Elizabeth Moon

SF3 has withdrawn the invitation to Elizabeth Moon to attend WisCon 35 as guest of honor.

Comments concerning this statement can be left below or sent to info@sf3.org.

Comments are also being collected at WisCon’s Momentary Taste of WisCon blog, at http://wisconnews.blogspot.com/2010/10/elizabeth-moon.html

This entry was posted in Wiscon. Bookmark the permalink.

188 Responses to Elizabeth Moon

  1. Poor Kelly says:

    “We may never get the whole story about why they made the decision…”

    *BECAUSE THEY WON’T TELL US WHO/HOW THEY DECIDED.

    “I’m also willing to take it on faith that SF3 made the decision after private discussions with Ms. Moon…”

    *I DON’T KNOW IF THEY CONSULTED MOON OR NOT, BUT I MAKE MOST OF MY DECISIONS WITHOUT ANY PROOF.

    ” but I’m sure they didn’t make it lightly.”

    *WELL, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?

    “I think they did the right thing.”

    *AND YOUR SELF-RIGHTEOUS SMIRK REALLY SELLS IT.

  2. AZS says:

    In solidarity of SF3’s punishment of Moon’s blasphamy, I will be wearing a burqa to Wiscon.

    Will you all do the same?

    Let’s wear our burqas with honor, as it stands for everything Moon obviously hates.

  3. Karen Swanberg says:

    Let’s wear our burqas with honor, as it stands for everything Moon obviously hates.

    Please don’t. I applaud the sentiment, and in fact was also one of many to suggest it. I have since withdrawn the suggestion.

    See this thread on Nojojo’s blog for one of the discussions. (http://nojojojo.livejournal.com/221241.html?page=2#comments)
    If I can find the others (the discussion was scattered over multiple blogs) I’ll post those.

  4. wealhtheow says:

    I’ve been going to wiscon for years, but I was actually considering not going this year. Elizabeth Moon’s blog post was so incendiary and just plain *wrong*, and she was obviously so unready to discuss the issue, that I felt pretty uncomfortable supporting and honoring her. Hopefully she will continue the discussion online (which she has given no indication of desiring), or talk to Nisi Shawl, or come to Wiscon to educate herself. But I see no reason why Wiscon, which has always stood for social justice, should give accolades and a platform for speech to a woman who hates, fears, and does not understand almost a third of the world.

  5. Karen Swanberg says:

    re: burqas
    Also see this thread: http://community.livejournal.com/wiscon/284008.html?thread=1807720#t1807720
    (My handle is allochthon over there)

  6. Karen Swanberg says:

    re: burqas
    Also this thread:
    http://karnythia.livejournal.com/1593297.html

    @AZS
    I, in my own privilege, assumed that you were not Muslim, or of another faith or tradition that wears burqas. If that is your tradition, please do follow it, and ignore my ignorant assumption.

  7. Pingback: Oh WisCon

  8. n says:

    I’m not familiar with this author’s work, but I still don’t see what she said that was so awful. I’m an immigrant from the Middle East and I personally am very grateful that I live in Canada. Forget the situation of immigrants twenty years ago, look how Middle Easterners are treated in Europe today! (Or even the recent expulsion of Roma from France, and that community has existed for centuries.) Simply acknowledging that the position of immigrants in North America is less precarious today than it was a hundred years ago is not an incendiary statement in my book.

    It’s true that the word ‘forbearance’ was badly chosen – all citizens have the same rights that are granted by the law, not by the permission of rich white people, or whatever. No one reasonable expects immigrants (of any ethnicity or religion) to kowtow to the people who’ve been there longer, and if immigrants today are confident enough to push back when they feel oppressed, that’s a good thing. But just saying “All citizens of a country should obey its laws and become familiar with its culture” is not an excessive demand.

    Admittedly her phrasing was poor, but if people really think that essay counts as hate speech, then they must not have encountered much of it before. Frankly, I’m jealous.

