sarah palin: third wave feminist D-lux.

not.

i have this philosophy teacher who i’ve actually known for years so he’s familiar with all my gender/queer/politics beliefs and something came up in class about democrats being bad?  and after class i decided to ask him what he thought of sarah palin.  this brought up a discussion of how we feel about abortion (with his sarcastic comment that i want to kill babies) and whether or not sarah palin is a feminist, or isn’t one, or if she just isn’t My kind of feminist.
then today feministing beat me to the punch.  and they covered it better than i could even have guessed how.

Note to the Mainstream Media: Sarah Palin is NOT a Feminist

Advertisements

incredibly interesting.

so, i hear john mccain chose a highly inexperienced woman, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, as his running mate.
“The selection amounted to a gamble that an infusion of new leadership — and the novelty of the Republican Party’s first female candidate for vice president — would more than compensate for the risk that Ms. Palin could undercut one of the McCain campaign’s central arguments, its claim that Mr. Obama is too inexperienced to be president.”

hm.
how ’bout that.

people like this exist?

now.  i KNOW in my head that people like reverend john hagee exist.  there’s been enough conservatism and sexism in my life or at least enough that i have been made aware of to KNOW things like this get said.
but seriously.  i didn’t think it was real.  something like… i KNOW it’s possible to make an eiffel tower as a yo-yo trick, but who the hell DOES that?

this guy.
thanks to my favourite feminist blog, feministing, i now know reverend hagee is the yo-yo trick MASTER of right-wing christianity.

i’m glad i will never be a stay at home dad who happens to encounter rev. hagee.  with any luck, i will never be the sole provider of income for my household or, you know, be in a lesbian relationship and encounter this man.
his interpretation of scripture is perverted nonsense.  he says paul discusses in 1st timothy that lazy bum dads are going to hell.  really?
i can understand his view, kind of, if i was completely supporting my husband and there were no children.  but i don’t plan on marrying a starving artist or a pot-head musician, you know?  and even then, he’s utterly condemning and irrational.
but rev. hagee isn’t referring to those men, although i’d love to hear the hell-fire they’ve got in store for them.  he is completely referring to men who stay at home taking care of their children.
first, it’s becoming common knowledge that paul didn’t actually write 1st or 2nd timothy, but that’s not the point.  for convenience let’s say he did; even strict, sometimes harsh paul the apostle never said anything about men being providers of the household.  just because mr. hagee’s sensibilities are jarred by a little gender liberation and role reversal does not mean he can direct the scripture on laziness at husbands who are supported by their wives.
second, stay-at-home dads aren’t lazy.  point blank period.  him accusing them at that is saying stay-at-home MOTHERS are lazy as well!  apparently he’s never been in charge of raising children.  because being a mother is an intense, taxing, never-ending, no sick days, no sleeping in on the weekends kind of job, not to mention all the things i don’t know about being a mother being that i’m not one.
clearly, rev. hagee is under the impression that child-rearing is beneath him.  that’s a humble man if i’ve ever seen one.  humility is having a level-headed, rational, generally objective outlook at your station in the world among God and men.  i think that rev. hagee has a slightly grandiose idea of the responsibilities God has ‘placed on men.’
i don’t believe that God ever meant for there to be gender roles in the first place.  ever.  they came with the fall, and as society evolves, as it’s transformed by the renewing of our minds (romans 12:2), i firmly believe they will become less and less prevalent in society.