Supporting Scientology marriage – opposing marriage

This happened:

A couple have made history by becoming the first to marry in a Church of Scientology chapel, five years after they brought a legal case to have their religious rights recognised.

Newlyweds Alessandro Calcioli and Louisa Hodkin, both 25, described their marriage as a “momentous” victory against “inequality and unfairness” as they posed for photographs outside a Scientology church in London, surrounded by confetti and bridesmaids.

“It has been a long, five-year battle to achieve a simple freedom – the right to marry in our own church with a service in accordance with the rites and customs of our religion and surrounded by our friends and family,” the couple said. “All weddings should be magical and momentous for the couple concerned, but we are conscious that ours, as the first for our religion in England, has its own place in history.”

I’m not really a fan of marriage or most forms of romance things. Yet, that doesn’t mean I don’t think we should stand against opposition to gay marriage.

As Notung points out, you can defend the principle of equality while still being opposed to the overarching institution. His analogy regarded women bishops: It’s nonsense that women can’t hold the same offices as men, but I also think all things anchored or premised entirely on faith are nonsense too.

Does this mean I should support the Scientology couple and their victory? I think so. I may think that Scientology, along with all religions really, is wrong (morally and empircally). But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t suppor their right to marry, since it’s all – I guess – equally non-sensical. Don’t exclude a group from being able to engage in an adult institution, even if I disagree with that institution, if the only criteria is “your faith-based philosophies are newer than mine”.

I mean we know the Internet has a hard-on hatred for Scientology, but still.

Is there any reason to oppose Scientology marriage as a recognised form of marriage, if other faiths get recognised as proper marriages?

I “ruin” relationships just in time for Valentine’s Day

…or at least that’s what my friend Dean Burnett thinks.

Over at the Guardian, I decided to apply some kind of honesty to relationships, advising readers to question monogamy, procreation, etc., in their relationships (assuming most relationship are the two person, monogamous, long-term types). My main focus for this piece was to encourage the view that if you can’t speak about such important and difficult subjects with your partner, that should be a worrying sign.

Of course, it would also be nice if more people undermined their stigma of those who are childfree, polyamorous,ethically promiscuous (I’d love another word for this), etc.

Human Rights Watch video on homophobic attacks in Russia

Good luck watching this.

Thugs. Terrified thugs launching fists at the harmless, at the innocent.

Gay rights isn’t just a gay problem, just like sexism isn’t just a woman’s issue, or racism isn’t just a non-white issue (all of this assumes sexism, racism, etc., only directly negatively affects one group, too).

Nobody is unaffected by these things: We just think we aren’t. Being straight I am affected by not being oppressed about my sexuality. But the point is, no one group alone should benefit from a lack of oppression – everyone should.

I have no idea what to do about that. I don’t know how to combat sexism or homophobia or any kind of bigotry. I’m not well-versed in the politics, in the psychology. I don’t know why it happens, how long it’s been happening. I don’t know where it began, where it exists, where it thrives.

I only know its wrong. I only know that more of us, at least, should proudly support and stand up against bigotry. But keyboard warriors aren’t sufficient; digital petitions aren’t enough; this attitude at the very least can be articulated “live” to friends, loved ones, when they make homophobic remarks, when they dismiss women as dumb, when they try sneak a racial “observation” through conversation. Maybe that will help, maybe it will make them think twice about being so comfortable in their lack of concern for people who aren’t part of their group.

Again: I don’t know. This realisation that things are wrong anchored by having no fucking clue what to do is, for me, almost as horrible as knowing that, tomorrow, bigotry will continue and innocent people will be hurt because they’re not the “right” sex, not the right race, not the right sexuality, not  physically built right, not the right height, not the right weight.

I hate this species.

(This is an important piece, by Marc Bennetts, on responding to Russian situation.)

Women don’t know how language works, the poor things: No means yes

Amazon was hosting a Kindle book called “LMR Exposed: How To Overcome Her Last Minute Resistance To Sex, Turn ‘No’ Into ‘Yes’ And Get the Lay!” It was pretty bizarre and rather horrid. I read as much as I could while it was hosted and have read the author’s “articles” before.

The Huffington Post quotes it:

“I’ve had situations where a girl is lying naked with me on my bed, still loudly proclaiming that we’re not having sex… Other times, I just forcefully removed the hand, stuck my dick inside, and she welcomed it eagerly once I was in.”

Charming no? Go rape! (LMR means “last minute resistance”. So, yes, there’s that.)

The International Business Times notes:

The book, which was available on Kindle, gives tips on how to convince women that resistance [is] “ridiculous” along with a “sneaky psychological technique that busts through LMR without her even knowing”.

Anyway, I wrote an Amazon review that went live – even though the book itself is removed. I mostly had fun writing my review, in an attempt at satire, since I was afraid of tackling it too seriously – which I’m sure others will and have done, better than I could.

