"No, no," they assure me, "no one is interested in eliminating genders. Why would you think that?" And it's all very comforting ... until you read news items like the one last night. Science is trying to make a "female sperm" which would, according to the stories, obsolete men. One site says that lesbians envision a fantasy world with "lesbians living together in an all-women utopia, loving, raising families and their own food. No men are needed, even in the creation of children." (Despite my preference to cite my sources, I will skip that one. Sorry.) The Daily Mail says, "Despite all the twists and turns taken in the new world of reproductive medicine, the news that a scientific team is trying to make the human male redundant is still profoundly shocking." No, no ... they don't want to eliminate ... well, okay, so some are trying. Odd ... although men have been "evil" and "in charge" for all this time, none of them considered eliminating women. What's up with that?
Search for "Who needs men" in Google and you'll find an abundance of women who think that men are worse than useless. You'll find reports of the new test-tube sperm that suggests "the end of men". (You see, the only function of males in today's society appears to be ... sperm donor.) One article assures us that cats are better than men.
Paranoid? You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you. And while calm voices assure me that no one wants to eliminate the distinction between genders and no one is trying to elevate women above men and all they really want is to just get along ... I keep seeing this stuff. Are you sure no one is interested in eliminating males?
27 comments:
Some men, in my depraved mind anyway, are worse than useless, just like some dogs, insects, and yes women too, are. That's the funny thing about living at the center of the universe, you're able to overlook your own faults and their contributions to our un-utopian existence while focusing on those of others. At the same time you can pay particular attention to your own positives while ignoring the positives of others.
Ah, but they're not talking about "some men". They're talking about "males" -- all.
What I find interesting is what I read from women who hate men. You don't find heterosexual males who say, "We should eliminate women!" The worst you hear from them is (say it with me), "Women -- you can't live with 'em; you can't live without 'em." Even among male homosexuals you won't find that kind of hatred for women. It seems to only be among lesbian women that the notion of eliminating an entire gender would be a good thing. Isn't that odd?
Not posting my comment or did it just get lost?
I had noted that, yes, there ARE women who speak hatefully about men. In my experience, these are women who have been repeatedly hurt by men and have some justification for their bitterness (if not in their sweeping conclusions).
Similarly, I noted, there ARE men who speak hatefully about women. Google "Women. You can't live with them and you can't shoot them" and you'll many hits and many tshirts and bumper stickers with that emotion being voiced.
But, just because there are men who speak hatefully about women (possibly because THEY have been treated badly) does not mean much at all, other than some men misbehave. Same for women.
Don't make some sort of generalization of it or you are making the same mistake that women who are bitter towards men make.
Dear Dan,
I will be in prayer for you. It appears that your funny bone is seriously damaged. It is quite clear that you can't recognize sarcasm or "tongue-in-cheek" when you see it.
First, it is true that there are women who would be perfectly happy to eliminate the male gender entirely if it could be done.
Second, it is true that both genders have those who speak negatively of the other gender ... but I have never found a male who would actually favor the elimination of the female gender. "You can't live with 'em, you can't live without 'em" says that they're a pain, perhaps, but we can't do without them. (I don't subscribe to "they're a pain". I'm simply explaining the phrase.) The women in the previous paragraph would say, "Men ... you can't live with them ... wish we could eliminate them entirely." Not the same thing.
Finally, it was intended as satire, humor, sarcasm, irony -- whatever you care to call it. I do not believe that the male gender can be eliminated. I do not believe that the only function of men is "sperm donor". I do not even believe that the science involved is intended to eliminate men. (It is actually intended to help infertile heterosexual couples.) It is a fact that some would like to eliminate the male gender and some see this science as just such an opportunity. I don't see it as a genuine threat or even a prevalent thought. But you cannot argue that no one wants to eliminate the male gender. That's my only point.
If it is humor, again, I apologize. I didn't catch it.
If your point is that there are some women who'd like to eliminate the male gender, I have yet to see any evidence of that. Making jokes about it - even bitter ones with a hint of seriousness - is not the same as finding someone who actually would like to see no men at all.
