Feel the Love

Confidential advice by phone or IM
  

#abuse

About defining abuse

realsocialskills:

Hi, I saw your post about abuse. How can you tell if your partner is abusing you? I’ve been told by a few of my friends that what my boyfriend is doing is “abuse”, but I don’t think it’s that severe. I don’t know how to feel about the situation.
realsocialskills said:
I don’t know your situation, so I can’t tell you much about your relationship. What I can say is that friends can often see things going wrong from outside a relationship that are really hard to see from inside it. Whether or not you agree that what is going on is abuse, I think it’s important to listen to your friends, take their perspective seriously, and consider carefully whether they have a point.
If your friends whose judgement you respect think that you’re being treated poorly, it’s important to make sure that you understand why:
  • Your friends might be wrong, but I think you should hear them out
  • Let them completely explain what they mean
  • In the course of that conversation, don’t argue or defend your boyfriend
  • Listen, and make sure you completely understand what they are saying
  • Take some time to process and consider whether they have a point
  • What do they think is abusive about your relationship?
  • Do you think the things they’re talking about are actually happening?
  • If so (whether or not you’re comfortable using the word abuse) do you agree that those things are hurting you?
  • If so, do you think there is a way to get your boyfriend to stop doing those things? Is this something you and he can work out?
  • If he doesn’t stop, are you willing to tolerate those things long term, or are they dealbreaking?
  • If you’re having mixed feelings about this, it’s probably a good idea to go back and talk to your friends some more about what they’re seeing and what you’re seeing

If you consider what your friends are seeing and whether you think you’re being hurt, you’ll get a better answer than you’ll get by considering in the abstract which things are bad enough to count as abuse.

How Republicans Fit The Classic Profile Of An Abuser »

Just the headers:

Like abusers, Republicans always make things someone else’s fault.
Like abusers, Republicans do not negotiate in good faith.
Like abusers, Republicans must win at all costs.
Like abusers, Republicans will invalidate you.
Like an abuser, Republicans don’t care who they hurt.

youneedacat:

soilrockslove:

realsocialskills:

altimetres:

realsocialskills:

fourloves:

realsocialskills:

When people say “I can’t” I’ll sometimes encourage them to say “I decided not to” or something instead. Nobody can predict the future, so maybe nobody can know for sure whether somebody would be able to do something if they tried some more times. However, a person has a right to decide to stop. They may judge that it’s so unlikely they would succeed that it’s not worth trying; and doing it may not be worth a tremendous amount to them. I also have a right to my opinion that maybe they can.
realsocialskills answered:
You have a right to your opinion, but you don’t have the right to have them respect your assessment of their abilities. You especially do not have the right to have them take your opinion into consideration when they’re deciding what they can and can’t do.
Inability to do things is real. And yes, I may sometimes be wrong about my inability to do things, but taking it seriously when I think I can’t do something matters. Even if I’m wrong.
There’s a difference between deciding I don’t want to do something, and deciding that I think I am incapable of something, or that doing the thing is unacceptably risky for me.
Even if other people think I’m wrong - I still have the right to assess what my limits are and act accordingly. And even though I will sometimes mistakenly think that I am unable to do something I am actually capable of, “I can’t” is still a vital part of my vocabulary.
There’s a difference between not wanting to do a thing, and reaching the conclusion that I’m probably not capable of doing the thing and that trying is hurting me.
I need to be able to acknowledge that I have limits in order to manage them correctly, and do what I can instead of pretending that enough willpower makes everything possible.
So does everyone else. In particular, people with disabilities who have been taught that we’re not allowed to take physical limitation seriously. But being disabled and physically limited isn’t a moral failing. It’s just a fact of life that sometimes needs to be accounted for.

fourloves said:

anon needs to go away

who else gets chills when special ed teachers say “the word ‘can’t’ is not allowed in my classroom”

realsocialskills said:

Yes, teaching kids with disabilities not to recognize their own limits is a *major* anti-skill, and it does serious damage to people with disabilities.

altimetres said:

This. This. THIS.

I cannot tell you how many times in my early education I was told I am not allowed to say “I can’t” by special education teachers. At such a young age, that is dangerous. You are telling someone that they are not able to say “I can’t” to a variety of situations which can lead to very bad endings, and it is never the students fault.

One thing I remember clearly is one of my physical education teachers doing this. I have had joint problems my whole life (at 14, my knee joints were filled with micro-fractures, and that was not enough to get me out of PE), and it was never respected. One particular day, the teacher was putting harnesses on us to climb this indoor rope net. I KNEW I would not be able to manage it, as it requires a lot of work from your lower body. More importantly, your fucking knees. 

I told my teacher “I can’t do this” and she gave me the same speech that anon gave. “You CAN do it, we can’t tell what’s going to happen. You’re not allowed to say you can’t.” And even when I fought it, even when I went to walk away, I was threatened with a failing grade for the day. And since all my special education (well, 97% of it told me I couldn’t say no), I ended up on this net.