  9. Pingback: SF Signal

  10. Pingback: On the Elizabeth Moon kerfuffle | ***Dave Does the Blog

  11. DGrace says:

    YaY!!!

    Political Correctness runs amok, and Wiscon caves…

    such a brave day.

  12. AZS says:

    Please don’t? You are telling me to NOT wear a burqa??

    Karen…please clairfy and confirm you are telling women to NOT wear burqas to Wiscon?

    I’m deeply offeded at your ignorent and blasphemous views…you have hurt me and other women with your racism and nativism!

    FOR SHAME!

  13. Barry O says:

    Will any pork products be served at WISCON?

    Cause those are offensive.

  14. Nick says:

    Calling this a “statement” is a bit rich. One might agree or disagree with either Moon’s comments or the decision to disinvite her, but I think a bit more explanation from the end of the organizers would be in order, particularly for those folks who may not know about the debate. Sorry, IMHO this level of communication is amateur and unprofessional.

  15. Fred Davis says:

    particularly for those folks who may not know about the debate.

    Do you mean people who don’t know about the debate such as the various trolls from vox “bad hair” day and instapundit, who seem to be ignorant about the fact that Wiscon is an explicitly feminist sff convention? Yeah, they can probably exercise their heinlein-given right to put some effort into educating themselves via handy to use information sources such as google if they feel a bit lost. otherwise, to quote john stewart, they can go fuck themselves.

    For other people, things like the unfunnybusiness write up make for a good starting point to getting up to speed for this – note that that write up is hopelessly out of date now, but the links in the main post and in the comments there provide enough places to start from when searching for more recent stuff. Plus there’s screen caps of Moon and her friends various comments where they explains to people the various elaborate conspiracy theories she’s picked up about how the park 55 community center is really an elaborate victory mosque that will usher in sharia law and an america caliphate via the magical power of poorly researched historical analogies.

  16. Virgil Fuqua says:

    I could not believe this when I read about it on http://www.baen.com, her is a woman that is the epignay of women in science fiction. One tha write about fantaasy and military science fiction. A former Officer in the USMC. As far as I can see there are only a few other women in the field that are qualified to cary her boots.

    That you uninvited her is enough to that if I was coming I would cancel. Cheeseheads are right, She wrote someting on her Live Journal, she has told others that she did not want conservative argument in their comments on her journal.

    It is obvious that you convention is not longer about anything having to do with Science Fiction.

    It will be my duty to constantly point out that your convention has nothing to do with science fiction . I started reading science fiction when there were not even any main female characters in the stories and any authors had to hide their identiy, like Alice Norton. You people have set the feminist movement in science fiction back a 100 years.

  17. Karen Swanberg says:

    @Virgil Fuqua
    Having feminist credentials does not give a person a free pass when they screw up. Wiscon has been about much more than feminism for many, many years. Feminism has been about much more than middle-class white woman feminism for many, many years. Ms. Moon insulted and hurt many attendees, women and men alike.

    Start by reading up on the basics of Third Wave feminism.

    And, if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion such as this one, I highly recommend not using terms like “you people.”

  18. I heard about the dis-invitation of Elizabeth Moon and registered to attend immediately. Well done!

  19. Pingback: Locus Online News » WisCon Withdraws Moon’s GoH Invitation

  20. I interviewed Elizabeth Moon this morning and will be writing up a story about this affair for my Sunday paper. It will then be available via the Associated Press.

    Lou Antonelli
    Managing Editor
    Mount Pleasant (Tx.) Daily Tribune
    Member, SFWA

  21. Pingback: Black Gate » Blog Archive » WisCon 35 Withdraws Elizabeth Moon’s Guest of Honor Invitation

  22. If we are serious about feminism, and it isn’t just a club to feel good about ourselves, there need to be no sacred cows.

    That means if feminist Elizabeth Moon thinks Islam is anti-feminist, then we need to give her the space to have her theories just the same way we do feminists who think capitalism is anti-feminist, or Christianity is anti-feminist. Because we do not have the time or luxury for everyone’s precious special sacred cow to be coddled.

