Spotted by Butterflies & Wheels.

└ Tags: ,

Discussion (77)¬

  1. Trevor M says:

    Can we segregate the comments – I could get offended otherwise 😉

  2. HaggisForBrains says:

    Don’t be silly Moses, women aren’t invited.

  3. Someone says:

    As long as nobody says Jehovah.

  4. Dr John de Wipper says:

    Reminds me of the (for the Dutch very humiliating) 1672 Utrecht PeaceTalks (of course in French those days):
    “Chez Vous, Sur Vous, Sans Vous” (At yours, About you, Without you)

  5. WalterWalcarpit says:

    Brilliant, again.
    The script might have been written by others but that punch line oozes J&M irony.

    What is (and has) Moses been up to? There must be a story there.

  6. Federico R. Bär says:

    Years ago, two Orthodox Jewish families rented our neighbor’s house for a one-month holiday. We had to request them to lower their voices when praying and singing psalms – monotonous, at that. But the funny side was the curtain they had spanned in the front garden (visible from the sidewalk) dividing the swimming pool. No mixed feelings! –

  7. DocAtheist says:

    Only orthodox Jews observe separate seating, and then only for prayer, not for social functions.

  8. happyheathen says:

    doc atheist… you comment is not true the Hasidic Jews make their wives walk behind the men and ride in the back seat of the car… as we all know most theists subjugate their women because their holy books tells them to…. or so they think.

  9. pink squirrel says:

    why not take it further
    put up a large opaque screen so men and ‘god’ cant see the women sitting behind as they stand up and walk out
    or even further – if Abrahamic religion males prefer being closer to ‘god’ then wall them up in the ‘holy’ buildings, and only allow women to occupy non ‘holy’ areas and buildings
    This would ensure that ‘devout’ men could devote 100% of their lives to ‘god’ and never be troubled by the sight of women.
    The holy building having its own self contained and filtered oxygen supply lest the males are contaminated by air that women have breathed.

  10. The dear boys have been having this “debate” all along, and always coming up with the same conclusion.

  11. 1happyheathen says:

    DocAtheist, that is not true Hasidic Jews make their wives walk behind the men and they also must sit in the back seat of their cars… not in front next to their husbands… all theists subjugate women because their holy books tell them to…. or so they think…

  12. Jim Loving says:

    For a really good look at the (potential) genesis (could not resist) of patriarchy and religion, I suggest the excellent 2001 book – “Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History” by Robert McElvaine. Hey, the guys needed to blame somebody!

  13. David Amies says:

    Dear old Bertram Russell, English philosopher, mathematician and aristocrat was speaking to the Mother Superior of an English convent and he asked her why the sisters wore cotton shifts while they were taking their baths. He was told that this was to prevent men seeing them. He pointed out that there were no men on a convent. Mother Superior said that God might see them. Russell pondered on how God would be able to see through the six-foot thick stone walls of the convent but then be frustrated by a gauzy cotton shift.

  14. Matt says:

    This made my day. My International Women’s Day

  15. That’s one punch line I saw coming, Author. Which isn’t a bad thing at all because I wasn’t expecting Moses, so still a surprise. But the concept of only men participating in discussions of women’s issues is firmly established in Republican politics, especially around reproductive health issues.
    How any man feels entitled to an opinion on birth control or abortion has always been a mystery to me. We aren’t the ones who must contribute our bodies to pregnancy for nine months.

  16. pink squirrel says:

    We aren’t the ones who must contribute our bodies to pregnancy for nine months.
    or the ones who have to raise them for however many years
    two possible solutions:
    a] make all ‘pro-life’ males wear those ‘male pregnancy weight belts’
    b] A special tax on all ‘pro-lifers’ towards an ‘abandoned baby / single mother support fund’
    and see how quick they back track and agree with abortion

  17. Nassar Ben Houdja says:

    Pshaw pshit, all of this babble
    Are women not considered people?
    Why all this mindless talk
    Join girls on a slut walk
    Instead of endless debates ethnological

  18. pink squirrel says:

