The sex industry, although condemned by many, and hidden by others, is a very profitable and widespread industry. The adult entertainment industry has grown immensely in the past few decades, and become even more profitable in recent years. Despite this, many cities try to prevent these industries from flourishing, and many others try to put large, demanding restrictions on them. Still, some other cities have a high tolerance for these industries. The reasons for this are complex and varied, and will be discussed throughout this paper. There is also a largely debated question regarding whether or not these industries adversely affect the areas that they occupy. Many cities claim this to be true, but there is a lack of evidence to support this claim.
There is definitely a growing number of adult entertainment businesses. The rate of expansion was greatest “between 1987 and 1992” when the “number of strip clubs in major cities across the United States roughly doubled” (Liepe-Levinson). This is not only because of growing interest and growing numbers of clientele but also because “adult entertainment has been redefined as a range of activities have become legitimate” (Ryder).
During the time period in which these industries were expanding so rapidly, “Gentrification of urban centers across the United States produced a corollary geographical shift in adult entertainment locations,” which caused them to move to more suburban locations (Egan 9). This caused an uproar among the people living in these areas. In order to prevent this shift in location, officials created zoning laws to try to “control or stop the proliferation of exotic dance clubs in certain areas” (Egan 9).
Despite the fact that “Civic leaders and urban governments have tried to control adult entertainment activities with a variety of 'command-and-control' techniques, including vice laws, licensing, zoning and land use planning powers,” they have been largely unable to stop the growth of the adult entertainment industry (Ryder). There are small successes as far as “closing down or down-sizing adult entertainment districts in many cities, but this success is more apparent than real” (Ryder). Although there is some competition to these live industries because “adult activities are suburbanizing, and face growing competition from the Internet and other on-line services” (Ryder). The National Family Legal Foundation was a big player in attempting to legislate zoning codes. “This organization trained 1,000 lawyers to “secure” 1,000 cities by initiating and implementing zoning codes that would eliminate all businesses that did not uphold their standards of family values” (Liepe-Levinson). In 1994, Mayor Giuliani followed the lead of this organization when he implemented zoning codes that banned any “sex trade business larger than 10,000 square feet, and all sex trades from operating less than 500 feet from residences, churches, day-care centers, schools, and one another” (Liepe-Levinson 20). This was largely supported by some and largely denounced by others. The laws banned any store from selling more than forty percent adult merchandise. This did not stop any stores from selling adult merchandise, it only eliminated “explicit signs of sexual desire.” Some accused Giuliani of wanting to “legislate his own morality” (Liepe-Levinson 20). As put by Hanna, “the problem in a multicultural society is that certain groups or individuals articulate their beliefs by means of pulic discourse and crusades, often successfully, imposing their morality on others.” Many cities have opposition to strip clubs on moral charges. This has been frequently decried as a violation of first amendment rights, but it is still an issue. The City of Erie put a ban on nude dancing that was later overturned on the grounds that it “unconstitutionally restricted free expression rights of nude dancing entertainers” (Leahy). There are a variety of views on what exactly should be done about the adult entertainment industry, but it is apparent that for the most part, zoning laws are ineffective, and mostly only create a semblance of usefulness.
There are a variety of laws in different parts of the country and in different parts of the world. There is little explanation for the diversity of regulations, but for the most part, all of the areas are attempting to combat the same problems and create the same levels of safety and decency. In Sweden, several laws were put into place to make sex work illegal. In the Netherlands, laws were put into place that regulated the health and safety of the industry. Both of these reforms were an attempt to decrease problems regarding health and human rights. However, in both cases, these attempts caused much of the sex work to go underground, which causes greater problems (Kilvington). One effective way of tackling these problems surrounding the sex industry is unionization. This has occurred in Germany as well as in the United States (Kilvington). In San Francisco, dancers at the Lusty Lady worked in horrible conditions. They came together and formed a union and re-organized the business into a co-operative. (Barton 159). In other areas, such as South Africa, sex work has been entirely decriminalized, which is defined as “the removal of any legislation, which makes prostitution and the activities commonly associated with sex work, such as pimping/ brothel-keeping and soliciting, illegal” (Wojocicki). It also eliminated any regulations on sex work including “zoning, registration, licensing or health testing for sex workers.” This is a very liberal and unusual position, in fact, “decriminalization, as such, does not exist anywhere in the world” (Wojocicki).
In some cases, courts have “supported state’s rights to create laws that would make it significantly harder to run or own exotic dance clubs” (Egan). The argument supporting these decisions regards the “harmful secondary effects” of sex work, which includes “drug abuse, drunken driving, and prostitution.” These claims are all largely unfounded (Egan). There is little evidence regarding whether “legal sex trades in question moved into an area already in decline, whether they actually furthered the problem, or whether the district’s demise was caused by additional factors.” This being the argument that many anti-sex trade organizations use. The claim that “strip clubs invariably destroyed neighborhoods or encouraged vice and crime” is largely unfounded. (Liepe-Levinson). There is also documented evidence that a strip club being in a particular area “does not increase the number of crime incidents reported in localized areas surrounding the club… as compared to the number of crime incidents reported in comparable localized areas that do not contain such an adult business.” Interestingly enough, there is evidence supporting “the opposite, namely, that the nearby areas surrounding the adult business sites have smaller numbers of reported crime incidents than do corresponding areas surrounding the three control sites studied” (Sanchez).
It is apparent that adult entertainment is a thriving industry that will not fade away anytime soon. Although many cities try to fight the spread of these businesses, they largely fail, and they have no real evidence to back the claims that they use to attempt to create laws. Also, regardless of what laws are implemented, most adult industries thrive just the same. There is also no evidence to support the claims that strip clubs create any problems with crime or cause the disintegration of a particular area.
Barton, Bernadette. 2006. Stripped. New York, NY.
Egan, Danielle R. 2006. Dancing for Dollars and Paying for Love. New York, NY
Hanna, Judith Lynne. Undressing the First Amendment and Corsetting the Striptease Dancer. TDR (1988-), Vol. 42, No. 2 (Summer, 1998), pp. 38-69 Published by: The MIT Press.
Kilvington, Judith. Prostitution Policy in Europe: A Time of Change? Sophie Day and Helen Ward Feminist Review, No. 67, Sex Work Reassessed (Spring, 2001), pp. 78-93 Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals.
Linz, Daniel, Bryant Paul, Kenneth C. Land, Jay R. Williams, Michael E. Ezell (2004) An Examination of the Assumption that Adult Businesses Are Associated with Crime in Surrounding Areas: A Secondary Effects Study in Charlotte, North Carolina
Law & Society Review 38 (1) , 69–104 doi:10.1111/j.0023-9216.2004.03801003.x
Liepe-Levinson, Katherine. 1953. Strip Show: Performances of Gender and Desire. London, New York: Routledge.
Leahy, Christopher.“The First Amendment Gone Awry: City of Erie V. Pap's A.M., Ailing Analytical Structures, and the Suppression of Protected Expression University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 150, No. 3 (Jan., 2002), pp. 1021-1078 Published by: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review Board.
Ryder, Andrew. “The Changing Nature of Adult Entertainment Districts: Between a Rock and a Hard Place or Going from Strength to Strength?” Department of Geography, University of Portsmouth, Buckingham Building, Lion Terrace, Portsmouth, UK.
Sanchez L E, 2004, "The global e-rotic subject, the ban, and the prostitute-free zone: sex work and the theory of differential exclusion" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22(6) 861 – 883
Sanchez, L E. Boundaries of Legitimacy: Sex, Violence, Citizenship, and Community in a Local Sexual Economy. Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Summer, 1997), pp. 543-580
Wojcicki, Janet. Race, Class and Sex: The Politics of the Decriminalisation of Sex Work.
Agenda, No. 42, Land and Housing: Women Speak Out (1999), pp. 94-105
Published by: Agenda Feminist Media
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Sexuality as a Private Matter
Sexuality in the Classroom
"Sexuality is something that should be taught at home because it is a private, bedroom matter." Many individuals endorse this viewpoint and many would go to great lengths to see that sexuality stays out of the public arena. Unfortunately, this viewpoint can be very destructive when it is applied to the real world. Sexuality is very important to almost everyone, even though contexts may vary. Attempting to silence the public on this matter can never fully work. It is also important that individuals learn about the variety of sexual preferences so that those who fit into the “norm” can be more tolerant, and so that those who do not can understand themselves more fully. Sexuality is a dangerous issue to sweep under the rug. If it is considered an entirely private matter, then it is much easier for people to abuse it.
Sexuality will never be an entirely private matter. It is arguably the most relevant aspect of the human condition. As such, people will always talk about it. The innate danger of this is that people tend to communicate misinformation to one another. If sexuality is not taught to young people in an accurate way, then their only source of information is whatever their parents are know and are willing to divulge, which may not be much. The other alternative is what their friends tell them, which is even worse, as anyone who has ever listened to middle-school students should know. Sexuality will always be relevant to people, for if “sexuality were irrelevant… then “out” lesbians and gays would occasion little notice or comment; however, the opposite usually occurs” (Martin 225). There are also other problems inherent in ignoring sexuality. Ignoring sexuality as a whole also leads to ignoring such problems as sexual harassment. Studies have shown that men will often “construct predatory sexual discourses and workplace cultures that derogate and undermine women” (Martin 225). If sexuality was ignored in public settings, it stands to reason that employers would turn a blind eye to these kinds of circumstances, as they often have during times when culture was more sexually restricted in nature.