    We also do not have the luxury for some guilty white liberals to appease their guilt by disinviting and publicly humiliating a fellow feminist who has put in her time and patting themselves on the back and telling themselves they’re doing the Noble Good Thing.

    And let’s talk anti-feminist for a moment. The officers of SF3 break down like so: 3 men, 2 women. So that means a male-dominated hierarchy overrode the decision of the female-dominated WisCon Committee, to disinvite a female from a feminist convention on the basis of her speaking too loudly and vocally about her opinions.

    And no one here sees a problem with that? Really?

  23. Jacob Sommer says:

    @erriel: Your attempt at snark was… underwhelming. Please try again.

    I have been studying censorship and government for decades. I am also clear on censorship rules. A private entity not letting somebody else make comments they disagree with, on the entity’s dime, could be called corporate censorship. It cannot in any sense be called a violation of First Amendment rights, as the First Amendment says nothing about any entity other than government. Note that the first part of said amendment is “Congress shall make no law…”

    We do have standards set in law about truthfulness. We also have standards set in law about fairness under the law. Those standards are not in the Constitution; they are still part of our society.

    Social justice does not mean letting people be bigots and not saying anything about it. Social justice is about effecting positive change in the world for all and doing so through peaceful means. Discussion can sometimes achieve social justice. However, the people who are talking about ‘First Amendment rights’ who have apparently either forgotten what the amendment says or have never read it – but still invoke it – make me despair.

    I also find it wryly amusing that some people who say they are speaking publicly are using pseudonyms. Speaking publicly generally means putting your name to your speech. I do not agree with what Will Shetterly wrote in this thread; but he was respectful and used his name, and I respect both points greatly.

  24. @Jacob:

    For some of us, our “pseudonym” /is/ our real name. Sure, I could put my real name here, but it /is/ linked to my blog, and I’m much better known by my bloghandle. So it’s no act of “cowardice”.

    “Social Justice” is a big, overarching tent that sounds really nice. But what does it /mean/? Does it mean that we endorse the same standards for all? That would be nice. In that case, I expect any other GoH to be held to the same standards for talking about any other group as Elizabeth Moon was when talking about immigrants and Muslims.

  25. Steven Schwartz says:

    And let’s talk anti-feminist for a moment. The officers of SF3 break down like so: 3 men, 2 women. So that means a male-dominated hierarchy overrode the decision of the female-dominated WisCon Committee, to disinvite a female from a feminist convention on the basis of her speaking too loudly and vocally about her opinions.

    We don’t know what happened in committee. Well, you almost certainly don’t, since I doubt you’re privy to SF3/Concom discussions, and I know I don’t.

    Making this sort of assumption is therefore, at best, dubious, and attributing malice when you don’t even know the facts is a very bad idea.

    publicly humiliating a fellow feminist who has put in her time

    As far as I know, you don’t get to acquire the status of “feminist” and then rest on your laurels. If Ursula K. LeGuin had posted something like Moon did, and then deleted her comments as Moon did, while I admit I’d be more worried that something had happened to either a) her brain or b) her account password, but I would not be going “She’s paid her dues, she’s allowed to have some hateful and foolish opinions, let’s honor her.”

  26. Jacob, thanks for saying that, but I have to note that what I’ll tentatively call “your side” is very much in favor of pseudonymity and anonymity, and given their tendency to mob their opponents, I entirely understand why.

    Earlier, you wrote, “@Timwi: you said, “Flourish- It is fascist to shut down speech you don’t agree with.” Ms. Moon apparently shut down all discussion on blogs she controls in response to her statements, deleting all comments. It is, to be fair, her space. Nevertheless, you made an unequivocal statement. Does this make Ms. Moon a fascist in your eyes? Your statement would suggest it does.”

    I’m not accusing you of this, but I’ve been amused to see that many of the people who make that objection are people who ban dissenters from their own LiveJournals.

    I don’t think anyone has ever questioned anyone’s ability to do what they please on their blog. The issue here is what it means to withdraw an offer to speak. When that’s done to a lesbian speaker*, people rightly protest. I think they should protest here, too.

    * http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_a8a8a7ca-a37c-5003-965c-c005ccc531ff.html

  27. Dear heads of Wiscon,

    I try to avoid spamming, but I’ll put this link on both of the blogs where you’re collecting comments because, well, I put a lot of thought into it, and y’all did ask for comments. :)

    it’s all one thing: 6 reasons Wiscon should not have uninvited Elizabeth Moon, or The Inconvenient Feminist

  28. Steve: It was on LJ, I think from someone on the concom, that this decision did not in fact come from the Troika but from SF3. From there, it’s a simple matter to check the SF3 decisionmaking body gender makeup and note the issue. Also, the ConCom made a hugely public decision even after the SF3 resolution to keep her as GoH, so what do /you/ think happened?

  29. Fred Davis says:

    A private entity not letting somebody else make comments they disagree with

    If yet another person points out that wiscon has not actually in any way stopped Moon from making comments or saying anything she damn well pleases, at the con or otherwise, would you actually listen and take this fact on board? You will notice that the notice in the post to which you are commenting says:

    SF3 has withdrawn the invitation to Elizabeth Moon to attend WisCon 35 as guest of honor.

    You will note the lack of any phrase akin to “…and her tongue cut out and hands cut off” in that statement, and you will also note that “and the politburo will now vaporise her from all photographs that showed her attending previous wiscons” is also somewhat absent from this statment. Moreover, there is no possible way SF3 could hinder her ability to be published either online or in print even if they wanted to.

    Which they don’t.

    Wiscon had given her a privelaged position at the con, and Wiscon has now taken said privelaged position away when she spouted easily disprovable slurs against an ethnic group, racist conspiracy theories designed to present muslims as an evil faceless hoard of orcs and then managed to work in a bit of dehumanising of the muslim victims of 9/11 into the mix.

    Feminism cannot honour someone who dehumanises people for reasons of race, religion, colour, creed or a secret love of the Twilight novels.

    Moon stated her views clearly and concisely, and because those views were utter horseshit people criticised said views, because freedom of speech means freedom of critical speech as much as it means freedom to take a huge textual shit all over your personal blog and public image, and freedom of speech thus is fundamentally unable to protect a person from criticism for the views they express – and if you views cannot be sustained in the face of really quite civil criticism, nor stand up to even the most rudimentary fact checking or analysis, maybe your views are not that good.

    In turn, not only does freedom of speech not obligate people to suppress their own reactions to other people’s speech, but in the case of feminists you have a group of people for whom social justice and, to put it in the Moon’s own nationalist terminology, “being a good citizen” actively requires them to (as a bear minimum) criticise speech who’s sole point is to act as an apologetic for violence aimed towards an oppressed minority group, that dehumanises that group, and calls for that group’s rights to be sharply curtailed – which Moon did the moment she came down on the side of the arseholes who wanted a muslim community to be forcibly stopped from building a cultural center for their community in the area that that community lives in.

    The idea that she should be tagged along so she could be trapped into participating in some asinine “teachable moment” is… somewhat naive and ignorant of human nature – you cannot teach a student who does not want to learn, and the best indicator that someone is willing and receptive to being taught is that they actively seek out teaching, and that they attempt teach themselves when given access to material from which they can learn.

    All of the opinions that Moon espoused that drew criticsm were very easy to prove wrong, and Moon appears to have enough intelligence that her failure to realise that what she was saying was factually untrue on so many levels can only be explained by a lack of willingness on her part to actively seek out the truth on subjects she clearly feels strongly about. That she continues to go around with her head shoved right up a gaping void of truthiness who’s correct anatomical name I shan’t mention for politeness’ sake, is sad.

