A beauty pageant for nuns?

Today's crazy news comes from Rome, Italy.

A priest is organizing an online beauty pageant for nuns called "Miss Sister 2008."

The idea, which Rev. Rungi swears came from nuns "with whom he regularly prays and works," is supposedly about fighting the stereotype that they are all old and dour.

Cause there's nothing worse for a woman than being seen as old. God forbid women who devote their lives in service to their church you know... age!

The contest will be online with each webpage featuring a nun's photo as well as information on her life and vocation. It's up to the women whether to pose with the traditional veil or not.

"Nuns are a bit excluded, they are a bit marginalized in ecclesiastical life," Rungi told The Associated Press after Italian media carried reports of the idea. "This will be an occasion to make their contribution more visible."

"We are not going to parade nuns in bathing suits," Rungi said by telephone from his town of Mondragone. "But being ugly is not a requirement for becoming a nun. External beauty is gift from God, and we mustn't hide it."

WTF!

I'd like to see a riot of nuns beat this guy about the head with their rosaries. It's true that nuns are marginalized. They are schooled theologians who are not allowed to lead mass, baptize children, marry parishioners or have any real say in church leadership. That is where they need more visibility and exposure. They don't need to be paraded in front of people as a status symbol of the church's "hotness" factor. Bathing suit or not.

But what do you think?

Bloggers ask for 2 million or woman gets abortion

Did someone say .... HOAX???

From the terrifying abortion countdown clock ("oh my god, cut the blue wire! No the red!") to the story which sounds remarkably like an e-mail forward I've gotten ("I'm the Prince of Nigeria and I would love to wire you money!") this screams HOAX. This reminds me of the Yale student who claimed she induced abortions for art -- of course, eventually we learned this was a brilliant way to shine the light on anti-choice logic (or lack thereof).

The blog's description

Despite using protection, my girlfriend has fallen pregnant. We're both only 19 and at the start of our university lives. The cost of raising a child in this world is just too expensive, but we don't want to abort. Adoption is NOT an option. If we can't raise TWO MILLION US DOLLARS by JUNE 30, 2008 - We have no choice but to ABORT our BABY. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Can you HELP?

Now this could get really, REALLY interesting because it has the potential to show the true colors of anti-choicers.

The hoaxer makes a valid point:

The cost of living is prohibitive, rental properties are too expensive and the cost of raising a baby is just insane, even with the government's baby bonus. We want to try and raise the child together but can’t afford to move out of home and away from our families. We come from pretty traditional ethnic families who sure as hell won't let us stay at home and raise a child.

Hmmmm, what to do?

A real pro-lifer would give some cash, no? I mean, they're willing to tirelessly lobby our legislatures and our courts. They'll picket clinics, patients and even the construction companies who BUILD clinics. They organize Marches for Life in Washington DC and travel the country with gruesome billboards comparing abortion to the Holocaust and slavery -- I mean, wouldn't this be way easier?

They could possibly eliminate abortion if they eliminated factors like poverty. If every pro-lifer pitched in, how many abortions could they stop?* Studies show that one of the main reasons women choose abortion is they can't afford to care for a child.

But I really, sincerely doubt that this couple will make 2 million. In fact, right now they're sitting at just 55 cents. With just over a month to go.

How can this be???

Because anti-choicers are less about saving the innocent unborn and more about finger pointing. Gruesome displays and pickets and restricting women's rights are TONS more fun than opening up your pocketbook and doing something concrete to fix the problem of unplanned pregnancy.

What I predict will happen...

-- Lots of finger pointing--
-- "YOU got into this mess. YOU have to take responsibility."
-- "Abortion is murder. You won't be able to live with yourself if you murder your baby."
-- Somehow this will get blamed on feminists.

Therein lies the brilliance of this hoax. It will essentially reveal that the true "pro-life" goal --- not to help people but to shame them and deny them options. A project like this, where the fetus is essentially in 'pro-life' hands (or pocketbooks), may just make their tiny heads explode.

But just to be clear, this IS clearly some sort of hoax. If you do want to carry a pregnancy to term, you do it-- you find government aid and try and make it work. If you don't want to surrender your life to struggle and aren't invested in bringing a child into the world, you adopt or abort.

And if you want to make 2 million dollars, you create an elaborate hoax that plays heavily on people's emotions.

* Some might argue "What are pro-choicers doing to reduce the abortion rate, why are you putting it all on 'pro-life' people?"

Funny you should ask. Pro-choice people are progressives who fight for universal healthcare, better minimum wage, paid maternity leave, affordable childcare and they are also the same people that fight for accurate sex education and available contraception.

So yeah, we're doing 80 BILLION times more than any anti-choicer EVER did to reduce abortions.

If only you fat asses weren't around...

I saw this headline and I KNEW I wouldn't be happy.


http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/Advice/WhatIfNoOneWereFat.aspx

If only there weren't fatties. The economy would be perfect, airplanes wouldn't be failing and instead of hurricanes it would rain rose petals.

You too can be a bionic wife!

Give up your notions of equality and have better marriages!



I saw this on You Tube and thought it must be some sort of joke. Still not sure, but there's a creepy website along with it...



The website is brought to you by Bob Grant aka "The Relationship Doctor" because he has "the prescription for finding love, keeping passion alive, and reigniting relationships that have lost their spark." -- (hold on, I just puked)

"Dr." Grant gives us stellar advice like this:

Many marital problems persist because wives do NOT have the right concept of how to become a better wife. Being a better wife entails much more than being accommodating to your husband when it comes to sex ... more than looking pretty ... more than cooking good meals, keeping a house in order and laundering his clothes.

