Saturday, October 27, 2012

A new low

I know. I just posted yesterday. But this cannot wait.

It's a new low for the nation, I am sure. If you haven't seen it yet, I apologize for being the one to show it to you. (To make it almost all better, be sure to watch the parody at the very end of the post.)

Here is the Obama campaign ad that has everyone talking (and/or vomiting):




Okay, so I'm just going to throw out some stream-of-consciousness thoughts about this juvenile, double-entendre ad, and you can feel free to add your own thoughts in the comments.

1) Tacky and creepy.

2) Insulting and degrading.

3) Unbecoming the office of the President of the United States.

4) Is this really where we are now? How did we get here? When did this happen? Even when I was a stupid, immature, irreverent, foul-mouthed, foul-acting, M-TV generation teenager, I never wanted the adults in society to act like adolescents. But the President of the United States is okay with this crap? My constant question: Where have all the grown-ups gone?

5) Obama is nothing if not the "sexual rights" and abortion president. The reduction of women to their reproductive (or non-reproductive) organs is the … can't think of any other word … obsession of this president and his campaign. I have never seen anything like it.

6) What kind of wife would allow her husband to put out an ad which invites women to think of having sex with him? This degrades Michelle Obama. No self-respecting conservative woman I know would stand for it.

7) Would Mr. Obama be proud to play this ad for his young daughters? I'm already so disgusted with how often he and Michelle trot those poor girls out as poster children for why abortion is so badly needed for their "success", so for all I know he would be proud to share a laugh with them over this crude spot implying Dad's deflowering of young women. Oddly, Obama is on record as saying that before they need those abortions, he is "going to teach them first of all about values and morals."  Just what are these "values and morals" that mean so much to you and that you wish to impart to your daughters, Mr. Obama? Do you think they'll buy it, when you put out an ad like this? You are either clueless or you have no integrity, and neither option is acceptable in a president (or a daddy).

(Thankfully, I'm not the only one who thought of the implications for Obama's own daughters. It is quite troubling.)

8) What about other pre-teen and teen girls who see this, who may or may not come from stable homes? Does Obama care about the message it sends them? The single biggest indicator for poverty in this nation is not race but single motherhood, i.e., childbearing before marriage. It is a national catastrophe that no one wants to talk about, and the leader of our land thinks thinks it's cute to showcase the very type of casual attitude about sex that devastates so many women and children and families across America. Where is the hope in these dismal statistics, which no massive government entitlement program can fix? But sure, Obama, go ahead and keep us chuckling with innuendos about single young women losing their virginity. There aren't any consequences at all to that sort of thing, right? It's a laugh riot.

9) This ad makes me think of Obama's bff, Planned Parenthood. I mean, this girl is the perfect PP client. She will need all their services. Enlightened women and girls think and act like her, and PP will provide contraceptives, STD screenings, pregnancy tests, morning after pills, surgical and chemical abortions, you name it. A vote for Obama is a vote for what they'll need, hopefully for free! Obama and Planned Parenthood go together like don't say it, Leila, do not say it a hand and glove.

10) My daughters are 18 and 21, the target age for this bizarre and creepy ad. They both were repulsed, and I asked my 21-year-old to expand on that. She said:

"I think it's degrading to women. I think it's sexist. I don't see any young men doing these videos [saying], "Before, I was a boy. Now, I am a man" for voting for Barack. It's absurd that someone's womanhood is dependent on voting for Barack Obama. It's disturbing that they want us to think of voting for the President in terms of sex with him. Why would I want to think about him in that way? It belittles our country that we appeal to people in that crude of a manner. It is a disgrace to our country. My final comment: I hope he loses."

Me too, honey.

11) Mr. Obama and his entire administration can not be voted out of office fast enough. I am saddened and horrified more and more each day about what we have become, how classless we are, how far we have fallen. I cannot wait until this sad and desperate campaign of sex and lies is finally over.

12) Lord, have mercy on us. Jesus, deliver us.

13) Even though you might want to cry, I want to leave you laughing! This Steven Crowder parody of the ad brilliantly exposes its inanity. I think even Obama supporters will find it utterly hilarious:





There, don't you feel better? I do!





.

216 comments:

  1. I'm going to draw a line in the sand.

    In 2008, I was an apathetic woman and chose not to vote.

