Post by Nutcase on Jun 4, 2009 13:59:44 GMT -5
Ah yes, Lydia Sherman: some of you may remember her as the clothes horse who maligned women fleeing Hurricane Katrina for failing to dress with dignity. Her beliefs are sometimes infuriating, but mostly they’re just naive and more than a little bewildering.
She has a new post up on her blog today, called "Protecting Our Daughters." As one of the Ladies Against Feminism - and yes, their acronym really is LAF - Sherman believe daughters are in special danger of being assaulted if they wear “revealing clothes” such as pants, shorts, t-shirts, or bathing suits. And daughters at home – assumedly virginal girls and women still living with their parents – are the special objects of fundie fuss. Not only should they be covered by long, flowing robes, but they should also behave with a kind of studied shyness and reserve. Behold:
Indeed, worse than pneumonia blouses and flapper dresses combined – the so-called “car-wash,” which is really nothing more than a flesh fair from which modern slave traders choose the best stock for abduction. I shit you not:
Now, this does happen: people, women and kids especially, are kidnapped by criminal organizations that participate in the trafficking of human beings. This is a well-known danger in Eastern Europe, South and Central America, and I think even in Mexico. The more unstable a country, the more prevalent will be the slave trade – and also the abduction and training of child-soldiers.
But if Sherman is going to claim this occurs regularly on the “left-coast” (LOL!) of the United States, the least she could do is to cite a source, ‘cause that claim smells like a whole lotta bullshit to me.
How the fuck is that supposed to work? What special powers do parents have to give girls a level of protection that couldn't be achieved just as effectively by having those girls stick safely to a group of friends while on outings? (Jesus Christ: Surely Lydia realizes that most child sexual assaults are carried out by "friends of the family" - i.e., friends of the parents - and most child abductions are carried out by family, right? In fact, "About 30% of those who sexually abuse children are relatives of the child, such as fathers, uncles, or cousins." )
Truth is, fundie parents are far less concerned about their daughters’ physical safety than about their “moral purity.” Only daddy, who has a financial interest in selling his daughter as a virgin, will be capable of protecting his girl from the stain of contact with other people her own age.
Later in the article, Sherman confirms my suspicion:
Moving along…
…because in all those places, your precious daughter may be corrupted by feminism, or she may sleep with a guy to whom she’s not married, thus ensuring all her future offspring are tainted with alien albumen regardless if she’s eventually paired with an acceptable stud.
In other words, parents should emotionally cripple their own children and leave them with retarded social skills as well as an all-pervasive fear of everything. Hurray!
The only reason these people are worried about slave traders abducting and enslaving their daughters is because they believe that's a job for the husband alone. The slave traders aren't wrecking the life of a girl; they're defrauding her father of his right to sell her, himself.
Anyway, if Sherman and her ditto-heads were at all interested in character-building, they’d likewise be interested in character-testing. One can believe she has a good character, but still find herself unequal to the task of preserving her own standards in a tight situation. That’s supposed to happen: Kids are supposed to test their own characters, and fail. They’re supposed to break away from their parents in preparation for adulthood and families of their own. It is hoped, by this time, that they have learned from past failures and can maintain their own principles without the need for a moral guardian to watch them 24/7.
But clearly some of these fundie parents have an awful lot of time on their hands, being socially retarded themselves; and so they can use that time to hover over their children, stunting natural development and raising a crop of barely tolerable, self-righteous misfits – people who, despite having virtually no candid contact with society at large, still feel free to question secular law and challenge it in court.
Families provide an incomplete social life. It isn’t a matter of being better or worse; it’s simply not sufficient – like brushing without flossing.
Yeah – who cares what they want. They have no future, and nor should they pine for one. They make babies, then dry up at menopause and spend the rest of their now-useless lives writing articles about how ‘all them uppity bitches should get back in the kitchen.’
She has a new post up on her blog today, called "Protecting Our Daughters." As one of the Ladies Against Feminism - and yes, their acronym really is LAF - Sherman believe daughters are in special danger of being assaulted if they wear “revealing clothes” such as pants, shorts, t-shirts, or bathing suits. And daughters at home – assumedly virginal girls and women still living with their parents – are the special objects of fundie fuss. Not only should they be covered by long, flowing robes, but they should also behave with a kind of studied shyness and reserve. Behold:
This same shamefacedness goes beyond modest dress, into modest behavior. One of the most dangerous situations today for young girls is the supposedly innocent fund-raiser called the car-wash.
