Evangelical Ignorance At Its Finest
Posted by
tgirsch
No Utopian nostalgia here, no, not at all:
Feminists heralded the proliferation of abortion as a tool by which to “empower” women and give them control over their lives and destinies. But power is being pregnant. Because it gives you control over other people’s lives. Embryos and fetuses get you treated like royalty. Not only do people cede the right of way to you; not only do people in line at the ladies’ room let you get in front of them; but if the man who impregnated you sticks around for just a few more months, you get to lie on the couch all day and just point to things, and they magically come to you. You just have to say, “Honey, I think I’m craving a —,” and the chocolate-banana-peanut-butter milkshake appears in your hand. What can be more powerful?
The rest of it manages to be even worse than that excerpt, an almost artful mix of anti-woman and anti-child rhetoric.
Show of hands:
Women with children who didn’t get that sort of treatment, please raise your hands…
OK, now those who did, please raise your hands…
This just reinforces the idea that the purpose of women is to make babies, and that it’s the only reason why they’re important. I’m sorry, but it’s really hard to view this sort of closed worldview with anything other than contempt.
H/T: Joe Carter, who links this approvingly, by the way.
UPDATE: Apparently, I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. The “Evangelicals” I’m referring to in the title are the ones, like Joe, who are approvingly citing the linked editorial. I didn’t mean to imply that the author was an evangelical. Just an idiot. Of course, when the best critics can do is to pick nits about the authorship of the article, rather than engaging the substance of what’s written, that pretty much tells us everything we need to know.
UPDATE 2: Amanda Marcotte isn’t quite as kind to this as I am.
I’ve never heard of an evangelical Jew. (That she is a Jew is an assumption by me since she is an editor of JewishWorldReview.com) Why do you assume she is an evangelical anything? Oh, of course, it may be your bigotry.
“This just reinforces the idea that the purpose of women is to make babies, and that it’s the only reason why they’re important.”
It only reinforces the idea that you make up things. I’ve never known of an evangelical to have such an opinion. If you have, please do us the favor of citing him/her. Oh, you can’t? Just as I thought. Another one of your lies.
Comment 4/24/2007
By Julia Gorin. She’s from New York. I met her before she got her writing gigs; she did her standup routine for me, consisting of stock impressions of Puerto Rican women (”Zo, juwanna ‘trow down wit’ me, uh whad!?”), which she assured me all her Puerto Rican friends just loved. She’s remained just as shallow and airheaded since.
The piece you quote is telling, however. She opens it by explaining she’s never had kids and doesn’t like them, but “fetuses are cooler than kids” - because they earn you so much indulgence. She then goes on to explain in detail how great it is to be pregnant against your will. It’s a great piece because, like Ann Coulter, she comes right out and says what was always obvious about the right wing: they love fetuses and don’t care about children; they’re full of advice they don’t intend to take for themselves; they know everything about how other people should live their lives - lives they themselves don’t intend to put up with; and they are, at bottom, self-righteously full of shit - just twisted-crazy, ignorant, and aimed like a laser at other people’s freedom to make their own choices. She just says it.
OK. I believe it.
Comment 4/24/2007
“obvious about the right wing: they love fetuses and don’t care about children”
Obvious to your sick mind. I worked for years for an organization that helped homeless children. Most of the $2 million a year that we received in donations was from conservative pro-life people. A large portion, maybe the majority, of organizations that help children in need are faith based. When was the last time you heard of a hospital or children’s home sponsored by atheists? I guess I’ll pull out a phrase I haven’t used in a while: “Why do liberals lie so much?”
Comment 4/24/2007
Once again, Fred’s piss poor reading comprehension (and failure to follow links) bites him in the ass. Whether or not Gorin is an evangelical is irrelevant. Joe Carter, who linked the editorial approvingly (and where I found it), is. His web site is called The Evangelical Outpost, fer Chrissakes!
As for right wingers helping children’s causes, that’s all well and good and wonderful, but it’s not terribly relevant to KTK’s allegation. Dare to mention requiring that we help children, and their heads fucking explode. Helping children should be purely voluntary, of course! But of course, actually having children shouldn’t be voluntary. If you get pregnant under nearly any circumstances, they would require that you have children. No cognitive dissonance there, no sir! Freedom for me, and not for thee.