And what happened?

I made it four feet up, my knee popped out of it’s socket, and I was taken down crying as it popped itself back in. As my joints did.

And my teacher said “See, you CAN. Even with pain you CAN, you just don’t want to.”

This landed me on crutches and in doctors offices for 2 weeks.

So yeah, I wish I would have had more teachers with the guts to tell me “You can say no and mean it”. 

Fuck ableist teachers, get a new job.

realsocialskills said:

Yes, this.

This is what it does to people when you tell them “You’re not allowed to say I can’t.”.

soilrockslove said:

All of this!

And besides all this, if someone says “I don’t want to” and you force them to do it anyway - that’s no good either. O_o  And most people who I know who have said “don’t say can’t” aren’t that good at respecting “won’t” either.

youneedacat said:

This attitude is extremely popular among nurses, LNAs, and physical therapists and my local hospital.  And I’ve seen it do serious damage, both to me and to roommates I’ve had.

There’s a particular, really seriously awful, trick I’ve seen them pull on people multiple times.  Including me once, at which point I refused to ever get in a position where they could do it to me again.  (Which involved at one point firing my physical therapist.)

So here’s an example:

I was in really, really bad pain.  Not the worst pain I’ve ever felt, but bad enough that I couldn’t make myself sit up.  And I’m good at making myself do damn near anything.  This turned out to be because my feeding tube hadn’t been inserted properly, but they treated me like I was just being a wuss and complaining too much.  Like my roommate at the time would get them rushing into the room and giving her five different kinds of pain meds for every twinge, while I was actually frequently delirious from pain and they only grudgingly gave me pain meds, and only one kind.  It was really frustrating.

But here’s what they pulled on me:

They wanted to get me to get up and transfer to a bedside commode to use the bathroom, rather than being rolled and using the bedpan.  I don’t know about you, but if I’d been able to get up and use the commode, I would have:  I hate bedpans.  But they seemed to think I was being lazy.  They said they had people with much worse surgery than me up and moving on the first day, and therefore that I was just being lazy.  Nobody thought to check and see why I was still having excruciating pain so long after the tube was placed, when it shouldn’t be doing that.  No, they just chose to doubt that the pain was really that serious.  The pain had to get to a nine on the pain scale, after I got home, before anyone even checked the position of the tube, only to find that a piece of it was lodged in a really horrible position.

So what they did:

They badgered me and cajoled me and forced me until I finally put forth a phenomenal amount of effort to get up.  This involved gradually rolling over and creeping along the bed, taking frequent breaks in which I was crying and screaming from pain.  (It takes a lot of pain for me to do that.)  It was painstaking and horrible.

Then, after getting some help and getting to the commode, they showered me with praise and told me “See, you can do it after all, you just have to try.”  They told me how great I was for trying.

It was horrible.

Doing that to someone is a violation.

And it wasn’t a one-off thing, I saw them do that to a roommate with myasthenia gravis who was terrified of falling, forcing her to walk across the room and then showering her with praise at the end.  She had some cognitive disabilities that made it hard for her to see that as manipulation, and they were able to talk her into endangering herself regularly.

If you’ve never been in that situation, maybe you don’t know what a huge violation it is.

But to push someone into doing something that is painful or dangerous to them, to badger and cajole and threaten and harass them until they do it, and then shower them with praise when they can do it after all… it gets into their heads.  It tells them that they’re wrong about their abilities, that some nondisabled person has to show them their real potential.  And it puts them in grave danger, a lot of the time, because it overrides their own ability to judge what is safe for them and what is not.  It’s awful and it should never be done.

After the incident above, I fired my physical therapist and refused to get out of bed until the pain went away some.  I was told that if I stayed in bed for even a week I’d get deconditioned and horrible things would happen.  I told them I’d single-handedly brought myself back from months worth of deconditioning and that a week wouldn’t kill me.  But I had to fight them every step of the way.  It was worth it, though, because pushing through pain that bad is never a good thing.

mslorelei:

TW for anti-trans violence, assault, attempted rape, torture.
happy-for-hell:

cancerfreak69:

So, last night, I was getting ready to go out with my boyfriend to a dance at my school (which was cancelled due to lack of ticket sales) and, I had a nice black vest and a nice white shirt, and my uncle had just came home the other day from the mine (my uncle is homophobic and he has abused me many times throughout my child hood) and when I had came out of my room to show my memere how nice I looked, my uncle was in the room that i thought my grandma/memere would be in (she was downstairs doing laundry), and he asked me why I wasnt wearing a dress. my memere and dad both know that I am transgendered and they respect that, however, my uncle does not, and he did not know. so I decided to sit down and tell him the truth. he listened carefully and quietlly through all of it, but at the end of my explanation he had said, “I didn’t raise you to be fucked up.” I agreed, I am a huge mess, I have been for years, but my sexuality and gender identity is not a fuck up, so I argued with him. he got to a point where, after so many months of piece, he slapped me. and threw me to the ground and kicked me in the stomach, of course I had puked, and it hurt, a lot. he grabbed me by the shirt and asked me, “are you a girl”, I said no, my sex is female, but my gender is male..and he dragged me to his room. he once had a big dog, and he made that dog wear an eletrical dog collar, and weve always kept it in his room, because we dont need it (my uncle killed the dog), he threw me onto the bed and said,” ill ask you one more time, are you a girl” I said no. held grabbed my wrist, and held onto it tightly, I have a bruise from how tight he was grabbing it, and he pulled out the dog collar, threw me back onto the bed, sat on me, and put the collar on me… then he began yelling, are you a girl, you are a girl, are you a girl, you are a girl, and my response of course was no, no, no, I am male, I am male. whenever I said that, he would shock me, and it was /hell/. I was screaming, which only caused the shocks to get worse and worse, and then he said, “do you want to find out how faggots have sex!?” of course I already know this, but still I said no no no no stop stop stop. my memere had finally heard me and came rushing to the bedroom, and tried to make my uncle stop, but he pushed her down, and thanked god she was okay.. since shes very fragile and all. she then ran back to the stairs to call up my dad, and oh boy did he run. he ran up stairs and shoved my uncle away from me and started fighting with him, yelling, punching, kicking, and such so on. my memere got the collar off of me and brought me into her room, and after my dad and uncle were done fighting, my uncle had grabbed the things he needed and left, shouting a few insults at us. we called the police today, but they cant find him. we dont have money for a lawyer,  all we have is a counsellor, im not going to ask for money, all I ask for is support. I dont know what this will do, but please spread this around,  this has affected me and family members greatly. I was taken to a hospital today to check if there was any damage on my insides that we dont know of and thankfully there was no damage, just scarring, emotionally and physically. i had a horrifying nightmare relating to this as well. If you have abused somebody, raped somebody, insulted somebody, in any way possible, I hope this can somehow change your way of heart, and realize how much this can horrify a person, and ruin their lives. it made my life 97x worse than it already is.

If you don’t reblog this that’s okay, but I hate you and you are wrong

mslorelei:

TW for anti-trans violence, assault, attempted rape, torture.

happy-for-hell:

cancerfreak69:

So, last night, I was getting ready to go out with my boyfriend to a dance at my school (which was cancelled due to lack of ticket sales) and, I had a nice black vest and a nice white shirt, and my uncle had just came home the other day from the mine (my uncle is homophobic and he has abused me many times throughout my child hood) and when I had came out of my room to show my memere how nice I looked, my uncle was in the room that i thought my grandma/memere would be in (she was downstairs doing laundry), and he asked me why I wasnt wearing a dress.
my memere and dad both know that I am transgendered and they respect that, however, my uncle does not, and he did not know.
so I decided to sit down and tell him the truth.
he listened carefully and quietlly through all of it, but at the end of my explanation he had said, “I didn’t raise you to be fucked up.”
I agreed, I am a huge mess, I have been for years, but my sexuality and gender identity is not a fuck up, so I argued with him.
he got to a point where, after so many months of piece, he slapped me.
and threw me to the ground and kicked me in the stomach, of course I had puked, and it hurt, a lot.
he grabbed me by the shirt and asked me, “are you a girl”, I said no, my sex is female, but my gender is male..and he dragged me to his room.
he once had a big dog, and he made that dog wear an eletrical dog collar, and weve always kept it in his room, because we dont need it (my uncle killed the dog), he threw me onto the bed and said,” ill ask you one more time, are you a girl” I said no.
held grabbed my wrist, and held onto it tightly, I have a bruise from how tight he was grabbing it, and he pulled out the dog collar, threw me back onto the bed, sat on me, and put the collar on me… then he began yelling, are you a girl, you are a girl, are you a girl, you are a girl, and my response of course was no, no, no, I am male, I am male.
whenever I said that, he would shock me, and it was /hell/.
I was screaming, which only caused the shocks to get worse and worse, and then he said, “do you want to find out how faggots have sex!?” of course I already know this, but still I said no no no no stop stop stop.
my memere had finally heard me and came rushing to the bedroom, and tried to make my uncle stop, but he pushed her down, and thanked god she was okay.. since shes very fragile and all.
she then ran back to the stairs to call up my dad, and oh boy did he run.
he ran up stairs and shoved my uncle away from me and started fighting with him, yelling, punching, kicking, and such so on.
my memere got the collar off of me and brought me into her room, and after my dad and uncle were done fighting, my uncle had grabbed the things he needed and left, shouting a few insults at us.
we called the police today, but they cant find him.
we dont have money for a lawyer,  all we have is a counsellor, im not going to ask for money, all I ask for is support.
I dont know what this will do, but please spread this around,  this has affected me and family members greatly. I was taken to a hospital today to check if there was any damage on my insides that we dont know of and thankfully there was no damage, just scarring, emotionally and physically. i had a horrifying nightmare relating to this as well.
If you have abused somebody, raped somebody, insulted somebody, in any way possible, I hope this can somehow change your way of heart, and realize how much this can horrify a person, and ruin their lives. it made my life 97x worse than it already is.