The author found out about the initial 1-star reviews, and promptly responded in the obviously mature way that warrants taking him seriously as an adult. (If you can’t read the following image, please click here)

(Source: Huffington Post)

Allow me to fisk.

“A few individuals with nothing better to do have gone to my Amazon.com book page and left my latest book several 1-star reviews.”

Many of us spend our time doing many things at the same time; one of the things that matters is combatting bigotry and mistreatment of women, and underlying beliefs. Beliefs which, when truly believed and acted upon, significantly harm innocent people. That’s not a waste of a time – it’s a moral duty.

However, that’s done to a matter of degree and anchored by degrees of morality. I personally would’ve kept your book up – so that it could be critiqued and shown to be silly (and promoting harmful behavior).

But anyway, what do you care, right? It’s just one star reviews.

“Naturally, not a single one of these cuckoo social justice warriors have purchased the book or read it.”

Many of us have read you and read significant portions; besides which, if we’re wrong, just tell us why. Your book isn’t some philosophical thesis or scientific treatise – it’s a summary of pro-rape behavior. I doubt my perspective would be changed because I read through to the index. You have one, right?

“Your pathetic mob efforts have had absolutely zero impact on my business. Further, several hot girls have privately reached out to me in commiseration over the response to this article.”

Interestingly, this isn’t about you but about the beliefs you are espousing. But, sure, go ahead and view this as some personal attack on “your business”. And of course, I keep forgetting the measure of morality is how many hot girls reach out “in commiseration”.

“Finally, it is a very beautiful, sunny Friday afternoon here in Bangkok, Thailand. Tonight I will go out and celebrate life and most likely fornicate with a gorgeous young girl. Perhaps several.”

Good for you, but I think we know it probably won’t be consensual fornication. So to that extent, I’m quite worried. Not that you care about that silly liberal feminazi dogma called “consent”, eh? That’s not for “real” men, amirate?”

“I will have spent exactly zero seconds of my life thinking about you”

Er. Then why write this comment? You clearly did. Perhaps we should teach you about how time and numbers work?

“while you foam at the mouth for days straight from behind your computer screen thinking about me.”

My mouth is quite dry but I’m touched you care. And, again, this isn’t particularly about you but what you are espousing – and those views are tackled, in various ways, by many people.

“I (we) win.”

Yes, you do. Look at that empty Amazon page! Wow. Such space.

Um, but sorry – what do you win, exactly?

 

 

NoteNote – The note-naming convention specifies a letter, any accidentals, and an octave number. →

On the ethics of public shaming & digital mob justice

I wrote a post for the New Statesman on using public shaming and digital “mob justice” – even when aimed at those people we consider to be wrong. I’m unconvinced of public shaming as a tactic, in terms of “justice” – since one would hope that enforcing justice is itself considered in moral terms; that we don’t assume moral immunity because we’re responding to an injustice, but rather maintaining morality even while maintaining justice – in an unjust and often horrible world.

I don’t doubt public shaming is effective – but efficacy must be measured alongside other perhaps equally effective, but more moral responses and so on. My concern is that we can’t control how others respond and this is especially telling when original offences – say making a racist joke – is less bad than responses – calls for raping the offender.

There’s a lot to focus on, but this currently is my position regarding public shaming. It doesn’t mean we never act, only act better.

Responses to common claims made against childfree people

The Huffington Post helpfully aggregated some common assertions and questions people make against childfree people (in their case, it was women they focused on). Anyway, I wrote a response to each one on Big Think. I added some snark.

Let me know if they’re questions or assertions you’ve got. And, also, how often do you get them, in comparison to men/women companions/friends/lovers.

Update: Love the responses and comments. Please do keep them coming. Fascinating.

Is it ever right to target an individual?

I blogged a longish piece about the ethics of using your platform to target an individual, as we recently saw with Bill and Emma Keller targetting Lisa Adams; and, recently, Caleb Hannan “outing” Dr V for being born a different sex in a piece about golfing equipment. Not to mention how so many piled on Justine Sacco, Melissa Bachman, and so on. I really dislike how this occurs and wish platforms were recognised as unequal between people, especially in light of people’s identity (the internet is not, in fact, a fan of women or trans persons for example).

Golden Globes “Red Carpet” “reporting” makes me hate this species more

So there’s this thing called the Golden Globes, in which awards are given out to famous people for doing things for which they’re famous for: i.e. pretending to be other people on television. Famous people arrive, wearing clothes that cost an amount more than you or I will ever spend in several years, to an event to celebrate make-believe. An event where famous people sit for hours, listening to their colleagues name genres, then name names, then give awards – again and again and again – with shots of bored performers interspersed with laughter or smiles.

Of course, where there’s famous people, reporting – sorry “reporting” – is sure to follow.

Oh dear god no. Please, won’t someone do something!

Aside from dropping jewellery, famous people telling other famous people they had met before was also worthy of headlines.

Things got fantastically weird and idiotic – more so – when E! revealed it didn’t know how language worked – or perhaps did know, since anything they reported just was “fun”.

And if that wasn’t enough, they had a gritty sequel.

This was followed by “FUN FACT: WE ALL DIE ALONE”, “FUN FACT: CHILDREN DIE OF STARVATION WHILE OTHERS DIE FROM OVEREATING”, and “FUN FACT: EVERYTHING ENDS, ALL IS FORGOTTEN, EFFORT IS MEANINGLESS IN THE VOID OF NOTHING AND SUFFERING.”

The creepy obsession had a moment of self-realisation which was soon forgotten, as Gawker, who had been reporting on this non-event since it began Tweeted:

“We know this is a boring, stupid event, but we’re going to keep reporting on it anyway for your viewing pleasure because we need to meet the demands of our advertisers and viewership.” How cynical and insulting.

I love that we celebrate creative genius and brilliance; indeed, creativity is essential to any person, no doubt, each of whom likes a variety of creative mediums. TV is no different: Look how Breaking Bad worked Dostoevksyian magic and genius into itself and was the darling of TV critics; look how so many are enanmoured with BBC’s Sherlock with its wonderful plots and exquisite cinematography.

What I hate about celebrity culture is how we’ve turned celebration of the art into obsession of the performers. Yes, let’s award them as we do even for scientists. But, at the very least, can we question the purpose of the red carpet? Are we really reporting on famous people walking to an even more boring event? Are we really so cynical about what audiences do and should enjoy that we focus on what women are wearing rather than on how they did their art proud? Why do we celebrate or tolerate the creepy fawning and nitpicking and brazen abandonment of reason when it comes to celebrities? They’re walking down a carpet. Walking. Down. A carpet.

I’ve had enough of this and I hope more of you do too. Those sites whose Tweets I’ve captured have great content, but they morph into Mr Hydes of creepy stupidity and banality when awards happen. So do some people. We need to point out how stupid this is, because the performances and the art itself matter more. Let’s celebrate the art and artists for the actual wonder and joy they bring; not the dress they’re wearing or how much jewellery they’re dropping.

This list of how American conservative media treated women in 2013 is too long

Seriously.

Lou Dobbs described a Pew Research study that found an increase in female breadwinners as full of “concerning and troubling statistics.” Dobbs said the study was suggestive of “society dissolv[ing] around us.”

On the June 20 edition of Fox News’ Hannity, frequent Fox guest and conservative radio host Bill Cunningham shouted down Fox contributor Tamara Holder during a debate saying, “You shut up. Know your role and shut your mouth” and asking if she was “going to cry”

On the November 18 edition of Fox Business’ Varney & Co, host Stuart Varney wondered, “Is there something about the female brain that is a deterrent for getting on board with tech?”

On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh offered his “suggestion” to avoid being accused of sexual harassment: “You walk up to the woman and say, ‘Will you please ask your breasts to stop staring at my eyes?'”

WSJ‘s Taranto Says Of Alleged Domestic Assault: George Zimmerman Simply “Guilty Of Being Male.” After George Zimmerman allegedly threatened his estranged wife with violence, James Taranto tweeted that Zimmerman was “guilty of being male”:

And so on and so on. Horrible.

Thanks to the researchers Emily Arrowood, Olivia Kittel, Olivia Marshall, & Samantha Wyatt at MediaMatters.

Canada top court is sensibile about sex worker laws; Internet reactionaries are not

Great news from Canada.

Canada’s top court has struck down three key laws concerning prostitution in this country, declaring them unconstitutional, disproportionate and overly broad.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court said the laws prohibiting keeping a brothel, living on the avails of prostitution, and communicating in public for purposes of prostitution “do not pass Charter muster.” It said they infringe on the rights of prostitutes by depriving them of security of the person.

Showing it is possible for old legal folk to act sensibly toward such a touchy (excuse the pun) subject.

[Chief Justice Beverley] McLachlin wrote that given prostitution itself is legal [in Canada], the three laws made it far too difficult for prostitutes to safely engage in sex work.

She wrote the laws “do not merely impose conditions on how prostitutes operate. They go a critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky — but legal — activity from taking steps to protect themselves from the risks.”

The law banning brothels forces prostitutes onto the streets, McLachlin wrote, and the resulting health and safety risks imposed upon street workers is “grossly disproportionate” to the law’s objective of preventing public nuisance.

Sex work is legal in Canada, though some elements, such as public communication, appear to still be criminal.

And with the sensible and adult treatment of sex, not to mention defending it on a public health and harm perspective, inevitably those with less sensible, more knee-jerk reactions, will also find their voice. This doesn’t mean all opposition comprise less sensible people and those in favour more sensible; I’m focusing here on the reasoning, not the people. [Read more…]