Vatican Rag

Wow. When the Stun Media Group and the Notional Pest geddit, what next?

First, Mindelle Jacobs:

Another International Women's Day has passed and the Roman Catholic Church has started the year badly, predictably, by condemning an abortion for a nine-year-old Brazilian rape victim.

The Vatican is having a difficult time forcing women to have unwanted children, particularly in developing countries.

In Brazil, for example, there are an estimated 1.4 million illegal abortions a year.(The procedure is only allowed in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother). One in four pregnancy-related deaths in the heavily Catholic country is due to complications from an unsafe abortion.

But that hasn't stopped the Catholic church from continuing to place the fetus above the health and economic needs of women.

. . .

It's almost like the church gets off on female suffering.

And the Notional Pest on the importance of the washing machine to women's rights:

The article provoked an angry response from some commentators and politicians.

"Instead of entering into an abstract debate on gender, it would be better if L'Osservatore Romano discussed reality, such as the fear in which many women still live when they are in the streets and between the walls of their own homes," Paola Concia, an MP from the opposition Democratic party, told La Stampa newspaper.

The Roman Catholic Church has come under attack in recent days for what has been perceived as a callous approach to women's issues.

Last week, Brazil's health minister accused the Church of an "extreme" and "inadequate" position for opposing an abortion for a nine-year-old girl who became pregnant with twins after she was allegedly raped by her stepfather.

Seems like even the NP and Sun Media are getting on the anti-Catlick bigot bus.

Feminism: ur still doin it rong

The Beaver Flap* continues.

In response to a poll at A Creative Revolution speculating on the identity of the 'secret expert' who deemed Choice for Childcare feminist and Unrepentant Old Hippie not feminist, Northern BC Dipper wrote a juvenileha-ha post.

In the comments there I asked for the expert's reasons for allowing CforC in. The following is a direct quote from the expert:

I felt the reason’s that Choice for Childcare was initially considered a feminist blog was because it pertained the issue of both choice for women, and for dealing with daycare (an issue that affects both single and married women). Unlike Small Dead Animals or some of the other conservative ‘feminist’ blogs, the arguments were based on economic principals under the assumption that these would benefit women, not something like religious reasons (that Suzanne provided for her arguments about abortion) or the simple fact that she was a woman. In fact, some of the ones eliminated were women, but appeared to me to be anti-feminist (a contradiction for the category they appeared in). One was a stripper, the others argued for free speech - which may have been a compelling argument for having them included in the feminist category if it was so heavily in favour of hate speech. Many didn’t seem to display an understanding of feminist logic. Choice for Childcare was using economic arguments for her position. In many of the classes I’ve attended, both in economic and women’s studies, this was the single most advancing portion of the feminist movement other than historical arguments themselves.

Oy. Where to start?

General literacy? Logic? Weird emphasis on the economic aspect of feminism?

General cluelessness?

(The nominations threads seem to have disappeared at CBA. I don't know who the 'stripper' was -- [anybody know?] -- but being a stripper does not automatically disqualify one from feminism. At least not for actual feminists.)

Hell, go read Sarah at Choice for Childcare herself on her nomination. Remember this is the woman who said (quote taken from Antonia):

They say unbelievably stupid things such as – and I quote – "I believe in equality for everyone, not just women. Also, I believe in equal rights, not one group getting more than others."

My head hurts. I'm going with 'general cluelessness'. On all their parts. The 'expert' and the dough-heads at CBA who accepted this inanity as an argument in favour of CforC's inclusion in the feminist category.

*h/t Antonia

SORRY: I missed this link provided to the stripper. I had a quick buzz through it and while it doesn't seem anti-feminist, it would take more time than I've got right now to say more than that.

UPDATE: Go read balbulican.