Gender Roles and Chores: Reading Recommendation

A friend of mine shared this post on Facebook, and it really reflected my own experiences in my family, so I couldn’t wait to share it with you. The title is a bit weird, but don’t be put off by it. It’s actually a post expanding on a previous article by the same writer, which you can read here if you’re interested, but you can get the idea from the quotes in the first link. It’s about relationships, chores, and gender roles, and the author makes some points that I think help to explain at least some of the contributing factors to the fact that my mother runs my family’s house with little to no assistance unless she begs us to help her. And that’s not healthy for family life.

When people in a long term relationship–like a marriage–live together, they have to keep the magic alive. But they also have to go about their routines, and look after their home, and take care of the kids. This person argues that the way we unevenly split the duties of taking care of a household, leaving the woman (or to not be heteronormative, one partner) with most of the tasks, eventually drains the relationship. This is because essentially one person ends up managing all of the household chores and deciding when they will get done, leading to them having to nag the other person to help out, just like our moms did when we were kids.

As he explains,

…no matter how many times you sarcastically remind your wife that she’s not your mother and you wish she’d stop acting like it, she often feels like your mother.

This is bad for your sex life.

I think the reasoning behind this idea is pretty obvious, but his understanding of this issue goes much deeper than “making your wife feel like your parent is gross and stupid.” It is. But it’s also lazy, irresponsible, and not what you do in an equal relationship.

He goes on to write about how he would always tell his wife to ask him to help her when she needed it, never taking initiative himself to learn the regular activities that are necessary for the house to function and help do them as needed. If these were tasks he’d been assigned at work, he would figure out when to do them on his own, but at home? Never. He expected her to plan out when these things would need to get done, leaving her to manage everything from the chores to the schedules for everyone in the household, which is a lot for one person to manage. He writes:

I remember my wife often saying how exhausting it was for her to have to tell me what to do all the time. It’s why the sexiest thing a man can say to his partner is “I got this,” and then take care of whatever needs taken care of.

I always reasoned: “If you just tell me what you want me to do, I’ll gladly do it.”

But she didn’t want to be my mother.

She wanted to be my partner, and she wanted me to apply all of my intelligence and learning capabilities to the logistics of managing our lives and household.

She wanted me to figure out all of the things that need done, and devise my own method of task management.

I wish I could remember what seemed so unreasonable to me about that at the time.

 

I’m not gonna lie guys. I’m very guilty of this at home myself. Most days I don’t want to do chores, and as much as I love my mom, I have to really push myself to do them.

But here’s the thing. If I see dishes that are dirty, or a dishwasher full of clean dishes, I don’t need to be told “wash the dishes” or “empty the dishwasher.” I just need to kick myself in the pants and go do it.

Most of my family members–and by that I mean the 3 males in my family–are not like that. My dad literally asks my mom (and me now, for some reason) for step by step instructions on how to do simple everyday tasks like cooking pasta or reheating chicken from two days ago. It actually drives me crazy, because I’m in my early twenties. If anything, he’s way better at all of this than I am. But I have a vagina, so I need to be prepared to run a household someday, right?

I need to be prepared to delegate chores, and manage everyone’s schedule by myself, like my mom does, right?

I seriously hope not.

I’ve never known anyone more overwhelmed than she often is. She technically works 4 jobs (part time), 3 of which involve significant preparation beforehand (teaching music and being a musician). She is no longer physically capable of keeping the house tidy AND working all her jobs. She’s just too busy all the fucking time. And nobody helps her. Because my family’s very old fashioned. And a bit patriarchal. So it’s my mother’s job to tell everyone else what their jobs are. We’re all adults here (all except my youngest brother, who’s a high school sophomore. Where did the time go?) We’re all capable of pitching in without being told. So why is it so hard?

Maybe we take my mom for granted. Maybe we don’t respect her enough. Maybe she’s stuck between the lives of different generations, having the career that women today can have, but also juggling the tasks of a full time homemaker. She’s also the one who makes sure the bills get paid each month. (Apparently when they were just married, my mom had my dad pay the bills one month, and NOTHING GOT PAID. So she took over.)

Just as she took over the dishes when they didn’t get washed. And cleaning the bathrooms and the floors and dusting and de-cluttering the house. Our house is a fucking mess, I’m not going to lie to you. My family’s relationship with chores is not a healthy one. I’m part of the problem. But I’m the second most productive chore-doer in the house. There’s a pretty clear correlation between gender and chore-doing in this family. I try not to let it bother me, but it really does. I don’t know how long it will take, but I’m looking forward to moving out, to getting married, and to having a place with my fiance, in whatever order that occurs. It’ll be nice for us to work out our own system of divying up the chores fairly. I hope we can avoid settling into the roles my parents have assumed. I want us to be co breadwinners and co homemakers. I don’t think that’s a ridiculous thing to want. But we both grew up in a very gendered world. We’ll see with time how successful we can be at defying those old expectations.

What do you think about these articles? Have any of you had experiences relating to gender and chore completion in your lives? Feel free to leave a comment. All opinions are welcome. Just be respectful and think things through before posting.

Happy thinking!

Nancy

 

Why I Didn’t Report My Sexual Assault

An old acquaintance of mine from my homeschooling days has been making some pretty infuriating comments on social media about Ke$ha’s recent court case. In case you don’t know, Ke$ha has stated that her producer and writer, Lukasz “Dr. Luke” Gottwald,  raped her for years. She has since attempted to end  her contract with Sony (which she signed at the young age of 18) to avoid having to work with her abuser. Many people have claimed to know for a fact that Ke$ha is lying, and simply trying to get out of a contract. Others, many of them part of the feminist movement, have assumed she is telling the truth and rushed to defend her. I find myself in neither camp, feminist though I may be. I firmly believe that regardless of the crime they are being accused of, people are innocent until proven guilty. However, all allegations of abuse should be taken seriously regardless of who is being accused. Think about all the high profile cases that have come to light recently. Bill Cosby comes to mind. It’s completely unjust to immediately assume that a victim is lying, but I’m not going to talk about Gottwald as if I’m positive he’s guilty. He hasn’t been tried.

My acquaintance is among those who assume that Ke$ha is lying, and the reason my acquaintance gave for that assumption isn’t even a good one. Rather than pointing out that Ke$ha stands to gain more control over her career by having her contract with Sony thrown out, my acquaintance instead complained that Ke$ha waited so many years to report this abuse. My acquaintance said (I’m paraphrasing) people don’t wait that long (I believe it was around 10 years) to report abuse, and if they do, then it’s their fault if the abuse continues because they should have reported it. She added, “So many women lie about rape I’m doubtful.”

The ignorance and victim blaming in that statement is mind boggling, and frankly it touched me in a personal way. This friend and I haven’t talked in years, so I didn’t bother to comment–luckily, another friend of hers argued with her about this and made some very good points. The reason this bothered me so much is that I was sexually assaulted myself, (Not raped. I was fortunate that it didn’t go that far.) and in an abusive relationship with the boy who did it for about a month during high school. I never reported it, and at the moment I have no intention of doing so.

That’s not because I want it to happen to other people, nor is it, as my acquaintance suggested with Ke$ha’s case, because it never happened. My main reason for not reporting it is that there simply isn’t any concrete evidence to make a case against him. All I have is my word against his, and while I don’t know what the statistics are in cases of sexual assault, it’s true that most accused rapists walk away without facing jail time. I hope he never harms anyone the way he harmed me or worse, but I know I don’t have enough evidence to do anything about it, especially because for some reason, people often don’t believe rape and sexual assault victims by default, and as the article in the above link explains, the police are often not properly trained to talk to victims.

This if course begs the question, why didn’t I report it sooner–like right away, when I might have been able to produce some evidence? There are two reasons for that, neither of which I had any control over:

  1.  He was actively manipulating me. He claimed to be suicidal, and I was terrified that if I said no to his advances or did anything that might make him unhappy, he would kill himself.
  2.  Once I figured out that he was manipulating me (with some help from a close friend), it would be months before I figured out for sure that he had also sexually assaulted me. I didn’t have a clear understanding of what sexual assault even was, and I felt guilty for allowing myself to be manipulated, as if it were my fault for participating in his lies. I felt dirty, and somewhat responsible. I didn’t know that agreeing to something when you’re being manipulated is not the same as freely giving consent. Besides, I had agreed to do some things with him, so wasn’t it just a miscommunication when he did things I didn’t want him to do?

Eventually, I figured it out. When I said “Please don’t touch me here. I don’t feel ready for that,” he would wait a few moments, then almost immediately try to do the thing I had specifically told him not to. This happened multiple times. With his claims of being suicidal, I felt obligated to allow him to touch me, so I didn’t protest while it was happening. For too long, I thought that meant it was consensual, that even though I hadn’t wanted to I had technically agreed. Having been raised in a conservative family and taught that premarital sex was very, very bad, with no proper sex education covering the concept of consent, I didn’t know how to handle these situations I was suddenly finding myself in, where he would corner me and do whatever he wanted. It had never happened to me before. And to make it all more confusing, I was genuinely attracted to him.

He did not match the image of a sexual abuser that we get from the media. I used to picture ruffians: fat middle aged men with crooked teeth, scraggly beards and balding heads who couldn’t get any action through acceptable means. And that’s the image we’re given through various rape narratives hidden in our culture. For instance, as an English major, I learned that Little Red Riding Hood is a cautionary tale portraying a little girl’s loss of innocence as she is accosted by a stranger on her way to grandma’s. I may be ruining your favorite fairy tale for you and I apologize, but earlier versions from oral tradition were very sexual and implied rape or at least sexual assault. We’re taught that there are wolves among us who can strike at any time. But statistics show that those wolves aren’t likely to be the strangers we pass in the alley. Instead, they’re the people we see every day. People we know.

