Jump to content
IGNORED

Oh noes: Daughters to Have Equal Right to British Throne!


Doomed Harlottt

Recommended Posts

So I am LAF-ing at LAF's post by batshit crazy British blogger Robin Phillips* in opposition to the anticipated new rules providing that first-born children born to British royalty shall have precedence in the line of succession to the throne over their younger siblings regardless of sex. He claims that, see, not everyone is literally "created equal." We are not all equally strong or smart or good. And there are clearly categories of people, such as children, who are not equal in capability to the rest of us and need to be ruled and led. Therefore, discimination in itself is not bad, only unjustifiable discrimination.

 

So why is privileging men over women in the succession to the British monarchy justifiable? Well, Robin doesn't answer that question. He merely declares that the "burden of proof" is on those who are opposed to discrimination. Just because it is, I guess.

 

I think the incredibly high proportion of amazing female rulers would be enough to sustain that burden of proof. In Britain, you have Elizabeth I, the conscientious Queen Anne, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II. At worst, you have competence (Queen Anne), at best you have brilliance to match or exceed the best of the male monarchs (Elizabeth I). In other countries, there are all sorts of other examples -- Catherine the Great, the Empress Maria Theresa, and Queen Joanna of Naples all come to mind. Yet, why do I have the crazy feeling that this "proof" won't satisfy our friend, Mr. Phillips?

 

**********************************

 

Mr. Phillips also makes a bizarre argument opposed to the supposed feminist notion that one's worth derives from one's role in life. He claims that feminists buy into the notion that women are worth less if they do not enjoy leadership roles in society. I would say that it is really the other way around: Because women are equal in value to men, women should have the same right to rule and influence their own lives, homes, and society. I would also that feminism recognizes the fact that society does not view those who fulfill lesser roles as equal in value.

 

Mr. Phillips is basically saying that because women are equal in value to men pursuant to his theology, it therefore shouldn't matter to us if we are consigned to a subordinate role. I always come back to the question of why the hell does it matter if I am "equal in value" to men in some abstract way if this equality of value does not translate into equal rights and dignity under the law?

 

*************************************

Naturally, the Thoughtless Housewife has to weigh in as well. In her view, it is obviously grossly unfair to allow a sister to strip her brother of his obviously superior right to the throne. In her view, boys and men are obviously more inclined and better suited to leadership than us females. How do we know this? Because the Housewife said so!

 

(I am sure if one raises the examples of brilliant female monarchs, the Housewife would categorize these as not "normal" women. Apparently, any woman who does not fit her views of proper femininity is not a "normal" woman -- even if that's many or most women! That's awfully convenient for her argument, methinks.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Actually I am not sure that he is British. I even found a video of him talking and I am still not sure if he is British or American. But according to his bio, he was educated in the UK, even though he is currently in Washington State working for the Chuck Colson Institute or some batshit place associated ith Colson. Also he has red hair. Also he started some internet site called the Alfred the Great Society. So he must be British. And besides, we Americans have way too many batshit crazy fundies as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I am LAF-ing at LAF's post by batshit crazy British blogger Robin Phillips* in opposition to the anticipated new rules providing that first-born children born to British royalty shall have precedence in the line of succession to the throne over their younger siblings regardless of sex. He claims that, see, not everyone is literally "created equal." We are not all equally strong or smart or good. And there are clearly categories of people, such as children, who are not equal in capability to the rest of us and need to be ruled and led. Therefore, discimination in itself is not bad, only unjustifiable discrimination.

So why is privileging men over women in the succession to the British monarchy justifiable? Well, Robin doesn't answer that question. He merely declares that the "burden of proof" is on those who are opposed to discrimination. Just because it is, I guess.

I think the incredibly high proportion of amazing female rulers would be enough to sustain that burden of proof. In Britain, you have Elizabeth I, the conscientious Queen Anne, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II. At worst, you have competence (Queen Anne), at best you have brilliance to match or exceed the best of the male monarchs (Elizabeth I). In other countries, there are all sorts of other examples -- Catherine the Great, the Empress Maria Theresa, and Queen Joanna of Naples all come to mind. Yet, why do I have the crazy feeling that this "proof" won't satisfy our friend, Mr. Phillips?

**********************************

Mr. Phillips also makes a bizarre argument opposed to the supposed feminist notion that one's worth derives from one's role in life. He claims that feminists buy into the notion that women are worth less if they do not enjoy leadership roles in society. I would say that it is really the other way around: Because women are equal in value to men, women should have the same right to rule and influence their own lives, homes, and society. I would also that feminism recognizes the fact that society does not view those who fulfill lesser roles as equal in value.

