RE: Eradicating women. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:07:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Oh I forgot having to be politically correct. Fuck that.



I knew you'd like that, Orion [;)].



SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:07:40 AM)

I'm not that big on being PC - It never offends me if people use that word, mankind. I sometimes use that word. It's just an ingrained habit - and it doesn't mean that much to me, as a symbol. I know what I mean. And I know what he means too (Politesub53's heart is in the right place). So who cares?

- Susan



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:09:18 AM)

And the big bears come rolling in [8D].



SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:12:03 AM)

kittensol: I never heard that rumor about Amnesty possibly being affiliated with communists (I wouldn't have cared anyway. Maybe I am one, I think I could be - all of the "signs" are there, hehe).[:D]

Alumbrado: Witness.org - I will look them up. Good to know. Do they have a website?

- Susan



caitlyn -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:12:07 AM)

I don't see how any questions were dodged.
 
This is a bad act, like the other bad acts discussed here. They are all equally bad, and linked to one-another. I can't 'graps' how one is worse than the other, because I don't believe one is worse than the other. I can't answer the point about excusing this because the west does similar things, because I don't see Meatcleaver as having done that.
 
Where I don't agree with Meatcleaver, is on the issue of cash donations. If you're careful in your giving, you can make a positive difference. Last Sunday, we had a speaker at mass from a mission in Africa. This mission feeds and educates children with parents that either abandoned them or died. I can't volunteer to help them, but can give money directly to this mission with a degree of confidence that it will go to the intended source. Meatcleaver thinks open trade is the answer ... well, the point could be made that in these ultra-corrupt nations, this would only benefit the already wealthy.



Alumbrado -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:12:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

I never heard that rumor about them being affiliated with communists (I wouldn't have cared anyway. maybe I am one, I dunno, hehe).

Witness.org - I will look them up. Do they have a website?




www.witness.org

And I believe it was the ACLU with the pinko in the woodpile



SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:16:16 AM)

Alumbrado: I should have guessed that. Thank you very much.

- Susan



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:22:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Where I don't agree with Meatcleaver, is on the issue of cash donations. If you're careful in your giving, you can make a positive difference. Last Sunday, we had a speaker at mass from a mission in Africa. This mission feeds and educates children with parents that either abandoned them or died. I can't volunteer to help them, but can give money directly to this mission with a degree of confidence that it will go to the intended source. Meatcleaver thinks open trade is the answer ... well, the point could be made that in these ultra-corrupt nations, this would only benefit the already wealthy.



If you want to make a difference by donating money, give your cash to Medecins sans Frontieres (www.doctorswithoutborders.com). They're the only non-religious, non-politically affiliated 'charity' I can think of. And therefore, the only one worthy of respect as far as non-interfering action's concerned. They do amazing work; and they don't run for 'God' or 'country'.

If you trust a missionary you met at a Catholic congregation, huh... you're a trusting soul indeed [:D]. Not saying they'll go and spend your money down the pub, but you can be pretty sure they work at furthering the interests of the church. And that's where your money's going.






SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:23:18 AM)

caitlyn: I am not surprised that you and I do agree on giving either time and-or money to help some of these other countries. I knew that we would.

kittensol: doctorswithoutborders is great. I haven't donated to them (yet. If I can afford it I will) - but they certainly deserve their great reputation.

- Susan



meatcleaver -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:24:10 AM)

I have to agree some charitable giving reaches its source but a lot of overseas aid doesn't. I've given to ActionAid and Oxfam for 20 +years, whether the donations reach their intended target or go into some middleclass do-gooder's pocket, I've no idea.

As for free trade, giving it a go would put the onus on those countries in need of it to perform rather than begging from the west and rightfully claiming the west is undermining their economy.

The one thing that will liberate women in conservative societies is realizing that not releasing the potential of their women is undermining their societies. Arab academics have already written extensive reports on why muslim economies are failing. Apart from their abject failure to translate and publish contemporary books, the suppression of women is one of the main reasons. Unfortunately it takes time for such reasoning to filter down through society so it is acceptable for the powers that be to initiate reform but each culture has to make its own choices. Many of the conservatives in these cultures are the women and not just the men. 



SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:28:16 AM)

Well, I am proud of you for donating to Oxfam and ActionAid meatcleaver (not that you have to care) - I am impressed. Truly. And you should be proud of yourself, too. It's undoubtedly helping someone who needs the help.

I also agree with your other points. The stone-age is over. The sooner places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan realize it, the better it will be for them, IMO. I don't think it's particularly arrogant to say that arming one's children as suicide soldiers is hardly a way to run an army, either. 

- Susan



Alumbrado -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:28:23 AM)

quote:

If you want to make a difference by donating money, give your cash to Medecins sans Frontieres (www.doctorswithoutborders.com).



I thought they were on the 'baaad peeple list' for helping to debunk the 'massacre' at Jenin? I can't keep up with who it's allright to support these days, since I'm off the mailing list.  [:D]



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:30:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Many of the conservatives in these cultures are the women and not just the men. 



Not just in these cultures, meacleaver: look at Mother Theresa, that insane catholic fanatic fraud! She oeuvred against women's rights all of her life. And she was beatified! People still look up to the old crone.

quote:



MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?