    But not so sad that it stops her words being hurtful and inhumane. And that’s the crux of the matter – a person unable to tell a coat factory from ground zero, or a community center from a mosque for that matter, is not exactly the sort of person best able to take criticism of her actions that she, like many of her supporters here, cannot distinguish from criticisms of her character, nor will she give much credence to the views of people she has already characterised as “bad citizens” distinct and beneath the “good citizen” she feels she herself represents.

  30. Karen Swanberg says:

    @Fred Davis
    +1
    although I’m not sure I agree with “concisely…”

    @Army Sergeant
    That means if feminist Elizabeth Moon thinks Islam is anti-feminist, then we need to give her the space to have her theories just the same way we do feminists who think capitalism is anti-feminist, or Christianity is anti-feminist.

    You’re missing (or ignoring) the flaw in your argument.

    If someone were to spout theories about why capitalism is anti-feminist, this does not result in capitalists being strip searched at airports. If someone were to spout theories about why Christianity is anti-feminist, this will not result in Christians being arrested for “driving while Christian.” Your ‘analogies’ do not aggravate a culture of fear which is actively damaging people, physically, mentally and spiritually.

  31. Geoffrey says:

    if feminist Elizabeth Moon thinks Islam is anti-feminist, then we need to give her the space to have her theories

    She has that space already. She has both a website and a LiveJournal, and her views on this issue are still visible on that LJ. Unless I missed something, she still has the same freedom that you or I have to show up to WisCon on our own dime and share our views with people who are interested.

    What GoH status gives is some tangible assistance in doing so, and the less-tangible benefit of approbation; neither of those are rights, and EM has said as much in her own journal. I don’t think anybody is happy about how this has turned out, but if neither of the parties directly involved wants to make an issue of that, it’s probably not helpful for others to do so.

  32. Pingback: Moon Over Wisconsin: Science Fiction and Big Ideas « Serial Distractions

  33. Charlie says:

    You might want to look at the underling writings of Islam before you slam Elizabeth Moon for her analysis of Islam. This is one of the things that Ms. Moon was pointing out:

    Tabari IX:113
    “Allah permits you to shut them (women) in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves.

    And this glorifies women? How?

    Clearly… there is a bit of a different message when you actually read the Koran and accompanying commentaries….

    But wait… actions generally speak louder than words.

    Feminists: Please point out the female leaders in politics, art, medicine, mathematics, computer science, engineering, literature…. from Saudi Arabia or Iran or any other country dominated by fundamentalist Muslims…. please.

    As a contrast… name the current and last United States Secretary of State.

    Ms. Moon was awarded the 2007 Robert A. Heinlein Award, which honors
    “outstanding published works in hard science fiction or technical writings
    that inspire the human exploration of space.”

  34. Pingback: Leftist/Islamic Cabal Targets/Blacklists Award-Winning Writer, Feminist/Marine for Ground Zero Mosque Comment: In Defense of Elizabeth Moon | Conservatives for America

  35. lanning says:

    @Charlie

    Deuteronomy 22:13-2: if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die

    And this glorifies women? How?

    What an absurd argument.

  36. Maria Louisa says:

    “…if feminist Elizabeth Moon thinks Islam is anti-feminist, then we need to give her the space to have her theories…”

    She has done so on her own blog, and that is what got her “busted” by this group, so to speak. Women, the Koran has no good news for us. Maybe you should listen when your intelligent, well educated sisters speak up.

    Look into who is doing the intimidating, and pulling the puppet strings. Islam is NOT a race – it is an ideology. so – to speak against an ideology is not racism. You are writers. These semantic exercises should be rather basic for you. LOOK INTO IT!

    Molly Norris has a Fatwa on her head and has gone “ghost” – into hiding, Juan Williams lost his job, Comedy Central was threatened, and now this? If you help squelch free speech simply for her thoughtful comments, you kill it for everyone – including YOURSELVES.

    Writers must unite for free speech and freedom of the press.!

