Courtesy and Feminism

Tags

Mary Griggs, Rant

(c) by Mary Griggss

On one of the forums I belong to there is a discussion going on about courtesy. Now, to start with, I’m all in favor of it.

However, there have been a couple of people who blame the decline of courtesy on the rise of feminism. They rehash the same old tired arguments about how women fighting for their rights have destroyed all that was good and pure in male/female interactions.

I take issue with blaming feminists for our present state of affairs. Feminism is about so much more than holding doors and ordering meals. Courtesy is also more than just conduct between men and women.

Yes, there has been stridency from some women who do not want to be thought helpless strictly because they are female. To my mind, what is demeaning and condescending about modern chivalry is in the unequal application, i.e. men would hold doors for women while letting it slam in their buddies face.

When women speak of equal treatment, no one wanted or expected what became the result: insecure men, instead of raising the bar to include all, dropped the standard of courtesy altogether. Instead of railing against that, women (as per usual) get the blame.

I see courtesy as a social contract between myself and every other person on the planet. Take holding doors–whoever arrives first, should at least hold the door open for the who ever follows and, if the follower is burdened by packages, the door holder should step aside and let the burdened one through first.

I open the car door for whoever is riding with me, don’t begin eating from my plate until everyone at the table is served, and say ‘thank you’ and ‘please’ regularly. I neither answer my cell phone or my landline during a meal and I make sure to excuse myself whenever I am in conversation and must take a call. None of those things are affected by the gender of the people around me.

What is good enough for the goose is good for the gander. Let’s face it, courtesy is about doing the right thing. And that’s as gender neutral as you can get.

Banned Books Week

Tags

Censorship, Mary Griggs, Rant

(c) by Mary Griggs

Here it is the end of the Banned Books Week and I’ve not ranted about it. I bet y’all thought you were lucky to escape. Not so fast, grasshopper, I’ve still got something to say.

First, the statistics: in 2006, there were 546 known attempts to remove books from libraries. School libraries accounted for most of the reported book challenges (71 percent). Public libraries saw the second most challenges (24 percent).

The single most frequently challenged book was the children’s picture book “And Tango Makes Three,” about two male penguins who brood and hatch an egg and begin raising their baby penguin.

It drew objections for homosexuality, anti-family content and unsuitability for age group. You know what the upshot is? It is a true story! Which just go to show you that nature appears to have a broader understanding of “family” than the religious right.

We have no idea how very fortunate we are that not all the challenges to library books are successful. Librarians are a thin blue line of protection for the First Amendment. They work diligently to keep books on the shelves and available for readers.

Our ability to read what we want when we want is at stake here. The free exchange of ideas is crucial to the continual advancement of the human race. Okay, that sounds a bit pompous but it’s true.

Many people don’t seem to grasp how important it is. They think that if they and their children use the library and their taxes help pay for the book, they should be able to determine what books the library carries. They ignore the fact that other people might want to read the books they object to and that their taxes also help pay for the books.

Go read something! If nothing else, it might just piss somebody off.

The Shame of the Republican Party

Tags

Mary Griggs, Rant

(c) by Mary Griggs

“What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.”

The above quote is from Ralph Waldo Emerson and is quite apropos when you consider all the representatives of the Republican Party who are crashing and burning these days.

We had Mark Foley of Florida and his emails to underage pages. We had Jim West of Spokane attempting to hire an online buddy from a sex chat room. We had diaper loving, prostitute visiting David Vitter of Louisiana. We can’t forget Ed Schrock of Virginia who is on tape soliciting for gay sex. Nor, should we neglect the newest member of the club, Larry Craig of Idaho, who pleaded guilty for what he did in an airport restroom.

Now, I’m not saying that the Republicans have a lock on sexual misconduct while in office. Far from it. What incenses me is their sexual double dealings. All of these representatives have sponsored and voted for legislation codifying the definition of marriage while violating their marriage vows. Most have spoken and voted against various measures to protect Gay and Lesbian Americans from discrimination and violence and to keep us out of the military while, at the same time, they solicited for gay sex in public restrooms and chat rooms.

They are all on the record as great defenders of the family. Frankly, the American family doesn’t need their sort of help. The American family is a beautiful, vibrant thing; blended together from all kinds of parents. You’ve got single parents, gay and lesbian parents, grand parents as second parents, and good old fashioned opposite sex parents.

It is time to recognize that who we love is not nearly as important as the fact that everyone should be allowed to love without prejudice. If only those representatives had kept out of the politics of the bedroom, they might have been able to keep their jobs. The American public has a fine nose for detecting hypocrisy and the stench from these boobs will last to the next election.