My abuser was someone I knew, someone very attractive to me in multiple ways. He was a fellow Christian homeschooler who claimed to be saving his first kiss for marriage. He was athletic, ran frequently, and had a six pack. He played guitar, and we were in a music-related homeschooling organization together. Throughout the entire ordeal, he never kissed me. Not once. He could technically say he was still pure for marriage when he’d had his dirty hands all over me.

I was touched repeatedly without my consent, and choked on multiple occasions. I turned out OK after all that, after some serious struggles with anxiety over sexual contact. But I want people to understand that while I want very much for all victims of rape and sexual assault to be able to report what happened, that’s not always as simple as it sounds.  For starters, we have to come to terms with the fact that this actually happened to us. That alone can take a very long time, and that process is all the more difficult when the authorities don’t know how to talk to victims.

I’ve read too many personal accounts of women being asked what they were wearing when they were assaulted–and not as a means of collecting evidence, but as a way of implying that the victim was somehow to blame. I’ve seen that the percentage of rapists who face jail time is embarrassingly small in this country, while we put people away for possessing something as harmless as marijuana. I’ve read the news stories about multiple municipalities with thousands upon thousands of untested rape kits. Those are cases where they actually have DNA evidence, and they never did anything with it. Seeing these news stories, how am I supposed to feel confident that the authorities will take my case seriously? How am I supposed to trust them with my testimony? Especially when my testimony is all I have? My parents don’t even know that this happened to me.

There were no witnesses. As is the case with many sexual crimes, all of this happened behind closed doors. The people who know about it only know because I told them. Rape and sexual assault are very difficult crimes to prove, because sometimes there is no evidence. Sometimes, as in my case, the person isn’t forced into it through violence. I never had his skin under my fingernails. Sometimes it happens entirely out of sight. And sexual contact can be consensual. So how do you prove that in your case it wasn’t?

Those are the circumstances in which I chose not to report my sexual assault. I can’t speak for why other people don’t report, but I can empathize with them. Say what you will about this, but can I really expect the authorities to accept a case that is built entirely on my testimony?

I have so many difficult questions.

I don’t want innocent people put away for rape, so I do have to accept the need for evidence based convictions. I don’t expect people to just believe rape victims based on the fact that they’re accusing someone of a serious crime. But I do want those victims to be taken seriously. I want their claims to be investigated. I want their rape kits tested. Is that really too much to ask?

If you have any thoughts about the way rape and sexual assault victims are treated in this country, feel free to share them in the comments. Please be sensitive to victims and be respectful of others. This is a very painful issue for many people.

Happy thinking.

Nancy

An Online Community for Secular Homeschooling

school supplies

Image courtesy of bugtiger at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I just stumbled upon this website, and I’ve never been happier to find out that something exists. I knew there had to be secular homeschoolers out there somewhere, I’d just never met them before. On their forums, you’ll see posts written by homeschooling parents who are concerned about giving their children the best education possible without indoctrinating them with a religious ideology.

Seeing posts about finding good secular textbooks and syllabi and such has restored some of my faith in homeschooling as an educational method.

This is not to say that religious parents shouldn’t homeschool, or even that they shouldn’t teach their children about religion, but I’ve experienced varying degrees of terrible religious indoctrination through homeschooling texts throughout my education as a child. I’d like to see more homeschooling parents make a conscious effort to avoid biology and history books that focus on Genesis, and high school health texts that completely skip the topic of sex ed. As the person in charge of your child’s education, you owe it to your child to find the least biased sources you can. If you teach religion, it should be separate from other subjects.

On a completely unrelated note, I realize I’m returning from a bit of a hiatus. I’ve been doing temp work that’s made me change positions several times in the past few months, and that, combined with holiday business, has made it difficult for me to do anything on a schedule–but that’s changing. My most recent position is more long term, so I’m about to have a pretty consistent schedule for at least the next few months–longer if this leads to a permanent position. I’ll be blogging once a week again soon.

Feel free to leave a comment. All opinions are welcome. Just be respectful and think things through before posting.

Happy thinking!

Nancy

 

Handling Stressful News as an Atheist

praying hands and bible

Image courtesy of graur razvan ionut at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

When one is religious, as I used to be, the first thing to do when something goes wrong is to pray. It’s almost a reflex. When you see an ambulance drive by, you bow your head. When you get bad news, you fold your hands. When you’re anxious about something, you lay your troubles at the feet of Jesus.