If you don’t reblog this that’s okay, but I hate you and you are wrong

As Abi points out upthread, women are just as capable of being socially clueless as men.

However, feminine expression of social cluelessness is often different to masculine expression of same. Women are, in Western culture, still socialised to consider the needs and comfort of the other party or parties in a conversation or social setting over their own needs or comfort. A socially clueless woman is more likely to express her social cluelessness through not knowing how to gracefully escape from a conversation with a bore. A socially clueless woman is more likely to express her social cluelessness through not knowing how to state boundaries firmly (instead of saying “don’t touch me” to someone who lays hands on her, she’s more likely to just smile nervously and try to back away). A socially clueless woman is more likely to express her social cluelessness through not being able to stand up to bullying from someone who is of a higher social rank or knowledge.

A socially clueless woman, when confronted by the type of creep who likes to pretend to be socially clueless (when in actual fact they’re more of a social rules lawyer) is more likely to wind up being harassed, being bullied, being abused, or being raped, and not reporting it because she feels it’s her fault for not knowing what to do in order to deal with the situation gracefully.

John has supplied above some very helpful tips for persons who want to avoid being regarded as “creepers” in social situations. If we reverse them, they’re very helpful for socially clueless women (such as myself) because they help us to have a sense of what our expectations of other people should be.

So here’s a version of the above from the other end – what socially clueless women (and men) should be able to expect from correctly socialised persons in mixed company, and in public.

“sometimes people need to play out their horror stories before they can move on”

b8-ncstr8

This is one of the most important things I’ve ever read on tumblr.  Thank you.

(via ocassis)

CONTENT WARNING: PTSD, trauma

okay so i told ocassis i’d say more on this cuz there’s a lot behind that quote i guess that remains unsaid so far.

but there are a couple things i wanna talk about. first is trauma. there’s a theory in somatics that explains trauma as a particular somatic experience: at its basics, it discusses what was coined at one time the arousal cycle though may have a new name at this point. the theory goes that when an animal sense a threatening stimuli in the environment, they go into an aroused state. this includes hyperawareness of surrounding, hypervigilance to all stimuli, energy building within the body, and subsequent emotional reactions. when the threat is determined to be false, the energy is released and the sensory awareness returns to homeostasis. 

at this point, this animal may twitch or shake or shiver a little, which is the release of that energy.

but if the threat is confirmed, the energy that was built up in the body is expelled in a different method: fight or flight. at this point, the animal through gauging the surroundings or through trained instinct will choose one of these paths. through doing this, that energy releases and when safe, the somatic state returns to homeostasis.

this is the arousal cycle. sense danger, tension builds, stimuli source is confirmed, energy is released, and body returns to normal.

there is, however, a third response: freeze. in this case, the danger is real and the animal, for whatever reason, is not able to fight or flee. when this happens, there is a freeze mechanism that occurs. this looks like dissociation between sensation and awareness, numbness to emotion, unawareness of environment, etc. its essentially what it sounds like: everything just stops. this stage helps in that it can allow for a longer survival. if the animal is caught, they may not feel pain or fear and will without struggle be taken - but if the one attacking them turns away for a moment, there is a possibility of snapping out of these freeze stage and escaping.

outside of modern or domestic life or whatever, when an animal enters freeze state, they will either a) find an opportunity to break away and survive or b) die.

with humans, and other domestic animals or animals in captivity, there is a possibility of remaining in that state post-danger without an opportunity to release the energy that was built up in the body. this is when traumatization occurs.

ptsd in this framework is a condition of fluctuating between these two states: hyperawareness, hypervigilance, on-guard and ready, and dissociated, unaware, numb. ptsd is the symptoms of being caught in the freeze vortex without resolution in the arousal cycle.

long-term traumatization is like taking this cycle and enduring it for years. when someone is in an abusive household long term, its a constant process of being retraumatized over and over without relief. that just builds and builds over time.

so how that relates to this is… there’s a theory that one of the ways we subconsciously attempt to break out of that cycle is place ourselves into situations similar to what we’ve been through before. it can be an intense drive to retraumatize without knowing that what we’re doing, is attempting to finish what was started. if you can push yourself into danger, you might be able to make a different choice and release all the energy trapped in your body through action.

in practice, this rarely works. a lot of somatic therapists do guided visualizations and roleplaying and body awareness to help people act out traumatic situations to reverse the outcome and release that energy as a way to release PTSD.