  37. Fred Davis says:

    Please point out the female leaders in politics, art, medicine, mathematics, computer science, engineering, literature…. from Saudi Arabia or Iran or any other country dominated by fundamentalist Muslims…. please.

    Wikipedia has a category devoted entirely to Iranian female scientists.

    In future please just fucking google it.

  38. Maria Louisa says:

    @ lanning

    And Christ said, “Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0RzhVJSxE

  39. Fred Davis says:

    Oh wow, just tracked it through some simple googling, the “tabari” isn’t actually part of any of the main Quranic texts (gosh, do I feel like an idiot for not remembering that off the top of my head!) – Tabari was the name of a Shi’ite imam and historian who wrote some commentary and interpretations of the Quran long after the death of muhammed, not anyone central to the muslim faith in general (and due to being a Shi’ite, his opinions on the quran are obviously not held in high esteem by the sunni majority of muslims). The actual text that islamophobes think are calling “tabari” is explicitly titled “commentaries on the Quran”. I don’t know why a lot of islamophobic websites think it’s a chapter in the Quran proper, but pfft… “Tabari 113” should actually be translated like so:

    It is not for the Prophet and those who believe that they should ask of God forgiveness for the idolaters, even though they may be kinsmen, after it has become plain to them that they are the people of Hell.

    Now that’s quite douchey, but it doesn’t mention women at all. I would be unsurprised if there was other sections that did talk about treating women like idolaters are there, but he would probably have just been pissed off that many of his contemporary peers among the islamic historian community of the day would have been women who’s histories tend to be much better as far as chronicling contemporary events and cross checking the contemporary accounts of past event go, than Tabari’s were – hence why Tabari’s name is most widely circulated on far right american sites who use him to slur all muslims (shia or otherwise) as monstrous while his female peers are used by modern arabic scholars and historians to explore details of the medieval arabic world.

  40. @Karen
    Actually, anti-capitalist views do harm people. My grandfather, for example, was dragged out of a car and shot because anti-capitalist views had gone far enough that it was considered okay to kill capitalists. Yes, random X feminist talking about how capitalism hurts women may not cause anyone to go out and harm someone specifically, but neither does Elizabeth Moon talking about Islam. No one is strip searching anyone just because Elizabeth Moon said so. But you argue that the cumulative effect is real, and you’re absolutely right. However, that cumulative effect is /also/ true of anti-capitalist and anti-Christian screeds. If enough of them get rolling, they /do/ cause damage, blood, and fear. Not even talking about my personal issues here, but does China ring any bells?

    @lanning: I really, really, fail to see how that is an argument /against/ organized religions being bad for women. Because to me, it only sounds like you’re reinforcing my argument.

  41. Vera says:

    Thank you for affirming your commitment to WisCon as a place that intends to welcome and respect all people and requires that those the Con honours share that commitment.

  42. lanning says:

    @ Army Sergeant

    Oh, I think all organized religions are bad for women, and everyone else, but that’s another argument. ;) I just think that pointing out the barbarisms in the Koran to argue that all Muslims are barbarians is hypocritical, unless you point out the barbarisms in the Bible to argue that all Christians are barbarians. What can I say? Inconsistencies like that annoy me.

  43. Charlie says:

    The World Economic Forum last week distributed its annual Global Gender Gap Report, a review of how 134 countries have succeeded in closing gaps between women and men in four areas economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment and health and survival.

    While some non-Muslim countries do poorly, the vast majority of the worst-scoring countries are Islamic, most of them Arab states.

    Seventeen of the 20 countries at the bottom of the gender gap scale are Islamic Lebanon (placed at 116), Qatar (117), Nigeria (118), Algeria (119), Jordan (120), Oman (122), Iran (123), Syria (124), Egypt (125), Turkey (126), Morocco (127), Benin (128), Saudi Arabia (129), Mali (131), Pakistan (132), Chad (133) and Yemen (134).