Mr. Phillips is basically saying that because women are equal in value to men pursuant to his theology, it therefore shouldn't matter to us if we are consigned to a subordinate role. I always come back to the question of why the hell does it matter if I am "equal in value" to men in some abstract way if this equality of value does not translate into equal rights and dignity under the law?

*************************************

Naturally, the Thoughtless Housewife has to weigh in as well. In her view, it is obviously grossly unfair to allow a sister to strip her brother of his obviously superior right to the throne. In her view, boys and men are obviously more inclined and better suited to leadership than us females. How do we know this? Because the Housewife said so!

(I am sure if one raises the examples of brilliant female monarchs, the Housewife would categorize these as not "normal" women. Apparently, any woman who does not fit her views of proper femininity is not a "normal" woman -- even if that's many or most women! That's awfully convenient for her argument, methinks.)

*Actually I am not sure that he is British. I even found a video of him talking and I am still not sure if he is British or American. But according to his bio, he was educated in the UK, even though he is currently in Washington State working for the Chuck Colson Institute or some batshit place associated ith Colson. Also he has red hair. Also he started some internet site called the Alfred the Great Society. So he must be British. And besides, we Americans have way too many batshit crazy fundies as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I am sure if one raises the examples of brilliant female monarchs, the Housewife would categorize these as not "normal" women. Apparently, any woman who does not fit her views of proper femininity is not a "normal" woman -- even if that's many or most women! That's awfully convenient for her argument, methinks.)

This is so true. I emailed her once and she said I was not a normal girl/young woman because I want a career, at the time to be a lawyer, now I waffle between lawyer and university professor, and I don't want kids and have known that since a young age.

I tried not to be insulted, but seriously, who is she to decide what is normal. Sigh. Fundies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummhmmm, whenever anyone brings up an example that disproves their assertions, the answer is ALWAYS "Well, THAT person is an aberration."

To which all I can say is "Thank the heavens for aberrations and sports and anomalies." :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no!!! I posted my new topic twice and now I don't know how to undo it or merge the two threads.

Is there a moderator 911 line????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very opposed to the concept of monarchy, but women have been strong leaders throughout history, FFS. Where do fundies get this stupidity from? It is not even biblical. Um, Deborah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so true. I emailed her once and she said I was not a normal girl/young woman because I want a career, at the time to be a lawyer, now I waffle between lawyer and university professor, and I don't want kids and have known that since a young age.

I tried not to be insulted, but seriously, who is she to decide what is normal. Sigh. Fundies.

Considering that TH is a man, I would say "she" is not a normal woman either.

It is weird that TH posts all the time about NJ local politics considering that "she" lives in PA. Guess where Lawrence Auster lives? NJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these bloody Yanks want a say in how we run the country, they can sodding well learn how to spell "foetus", "colour" and "neighbour" correctly first.

Besides, I thought the monarchy was ebil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these bloody Yanks want a say in how we run the country, they can sodding well learn how to spell "foetus", "colour" and "neighbour" correctly first.

Besides, I thought the monarchy was ebil?

Erm. Technically the Americanized spelling is acceptable. I'm a Canadian, we're supposed to use the British spelling, but I prefer the American one because I think it looks more correct.

Sorry, but I don't think we should be bashing on people for what is an accepted variation of spelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm. Technically the Americanized spelling is acceptable. I'm a Canadian, we're supposed to use the British spelling, but I prefer the American one because I think it looks more correct.

Sorry, but I don't think we should be bashing on people for what is an accepted variation of spelling.

Tongue was firmly in cheek ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my math is correct, 123 years of the past 174 years have been under a female monarch. This is despite the built in precedence preference for males.

Seems British girls are a hell of a lot hardier than the boys. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no!!! I posted my new topic twice and now I don't know how to undo it or merge the two threads.

Is there a moderator 911 line????

There ya go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems British girls are a hell of a lot hardier than the boys.
I owe this all to the reality behind a recent quote by Betty White, which I am paraphrasing slightly, 'cause I can't remember the exact wording:

"Why do people always say 'Grow a pair of balls" when they want someone to be tough? Balls are delicate, and have to be protected at all costs. Why don't they say 'Grow a vagina!' Those things are tough - they take a pounding and keep on going!"

GRRLZ RULE! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
Very opposed to the concept of monarchy, but women have been strong leaders throughout history, FFS. Where do fundies get this stupidity from? It is not even biblical. Um, Deborah?