*Emphasis mine*

"Dr." Grant gives us helpful anecdotes of success stories, like this one:

A client (whom I will call Diana to protect her privacy) came to consult with me last year. She had been married to her husband, Brad, for 5 years -- and she had become frustrated that her marriage was “stuck.”

Diana had a very successful job in the corporate world. Because of her effective communications skills in her professional life, she used the same professional and polite way of speaking to her husband, thinking it would be effective. In addition, Diana had been raised to believe that both spouses in a marriage are completely equal.

The result? A boring marriage that lacked any spark of passion -- except when they fought. (Tobes here: Yeah, don't you hate how BORING equality is?)

I asked Diana to consider the idea that what her husband really desired was not a wife who's his equal, but his complement. She took my advice and began to speak to him in a way that made him want to listen to her. She also stopped competing with him -- but instead treated him in ways that captivated his heart.

Several months ago, Diana mentioned to Brad that she was tired of working, and that she wanted to stay home and take care of the children and him. Because the strategies I taught her had enabled her to weave herself into her husband's heart and make him emotionally dependent on her (see page 81), poor Brad never stood a chance. He was powerless to deny Diana what she desired. He didn't quite know how he would find a better-paying job to replace their dual income -- and he didn't even know if he could -- but he couldn't bear the thought of disappointing Diana.

Diana had learned how to seduce him with her words, discovered a brand new way of looking at him and responding to his advances (see page 39) that now, Brad was virtually a slave to her wishes. He wanted to please her at all costs.

When I first read this, I nearly choked. This is the oldest marriage advice out there!

"If you don't compete or nag and don't expect equality, your husband will be a saint. And if your husband isn't a saint, it's because you're not the right kind of wife. Make your husband think he has all the power (do that by conveniently giving up a lot of your own) and then he'll be powerless -- because you know men are just helpless around women."

The website honestly just gets worse. But if you order now, you too can learn "The No. 1 mistake wives make during lovemaking that rob their husbands of libido, and make them feel inadequate, or even impotent – and the delicious gift of arousal you can give him during sex that will make him more attentive to you even outside the bedroom."

Well sign me up.

Except no... don't.... this is all so creepy and gross.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to mesmerize my husband and turn him into my slave. Especially if the way to go about doing that is to become a "bionic" robot wife.

Example #1,982,290,498 of why embracing feminism and creating equal relationships benefits us all.

PS: Anyone else get the major creepers when the video used a pic of the (now-infamous) Tom Cruise hopping for joy on Oprah' couch... ummm, don't know about the rest of you but I want a marriage that is NOTHING like Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.... talk about Bionic Wife!

Whoa Whoopi

This makes no sense.

Whoopi says (rather snarkily), "Women got the vote before we did." And she points at herself on "we." What does that even mean? Does we mean "black" or did she mean, "we" as female....

Cause... for once, I think Elizabeth Hassleback might be right (AHHH, Armageddon is coming!)

The 15th Amendment to the Constitution (passed in 1870) gave black MEN the right to vote.

The 19 Amendment (passed in 1920), gave women (of all races) the right to vote!!!

So what in the hell is Whoopi talking about?

Perhaps it's because historically we know that African Americans had a hell of a time voting due to various unjust laws (Jim Crow Laws) that were passed to keep them from the polling booth.

Fact still remains that, in the eyes of the Constitution, black men had rights sooner than women-- 50 YEARS SOONER!!

Random... random...random.

Why didn't anyone press Whoopi on this? Is Barbara Walters asleep?

If I met the pope, I would kick him in the shin

The Catholic Church is facing major scandal (and by scandal, I mean not only the fact that priests were sexually abusing children but also that the Catholic Church COVERED IT UP). Now the church is responding by doing an investigation.

An common-sense person would think, "They must be studying on how to recognize pedophiles or educating their church communities on what to do." But no, the Catholic Church is launching a different type of investigation. Starting this September, more than 220 U.S. seminaries will be surveyed. Every faculty member and student must answer and sign a lengthy questionnaire and one of the questions is: "Is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary?"

SAY WHAT?

The Vatican is using the survey as "a service to American bishops after the recent sex-abuse scandals." No where in the survey are there questions about pedophilia. Does the Vatican need sex ed.? Its pedophiles, not homosexuals who have sex with kids. DUH. Homosexuals have sexual relations with people of the same gender that happen to be consenting adults.

What irks me is, not only is the church putting its members at more risk by not addressing the problem of pedophilia, they are trying to pin the problem on a group of people (whom are already responsible for oppressing) who had NOTHING to do with abusing children.

If the church wants to blame someone, they should look inward.

Some have attempted to justify this survey. They say some priests might not have been well prepared for a celibate life. Rt. Rev. Francis Maniscalco, spokesman for the U.S. bishops' conference said, "With gay rights, people have put this forward as a lifestyle that is acceptable."

In the words of Lil' John.... HWAT!?!

That's the most pathetic excuse since "I did not have sexual relations, I had a blow job" - ala Bill Clinton. Not only is it laughable as an attempt to justify the rape of children, it's sickening. What about the gay lifestyle says "have sex with kids." In fact, if I had to say it, the lifestyle of a PRIEST seems to be the one promoting sex with kids, these days.

What the church needs to do is admit its mistake in attempting to keep this problem quiet and try to make amends to the many people they've wounded. People in the Church should develop healthy sexual attitudes -- hard to do when your church is so freakin' backward about sex anyway, but if they addressed the problem and didn't try to pin it on gays, we might have safer and happier congregations.

After that the Chruch should issue an apology to the gay community who they have slandered. While they're at it, they can apologize to women as well, for still treating us as second class citizens.

Sorry to rant so much lately, I don't even have a funny line to end this on. It's just my harsh truth tonight, folks. Next post, I'll try to find something lighter to discuss. Like my love of Village Inn pie or something...