Imagine what would happen if the roles were reversed...

Imagine with me if the NY Times had published a story with the following headline:
"Men are both necessary and sufficient for (something really important, you fill in the blank); women are neither."

Now suppose that the article that followed that line went on to discuss how important men are and how completely unimportant women are.  Imagine the most misogynistic language you dare to muster in your head.  Imagine if the NY Times basically said that technology has made women obsolete, and that we don't really need them anymore.

Imagine the public outcry that would ensue.  The scenario described above would generate billions of angry tweets & blog posts, letters from hundreds of elected officials and other societal leaders, news media outlets would cover the story with clear disdain.  There would be counter articles denouncing the author, the publisher, and who knows who else associated with it.  Others would put forth great words on the wonderful things about women.  Others would talk about the negative effects that an article like this has on the psyche of young women.  Discussions of lawsuits & boycotts would be heard.  Someone at the NY Times would get fired.  And all of this would be entirely appropriate; I myself would join the outraged chorus of voices denouncing such an article and demanding a retraction.

But what happens if the NY Times publishes a piece with the tagline "Women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction; men are neither", followed up by an article that states that men are good for entertainment, but that's about it.  We're really not worth much.  We're not needed.  Life would go on just fine without us.

What would happen in such a scenario?  Probably not much.  Watch & see if this article makes any waves, and if it doesn't, think deeply about the message that this sends to young men in our society who are trying to find their way in life, figure out what they're good at, some contribution they might make, some importance they serve.

Reasonable Gun Laws

After the horrible tragedy in Aurora, CO this past week, the intertubes are astir with opinions about gun laws.  Here are two links I read today that I think are really reasonable and well thought out.

The first is from the NY Times op-ed, a column on the long, difficult road that those who push for stronger gun control laws face.

The second is from the actor Jason Alexander, best known for his role as George Costanza on Seinfeld.  His piece is so balanced, well-thought out, and reasonable that I was honestly surprised that it came from an actor.

I don't agree with every point these two have made, but I can't say it any better than they have.  We have completely unreasonable gun laws in this country.  We need to find some middle ground that respects constitutional rights and yet makes it considerably more difficult for kooks to obtain military weapons and mass kill innocent people at a movie theater.

book review link

Nothing really to add here, just want to point my reader(s?) to this book review "When sex Goes 'Grey'" in Relevant.  Her points about abuse toward women should have everyone concerned about this.

THIS GUY.

Incredible, inspiring guy.

Reblog: "Name-calling is rhetorical pornography" from CNN Belief blog

Today at the CNN Belief blog, three evangelical Christian leaders have written up a fantastic post on name-calling.  They begin with the old statement we've all probably heard as children "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me", and reject that completely.  Words matter.  Names do hurt.  They then go on to state very clearly that the name-calling that seems so prevalent in our popular culture these days is  inconsistent with the Christian message.  I like that at the end, they make the connection that not only must we find "nicer words", but we must find "a transformed perspective", which is based on "the innate humanity and dignity owed every individual".  It is not just words that must be kind, but attitude, our internal orientation toward others that we disagree with or don't like, that has to be fixed.