Christopher Hitchens - 2003




SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:33:40 AM)

Oh I liked Mother Theresa. She spent her enture life helping people nobody else would help, or at least they didn't get too interested until she got her face on the cover of TIME magazine (which was about 25-30 years after she started her work). Lepers. People dying of AIDs (before it was "popular"). Females with cancer, and the poor who had no place else to go. And especially children. I am not fit to kiss the woman's feet (even though I can't -'cuz she's dead).

- Susan



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:34:00 AM)

MSF have a reputation amongst do-gooders because of their controversial policy of non-interference in the affairs of others. Not something that's always easy to stomach. But they do real work: the organisation doesn't spend its donations pontificating about God and other crap. They go out there and do the most and the best they can. I think ethically, they're mostly sound.



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:35:25 AM)

I disagree, Susan. I think Theresa was absolutely horrible.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html



Alumbrado -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:36:53 AM)

quote:

But they do real work: the organisation doesn't spend its donations pontificating about God and other crap. They go out there and do the most and the best they can. I think ethically, they're mostly sound.


You might like what Witness is doing as well.



Grlwithboy -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:37:22 AM)

I can actually see a lot of meatcleavers' points, but I have to ask why people concerned about imperialism tend to justify things that depend on female bodies as a site for cultural expression but still decry things like imprisoned male journalists, or men being mutilated via other justice systems.

I mean, free press, free speech, and growing up with your clit are all western ideals. That doesn't mean supporting people in another place who are already fighting internally for those rights is an act of Imperialism.

The problem in China is going to have to be addressed, because you have classrooms of boys who do not expect to be married ever already.





SusanofO -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:37:54 AM)

Well, I completely disagree with the Catholic church on the entire birth contol issue (I was raised a Catholic, and it made my mother almost tear out her hair in frustration). It's iknsane - the world doesn't need no contraception. I think they are finally relaxing on the idea of condom use, but still not even the Pill. I just don't know what to say about that - except it's insane (to me). So I agree about that part. 

But - Does this interviewer guy actually think a person focussed on the practical as much as she was really cares where the money comes form, when she is running an organization with little to begin with, scrambling for dollars and with people dying or diseases and starvation alll around her? It's not like she needs to be a PC banner - for anyone - that's not her job. I think her work speaks for itself.

As for his criticism of her facilities - has it ever occurred to this guy that maybe these people were in a Hospice - and also that the way they were cared for is partly due to what are lower-level living conditions in Inida, generally? I can think of many social reasons for it. I am surpirsed they did not ever occur to this man. For one thing, she was treating "untouchables" - and she was villified for attending to them. To give them a luxurious place to live would have been considredf tantamount to maybe creating social warfare. I am not trying to justify it (but think that is maybe a good reason it happened the way it did) She was caring for them when nobody else would even bother - to me, that says a lot more good about her than bad.

This interviewer is trying to compare apples and oranges - and all he is coming up with is sour grapes (except for the birth control issue - which I consider very valid). He raised a lot of speculation - and didn't come up with any answers. Why not? Because his purpose was to smear her (maybe for his own reasons). I remain unconvinced tha anyone spending their entire life trying to help the poor, was funnelling money elsewhere. I'll believe it when I see Proof. It is tantamount to libel and slander for him to accuse her of doing that, with absolutely no proof. I am not arguing withn his right to ask these questions. But he didn't investigate very far, did he?

Frankly, I am surprised he has not been sued. I question why anyway, he feels he must attack a woman who is spending her life in not glamorous conditions, rather than the Pope who is living in luxury in the Vatican, as well as all of his Cardinals. Why a woman? The Pope has far more money if he wants to atttack the Catholic church. I am sure with it's catchy title his book will make millions. Wonder where that money will go?...right in his own pocket, maybe? What a racket. This interviewer is the Michael Moore (the U.S. film-maker of Farenheit 911 fame) of the missionary world. He's going to "expose it all" as long as he can make a buck doing it- and maybe the public will be partly convinced he is right - and he'll get some popular support- And with very filmsy actaul proof (if any) - just a lots and lots of innuendo. I am not convinced. Nor am I impressed. 

Plus - he's an atheist - what would one expect of an atheist? I am sorry, but I have yet to meet an atheist who hasn't got an anti-religious "agenda" of some kind. I don't particularly have a religious agenda of any kind, but they inevitably do. I grow very weary of them, and in very short order. They are inevitably going to seek out the bad in  favor of  any good, and are always, always drawn to the negative, in favor of the positive- if the discussion revolves in any way around religion. I find it a very elemental POV, and also very one-sided, and non-productive in general. I wish they'd just grow up, and face the fact that their problem isn't they cannot prove or disprove there is a God - it's that they hate religion.Which are two entirely different things.

I am not trying to criticize you at all kittensol. That was just my take on it, when I read it.To each theor own opinion, though.

- Susan



kittinSol -> RE: Eradicating women. (8/21/2007 9:42:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

But they do real work: the organisation doesn't spend its donations pontificating about God and other crap. They go out there and do the most and the best they can. I think ethically, they're mostly sound.


You might like what Witness is doing as well.


Peter Gabriel?



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875