] nasty, devious, lying, man-hating creatures, [seeking] to ruin a man’s life simply in order to disguise the fact that you are a slapper, or because he broke up with you and you want to get ‘even’, or because he rebuffed your advances

Yes, that’s right.  Modern feminists are nasty, devious, lying, man-hating creature seeking to ruin men’s lives.  Yes, that is my ultimate goal in life.  We won’t even go into the implications of Mr. Ericksen’s claim here that all women are emotional unreasonable “creatures” (not people, not humans, of course).

Then Mr. Ericksen gets to the heart (if there is one) of the matter: he is worried about date rape and husband rape being lumped in the same category as stranger rape.  According to Ericksen,

Women enjoy sex, so this type of ‘rape’ cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal.  To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is  serious crime is like suggesting that force feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offense.  A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched.

After you are done hitting your head on the desk, consider this: Mr. Ericksen assumes that husband rape is not violent.  Mr. Ericksen also assumes that all women enjoy sex.  Mr. Ericksen also assumes that non-violent rape is not all that bad (never consiering the psychological consequences of rape).  He also equates forced sex to force feeding a woman chocolate cake.  While the two are clearly not the same, I cannot honestly say that being force-fed any item I did not want to eat would be pleasurable.

And finally, the last bit of treasure from Mr. Ericksen,

In other words the demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men.  Again, for those who are seeking to cause trouble by deliberately misunderstanding me: yes, violent rape by a stranger in the street is a terrible crime, but I am not talking about that – I am talking about ‘husband-rape’.  Men who go along with the rape myth (for all types of rape – including ‘husband-rape’) are either morons or traitors.

Sigh.  Apparently all men must stick together for the continuation of their species.  If they agree with feminism or agree that date-rape or husband-rape are crimes, they are either a) complete idiots (unlike Mr. Ericksen) or b) traitors of their sex.  I hate to break it to you, Mr. Ericksen, but men who support this so-called ‘myth’ are simply supporting basic human rights – the rights afforded to all humans – yes, Mr. Ericksen, even women. 

All in all, Mr. Ericksen lives up to his pseudonymn.  Everything in his blog is just bull.  His arguments do not stack up.  While he goes to great lengths to make sure people do not misunderstand him (he think violent rape by a stranger in the street is awful), what he is really saying here is that all kinds of reported rape are just women crying “wolf.”  And what about the women who don’t report rape?  This is the kind of attitude that makes them fearful of reporting the incident.  Why should she report it if men think she is less inconvenienced by the rape than she would be in “having her handbag snatched”?

My blood is boiling, but I think that most intelligent and reasonable people will agree that Mr. Ericksen’s blog post is simply bull.

TMZ (and yes, I’m addicted just like the rest of you… ) just posted a story about stars not wearing their makeup.

The captions for some of these photos really disturbs me.  The writers compare people like Queen Latifah, Helen Hunt, Nicollette Sheridan, Rosanna Arquette, and Britney Spears to truckers, farmer’s daughters, bloated lizards, looking “desperate” and looking like they “are on their way to the Women’s Shelter.” 

The idea of this article is to make the rest of us (the so-called farmer’s daughters) feel better about how we look without our make up on.  Instead, the article makes a terrible point that without make up, women had just better stay home!  What is disturbing about this whole thing is that most men do not wear make up out and they are not derided for their lack of “paint” or looking like they just got out of bed.  So why are women held to a higher standard?  The answer is that women DO look different without their make up on, and in some cases, they DO  look decidedly worse without their make up on.  But we have something to compare to with women: make up on, make up off — which looks better?  Men don’t usually wear make up or something that changes their appearance significantly, so there is nothing to compare to.  They (at least the stars) just usually get made fun of for gaining weight. Women get both weight (you’re too skinny, you’re too fat) and make up and clothes – all things that society has labeled as being important for women.  The problem is that most of these women (and the rest of us are just as guilty) think that they HAVE to wear make up to look pretty.  So they wear make up — lots of it.  They hide behind a mask of “paint” afraid to show the world what they really look like.  Why can’t we all just appreciate each other – even with our flaws and without our make up?  Why do we feel the need hide everything under man-made (pun intended) products? 

For those of you worried about your bodies, afraid that you’re too fat, or too skinny, or that your boobs are too big or too small, afraid that your boobs sag too much, afraid that your gut hangs out too far, worried that you’re too wrinkly, too old, too hunched, too short, too tall….  For all of you women…

Check this great photography project out: http://www.jordanmatter.com/exhibits/default.asp?name=nudes

I recently watched the movie Good Luck Chuck and while it was generally funny, there are a few things I feel need to be addressed.