Sexuality is innate in almost every human person, and as such, it manifests in many scenarios. Sexuality is deeply tied to a variety of social contexts. Despite many individuals attempting to privatize and cover up sexuality, it still has “multiple levels of organization, including individual identities, but also as practices; as an organizing feature of face-to-face social interaction; and as an overarching, normative structure…” (Schippers 206). Sexuality is fluid, and often is not constrained to social norms. Human sexual nature can be “far more diffused and fluid than the hetero-focused binary would have it” (Schippers 207). Individuals who are taught only a limited and distorted view of sexuality are at risk of not fully understanding their sexuality and sexual feelings. As noted below, the repression of sexual urges can often lead to atrocities. Bringing sexuality into public forums can help challenge norms and bring change to society’s beliefs. Before homosexuality became a movement and was exposed to the public eye, “most lesbians and gay men… discovered their homosexual desires in isolation, unaware of others and without resources for naming and understanding what they felt” (D’Emilio 216). It is unfair to future generations to attempt to stifle these movements. No one wants to feel that they are alone and not understanding one’s own sexuality while realizing that it is different must be a very isolating circumstance. Bringing sexual orientation out into public education and forums is necessary in “changing consciousness, creating the ideological conditions that make it easier for people…” (D’Emilio 221). People should be encouraged to express themselves freely and to have the ability to learn to come to terms with their sexuality and identity. Knowledge of one’s own sexual processes and behaviors should be considered a basic human right.
Covering up sexuality can have dire consequences, one of such being the massive cover-up of sexual scandals. A very infamous example of this is the Catholic Church regarding pedophile priests. The Catholic Church did everything in its power to keep these problems within the church, leading them to choose “damage control over revelation and action, a tawdry cover-up at the expense of innocent children” (Barrie 187). It was only when this highly privatized matter was brought to public attention that authorities began to take any real action against these incidences. Had the matter not been exposed, these pedophiles would probably still be abusing children, and it is likely that there are still many who are and are still being protected by the church. Privatizing sexuality and taking the viewpoint that “problems that began in the church…have to get resolved in the church” (Barrie 184) is the first step towards silencing victims of horrendous crimes. It is a vast injustice to promote the interests of the church at the expense of young children. These youths deserve to have their abuses acknowledged and aided, not hidden and denied. Considering sexuality to be an entirely private matter can only encourage tragedies to be silenced, because those that believe in that kind of suggestion will be the first to ignore these atrocities and claim they are a matter for the Church to settle. As Elie Wiesel once said: “neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.” Sexual crimes should be punished by society, and the perpetrators of said crimes should not be allowed to continue their abuses in private.
As stated above, sexuality can never be kept private. It should be taught in schools and brought to the attention of the public. If this is not done, then the public will suffer a variety of consequences, such as a lack of accurate information, an inability to understand various sexualities, and a lack of justice for perpetrators of sexual abuse. Sexuality will always be a part of people’s lives and it should not be something that people are embarrassed or afraid of.
Barrie, Iain A.G. "A Broken Trust: Canadian Priests, Brothers, Pedophilia, and the Media" A Broken Trust: Canadian Priests, Brothers, Pedophilia, and the Media. (1991): Rpt. in Sex, Self, and Society. Ed. Tracey L. Steele. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005, 50-60.
D’Emilio, John. “Capitalism and Gay Identity” Capitalism and Gay Identity. (1983): Rpt. in Sex, Self, and Society. Ed. Tracey L. Steele. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005, 50-60.
Martin, Patricia Nancy and David L. Collinson. "Sexuality in Organizations." Gender and Sexuality in Organizations: Rpt. in Sex, Self, and Society. Ed. Tracey L. Steele. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005, 50-60.
Schippers, Mimi. "The Social Organization of Sexuality and Gender in Alternative Hard Rock: An Analysis of Intersectionality." The Social Organization of Sexuality and Gender in Alternative Hard Rock: An Analysis of Intersectionality. (2000): Rpt. in Sex, Self, and Society. Ed. Tracey L. Steele. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005, 50-60.
"Sexuality is something that should be taught at home because it is a private, bedroom matter." Many individuals endorse this viewpoint and many would go to great lengths to see that sexuality stays out of the public arena. Unfortunately, this viewpoint can be very destructive when it is applied to the real world. Sexuality is very important to almost everyone, even though contexts may vary. Attempting to silence the public on this matter can never fully work. It is also important that individuals learn about the variety of sexual preferences so that those who fit into the “norm” can be more tolerant, and so that those who do not can understand themselves more fully. Sexuality is a dangerous issue to sweep under the rug. If it is considered an entirely private matter, then it is much easier for people to abuse it.
Sexuality will never be an entirely private matter. It is arguably the most relevant aspect of the human condition. As such, people will always talk about it. The innate danger of this is that people tend to communicate misinformation to one another. If sexuality is not taught to young people in an accurate way, then their only source of information is whatever their parents are know and are willing to divulge, which may not be much. The other alternative is what their friends tell them, which is even worse, as anyone who has ever listened to middle-school students should know. Sexuality will always be relevant to people, for if “sexuality were irrelevant… then “out” lesbians and gays would occasion little notice or comment; however, the opposite usually occurs” (Martin 225). There are also other problems inherent in ignoring sexuality. Ignoring sexuality as a whole also leads to ignoring such problems as sexual harassment. Studies have shown that men will often “construct predatory sexual discourses and workplace cultures that derogate and undermine women” (Martin 225). If sexuality was ignored in public settings, it stands to reason that employers would turn a blind eye to these kinds of circumstances, as they often have during times when culture was more sexually restricted in nature.
Sexuality is innate in almost every human person, and as such, it manifests in many scenarios. Sexuality is deeply tied to a variety of social contexts. Despite many individuals attempting to privatize and cover up sexuality, it still has “multiple levels of organization, including individual identities, but also as practices; as an organizing feature of face-to-face social interaction; and as an overarching, normative structure…” (Schippers 206). Sexuality is fluid, and often is not constrained to social norms. Human sexual nature can be “far more diffused and fluid than the hetero-focused binary would have it” (Schippers 207). Individuals who are taught only a limited and distorted view of sexuality are at risk of not fully understanding their sexuality and sexual feelings. As noted below, the repression of sexual urges can often lead to atrocities. Bringing sexuality into public forums can help challenge norms and bring change to society’s beliefs. Before homosexuality became a movement and was exposed to the public eye, “most lesbians and gay men… discovered their homosexual desires in isolation, unaware of others and without resources for naming and understanding what they felt” (D’Emilio 216). It is unfair to future generations to attempt to stifle these movements. No one wants to feel that they are alone and not understanding one’s own sexuality while realizing that it is different must be a very isolating circumstance. Bringing sexual orientation out into public education and forums is necessary in “changing consciousness, creating the ideological conditions that make it easier for people…” (D’Emilio 221). People should be encouraged to express themselves freely and to have the ability to learn to come to terms with their sexuality and identity. Knowledge of one’s own sexual processes and behaviors should be considered a basic human right.
Covering up sexuality can have dire consequences, one of such being the massive cover-up of sexual scandals. A very infamous example of this is the Catholic Church regarding pedophile priests. The Catholic Church did everything in its power to keep these problems within the church, leading them to choose “damage control over revelation and action, a tawdry cover-up at the expense of innocent children” (Barrie 187). It was only when this highly privatized matter was brought to public attention that authorities began to take any real action against these incidences. Had the matter not been exposed, these pedophiles would probably still be abusing children, and it is likely that there are still many who are and are still being protected by the church. Privatizing sexuality and taking the viewpoint that “problems that began in the church…have to get resolved in the church” (Barrie 184) is the first step towards silencing victims of horrendous crimes. It is a vast injustice to promote the interests of the church at the expense of young children. These youths deserve to have their abuses acknowledged and aided, not hidden and denied. Considering sexuality to be an entirely private matter can only encourage tragedies to be silenced, because those that believe in that kind of suggestion will be the first to ignore these atrocities and claim they are a matter for the Church to settle. As Elie Wiesel once said: “neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.” Sexual crimes should be punished by society, and the perpetrators of said crimes should not be allowed to continue their abuses in private.
As stated above, sexuality can never be kept private. It should be taught in schools and brought to the attention of the public. If this is not done, then the public will suffer a variety of consequences, such as a lack of accurate information, an inability to understand various sexualities, and a lack of justice for perpetrators of sexual abuse. Sexuality will always be a part of people’s lives and it should not be something that people are embarrassed or afraid of.
Barrie, Iain A.G. "A Broken Trust: Canadian Priests, Brothers, Pedophilia, and the Media" A Broken Trust: Canadian Priests, Brothers, Pedophilia, and the Media. (1991): Rpt. in Sex, Self, and Society. Ed. Tracey L. Steele. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005, 50-60.
D’Emilio, John. “Capitalism and Gay Identity” Capitalism and Gay Identity. (1983): Rpt. in Sex, Self, and Society. Ed. Tracey L. Steele. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005, 50-60.
Martin, Patricia Nancy and David L. Collinson. "Sexuality in Organizations." Gender and Sexuality in Organizations: Rpt. in Sex, Self, and Society. Ed. Tracey L. Steele. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005, 50-60.
Schippers, Mimi. "The Social Organization of Sexuality and Gender in Alternative Hard Rock: An Analysis of Intersectionality." The Social Organization of Sexuality and Gender in Alternative Hard Rock: An Analysis of Intersectionality. (2000): Rpt. in Sex, Self, and Society. Ed. Tracey L. Steele. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2005, 50-60.
Maxim is sexist? Since when?
Hegemonic Masculinity as Represented in the Media
Hegemonic masculinity is a set of traits ascribed to male individuals that are seen as the proper way to behave. These traits are only found in a minority of males, yet they are seen as the “norm” and the only acceptable way to behave. This one form of masculinity has taken precedence over other traits and behaviors that occur in the human condition. Any individual who breaks outside of this norm is scorned and frowned upon. According to Sharon R. Bird, these traits are broken down into three categories. First, men are supposed to be emotionally detached. Any expression of emotion, especially strong emotion, is labeled as feminine or weak. Second, men are required to be competitive. Third, men are supposed to devalue women and sexually objectify them (Bird 124). Society in general has been conditioned to accept that “hegemonic masculinity meanings are the only mutually accepted and legitimate masculinity meaning” (Bird 122). This system is based on suppressing femininity as well as other forms of masculinity in order to maintain the dominance of hegemonic masculinity in society. This system is present in all facets of culture. However, one of its most prominent faces is in mass media, entertainment, and advertising.