I’ll admit that I haven’t had many difficult situations to deal with since deconverting. Aside from some test anxiety and performance anxiety before giving some solos for my school’s music program, my life had been pretty calm, until a few months ago. I wrote this post long before the Paris attacks and the San Bernardino shooting reawakened our nation’s fears of terrorism, but I think now’s as good a time as any to further add to the discussion about prayer and what it really does for both the person praying, and the person the intentions are for.

My fiance, who is a generally healthy person, caught a bad sinus infection over the summer. He has a pretty strong immune system, so when he gets sick it typically doesn’t last long. I’ve seen him have a fever for a day and wake up the next morning healthy, so I wasn’t too worried. Then a few days later, I woke up to a phone call from his parents. He had been hospitalized during the night, complaining of chest pains. It turns out, the infection he had was viral, not bacterial, and it moved to his heart. His heart had been significantly weakened, but it was still going. He didn’t have a heart attack, thank goodness. I went to visit him the next day, and he just wanted to go home. He was worried about his health, and significantly weakened, but he was still himself, and that put me at ease more than anything.

Medical situations are some of the worst to face. I’m seeking work now, but that’s an issue I can resolve with clear steps. I know I’m contributing to a solution even if it takes a while. That simply is not the case when a loved one is in the hospital. Nothing I could do myself would make the problem go away, and when you’re religious, that’s a time when prayer is a particularly accessible source of comfort.

Even as an atheist, I was tempted to pray, given the situation, but I resisted that urge; I knew it wouldn’t do any good. I worried about him almost constantly until I saw him. I was still worried up until the moment he was finally discharged, but once I’d visited him, I felt significantly better. It’s a bit like the way I would feel better after praying. I felt like I did the right thing, and like it was a helpful thing to do. I used to think I’d never feel that relief again, but I felt it when I visited him, doing something tangible. In fact, I felt it more strongly than I ever felt with prayer. I knew I was getting personally involved, not simply asking for someone else to do something. Besides, being in a hospital waiting for test results or for an illness to go away is a slow process filled with periods of anxiety and boredom. While it may not have affected the final outcome–he would have gotten well regardless of whether or not I’d showed up–I was able to sit with him for a couple of hours and keep him company, helping the time to pass and at least alleviating some boredom.

Some people argue that prayer makes people feel better, and I’ll admit that it does. I’ve experienced it myself. But now I know that finding some small helpful thing to do–like visiting a sick friend, cooking dinner for a struggling family, or helping someone change a tire–is by far more rewarding to both the person helped AND the do-gooder than prayer. I don’t just feel like I’ve fulfilled an obligation as I would in the case of prayer. I feel like I’ve done what I can do to help. I feel helpful. And I know that feeling is justified because it’s accompanied with action. When something bad happens, whether it’s headline news or something more personal, I hope that as a community of human beings we can all come together and find tangible ways to help.

Feel free to leave a comment. All opinions are welcome. Just be respectful and think things through before posting.

Happy thinking!

Nancy

I’m Not Praying for Paris: Looking for Ways to Help

Image courtesy of Vichaya Kiatying-Angsulee at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of Vichaya Kiatying-Angsulee at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The western world is pretty shaken up by what happened a few days ago in Paris, and the response on social media and worldwide has been huge. YouTube changed the red block behind “Tube” to a French flag. Various landmarks around the world have been decorated with blue white and red lights. People are putting the French flag over their profile pictures on Facebook, and sharing memes that say “Pray for Paris.” I’m sure you’ve seen them.

This is comforting for some people, but it all strikes me as a way to make ourselves, as outsiders in this situation, feel better. It may feel comforting to you, but I don’t know that it’s really helping the situation. As an atheist, I’m pretty sure the world can do better than just pray. So what can we do?

  1. Skip posting about this on social media in a way that is primarily self serving. It’s OK to say your thoughts are with France, but don’t go on about your feelings. This is not about you. I realize most of social media is, but tragedy isn’t.
  2. Read the news. Stay informed. Call out people who want to banish all Muslims from the country or imprison all the Syrian refugees. (Sadly, I’ve heard such suggestions from members of my family.) These sorts of tactics have been tried in various countries throughout the world (think of Japanese internment during WWII in the US for instance) and they’re a very bad idea that will only further marginalize people who are part of this minority religion in that country, and  as we’ve seen over and over again in this conflict, oppression will lead to more recruitment for ISIS and other extremist groups. There has to be a way to prevent these attacks that doesn’t involve oppressing minorities or religious discrimination.
  3. If you’re in the area, see if you can donate blood, or volunteer your time with an organization that’s helping. If you’re not–say you’re in the US or some other country, donate your money to the Red Cross or other groups that are mobilizing to help victims. This article lists some options, but always do your research before choosing a charity organization to give your money to.