If you have evidence of such, though, please submit it.
But, if this was just a joke (like, "Men! Who needs them?!" is a joke), well, there's no real need necessary to provide evidence to support a joke.
Did you read this:
In July 2005, Spain became the one of the first countries in the world to legalize same-sex “marriage.” The new law, which has now facilitated more than 13,000 “weddings” and 165 “divorces,” also grants homosexual couples the right to adopt children. In March 2006, the Zapatero government banned traditional gender references in legal documents relating to the family. On marriage certificates, for example, words such as “husband” and “wife” have been changed to “Spouse A” and “Spouse B.” On birth certificates, words such as “father” and “mother” are now “Progenitor A” and Progenitor B.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3990
Dan Trabue: "I have yet to see any evidence of that."
I will, then, withdraw any assertions for which you lack evidence ... right? In the post I told of a site that envisioned a male-free utopia. I did not (will not) give the link. You did not (will not) accept that I'm telling the truth. Fine. You may assume I'm lying. I have read the remarks. They weren't intended as humor. You don't have the requisite evidence? Call me a liar and disregard my post. Your privilege.
Von, I read that. I think you had it on your blog a short time ago. Of course, no one is out to eliminate genders ... except that they are.
Well, with your comment to Von, there, you sound like you're serious, not joking. Is it the case that you think some people would seriously like to get rid of all males?
I googled "lesbian utopia no men" and other variants and could find no substantiation.
I am not calling you a liar, Stan. I am asking for verification of a wild charge (or is it merely humor, I'm not sure which, at this point).
If I went on my blog and said that "some" or "many" Christians in the Reformed tradition believed in eating their young, that I know so because I read it, would you ask me for a source or would you accept it or would you just reject me out of hand as a liar?
I am not rejecting you out of hand and I'm not accepting it. I am researching the claim and, finding no support, asking for a source.
Why would you not provide a source for such a wild allegation?
Or is it merely humor?
I'm just trying to understand, Brother Stan.
Dear Dan,
Despite the fact that you seem to think that you are aware of all that is going on in the world, I can assure you that there are people -- women ... vocal women -- who would favor the removal of the male gender. Since I cannot be trusted and since linking to the source would violate my principles, I guess we're done here, aren't we?
(By the way, to be clear, if you say, "It's not true" because I don't provide the source, you are calling me a liar. Euphemize all you want. Doesn't change the outcome.)
1. I have not said, "it's not true."
2. I have said, "it's unsupported." (literally, "I have yet to see any evidence of that.")
3. Your allegation IS unsupported.
4. I wonder, once again, why it violates your principles to provide a source for this point?
Stan, please don't put words in my mouth. I have not called you a liar, brother. I have specifically been careful not to do that. Neither have I implied that I think you are a liar. A few times (not in this thread), I have suggested that you are mistaken, or perhaps ignorant (no insult intended, I just mean uninformed, unlearned on a particular topic) or misinformed on a particular topic. But I have not called you a liar.
Please strive not to misrepresent and I shall do the same. Thanks!
(And I hope you consider this civil and Christian - I'm saying please and thanks and apologizing when I've misunderstood and all that. I am being as civil and Christian in my approach to these areas of disagreement as I know how...)
It violates my principles because it is a lesbian website and I have readers that I don't want to find themselves there by accident. Neither do I wish to provide "traffic" for such a site.
Since I will not provide the link and since you cannot accept my word that I researched and read it, can we finish this? "Civil" or not, you must admit that when someone who calls himself a "brother in Christ" refuses to accept your word at face value ("I'm not accepting it" were your words), it wouldn't feel "civil", would it?
His comment to me, at least as far as I understood it, was an acknowledgement of the reality that certain moder political pressure groups are intent on breaking down, linguistically and psychologically, gender distinctions.
The opposite of the following poem:
I
The North Atlantic icefields are perilous and rough,
And only should be tested by those of sterner stuff;
They’re filled with fearful hazards for nautical machines —
Icebergs that look like mountains, with jagged peaks and mean.
