At a general meeting in Fort Worth, Texas on April 30th the Methodist church voted on whether or not to maintain their current views on supporting homosexual practices. In the end they voted to maintain that the activity is “incompatible with Christian teaching”.

The vote was to change the mandate to “refrain from judgment regarding homosexual person and practices as the Spirit leads us to new insight”. The supporters lost 517 votes to 416. I guess it gives me a little hope that 44.5% of the people voted to change it. …That’s something.

As I’ve said many times… the church is going to have to change to stay alive - and one of those changes is going to have to be to adhere to things that are becoming the social norm. I guess I say this from a Canadian perspective - where being gay truly is normal. Where as in Texas, it hasn’t really gotten to that point yet. For shame!

The ban “reflects the sentiment of most (church) members and the majority of citizens in the U.S. and many other countries,” said the committee that handled the resolution. “Sanctioning homosexual unions would give the church’s approval to homosexual behavior and relationships, which would be inconsistent” with church teaching.

Who cares about inconsistency? Why not be a leader in recognizing that you don’t live in the 30’s anymore and truing accepting and loving people despite what they do outside of the church? I think this, being more loving and caring, is more consistent with Christian values than banning someone’s homosexuality.

But what’s really scary?

And, after an emotional debate, a slim majority of Methodists agreed to strengthen the church’s advocacy against sexism by “opposing all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice, or sexual orientation.”

Two clergy delegates from the Democratic Republic of the Congo forcefully spoke out against the anti-homophobia resolution.

Speaking in French with the aid of a translator, one pastor said that it’s “very sad that the Methodist Church continues to advocate for things that come from the devil. … It is time for us as church to get on our knees and proclaim that we have made a mistake.”

Does that mean bisexuals are like… half devil baked?

Do hot chix digging things really make it more appealing to those who like hot ladies? … I don’t think this ad has really made any sort of new treehugger men out there. It’s probably a little bit sexist too, right? … Probably. …But I don’t even care any more. Like with P.E.T.A’s “Milk gone wild” campaign…  It did exactly what it was supposed to do, no? It attracted attention, any publicity is good publicity sort of deal.

I’m just really curious if HotChixDig actually gets people to convert to things. I myself am not even 1/2 as attracted to women as I would need to be to test the effectiveness of the site.

Honestly - some of the stuff is pretty clever.

And I’m pretty sure that if I were shopping for lightbulbs and saw the following picture used as an ad, I’d buy the lightbulb. (But of course every “feminist” out there would scream and be all like “STOP USING MY BODY TO SELL SHIT!” … you’re hot. get over it.) 

…Maybe I’m more attracted to women then I thought I was. I have the urge to go buy an environmentally friendly light bulb. Shit son.

In all reality - the girls are doing their part for the environment, objectifying their bodies or not. Woo! Good on ‘em. I hope they don’t let all those boobie hating feminists shut them up. The only complaint I have is they knock Canada in the “about me” section of their blog. There ain’t nothing wrong with Canada!!!

Trust me, it’s better than the original one I had picked out….
Who am I to say what liberates a woman? I personally don’t have the right to tell a woman that what she is doing isn’t liberation. However… the following is just a sort of “liberation” that I find counterproductive.

Women in Islam can’t show skin. We’ve all seen the burqua debates that have spread like wildfire online - is it oppressive? or do they like it? is it that bad? blah blah blah? The fact is -women wear them, and some women don’t. Some men think it is sinful, wrong, shameful and disgusting when women don’t wear them.

So, a group of Islamic women had a fashion show where they skimped down to bikinis and mini skirts to show their liberation from Islam. They claimed it was a fantastic way to show that they can still be Islamic while strutting their stuff and showing off their ankles. They also appeared in some traditional Islamic clothing, just more “fashionable” then plain black clothes and less than lovely burquas.

One side of me definitely screams “good for them”. If women don’t want to dress like they live centuries ago - all the power to them. I think it is fantastic to modernize life and religion to fit the world. However - did they have to do it with a fashion show? Judges and all?

Can a beauty pageant that perpetuates sexism and stereotypes really be an effective way to display feminism and liberation to those who are told to be covered up?

I say no. Fashion shows, beauty pageants and the like objectify women. When people see the women strutting up and down the run way they don’t think “wow, she’s so liberated” or “wow, what a brain she must have”. It is putting beauty over brains.

Obviously these women have enough brains to realize that they’re being oppressed and that things aren’t equal in their religion. They know this enough to do something about it. But I personally don’t think it was an overly good way to display their feelings. It is normalizing hypers sexuality in a not overly sexual religion.