[Insert rant about how women who don’t want children shouldn’t ever have sex here. Abstinence is the only sure way, after all…]
I’ve never known of an evangelical to have such an opinion.
You’re right, I overstated the case. It’s not so much that this is all they’re good for; it’s just that it’s by far and away the most important thing they’re good for; women who put other priorities higher than raising a family are not exactly viewed positively by most of the evangelicals I know. I remain open to being convinced otherwise, however.
Oh, and to correct KTK a little bit, it’s not so much that the right wing “loves fetuses.” It’s more that they find them to be an exceptionally useful political tool. If the abortion issue didn’t guarantee them a certain block of voters, they’d drop it like a hot potato. They don’t give a shit about anything but donations and getting elected. (The same, sadly, could be said for some of the abortion proponents in politics, too…)
Comment 4/24/2007
“Fred’s **** poor reading comprehension”
Nothing wrong with my comprehension. Your headline asserts that evangelicals have a certain viewpoint and then your entire post is about what Julia Goran says. Usually headlines have something to do with what is written in the story. I guess you are an exception.
“it’s just that it’s by far and away the most important thing they’re good for;”
Another “overstatement.” Or in other words: a lie.
Comment 4/24/2007
“It’s more that they find them to be an exceptionally useful political tool. If the abortion issue didn’t guarantee them a certain block of voters, they’d drop it like a hot potato. They don’t give a **** about anything but donations and getting elected.”
You’re on a roll tonight. Your statement above is one of your more illogical ones. If pro-life people didn’t love pre-born children there would be no pro-life movement and no need for a political “tool.” The movement wouldn’t need donors and voters. We would all agree that killing babies is okay.
Comment 4/24/2007
Ah, yes, there are no political factions that exist to accumulate power. All of them are just advocacy groups. Go on, Fred, tell us another bedtime story.
(Are you actually so immature that ‘piss’ offends your delicate sensibilities?)
Comment 4/24/2007
From the article:
Um, yes? If the idea that abortion is worst that child abuse doesn’t make it perfectly clear that fetuses trump children, what will? (Then again, the original article seems entirely tought in cheek.)
Comment 4/24/2007
“They don’t give a shit about anything but donations and getting elected. (The same, sadly, could be said for some of the abortion proponents in politics, too…)”
Nice slight of hand there. Honest phrasing would remove the word “some” from the bracketed phrase or to replace “They” with “Some of them” in the first sentence.
I gotta agree with Fred regarding the title. Your title leads one to believe the article is related in some way to evangelical groups which it is not. Why do you criticize misleading comments and lies from the right and then think it is acceptable to intentionally mislead in your title?
Comment 4/24/2007
I agree with Dan M. that the article seems to be entirely tongue in cheek. Sounds like a bad over the top comedy routine.
Comment 4/24/2007
(Are you actually so immature that ‘piss’ offends your delicate sensibilities?)
Mature people don’t need childish vulgarisms to express themselves.
Comment 4/25/2007
mature people are capable of using whatever kind of language they please to express themselves, whether they need it or not. minimalism — the avoidance of anything not strictly necessary — is a school of design, not a necessity of maturity.
an arguably necessary trait of maturity, however, is the capacity to focus on function, rather than form, and to read for content regardless of the verbiage used to express the core ideas.
Comment 4/25/2007
“mature people are capable of using whatever kind of language they please to express themselves,”
And I choose not to use profanity and vulgarisms. Now back to the subject at hand.