But on this eve in 1912 a monarch of the sea
Traversed her waves with brazen strides amid a night of glee.
“Unsinkable!” they called her, yes unsinkable, their claim;
But pride, not strength, would give this ship a destiny of fame.
Near half a hundred thousand tons — the largest ship at sea!
A mighty maiden of the waves, in length: eight eighty-three.
A monument to science? No, a legacy of pride.
A testimonial to those who needlessly would die.
II
While children’s heads lay nestled warm and snug through midnight hours,
And husbands huddled next to wives asleep in love’s sweet powers,
In upper decks men smoked and sang and toasted with a drink,
Not knowing that the virgin ship would soon begin to sink.
First rang the bells, then came the cries, and last the dreaded panic,
And now all knew t’would be the end of R.M.S. Titanic.
But in that hour of foul despair and fear unmitigated
A manly Christian cry to all was quickly circulated:
“Women and children first,” they cried,
“Women and children first!
To save your souls you must give your lives,
Women and children first!”
...
To avoid copyright violation you should read the rest here:
http://www.titanicsociety.com/readables/main/wc_04-12-2001_women_and_children_first_poem.asp
My apologies for how that sounds. I was striving to follow Paul's instructions, where in 1 Thessalonians he tells the believers in a essay on Christian conduct...
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
If you have thoughts on how I BOTH examine everything and at the same time accept your comment without question, let me know. It IS a tricky area, this holding one another accountable and not one that many of us are very good at. I apologize if I have done so clumsily or offensively.
As an aside (and SINCE it's an aside, feel free to ignore it and not publish it), you note that you don't want to link to a lesbian website. I am guessing that it's because you think people who self-identify as lesbian are sinners? Is that the reason?
If that is the case, do you also not generally link to sites of ANY sinners? Or what are your parameters on linking to sites? (Obviously, we wouldn't be linking to any sites if we didn't link to the sites of sinners...)
If you are not linking to lesbians because you think they are sinners but you do link to other sinners' websites, what is the difference?
Just curious (and I ask the question because I know that when I held the position that you do - that homosexuality is always wrong, although we still ought to love homosexuals, just like any other sinners - that I sometimes made a special case of the gay folk. I treated them differently than I did other sinners, considering their sin an "especially bad" one and, of course, I was wrong to do so.)
Dan, in the interest of clarification, I will address these two points.
First, while I do have to wonder about the sincerity of "I was striving to follow Paul's instructions", I will assume you meant it. So, what would I suggest? Ask yourself, "Do I know of any instance when Stan has lied to me before? Do I understand Stan to be the kind of person who would intentionally fabricate a position and claim to have a source that doesn't actually exist? Do I believe Stan to be basically truthful or basically unreliable?" There ... that should help (either way you answer those).
Second, it is not "They're sinners!" that prevents me from linking to them. As you said, that would preclude me from linking to any site ... including my own. Not at all. But if you found a website that was promoting terrorism or a website that offered ways to improve your bank-robbing skills or a website that gave you pointers on bomb-making, would you offer that link to the general public? It isn't the sinful nature of the lifestyle (which, of course, I affirm); it's the promotion of that sin as if it's a good thing. It's not singling them out. I don't link to porn, either. (One of the very few comments I ever rejected had a link in it to a site that had offensive language in it. I rejected the comment for that link.) So, no, it's not because they're sinners.
Dan wrote:
He was dressed in… well, it had to be armor, but armor such as I had never seen before. It was white, not grey or silver like most armor…or even black as I had heard of. And it was not flat, it was all raised up and stuck out.
The figure looked around and then reached behind him. I saw he was reaching for a largish pack.
Sometimes one wonders just what is actual confusion and what is deliberate obfuscation.
I won't answer for Stan, but let me make a guess at an explanation.
Suppose there was a site which was entitled 'Society for the Restoration of Child Sacrifice'.
Now the members of that society are not doubt sinners, just like the rest of us. And most likely unregenerate, just like the majority of sites we visit and link to.