Last but not least, acknowledge that there have been many more lives taken in terrorist action in the Middle East, and if you’re going to try to do something tangible for France, you should at least consider doing something similar for the people in the Middle East too. The western media, at least in the US in my experience, has a tendency to prioritize western problems over those in other continents, and I get it. We as a people have a tendency to worry more about the people we identify with. We might not be able to magically change the fact that we feel emotionally for people in Paris but not Syria, but we can at least direct our thoughts to the Middle East and stop skipping over news stories involving that region. It does start to feel like more of the same after a while, but we need to acknowledge the privilege we have in the west that for us, events like 9/11 and the one in Paris are not an everyday occurrence. There’s a reason people are fleeing Syria in droves, and maybe we should give two bothers to maybe learn what their flag (flags at the moment, actually) and the flags of other nations with this issue, like Pakistan, Iraq, and so forth, look like.

I realize this is a very emotional time for many people, and I hope I haven’t offended anyone with this post; I don’t mean to downplay what happened in Paris. It is a real tragedy and we should do what we can to help, but I really do think that we need to also stop ignoring areas that have been facing terrorist attacks on a regular basis just because they’re mostly populated with groups to which we in the west have trouble relating.

Feel free to leave a comment, especially if you have any further advice on how to offer help to Paris and other nations currently suffering from terrorist threats and attacks.

Happy thinking

Nancy

Missionaries of Charity Stop Adoptions in India Over Inclusive Legislation

The religious order founded by Mother Theresa, the Missionaries of Charity, has decided they will no longer attempt to find homes for the children in their 13 orphanages in India. Their reason for this? Apparently India has made new legislation that allows single people to adopt, and the Sisters of Charity think it’s better for children to remain parentless than to be raised in single-parent homes. You can read more about this here.

The article explains that the sisters have two primary concerns:

“First, [Missionaries of Charity] will not allow adoption by single parents; second, they also have issues with couples, one or both of whom has had a divorce earlier.”

While Catholicism does not technically have a teaching forbidding single parents from raising children, it does prohibit divorce, and many Catholics are also against adoption by LGBT people. Catholic teaching on divorce is very harsh. It literally preaches that once a marriage exists, it cannot be undone. The only situation in which a married couple can separate in Catholicism is through something called “annulment,” which is a process by which the marriage is reviewed by a variety of church leaders and declared to have never happened in the first place. In other words, if a marriage doesn’t work out, the only situation in which that can be admitted is to claim that the marriage never took place, or was not valid in some way. The idea that someone could make a mistake, marry the wrong person, divorce, remarry, then want to have children, is clearly too much for some Catholics, and in this instance we see this attitude affecting orphans in India. Orphans who, as the article explains, are very unlikely to be adopted in the first place because of red tape and stigma. If that’s the case, why make the process any harder? The silver lining in this story is that this is happening because India passed legislation that allows more people to adopt. That, at least, is something to be happy about.

How does Catholic teaching on homosexuality come into play here? Well, you can take it straight from the sister’s mouth:

Speaking about the decision not to offer adoptions, Sister Amala told local media: “The new guidelines hurt our conscience. They are certainly not for religious people like us. … What if the single parent who we give our baby [to] turns out to be gay or lesbian? What security or moral upbringing will these children get? Our rules only allow married couples to adopt.”

I’ve heard my own parents argue that being raised by two dads or two mothers will “confuse” children. Despite the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, they seem to fear that children raised in a situation that does not prohibit other sexualities will lead to more gay children.

There is also a common argument that there are things only a father can do for a child, and things that only a mother can do, with the idea being that children need not only two parents, but that those parents need to be opposite genders in order to properly raise children. This idea is detrimental because it may be keeping some children with ZERO parents from having ANY. Furthermore, it’s based in gender norms. I can’t think of a single thing that a man can do that a woman cannot, and vice versa, when it comes to parenting. A good parent is a good parent. Any argument I can think of for something one gender can do that the other can’t has more to do with the typical roles assigned to each gender by society, and to stereotypes of the genders, not to anything that can be stated definitively that applies to all men or all women.

Ultimately, I’m frustrated to see a Catholic charity organization stop participating in a charitable action over the thought of someone they disagree with doing a good deed like adopting a child, especially in a country that has trouble adopting out its 20 million orphans (according to the NPR article).

If you have any thoughts pertaining to this, especially with regards to gender and parenting, feel free to leave a comment. I’d be happy to hear other opinions. Just be respectful and think things through before posting.

Happy thinking!

-Nancy

Abortion Regret: More False Pro-Life Claims

Women Do Regret Abortion envelope stickers

Sign from a pro-life campaign claiming women regret abortion.

In light of the resent upsurge of Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, here’s more proof that the pro-life movement is spreading misinformation about the nature of abortion and its effects on women.

During my time as part of the pro-life movement, I remember attending the march for life, and reading signs saying “Women Regret Abortion” and “Men Regret Lost Fatherhood.” I don’t doubt that there are individuals who regret their decision to abort–I’ve met several–however, the pro-life movement likes to claim that abortion leads to depression, and that the choice to abort harms women more in the long run than carrying a baby for 9 months and giving birth because these women typically come to regret their decision. According to a recent study, this is simply not the case.

In follow-up interviews over three years, the authors report, 95 percent of all the respondents “reported that having the abortion was the right decision for them.”

It gets better though.

There was another major factor in the small percentage of women who did feel significant regret post-abortion: the overall social support the women had, and the stigma they felt they would face for having an abortion. Participants were asked to rank, on a scale of one to four, “how much they would be looked down upon by people in their communities if they knew they had sought an abortion.” Without fear of stigma, the vast majority of women reporting [sic] feeling happiness and relief immediately following the abortion, with both relief and negative emotions subsiding over time…[emphasis mine]

In other words, the pro-life movement itself may actually be causing some cases of abortion regret by eroding the social support these women have and turning it against them. Yes, correlation does not equal causation, but you have to admit, the things correlated here give a very plausible explanation.

Also according to the study, Latina women are more likely to regret their abortion. Why? Gee, I don’t know, what’s the most common religion among Latina people, and what is its stance on abortion?

Oh but that’s the article, and it has an error in it! Quote the study directly!

OK:

Notably, we found no differences in emotional trajectories or decision rightness between women having earlier versus later procedures. Important to women’s reports were social factors surrounding the pregnancy and termination-seeking. Having had difficulty deciding to terminate the pregnancy, and reporting higher pregnancy planning levels, were strongly associated with negative emotions and lower decision rightness, while being in school and working at the time of the pregnancy was associated with far higher feelings of decision rightness. Community stigma and lower social support were associated with negative emotions. [Emphasis mine]

One of the reasons given by pro-life advocates for why abortion supposedly causes breast cancer (another false claim) and regret, is that the hormones associated with pregnancy really screw with a woman if they’re just abruptly stopped by the termination of the pregnancy. The fact that this study looked into what term the abortion happened in tells me that they were aware of this claim. You would think that later in the term there would be more regret. More hormones, more hormonal bonding between mother and baby. That clearly is not the case, though.

Am I surprised?

No. But I’m very upset to find out that not only is the pro-life movement opposing reproductive rights for women, and lying in order to do so, but it may actually be removing much needed support systems for women with unplanned pregnancies by creating stigma around abortion, leading to them regretting what may very well be the best situation for them.

Any thoughts on this? Know of any other supposed downsides to abortion that the pro-life movement is lying about? Feel free to leave a comment. All opinions are welcome. Just be respectful and think things through before posting.

Happy thinking!

-Nancy

ABC’s What Would You Do Portrays Christians as Persecuted by Atheists

If you’re a big fan of ABC’s What Would You Do or are subscribed to Jaclyn Glenn’s YouTube channel, you may already know about this. Jaclyn explains it perfectly. I like this show, so I’m saddened to see it portray something so ridiculous that fits into the Christian right’s propaganda machine, and especially its persecution complex. Check out Jaclyn’s video.

I’ve just sent a complaint to ABC, and the video includes a link showing where to do that if you feel so inclined.

Thoughts on this episode, or the show What Would You Do in general? Feel free to leave a comment.

All opinions are welcome. Just be respectful and think things through before posting.

Happy thinking!

-Nancy

An Atheist Explains why Catholics are Christians

Image courtesy of artur84 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of artur84 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

There are a number of Christian groups that claim Catholics are not Christians, and the more I encounter this nonsensical idea, the more I bang my head against the wall.

Disclaimer:  I was raised Catholic and am now atheist, so that’s the experience I’m coming from with this. The arguments I’m using do come from Catholic apologetics, but in this particular instance, I think they actually hold some water.

Here’s the definition of “Christian” I was taught:  a Christian is someone who is a Christ-follower.

Simple. Basic. To-the-point. I think this is an extremely inclusive definition, to the point where fringe groups that Catholicism doesn’t recognize as Christian, like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, still fall under the category of “Christian.” I think there can be some argument made for both sides when it comes to those groups,  but when it comes to Catholicism, there’s really no question about it.

To get into more specific details in order to narrow down a definition of Christianity, Christians worship the Abrahamic God, and use the Bible, both the New and Old Testaments, as their holy book. While not all take the entire Bible literally, especially certain parts of the Old Testament, Christians generally take the Gospel literally–it’s the story of Christ, after all. Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, and they believe he was crucified, died, rose from the dead, and will come again someday when it’s time for the world to end.

You will get some variation on things like the Eucharist (literal flesh and blood or a sign?), Mary’s virginity, creationism vs. actual science, religious icons, age of Baptism (adults or babies?), the garden of Eden (was it literal or figurative?), is there such a thing as Purgatory, and position on social issues like abortion, access to contraception, marriage equality, etc. There’s a pretty long list of differences. But if there’s one thing all Christians agree on, it’s Jesus. Jesus is the savior. Jesus is the reason for the season, and all that hooey.

Catholics believe in all those things. Catholicism is the trunk from which Protestantism branched out. To call Catholicism “not Christianity” is like calling a root “not part of the tree.” That’s such a Catholic thing to say that I’m a little embarrassed to write it, but I think in this case the analogy stands. You can read about Martin Luther and Henry VIII. The Protestant Reformation brought about the many branches of Christianity we see today. The Anglicans, (also known as the Church of England) hold a worship service that’s nearly identical to the Catholic mass. The Lutheran services are pretty darn close too (I’ve been to one). This is because their faiths branched directly off of Catholicism, and they retained a lot of the same practices and rituals. Then other churches branched off from them, and with each new branch that got further and further from the earliest one, new traditions were added and old ones were rejected. That’s why you can go to a megachurch and watch the preacher on a big screen between Christian Rock songs, you can go to a Pentecostal church and watch people “speak in tongues,” and you can visit the Amish and leave the 21st century behind. Christianity is practiced in vastly different ways from church to church, but they all believe they’re following Christ, so they’re all Christian.

This is the point where Catholics generally state that Catholicism is the form Christianity founded by Jesus, and its traditions have been carried on by the apostles through the priests and the hierarchy. I am among those who wonder whether or not Jesus even existed, but regardless of whether it was founded by Jesus or just a group of human beings, everyone generally agrees that Christianity had a beginning. It had early adherents. It had to start somewhere. Before the reformation, there was just “Christianity.” There was no need to have a separate name like “Catholicism.” There were no “Catholics” in 300 AD, or 500 AD, or even 1000 AD because it had always been one group (I’m oversimplifying a bit to skip the orthodox churches, but you get the idea.) Once the split happened, there needed to be a unique name for the religion that stayed as it had always been.

While I’ve made plenty of posts bemoaning the Catholic Church’s refusal to keep up with the times, their rigidity really helps this particular argument. If you’ve ever sat in a western civilizations history class, you’ve probably learned about the church hierarchy as part of your study of medieval times. And you know what? The church has the same hierarchy today, the same structures, and the same basic rituals with only minor changes (like saying mass in the vernacular instead of Latin). All in all, Catholicism is as Christian as the Anglican church, and its people are as Christian as the Baptists, the Methodists, the Lutherens, the Evangelicals, the Amish, the Mennonites, and the whole kit and kaboodle.

Don’t get me wrong. I despise the Catholic church, and wish they would get with the times and stop raping children and covering it up, but if there’s one thing I’d like to impart to its critics, humanists included, it’s that they are definitely, without a doubt, Christian.

Have any of you encountered this “Catholics aren’t Christians” idea in person? I seem to only encounter it online, at least where I live. Feel free to leave a comment. All opinions are welcome. Just be respectful and think things through before posting.

Happy thinking!

-Nancy

Purity in Disney: Tangled’s Take on Premarital Sex

A man with a frying pan, a girl with long blonde hair, and a white horse.

Image taken from Tangled’s Wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangled

I may be in my twenties, but I absolutely love Disney. You may be wondering where that fits into a blog about religion and politics, but trust me–it does.

Disney has shown itself to be fairly progressive. For example, several years ago, the Disney Channel show Good Luck Charlie aired a much anticipated episode featuring a lesbian couple. But sometimes Disney is a bit more subtle, addressing serious adult topics through its much-loved children’s movies in an indirect, even symbolic way.

Take Tangled for example. It’s a song-filled adaptation of the well-known story of Rapunzel.  Like most fairy tales, it has fantastical elements, and it’s definitely intended for children. But I was thinking about the film the other day and realized it can be argued that in some scenes, Rapunzel’s crown stands in as a symbol of her virginity. If that is the case, then her decision to give it to Flynn when she does–prior to marriage, but after they have gotten to know each other fairly well–and the fact that everything works out for them in the end, suggests that despite what Rapunzel’s mother warns her about giving the crown away, premarital sex isn’t always a terrible thing. In a movie about coming of age and making your own decisions despite what your parents are telling you, the inclusion of such a symbol is pretty ballsy of Disney. I say more power to them.

Maybe I just miss taking English classes, but I think this offers a pretty cool way to interpret the scene when Rapunzel gives the crown to Flynn. He’s just done what she wanted:  he’s taken her to see the lanterns for her birthday. Basically, he’s taken her on a really nice date, and they’ve gotten to know each other fairly well throughout the course of the day. He even brings lanterns for them to send floating into the sky in the scene, to participate in the event she’s watched from a distance for years. By doing that, he’s offered her something he didn’t have to give, showing that he actually cares about her. When she gives him the crown she says,

“I should have given it to you before, but I was just scared. And the thing is, I’m not scared anymore. You know what I mean?”

Those words would fit pretty well in a scene with someone having sex for the first time. It takes a lot of courage to trust someone like that, and at this point in the story, Rapunzel finally does.

FHYJ8BSH2MYFZ2D.LARGE

Not convinced that the crown symbolizes Rapunzel’s virginity? It definitely isn’t such a symbol in every part of the film, but it’s safe to say that the symbolism holds for the majority of the story, and I’m not the only one to notice this either. One person’s explanation of the symbolism on Reddit is pretty strong. You can read it most of it below. I’ve inserted some brackets and a link for clarity, as well as some nit-picking on facts, but altogether it’s a pretty strong argument and I’m convinced:

…When Mother [the witch in the original fairytale] sees the crown later and deduces that Flynn is with Rapunzel, it stops being a MacGuffin, but until then it functions as a fairly average one. However the crown is not simply a MacGuffin; it is a symbol for Rapunzel’s virginity.

First, it is important to know that technically Rapunzel has had the crown since birth. After all, as the daughter of the king and queen, the princess’s crown is hers by birthright. It is something that she wholly owns. However, she didn’t always know it was hers because she was kidnapped. She only begins to figure this out later when she goes out into the world and learns more about it and herself. This is not unlike a girl’s virginity. It is something she is born with and that she owns. However, many girls don’t know what it is until they are older and begin to learn about their bodies and the world around them.

Second, consider Mother Gothel’s words to Rapunzel once she finds Rapunzel the first time. Mother Gothel tells Rapunzel that as a mother, she knows that once Rapunzel gives Flynn the crown he will not want to be with her anymore. She says that Flynn doesn’t really like her and that he is only sticking around, waiting for Rapunzel to give him the crown; once he has it, he will leave her. If you replace crown with virginity, you get the same advice that nearly every mother tells her daughter(s). Mothers tend to warn their daughters to save themselves for the one they love and warn them of those that will just use them until they get what they want, i.e. sex.
Third, there is the fact that in the original Grimm version of this story [English major technicality here: the Brothers Grimm collected stories from oral tradition, so the Grimm version is not technically the original, though it may be the earliest written form of the story] Rapunzel does give her prince her virginity, leading to a teen pregnancy. This idea of the crown being a symbol for virginity would make sense since by the end of the film, Rapunzel does end up giving Flynn the crown.
It would also make that scene that much more significant and heartbreaking. In this scene, Rapunzel tells Flynn that she was afraid, but now she wasn’t and then gives him the crown. Then when Rapunzel thinks that Flynn took the crown and left, she is devastated to the point that she willingly goes back home with her manipulative and cruel “mother”. If we equate the crown with Rapunzel’s virginity, then her giving it to Flynn becomes a sexual act: she is giving him her virginity. She is no longer scared because she trusts him. Then when she believes that he has left her, Rapunzel’s devastation is now a product of the real life fear that many girls have: trusting a guy with her virginity and having him basically spit and trample all over that trust. Traumatizing, indeed.

Ultimately it’s impossible to know for sure whether the creators of this film intended for this symbolism to be there unless they say so themselves, and I doubt that they would for a children’s film. Nevertheless, considering what a clear parallel it is, I suspect it was intentional, and I love being able to think that.

There was a bit of conservative recoil from this film from what I recall, mainly because Rapunzel acts like a real teenager and rebels a fair amount, and despite that everything turns out OK for her. As one reviewer puts it,

 “…the legitimisation [sic] of the heroine’s rebellion against the authority over her was just too terrible. Our children are rebellious without any encouragement: to see how a rebellion is carried out and ends in glorious joy is very disturbing. The film says not to trust your parents and to despise their claims of love.”

I understand his concern, but by putting in this virginity symbolism and depicting teenage rebellion for what it is, Disney has shown a very real part of growing up:  realizing that your parents, who do what they feel is best to keep you safe, aren’t infallible. Granted, in this movie the parent is actually the villain, but what better way to show that not every parent is right about everything?

When people argue for parents’ rights to control every single aspect of their children’s lives, including education, they often conveniently ignore that some parents are white supremacists who would like to teach their children inaccurate, racist versions of historical events because they think that’s what’s best for their kids, and that other parents don’t believe in modern medicine and would rather have their kids die than receive a life-saving blood transfusion, or disease-preventing vaccination.

In Tangled, for the first time in any kids movie I can think of, a parent was depicted as being wrong about something–or even a lot of somethings. I wish this movie had come out when I was much, much younger. It might have prepared me better for the realization that my own parents, while loving and well-meaning, can be very, very wrong. This film is Disney at its finest, and I applaud them for it.

While we’re on the subject, do you know any other kids movies that contain fairly adult topics? Have you ever re-watched a film you used to love and finally understood half its jokes? Feel free to leave a comment.

All opinions are welcome. Just be respectful and think things through before posting.

Happy thinking!

-Nancy