Comments on: Patriarchy Suffers Setback, Conservatives Shit Their Pants

By: Interesting posts, weekend of 8/15/10 « Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:06:09 +0000

[...] heterosexism by talking about what traditional marriage really means and how and why it’s supposedly good for women: Marriage is a necessary defense of a woman’s sexuality and her human liberty from determined [...]

By: Awkward Avenger

Awkward Avenger — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:40:50 +0000

That anyone could seriously state that marriage laws historically have protected women is just laughable. I guess it makes sense if he means they “protected” women from the tragedy of being considered human beings.

@Kate: I am so with you. Anytime someone starts blathering about protecting “traditional marriage”, or better yet, “biblical marriage”, I get a very confused look on my face and ask, “Oh, like incest and polygamy?”

By: Endora

Endora — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 05:06:28 +0000

@Tall-in-heels: Your trademark made me laugh out loud.

@PhDork: The idea of the GWB institute and the hypocrisy it entails just makes me want to cry.

By: Kate

Kate — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:30:44 +0000

I would like to see a historical defense of the tradition of marriage as he defines it. I think that would be pretty interesting, since ‘traditional’ marriage certianly didn’t look anything like what most people seem to mean. I don’t think one generation counts as a tradition, do you?

By: Tall-in-Heels

Tall-in-Heels — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:26:13 +0000

I guess I shouldn’t wander out of my house alone since I do not wear a Magic Rapist Repellent Wedding Ring™

What a fucking farce.

By: charlemagneinsweats

charlemagneinsweats — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:18:04 +0000

I wish those opposed to gay marriage would just drop the pretext and state their true reasons for opposition to gay marriage-which is almost always “the Bible says so” or “I hate gay people.” Instead, they cloak their bigotry in such soft terms that it sometimes hides their true beliefs.

By: ausgezeichnet

ausgezeichnet — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:23:47 +0000

SarahMC, thanks for taking one for the team and getting through that pile of dog vomit. I shudder to think that he proofread this and thought, “Yep, that will hold up,” and then an editor gave it the green light. Bad form.

It is preposterous to assert that the sudden presence of a ring on my finger and a legal construct sanctioning it will protect me from the rapists. There won’t suddenly be a shield around me next summer after my wedding. Indeed, I have been known to leave the house unaccompanied by the watchful eye of Mr. ausgezeichnet, and I have come back unscathed every time. Really, if you follow Schulman’s chain of logic, he is advocating that women not walk around without their husbands in tow, just to be safe. What a wonderful idea. I bet that would work out just swimmingly for everyone. Someone should try that sometime.

Also, SarahMC wisely wrote, “I suppose these folks fear that, if given the opportunity to have wives rather than husbands, women will choose the former.” This is so completely right on that I don’t even know what else to say about it. It is completely gross how many people in 2010 think !Teh Gayz! are constantly on a recruiting mission.

By: rodriguez

rodriguez — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:31:38 +0000

ª “guided by the principles of freedom, opportunity, responsibility and compassion.”

and if that little html didn’t work, well, it means, NOT.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:25:42 +0000

I just read that Schulman is an adviser to the George W. Bush Institute, which is “guided by the principles of freedom, opportunity, responsibility and compassion.”

…

Uh-huh.

By: bellacoker

bellacoker — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:42:57 +0000

Schulman seems to be imagining sexual attackers who are somehow different from the sexual attackers we ladies might have to deal with at any moment. I wonder why that is.