    The three non-Muslim countries in the bottom 20 are Nepal at 115, Ethiopia at 121 and Cote d’Ivoire at 130.

    http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/rankings2010.pdf A ‘tiny’ bit more authoritarian than a ‘wikipedia’ article, perhaps. Maybe?

    Fact…or ‘phobia?

    “The World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Report shows a strong correlation between gender equality and a country’s prosperity and economic competitiveness. It should be an indispensable reference for anyone who wants to advance economic, social and political progress worldwide or understand one of the critical reasons why some countries progress and others do not. I find the Gender Gap Report invaluable.”
    Melanne Verveer, US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues

  44. Skeptic says:

    @lanning quoted a passage from the Bible

    Deuteronomy 22:13-2: if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die

    and asked “And this glorifies women? How?”

    ————

    Bible-bashers and Muslim apologists please take note: What matters is how people interpret and use holy texts NOW, in the 21st century:

    Muslims point to the Qur’an and the Ahadith (traditions concerning Muhammad, viewed as the perfect model for all men) as justification for all sorts of behavior that thinking feminists could not possibly approve of: instant divorce (just say “I divorce you!” three times), beating women with a “small” stick, stoning them for being raped (rape cannot be proven without four male witnesses, so a victim who speaks out must be guilty of illicit intercourse) and other unspeakable behavior (follow Fred Davis’ suggestion: just Google it).

    ————–
    Fact: Muslims in the 21st century interpret their holy texts to mean that it is OK to stone women, have done so for over a thousand years, and feel not the least bit of remorse for their acts.

    Fact: Jews and Christians in the 21st century interpret their holy texts to mean that it is NOT OK to stone women, and have NOT done so for over a thousand years

    Yes, I know about the Crusades and the Inquisition. I also know that the total # of people murdered by the Inquisition is in the low tens of thousands. Thank God we have gotten over that period of our history. Yes, we feel guilty over what was done in our name, but it’s over.
    ————–

    @lanning, Jewish men DO glorify women. Here are some of the ways: When getting married, religious Jews make out a Ketubah, a contract that guarantees women’s rights. Feminists should Google it!

    Religious Jews pay special honor to their spouses at the end of the week. Before enjoying the evening meal on Shabbat, the day of rest, men bless their children and sing a hymn to their wives: Eshet Chayil (A Woman of Valor).

    The beginning of the hymn appears below. Check out the rest here:
    http://judaism.about.com/od/shabbatprayersblessings/f/eshetchayil.htm

    “Eshet Chayil is a twenty-two verse poem with which King Solomon concludes the book of Proverbs (Proverbs 31). The poem has an acrostic arrangement in which the verses begin with the letters of the Hebrew alphabet in regular order. The poem describes the woman of valor as one who are is energetic, righteous, and capable.

    “It has become a Jewish custom for men to recite this hymn at the end of the week, and thus to think about and be thankful for all his wife has done for him and their family throughout the past week.

    “An accomplished woman, who can find? Her value is far beyond pearls.
    Her husband’s heart relies on her and he shall lack no fortune.
    She does him good and not evil, all the days of her life.

    ————–

    The divorce rate among religious Jews is far lower than in the general population. Religious Jews have stable families, and their kids are usually pretty well-behaved. Jews are .2% of the world’s population, but they receive 30% of Nobel Prizes.

    What’s the secret? The reason is how Jews interpret and use the Bible. Jew-haters will continue to hate Jews. The rest of you, use Google and think about what you find.

    Maybe it’s not a good idea to disinvite a highly intelligent woman for stating her opinions. Maybe the ones who are dishonored are YOU!

  45. Skeptic says:

    @Fred Davis

    “criticise speech who’s [sic] sole point is to act as an apologetic for violence aimed towards an oppressed minority group, that dehumanises that group, and calls for that group’s rights to be sharply curtailed – which Moon did the moment she came down on the side of the arseholes who wanted a muslim community to be forcibly stopped from building a cultural center for their community in the area that that community lives in.”