Hegemonic masculinity is a system that requires individuals to participate in order to preserve its supremacy. This requires that men are indoctrinated with hegemonic ideals. This can occur in many forms, but one very important form is popular media. One example of a specific media that perpetuates hegemonic masculinity is the popular men’s magazine, Maxim. This magazine targets only men, and it targets those men who wish to embody hegemonic ideals. Any environment, or form of entertainment which is specifically aimed at only the male gender, is the perfect outlet with which to perpetuate hegemony. Bird argues this in her article, saying that “homosocial interaction, among heterosexual men, contributes to the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity norms by supporting meanings associated with identities that fit hegemonic ideals while suppressing meanings associated with nonhegemonic masculinity identities” (121). Within the context of Maxim magazine, one could apply the word “homosocial” to establish that men are the target demographic for the magazine, and thus it becomes a venue through which homosociality is perpetuated. According to the theory described in Bird’s paper, the fact that Maxim only targets men leads it to propagate male hegemony.
In the magazine, hegemonic masculinity is portrayed as the norm as well as a goal to aspire to. First and foremost, the magazine objectifies women, while at the same time suppressing femininity. The oppression of women is a key concept in male hegemony. Male hegemony requires “the sexual objectification of women” in order to facilitate “self- conceptualization as positively male by distancing the self from all that is associated with being female” (Bird 123). Male hegemony is entirely unfeminine and thus derives its power by suppressing all traits that are considered feminine and by suppressing female persons in general. The magazine does this by portraying women as sex objects. It does so in various ways, but a majority of time, it does so through its depiction of what women should look like. It contains numerous pictures of women who would be considered conventionally attractive and “sexy.” However, there is not a single image of a woman who is overweight, unattractive, or even average weight and attractiveness. The cover article features an attractive actress who appeared as the new “Bond Girl” in the most recent James Bond movie. Despite that the article is the feature article of the issue, the article lacks one of the key features of most magazine articles, and that is content. The article consists of only three-quarters of a page of actual words, and five and one-quarter pages of pictures in which the actress wears very few clothes. This was not an isolated incident, as most of the women featured in the magazine rarely were accompanied by wordy articles. They also were unlikely to have very many clothes on, as most of them wore little more than bra and panties. Also, not one of the featured women had a single photo that pictured only her face. All of the photos contained the scantily clad bodies of the women as well. One article entitled “The Next List! Out Fearless 2009 Preview” is an article that is supposed to be giving readers a sample of anticipated events in 2009. The events are mostly for movies, music, and cars, and yet the first page of the article has a full body shot of a woman wearing nothing but nylons and lace-up boots who apparently has no real relation to the articles content.
The magazine also seems to have an underlying message that women are not entities on their own, but instead objects by which men can attain what they need. Women are not regarded as feeling beings, even indirectly, by the magazine. Whereas in popular women’s magazines, the covers are often plastered with articles about “How to Please Your Man,” this magazine has absolutely no articles that have similar goals. When it mentions girlfriends at all (which is rare), the articles are usually regarding how to change said woman to fit the man’s ideals. One article claims to give men solid advice on how to properly break up with a girlfriend. The final aim of the article, however, the end that is meant to be achieved by “properly” breaking up with a girlfriend, is not so much to spare her feelings for their own sake. It is so that months later, she will still be available for “booty calls” (“Breaking Up is Easy to Do”).
Unlike the articles that feature women, the articles that feature men all have an abundance of words and lack pictures. The pictures that are shown are usually head shots and the men usually have stoic facial expressions. If the picture contains any of the men’s bodies, they are usually assuming aggressive poses. Certain males are also derided in the magazine. There are images of men who are conventionally unattractive, and they generally have feminine features, or are simply dressed up in a feminine fashion. The ads have one of two obvious aims. One of the goals of using unattractive men is to market a product that will supposedly compensate for the man’s unattractiveness. The other goal is to mock these men for their feminine appearance. In either case, men who are perceived as feminine are also perceived as less valuable or as more inferior than are hegemonic males.
Hegemonic masculinity is an outdated system that is patriarchal in nature and that smothers and degrades all other forms of behavior and other types of people. It is rooted in every aspect of society, from individual perceptions to mass media. It is available in both blatant and subtle forms and for the most part, it is allowed to exist without question. Mass media delivers it on an enormous scale and it is “consistently and continually recreated despite individual conceptualizations that contradict hegemonic meanings” (Bird 130). It is a system that is flawed in nature and sexist, racist, and homophobic, and yet it continues to be perpetuated regardless of these problems. The system will not change unless individuals change first, and it seems unlikely given the length to which this type of system is present in all aspects of society.
Hegemonic masculinity is a set of traits ascribed to male individuals that are seen as the proper way to behave. These traits are only found in a minority of males, yet they are seen as the “norm” and the only acceptable way to behave. This one form of masculinity has taken precedence over other traits and behaviors that occur in the human condition. Any individual who breaks outside of this norm is scorned and frowned upon. According to Sharon R. Bird, these traits are broken down into three categories. First, men are supposed to be emotionally detached. Any expression of emotion, especially strong emotion, is labeled as feminine or weak. Second, men are required to be competitive. Third, men are supposed to devalue women and sexually objectify them (Bird 124). Society in general has been conditioned to accept that “hegemonic masculinity meanings are the only mutually accepted and legitimate masculinity meaning” (Bird 122). This system is based on suppressing femininity as well as other forms of masculinity in order to maintain the dominance of hegemonic masculinity in society. This system is present in all facets of culture. However, one of its most prominent faces is in mass media, entertainment, and advertising.
Hegemonic masculinity is a system that requires individuals to participate in order to preserve its supremacy. This requires that men are indoctrinated with hegemonic ideals. This can occur in many forms, but one very important form is popular media. One example of a specific media that perpetuates hegemonic masculinity is the popular men’s magazine, Maxim. This magazine targets only men, and it targets those men who wish to embody hegemonic ideals. Any environment, or form of entertainment which is specifically aimed at only the male gender, is the perfect outlet with which to perpetuate hegemony. Bird argues this in her article, saying that “homosocial interaction, among heterosexual men, contributes to the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity norms by supporting meanings associated with identities that fit hegemonic ideals while suppressing meanings associated with nonhegemonic masculinity identities” (121). Within the context of Maxim magazine, one could apply the word “homosocial” to establish that men are the target demographic for the magazine, and thus it becomes a venue through which homosociality is perpetuated. According to the theory described in Bird’s paper, the fact that Maxim only targets men leads it to propagate male hegemony.
In the magazine, hegemonic masculinity is portrayed as the norm as well as a goal to aspire to. First and foremost, the magazine objectifies women, while at the same time suppressing femininity. The oppression of women is a key concept in male hegemony. Male hegemony requires “the sexual objectification of women” in order to facilitate “self- conceptualization as positively male by distancing the self from all that is associated with being female” (Bird 123). Male hegemony is entirely unfeminine and thus derives its power by suppressing all traits that are considered feminine and by suppressing female persons in general. The magazine does this by portraying women as sex objects. It does so in various ways, but a majority of time, it does so through its depiction of what women should look like. It contains numerous pictures of women who would be considered conventionally attractive and “sexy.” However, there is not a single image of a woman who is overweight, unattractive, or even average weight and attractiveness. The cover article features an attractive actress who appeared as the new “Bond Girl” in the most recent James Bond movie. Despite that the article is the feature article of the issue, the article lacks one of the key features of most magazine articles, and that is content. The article consists of only three-quarters of a page of actual words, and five and one-quarter pages of pictures in which the actress wears very few clothes. This was not an isolated incident, as most of the women featured in the magazine rarely were accompanied by wordy articles. They also were unlikely to have very many clothes on, as most of them wore little more than bra and panties. Also, not one of the featured women had a single photo that pictured only her face. All of the photos contained the scantily clad bodies of the women as well. One article entitled “The Next List! Out Fearless 2009 Preview” is an article that is supposed to be giving readers a sample of anticipated events in 2009. The events are mostly for movies, music, and cars, and yet the first page of the article has a full body shot of a woman wearing nothing but nylons and lace-up boots who apparently has no real relation to the articles content.
The magazine also seems to have an underlying message that women are not entities on their own, but instead objects by which men can attain what they need. Women are not regarded as feeling beings, even indirectly, by the magazine. Whereas in popular women’s magazines, the covers are often plastered with articles about “How to Please Your Man,” this magazine has absolutely no articles that have similar goals. When it mentions girlfriends at all (which is rare), the articles are usually regarding how to change said woman to fit the man’s ideals. One article claims to give men solid advice on how to properly break up with a girlfriend. The final aim of the article, however, the end that is meant to be achieved by “properly” breaking up with a girlfriend, is not so much to spare her feelings for their own sake. It is so that months later, she will still be available for “booty calls” (“Breaking Up is Easy to Do”).
Unlike the articles that feature women, the articles that feature men all have an abundance of words and lack pictures. The pictures that are shown are usually head shots and the men usually have stoic facial expressions. If the picture contains any of the men’s bodies, they are usually assuming aggressive poses. Certain males are also derided in the magazine. There are images of men who are conventionally unattractive, and they generally have feminine features, or are simply dressed up in a feminine fashion. The ads have one of two obvious aims. One of the goals of using unattractive men is to market a product that will supposedly compensate for the man’s unattractiveness. The other goal is to mock these men for their feminine appearance. In either case, men who are perceived as feminine are also perceived as less valuable or as more inferior than are hegemonic males.
Hegemonic masculinity is an outdated system that is patriarchal in nature and that smothers and degrades all other forms of behavior and other types of people. It is rooted in every aspect of society, from individual perceptions to mass media. It is available in both blatant and subtle forms and for the most part, it is allowed to exist without question. Mass media delivers it on an enormous scale and it is “consistently and continually recreated despite individual conceptualizations that contradict hegemonic meanings” (Bird 130). It is a system that is flawed in nature and sexist, racist, and homophobic, and yet it continues to be perpetuated regardless of these problems. The system will not change unless individuals change first, and it seems unlikely given the length to which this type of system is present in all aspects of society.
Expectation States that it's Saturday Night!
A paper in which I expressed the idea of expectation states theory through the use of a Saturday Night Live skit.
Expectation States Theory is an important theory when one considers the study of inequality. This theory helps to explain the division of individuals into separate groups and classes and it also helps explain why individuals in certain groups perform according to the stereotypical expectation for their group. This theory helps explain why change is difficult for certain groups to rise up to an equal status. The perceived inferior groups tend to feel unequal in certain situations, and as such, do not perform as well as the superior groups. When groups perform according to what is expected of them, it reinforces the notion that that group should remain unequal. When an individual deviates from the expectations by performing well at a higher-level task, that individual is seen as being both a very hard worker, as opposed to naturally gifted, as well as being a dissenter, and trying to change the accepted flow of society.
As is the case with most social theories, this phenomenon can often be observed in popular culture. One such example is a skit from the television show Saturday Night Live. It is no surprise that this program has been parodying the candidates for the upcoming election quite frequently. In one such parody, actresses pretending to be Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton act as the opening announcers for the show. Despite the fact that the skit in question is comedy and intended to be taken lightly, there is much that can be derived from analyzing it.
In this skit, the actresses are pretending to comment on the role of sexism in the 2008 elections. From the very start, the gender of the actresses is at the very center of attention, because, of course, they are part of the outside group. They are not men, and as such, do not fit into the normal schema of politicians, especially politicians that would normally be running for presidency or vice presidency.
The individual characters they portray come under fire as well, and are parodied according to their schema. Clinton, who is often criticized for being too masculine and too aggressive, is portrayed as being unfriendly and disagreeable towards the character of Governor Palin. She is also depicted as being overly bitter about losing the primary election, to the point where she is illustrated as being driven to violent action when she rips a piece of board from the podium. It is also no surprise when Clinton is characterized as being male when she offers to “lend” the media a portion of anatomy that is known to be a strictly male artifact.
Palin, who is often thought of as attractive, as well as unintelligent, is portrayed as both of these things, and none of her other qualities are addressed at any time during the skit. In the skit, Palin’s character fits into the expectation of a pretty, stupid woman. She also portrays no apparent interest in changing this generalization placed on her. In modern American culture, this schema of a woman is much more desirable and acceptable than that of the staunch, forceful woman that Hillary Clinton is often labeled as. As would be expected, the unpopular Clinton is portrayed as unhappy about being pigeonholed into the representation of the unattractive, unfeminine woman that many would readily typecast her as. She is never once depicted as being proud of her confidence or her capability as a woman. She is only unhappy at being thought of as homely.
One limit of this theory is that it does not take into account what happens when an individual from an inferior group deviates, but still retains the behavior stereotypical to their group. This could be an important topic when discussing Sarah Palin. She is considered much more culturally acceptable as a woman, and therefore as a potential vice president.
As would be expected, the character who is concerned about changing the schema, in this case, reducing sexism, is the character that is portrayed as the most disagreeable, Senator Clinton. According to the Expectation States Theory, when a low-status person attempts to take on a high-status role, or attempts to question the status quo, there is often a backlash. This person is attempting to be something that does not fit with their schema, and this is often viewed as unsavory by society. This can lead to the person being viewed in negative terms.
Also, it is implied the character of Governor Palin is more popular because she is more in line with the symbols of femininity (i.e., lipstick, high heels), and yet, she is also looked down upon for these very same reasons. This is very supportive of the Expectation States Theory in that it contributes to the idea that objects are attributed to groups as symbols of inequality, and yet, if an individual from a group chooses to avoid these symbols, they are seen as even more inferior as a result.
The possibility of a woman in the White House is also referenced in this skit. The character of Hillary Clinton plays into the double standard by voicing her opinion that Governor Palin’s road to the White House was too easy. She is upholding the belief that if a woman is to hold a position that is generally reserved for men, then the woman should have to work especially hard at that task and should have a more difficult time achieving the goal.
As is illustrated by this paper, people of the unequal subgroups are often stereotyped according the perceptions in society. These groups are expected to abide by and embrace these generalizations, and when an individual deviates from the generalization, they are the object of scorn.
“Palin / Hillary Open.” Saturday Night Live. Tina Fey, Amy Poehler. NBC. 14 Sep. 2008.
Expectation States Theory is an important theory when one considers the study of inequality. This theory helps to explain the division of individuals into separate groups and classes and it also helps explain why individuals in certain groups perform according to the stereotypical expectation for their group. This theory helps explain why change is difficult for certain groups to rise up to an equal status. The perceived inferior groups tend to feel unequal in certain situations, and as such, do not perform as well as the superior groups. When groups perform according to what is expected of them, it reinforces the notion that that group should remain unequal. When an individual deviates from the expectations by performing well at a higher-level task, that individual is seen as being both a very hard worker, as opposed to naturally gifted, as well as being a dissenter, and trying to change the accepted flow of society.
As is the case with most social theories, this phenomenon can often be observed in popular culture. One such example is a skit from the television show Saturday Night Live. It is no surprise that this program has been parodying the candidates for the upcoming election quite frequently. In one such parody, actresses pretending to be Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton act as the opening announcers for the show. Despite the fact that the skit in question is comedy and intended to be taken lightly, there is much that can be derived from analyzing it.
In this skit, the actresses are pretending to comment on the role of sexism in the 2008 elections. From the very start, the gender of the actresses is at the very center of attention, because, of course, they are part of the outside group. They are not men, and as such, do not fit into the normal schema of politicians, especially politicians that would normally be running for presidency or vice presidency.
The individual characters they portray come under fire as well, and are parodied according to their schema. Clinton, who is often criticized for being too masculine and too aggressive, is portrayed as being unfriendly and disagreeable towards the character of Governor Palin. She is also depicted as being overly bitter about losing the primary election, to the point where she is illustrated as being driven to violent action when she rips a piece of board from the podium. It is also no surprise when Clinton is characterized as being male when she offers to “lend” the media a portion of anatomy that is known to be a strictly male artifact.
Palin, who is often thought of as attractive, as well as unintelligent, is portrayed as both of these things, and none of her other qualities are addressed at any time during the skit. In the skit, Palin’s character fits into the expectation of a pretty, stupid woman. She also portrays no apparent interest in changing this generalization placed on her. In modern American culture, this schema of a woman is much more desirable and acceptable than that of the staunch, forceful woman that Hillary Clinton is often labeled as. As would be expected, the unpopular Clinton is portrayed as unhappy about being pigeonholed into the representation of the unattractive, unfeminine woman that many would readily typecast her as. She is never once depicted as being proud of her confidence or her capability as a woman. She is only unhappy at being thought of as homely.
One limit of this theory is that it does not take into account what happens when an individual from an inferior group deviates, but still retains the behavior stereotypical to their group. This could be an important topic when discussing Sarah Palin. She is considered much more culturally acceptable as a woman, and therefore as a potential vice president.
As would be expected, the character who is concerned about changing the schema, in this case, reducing sexism, is the character that is portrayed as the most disagreeable, Senator Clinton. According to the Expectation States Theory, when a low-status person attempts to take on a high-status role, or attempts to question the status quo, there is often a backlash. This person is attempting to be something that does not fit with their schema, and this is often viewed as unsavory by society. This can lead to the person being viewed in negative terms.
Also, it is implied the character of Governor Palin is more popular because she is more in line with the symbols of femininity (i.e., lipstick, high heels), and yet, she is also looked down upon for these very same reasons. This is very supportive of the Expectation States Theory in that it contributes to the idea that objects are attributed to groups as symbols of inequality, and yet, if an individual from a group chooses to avoid these symbols, they are seen as even more inferior as a result.
The possibility of a woman in the White House is also referenced in this skit. The character of Hillary Clinton plays into the double standard by voicing her opinion that Governor Palin’s road to the White House was too easy. She is upholding the belief that if a woman is to hold a position that is generally reserved for men, then the woman should have to work especially hard at that task and should have a more difficult time achieving the goal.
As is illustrated by this paper, people of the unequal subgroups are often stereotyped according the perceptions in society. These groups are expected to abide by and embrace these generalizations, and when an individual deviates from the generalization, they are the object of scorn.
“Palin / Hillary Open.” Saturday Night Live. Tina Fey, Amy Poehler. NBC. 14 Sep. 2008.
Sociology journal
I find it interesting that there are so many sub-categories of feminism and that they all seem to have individual disparities in what they promote to be acceptable. There are types of feminism that held beliefs about maternity that seemed to be completely at ends with each other. Some types believed that a woman should value her maternity and express it as a large part of herself. Others saw emphasis on a woman’s maternity as another variety of oppression by the patriarchy.
A local news story has some relation to this topic. A woman was sentenced for the abuse and murder of her young autistic son. Both the father and the Judge became very emotional during the sentencing. The Judge even expressed his disapproval using the following words, “Your role in his life was not only to bring him into the world, but to protect and to nurture him. And I saw more than a callous indifference toward that goal.”
The Judge’s statement expresses the assumption that by giving birth to a child, a woman is automatically supposed to be a good mother. Society seems to express this stereotype frequently. A woman just by virtue of being a woman is expected to be nurturing and caring when this is not often the case. I’m willing to bet that if it had been the boy’s father who had perpetrated the abuse, then no one would have made any statements similar to those the judge made. On the contrary, it is often seen as unexceptional when a man abuses his own children. People are so accustomed to the idea that women are caregivers and men are aggressors that they generally write off a man abusing his children as being a typical, violent male response. However, a woman abusing her children is seen as shocking and wholly unnatural.
A local news story has some relation to this topic. A woman was sentenced for the abuse and murder of her young autistic son. Both the father and the Judge became very emotional during the sentencing. The Judge even expressed his disapproval using the following words, “Your role in his life was not only to bring him into the world, but to protect and to nurture him. And I saw more than a callous indifference toward that goal.”
The Judge’s statement expresses the assumption that by giving birth to a child, a woman is automatically supposed to be a good mother. Society seems to express this stereotype frequently. A woman just by virtue of being a woman is expected to be nurturing and caring when this is not often the case. I’m willing to bet that if it had been the boy’s father who had perpetrated the abuse, then no one would have made any statements similar to those the judge made. On the contrary, it is often seen as unexceptional when a man abuses his own children. People are so accustomed to the idea that women are caregivers and men are aggressors that they generally write off a man abusing his children as being a typical, violent male response. However, a woman abusing her children is seen as shocking and wholly unnatural.