Indeed, worse than pneumonia blouses and flapper dresses combined – the so-called “car-wash,” which is really nothing more than a flesh fair from which modern slave traders choose the best stock for abduction. I shit you not:
Parents do not realize why their daughters, dressed in sun-bathing clothing, (short tops and short shorts) are facing traffic and holding up car-wash signs. These girls will attract attention by their immodesty. This is not a shamefaced act; this is a brazen act that will bring more danger to them than you can imagine. Just this month, on the left-coast of our nation, girls like that are being snatched, pulled into cars, and taken away to be sold in a large city for the purpose of slavery. You may have thought this could only happen in a less advanced nation, but it is happening in the west, as well.
Now, this does happen: people, women and kids especially, are kidnapped by criminal organizations that participate in the trafficking of human beings. This is a well-known danger in Eastern Europe, South and Central America, and I think even in Mexico. The more unstable a country, the more prevalent will be the slave trade – and also the abduction and training of child-soldiers.
But if Sherman is going to claim this occurs regularly on the “left-coast” (LOL!) of the United States, the least she could do is to cite a source, ‘cause that claim smells like a whole lotta bullshit to me.
We have to quit denying that our daughters are in danger when they are immodestly dressed, and when they are away from home. There is no guaranteed safe place in a public setting unless their parents are with them. There is certainly nothing risky about keeping our children around us. It is better to be safe, than to be sorry.
How the fuck is that supposed to work? What special powers do parents have to give girls a level of protection that couldn't be achieved just as effectively by having those girls stick safely to a group of friends while on outings? (Jesus Christ: Surely Lydia realizes that most child sexual assaults are carried out by "friends of the family" - i.e., friends of the parents - and most child abductions are carried out by family, right? In fact, "About 30% of those who sexually abuse children are relatives of the child, such as fathers, uncles, or cousins." )
Truth is, fundie parents are far less concerned about their daughters’ physical safety than about their “moral purity.” Only daddy, who has a financial interest in selling his daughter as a virgin, will be capable of protecting his girl from the stain of contact with other people her own age.
Later in the article, Sherman confirms my suspicion:
Daughters are not safe, even with a group of girls their own age, at a mall. In fact, that attracts more attention. Rarely does anyone "lose" their daughter when she is with the family or with her parents. The family was created to provide the protection that daughters need.Personally, I see danger even in allowing girls to spend the night at others girls homes, for slumber parties, when there is a low adult/young person ratio.
Moving along…
Cruises, colleges, apartments, dorms, and even the workplace, can be places where our precious daughters are in danger. No one wants to admit it, even after seeing the tragic results on the news. I do not even think that a school bus is safe for any child, but people will put their trust in other people to look after their children.
…because in all those places, your precious daughter may be corrupted by feminism, or she may sleep with a guy to whom she’s not married, thus ensuring all her future offspring are tainted with alien albumen regardless if she’s eventually paired with an acceptable stud.
If daughters cannot go anywhere by themselves safely, what can they do? The answer is not complicated. This provides a perfect opportunity for the mothers to take their rightful places in the daughters lives. They can take them out in the day time to various cultural activities that will also build their character. They can provide a social life within the home atmosphere.
In other words, parents should emotionally cripple their own children and leave them with retarded social skills as well as an all-pervasive fear of everything. Hurray!
The only reason these people are worried about slave traders abducting and enslaving their daughters is because they believe that's a job for the husband alone. The slave traders aren't wrecking the life of a girl; they're defrauding her father of his right to sell her, himself.
Anyway, if Sherman and her ditto-heads were at all interested in character-building, they’d likewise be interested in character-testing. One can believe she has a good character, but still find herself unequal to the task of preserving her own standards in a tight situation. That’s supposed to happen: Kids are supposed to test their own characters, and fail. They’re supposed to break away from their parents in preparation for adulthood and families of their own. It is hoped, by this time, that they have learned from past failures and can maintain their own principles without the need for a moral guardian to watch them 24/7.
But clearly some of these fundie parents have an awful lot of time on their hands, being socially retarded themselves; and so they can use that time to hover over their children, stunting natural development and raising a crop of barely tolerable, self-righteous misfits – people who, despite having virtually no candid contact with society at large, still feel free to question secular law and challenge it in court.
[Girls] also do not need to fear that they will not have a social life. Families provide a much better social life than friends do.
Families provide an incomplete social life. It isn’t a matter of being better or worse; it’s simply not sufficient – like brushing without flossing.
We need to take another look at the way we are doing things in this country and to care more about the safety of our daughters than about their social standing with others.
Yeah – who cares what they want. They have no future, and nor should they pine for one. They make babies, then dry up at menopause and spend the rest of their now-useless lives writing articles about how ‘all them uppity bitches should get back in the kitchen.’