The premise of this movie is that Chuck has a hex put on him when he is a kid that makes every woman he sleeps with fall in love with and marry the next guy she dates.  Of course, Chuck meets a woman that he can finally say those three little words to and does not want to sleep with her for fear that she will marry the next guy she meets.

Let’s start with the good.  There was one fascinating moment in the movie which I think should garner some attention.  Towards the beginning of the movie, before Chuck has decided to perform a “public service” by sleeping with every woman he meets, his secretary, an obsese black woman, shows up at his house and asks him to sleep with her.  There is a terribly stereotypical gag in this section where she rips off her trench coat, revealing some sexy lingerie, leaps onto Chuck and (of course) collapses his table.  But here is where the good comes in.  While Chuck tries to explain that he does not want to sleep with her, they share this extremely heartfelt moment where she explains that she just wants someone to love and that Chuck can just pretend she is someone else.  This could have turned into another gag, but I think the director wanted to show that Chuck isn’t all that bad.  Instead of making this sad moment into a joke, Chuck responds by holding her and saying, “No, I’ll pretend it’s you.”  One point for fat acceptance.

Now for the bad which, unfortunately, horribly outweighs the good.  As you have probably figured out by now if you haven’t seen the movie yet, the premise of the movie is extremely derogatory towards women.  The movie perpetuates the stereotype that all women just want to get married and will do anything to find the perfect man, including sleeping with a complete stranger.  Additionally, late in the movie, in order to test the hex, Chuck decides to sleep with a woman who “aint’ never gettin’ married.”  This woman is obese and when we first meet her, the characters tell us she is “beached over there by the garbage bag full of donut holes.”  Again, the directors push the stereotype of fat women everywhere, telling us that all they do is eat junk all day.  Chuck is obviously grossed out by this woman and downs one shot after another just to get through dinner with her.  Fortunately (though I’m not sure if this is the right choice of words here), the directors also make this woman “worse” than “just” fat.  She has back, front, and side acne; she eats like a slob; and she is rude and angry.  Turns out she is also something of a wildcat in the bedroom, but that’s besides the point. 

In the end, this movie turns out to be less of a love story and more of a tale about the stupid and slutty American woman.  Not only is the movie full of gross out jokes about masturbation and off-color comments about women’s breasts (Chuck’s best friend is a plastic surgeon who specializes in breast implants), but it shows the viewer that most women don’t care who they share their bodies with and that fat women are gross. 

I am a little late for this, considering it is January 3rd already.  But it is already a ridiculous practice, so I suppose two days won’t hurt. 

I have been surprised so far that my gym hasn’t become full of people deciding to “loose weight” for the new year.  It is clear from all of the Weight Watchers and other diet commercials that the vast majority of American people will declare, “This is the year I will loose the forty pounds I’ve been meaning to drop since the summer of 1997.”  Without going into the whole fat debate right now (which I will get to later, I promise), the issue essentially is that loosing weight doesn’t equal healthy, but also that setting goals which are difficult to meet will only result in disappointment and lowered self-esteem.   Moving on… 

I read something on the fatosphere about New Year’s Resolutions that got me thinking.

I wonder what kind of world we might live in, if instead of “lose weight”, people would instead make a new year’s resolution to “learn more about myself and the people in my life”. Instead of planning to shed pounds, how about working on shedding self-hatred/loathing/dislike/discomfort, or shedding the notion that the way a person looks is really one of the least important qualities about them?

Why not make resolutions that will benefit yourself in ways other than becomming more attractive?  Why not make resolutions that will better the earth or humankind?  Why not?

So in response to this, I thought it was only proper that I come up with my own set of New Year’s Resolutions.

1. I will learn more about my faith, my religion, and my God.  I will get my questions answered and work on improving my relationship with God.

2. I will spend more time with my family.

3. I will remember birthdays, anniversaries, and the like and will remember the family members that I don’t talk to that often and will send them cards, letters, and emails.

4. I will spend more time doing activities and less time in front of the t.v.

5. I will be more financially responsible and stop spending money on things I don’t need.

6. I will clean the house at least once a week.

7. I will stop setting pop cans and bottles outside of my car door and pretending that it isn’t littering.

8. I will become more involved in a cause.

9. I will learn to take a compliment.

10.  I will be more spontaneous.

11.  I will stop being so pessimistic and start looking at all things from a positive perspective.  I will find the good in every situation (and in every person).

Now doesn’t that feel better?