Personal Morality Paper on Abortion
Morality and Abortion
The permissibility or impermissibility of abortion is a common argument in moral philosophy. Most arguments tend to be concerned with whether or not the fetus is considered a person. However, there are several well-respected essays that use other arguments to answer the question of whether abortion is permissible under most circumstances. One such paper, “Creation Ethics,” written by Elizabeth Harman argues that the likely future determines the moral status of the fetus, while Don Marquis’s “Why Abortion is Immoral,” disputes that the possibility of a future grants that abortion is prima facie immoral. The final article I will review in this paper is “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Thomson, in which she takes a different route and argues that the status of the fetus has little to do with whether abortion is immoral at all. Her article is by far the most reasonable, and I will spend much of this paper arguing for why this is true. In this paper, I will attempt to illustrate that the moral status of the fetus does not affect the permissibility of abortion, and that abortion is permissible even if the fetus is a person.
One notable article that argues for the permissibility of abortion is “Creation Ethics” by Elizabeth Harman. In it, she argues that not all fetuses have the same moral status. According to her, a fetus that dies early in pregnancy has no moral status because it will never become a person. However, if a fetus will be carried to term, then it does have moral status because it will eventually become a person. This argument is part of Harman’s “Actual Future Principal” (Harman 311), which states that fetuses that die before becoming persons never have any “intrinsic properties that themselves confer moral status. But an early fetus that will become a person… will one day have the full moral status of a person, and that is a good reason to think it has some moral status now” (Harman 312). Using this reasoning, Harman makes the case that early abortion requires absolutely no rationalization. Her view also allows that it is appropriate to love fetuses and that some of them are morally significant beings that should not be harmed.
One flaw that I have noticed in this paper is that Harman spends a great deal of time arguing that the moral value of a fetus is dependent on whether the fetus will ever become a person, but she never gives an explanation of why a fetus is not a person to begin with. In order for her argument to work, it must be true that a fetus in itself has no intrinsic properties which give it moral status. In other words, if I were to make the claim that a baby has no moral status if it is murdered before it reaches adulthood, then most people who believe that infanticide is immoral would be outraged, because those individuals believe that there are properties which make infants deserving of life that are separate from those properties that make adults deserving of life. The only individuals who would approve of my argument are those that believe that infanticide is permissible, and those are not the individuals that I would be trying to convince. Accordingly, those people that would agree with Harman are those that already believe that a fetus in and of itself does not have moral properties. Those people, however, are not the individuals that the argument is aimed at, and thus, the argument falls flat. Her paper may have been redeemed had she addressed the question of why fetuses are not morally significant just by being fetuses. Harman, however, never asks nor answers this question. For if fetuses are persons, her argument is not reasonable and cannot be used, and yet she still gives no mention of this at all in her paper.
Don Marquis, begins his paper entitled “Why Abortion is Immoral”, by claiming that it seems impossible for either pro-lifers or pro-choicers to define the right to life in such a way that supports their stance adequately. Marquis attempts to resolve this problem by first questioning why it is wrong to kill a human in the first place. He considers several possibilities, starting with the brutalization of the killer and the “great loss other would experience due to [the victim’s] absence” (Marquis 189). He quickly discounts these arguments and comes to the conclusion that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of something they would have otherwise had. He claims that when a person dies, they are deprived of all the experiences they would have enjoyed, and thus “what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his or her future” (Marquis 190). Therefore, killing is wrong because it causes the loss of a valuable future. At this point, Marquis turns to some possible arguments against his paper that are in the form of different reasons why killing could be wrong. One of these arguments is the discontinuation account which states that killing interferes with a person’s “experience of living and wish for that valuable experience to continue” (Marquis 195). Another is the desire account, which states that what makes killing so immoral is the “fact that people strongly desire to live” (Marquis 195). Marquis argues with this account by arguing that some people do not desire to live, but it still seems wrong to kill them. He also makes the argument that people only desire life because of the good that is in it. Therefore, if “this were not so, the pain of one’s own premature death could be done away with merely by an appropriate alteration in the configuration of one’s desires” (Marquis 196). He concludes from this that a desire for life is not enough to make killing wrong. Thus, he argues, his account for the wrongness of abortion is the most reasonable.
Marquis’s essay is a valuable argument since it does not waste its time trying to prove that fetuses are persons. Rather, it chooses to point out the fact that fetuses are worth moral consideration because they will potentially become persons and have a valuable future, which is indisputable. In this aspect, his paper is solid. However, he never really considers the mother in any of his arguments, and although he proves that a fetus’s life has worth, he never explains why that life should be valued over the rights or choices of the mother. He talks about an individual’s right to a valuable future, but does not reach a point where he mentions that the mother’s future may be less valuable if she is forced to carry the child to term. Additionally, he never speaks of women’s rights, only of the rights of an unborn child who is inhabiting a body that is not his. This is too important a point to miss, therefore providing a very weak spot in his paper.
J.J. Thomson’s paper diverts from the traditional argument regarding whether a fetus is a person or not and instead makes the argument that even if a fetus is truly a person, abortion is still permissible. To begin her argument, she mentions the fact that while many will argue that a fetus is a person, almost no one has explained why it is thus wrong to abort such a fetus. To explain her point, she fabricates an analogy of a famous violinist who requires the use of another person’s kidneys for a certain period of time in order to survive. She then explains how a certain group of individuals has kidnapped someone and hooked them up the violinist in order that he may survive. In this scenario, she argues, no rational agent would claim that the person plugged into the violinist is morally required to stay there. She then furthers her argument by giving another scenario, in which a person is trapped in a house with a rapidly growing child. The person cannot escape the house, and if the child continues to grow, then the child will crush her. Thomson argues that this person has every right to kill the child, although in this case, it is appropriate for bystanders to claim that they cannot choose between the life of the woman or the child, and thus will not kill the child for the sake of the woman’s life. Thomson, however, does not leave it at this. The previous scenario does not take into account that the woman owns her body and thus a third party has reason to intervene on her behalf over the child’s. To illustrate this, she gives the example of Smith and Jones, who will both die without the use of a coat. However, the coat belongs to Smith, which ultimately leaves any bystander unable to say that they cannot choose, since the coat is Smith’s in the first place. The same goes for a mother who will die if she carries a child to term. Her body belongs to her, and just as Smith should be allowed his coat in order to survive, the mother should be allowed the use of her body to survive.
After establishing that it is acceptable to abort a fetus if the mother is pregnant from rape or if the mother will die if her fetus is not aborted, Thomson then takes her argument further by stating that abortion is permissible even if the mother engaged in intercourse willingly. The example she uses to support this argument is that of an individual who opens a window in their house. Should a burglar happen to come in through this window, no one would say it was the fault of the individual that this person had come into their house, nor would anyone blame them for taking measures to get rid of said burglar. Another example involves “people-seeds” that can potentially drift into one’s house and take root and grow. In this case, and especially if one had taken measures in order to prevent the seeds from getting in to the house, the author deems it appropriate to remove the seeds even if it is partially the fault of the owner of the house that they rooted in the first place.
Thomson concludes at this point, that in most cases, it is not morally unjust for a person to have an abortion. She does allow that there are certain circumstances where a person ought to carry a pregnancy to term. However, she takes the time to differentiate between what someone ought to do, and what they are morally required to do. She returns to the example of the violinist, and changes the requirements so that the individual only has to remain attached to him for one hour, and the health of the individual will not be adversely affected. In this case, Thomson claims that it would be indecent for the individual to detach himself from the violinist. However, she points out that the individual would not be doing something morally wrong, because the individual still has a right to his body, and the fact that it would be easy for him to save the violinist’s life, does not make it a requirement to do so.
The final point made by Thomson is that although it is within a person’s right to detach himself from the famous violinist, it is not within his right to ensure that the violinist dies as a result. The same goes for any mother who has an abortion. She is not allowed to assure herself that the child is dead when aborted. If for some strange reason, the child survives the abortion, then the mother has no right to kill the child, for the child is no longer dependent on her body for its life.
My final conclusion on the permissibility of abortion is that it is permissible in nearly all circumstances. This is denied by Marquis, but I disagree because his only consideration is that killing is wrong. He never once takes into account that it is wrong to force a woman to use her body in a way that she does not want. My conclusion is supported by Harman, but not for the same reasons. She believes that fetuses in and of themselves do not have any intrinsic values that make them worth consideration. I disagree. The article that agrees most with my opinions is that of J.J. Thomson, because she argues that a person’s right to life does not give them the right to use someone else’s body. My belief is that abortion is permissible simply because a mother has a right to decide what should be done with her body. Even if the choice is made for selfish reasons, it is still not justified that any individual should prevent a woman from doing what she pleases with her own body. Therefore, by supporting and opposing several articles I have delivered my argument that abortion is permissible nearly all the time.
The permissibility or impermissibility of abortion is a common argument in moral philosophy. Most arguments tend to be concerned with whether or not the fetus is considered a person. However, there are several well-respected essays that use other arguments to answer the question of whether abortion is permissible under most circumstances. One such paper, “Creation Ethics,” written by Elizabeth Harman argues that the likely future determines the moral status of the fetus, while Don Marquis’s “Why Abortion is Immoral,” disputes that the possibility of a future grants that abortion is prima facie immoral. The final article I will review in this paper is “A Defense of Abortion” by Judith Thomson, in which she takes a different route and argues that the status of the fetus has little to do with whether abortion is immoral at all. Her article is by far the most reasonable, and I will spend much of this paper arguing for why this is true. In this paper, I will attempt to illustrate that the moral status of the fetus does not affect the permissibility of abortion, and that abortion is permissible even if the fetus is a person.
