Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The Rebuttals Begin.

Laura has replied and so it seems fitting to post my counter-argument since it is on her blog. So here goes:

"Much like how you take attacks on Christianity personally, I take attacks on feminism personally. It is difficult not to take it personally when someone has so disastrously interpreted it. You seem to think I don’t have a good understanding of Christianity, doesn’t that frustrate you – it seems like it does. Imagine how I felt when I read your complete misunderstanding.
It is great that you were able to use the information from an abstinence program. Too bad that isn’t the case for more people. “According to Columbia University researchers, virginity pledge programs increase pledge-takers’ risk for STIs and pregnancy. The study concluded that 88 percent of pledge-takers initiated sex prior to marriage even though some delayed sex for a while. Rates of STIs among pledge-takers and non-pledgers were similar, even though pledge-takers initiated sex later. Pledge-takers were less likely to seek STI testing and less likely to use contraception when they did have sex.” ( – this web site cites several reputable, peer reviewed journal articles)

As for your daycare comment, that seems like you’re attacking working mothers that put their children in daycare. Those that can afford expensive cars tend to put their children in preschool (an educational setting) as opposed to daycare. For you information, a psychologist, Mary Main, has found that day care provides children with valuable lessons in independence and social interaction. Preschool, and even daycare, can be beneficial for a child. And the reason these children cry when their mothers leave is a natural progression of how attachment develops. Maybe read a child development book – Piaget and Boulby are good places to begin.

The problem with the differences perspective is that people overgeneralize the difference. Oftentimes differences other than physiological types are minute, but are blown out of proportion (see Janet Hyde’s 2005 meta-analysis). You wrote: “Women may generally be weaker physically, so what?” My thoughts exactly. As for your example of the woman being beat to an inch of her life – aren’t there many male police officers assaulted and killed too? How can you say that if it were a man he wouldn’t have been beaten as badly too?

There are several hypothetical situations I could supply for ways women do not have the power of no. Furthermore, the mainstream culture degrades women and definitely socializes our women and girls into objects. You seem to think that it’s so easy to just say no. Even Nancy Regan has rethought that campaign. I suppose you couldn’t interject any personal experience here. Personal experience isn’t really a sample large enough to infer anything about a population anyway.

Again, you ramble on without any credible sources. If you think Christianity is misunderstood at least quote some scripture. I admit that I am not as familiar with Christianity as you may be, but maybe you can enlighten me. You still haven’t cited any empirical evidence from what I’ve read so far. How can you make such claims without anything backing it up? For now I suppose we’ll agree to disagree. I’m guessing this debate has ended. (Oh, and thanks for replying to me directly on my blog. Jude doesn’t understand all the ramblings you put on his blog.)"

No comments: