‘Doctors’ for the ‘Family’
15 May 2012 Leave a Comment
in Human rights, Science
Would you trust your doctor to administer healthcare to you if they were incapable of acknowledging or understanding a peer-reviewed, scientific consensus?
If the answer is any variation of “Um, hell no”, as I rather suspect it would be, you should probably check that your family doctor doesn’t belong to the Australian group called ‘Doctors for the Family’. (Everyone knows that the word ‘Family’ in any group name should immediately set off loud warning sirens and red flashing lights.)
Doctors for the Family have recently presented a submission to the Senate Committee against any changes to the existing Marriage Act. Their reasoning can basically be summed up as “Won’t somebody think of the children!!1!“
They have stated that children of gay parents are somehow worse-off than children of straight parents. In doing so they have blithely ignored the plethora of scientific evidence surrounding the wellbeing of children with non-hetero parents, and have instead substituted a whole lot of non-peer reviewed, Australian-Christian-Lobby-funded garbage in place of actual science, in order to support their religiously inspired bigotry and their desire to impose it on the rest of the country. There is a good analysis on The Conversation here and here.
Don’t you just love it when people try to use the respectability and legitimacy of [fake] science to support their prejudice?
The submission (with the names of all doctors involved) can be downloaded from this government page (it’s number 229). I recommend checking to make sure that your doctor is not on the list. If they are, I recommend ditching them as fast as possible, and letting them know in no uncertain terms why you are doing so.
The thought that there are practising doctors out there who don’t understand medical science (or at least, who refuse to acknowledge it when it contradicts their personal bias) is a little bit scary.
The Avengers – I am not a ‘fanboy’
07 May 2012 Leave a Comment
in Entertainment, Feminism, Geek
Yes, I’ve seen and loved The Avengers (particularly loved Australia’s easy release date, but not the fact that we missed out on the second cut-scene in the credits). If I get around to it I might even write a blog entry about it, something like a review crossed with musings on superhero stories in general. I have a line scribbled in my notebook that says: “Superheroes are the promise that the ordinary can become extraordinary”, and that might go somewhere, one day.
In the meantime, with other blogging priorities, I was cruising Rotten Tomatoes to see what the rest of the world has made of The Avengers, and a few of the reviews made me roll my eyes at their use of terminology.
“Filled with fanboy-wank.” – Dennis Schwartz, Ozus’ World Movie Reviews.
“… the perfect popcorn movie that respects its audience, fan boy or not, though the former will be more excited to see the Stan Lee cameo.” – Andrew Chase, Killer Movie Reviews.
I’d just like the world to note that you don’t have to be a fanboy to appreciate superhero/comic book movies. Obsessive geekiness is certainly not dependent on gender. My DVD collection is proof of that all by itself.
Awesome religious people (?!)
29 Mar 2012 3 Comments
in Religion
“Good religious people are good in spite of their religion, not because of it.”
Can anyone truly disagree with that statement? I’ve had a couple of variations on this discussion in the past week or so, and what with Alain de Botton getting lots of coverage with his recent waffle about ‘what useful things atheism should be taking from religion’, it’s been on my mind for a while.
For the purpose of this topic, let’s ignore for now the fact that even ‘good’ religious people are propping up a harmful institution, and take them purely as individuals. Unless you are a particularly masochistic atheist or an atheist living marooned in a very conservative religious area, most of the religious people you know and are friends with are probably ‘good’ religious people. These are my friends and family that I’m talking about here. They are intelligent, usually socially liberal, and often involved in charity projects for various good causes. They are Good Samaritans in pretty much every way.
But my point is that these people are good in spite of their religion, not because of it. Sure, there are a lot of good moral values mentioned in the Bible – don’t murder people, be kind to the poor, love your neighbour, yadda yadda – but these values are in no way unique to religion. They do not spring from religion and they do not belong to religion in any way. They predate religion and exist across all of its sectarian boundaries and outside of them. Just because some decent moral values happen to be mentioned in a religious text does not make them religious values.
(For the record, this is why I think de Botton’s most recent book is a complete waste of time. He thinks he’s writing about Good Religious Ideas, but all he’s doing is talking about Good Ideas that religion has coopted, and acting like he’s such a groundbreaking smartypants because no other atheist has possibly thought about them before. Um, we have. Community-building has been quite an important focus of the atheist movement in recent years. But I guess it’s better late to the party than never, right Alain?)
So yes, people may take these good moral values mentioned from the Bible and apply them to their life. But I have to wonder why they bother getting these ideas from a religious text when they are freely available from humanist ethics, our biology as social creatures, and, if I may say so, common bloody sense? Is ‘not-murdering-people’ really such a mind-blowing concept that we have to attribute the idea to some kind of deity, rather than admitting humans came up with that one all by themselves?
You could take your morality from the Bible, but why bother? Why would you use that as your source, when it comes with all of the horrible baggage of the outdated, bigoted, homophobic, patriarchal bollocks that is also in the Bible right there alongside the nice stuff? No matter how adept you are at mental gymnastics, revisionist reading or modern interpretation, one simply cannot unwrite those passages of the Bible that one is uncomfortable with. It makes my brain hurt on behalf of my family and friends who willingly put themselves through this kind of logical torture in order to take their moral values from the Bible and yet still manage to be good people.
Whyyy??! - This is pretty much how I feel on the topic.
I’m not gonna lie. I think that being a good person, despite having to wade through all that crap, takes guts of steel. I have a weird, twisted kind of respect for that ability. I just can’t understand why they would do it. Why would you throw an enormous roadblock in front of your own path to goodness, only to hurl yourself over it (with enormous effort) to declare victory? They get to goodness in the end, I get that, but why make it so difficult for themselves? Why not just take the ethics that come with our common humanity, and not complicate things with religion? Wouldn’t that be so much simpler, easier, more productive? Think of all the effort expended by good people on justifying religious texts – all that effort which could have been used to better purpose.
I know a lot of very awesome, whacky, fun, good religious people. They would be just as awesome/whacky/fun/good without their faith, because their values come from their humanity, from who they are, not out of a dodgy old book. I don’t understand their determination to hobble themselves with such a limitation, but I have a grudging respect for their ability to step up and be good people despite it.
I think some people, especially young, open-minded religious types, are capable of recognising the flaws in their religious institutions and want to be able to change them from the inside, to drag the church (kicking and screaming) into the 21st century. Props to them if that’s the case – I know I couldn’t stomach it.
I have no resolution for this conundrum. Needless to say I try not to associate myself with the “bad” sort of religious people, so if you know me and you are reading this, I reckon you’re probably fine. As I’m thinking about my friends here, I want even less than usual to offend people. So remember, if you’ve reached the end of this entry and are feeling offended, the over-arching theme here (despite my usual abrasive way of expressing it) is: How are you so awesome?! O_o
Books, books, books!
21 Feb 2012 2 Comments
in Books, Literature, Travel
(It’s a lovely word that is worth repeating three times.)
This gorgeous list of The 20 Most Beautiful Bookstores in the World has got me all hot and bothered. In a sexy way, because books are sexy. Yes. Be still, my beating heart!
Out of the 20 listed, I’ve only visited one, and that’s the Shakespeare & Co. book shop in Paris, where James Joyce’s Ulysses was first published. I visited quite a few grand old churches the last time I was in Europe, but (and this probably isn’t a surprise to the people who know me) the closest I came to religious experience happened in this bookstore.
Now I’d love to design a travel itinerary that revolves around the other 19 places on that list.
What’s your favourite bookstore? If you could design your ultimate bookish experience, what would it look like?
A Very Quick Whine
16 Feb 2012 Leave a Comment
in Feminism
(This could have ended up being a Very Long Whine, so everyone should be thankful that I’m busy at the moment.)
I’m so incredibly sick of hearing the phrase, “Of course women aren’t responsible for being raped/harrassed/threatened/leered at, but…”
But?
… BUT?!
There is no place for a ‘but’ in that sentence. Women aren’t responsible for bad male behaviour, no ifs, no conditions, no qualifiers and no freaking buts. It’s really goddamn simple. Is it really so hard for people to come out with the simple, supportive statement of “women are not responsible”, and leave a full stop after that statement? What, do some people really believe that women are all masters of hypnosis, or that maybe we’ve slipped something into the water supply and can magically control male behaviour at a whim? Insulting to women, insulting to men, and just plain ridiculous. Bah.
Read Josephine Tovey’s article in the SMH the other day for a sane, sensible summary.
*
In other completely unrelated news, I am moving across the city. Expect photos (eventually)!
#WomenCallMeThings
08 Feb 2012 1 Comment
I love the smell of rape culture in the morning.
It’s somehow more depressing when it’s being perpetuated by other women, who you would think would have a vested interest in combating rape culture, not supporting it.
“Snarky bitch” is my newest name to add to the collection of sexist insults. I should give her some credit – after all, that description’s 50% accurate!
Why I Get Angry
25 Jan 2012 3 Comments
in Fail
I get angry about some things.
And I don’t just mean ‘a little bit pissed off’.
I mean spitting, hissing, frothing, screaming, wanting-to-hit-something furious.
And I’ve only just figured out where the anger comes from, when people talk about things like how gays should burn in hell, or that feminism is evil, or that there is no such thing as racism in Australia.
It’s because I am fucking terrified.
I find it deeply, deeply frightening that the human brain can fail so spectacularly, can spit out such utter illogical bullshit. It truly scares me, because I like to think that we as a species are better than that.
And all of a sudden my fear goes through this metamorphosis, this strange alchemy that so often happens when we are confronted with something frightening, and it crystallises into anger. It’s a rage that makes my hands tremble and my stomach feel nauseous. It makes my throat block up and my eyes sting. It’s the left-over adrenaline surging through my body, adrenaline that spikes because my very self has been threatened. It is self-defensive anger.
… Which doesn’t necessarily make it misplaced or undeserved, of course. But still, it’s strange to realise something that I think has always been true about myself but I’d never quite put my finger on before. So thank you, I guess, Internet People, for being so fucking scary that you led me to a personal epiphany. Much obliged!
“But why do you bother responding to those no-hopers? Why do you get stirred up?” I can hear some people say. “They’re fundamentalists/rednecks/idiots, you will never change their minds.”
I respond because of natural selection. I have been endangered – okay, perhaps not my life itself, but my basic understanding of the framework of the world (that people are generally decent, and moderately intelligent) has been violently assaulted. And even if it will not make a difference, biology wins out. I instinctively (and furiously) defend. I think, sometimes, that my blood might actually fizz with it. It is the primal scream of SIWOTI Syndrome.
Xkcd does it again.
I could write a whole ‘nother blog post titled ‘Why Anger is a Legitimate Reaction To Things That Are Clearly Bullshit’. In debates these days, people tend to treat anger as something that should be avoided at all costs, almost like it is something embarrassing. Like if you’re angry about something, then you shouldn’t be taken seriously. Like we should all be calm and civil and smile and nod when people say things that are blatantly ridiculous.
But when someone makes some textbook racist statement (“if you don’t like it, then go back to where you came from”), then I believe that loudly-voiced disgust is a perfectly valid response – maybe the only valid response. Let’s face it, if you’re not outraged by an outrageously prejudiced statement, then you are probably doing something wrong. (On the topic of righteous anger, Greta Christina comes to mind as a great example.)
As I’ve been writing up this post I’ve also been sporadically continuing the facebook debate on racism that I was involved in, the one that sparked my epiphany. I considered mentioning in this post that I was just waiting for somebody to point out the fact that I was female, and use it to devalue my anger (the classic “Oh, she’s just moody cause she’s a woman!” gambit). And I thought to myself, nah, that’s unecessary. That just makes me look like I’m feeling sorry for myself, playing the victim. It’s too much of a stretch to bring it up in this particular scenario.
Welp, my friends, someone just referred to me as a “softly lunatic feminist”.
LOLZ. YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS SHIT UP.
You laugh or you cry, I guess. Or you play prejudice bingo! That’s always fun. My views are also apparently less valid because I have a University degree. From Narnia. (Because I “don’t live in the real world”… geddit?) And everybody knows that The Intelligentsia are evil!
Anyway, generally speaking, I guess the trick is to let the anger be a fire but not a poison.
I am still working on this trick but I will definitely let the internet know when I figure it out.