    Russell pondered on how God would be able to see through the six-foot thick stone walls of the convent but then be frustrated by a gauzy cotton shift.

    perhaps ‘god’ stalks the corridors of convents seeking out batches of 72?
    perhaps ‘god’ can only manifest where it is prayed to
    perhaps ‘ can see through mineral but not vegetable or animal matter
    so that to ‘god’ the planet is invisible and it can only see the lifeforms dwellings on it.
    its not ‘god’ the nuns worry about its the horn of the invisible pink unicorn

  19. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Of course there’ll be segregated seating. Three clearly defined blocks of seats, one each for Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
    The first fight will be over which religion is most deserving of the seats on the far right.

  20. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Darwin, have you seen the non-reply Lord of Up left for you on the last thread? Short version: “Look over there…..Muslims!!!!!!!”.

  21. Dr John de Wipper says:

    on the bathing issue, especially for the goddites:
    If people were intended to be naked, maybe they would be born naked.
    (one of the slogans of organised nudists, and yes, I am a proud carrier of an INF member card for over 45 years)

  22. pink squirrel says:

    Re Lor Dupe’s
    how about
    5,000 Americans Killed by Cops between 2003 and 2013

    in America between 2002 and 2012 at least 28,000 children and teens 19-years-old and younger were killed with guns.
    Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.
    [from a 5 min web search]

    When are we going to hear Lor dupe and US politicians calling for motor vehicles, police and handguns to be barred from America?

  23. Acolyte, I wend back to read His Lordship’s response and now all my questions have been answered. I see clearly that making abortion illegal will prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from murdering Americans and my mind is at rest.
    I also see that illegal abortions are safer than those done by doctors in clinics and that only a tiny percentage of Scotsmen are not true Scotsmen. As Yoda would put it, relief I feel.

    I’m rather hoping that His Lordship will not follow us onto this thread, because I find him very annoying. Wilful ignorance is one thing. Denying facts while claiming to know them is something else again. I hope he will follow the biblical injunction to go forth and multiply, assuming he will take full responsibility for the progeny thus created.

  24. wrinkel42 says:

    God will not be happy with this.
    I know she won’t!
    Bad author.
    luv it.

  25. Michael says:

    DocAtheist said: “Only orthodox Jews observe separate seating, and then only for prayer, not for social functions.”

    Do a google search for “orthodox jew airplane woman” (without quotations) and start reading. You’ll discover that your claim is incorrect.

  26. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Darwin, having skimmed through the totally unbiased article on abortion in the pro-life, very Catholic web site he linked to, I have to say the logic is faultless. To summarise, in countries where women are forbidden to drive, fewer women die whilst driving than do women drivers in countries where they are allowed to drive.

  27. Dr John de Wipper says:

    go forth and multiply
    .. is a much too polite translation of
    get lost and go fuck someone else
    which is really what the goddites should do (and PLEASE have/force them yo use anticonception of some kind)!!!

  28. pink squirrel says:

    the problem from a feminist standpoint is that sometimes women of all varieties can be better off/safer from molestation in women only spaces
    that the intent behind it is a female rather than a male initiative does not make a difference – the creationist minded who push for exclusion of women from their presence welcome female efforts to make safe male free spaces for all forms of women- the resultant segregation is visually the same – makes the whole issue a difficult one to steer socially progressive laws into.
    In either case the problems appear to stem from male behaviour as a whole not female behaviour as individuals

  29. smee says:

    Pink Squirrel: Progressive’s are as daft as creationist’s. Not worth wasting time worrying about the contradictions in either sect’s foolish notions!

  30. Grumpy says:

    DH: not sure his Lordship can comply with your request as his name is an anagram of “droopful”, and if he could, then his progeny would be spawned by a “foul drop”.

  31. smee, what? Now I have to defend progressives along with multiculturalism and political correctness?

    The fact that there are some conflicts and contradictions in progressive initiatives does not make them as daft as creationists. Not at all. For example, I fully support equality for women. But when a local theatre production decided to charge more for tickets purchased by men than by women, as a way of highlighting wage inequality, I protested rather loudly. You can’t generalize from the demographic to the individual like that, and you can’t reduce sexism by increasing it.