The conversation usually goes something like this:

Me: Look at how cute she is (watching my 2-year-old niece)

My husband: Yep, pretty cute.

My mother-in-law: Is there something you have to tell me?

If my grandmother-in-law happens to be in the house, the conversation would continue like this:

Me: Yeah, right.  I don’t think so.

My husband: We already have one kid.  It’s called a dog.

My grandmother-in-law: You know, a dog can’t replace children.

Sometimes it’s not so obvious.  It might be a simple question like “Wouldn’t that be nice to have all the time?” when my husband is holding our niece.  Or maybe it’s a simple comment like, “You know, I have a lot more room for more grandbabies.”

If you’re like me, you know what I’m talking about.  It is the elephant in the room.  My husband and I have been married for five years now and – gasp – we don’t have kids.  It shouldn’t be this way.  The second women’s rights movement of the 70s made so many other options available for women.  We have the ability to work jobs we wouldn’t have been able to just 30 years ago.  We can stay home if we want.  We can go to work if we want.  But the stigma around childless women just hasn’t gone away.

I should say that married men are subject to this stereotyping as well.  My husband gets it from his mother as well.  But men without children are just strong leaders while women without children are dried up prudes. 

During this semester I tried talking with my class about women and childbearing.  We were talking about a character in a book who is pressured into having a child by her husband because it is the socially acceptable thing to do.  My kids seemed to think that this was something limited to other cultures.  I tried to get them to understand that this kind of thinking was still prevalent in our culture.  But they didn’t get it.  They think women have broken the glass ceiling and are flying high with all the power they now have. 

I have to blame some of this on religion and by extension, the “Sanctity of the Family” rhetoric by conservatives.  I did come across this little gem in a question and answer forum for Christians:

In Genesis 3:16 God spoke of childbearing in speaking of the chastening he would place on the woman to remind her of her sin. Childbearing, more than anything else, sets woman apart from man. If a woman recognizes this and treasures children as a precious gift of God, and if she willingly and gladly serves God in this unique function, in no clearer way can she show her acceptance of the role God has given her as woman. On the other hand, if she rejects this unique action God gave her, she shows her rebellion against God.

In other words, women who reject their God-given role of bearing children are sinning, while men are simply the poor saps who got married to these prudes.

I think I’ve had about enough.  I’ll have children when I damn well please, and not a moment before.  People like Britney Spears (and hundreds of other people I know who are breeding) are great arguments for why some people just shouldn’t have kids.  It’s a personal decision that should be kept personal and should be based on financial capability and the responsibleness of the parents-to-be, not societal norms.

As Christmas Day approaches, I think it is time to take a look into the “War on Christmas.”

First, let’s look at what conservatives are saying.  Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, has this to say about the “War on Christmas.”  O’Reilly claims that taking the word “Christmas” (he doesn’t care about the “merry”) out of the holiday season is “all part of the secular progressive agenda … to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square.”  He goes on to say: “Once you start taking out even the secular symbols of religious holidays — Christmas trees, Santas, so forth — refuse to use the word “Christmas,” you can shove this religious stuff indoors, out of sight.”

We’ll talk about the ridiculousness of his statement a bit later.

On another front, WoldNetDaily, which touts itself as an “independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty”, but is essentially a conservative news source, is selling Christmas-Defense Kits because “the American Civil Liberties Union grinches will be out in full force punishing those erecting Nativity displays, extending Christmas greetings and otherwise exercising their God-given, First Amendment-protected rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.” 

Let’s look at these two interesting news items for a second before we look at the ACLU’s position on Christmas.  First of all, O’Reilly claims that millions of shoppers will not go to stores that refuse to use the word “Christmas” in their advertising.  He also claims that Christians will be offended by being given the greeting “Happy Holidays” by store team members.  First of all, if Christians refused to shop at places that did not use the word “Christmas” in their advertising, hundreds of retailers would have been hurting long before now (and obviously, not as a result of the economy).  Secondly, the greeting “Happy Holidays” encompasses all holidays, including Christmas, during this month-long period between Thanksgiving and New Years.  So why then should I be offended by this greeting?  The cashier doesn’t know if I’m a Christian or a Jew or an atheist.  But this isn’t the most sigh-inducing comment by O’Reilly.  He actually uses Santas and Christmas trees as symbols of the Christian holiday that need to be kept in order for the sanctity of Christmas to continue. 