Yeah, I'd rather we had no monarchy at all, but the Royal Wimminz certainly out-work the men at least in that bizarre family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have wondered how the monarchy is going to fare in the next few decades. It seems expensive, all those castles and the entourage and such. We have our own monarchy here in the States (the Kennedys, for example) and I don't think we could wrest the unearned money and power from them if we tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin Phillips is from the US but ran off and married a Brit, or he married and ran off with a Brit, when he took off from Jonathan Lindvall. He wrote a great book that you can download for free, challenging Lindvall's garbage and challenging courtship.

robinphillips.blogspot.com/2008/11/many-years-ago-i-wrote-book-critiquing.html

However, until he wrote a critical review of Hillary McFarland's Quivering Daughters and Stacy McDonald latched on to him as a consequence, I had no idea that he was ecclesiocentric and essentially still drinking patriarchal swill. I guess that he just doesn't drink Lindvall's particular variety of swill, or maybe only parts way with him on the subject of courtship.

Edit: break link!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I owe this all to the reality behind a recent quote by Betty White, which I am paraphrasing slightly, 'cause I can't remember the exact wording:

"Why do people always say 'Grow a pair of balls" when they want someone to be tough? Balls are delicate, and have to be protected at all costs. Why don't they say 'Grow a vagina!' Those things are tough - they take a pounding and keep on going!"

GRRLZ RULE! :D

I had that on my FB wall a couple of weeks ago. Hysterical, but so true! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these bloody Yanks want a say in how we run the country, they can sodding well learn how to spell "foetus", "colour" and "neighbour" correctly first.

Besides, I thought the monarchy was ebil?

I know that was tongue in cheek, but I have to say, I like the British spellings of most words better. But being in the American South, I just look pretentious when I spell them that way :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
I have wondered how the monarchy is going to fare in the next few decades. It seems expensive, all those castles and the entourage and such. We have our own monarchy here in the States (the Kennedys, for example) and I don't think we could wrest the unearned money and power from them if we tried.

Which makes it all the more funny that one of the major tabloid paper arguments to keep them is that we make so much money from (significantly American) tourists....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my math is correct, 123 years of the past 174 years have been under a female monarch. This is despite the built in precedence preference for males.

Seems British girls are a hell of a lot hardier than the boys. :)

My birth country has had a Queen since 1890, when our last King died. Well technically since 1898, the previous 8 years the Queen mother was Regent due to her daughter still being a minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



  • Recent Status Updates

    • Scrabblemaster

      Scrabblemaster

      I danced through my living room feeling awesome. From time to time I do this. Maybe wine is involved. Good music is definitely involved. It is awesome. I recommend it to you. With or without wine.
      · 2 replies
    • Hazelbunny

      Hazelbunny

      After a few months of trying to decide what kind of new computer to get and my brother telling me a Mac would be the best decision I could ever make and my sister telling me that would be the worst and I ought to stick to Windows.... I now have a used Mac. I am trying to get used to it. Not easy, but the Magnifying program is a lot better than the Windows one (that was the ultimate reason for my decision) and FJ works a lot better than on my 10-year old Laptop, too!!  
      · 0 replies
    • WannabeHistorian

      WannabeHistorian

      Y'all, holter monitors suck. And naturally the palpitations that caused this test to be ordered are remarkably absent today. 
      I'm off to go work out in the hopes that triggers it. T minus 10 hours till I get this thing off. 
      · 3 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Fuck Fornicate.  Glad I got in to see this place before the world went to shit.
       
      · 0 replies
    • PreciousPantsofDoom

      PreciousPantsofDoom

      I frigging hate the toilets at this worksite. Specifically the door locks. Stupid little knoblet that isn't clear if it is locked or not. Door opens right off the main hallway and the toilet is just far enough from the door that I can't just hold the door shut in case I've got the lock wrong. I mean really people, how hard is it to design this? I just want to pee in private with no anxiety. Apparently that is too much to ask for. 
      · 1 reply
    • 47of74

      47of74

      First thing I'm doing when I get to the hereafter is finding the ancestors who moved to the US in the first place and asking them what the fuck they were thinking moving here in the first place.  Along with giving them an epic the reason you suck speech hopefully in the presence of God and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself to all of them for condemning their descendants to living in a shithole.
      · 0 replies
    • feministxtian

      feministxtian

      Its STILL snowing. Its not like I don't have a million things to do and need to take crap to the dumpster. 
      · 2 replies
    • Chocolate Lover

      Chocolate Lover

      Do any of you play Dyson Sphere Program?   For those who don't know what it is I'd suggest Googling it, because there's no way I could do it justice. 
      There's always just one more thing to do before I turn off.  Blink!  And it's 2 hours later.  
      · 0 replies
    • Granwych

      Granwych

      I have a chance to undergo esketamine treatment for depression.  If any FJers have any thoughts, I’d appreciate them.
      · 3 replies
    • 47of74

      47of74

      Do I even wanna know?

      · 0 replies
  • Recent Blog Entries

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.