    Progressives are simply people who recognize the ills of patriarchy and tribalism and want to create a better society. Mostly we have been succeeding. In my youth, a black man couldn’t drink from the courthouse fountain, much less be president; It was socially acceptable to beat one’s wife, or fire someone for being gay, or demand that a woman have her husband’s permission to get a bank loan. We’ve made a lot of progress, thanks to progressives.

    In my town there’s a gym that caters only to women. I understand why. It’s because women don’t always want to be seen by men when they are sweaty and not feeling attractive. They also don’t want to be subjected to men hitting on them, or commenting on their appearance. I find this sad. I dislike the whole segregation of the sexes that starts at birth and amplifies in kindergarten. I would love to live in a world where men and women react to each other exactly the same, sharing washrooms and bath houses and exercise facilities as well as professions and political positions. Sadly, I’m not likely to see such a world.

    But the fact that being progressive is not simple, doesn’t make us daft.

  32. smee says:

    Darwin Harmless: Progressives are responsible for a sustained assault on free speech, free thought and enlightenment values. Look at the severe damage their twisted notions have caused and are causing in both the US and UK.

  33. pink squirrel says:

    severe damage progressive notions have caused and are causing in both the US and UK

    would be easier to look at if you cited examples Smee
    so that at least we would know which examples you consider ‘twisted’

  34. pink squirrel says:

    also have to ask what state of mind would be against social progress

  35. Dr John de Wipper says:

    I would love to live in a world where men and women react to each other exactly the same, sharing washrooms and bath houses and exercise facilities

    Well… you really SHOULD spend a holiday at (excuse my limited experience, but at least) a German, Dutch, French, Croatian, or Swedish nudist resort, and at least for that time you would experience what you desire.

  36. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Hey, Grumpy, some gentlemen of a certain age might find your mocking of the angle of the dangle offensive. Offensive, I tells ya!

  37. Dr John de Wipper says:

    must have been a little drunk and/or sleepy yesterday night.
    My wife berated me for forgetting the wonderful times we had in Norway, Denmark, and especially Austria.
    “Did I really forget going to the washroom with a small boy and a baby girl, one of us taking a shower with her, and then handing her over for drying so the other could shower, all the while keeping an eye open for the rowdy one?”

    Ah well, nowadays we are grandparents, but otherwise we all still enjoy nakedness whenever possible.

  38. Grumpy says:

    AoS: The offence was intentional but targeted specifically. Look forward to the day I get prescribed Viagra to stop me rolling out of bed.

  39. pink squirrel says:

    perhaps not too surprising that in a debate about feminism/ divisive segregation
    the men want to change the topic to talking about their cocks / erectile dysfunction

  40. Grumpy says:

    pink squirrel: not my intention to change the topic, rather to have a pop at the trolling Lord of up who appears to be dysfunctional in many areas. Although in the world of freedom of speech each of us is entitled to our own opinions no matter how stupid they are. To paraphrase Darwin Harmless I am also against all forms of segregation and sadly I will probably not live long enough to see it consigned to the scrapheap.

  41. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    So pink squirrel wants discussions about men’s issues segregated,, and says as much in the comments section* attached to a cartoon lambasting.…..…erm…….divisive segregation.

    *Have you not realised yet that the discussion (not debate) in the Cock and Bull is not, never has been, and, Author willing, never will be topic-dependant? We regulars are, as I said here some years ago, Meanderthals, the conversation is free to wander and that’s what makes this such a delightful local.
    You might also want to give your humours detecting equipment a service; it appears to have malfunctioned.
    Now, I’m off to the bar.What’s your poison?

  42. Jerry www says:

    Here’s a possible solution to the problem of the upper echelons of men in the catholic church making laws regarding sex:

    As in sports, if you don’t play the game you don’t get to make the rules.

  43. The Lord of Up says:

    Sorry Darwin and Acolyte. I’m here.