But does Dan really not see the difference between linking to this site and, say, a chess club?
"Lesbians" (ie female Sodomites) are not only 'sinners', but are those who self-identify as promoting in and encouraging a particular sin. As such, we don't support them.
Am I close, Stan?? :)
I wonder if this would be of interest here:
Education Code section 212 defines "sex" as "the biological condition of being a male or female human being." 5 CCR section 4910(v) further defines "sex" as "the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being." 5 CCR section 4910(w) defines "sexual orientation" as "actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality." Finally, 5 CCR section 4910(k) defines "gender" as "a person’s actual sex or perceived sex and includes a person’s perceived identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with a person’s sex at birth." (Emphasis added.) For the purposes of compliance with California law, all of those statutory and regulatory definitions apply to all public school students in California. Local Education Agencies (LEAs) do not have the discretion to eliminate or modify those definitions in a manner that reduces the protection of California students from unlawful discrimination.1
As I said ...
ooops.
it all comes of having dozens of documents open at the same time.
That should read:
Dan wrote:
I am guessing that it's because you think people who self-identify as lesbian are sinners? Is that the reason?
If that is the case, do you also not generally link to sites of ANY sinners? Or what are your parameters on linking to sites? (Obviously, we wouldn't be linking to any sites if we didn't link to the sites of sinners...)
Thank you for the answers, kind sir. If you don't mind, a few follow up thoughts (and if you do mind, just don't post)...
I get what you're saying, I wouldn't link to a porn site, either. However, if I'm making a rather outstanding accusation ("There are some Anglicans who think that it's good to sacrifice dogs on our church altars!"), then...
a. I would expect some skepticism - it is a rather "out there" suggestion, after all.
b. If asked to provide proof and I knew that there was a website (zzz.anglicanssacrifice.com), I would probably reference it, with the warning that "This website contains awful stuff. Beware" or something like that.
c. If the website was just too graphic in some manner - films of killing animals, porn, something pretty graphic - I would probably suggest that anyone who wants a link could email me or perhaps tell them how to google it or something.
d. For myself, I don't tend to make charges without substantiating them, at least upon request.
e. After all, making an unsupported charge is, to me, just a step away from bearing false witness. Bearing unsupported witness, perhaps.
f. Now, if the link was merely to a website that said, "We believe in sacricing dogs on our altars..." and they used not especially graphic words to make their case, I almost definitely WOULD link to their site. People are adults, they can handle it and understand that, just because I have linked to it to prove a charge is not the same as my promoting it.
g. The charge that there are some women out there who wish to get rid of all men IS a pretty outstanding and difficult to believe charge. I don't think it unreasonable that people would wish to "test everything" about the charge and not merely accept your word because you're a nice guy.
h. If my son told me the same thing, I'd doubt it and say, show me the link. NOT because I don't trust my son, but because I understand that it is easy to misunderstand intentions and the charge is so wild as not to be believable. Not fully believing my son is not to say that I am calling him a liar AT ALL. I am just "testing everything," as Paul directs.
Seems reasonable to me.
Von has a post that begins, "Dan wrote..." that is followed by stuff that THIS Dan never wrote (not that I recall) nor that makes any sense to me. The whole first half of that comment is a mystery to me, but perhaps it's not directed towards me?
Beats me.
Von went on to say...
But does Dan really not see the difference between linking to this site and, say, a chess club?
"Lesbians" (ie female Sodomites) are not only 'sinners', but are those who self-identify as promoting in and encouraging a particular sin. As such, we don't support them.
As I noted in my response to Stan (should he decide to post it), if I were making a rather wild charge that I knew to be true for at least some because I read a website (and we all know how reliable THAT is...), I would expect people to question me. I would expect someone might request proof.
And, if the site were too graphic, I might suggest they email me and I could offer proof. If it were merely descriptive, but not in a vulgar or graphic way ("we wish all men were gone. We want them all away from Planet Earth so that we can live in lesbian peace..."), well, I WOULD link to it. Why wouldn't I offer the proof. The only reason not to, as noted, would be if it were graphic.
That a website exists that promotes what I consider sinful behavior would not necessarily make me not link to it.
Here's an example: I am generally opposed to torture, as such is part and parcel of my Christian faith tradition. If I made a charge, "Bush wants to torture people to get information!" that I knew to be true because I had read a website - torturefortruth.com - where Bush is quoted as promoting torture, I WOULD link to that website, just to show the quote. Now, obviously, I don't APPROVE of the goals of the website, but why wouldn't I point out the wrong on a website, if I thought it was wrong? My readers are fully capable of distinguishing between right and wrong on their own.
Now, if the website showed video of torture, I might issue a disclaimer or state that I refuse to link directly to it because of the video. But if someone wanted proof of my claim, I would provide it one way or the other.
You see, I think it is entirely reasonable and good to provide support when one makes charges. The wilder, more "out there" the charges are, the more prudent it is to provide support for the charge.
Now, what else were you talking about Von, because you totally lost me!
Von also wrote earlier...
His comment to me, at least as far as I understood it, was an acknowledgement of the reality that certain modern political pressure groups are intent on breaking down, linguistically and psychologically, gender distinctions.
And again, I have NO idea what this comment means. Is he referring to ME with "his comment..."? It doesn't sound like anything I've said, if so.
This sounds like half a conversation where we have missed the other half. Am I missing something??
Stan noted...
First, while I do have to wonder about the sincerity of "I was striving to follow Paul's instructions", I will assume you meant it.
Why would you wonder about my sincerity? I have noted repeatedly that I take the Bible entirely seriously. It's a straightforward teaching and echoes other straightforward teachings (don't bear false witness, the writings against slander, etc). Why wonder about my sincerity on that particular passage?
Too much stuff, too little time ... way too little interest. (You see, I'm quite sure that if I trotted out a website or even a group of people that said exactly what I said they said, it wouldn't convince you.)
Dan Trabue: "I have NO idea what this comment means."
He was saying that my comment to him acknowledged that there are those out there who would like to obscure genders. The "his comment to me" referred to me, not you.
Dan Trabue: "Von has a post that begins ..."
Von has noticed and corrected his error.
As for your absolute certainty that I should discard my particular principles about linking to sites that I find offensive, I apologize. Won't do it. Live with it.
It seems as if my posts that come across as against your beliefs, although they are singular, become something of a crusade to you. You disagree. Fine. I think you've made that clear. And you're entitled. I think I've even posted every comment you've made on the topic. I haven't deleted any comments because they were accusatory or came across as unfair or unkind. In other words, I think I've let you play out your tilting at windmills. The post was only mildly serious. Despite your best beliefs, there are women who would like to eliminate men. No, they're not a large number. No, I don't have any concern that they might succeed. No, I don't think it's an issue, except that it's part of the rest of the efforts of some in our society who are interested in obliterating genders as an issue whatsoever. You know, like those egalitarian folks. (Sorry ... couldn't help myself from that last little dig.) The Bible makes gender an issue and you reject that. Fine. There are those who would like to dispose of gender and you reject that. Fine. There are those who would like to eliminate an entire gender and you reject that. Is there anything I've missed? Because I think you've made your point. If your only aim is to make me violate my own sense of what I should and shouldn't do, move on.
His comment to me, at least as far as I understood it, was an acknowledgement of the reality that certain modern political pressure groups are intent on breaking down, linguistically and psychologically, gender distinctions.
And again, I have NO idea what this comment means. Is he referring to ME with "his comment..."? It doesn't sound like anything I've said, if so.
This sounds like half a conversation where we have missed the other half. Am I missing something??
It all comes of ones post being posted not immediately below what one was replying to. not that it is Stans fault.
I posted it immediately after reading:
Well, with your comment to Von, there, you sound like you're serious, not joking. Is it the case that you think some people would seriously like to get rid of all males?
I guess I was just mistaken when I thought that there might be any reason to think that there might be those out there who wouldn't mind eliminating the male gender.
Funny thing, though ... couldn't find anything like it against women.
Post a Comment