Friday, 10 March 2017

Well, maybe it's progress?????

The Marganilization of Women: (a Huffington Post blog by Christopher Rollston)

Women have been talking about this forever - even here the patriarchy rears its ugly head - there is nothing wrong with what Rollston says - in fact, I agree with him in spades - and as readers of this blog can attest, I would go further (see my article The Personal is Still Political, for example)

However,  my problem is the following: just that how many women have lost or been threatened with the loss of their positions for saying the same thing and less - maybe there is lots of women who have happy endings after challenging the "powers that be" but ..


On the other hand, at least, Rollston didn't have to recant to get another job - that's something, I guess, See Hershel Shanks: First Person: Misogyny in the Bible Biblical Archaeology Review March/April 2017

The academic version of this is Christopher A. Rollston, “Women, the Bible, and the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” in Frances Flannery and Rodney Alan Werline, eds., The Bible in Political Debate (New York: Bloomsbury, 2016).

Monday, 21 November 2016

Yup, it's all making sense again - just had to find the right context

Now I get it - finally!
Trump is just an old fashioned Old Testament prophet
Hellfire and damnation to the elites,
Power to the suffering people,
Make [.....] great again -
Just go back to the old ways,
Everything will be fine,
All will be forgiven
Guess what I was teaching today :-)
And this Steve Bannon talk fits right in: This is How Steve Bannon Sees the Entire World

Saturday, 15 October 2016

The political is personal

I have just posted Michelle Obama's speech on the blog.
Really nothing more needs to be said. Yes we do take this personally.
And every man who has a wife, a mother, sister(s), daughter(s) should take this personally.
Because you never know which one of them or any of us will be the next ones. And so often we feel like there is nothing that we can do about it.

Michelle Obama's EPIC Speech On Trump's Sexual Behavior (FULL | HD)

Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Why? Because it's 2016 & children are not possessions

German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18604664

Need I say more?

If female circumcision is illegal, then male circumcision should be illegal.

"The BBC's Stephen Evans in Germany says it is unclear what the next legal step will be, but this issue is a moral and political minefield."

Friday, 25 March 2016

Because It's 2016: Part 3

Further comment on Facebook from Friend 1:

I'm not sure that the argument about the pervasiveness of patriarchy holds water in this instance..and, no, I'm no fan of Ghomeshi. There were three complainants in this case. Each of the complainants, on cross examination, we're seen to have engaged in behavior post-incident that directly calls into question the veracity of their allegations concerning the incidents themselves. This, in turn, goes to the criminal intent of the accused. Now the criminal law in this country is sufficiently nuanced so that you can still get a conviction on certain classes of crimes against persons without having to establish intent (criminal negligence, for example). But assault (simple, aggravated, or sexual) as far as I know does not admit to this elasticity. You have to prove intent, or you cannot convict.

Maybe we need another class of assault charge in which an accused can't hide behind the "being a fab of rough sex" defense....

My only comment on this is that there is no surprise in the fact that Ghomeshi opted for trial by judge rather than trial by jury.

Because It's 2016: Part 2

From my blog on the Cologne attacks. It has some relevance to the societal constructions that allow the blame-shifting to victims to be the predominant construction of western society (I won't discuss other societies - "clean up the mess in our own house first, I say").

Sometimes the legal system is just an excuse to avoid dealing with the larger social presuppositions of our society. It is the legacy of our western history - scapegoating has been the answer for so long (bah, humbug to René Girard), it is time we really tried to get rid of the larger social construction that enable it.

If we don't then we are all enablers of these travesties of justice.

Comments to my Facebook post:

Male Friend 1: Ok, ok...but it's interesting - and significant - that both the defence attorney AND the law professor that CBC had on as commentators for the decision agreed that it would have been nearly impossible to obtain a conviction on the basis of the evidence as presented and cross-examined! So is this the court's fault or the crown's?
LikeReply38 mins
Sheila A. Redmond The Crown Prosecutor's Office did not represent the women in the best way possible. And no I still do not think that it was predominantly the prosecutor's fault - there is a flaw in the system that has a hard time in a patriarchal society to avoid "blame-shifting" to women (or to male victims) in cases of sexual assault. It is the most blatant example of a society that is still stuck in its Christian past (almost 2,000 years to get it right - enough time already) with respect to women, and over issues of sexuality. Western society - whether we like it or not - is still embued with the fundamental constructions of Christianity as the foundation of its legal systems & we know what Christianity has thought about women over the centuries.
LikeReplyJust now
Sheila A. Redmond
Write a reply...
Male Friend 2: All the judge stated was that there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt based on the conduct evidence and inaccuracies of the accusers. When witnesses/victim testimony are the only evidence, and that evidence is deemed to be less than credible, there is no other choice -in law- than to find not guilty.

It is a fundamental principal of justice that you cannot lock a person away without certainty of guilt.

Agree or disagree with the judge on a personal level, but in legal terms he made the only available decision. This is a justice system dispute, not the makeup of the bench.
LikeReply7 minsEdited
Sheila A. Redmond We'll get to that shortly - the great gender divide on this issue is becoming clearer