_________________________

CONTENT WARNING: physical/sexual abuse after effects, PLEASE READ WITH CAUTION. this is really heavy shit for survivors of child abuse and physical/sexual abuse.

the second thing i want to talk about is the psychological affects of severe abuse: trauma bonding. trauma bonding is a condition that comes out of long-term abuse. its what people call “stockholm syndrome,” but more general and less severe. or rather it has a spectrum of intensity. 

trauma bonding is the process that happens through living with an abuser. once a power dynamic is in place, or a victim is trapped emotionally or otherwise, victims, in order to survive, will often bond with their abuser and begin to emotionally and physically crave the abuse. its not because they want it of course, but because the abuse is often so strongly tied with approval, love, affection, and other things that in order to have those, they must endure the abuse. so it becomes somatically and psychologically linked.

one key feature to it is intensity. over time, the intensity of living through physical and sexual abuse in terms of physiological sensation becomes a part of the craving. when one have no choice on whether to experience violence in any capacity, and is constantly exposed to it, some people begin to form a desire around it in order to survive it.

so it forms into a positive way of relating to abusive dynamics. if you can find pleasure in it, you can survive. if you can engage with it, you can be worthy, loved, cherished - as an object, yes, but nonetheless.

but it becomes a powerful emotional and physical connection. its one of the other reasons survivors may find themselves in a lot of repeat abusive situations or returning to abusers. because this particular bonding becomes so powerful that people begin to see their worth as only relying on how well they take care of the other, or being an object of sexual desire, etc. etc. it becomes a subconscious pull, and is also deeply related to the above theory on ptsd. the physiological need really can feel like an addiction to a lot of people, a pull towards being hurt, abused, destroyed.

again, i emphasize that this does not mean it is actually what someone wants. it is just an after effect of severe abuse. a survivor’s body was trained to desire these things, and it is just a reaction to wanting to be loved, to be worth something, to feel. it’s just that the only way to feel these things was in such an intense state, a state of constant traumatization, that the body begins to crave intensity and retraumatization because they have become so powerfully connected with self-worth, etc.

an example might be: a survivor who feels like they are only worth anything to someone if they are the passive object during sex unto which their partner can do whatever. if they have a good relationship, they may not immediately connect with it because they aren’t accustomed to relationships where their needs and wants are also valued. they are expecting to be objectified to express love and to have love expressed to them. they may find it extremely hard to relate to good relationships. it may make more sense to be in abusive relationships because it feels normal, it feels like what is supposed to happen to them.

the ways that people often combat this is by unlearning the psychological trappings of worthiness or lovability, relearning trust in a loving way with themselves and others, and discovering self-confidence, self-power, and self-love. this often happens all together, and never has to be a perfect, completed process to stop the trauma bonding cycle. 

(via b8-ncstr8)

Oh my god thank you.

(via mamabirdmargaritas)

sagansense:

6 Sneaky Ways the Christian Right Foists Its Biblical Agenda on America
Occasionally, the Religious Right has to come up with secular justifications for its agenda.
Bill O’Reilly recently got into a little hot water with the religious right. The abrasive talk show host dared to suggest on his show, “The O’Reilly Factor,” that the anti-gay movement would be better off using secular arguments against same-sex marriage than resorting endlessly to biblical ones. “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” O’Reilly argued, adding, “And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”
The outcry was swift, and in true Christian right fashion, thoroughly disingenuous, with everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Laura Ingraham trying to cast O’Reilly’s statements as some kind of attack on people’s religious beliefs. Not that they didn’t have cause for hurt feelings. After all, the religious right has already tried the strategy O’Reilly suggested. The lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court didn’t reference God or the Bible, but instead came up with a bunch of unconvincing but definitely secular claims. The real reason to be mad at O’Reilly is that he’s condescending, telling the religious right something it already knows, that in order to push its religious views on the public, it needs to dress them up in secular packaging.
Since the beginning, the Christian right has been aware that the First Amendment makes it impossible for them to use “God said so” to justify legislation. They’ve spent decades grafting secular reasons onto what are fundamentally attempts to foist their views on the rest of the country, often going out of their way to conceal the religious origins of their policy ideas. In response, I created this list of what the religious right wants; what nonsense secular reason they give for wanting it; and the actual, true reason, usually down to chapter and verse.
1) What they want: A rollback on environmental protections. This is but one of many ways the religious right has merged its interests with that of corporate America.
The secular reasons they give: Many on the Christian right scoff at the science of global warming. Sadly, Americans in general are resistant to the science of global warming, but white evangelical Christians are even worse than the general public. Pew Forum found in 2009 that 47% of Americans accept the science of climate change, but only 34% of white evangelicals. The objections the religious right offers are fed to them by oil industry lobbyists, such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council calling global warming theory “speculative.”
The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: They justify this to themselves religiously coming and going. The fundamentalist Cornwall Alliance claims that belief in climate change is anti-Christian, because it “rests on and promotes a view of human beings as threats to Earth’s flourishing rather than the bearers of God’s image” and implies that God’s creation is “the fragile product of chance, not the robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting product of God’s wise design and powerful sustaining.” On the other side of it, as Ben Jervey of GOOD argued, 41% of Americans believe Jesus Christ will usher in Armageddon before 2050. If you believe the world is about to end, it seems pointless to make huge sacrifices to preserve its health into the future.
2) What they want: For the government to take money from the public school system and give it to private schools in the form of vouchers. They’ve had remarkable success at this by hijacking the larger, secular debate over education.
The secular reasons they give: The claim is that “school choice” creates competition among schools that improves educational outcomes. Public school charter systems are seen as an inadequate alternative, because they are supposedly not flexible enough.
The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: They want the government to pay for the religious indoctrination of children. Even though the vouchers can, in theory, be spent on private secular schools, the way the program works in places like Louisiana makes it clear that this is about government-sponsored religious education.
3) What they want: No Equal Rights Amendment. While this battle to prevent the Constitution from being amended to give women equal rights, which the right won, was mostly fought in the late ’70s and early ’80s, Christian right-controlled legislatures occasionally take time to vote against it today.
The secular reasons they gave: In many ways, Phyllis Schlafly used the battle against the ERA to invent the modern conservative strategy of making bad faith secular arguments to advance a religious agenda. As Rachel Maddow recounts, Schlafly and her comrades claimed the ERA would mandate unisex bathrooms, make it illegal for women to be housewives, and destroy families.
The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: The Bible is pretty clear that women are not equal to men, calling them “the weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7) who must live “in silence” to “not usurp authority over man” (1 Timothy 2:12), because women are to basically worship their husbands, “and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16).
4) What they want: A ban on gay marriage. Often cast as “protecting” traditional marriage.
The secular reasons they give: The argument presented in favor of Prop 8 before the Supreme Court is that marriage was established to make sure children are raised by the parents who created them through sexual intercourse, and that expanding it to include gay couples (it’s already expanded to include stepfamilies and infertile couples) would redefine it in a way that would cause vague damage the anti-gay lawyer refused to describe.
The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: The Old Testament harshly condemns homosexuality, saying, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:13). Christian fundamentalists have downgraded this simply to mean that their government shouldn’t endorse marriages that go against right-wing religious teachings.
5) What they want: To end the teaching of evolution in schools. This battle has been going on since at least the 1920s, and every time it comes around, the religious right gets a little better at hiding its religious motivations behind secularist claims.
The secular reasons they give: The current strategy is to claim that evolutionary theory is scientifically controversial, and therefore schools should “teach the controversy.” Clearly, they hope to give students reason to doubt the theory of evolution. In reality, there is no controversy. As the National Center for Science Education has stated, “There is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution.”
The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: For Biblical literalists, evolution is an uncomfortable topic because the Bible says God created the world in the space of six days. While evolution correctly holds that human beings are primates who evolved from a common ancestor, the Bible teaches that God made them out of “the dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7). Why that is supposed to be less demeaning is hard to say.
6) What they want: To restrict access to abortion and contraception. Everyone knows the religious right has it out for abortion rights, but recently attacks on contraception access have also been increasing.
The secular reasons they give: Abortion is “baby-killing,” it’s unsafe for women, and it causes breast cancer and suicide. Emergency contraception is really “abortion” and birth control pills are unsafe. Telling kids just to abstain from sex is the only public health strategy we need. Condoms don’t work to prevent HIV. 
All of these claims are lies, as is the secular pose that anti-choice activists take when promoting these lies.
The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: Right from the beginning, the Bible is big on the idea that a woman’s role is to be frequently pregnant, whether she likes it or not. “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16). He commands it again to Noah: “And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein” (Genesis 9:7).
So, in a very real sense, even when Bill O’Reilly is right, he’s wrong. He’s not wrong to say that social conservatives would do well to come up with secular arguments for their positions, instead of tell a country with strict protections for religious freedom to obey their interpretation of the Bible. He’s just wrong to think they don’t already know that. After all, they wrote the instruction manual.


I was one of those fundamentalists raised to believe Jesus Christ would be ending the world in my lifetime and thus worrying about the future was pointless. I now consider this sort of indoctrination to be child abuse.

sagansense:

6 Sneaky Ways the Christian Right Foists Its Biblical Agenda on America

Occasionally, the Religious Right has to come up with secular justifications for its agenda.

Bill O’Reilly recently got into a little hot water with the religious right. The abrasive talk show host dared to suggest on his show, “The O’Reilly Factor,” that the anti-gay movement would be better off using secular arguments against same-sex marriage than resorting endlessly to biblical ones. “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” O’Reilly argued, adding, “And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”

The outcry was swift, and in true Christian right fashion, thoroughly disingenuous, with everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Laura Ingraham trying to cast O’Reilly’s statements as some kind of attack on people’s religious beliefs. Not that they didn’t have cause for hurt feelings. After all, the religious right has already tried the strategy O’Reilly suggested. The lawyer arguing against same-sex marriage in the Supreme Court didn’t reference God or the Bible, but instead came up with a bunch of unconvincing but definitely secular claims. The real reason to be mad at O’Reilly is that he’s condescending, telling the religious right something it already knows, that in order to push its religious views on the public, it needs to dress them up in secular packaging.