I fell weird writing about this as a westernized, obviously liberated and free woman. I can’t feel right oppressing their way of breaking from the cultural barriers that they’ve felt confined in. Just… it doesn’t seem “right”… I guess.

This all spawned from my “I Support Tarek Fatah” group that got me the boot from facebook. Some woman sent me a message telling me not to support Tarek because he didn’t support this beauty pageant (which I had never previously heard of, and still can’t find a relevant link to) and thus he must be a horrible person. The girl flipped out when I told her I didn’t support beauty pageants either… I tried to explain why to her, but she told me that I was exercising my white privilege, so I stopped messaging her.

Anyway, I just felt like writing about it, maybe someone has an opinion that will make me see what is so great about having a sexist show to fight sexism. … I just don’t get it.

I think you’re cute Carson!

I usually go for the articles where men are being sexist toward women. But this time around, I’ve got to show you Stuff Magazine’s sexist article about men.

Carson Daly
Wussiness factor: Eight years since he dated Jennifer Love Hewitt
We didn’t mind Carson back when he was hosting TRL, dating women that were way too hot for him and holding court as the second fattest guy on MTV—he never could wrestle that top spot away from Matt Pinfield. In recent years, though, Daly has been hitting the treadmill and has worked his way down to what looks like about 90 pounds of annoying talk-show host. His only hope to regain his manliness is to ask former Daly clan member and PGA bad boy John Daly for some lessons on drinking, smoking and gambling away thousands of dollars. Man up, Carson. 

I think the blurb about Carson is probably the worst in the entire article. Not only are they being incredibly sexist towards all the men by imposing stereotypes and gender roles but in Carson’s case they are criticizing him for something they would praise a woman for. If a woman were to have lost as much weight as Carson has in the past couple of years men would be hooting and hollering from the stands - not sitting there saying she looked like 90 pounds of annoying.

The article is such a disgusting display of men trying to be bigger men by pointing out “feminine” aspects of other men. The title of the article its self is enough to make me want to throw up my dinner.

Montreal 9 March 2007

Police Assault Women at International Women’s Day March

Yesterday, as Montrealers, along with many around the world celebrated International Women’s Day - the event was marred by police brutality in which three young women were assaulted, injured and traumatized. Among the issues that were brought up during the speeches at Montreal’s women’s day march was that in Iran women were prevented from
celebrating international women’s day. And women in Pakistan were also attacked yesterday in a women’s day event.

Yesterday’s events ensure Montreal shares this distinction! Marchers celebrating International Women’s Day had walked from Place Emilie Gamelin (Berri Square) to Phillips Square, along Ste-Catherine Street. After speeches they made their way back to Berri Square. The police made an announcement asking people to walk on the sidewalk.

Jaggi Singh, who had been one of many male supporters among the 200 strong celebrating international women’s day moved onto the sidewalk. The others continued marching in the street. Police officers began to rush towards Singh, still walking on the sidewalk. They grabbed him and threw him against a nearby police car.

Other marchers gathered around the car out of concern for the violent way in which police were intervening. Police began hitting and pushing people indiscriminately. Several people were knocked to the ground with batons and night sticks. Emma Strople, a 17 year old marcher, was hit in the chest with the end of a night stick and thrown to the ground, by an officer later identified as Doyon. Her ribs were bruised, she was winded, trembling from shock and her knee was cut open enough that the blood seeped through her jeans.

Two other women were also injured - one woman’s lips and mouth were swollen and bleeding, from being punched in the face by a police officer; another left with cuts on her knee and stomach. The police showed a total disregard for the injuries mounting around them. They placed Jaggi Singh in the police car and began to leave. The marchers that remained left by Berri Metro.

The 8th March Committee of Women of Diverse Origins, one of the key groups involved in the march, strongly denounces last night’s police brutality yesterday and the arrest of Singh. Are we to go back to the time when women in Canada were not considered ‘persons’? When women were to be seen and not heard? In Quebec today on the eve of an election we
have seen how violence against women is still something that is trivialized, including by those that seek to represent us in the democratic system. Yesterday’s police attack on women and their allies proves that even those who are supposed to be the guardians of the law and ensure gender equality, see women as people to be controlled with the threat and the use of violence. Women, as we struggle for equality are facing a backlash. How can we feel safe when the police themselves exhibit the violence that is endemic to patriarchy?

More than ever the police brutality of yesterday demonstrates that we have a long way to go; that women’s struggles for equality that have always linked to improving the lives of our families and communities, ensuring democratic processes of equality and participation of ALL in the political process are constantly blockaded by the state and its representatives. How can women seek assistance against the violence in their lives when those entrusted with their safekeeping are perpetrators of brutality and violence?

For more info e-mail: dolchew [at] hotmail [dot] com