    ——-

    “If you [sic] views cannot be sustained in the face of really quite civil criticism, nor stand up to even the most rudimentary fact checking or analysis, maybe your views are not that good.”

    I’ve lived in Asia for a long time, so maybe I’m a bit out of touch with Western culture. Has calling somebody an “arsehole” become a form of “really quite civil criticism?”

    Apart from a few trolls who pop up among blog commenters, GZM critics have not “aimed any violence towards an oppressed minority group,” nor have they “called for that group’s rights to be sharply curtailed.” 9-11 families and other critics have repeatedly asked the GZM people to please put their mosque somewhere else, ANYWHERE else but at Ground Zero (the building they propose to demolish to make room for the mosque was hit by the fuselage from one of the planes, so it is definitely part of Ground Zero). There are dozens of other mosques in NYC, and very few people objects to the presence of these mosques, indeed nobody dares to “aim violence” at a privileged minority which my Mother does not allow me to name (I wasn’t raised to be a bigot). As to the “cultural center for their community in the area that that community lives in,” observers have noticed that many of the present mosque visitors (there is a mosque in the Burlington Coat Factory) have out-of-state license plates. Pray tell, just which community do these visitors live in?

    Since you seem to be quite adept at using Google, I won’t give you specific references.

  46. Skeptic says:

    Oops! “…very few people object to the presence”

  47. Boycott WisCon says:

    That’s right, DO NOT GO TO WisCon35! Turn off National Progressive Radio!

  48. Pingback: PAMELA GELLER: IN DEFENSE OF ELIZABETH MOON….MUSTREAD | RUTHFULLY YOURS

  49. @lanning: Trust me, I understand your issue with inconsistency-which is really funny, because that’s /my/ issue with the Moon thing. There are an awful lot of feminists who have issues with organized religion. Lots that even just have issues with Christianity, or Christianity-and-Judaism, or Big-Trifecta, or any combination of those that you happen to name. Honest question, not a flame: would you be comfortable if those of us who criticized organized religions for their negative impact on women (and yes, other people too, but I’m trying to hold focus) were stripped of leadership roles at feminist gatherings because we were being offensive to the religious for our ideas?

  50. Fred Davis says:

    9-11 families and other critics have repeatedly asked the GZM people to please put their mosque somewhere else, ANYWHERE else but at Ground Zero

    Well shit, why didn’t someone say that!? *rummages*

    Here let me use my magical powers to retroactively change history *snaps fingers* There, sorted.

    Now not only is a mosque not going to be built on the site of ground zero, but never ever, under any circumstances, in any way, shape or form, was a mosque going to be built on the site of ground zero in the first place. Instead a community center with a food court and a memorial to 9/11 designed to facilitate interfaith dialogue and fight discrimination against religious minorities is being built several blocks away at the site of the old burlington coat factory which *snaps fingers again* also has never had a mosque on it.

    Of course the problem now is that everything you just said about anyone wanting to build a mosque on ground zero or there ever being a mosque at the site of the burlington coat factory are all completely and utterly factually untrue, but surely that’s a small price to pay for this little victory against the nebulous forces who’s goals don’t make any sense that you’ve been fighting, right?

    Of course if people like you and Moon and all the “GZM critics” still want to spout off about how the “burlington coat factory” is… a mosque? Uh… and that this “mosque” is going to be torn down so that a mosque can be… uh… rebuilt? At ground zero for the sole purpose of teabagging white christian america then well…

    In a free country you’d all still have the right to spout off such nonsense, and everyone else would be just as free to call you all stupid fucking bigoted fools who would rather be upset about how you’re all being oppressed by things that don’t exist (in this time line at any rate – though I’ve got to tell you, those alternate history islmaofascist feminazis were really mean), and people in charge of the park 51 community center would be equally free to build whatever the fuck they like on the property they own (within sensible limits set out by local zoning laws and other building regs) without having to feel that they need to get the opinion of a quorum of lying islamophobic halfwits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *