Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged patriarchy

24 notes

I think it depends on the movie. I think there are some movies that depict women in a very positive role, and then some movies that put them in a little bit more of negative role. But by the end of the movie, they show that woman power that I know we all have. Such as the movie Pretty Woman. We had a wonderful, beautiful woman, Julia Roberts, and she was having a rough time, but, you know what, she came out on top and she didn’t let anybody stand in her path.

Miss Ohio Audrey Bolte, in response to pageant Judge Marilu Henner’s question: “Do you think women are depicted in movies and on television in an accurate and positive way? And please give us an example.”

If by coming out on top, you meant literally on top of men for money in what was originally supposed to be a “dark tale” about prostitution, drug addiction, and class in Los Angeles, and by not letting anyone stand in her path, you meant becoming the kept woman of a corporate exec who seduces her via material goods until she’s convinced she’s in love with him, then yes. You’re absolutely wrong about the whole role model thing.

Note to Bolte: Our “woman power” that we all have is not just between our legs. It’s also between our ears. Pretty Woman = not empowering.

I wonder if she’s ever actually seen the movie, or if she’s simply internalized patriarchal messaging to the point where this makes sense. Or both.

Let’s not even touch the Miss USA pageant…

Filed under Feminism Pretty Woman Miss USA woman power Audrey Bolte Ohio media movies women misogyny empowerment patriarchy politics

75 notes

If our national security is on the line, the defense of your children, your family, when that’s on the line, who do you want manning the Howitzers? Who do you want manning the M-16s. Who do you want manning the fighter planes? Do you want somebody who is characterized by sensitivity, warmth and apprehension? That is somebody who is sensitive, who is warm and who is easily spooked? Is that who you want defending your national security?

Or do you want somebody who is characterized by emotional stability, dominance, rule, consciousness and vigilance? Well if your answer is B, which I think any objective, logical, right thinking, clear-headed, non-politically correct corrupted thinking person would think, clearly you have just said we ought to have men in combat. … Women are not wired, either by evolution or by God, whoever is responsible for this difference, they are not prepared by DNA and innate personality characteristics to be in those positions.

Bryan Fischer of professional hate group American Family Association explaining why women aren’t suited for combat

We’re delicate flowers, y’all! Too fragile!

Yes. You know why? Because Fischer is a patriarchal asshat who believes women violate evolutionary principles when they do something but be brood mares because we’re “apprehensive” and “easily spooked.” Yeah, every single time a balloon pops I dive under my bed and cower. Now I know why! Love how he cites “evolution” as a possible reason when it seems to suit his argument…

In conclusion:

And especially Bryan Fischer. And P.S. - AFA + Rick Santorum = TRU LUV 4-EVA. You know, the same Rick Santorum who walked back similar comments about a week ago.

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

Filed under Bryan Fischer AFA American Family Association politics misogyny women gender that is not evolution bro GOP Republican Republicans combat military seriously? patriarchy

380 notes

Syrian men promise to marry women who were raped - The Washington Post




To reclaim their “honor,” families in Syria have been known to kill raped female members. Even if families allow such women to live, they are not eligible to marry.

“We sat and discussed that we want to change this. We don’t want to change just the regime in Syria, but also this kind of stuff. So we will marry them in front of everyone,” said Ibrahim Kayyis, a 32-year-old baker from Jisr al-Shugour.


This is what you call stepping the fuck up, bros.

I hope they uh, cleared this with the women, though, before going public.

Agreed on both counts.

If the whole clearing with the women thing happens, wow. That’s heartbreaking and hopeful. Compassion - you’re doing it right.

(via beholdthehurrikate-deactivated2)

Filed under Syria patriarchy rape politics protest violence Compassion

17 notes

Creepy Christian Patriarchy Movement Shackles Daughters to Their Fathers and Homes: The stay-at-home-daughters movement encourages young girls and single women to forgo college and employment in favor of training as "keepers at home."

“Daughters aren’t to be independent. They’re not to act outside the scope 
of their father. As long as they’re under the authority of their fathers, fathers have the ability to nullify or not the oaths and the vows. Daughters can’t just go out 
independently and say, ‘I’m going to marry whoever I want.’ No. The father has 
the ability to say, ‘No, I’m sorry, that has to be approved by me.’”

There’s a lot of talk in American mainstream media lately 
about the diminishing role of men — fathers, in particular. Have feminism and reproductive technology made them obsolete? 
Are breadwinning wives and career-oriented mothers emasculating them?

No such uncertainty exists in the mind of Doug Phillips, the man quoted above. The San Antonio minister is the founder of Vision Forum, a beachhead for what’s known as the Christian Patriarchy Movement, a branch of evangelical Christianity that takes beliefs about men as leaders and women as homemakers to anachronistic extremes. Vision Forum Ministries is, according to its Statements of Doctrine, “committed to affirming the historic faith of Biblical Christianity,” with special attention to the historical faith found in the book of Genesis, when God created Eve as a “helper” to Adam. According to Christian Patriarchy, marriage bonds man (the symbol of Christ) to woman (the symbol of the Church). It’s a model that situates husbands and fathers in a position of absolute power: If a woman disobeys her “master,” whether father or husband, she’s defying God. Thus, women in the Christian Patriarchy Movement aren’t just stay-at-home mothers — they’re stay-at-home daughters as well. And many of them wouldn’t have 
it any other way.

The stay-at-home-daughters movement, which is promoted by Vision Forum, encourages young girls and single women to forgo college and outside employment in favor of training as “keepers at home” until they marry. Young women pursuing their own ambitions and goals are viewed as selfish and antifamily; marriage is not a choice or one piece of a larger life plan, but the ultimate goal. Stay-at-home daughters spend their days learning “advanced homemaking” skills, such as cooking and sewing, and other skills that at one time were a necessity — knitting, crocheting, soap- and candle-making. A father is considered his daughter’s authority until he transfers control to her husband…

Integral to Vision Forum’s belief about female submission is making sure women are not independent at any point in their lives, regardless of age; hence the organization’s enthusiasm for stay-at-home daughterhood. The most visible proponents of this belief are Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin, sisters and authors of the book So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God (published by Vision Forum), and creators of the documentary film Return of the Daughters, which follows several young women staying home until marriage, and details how they spend their time serving their fathers. One woman, Melissa Keen, 25, helps put on Vision Forum’s annual Father-Daughter Retreat, an event that’s described on Vision Forum’s website in terms that are, in a word, discomfiting. (“He leads her, woos her, and wins her with a tenderness and affection unique to the bonds of father and daughter.”) Another, 23-year-old Katie Valenti, enthuses that her father “is the greatest man in my life. I believe that helping my father in his business is a better use of my youth and is helping prepare me to be a better helpmeet for my future husband, rather than indulging in selfishness and pursuing my own success and selfish ambitions.” (A video of Valenti’s 2009 wedding to Phillip Bradrick shows her father announcing into a microphone that he is “transferring my authority to you, Phillip.”)

In So Much More, the Botkin sisters claim women were much happier before being legally considered men’s equals, although, unsurprisingly, they reference no studies, scholarship, or evidence for this. They do, however, quote extensively from girls described as “21st-century heroines of the faith,” or “the young heroines of the underground feminist resistance 
movement,” who claim following submission teachings changed their lives. A stay-at-home daughter named Sarah, for instance, aspired to be an attorney before realizing that her career ambitions displeased God; Fiona left home for college at 18, only to return five years later having experienced much “grief and depression.”

I really cannot see the difference between this and any other patriarchal oppression of women in any other religious sect. The difference? This is more mainstream just because it’s based off the Christian God and the Bible. The girls may claim they wouldn’t want it any other way, but I can’t believe that they’re making an objective choice - especially when the father is the only one who can make that choice and if the woman shows free will, that’s defiance of God.

This is similar to the oppression claimed by Christians in regards to Islam. There is no way that these girls have a chance to choose. When you look at the Amish, many give the children a chance to decide whether or not to remain in the sect by allowing them to experience the outside world. There is no option for these girls in the Vision Forum Ministries movement. This is brainwashing.

Filed under Vision Forum Ministries Daughters Feminism Patriarchy Christianity Christian Hypochristianity Brainwashing