Comment 4/25/2007
yes, let’s get back to the subject at hand.
claiming that all males (or even all expectant fathers) will naturally dote on pregnant women is a piss-ignorant statement. claiming that pregnancy, by way of getting a manipulative lever on the impregnator, is a good way (or a healthy way) for women to gain power is so shortsighted and tunnel-visioned you’d have to be an utter shithead to swallow it.
pretending that merely relying on such male generosity is a good way to ensure it will actually materialize, without spending one word discussing what to do if and when it fails to, is so mind-bogglingly stupid as to be stereotypically feminine — and of a stereotype i’d much rather not have had validated. it’s stereotypically privileged to presume every woman will be able to blindly rely on that, to the point of excluding any alternatives which those women who aren’t so able might just possibly wish to consider for themselves. it’s stereotypically patriarchal to assume it would be a good thing for women to live their lives that way, glass sculptures on top of their pedestals. so very empowered, up there!
starting an essay by right out admitting you prefer fetuses to children is moronically misogynistic, because fetuses put demands and restrictions on women in ways and to degrees that born children do not, even after you account for how disproportionately (and unfairly) women are burdened with child-rearing. making such a statement right next to admitting you yourself have no plans for breeding is blatantly, shitfacedly hypocritical; one rule for thee, (skanky whore,) and another for me.
(you’re still reading me for content, not form, right? am i being sufficiently insulting on both levels? to both you and mrs. (surely she wouldn’t've kept her maiden name) Gorin? good.)
calling it a “truth” and an “age-old cliche” that “carrying is the easy part” does not make it so. raising a born child may be however hard, but it’s a responsibility that can be surrendered to others if you’re failing too very badly at it. (nor does that duty very often kill the women who do it; pregnancy can, and still does.) gestation can only be aborted, and the author of that miserable piece of reactionary flamebait is specifically railing against that thin thread of a last resort. for that reason alone, she’s implicitly supporting male dominance and furthering the patriarchy, whether the foolish blowse wants to admit it or not.
Comment 4/25/2007
Holy cow, Nomen Nescio, do you ever sound bitter.
Comment 4/25/2007
actually, that was deliberate. instead of just derailing the whole thing off the main subject (an incredibly misogynistic, unfair essay somebody managed to get published) and onto a pissant detail (somebody saying “piss”, oh horrors), i wanted to get back on track and emphasize that the main subject actually deserves some very strong language indeed. perhaps even defuse some of the (what i see as) hypocritically prudish straining out offensive language while swallowing the much more offensive anti-choice substance.
…well okay, maybe i’m trying to blow off some steam while i’m at it, too. just a little.
Comment 4/25/2007
“…well okay, maybe i’m trying to blow off some steam while i’m at it, too. just a little.”
Why does it get you steamed that someone doesn’t use profane and vulgar language? Has anyone stopped you from using vile language? Grow up. Why are you offended that someone doesn’t speak like you? Very strange.
Comment 4/25/2007
jesus hopping haploid christ nailed to a pogo stick and given a swift kick in the arse, will you quit trying to do exactly what i was trying to stop you from doing already?! what did i string together that whole long list of profanity for, if you won’t even read for content in this thread at all?!
the issue is that glorifying pregnancy and deprecating the very thought of abortion while pooh-poohing post-natal concerns and ignoring fathers’ obligations (y’know, all those things the author of the original despicable screed did) is discriminatory, misogynistic, and liable to wreck the society and economy of this country even worse if given any more influence than it already has. and all those things are profoundly offensive, so cussing them out is actually called for. quit objecting to the form as a deliberate attempt to ignore the substance, dammit!
Comment 4/25/2007
“quit objecting to the form as a deliberate attempt to ignore the substance, ******”
Hey, Strange One, why do you get your panties in a wad because I replace vulgarity with asterisks? That’s all I did to incite your pathetic childish rants. Grow up.
Your comments on the subject are so inane, convoluted, and full of balderdash that they are not worthy of response. Your bigoted statements certainly speak to your liberal intolerance.
Comment 4/25/2007
i’m getting my panties in a wad because, pro primo, your priorities are all fucked up; and pro secundo, far worse, you’re trying to fuck everybody else’s priorities all up, too.
i’m using the word “fuck” because there is no better description of your priorities, or your actions. the very topic is largely about fucking, anyway, but judging by your track record i’d wager you think the word a greater sin than the act… for a man, at least.
i’m getting my panties in a wad because you think objecting to cusswords is more important than objecting to retrograde medieval mindsets about pregnancy and childrearing. the former complaint (whine, more like) is taking time and effort away from correcting the latter problem, and that pisses me off.
and if thinking function ought to trump form is “childish” or “balderdash”, then i’ll be proud to be childish and balderdashey. fattening FSM, but the world is upside-down if it takes a flaming liberal to point out that ideas ought to count for more than their phrasing these days.
