Some stuff ...
- Ross Douthat ... why does anyone read this guy? Ross Douthat Wants You To Have More Babies, So Get to Work ...
[...] Douthat may imagine that those who have few or no children are just too busy screwing around to make babies, but the reality is that most people have their eye on the long term—on the future—when it comes to deciding to have a smaller family. Right-wingers may be busy tallying the number of babies born, but the rest of us are actually worried about taking care of them when they get here. Unless you're Mitt Romney, having lots of kids usually means each child has fewer parental resources to draw on. In addition, many of us worry about handing over this planet to younger generations, especially in light of how much exponential population growth over the past century contributed to the global warming crisis.
- Bishop Alan Wilson on the Church of England women bishops thing ....
[...] In the light of several conversations this week all round, the realisation is creeping over me, like cold water in a hot bath, that when everything contingent has been talked out, this does all boil down to sex discrimination, no more, no less. Discriminatory is as discriminatory does. We're not fooling anyone, not even ourselves any more by pretending otherwise. The failure of any male headship argument to register in the House of Commons debate implies that, politically speaking, those who hold new model Complementarian views would be better off explaining the moral value of that particular kind of discrimination than pretending it is not what it manifestly is.
Look, nobody actually believes “men are the same as women.” The question is why should we impose an artificial difference on men and women that renders women permanently subordinate? It hasn’t always been so, even in our tradition. In the Bronze Age, Deborah Judged Israel, and that was OK. Unlike possessing a womb, subordination of women is not inevitable or, these days, generally desirable. New model Complementarianism as expressed last week is an elaborate three card trick. You begin by saying (1) everyone is equal, then (2) that they're different, then (How do they do that? watch out for the Queen of Hearts) (3) it's OK if woman are subordinated because that's a difference. Innit. Ah but you see, it's precisely the subordination that isn't equal, or acceptable to our MP's. They think it's inequality. Because it is.
- See that curled up dead leaf? It's a moth :) ....
[...] Douthat may imagine that those who have few or no children are just too busy screwing around to make babies, but the reality is that most people have their eye on the long term—on the future—when it comes to deciding to have a smaller family. Right-wingers may be busy tallying the number of babies born, but the rest of us are actually worried about taking care of them when they get here. Unless you're Mitt Romney, having lots of kids usually means each child has fewer parental resources to draw on. In addition, many of us worry about handing over this planet to younger generations, especially in light of how much exponential population growth over the past century contributed to the global warming crisis.
- Bishop Alan Wilson on the Church of England women bishops thing ....
[...] In the light of several conversations this week all round, the realisation is creeping over me, like cold water in a hot bath, that when everything contingent has been talked out, this does all boil down to sex discrimination, no more, no less. Discriminatory is as discriminatory does. We're not fooling anyone, not even ourselves any more by pretending otherwise. The failure of any male headship argument to register in the House of Commons debate implies that, politically speaking, those who hold new model Complementarian views would be better off explaining the moral value of that particular kind of discrimination than pretending it is not what it manifestly is.
Look, nobody actually believes “men are the same as women.” The question is why should we impose an artificial difference on men and women that renders women permanently subordinate? It hasn’t always been so, even in our tradition. In the Bronze Age, Deborah Judged Israel, and that was OK. Unlike possessing a womb, subordination of women is not inevitable or, these days, generally desirable. New model Complementarianism as expressed last week is an elaborate three card trick. You begin by saying (1) everyone is equal, then (2) that they're different, then (How do they do that? watch out for the Queen of Hearts) (3) it's OK if woman are subordinated because that's a difference. Innit. Ah but you see, it's precisely the subordination that isn't equal, or acceptable to our MP's. They think it's inequality. Because it is.
- See that curled up dead leaf? It's a moth :) ....
posted by crystal | 8:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home