One notable article that argues for the permissibility of abortion is “Creation Ethics” by Elizabeth Harman. In it, she argues that not all fetuses have the same moral status. According to her, a fetus that dies early in pregnancy has no moral status because it will never become a person. However, if a fetus will be carried to term, then it does have moral status because it will eventually become a person. This argument is part of Harman’s “Actual Future Principal” (Harman 311), which states that fetuses that die before becoming persons never have any “intrinsic properties that themselves confer moral status. But an early fetus that will become a person… will one day have the full moral status of a person, and that is a good reason to think it has some moral status now” (Harman 312). Using this reasoning, Harman makes the case that early abortion requires absolutely no rationalization. Her view also allows that it is appropriate to love fetuses and that some of them are morally significant beings that should not be harmed.
One flaw that I have noticed in this paper is that Harman spends a great deal of time arguing that the moral value of a fetus is dependent on whether the fetus will ever become a person, but she never gives an explanation of why a fetus is not a person to begin with. In order for her argument to work, it must be true that a fetus in itself has no intrinsic properties which give it moral status. In other words, if I were to make the claim that a baby has no moral status if it is murdered before it reaches adulthood, then most people who believe that infanticide is immoral would be outraged, because those individuals believe that there are properties which make infants deserving of life that are separate from those properties that make adults deserving of life. The only individuals who would approve of my argument are those that believe that infanticide is permissible, and those are not the individuals that I would be trying to convince. Accordingly, those people that would agree with Harman are those that already believe that a fetus in and of itself does not have moral properties. Those people, however, are not the individuals that the argument is aimed at, and thus, the argument falls flat. Her paper may have been redeemed had she addressed the question of why fetuses are not morally significant just by being fetuses. Harman, however, never asks nor answers this question. For if fetuses are persons, her argument is not reasonable and cannot be used, and yet she still gives no mention of this at all in her paper.
Don Marquis, begins his paper entitled “Why Abortion is Immoral”, by claiming that it seems impossible for either pro-lifers or pro-choicers to define the right to life in such a way that supports their stance adequately. Marquis attempts to resolve this problem by first questioning why it is wrong to kill a human in the first place. He considers several possibilities, starting with the brutalization of the killer and the “great loss other would experience due to [the victim’s] absence” (Marquis 189). He quickly discounts these arguments and comes to the conclusion that killing is wrong because it deprives the victim of something they would have otherwise had. He claims that when a person dies, they are deprived of all the experiences they would have enjoyed, and thus “what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his or her future” (Marquis 190). Therefore, killing is wrong because it causes the loss of a valuable future. At this point, Marquis turns to some possible arguments against his paper that are in the form of different reasons why killing could be wrong. One of these arguments is the discontinuation account which states that killing interferes with a person’s “experience of living and wish for that valuable experience to continue” (Marquis 195). Another is the desire account, which states that what makes killing so immoral is the “fact that people strongly desire to live” (Marquis 195). Marquis argues with this account by arguing that some people do not desire to live, but it still seems wrong to kill them. He also makes the argument that people only desire life because of the good that is in it. Therefore, if “this were not so, the pain of one’s own premature death could be done away with merely by an appropriate alteration in the configuration of one’s desires” (Marquis 196). He concludes from this that a desire for life is not enough to make killing wrong. Thus, he argues, his account for the wrongness of abortion is the most reasonable.
Marquis’s essay is a valuable argument since it does not waste its time trying to prove that fetuses are persons. Rather, it chooses to point out the fact that fetuses are worth moral consideration because they will potentially become persons and have a valuable future, which is indisputable. In this aspect, his paper is solid. However, he never really considers the mother in any of his arguments, and although he proves that a fetus’s life has worth, he never explains why that life should be valued over the rights or choices of the mother. He talks about an individual’s right to a valuable future, but does not reach a point where he mentions that the mother’s future may be less valuable if she is forced to carry the child to term. Additionally, he never speaks of women’s rights, only of the rights of an unborn child who is inhabiting a body that is not his. This is too important a point to miss, therefore providing a very weak spot in his paper.
J.J. Thomson’s paper diverts from the traditional argument regarding whether a fetus is a person or not and instead makes the argument that even if a fetus is truly a person, abortion is still permissible. To begin her argument, she mentions the fact that while many will argue that a fetus is a person, almost no one has explained why it is thus wrong to abort such a fetus. To explain her point, she fabricates an analogy of a famous violinist who requires the use of another person’s kidneys for a certain period of time in order to survive. She then explains how a certain group of individuals has kidnapped someone and hooked them up the violinist in order that he may survive. In this scenario, she argues, no rational agent would claim that the person plugged into the violinist is morally required to stay there. She then furthers her argument by giving another scenario, in which a person is trapped in a house with a rapidly growing child. The person cannot escape the house, and if the child continues to grow, then the child will crush her. Thomson argues that this person has every right to kill the child, although in this case, it is appropriate for bystanders to claim that they cannot choose between the life of the woman or the child, and thus will not kill the child for the sake of the woman’s life. Thomson, however, does not leave it at this. The previous scenario does not take into account that the woman owns her body and thus a third party has reason to intervene on her behalf over the child’s. To illustrate this, she gives the example of Smith and Jones, who will both die without the use of a coat. However, the coat belongs to Smith, which ultimately leaves any bystander unable to say that they cannot choose, since the coat is Smith’s in the first place. The same goes for a mother who will die if she carries a child to term. Her body belongs to her, and just as Smith should be allowed his coat in order to survive, the mother should be allowed the use of her body to survive.
After establishing that it is acceptable to abort a fetus if the mother is pregnant from rape or if the mother will die if her fetus is not aborted, Thomson then takes her argument further by stating that abortion is permissible even if the mother engaged in intercourse willingly. The example she uses to support this argument is that of an individual who opens a window in their house. Should a burglar happen to come in through this window, no one would say it was the fault of the individual that this person had come into their house, nor would anyone blame them for taking measures to get rid of said burglar. Another example involves “people-seeds” that can potentially drift into one’s house and take root and grow. In this case, and especially if one had taken measures in order to prevent the seeds from getting in to the house, the author deems it appropriate to remove the seeds even if it is partially the fault of the owner of the house that they rooted in the first place.
Thomson concludes at this point, that in most cases, it is not morally unjust for a person to have an abortion. She does allow that there are certain circumstances where a person ought to carry a pregnancy to term. However, she takes the time to differentiate between what someone ought to do, and what they are morally required to do. She returns to the example of the violinist, and changes the requirements so that the individual only has to remain attached to him for one hour, and the health of the individual will not be adversely affected. In this case, Thomson claims that it would be indecent for the individual to detach himself from the violinist. However, she points out that the individual would not be doing something morally wrong, because the individual still has a right to his body, and the fact that it would be easy for him to save the violinist’s life, does not make it a requirement to do so.
The final point made by Thomson is that although it is within a person’s right to detach himself from the famous violinist, it is not within his right to ensure that the violinist dies as a result. The same goes for any mother who has an abortion. She is not allowed to assure herself that the child is dead when aborted. If for some strange reason, the child survives the abortion, then the mother has no right to kill the child, for the child is no longer dependent on her body for its life.
My final conclusion on the permissibility of abortion is that it is permissible in nearly all circumstances. This is denied by Marquis, but I disagree because his only consideration is that killing is wrong. He never once takes into account that it is wrong to force a woman to use her body in a way that she does not want. My conclusion is supported by Harman, but not for the same reasons. She believes that fetuses in and of themselves do not have any intrinsic values that make them worth consideration. I disagree. The article that agrees most with my opinions is that of J.J. Thomson, because she argues that a person’s right to life does not give them the right to use someone else’s body. My belief is that abortion is permissible simply because a mother has a right to decide what should be done with her body. Even if the choice is made for selfish reasons, it is still not justified that any individual should prevent a woman from doing what she pleases with her own body. Therefore, by supporting and opposing several articles I have delivered my argument that abortion is permissible nearly all the time.
Intelligent Design
An old research paper from back when intelligent design was a bigger issue. Incidentally, the Discovery Institute was unwilling to back up their claims in court. More on that later.
Intelligent Design: Welcome to the Dark Ages
“Despise reason and science, humanity’s greatest strengths, indulge in illusions and magical practices that reinforce your self-deception, and you will be unconditionally lost!” (Goethe). For as long as humanity has existed, people have questioned the origin of their existence. As life progressed and technology and science increased, people began to come closer to an answer for this question. One of these people was Charles Darwin. His answer to the origin and meaning of life, evolution, has been under attack ever since. Nearly all of these wars have been waged in the name of religion, and Intelligent Design is no different, albeit more subtle, in its motives. Intelligent Design is the belief that life could not have evolved without some thinking force to help it along. It is also, subsequently, the idea that schools need to teach this belief alongside evolution in the science classroom. However, Intelligent Design is not a viable alternative to evolution and should not be taught as such. Until there is scientific evidence for this phenomenon, it should be kept out of science classrooms.
In 1991, Bruce Chapman founded the Discovery Institute in the hope of fulfilling its mission "to make a positive vision of the future practical." (Source Watch). In 1996, the Discovery Institute launched a program called ‘The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture’, the main goal of which was to replace the materialistic science of evolution with the Christian-friendly intelligent design. According to James Still the CRSC hopes to “replace materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive scientific alternative.” One of the main steps in achieving this goal is to bring Intelligent Design into the science classroom in order to convince American children that there is scientific evidence for a creator. As of now, the CRSC has not succeeded in making this happen, but they are still formulating reasons as to why it should.
One argument that this organization often uses in support of Intelligent Design is that people need to be exposed to different ideas in order to become fully open-minded. They claim that America’s free-thinking society should be willing to allow different opinions into its classrooms. According to Senator Bill Frist, schools should teach evolution next to intelligent design because “in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future.” This conclusion is irrelevant. It is important for society to embrace differing thoughts, and therefore discuss differing science theories in science classrooms; however, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. The CRSC has not, to date, released any experimental data or fossil records, or any form of scientific evidence whatsoever that has even remotely challenged the mainstream understanding of biology (Dennett). CRSC scientists also have “no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims” (Forrest). It would be fair to teach the idea of intelligent design in a “course on comparative religion,” but there is absolutely no reason why Americans should dupe their children into believing that intelligent design has any scientific basis (DeVore). As noted by Governor Jon Huntsman, “I would expect my kids in science class to be instructed in those things that are somewhat quantifiable and based on thorough and rigorous empirical research.” Additionally, science is based on the idea that everything needs to be thoroughly thought through, and questioned, and re-questioned. Intelligent Design encourages people to just accept what is told to them without really having to think about it. As noted by Robert Carroll,
"To say [humans] [were] designed by God or an alien race is to say: Stop, go no further in trying to understand this. Students might be taught that ID is just the kind of theory that some philosophers and theologians find interesting but since it doesn't lead to any deeper understanding of biological mechanisms, doesn't lead to new discoveries or research ventures, and doesn't have any practical scientific applications, it is left to those in other fields to pursue."