Comment 4/25/2007
Fred:
Usually headlines have something to do with what is written in the story.
No exception here. I only found the Gorin tripe because an evangelical linked it approvingly. Whether or not an evangelical initially wrote it is irrelevant; evangelicals are linking it and talking about it and clearly approving of it. This post is not about the author of the piece, but about the types of people who like what she has to say. I’m sorry I didn’t spell that out for you using smaller words right away.
If pro-life people didn’t love pre-born children there would be no pro-life movement and no need for a political “tool.”
Yes, but if you re-read the original comment, it wasn’t talking about “pro-life people.” It talks about “the right wing,” who are not themselves necessarily pro-life. They simply pander to the pro-life movement. Unless you’re now telling me that “the right wing” and “pro-life people” are exactly identical, in your estimation… I have no doubt that there are people out there who strongly believe that fetuses are at least as important as (and possibly more important than) born children, and that these people call themselves “pro-life” and that they donate as such; I wasn’t referring to them. I was referring to the politicians who cynically exploit them.
Mature people don’t need childish vulgarisms to express themselves.
You’re right; you’ve proven time and again that you don’t need to be vulgar to be entirely childish.
Big U:
Nice slight of hand there.
No sleight of hand there at all, at least not intentional. The reason I didn’t equate the two groups is because I don’t think they’re in any way equal. That two groups are both guilty of something does not necessarily make them equally guilty of it. Sure, there’s some degree of political opportunism and cynicism on both sides, but I think it’s a lot worse on the “pro-life” side. Indeed, most in the pro-choice movement at least put some money where their mouths are, arguing not only for unrestricted access to abortion, but also arguing for the types of things that reduce the need for abortion — things like comprehensive sex education, Plan B (which is not an abortifacent, as some opponents claim), expanded access to / coverage of contraception, etc., and are considerably more likely to also argue for things like expanded child care coverage, child health care, etc. The “pro-life” movement, on the other hand, opposes all such measures. They simply want to criminalize abortion, while turning a blind eye to what the root causes of abortion actually are, and spurning the very things that could make abortion substantially less prevalent.
Otherwise, what Nomen said sums it up pretty nicely, actually, despite the fact that he still hasn’t learned that Fred seems to be allergic to responding to the actual substance of, well, anything.
Comment 4/25/2007
Nomen Nescio -
Time to catch on to the fact that Fred never discusses the substance of an issue, he just throws out casual sneers and smears hoping to distract from the topic at hand by entangling the thread in irrelevancies - in this case, “vulgar” language.
He is, that is, a classic troll and most people here have learned that for the most part he should simply be ignored.
Comment 4/26/2007
“in this case, “vulgar” language.”
Wrong, as usual. Dan M. started it in post seven. Get a life. Until then I had never in any post anywhere mentioned vulgar language. For some unknown reason, Danny Boy was offended that I used asterisks in post 5 to replace a vulgarity. Go figure. I can just imagine Danny & Nomen writing newspaper editors because Sgt. Snorkle said %$^%$#( to Beetle Bailey on the cartoon page instead of using the actual profane word.
Comment 4/26/2007
Nomen makes a perfectly clear statement of why one should be offended by a prudery of language not entailing a compassion of politics. To be blunt, you’re evil if you care enough to censor a quote but not enough to reduce the harm of unplanned-for pregnancy. My question was really more to see just how infantile your evil is. You’ve cleared up the matter perfectly. Sgt. Snorkel doesn’t want to outlaw abortion, so it’s okay for him to swear, in my book.
And your resort to changing my name is a truly funny admission of your incapacity to support your own behavior.
Comment 4/26/2007
Correction, Sgt. Snorkel’s cartoonist doesn’t advocate banning abortion, so he can censor Snorkel.