Since the beginning, the Christian right has been aware that the First Amendment makes it impossible for them to use “God said so” to justify legislation. They’ve spent decades grafting secular reasons onto what are fundamentally attempts to foist their views on the rest of the country, often going out of their way to conceal the religious origins of their policy ideas. In response, I created this list of what the religious right wants; what nonsense secular reason they give for wanting it; and the actual, true reason, usually down to chapter and verse.

1) What they want: A rollback on environmental protections. This is but one of many ways the religious right has merged its interests with that of corporate America.

The secular reasons they give: Many on the Christian right scoff at the science of global warming. Sadly, Americans in general are resistant to the science of global warming, but white evangelical Christians are even worse than the general public. Pew Forum found in 2009 that 47% of Americans accept the science of climate change, but only 34% of white evangelicals. The objections the religious right offers are fed to them by oil industry lobbyists, such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council calling global warming theory “speculative.”

The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: They justify this to themselves religiously coming and going. The fundamentalist Cornwall Alliance claims that belief in climate change is anti-Christian, because it “rests on and promotes a view of human beings as threats to Earth’s flourishing rather than the bearers of God’s image” and implies that God’s creation is “the fragile product of chance, not the robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting product of God’s wise design and powerful sustaining.” On the other side of it, as Ben Jervey of GOOD argued41% of Americans believe Jesus Christ will usher in Armageddon before 2050. If you believe the world is about to end, it seems pointless to make huge sacrifices to preserve its health into the future.

2) What they want: For the government to take money from the public school system and give it to private schools in the form of vouchers. They’ve had remarkable success at this by hijacking the larger, secular debate over education.

The secular reasons they give: The claim is that “school choice” creates competition among schools that improves educational outcomes. Public school charter systems are seen as an inadequate alternative, because they are supposedly not flexible enough.

The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: They want the government to pay for the religious indoctrination of children. Even though the vouchers can, in theory, be spent on private secular schools, the way the program works in places like Louisiana makes it clear that this is about government-sponsored religious education.

3) What they want: No Equal Rights Amendment. While this battle to prevent the Constitution from being amended to give women equal rights, which the right won, was mostly fought in the late ’70s and early ’80s, Christian right-controlled legislatures occasionally take time to vote against it today.

The secular reasons they gave: In many ways, Phyllis Schlafly used the battle against the ERA to invent the modern conservative strategy of making bad faith secular arguments to advance a religious agenda. As Rachel Maddow recounts, Schlafly and her comrades claimed the ERA would mandate unisex bathrooms, make it illegal for women to be housewives, and destroy families.

The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: The Bible is pretty clear that women are not equal to men, calling them “the weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7) who must live “in silence” to “not usurp authority over man” (1 Timothy 2:12), because women are to basically worship their husbands, “and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16).

4) What they want: A ban on gay marriage. Often cast as “protecting” traditional marriage.

The secular reasons they give: The argument presented in favor of Prop 8 before the Supreme Court is that marriage was established to make sure children are raised by the parents who created them through sexual intercourse, and that expanding it to include gay couples (it’s already expanded to include stepfamilies and infertile couples) would redefine it in a way that would cause vague damage the anti-gay lawyer refused to describe.

The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: The Old Testament harshly condemns homosexuality, saying, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death” (Leviticus 20:13). Christian fundamentalists have downgraded this simply to mean that their government shouldn’t endorse marriages that go against right-wing religious teachings.

5) What they want: To end the teaching of evolution in schools. This battle has been going on since at least the 1920s, and every time it comes around, the religious right gets a little better at hiding its religious motivations behind secularist claims.

The secular reasons they give: The current strategy is to claim that evolutionary theory is scientifically controversial, and therefore schools should “teach the controversy.” Clearly, they hope to give students reason to doubt the theory of evolution. In reality, there is no controversy. As the National Center for Science Education has stated, “There is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution.”

The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: For Biblical literalists, evolution is an uncomfortable topic because the Bible says God created the world in the space of six days. While evolution correctly holds that human beings are primates who evolved from a common ancestor, the Bible teaches that God made them out of “the dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7). Why that is supposed to be less demeaning is hard to say.

6) What they want: To restrict access to abortion and contraception. Everyone knows the religious right has it out for abortion rights, but recently attacks on contraception access have also been increasing.

The secular reasons they give: Abortion is “baby-killing,” it’s unsafe for women, and it causes breast cancer and suicide. Emergency contraception is really “abortion” and birth control pills are unsafe. Telling kids just to abstain from sex is the only public health strategy we need. Condoms don’t work to prevent HIV

All of these claims are lies, as is the secular pose that anti-choice activists take when promoting these lies.

The unconstitutional, actual religious reasons: Right from the beginning, the Bible is big on the idea that a woman’s role is to be frequently pregnant, whether she likes it or not. “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16). He commands it again to Noah: “And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein” (Genesis 9:7).