Advocates of intelligent design also argue that the earth is designed in such a way that it is perfect to support life. They use the argument that if the variables on this planet were not exactly, or at least not close to the way they are now, that there could be no life, thus proving the existence of God. Furthermore, the source also claims that a divine being had to be at the controls to “set or manipulate the physical constants as we know them” (Fine-Tuned Universe). The intelligent design theory assumes that there must have been a divine being controlling the makeup of earth, otherwise life could not exist.
This wrong direction fallacy is easily refuted. The earth is not suited for life, life is suited for the earth. Life evolved according to the laws of the universe, thus making sure that it would be able to stay alive in said universe. As Douglas Adams once observed, “…imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!” (Carroll). This quote gives an example of how the organism tends to be perfectly suited for its world, and not vice-versa. Additionally, the improbability of an occurrence does not preclude its actual possibility. Even if it is accepted that life needs a specific set of variables to be exactly balanced in order for life to exist, that is still does not mean that it had to be designed in order to happen. If one rolled a die a million times and came up with the same number every time, would one suspect that the event had not actually happened, no matter how improbable? Obviously, no one would ever come to this conclusion, just as no one should assume that the universe could not have created habitable conditions randomly.
Another argument frequently utilized by intelligent-design proponents is that matter is too complex to have simply arisen on its own. This is a favorite argument among creationists because it is complex and difficult to refute. William Paley’s famous watchmaker argument is described as such:
"Suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; viz., that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it."
This theory, although confusing, if carefully examined is obviously begging the question since at its core it is saying that since everything has a creator, then everything must have a creator. Even if one assumes that this faulty logic is true, they would be forced to conclude that if everything must have had a creator, then obviously, God (or aliens, or the divine being, etc.) would have to also have a creator, and subsequent creator would also have to have a creator. Obviously, it is impossible to reach a beginning if this logic is used. Of course, if one believes that it is possible for the creator to have no beginning then the argument falls flat because then one leaves open the possibility that matter need not have a beginning. As noted by David Mills, “If everything except God is governed by the “Law of Cause-Effect,” then the First Cause argument becomes ad hoc and therefore logically impermissible. In other words, we’re right back where we started…”
Clearly, intelligent design has no scientific basis and is rather a matter of religion and politics. Until proven otherwise, intelligent design is not a scientific theory and teachers should not be allowed, let alone required, to pass it off as real science. The CRSC has managed to do nothing in the way of proving their theories besides throwing together a few easily refuted arguments. Despite the obvious invalidity of their cause, they continue to fight in the bleak hope that they will finally have something other than blind faith to promote their beliefs, while subsequently undermining America’s entire scientific and educational systems. If intelligent design promoters have their way, they will succeed in nothing but squelching mankind’s one and only tool for better understanding this universe and man’s own existence.
Associated Press. “Huntsman: Intelligent Design Doesn’t Belong in the Classroom” Daily Herald.
Carroll, Robert. “Should ID Be Taught in Public Schools?” The Skeptic’s Dictionary.
Dennet, Daniel C. “Intelligent Design? Show Me the Science” International Herald. Tribune.
DeVore, Edna. “Intelligent Design and Evolution at the White House” Space.com.
“Discovery Institute” Source Watch
“Fine-Tuned Universe” Answers.com.
Forrest, Barbara. “The Newest Evolution of Creationism” Actionbioscience.org.
Mills, David. Atheist Universe. Xlibris Corporation, 2003.
“Paley’s Watchmaker Argument” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Still, James. “Discovery Institute’s ‘Wedge Project’ Circulates Online” The Secular Web.
Intelligent Design: Welcome to the Dark Ages
“Despise reason and science, humanity’s greatest strengths, indulge in illusions and magical practices that reinforce your self-deception, and you will be unconditionally lost!” (Goethe). For as long as humanity has existed, people have questioned the origin of their existence. As life progressed and technology and science increased, people began to come closer to an answer for this question. One of these people was Charles Darwin. His answer to the origin and meaning of life, evolution, has been under attack ever since. Nearly all of these wars have been waged in the name of religion, and Intelligent Design is no different, albeit more subtle, in its motives. Intelligent Design is the belief that life could not have evolved without some thinking force to help it along. It is also, subsequently, the idea that schools need to teach this belief alongside evolution in the science classroom. However, Intelligent Design is not a viable alternative to evolution and should not be taught as such. Until there is scientific evidence for this phenomenon, it should be kept out of science classrooms.
In 1991, Bruce Chapman founded the Discovery Institute in the hope of fulfilling its mission "to make a positive vision of the future practical." (Source Watch). In 1996, the Discovery Institute launched a program called ‘The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture’, the main goal of which was to replace the materialistic science of evolution with the Christian-friendly intelligent design. According to James Still the CRSC hopes to “replace materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive scientific alternative.” One of the main steps in achieving this goal is to bring Intelligent Design into the science classroom in order to convince American children that there is scientific evidence for a creator. As of now, the CRSC has not succeeded in making this happen, but they are still formulating reasons as to why it should.
One argument that this organization often uses in support of Intelligent Design is that people need to be exposed to different ideas in order to become fully open-minded. They claim that America’s free-thinking society should be willing to allow different opinions into its classrooms. According to Senator Bill Frist, schools should teach evolution next to intelligent design because “in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future.” This conclusion is irrelevant. It is important for society to embrace differing thoughts, and therefore discuss differing science theories in science classrooms; however, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. The CRSC has not, to date, released any experimental data or fossil records, or any form of scientific evidence whatsoever that has even remotely challenged the mainstream understanding of biology (Dennett). CRSC scientists also have “no empirical research program and, consequently, have published no data in peer-reviewed journals (or elsewhere) to support their intelligent-design claims” (Forrest). It would be fair to teach the idea of intelligent design in a “course on comparative religion,” but there is absolutely no reason why Americans should dupe their children into believing that intelligent design has any scientific basis (DeVore). As noted by Governor Jon Huntsman, “I would expect my kids in science class to be instructed in those things that are somewhat quantifiable and based on thorough and rigorous empirical research.” Additionally, science is based on the idea that everything needs to be thoroughly thought through, and questioned, and re-questioned. Intelligent Design encourages people to just accept what is told to them without really having to think about it. As noted by Robert Carroll,
"To say [humans] [were] designed by God or an alien race is to say: Stop, go no further in trying to understand this. Students might be taught that ID is just the kind of theory that some philosophers and theologians find interesting but since it doesn't lead to any deeper understanding of biological mechanisms, doesn't lead to new discoveries or research ventures, and doesn't have any practical scientific applications, it is left to those in other fields to pursue."
Advocates of intelligent design also argue that the earth is designed in such a way that it is perfect to support life. They use the argument that if the variables on this planet were not exactly, or at least not close to the way they are now, that there could be no life, thus proving the existence of God. Furthermore, the source also claims that a divine being had to be at the controls to “set or manipulate the physical constants as we know them” (Fine-Tuned Universe). The intelligent design theory assumes that there must have been a divine being controlling the makeup of earth, otherwise life could not exist.
This wrong direction fallacy is easily refuted. The earth is not suited for life, life is suited for the earth. Life evolved according to the laws of the universe, thus making sure that it would be able to stay alive in said universe. As Douglas Adams once observed, “…imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!” (Carroll). This quote gives an example of how the organism tends to be perfectly suited for its world, and not vice-versa. Additionally, the improbability of an occurrence does not preclude its actual possibility. Even if it is accepted that life needs a specific set of variables to be exactly balanced in order for life to exist, that is still does not mean that it had to be designed in order to happen. If one rolled a die a million times and came up with the same number every time, would one suspect that the event had not actually happened, no matter how improbable? Obviously, no one would ever come to this conclusion, just as no one should assume that the universe could not have created habitable conditions randomly.
Another argument frequently utilized by intelligent-design proponents is that matter is too complex to have simply arisen on its own. This is a favorite argument among creationists because it is complex and difficult to refute. William Paley’s famous watchmaker argument is described as such:
"Suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; viz., that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it."
This theory, although confusing, if carefully examined is obviously begging the question since at its core it is saying that since everything has a creator, then everything must have a creator. Even if one assumes that this faulty logic is true, they would be forced to conclude that if everything must have had a creator, then obviously, God (or aliens, or the divine being, etc.) would have to also have a creator, and subsequent creator would also have to have a creator. Obviously, it is impossible to reach a beginning if this logic is used. Of course, if one believes that it is possible for the creator to have no beginning then the argument falls flat because then one leaves open the possibility that matter need not have a beginning. As noted by David Mills, “If everything except God is governed by the “Law of Cause-Effect,” then the First Cause argument becomes ad hoc and therefore logically impermissible. In other words, we’re right back where we started…”
Clearly, intelligent design has no scientific basis and is rather a matter of religion and politics. Until proven otherwise, intelligent design is not a scientific theory and teachers should not be allowed, let alone required, to pass it off as real science. The CRSC has managed to do nothing in the way of proving their theories besides throwing together a few easily refuted arguments. Despite the obvious invalidity of their cause, they continue to fight in the bleak hope that they will finally have something other than blind faith to promote their beliefs, while subsequently undermining America’s entire scientific and educational systems. If intelligent design promoters have their way, they will succeed in nothing but squelching mankind’s one and only tool for better understanding this universe and man’s own existence.
Associated Press. “Huntsman: Intelligent Design Doesn’t Belong in the Classroom” Daily Herald.
Carroll, Robert. “Should ID Be Taught in Public Schools?” The Skeptic’s Dictionary.
Dennet, Daniel C. “Intelligent Design? Show Me the Science” International Herald. Tribune.
DeVore, Edna. “Intelligent Design and Evolution at the White House” Space.com.
“Discovery Institute” Source Watch
“Fine-Tuned Universe” Answers.com.
Forrest, Barbara. “The Newest Evolution of Creationism” Actionbioscience.org.
Mills, David. Atheist Universe. Xlibris Corporation, 2003.
“Paley’s Watchmaker Argument” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Still, James. “Discovery Institute’s ‘Wedge Project’ Circulates Online” The Secular Web.
Scrambled Tofu Recipe
This is from my days of being a hardcore vegan animal-rights advocate. It is a recipe that I compiled from various other recipes and tweaked to my tastes. I still enjoy it now and again as it is particularly delicious. Be warned, though, it does not really taste like eggs. It has its own, unique flavor that I often prefer over eggs.
1 lb. extra firm tofu, drained and pressed
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 medium chopped white onion (about a cup)
½ chopped green or red bell pepper.
1/4 cup nutritional yeast
spice blend:
1 teaspoon cumin
1 teaspoon paprika
1/2 teaspoon tumeric
1 teaspoon garlic salt
Directions
Heat oil in skillet over medium-high. Sauté onions and peppers 3 minutes, until softened. Add any additional vegetables and sauté 5 minutes more. Add garlic, sauté 2 minutes more. Add spice blend and mix it up for 15 seconds or so. Add 1/4 cup water and scrape the bottom to get all the garlic and spices.
Cut the tofu into ½” cubes with a knife and then crumble a few of them for added texture. Cook for about 15 minutes, stir occasionally. If tofu sticks to the pan, add some water. Lower the heat a bit if you find that it is sticking. Add nutritional yeast and mix. Remove and enjoy.
Religious Myspace Posts
All my myspace blogs are set to private as it is way to easy for snoopy people to find things I don't want them to find. Thus, I post them here.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
 | This is news-worthy? I hope this is just a joke, because it's laughable. Marmite Jesus The funny part is that it doesn't even look like a person, let alone the Western representation of Jesus. If it looked at least something like Jesus, I might be less offended. Still offended, but less so. And who knows, if really really detailed images of Jesus and Mary were popping up all over the place all the time, I might have to reconsider my skepticism. You're really slacking off here, all-powerful food-God! Why not use your delicious and nutritious powers more effectively in order to convert poor sinners like me?   "I am Jam Jesus, bow to me!"  Now this, this is a real sacred sighting. It looks just like the general depiction of a pregnant virgin, it is very clearly drawn and not blobular at all (since the Almighty is probably at least an okay artist) and it's fake, just like God. |
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
| Okay, so I know it has been awhile since this happened, but it has been bothering me, so I thought I would post it on here anyway. Why No Help for Elderly Hit-and-Run Victim? So, maybe it is just the cynic in me, but this does not surprise me one bit. Yes, it is disturbing and sad, but it happens all the time, and it is going to continue to happen, no matter who is involved. It is basic psychology, and no one would have helped, except in rare circumstances and with rare individuals. And it has nothing to do with our "moral compass" as Chief Daryl Roberts has said. I mean, has no one heard of the bystander effect? I can't believe that no one, in any article that I have read, anywhere, has even briefly mentioned this. I have taken a lot of psych classes, so maybe I am more aware of this than most people, but you would think that some smart-ass psychology professor somewhere would be waving his hands in the air, saying "Ooh, ooh, I know what happened!" Although, the truth is probably that someone (or a lot of someones) out there did say that that was exactly what happened, and I bet a lot of other someones were saying, "Oh, no. We can't say that. That would be politically incorrect and might offend people. We can't claim that people are driven by deep-seated biological socialilzation. That would support evolution and disprove creationism, which should be taught in all public schools. Therefore, we will ignore your highly researched and obviously true sociological theories, and just pretend that this a result of too many teenage pregnancies." So now we have every "special interests awareness officer third-partying for the interests of Jesus people" on Fox News saying that if America wasn't run by radical liberals and gays, and was instead shoving Jesus down everyone's throat, this wouldn't be happening. Guess what, dillweed? It would be happening, but instead of not helping and not calling 911, those people would be not praying for his soul as his body was repeatedly mangled on the pavement. I hate how those people use everything that happens in the news to promote their own agendas. But, I'm digressing. My condolences to the victim and his family. Links on the bystander effect: Wikipedia About.com |
Thursday, May 29, 2008
| So, I was going through some of my old files, and I found something that brings up so many memories from my younger days that I thought I would share. I was something of a dumbass in high school and as such... well, you'll see. I had a friend in highschool who was extremely Christian. This is unusual for me since I am very anti-religion, and have a very big mouth. Most Christians do not like to associate with me, and you are about to see why. This particular friend was about to have a birthday, and myself and two other friends decided to make him a "present." We wrote him a letter, and though I must give most of the credit to my friend Regan, all of us chipped in. Of course, you can't write a letter to a crazy Christian bastard who believes in predestination (seriously) without making fun of his beliefs. So that is what we did. It still makes me laugh to this day, but I am somewhat embarrassed by its contents. My school had a store that one could go to in order to send balloons and treats to your friends. I took the note and stapled it to an angel hello kitty doll. You know, since it was angel and all. I took it to the store and told them to deliver it with some pink and purple balloons. It was about two hours later when I was walking out of some form of special lecture with my friends when a security guard stopped me and asked if I was Stephanie. He then asked me to go with him. As I said, I was a dumbass, so I had no idea what was wrong. I didn't even become suspicious when he asked to take my backpack. Minutes later, I was in the front office getting screamed at by the principal. I don't remember everything, but I know he way overreacted, and I know that I thought I was going to die. I remember I was crying, and I remember that, as I said, he was screaming. One exchange I remember pretty clearly goes like this: Me: It was just a joke, we didn't mean anything. Principal: DO YOU THINK THIS IS FUNNY??!! Me: (crying) NO, NO!!! It's not funny! I laugh now, but at the time... it wasn't funny... So, anyway, I guess this is as good a time as ever to let you read the letter in question. It went as follows: 777 You-Know-Where Ave. Way Up There, HV 77777 April 23, 2004 My Dear Disciple,
Many congrats to you on the anniversary of your birth, which, I might add, I allowed, and you are eternally in debt to My awesome and holy God-ness. Despite the fact that you are a low, filthy, useless, miserable creature that thinks it's special (much like a tick), take comfort in the fact that you are still a low filthy, useless, miserable creature, but a special one, because I have chosen YOU to redeem mankind. Think of yourself like a Jesus Jr., much as a linkette compared to a foot-long weenie. Your mission, my scrumptious savior-to-be, is to go on a rampage and send all the pagans, heathens, nonbelievers, Satanists, and (most importantly) Catholics to their rightful place of fiery DOOM! Then, after you have weeded My garden of cheesy sanctity, educate all the gerbils of Gilbert in the ways of My word. Once you have done this, go to Be sure to scream, "Psuedocountenance of the carbonic masses! Jurisdiction! Guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride! Methylchloroisothiazolinone!" for this is the secret semi-psuedo password that unlocks the Cloister of Pyrithionire Trials of Zine. However, you must be wearing a booty skirt and nylons for this to happen, for the only way to be a true Christian is to truly know and love those you claim not to hate. And what better way than to cross-dress? Remember, I'm counting on YOU to fulfill My duties for Me.
Your Lord and Savior and semi-permanent father, God P.S. I'm also Jesus. And the Holy Spirit. And Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, Christ, Elohim, El Shaddai, Adonai, Theos, Kurios, Despotes, El Olam, Yahweh Shalom, Aahad, Ya Razzaaq, Yahweh Maccaddeshcem, Raffee, Yahweh Tsidkenu, El Elyon, and Yahweh Elohim Israel. Do not despair. Praise me! Pander to me, you worthless, sinful psuedopod! P.P.S. Bring lots of water. P.P.P.S. On second thought, bring wine, I'm feeling lazy. P.P.P.P.S. If you're friends keep mocking your faith, just let Me know and I'll send SuperChrist after them. P.P.P.P.P.S. You'll be glad to know that I sent another few hundred aborted babies to hell today. P.P.P.P.P.P.S. I don't like spicy ribs. Yes, they thought we were serious, and my principal literally thought we were going to try to kill the heathens. They almost put the school in lockdown, and they called the police. Seriously. I should also mention that they are all dumbasses. But you knew that. They spent hours trying to figure out a number of things, including but not limited to: 1)What kind of secret, evil code words we were using in the following statement: "Psuedocountenance of the carbonic masses! Jurisdiction! Guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride! Methylchloroisothiazolinone!" To clear things up, I got those words that you may not recognize (although there is a strong possibility that they didn't recognize any of them) off of a shampoo bottle. Yes, that is what I did. But no, they are really secret words from my mass cult. 2) They also tried to figure out what cult I was in and whether my followers were intimidated by me. They actually asked my male Christian friend this. He was a very confident guy, not to mention about 6'4" and like 220lbs. He could've stepped on me. But apparently I was intimidating enough that I had complete control over him. 3) Whether there was some secret meaning to the presence of a black (read: purple) balloon in the midst of all the pink ones. Yes, black stands for Satan. Except when it is purple. So, my parents were called in, and of course, as soon as they came in, the principal's douchebaggery dropped by like a million. What an asshole. Then, Officer Skippy came in to make sure that we were going to spare Freestone Park the misfortune of having my tall, masculine friend romp around wearing a "booty skirt." He was less of an asshole and less of a dumbass, but he was still a dumbass. It worried him that we were smart and that we had done such a convincing job of satirizing the bible. I do think we were quite funny, but I hardly think that it was sophisticated enough to call it satire. Maybe if you think Scrubs is quality humor, you might think that anything we wrote was at all highbrow. Anyway, to wrap it up, since we didn't do anything wrong, and everything that happened was the fault of incompetent administration, we were suspended for two weeks. That was four weeks before the end of the school year. My grades thanked me. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)