Though many Christians refuse to ignore the historical truth, the fact is that many of our “Christian” traditions actually originated from Pagan rituals and symbols.  The Christmas tree is one of them.  Take a look at the origins of the Christmas tree:

The following demonstrates what the Babylonians believe about the origin of the Christmas tree: “An old Babylonish fable told of an evergreen tree which sprang out of a dead tree stump. The old stump symbolized the dead Nimrod, the new evergreen tree symbolized that Nimrod had come to life again in Tammuz! Among the Druids the oak was sacred, among the Egyptians it was the palm, and in Rome it was the fir, which was decorated with red berries during the Saturnalia!” (Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs, p. 242).

Frederick J. Haskin’s Answers to Questions states, “The Christmas tree is from Egypt, and its origin dates from a period long anterior to the Christmas Era.” Did you know this—that the Christmas tree long preceded Christianity?

Most aspects of Christmas are not referred to in the Bible. Of course, the reason is that they are not from God—they are not part of the way He wants people to worship Him. The Christmas tree, however, is directly mentioned in the Bible! Turn to Jeremiah 10:2-5, “Thus says the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen…For the customs of the people are vain: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.”

This plain description of the modern Christmas tree is clear. God directly refers to it as “the way of the heathen.” Just as directly, He commands His people to “learn not the way of the heathen,” calling these customs “vain.”

Clearly, O’Reilly is confused about his Christmas traditions.  The Christmas tree, as well as the yule log, holly wreaths, mistletoe, and exchanging gifts all pre-date Christianity.  Why one would be concerned about these “traditional” Christmas symbols being lost to the “pagan” or “heathen” secular society is beyond me.

WordNetDaily claims that the ACLU is attacking Christmas.  And many Christians believe this is so.  However, this is what the ACLU actually has to say about Christmas:

For some, however, misrepresenting the ACLU when it comes to religion has become a holiday tradition akin to making eggnog and decking the halls with holly. Invariably during the run-up to Christmas, the ACLU is annually and wrongfully disparaged for waging a mythical “War on Christmas.” In fact, the ACLU zealously defends the right of both non-believers to practice no religion at all and religious believers, including Christians, to practice their religion freely. And the ACLU’s zeal certainly does not take a vacation during the holidays.

Christmas displays, for example – things like nativity displays – are perfectly acceptable at homes and churches. Religious expression – during the holidays and throughout the year – is a valued part of the First Amendment rights guaranteed all citizens. But government should never be in the business of endorsing things like religious displays. Religion is best served when the government plays no role in promoting any particular holiday or any individual religious tradition. That job is best suited for individuals, families and religious communities. For when that decision is left in their hands, and kept out of the hands of the government, those who decide to are truly free to celebrate the religious holiday of their choice.

Clearly there is some confusion on this issue.  And it looks like the religious right are the ones getting it wrong.

I thought long and hard about what to include in my first post on my new blog.  I could have written about the baseball steroid scandal, about the Democrat’s debate in Iowa just a few weeks before the caucuses.  I could have written about farm subsidies or global warming or Pat Robertson or google or ethics in Congress or Holiday shopping.  But honestly, I don’t feel like writing about any of those things today, though I will get to them later.

Today I’m going to write about a book I read called The Reluctant Fundamentalistby Mohsin Hamid.  I plan on using this book in my Eng 111 classroom because I thought it was so good.  But other people besides freshman students will enjoy this book that is un-put-down-able.

The Reluctant Fundamentalistis about a young Pakistani man who comes to America for four years to study at Princeton.  While he is here he is involved in a distorted love triangle and experiences strange American customs.  He is at the top of his class and earns a prestigious position at a firm in New York City.  But after 9/11 everything changes for him.

The book is written in first person, with the protagonist, Changez, speaking to an American tourist who is visiting Lahore.  Because the American doesn’t speak a word during Changez’s story, the audience, that is, the reader, by extension becomes the American tourist.  And the result is astounding.  The end of the tale is startling.  Hamid does not tie up any of the loose ends, which is something an American reader will expect.  Instead, he leaves the book with the reader (and the American tourist) wondering what is going to happen.  You’ll have to read the book to see what I mean.

Because of the format in which it is written, the book is hard to put down and is described as a thriller by some critics.  But what is most interesting about the book is what will shock the reader as he or she reads Changez’s story.  Changez expresses some sympathy with the terrorists who attacked the Twin Towers and the American tourist finds himself aghast at Changez’s feelings.  The reader will feel the same.  But because the reader knows Changez’s story, it is difficult to condemn him completely.  The book gives wonderful insight into what it is like for people from the Middle East in our country. 

With the discrimination (and sometimes hatred) our society often practices against people from the Middle East, this book is incredibly important to read today.  Though this is just one book in a long string of others about post 9/11, this one is definitely worth picking up.