[My main Tumblr can be found over at myasphyxiatedmind]
If you want your ask replied to privately, just put '****' before you start typing.
My name is: Michelle, but most people call me Dark online.
My gender-pronouns are: They/them/their.
I am: 26 years old, a feminist, liberal, an atheist, an omnivore, and an ISFJ.
The Feminist: Intersectional, body positive, pro-choice, and sex positive.
My privileged identities include: Female assigned at birth (trans* privilege), white, able-bodied, allistic (?), dyadic, monogamous.
My non-privileged/oppressed identities include: Gender-fluid, fat, gray-a, neuroatypical, and gay.
I have: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder.
I like: Pets & animals, animal welfare, pet care & pet care education, ~*SCIENCE!*~, anatomy & physiology, roleplaying, anime/manga, computer & video games, rock & metal music.
It blows my mind that people use eternal punishment as a way to make their children behave. I read on facebook this morning the sentence “I love that no one can punish better than our Lord!” talking about threatening her children with the idea that “Jesus watches you all the time” and that he’ll punish you if you misbehave.
I don’t have children so I might be out of my element here.
But the way I look at it is based out of how I felt being told as a child that Jesus was “always with me”.
My grandma told me that “Jesus lived in my heart”. and I screamed, and cried and begged her to get him out, because I was terrified of having a little tiny man living in my body. Of course the idea of that is ridiculous, but how scared I felt was very real. I couldn’t have been more than 4 years old when that happened, because my grandma was still living in Nashville, she moved away from the city when I was 5 years old. My family loves to tell that story as a joke whenever I am around.
Now, that was the nice sweet version of “Jesus is always with you”, and I was terrified. I cannot imagine how scary it must be for children to be threatened with eternal punishment. Not to mention the extreme amount of guilt that comes along with being told you are ~always being watched~ there are so many rules against everything. What if you do something wrong on accident? Which, as humans we tend to make mistakes. If Jesus is the ultimate punisher, won’t he be very strict?
Won’t that guilt and fear carry over into adulthood? (yes) Why should you be a good person because god is always watching? Why not be a good person because it’s the proper thing to do?
I’m no expert on parenting… but isn’t that just wrong? To scare your child like that?
I like to think that the way Lyzz and Chris parent Annabelle is a good starting point for “If you misbehave you will be punished.” Instead of teaching Belle that she is going to upset Jesus, they teach Belle that Mom and Dad will be very upset. That she has hurt Mom and Dad’s feelings. Belle will be legitimately upset if you tell her that she has hurt your feelings. She will cry and cry and cry like you spanked her (which they don’t have to do because she is sensitive enough to be upset at the idea of upsetting you.) She’ll even say “I’m sorry.” sometimes hug you. The point is that she is genuinely sorry. Not because she’ll burn for eternity but because she has hurt someone that she knows. Now of course sometimes the 3yr old “I don’t care attitude” comes along and that’s where harsher punishments are needed like taking something away, not doing something for her etc etc.
I’m just trying to process the idea that God is the ultimate punisher. Which I mean isn’t a new idea.. but the idea of applying that to your parenting… Blows my mind.
For “all the good” that religion does (which can be disputed. Another post for another time.) it sure does have to be very scary to be effective.
The “God is Love Incarnate…buuuut he’s also super jealous and wrathful and will destroy the population and punish your soul for all time if you happen to screw the pooch on this list of things” aspect of religiosity soured me on it pretty completely as a teenager. Sure, abstract looming punishments work as far as social control are concerned, sure your kid’s going to be more likely to toe the line, but at the expense of some rational thought, autonomy and as you put it…childhood trauma.
I don’t understand what’s wrong with supporting the Salvation Army?
Well, here’s the deal, anon. The Salvation Army is an evangelical Christian group, and they impose those beliefs on the people that they employ and the communities they serve. Here are a few examples:
They are so opposed to LGBT rights that they have lobbied multiple times for exemptions from Federal and Local anti-discrimination laws, and threatened to withdraw their services.
They refused to provide shelter to a homeless gay couple, unless they broke up and renounced their homosexuality.
They refused to provide a transgender woman with shelter that was congruent with her gender presentation, instead insisting she house with men. She chose instead to sleep on the sidewalk and died from the cold.
Speaking of gender, there was also this charming incident where one of their hostels refused to open the door for a 17-year-old victim who had just been brutally raped (or even call the police for her) because that particular hostel had a strict “men only” policy.
Children who can’t prove their immigration status are turned away.
The organization also disposes of any Harry Potter or Twilight related donations (rather than giving them to other charities), because they claim the toys are “incompatible with the charity’s Christian beliefs”.
During the Bush Administration (thanks to ‘faith-based initiatives’) they fired about 20 long-time employees (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Gay), simply for refusing to sign the organization’s statement of Christian belief.
So, that—in a nutshell—is what’s wrong with it.
Winter is coming… and so are their buckets. Remember this when they’re bothering you for change.
On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Martin Basir invited Rep. Joe Barton to discuss an upcoming vote in the House that would slash funding for, among other things, Meals on Wheels, and school lunches for poor children. Barton, some of you may recall, was the dipshit congressman who apologized on the House floor to British Petroleum for our ocean getting in the way of their oil.
Barton said a few interesting things, but one thing that REALLY caught my attention was when he tried to defend his callous cuts by pointing to the Bible.
Here’s a partial transcript:Bashir: I know you’re a long time member of the Methodist Church. Is that correct?
Barton: Yes, sir. That’s a true statement.
Bashir: How do you square your approach with the Psalm 146, where the Psalmist writes this: “He gives food to the hungry. The lord protects foreigners. He defends orphans and widows.” Isn’t this the exact opposite of the cuts being proposed by Republicans in congress?
Barton: No, the lord helps those who helps themselves…
Bashir: Which verse of scripture is that, sir?
Barton: Well, it’s uh..
Bashir: I don’t think you’ll find that in the Old or New Testament.
Barton: Well, that was taught to me by my father who is president of the United Methodist school board in Waco Texas, and Bryant, Texas.
So Bashir quoted scripture to make his case against the Repubicans’ policy, and Barton tries to defend himself by using a line, which he THOUGHT was also scripture,but actually doesn’t exist in the Bible. And his father taught him that? Sounds like a pretty shitty teacher. I Wonder if his dad happens to be David Barton…
But what made that exchange worse was that here you have a guy who clearly thought that he was being clever with his rebuttal, and yet when it was made painfully apparent that he was full of shit, he remained absolutely unfazed. Not only was he not bothered by this, but he actually laughs about it (“Haha, so you mean one of the basic tenets of my religion, which I followed throughout my entire life was actually never advocated by the central figure of said religion? Boy is MY face red!”)
In fairness, I suppose I can’t be too hard on Barton for having no understanding of his religion, since most of his fellow Christians don’t seem to have any understanding either.
Benjamin Franklin — now one of the Bible’s characters.
This is hormonal birth control.
As you can see on the box, you take exactly one pill per day. To make sure it works, you need to take one pill every day at the same time, or it stops working. You take only one pill, and you keep taking them regardless of what you are doing that day.
Hormonal birth control can be used to treat a lot of different diseases, like anemia caused by excessive menstruation. It is a prescription medication that can cost around $15-50 a month. Because it is a prescription medication, it should be covered by insurance, as it treats legitimate health problems.
This is Viagra.
It, too, can treat legitimate health problems like altitude sickness and pulmonary hypertension, but it is usually prescribed for erectile dysfunction. Unlike the Pill, Viagra is taken every time you want to have sex. A lot of health insurance companies cover Viagra, so it costs about as much as your co-pay.
This is a condom.
It is not a prescription medication, and has no health benefits (besides the prevention of STIs and pregnancy). Like Viagra, you must use one before you have sex: indeed, before each sex act. They cost about a dollar per condom.
This is Sandra Fluke.
She testified before a small, Democrat-led hearing after she was cut out of the actual birth control/insurance discussion. Her testimony was about a friend of hers who, because her insurance did not cover birth control, lost an ovary due to an ovarian cyst.
This somehow translates into “I, myself, personally, am having so much sex I can’t afford birth control, and so I want the government to pay for it.”
This is wrong for multiple reasons.
- It was about a friend, not her. To say her testimony was about her personally is factually incorrect.
- Sex had nothing to do with the testimony - her friend lost an ovary because of medical condition that was left untreated. A medical condition that was completely treatable, but wasn’t, because her insurance wouldn’t cover it. To say that her testimony was about her being “a slut” or “a prostitute” is factually incorrect.
- Even if she was having loads of sex, she would still only have one pill a day, not one pill per sex act, so to say “I’m having so much sex I can’t afford birth control” is completely erroneous. The Pill is not Viagra or condoms. To say that she is such “a slut” that she constantly needs more pills is factually incorrect.
- The current political debate is not “should the government pay for birth control?” The debate is “should insurance companies, that people and their employers pay for, on their own, be required to cover birth control?” To say that Sandra Fluke wants the government to pay for her birth control is factually incorrect.
- Religious organizations do not want to have birth control covered by their insurance, even for employees not of their faith, even if their employees never actually use their insurance to cover birth control. By this logic, they should also not pay their employees, because they could use that money to pay for birth control out of pocket. To say that this issue is about religious freedom and not about women’s health is disingenuous, as Ms. Fluke’s testimony demonstrates.
Hopefully this makes things a little clearer.