    Having read through the totally unbiased articles on anti-abortion articles you posted in the pro-abortion, anti-religious web site you linked to, I have to say that it’s TOTALLY okay to slaughter innocent living human beings in the billions so women won’t be inconvenienced.
    Acolyte, in response to your last comment on the last thread: if was an ER doctor I would ALSO treat all who came through my doors equally, regardless of their politics, religion, race, colour, sex, etc. etc I would ALSO be compelled to treat the wife beater as well as the wife: the jihadists as well as his victims. I WOULD object to having somebody who believes that abortion and/or euthanasia is okay* forcing* me to kill someone because of what *they* believe.

  44. Grumpy says:

    Meanderthals…love it. L of U, your comments are worthy of no response.

  45. The Lord of Up says:

    Well, nobody’s proving that I’m wrong. There are plenty of Ad Hominem personal attacks. Also plenty of unsupported assertions that I’m wrong, conservatives and Pro-lifers are all hateful and that I am “denying facts while claiming to know them”. But no proof. So I’ll keep looking.
    ?????? ????? (trans. “Peace be upon you”)

  46. pink squirrel says:

    re Lord up foot shooter
    ‘Well, nobody’s proving that I’m wrong.’

    why should we – you are doing that quite well by yourself without anyone else having to

  47. Dr John de Wipper says:

    I WOULD object to having somebody who believes that abortion and/or euthanasia is okay* forcing* me to kill someone because of what *they* believe.

    Maybe you dot realise, but you hit the nail squarely on the had: NOBODY is or should be allowed to force ANYBODY to abort or euthanise,
    but the other side of that medal:
    NOBODY has the right to FORBID people who think otherwise to have an abortion or euthanasia ***!!!!!!***
    (Author, is there a limit on the amount or loudness of those exclamation marks? If so, please reduce the to max you allow)

  48. Dr John de Wipper says:

    Sorry, but I really should improve proo freading:
    Maybe you dot realise, but you hit the nail squarely on the had
    should read:
    Maybe you don’t realise it, but you hit the nail squarely on the head

  49. pink squirrel says:

    Cheers Dr John dw’s well aimed hammer

  50. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Lord of Up, nobody is suggesting that any doctor be forced to perform a termination against their wishes (and ER doctors don’t generally perform them anyway), so your little cry of conscience above was clearly hyperbole, as was your ‘slaughtering of billions’ claim.
    I really don’t mind debating issues but a little honesty would be nice, rather than your preferred methods of evasion, answering questions and addressing points that nobody has asked or made, and emotional rhetoric.
    On the last discussion page I asked you some very cleat questions about your anti-abortion activism, but you have pretended not to see them, reacting instead to what I haven’t said, so, let’s start again, and to ensure we’re not talking past each other please just answer the questions.
    Just the one to begin with;
    You claimed that you offer help to women to continue their pregnancy rather than terminate it. What real, tangible, practical help do you offer?

  51. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    I have never understood people who make the sweeping statement that they are anti-euthanasia.
    I mean, it’s a fucking massive continent! What’s the problem with the kids there? Is it their skin colour? Funny accents?
    Enquiring minds need to know.

  52. pink squirrel says:

    Any nation which has a death penalty in its legal code cannot claim to be anti-euthanasia

  53. pink squirrel says:

    ‘slaughtering of billions’ claim.

    statistics: 56,405,766 abortions, 1973–2013
    over a period of 40 years
    [from a ‘pro-life’ website so possibly exaggerated anyway
    so probably 1 million /PA
    a large number but not ‘billions’
    it is not even in the ‘holocaust’ level numbers the ‘pro-lifers’ like to claim

    of which at least some would have been due to medical problems which would have killed the resulting child anyway
    with another portion dying due to lack of access to adequate nutrition and affordable healthcare due to the financial burden from loss of income/loss of employment suffered by the mother
    or because the parents are anti vaccination
    or think that killing their children is ‘godly’ / gets them into ‘heaven’
    or die from gunshot wounds because their parents are NRA members

  54. pink squirrel says:

    Is it their skin colour?
    only for followers of the book of mormon

    Funny accents?
    only for followers of books [allegedly] dictated by the ‘angel’ Gabriel

  55. pink squirrel says:

    another interesting piece of info
    [ I was looking for stats on how many abortions were performed before it was legal – to get a basis for comparison if it is banned again]
    “Self-induced and back-alley abortions were becoming a thing of the past long before Roe: sex researcher Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren’t all in good standing. The fact is that prior to legalization abortion had become relatively safe and easy to obtain — for those who could afford it. Studies done at the time show that the risks were borne disproportionately by those who couldn’t, mostly minorities. Were abortion to be recriminalized, that would likely be the case again.”

    so arguably the pressure to ban abortion in USA is politically motivated to deliberately disadvantage the non -white and lower income portion of the population
    nothing new there

  56. Cluffy says:

    Long time indulger of J & M, first time poster. Continually astonished at the sheer brilliance of this strip. Never fails to educate, inform and amuse. Thanks Author for providing an hilarious voice of sanity to a poor, hellbound soul living in the Bible Belt.

  57. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Obviously, my questions following my play on words with euthanasia were rhetorical, but I’ve just re-read the final comment in the previous discussion and can probably confirm that for Lord of Up (a ‘nym which sounds suspiciously like taking the Lord’s name in vain*), it’s skin colour.

    And, guess what, everybody? Lord of Up used to be a liberal (and a socialist, even)! Then he went to college and realised that liberalism involved too much greed so he switched to conservatism, which of course has never had any association with greed whatsoever, and allows for a free marketplace of ideas so not at all authoritarian, either, unlike all of us liberal minded folks living by the maxim ‘My way, or the highway’.

    How similar does that sound to the ‘I used to be an atheist just like you until God/Jesus made himself known to me’ and I realised the error of my ways’ spiel that Trolls for Jesus like to spout when they’re telling us that we can also find salvation if we would only switch off our brains and think with our hearts?
    Just to compound the similarity, both come with complete misrepresentations of the groups they once associated with, although their descriptions align perfectly with what lifelong Christians/conservatives like to believe about atheists/liberals.**

    Sorry, Lord of Up, but you are a liar. That ‘I was one of you until…..’ story is a dead giveaway, nothing more than a transparent ruse, a rallying cry implying ‘I am on your side, I understand you and only want to help you share in this wonderful Utopia’.
    Truth is, just like every other liar trying that line, you don’t understand us at all, and you never have. It is nothing more than a childish rhetorical device meant to cause us to doubt ourselves.
    In the first line of my first ever comment to you I said ‘…….with the greatest respect, you ate full of shit’, or words to that effect, and to give credit where it’s due, you were relentless in your attempts to prove me right. Thanks for that.

    ‘What does it say about a person that he considers himself the equal of a nonexistent being?

    ** Long-timers here may remember the delightful Ephy, a classic of the

  58. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    ..…’we are just the same, really’ methodology.

  59. IanB says:

    When rational wiki describes the source as

    “Political Vel Craft is a website hosting the paranoid ravings of a Minnesota-based Teabagger lunatic in the form of green ink articles and a blog. ”

    you know the person using that source is past the sanity event horizon and accelerating hard

  60. pink squirrel says:

    Indeed so IanB
    a check of the article you mention shows that political vel craft cites ‘illuminati NWO conspiracy’ – a sure sign of delusional ‘thinking’

  61. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Helllo Cluffy, welcome to the Cock & Bull.
    It sounds to me that you’re already living in Hell; the comedy potential of living among so much inanity must be huge, though. Feel free to pop in here anytime to share the madness.

  62. Someone says:

    On the radio this morning were some women discussing the cooking and eating of their own placenta.
    Makes me wonder how people who live under dogmatic mindsets would react to such notions.

  63. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Never mind the dogmatics, Someone, that turns my sodding stomach. What the fuck is wrong with these people? If it’s nutrition they’re after, us humans have had a pretty good range of non-human foods available for quite some time. If it’s some New Age, touchy-feely, Mother Goddess crap, it’s high ti!me they were introduced to a life and encouraged to obtain one.
    Either way, because once just isn’t enough; what the fuck is wrong with these people?