So, in a very real sense, even when Bill O’Reilly is right, he’s wrong. He’s not wrong to say that social conservatives would do well to come up with secular arguments for their positions, instead of tell a country with strict protections for religious freedom to obey their interpretation of the Bible. He’s just wrong to think they don’t already know that. After all, they wrote the instruction manual.

image

I was one of those fundamentalists raised to believe Jesus Christ would be ending the world in my lifetime and thus worrying about the future was pointless. I now consider this sort of indoctrination to be child abuse.

female-only:

gynocraticgrrl:

66 percent of women killed in Finland murdered by their partners

kaskuin:

[Trigger warning: domestic violence, abuse apologism, victim blaming]

National Research Institute of Legal Policy homicide reports between years 2003 and 2011 reveal that, in Finland, 66 percent of female victims were killed by a partner or a former partner.

Only 6 percent of male victims were killed by their partner.

The comments on the article are horrifying.

Timppa100: “I see, the female chief editor of Hesari [Helsingin Sanomat] has started a war against men. What should I say to this, reproduce with each other, women, or?”

Bror-Erik: “The cause of this phenomenon is the sick selection criterion women use when choosing their partner. Murderers, aggressive bullies, and otherwise violent men attract women, and this is the outcome.

Women can only blame themselves for the phenomenon, nobody is forcing them to choose violent criminals as partners. “I don’t want to be with him, he’s an unmanly sissy,” say too many young women today without thinking of their best.”



Nettomaksaja Stadista: “And they want to forget that most of the child victims of homicide are killed by their own mothers…”

Blehg: “Everything is relative. American Will H. Courtenay…”
Nettomaksaja Stadista: “It was in the newspaper recently that all of the 55 people who died in work related accidents in Finland last year were men.”

Triplet: “What happened here was: the dog who was hit cried out.” (An idiom meaning that the guilty ones will always make their voices heard first.)
jappe_: “So killers of women are usually their boyfriend or partner/husband. Homosexuals are seen as sweethearts, but on the other hand, I’ve never heard a woman speak well of an unexperienced boy. Apparently a feminist thinks that it’s an original sin to be born a man  and belong to the majority. Apparently feminism should be categorized as a religion because I can’t tell a sensible reason to hate Finnish men.” (Feminism was never even mentioned in the article.)



iso riisi: “What’s the situation with women killing their offspring?”



Hi-lQ_m4n: “Usually a man doesn’t kill his own woman. At least not here. Besides, violence is more common in lesbian relationships, so the partner could be a woman, too.”

pervocracy:

I used to think people called me irresponsible, dirty, immoral, or speculated about me having diseases because I wrote about having multiple partners.

Then I changed my name from Holly to Cliff.

I used to think people called me fat because I’m overweight.

Then I changed my name from Holly to Cliff.

I used to think people talked about whether they’d have sex with me (and somehow managed to make “yes” and “no” equally disdainful) because I wrote about sex.

Then I changed my name from Holly to Cliff.

I used to think a certain level of trolling and insulting was just the base state of the Internet, just something you had to thicken your skin to because Internet’s gonna Internet.

Then I changed my name from Holly to Cliff.

My initial conclusion is, of course, “damn, everyone should change their name to Cliff,” but as that seems to not be right for everyone, let’s try:

"Damn, never think that abuse is inevitable or something you deserve"

and

"Damn, never think your judgement of a person is unaffected by your knowledge about their identity."

and

"Damn, you can live in the same spaces with people for a while and still have no idea what a different view of the world and of human interaction they’re getting."

“ABUSIVE MEN COME in every personality type, arise from good childhoods and bad ones, are macho men or gentle, “liberated” men. No psychological test can distinguish an abusive man from a respectful one. Abusiveness is not a product of a man’s emotional injuries or of deficits in his skills. In reality, abuse springs from a man’s early cultural training, his key male role models, and his peer influences. In other words, abuse is a problem of values, not of psychology.”

Why Does He Do That byLundy Bancroft (via friendlyangryfeminist)

“The participants’ experiences with medical attempts to “normalize” their bodies were amazingly consistent, despite the widespread variation of intersex diagnoses among those I interviewed. For example, intersexuals who underwent medical sex assignment in childhood experienced consistently negative and confusing messages about their bodies and their identities. In sum, the participants reported that they received the following three messages about themselves through medical sex assignment: (1) that they were objects of medical interest and treatment, (2) that they were not to know what was wrong with them or why they were receiving medical treatment, and (3) that such procedures were in their best interest and should remain uncontested and undisclosed. This model led the participants to lack information about their own bodies; open and honest communication within their familial, clinical, and friendship networks; and association with a potential peer group of intersexuals with whom to relate.”

Intersex Narratives - Gender, Medicine and Identity (Sharon E. Preves, Ph.D)

It also sounds like one hell of a recipe for learned helplessness, which can cripple one’s ability to function as an adult.