Comment 4/26/2007
“Sgt. Snorkel’s cartoonist doesn’t advocate banning abortion, so he can censor Snorkel.”
What a nut you are! Your last two posts make absolutely no sense. Your contention that one who is opposed to abortion of babies has no right to use asterisks to substi…. I can’t even figure out a way to respond to such rubbish. Nevermind. You are an exceedingly strange person.
Comment 4/26/2007
Fred, when have you ever responded to anything here, except to call your misapprehensions of others their lies?
Comment 4/26/2007
“To be blunt, you’re evil if you care enough to censor a quote but not enough to reduce the harm of unplanned-for pregnancy.”
Referring to unborn babies as “the harm” shows your complete lack of humanity. I will gladly stand up for unborn babies, and you can continue to advocate their deaths. I’ll choose life over “the harm” of aborticide.
Comment 4/26/2007
“Fred, when have you ever responded to anything here,”
All of my posts have been responses. You may notice I’m not on the list of bloggers.
Comment 4/26/2007
Wow, I’m glad this is productive.
Comment 4/26/2007
I think Fred is just hoping that by avoiding anything of the actual content, he can see himself as having the last word, when we finally plonk him. The irony of ‘aborticide’ does make it hard not to point and laugh.
Comment 4/26/2007
“does make it hard not to point and laugh.”
Oh, no! How can I live with the thought that a bunch of vulgar, profane, lying people who think it’s okay to kill babies is laughing at me? You can imagine how distraught that makes me. I must stop now because my keyboard is getting wet from my tears. You have no idea how you people look to normal, decent people.
Comment 4/26/2007
You use ‘profane’ as an insult. Clearly, you’ve missed the point that some of us don’t need a Sky Daddy for our morality.
You continue to not know the English word ‘baby’.
You’ve coined a word that suggests the killing of not fetuses or even babies, but abortionists. The irony, which you of course missed, is that pro-”lifers” have earned themselves a reputation for killing doctors.
If you’re “normal”, than I’m the king of the Moon and my pants are made out of cheese. (And since you’re obviously too stupid to understand implication, this is not in fact the case, and you are to deduce that you’re not normal.)
Normal, decent people care about poverty. They care when a child is born into a life with will be harsh and broken. They care that the lives of women can be destroyed by the poverty brought on by unprepared child-rearing. Hell, they even usually know enough to care whether child-birth will hurt a woman.
Go on, keep calling us baby (sic) killers. Keep showing your contempt for people. Keep being too obtuse to ever answer anyone’s positions. Go on, keep posted, for your amusement. But we all know you’re either a fool or a fraud.
Comment 4/26/2007
But we all know you’re either a fool or a fraud.
I’m not entirely sure those two are mutually exclusive…
Comment 4/26/2007
“UPDATE: Apparently, I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. The “Evangelicals” I’m referring to in the title are the ones, like Joe, who are approvingly citing the linked editorial. I didn’t mean to imply that the author was an evangelical. Just an idiot. Of course, when the best critics can do is to pick nits about the authorship of the article, rather than engaging the substance of what’s written, that pretty much tells us everything we need to know.”
At least you are willing to admit that it was your poor writing that led to the confusion. That’s a step forward.
Comment 4/26/2007
“keep calling us baby (sic) killers”
Why do you lie so much? I’ve never called you a baby killer. I have no idea as to what your activities are. I don’t know if you’ve ever killed a pre-born baby or not. I do know that you approve of killing them.
Comment 4/26/2007
Congratulations on misbinding ‘us’. Care to call me a liar again for another of your mistakes?
Comment 4/26/2007
“Care to call me a liar again for another of your mistakes?”
No mistake. When a person uses “us” he includes himself. Therefore, I can respond to one of the “us.”
You are a liar.
Comment 4/27/2007
Thank you for calling me a liar for you not being able to see your mistake; it makes my point nicely. Did you even think of the possibility of asking what your mistake might have been?
Look, I’m not even asking for you to agree with anyone here. I’m asking you to participate in discourse, and to stop using the very vile epithet of ‘liar’ when you haven’t demonstrated anything like deceit on the speaker’s part.
Comment 4/28/2007