  64. Acolyte, I usually agree with you, but you haven’t lived if you haven’t tasted placenta soup. Very celebratory. Goes well with red wine.
    Then you make a teething ring out of the umbilical chord.
    Okay, I taking the piss with you there. I’ve never had the nerve to try it. But I don’t judge. I figure my aversion is just one more hangup.

  65. Dr John de Wipper says:

    Well, in my book, that is to be found under the chapter of cannibalism.
    I had thought that was WAY OFF in modern civilisation….

  66. pink squirrel says:

    women discussing the cooking and eating of their own placenta.
    cant see the harm – provided they are willing
    should be viable even for morality based vegetarians
    surely better than the alternatives
    feed to livestock
    disposable in small scale or large scale landfill
    incineration as fuel -although that would be useful – it would likely cost more carbon footprint to transport than energy extracted.
    as least they discuss cooking them, not just eating their placentas raw.
    given the growing world population there will probably come a time when other parts of humans have the same fate

  67. Someone says:

    From what I’ve come to understand, those who part-take are juxtaposing New Age ideals with health benefits as their justifications. Even one of my sisters, when discussing having kids in future, has given serious thought to cooking and eating her placenta after she’s given birth (going so far as to describe her preferred cooking method).
    For obvious familial reasons I doubt I would indulge, but neither would I stop her, it’s her choice.

    Ok, maybe I might indulge. As long as there’s habanero.

  68. Paddy says:

    Perhaps Jesus could invite his mother to take part… Although being picked to unexpectedly bear the Son of God doesn’t really make her a model for female empowerment.

    Still less problematic an inclusion than Mo’s wives, of course.

  69. Paddy says:

    Re Placentophagy, I think that it carries some unhelpful health risks to muck about with raw human flesh in this way.

    Also, it’s particularly perverse when you consider that the placenta, being as it’s where the mother and baby grow together (forming an interwoven network of both for nutrients, antibodies etc to pass from the mother’s circulation to the baby’s), and thus as much a part of the baby as it is a part of the mother. I generally prefer the Icelandic tradition of buying the placenta in the hope that its spirit will watch over the child.

  70. pink squirrel says:

    Placentophagy, I think that it carries some unhelpful health risks to muck about with raw human flesh in this way.
    not if its freshly delivered as they come from a sterile environment.
    I would not personally but if the consumer and/or the mother are willing to do so – what’s the harm?

  71. Shaughn says:

    The placenta is something that has been useful inside the human body. It being useless, the body dispose of it. It is just another excrement, to be treated as merely that.

    Among the human fetishes, aberrations and perversions is the consumption of excrements. Some like it, most do not.

  72. jb says:

    My understanding of the rational for eating the placenta has always been that animals do it (even chimps!), and therefore it’s “natural,” and therefore it’s good. I.e., it’s related to naive New Age nature worship. It doesn’t seem to have ever been a regular practice in traditional human societies though, which is kind of interesting, given how common it is among other mammals.

  73. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Non-human mammals will eat the placenta and lick up the fluids immediately to give predators less of a chance to detect them, a problem not shared by Western women.

    How long before a more-new-agier-than-thou mother goes the whole hog with this? I’m thinking sauteed placenta and foreskin calamari, and to keep the meal totally human in origin, they will be cooked in the fat extracted from themselves by liposuction.

  74. Acolyte, now your fantasies are getting truly disgusting. I like that about you. Fearless fantasies.

  75. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Cheers, Darwin. I forgot to complete the menu though; amniotic fluid gravy!

  76. WalterWalcarpit says:

    We planted trees over our children’s placentas.
    They grew up very well.
    All of them.

  77. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Well, compared to eating them that’s a step in the right direction but I really don’t see the significance that people place on what is, after all, just a bag. Yes, it a was vital in keeping the embyo safe but even so it is still just a bag.
    What am I missing (and don’t say ‘a heart’)?


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.