    On November 6th, my 5th time is going to be AMAZING! I'm going to step inside the voting booth, close the curtain, and vote against Barack Obama. In every possible way.

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

    I needed to watch that Crowder video twice to get the foul taste out of my mouth from watch Dunham.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hahhaaa! :) I hated that video so much, it's such a ridiculously slimy sexist blah. But the parody is SUCH a good antidote! Deffs left me laughing. :)

    And also: it [Lana] is blatantly trying to get young persons to vote for Barack Obama just because it's "not cool" to vote for Romney. "Hey guys, don't use your brains, I know you're going to college, but lay off on the thinking there and just crumble under the peer pressure". *facepalm*

    I really, really hope he loses. I wish I could vote from England!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow is all I have to say.....WOW!

    Crowder was hilarious!

    ReplyDelete
  4. OMG...thank you for sharing Crowder...that is hilarious and refreshing after viewing Dunham!

    ReplyDelete
  5. SO, (no lie), when I saw that disgusting ad, I thought, Is Leila gonna cover this? That parody was great!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Does that other Lena in the video realize that the president is old enough to be her father? Yuck, yuck, yuck. There's so much yuckiness, I feel like I need to bathe.
    What is striking to me is that the guy in the parody looks so much like the brainless female in the ad.

    I hardly watch television, so I haven't seen the ad on television. Is it playing on network t.v.?

    My mother would've been appalled to see such an ad, but lucky for her, she's in Heaven.

    Does anyone feel like throwing up? I do. How barfy.

    Lena

    ReplyDelete
  7. Think Progress has a nice post about this. They run through the initial reaction from around the spectrum, list some other boyfriend/president ads that have been made, and then note that this sort of thing is fairly insulting to women.

    http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/26/1097171/sexualizing-women-voters/

    Slightly off-topic, but I remember that there was an ad exactly like this in Russia's presidential campaign last year (I think it was for Putin). Anyway, I wonder if they stole the idea, or if "politics/first time having sex" just makes sense to some people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm out the door, will read the link later, Chris, thank you! I almost put the Putin video up as one of my talking points.

    Yes, girls, I felt like throwing up AND taking a bath.

    Thank goodness for Crowder!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think you hit the nail on the head with all of your points..I would only add the word 'desperation' to your initial list of descriptions about this ad. He is desperate and knows he needs to get the youth vote, the ones who will, as Crowder put it, vote for the "free stuff".

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gah! I felt like I was reading my own words with #4. I ask those questions all the time!!! How did we get here?? When?? Where?? What??? Aaaahhh!!! And most importantly, HOW DO WE GET OUT???? Is it even possible??? It's so hard for a country to get out of an entitlement/free-stuff mentality. It's so scary to me.

    But I definitely needed Crowder. Thanks for that!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wait, what, if I vote for Obama, I will get FREE STUFF?!?!?!?!! Sign me up!

    Oh, wait... the government is not my dad, or my boyfriend, or my sexual partner... or, dare I say, all of those combined. (eek! cringe)

    I thought feminism was supposed to be about women being independent and taking care of themselves to a certain extent?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Chris, I just read your link, and it is not what I expected. I did not find any of those other ads offensive, as they were not speaking in any way of sexual intercourse!! BIG difference between a cute, truly clever ad, and a creepy one. (Why would I be offended at Mitt Romney telling me he has been a faithful husband, for example? Bring that on!)

    The only shocking, disturbing (and truly revolting) ad in that link was the one from the Democrat, with the gay men. Makes my stomach turn, frankly. Worse than the Obama ad. However, the Obama ad is not from some local yokel, but from the President of the United States.

    Emily, I wish you could vote here, too, ha ha! And Liesl, I am beginning to think that the "strong, independent, self-reliant" liberal woman is a myth. The strong, independent, self-reliant women I know (and I know plenty) would never grub for free stuff from the government, especially regarding their sex lives.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm with Nicole on #4. Lately, I feel trapped, suffocated, alone, scared, and surrounded by people who don't see the darkness. I don't want to hear about the election, Obama and all his lies, and yet I can't avoid it. I sometimes get this feeling to go up to the first person I see and shake them saying, "Don't vote for Obama!!" How can people not see the evil? I don't understand. It's like living in a world of the living dead; people think they're alive but they're really dead inside.

    I suppose this sounds pretty melodramatic to most people; but that's because they are so blinded by the lies. You know that story about the difference between Heaven and Hell; all the people in Heaven live and thrive by eating with long spoons, but because the spoons are so long, they can't feed themselves, so they decide to feed each other and so everyone lives. But Hell is the opposite, they all starve (without actually dying) because they try to feed themselves; it never occurs to them that by feeding each other that they will live. That's what this world reminds me of lately. Hell.

    Sorry for the ongoing randomness. Guess it's my own little rant. I take a lot of comfort of our faith, I beg God daily to save us from a President out to ruin us, and I beg Him to give us a President who will take care of us. I feel like our prayers will be answered.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Becky, it doesn't sound melodramatic. I know most of my friends and I are walking around with a feeling of dread and doom at the thought of Obama's reelection. It's like nothing I've ever experienced in any election, and my mind keeps going to other countries in history, knowing now what the faithful Catholics felt back then, with that same sense of doom (even worse). I think of JPII as a young man, and Pope Benedict as well.

    If Obama wins, I may take a long sabbatical of prayer and retreat from the internet in order to get myself together.

    Right now, my biggest fear is voter fraud. The Dems will stop at nothing, and the reports of potential and actual voter fraud in the swing states are frightening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To clarify: The "even worse" was in reference to the other countries. We are nowhere near as bad as some of those nations. Not yet. But the decline is happening so rapidly here, the secularization, that it's unnerving. Not because we are afraid the Church won't survive (she has outlasted every government that has tried to squash her), but because I love America so much, and we are the last bastion of true freedom on earth. If we go the way of secular Europe, what will be left on earth to take our place? Very sad. My father, an immigrant from oppressive lands, is very troubled as well. He came here for a reason. I think most folks don't know how fragile this Republic is, if we don't live as a moral people, and if we put out our hands for "FREE STUFF". The great American experiment will die. There is nothing supernatural protecting it, unlike the Church, which will be the last thing standing.

      Delete
  15. The other Obama/boyfriend ads weren't offensive (and no one said they were), but they all do talk down to women by trying to equate choosing a leader with choosing a boyfriend. That was my (and TP's) point. I mean, I don't think anyone would do this if Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin were president (seriously, imagine a gender-swapped version of these).

    But yes, you're right that TP wasn't going after sexual terminology in and of itself. They are quite liberal, after all.

    Seriously though, I do want to know if they saw that Putin ad or not.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Chris, I am sure they saw that Putin ad. I can't imagine that that was not an influence. The one was about the girl and the fortune teller, but there was also another one:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17157868

    And honestly, as a woman (who likes to gab about men, boyfriends, etc…) I did not feel "talked down to" in those funny ads. I have a sense of humor, and yes, that is how women talk! That is why it would not work with men, except as the parody of the parody (have you seen the hilarious Harvard sailing team videos, like "Boys will be girls" (I think it's called)? Good stuff! But it's not the same as the President of the United States, who is supposed to elevate and dignify our nation, putting out a creepy ad about encouraging lost virginity -- to him. Blech. Low, low, low. Undignified. Insulting to women.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What is most frightening to me is the desensitization that is creeping it's way throughout the world. It's like someone that trains their immune system to tolerate to take a little bit of poison a day...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to add on quickly, I feel so overwhelmed and powerless over the evil of the world lately--not just the election, but pretty much in everything and everywhere you look. And people just look at you with this blank look on their faces and ask, "Why is that so bad???" They are desensitized. The only way I can protect my kids is to arm them with faith--and one of the ways I'm doing this is by having them say the Immaculate Conception chaplet every day (if possible. I do realize it's a lot for little kids to take on.)The Immaculate Conception chaplet is to help protect purity.

      Ok, I'm done. Thanks for letting me rant a bit.

      Delete
  18. I'm surprised she even admitted she was a woman....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Reagan did the same thing.
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/26/conservatives-condemn-obama-for-ad-similar-to-famed-reagan-line/

    ReplyDelete
  20. MaiZeke, I'm glad you brought that up, because I hear that being thrown about a lot. However, I don't remember ever thinking of that line as sexual (maybe we were much less crudely sexualized as a nation?). To me, that reminds me of what is said when you tell a kid to swallow his medicine, or that a shot won't hurt but for a second or two. Never, until Dems brought it up, did I think that was a reference to sex. I could be wrong, of course, but that is not what I thought. However, with the Obama as (which is something they went out of their way to actually pay for and put out there for all to see, repeatedly), there is not even a small chance that they meant anything other than an unwed young woman implying sex with President Obama for her "first time".

    Do you think it would be funny for him to watch this ad with his daughters? I'm curious.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Okay, that first ad from Lena just makes me not want to vote - totally cheapens the experience for me! oh, that was probably what she was going for...so, I'll take my germ-x with me and go vote on election day. Everything else that she had to say just makes me feel so degraded and slimy that I feel like I need to go take a shower to get the sleaze off of me! The parody was funny - Chris' link showed some clever ads - but that visual one at the bottom was enough to make me gag. (along with reading the peoples' responses...)

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't have cable or direct tv so fortunately I haven't had to watch Obama's misusing women to trick people into voting for him.
    The parody was excellent and worth watching again!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ok, that first one made me SOOOOO mad, but the second one made me laugh so hard!!!...more free crap!!! LOL!!!

    IN all seriousness, I think it is so disgusting that our president would put out an ad like that. so gross! I wanted to throw up!

    ReplyDelete
  24. The ad didn't offend me. It looks like they tried to do a classic "get your mind out of the gutter" gags. Which goes hand in hand with the left's jokes that despite the fact the right accuses them of being obsessed with sex, sex seems to be ALL the right ever wants to talk about. Those types of jokes, if I recall correctly, are pretty popular with those teenagers.

    It is a bit out there as far as humor goes but I don't think they intended to offend.

    BTW- I'm pretty sure she was saying after she VOTED she would be a woman rather than a girl. I don't think who she votes for matters.....hence her whole comment about not voting isn't cool.

    I'm not really sure why that comment offends anyone. After all voting is an adult activity and an adult responsibility. One can argue women vote, girls do not.

    ReplyDelete
  25. StarFireKK, the ad was made, with deliberation, to be a double entendre. Every time you hear the word "vote" or "first time", you are supposed to hear the word "sex". This is the obvious intent of the ad. To put our minds in the gutter. To drag us to an irresponsible, creepy, distasteful place.

    That was the intent of the ad. I've never heard anyone on either side dispute that.

    Honestly, I left junior high behind a long time ago. I get that many on the left like sex gags (and potty humor), and if it had been promulgated by MoveOn.org or some leftist college kids, or just this actress on her own, I would still be disgusted, but not surprised.

    However, I expect a minimum level of decency, decorum, and dignity from the President of the United States. This ad of his falls way below the minimum, and he has set a new low standard.

    That is why it was so distasteful, disturbing, offensive. It came with the blessing of our President.

    You touched on another subject. Of course, the left is way off base when it accuses the right of only wanting to talk about sex. I'd love to discuss how the whole contraception issue got started, for example. It's the last thing that the right wants to talk about (no one EVER moved to "block women's access to contraception", by the way), and the left will.not.shut.up. The whole gay rights and gay marriage thing has also been talked up incessantly by the left. If I had a dime for every time a conservative or Catholic has said to me, "All I hear about anymore is gay marriage and gay people!" It's true. You'd think everybody is gay, considering the left's obsession with gay advocacy.

    For those who missed it, I wrote something long ago re: the left's lie about how the Church is "obsessed with sex":

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/06/who-is-obsessed-with-sex.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just found a new parody of the ad:

    http://youtu.be/wAkdHzpXXo0

    Funny stuff!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes, Leila I understand how those gags work. All of those jokes are suppose to put your mind in the gutter if you are so inclined to let your mind go there.

    (Despite popular opinion you do have control over whether or not you let your mind go there and if you spend any time dealing with the poplar culture of this country you better have that skill.)

    Does it disrespect the office of the president? A vast majority of the ads that come out I think are below the office of the presidency. I can see the argument it crossed the line that shouldn't have been cross. But I think if you are going to say this is disrespectful of women but Rommey's "they need to be home in time to cook dinner" comment isn't you are just picking and choosing now. Both parties are using women as a pawns and are trying to manipulate their vote. Women aren't respected in this country by either side.

    My experience is different than yours. A vast majority of the dems I know talk about the economy, the job market, the health care reform, foreign policy.

    ReplyDelete
  28. StarFireKK, are you truly saying that the "women who want to go home and cook dinner" comment was offensive to women? Oh, my. From my experience, most working women would love to be home in time to cook dinner.

    I just really don't know what to say. And the fault here isn't whether or not someone's mind goes into the gutter when they hear a blatant sexual innuendo, it's the fact that a President of the United States WANTS viewers minds to go there. That was the point of the ad. We are talking about their intent, not what the viewer's "proper" response should be.

    StarFireKK: If I told you not to think of a pink elephant in a tutu, what would you just think of? I'm guessing, if you are like the rest of us humans, you thought instantly of a pink elephant in a tutu. That is how the human mind works. When someone is essentially telling you to think of something (an in this case for a few minutes straight, with gag after gag, innuendo after innuendo), then that is what the mind thinks of. Can you tell me how, exactly, we can get the mind NOT to think of sex when viewing that ad? I'd love to know that trick.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  29. MaiZeke, I asked my husband about that Reagan quote last night. He remembered it when I brought it up (it was a funny line that many Americans have liked throughout the years). I asked him if he had ever thought that referred to sex and someone's "first time". He looked puzzled and said, "No." He also took it at face value, and agreed that if anything was implied it would have been a "this shot will only hurt for a second, but it's for your good."

    Reagan was a classy man, and dignified. We grew up in the Reagan era. No one until now thought to associate that line with sex, and gosh, thanks to the Democrats for ruining even that funny line forever. Blech. It's like they have to sleaze up everything. Nothing is sacred.

    Just fun trivia: When Dean and I met, we were in college, both very political animals. He was an agnostic Jewish boy who was a pro-"choice" Democrat interning for Democrat Senator Wyche Fowler on the Hill. I was an intern at INN (Independent Network News, now defunct). The day my husband and I officially began dating, I had spend the day with a camera crew on the lawn of the Reagan White House for the Easter Egg roll, and was able to attend a White House press briefing. I saw President Reagan speak that day to the folks on the lawn. It was April of '88, the last stretch of his great presidency, as the elections were coming up that November. I'm glad I'm old enough to remember that era, and share those memories with my hubby. This disgusting ad from Obama has made me really long for those dignified days when a president did not base his whole campaign about what we do or don't do with our "lady parts".

    Off to take a shower.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The ad WAS offensive, to me, and to my daughter. My daughter hasn't seen it, she's 11, I'm offended for her. Starfire made a comment that reminds me of so many conversations with my family. (A bit of a side note- I am the only Catholic and political conservative in my very liberal, literally pagan family.) She said the ad wasn't "intended" to offend. It implies a thoughtlessness, that it was some sort of off the cuff ad. What I have found though, in talking with my family is that whenever Obama's campaign (or the man himself) does something that a lot of people end up taking issue with they excuse it as being poorly planned, poorly thought out, unintentional. On the other hand, when Romney's campaign (or Mitt himself) does or says something people find offensive it is carefully orchestrated, planned, and intentional. It's just not true. EVERY politician has speech writers and PR people...every word that comes out of their mouths is planned and executed. I'm okay with some of things that Romney says. I'm okay with NOTHING Obama says. Obama INTENDS to offend, to degrade, to make us all dependent. And this ad was on purpose, intentional and should be offensive to ALL women.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Angela, God bless you as you hold that lone position in your family. I have friends with the same situation, and it's a unique cross. And, I agree with your assessment.

    I'm still trying to process the idea that I am at fault for "letting my mind go there", when the President of the United States approved an ad that was intended and designed to make my mind go there. The world is upside down.

    I was at a fundraising dinner last night for a local crisis pregnancy center. While the event was joyful, grace-filled and hopeful, the sense of the world being upside down is so prevalent when we chat with each other about the upcoming election, and the fear of a second Obama term is palpable. The common theme in our private discussions is "how fast it's happening". The sheer speed of the downhill death spiral of our culture and our nation is what is unnerving folks. We are trying to get our bearings. But we get hit with one thing right after another, and this ad was just another arrow to the heart. Dear Lord, have mercy and give us more time. I know we probably need chastisement and purification, but an Obama second term would be too much to bear. Can you imagine an Obama and Cecile Richards and Kathleen Sebelius unfettered by any worries of reelection? Gird your loins, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Starfire, you're completely ignoring the context of Romney's comments. Please stop drinking the liberal kool-aid and look at them for yourself. He said his female chief of staff had specifically requested that she be home in time to cook supper for his family, and used that anecdote to make his case for flexible hours for parents. He NEVER said that all women have to be home to cook supper, or even that they should. His point was that most do, and that's certainly accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Funny, I would think that killing tens of thousands of civilians in unnecessary wars would be a lower low than a one-minute video...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What say you on Obama's drones? He is killing innocent civilians daily. If you're not sure, look it up.

      Delete
  34. josephg, I wasn't talking about a "new low" in policy (I think targeting and ripping innocent unborn children to shreds by the millions would be as low as it gets policy-wise; not sure of any policy on either side which advocates for the direct killing of civilians in war, but I'll stand corrected if you show me). I was talking about a new low for political ads, from a sitting president.

    I thought that was understood.

    ReplyDelete
  35. My mistake. I'm not one to watch political ads that much, so I can't speak to that. I dont think it matters if you're advocating for killing civilians or not, if its happening, that's what matters.

    Anyway, I do sort of wonder, and i mean this with all due respect, but where is the love? I am one of the "dems" and part of "the left" you keep talking about, and when I read your posts and your replies to people who disagree with you, I just wonder what you would say if it was your own kid who was in a same-sex relationship (that "makes my stomach turn" comment) or who was voting for obama. Again i don't mean to be rude or offensive but I just see a lot of hate here and I can't understand why.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I couldn't bring myself to watch all of the first video, and I didn't want to play it with my kids around, either, after listening to the first 15 seconds. I did read a transcript, though.

    One of things that cracked me up was the allusion to how we are denying gay people those "beautiful and complicated weddings like on TLC". Seriously?? Should taxpayers have to pay for one of those for everyone next??

    Never mind that all of those "beautiful and complicated weddings" on television usually revolve around narcissistic people who make terrible economic decisions in the name of the "perfect party". I pray that straight couples would stop having those "beautiful and complicated weddings" and realize that marriage is more than a "perfect party".

    Of course, if the President loves gay people so much more than us bigoted conservatives then why doesn't he have an identical ad featuring a male actor. They would just have to switch the birth control/abortion part with the beautiful weddings part. I'm assuming he would like all the young gay men to have their "first time" with him, too.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well, any war is a policy which advocates the direct killing of civilians. That's what bombing, shelling, missile strikes, and so forth are basically intended for. In addition the drone program is done with the knowledge that innocent civilians will die. Supporting any conflict is a tacit endorsement of the direct killing of civilians, and every modern war (led by both Democrats and Republicans) has involved doing so. It's perfectly reasonable to look at who starts unnecessary wars as one factor in your vote.

    Of course, this is off-topic since Leila was talking about ads, but whatever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well said - exactly why I can't wrap my mind around the idea of a just war.

      Delete
  38. Josephg, if you don't mind my asking: Are you a Catholic?

    As to the "hate" that you believe you see on this blog. Could you elaborate? You gave me one example, of my statement that the ad with the gay men made my stomach turn. Yes, it did. The celebration of sin absolutely makes my stomach turn. Doesn't the celebration of sin make your stomach turn? If sin does not make your stomach turn, then what does?

    I plead guilty to hating sin and hating evil with all my might. You caught me. But really, should that surprise you? I am a Catholic and I believe that Jesus hated sin so much that he died to set us free from its effects. Talk about hate! I don't think anyone can hate sin more than Jesus Christ.

    As to what I would say if my child were committing homosexual acts, well, it's the same thing I would say if my child were involved in any type of mortal sin, sexual or otherwise. Sin is never, ever in the best interest of a person, so if I truly loved my child, I would not condone the sin, right? Here is an analogy that might help you understand, from a previous post I wrote:

    We hate the sin because sin is destructive to the human person. Sin demeans. Sin enslaves. Sin offends against human dignity. Sin harms not only the sinner, but others as well.

    Think of it this way:

    A father discovers that his beloved child has been engaging in theft and vandalism. He loves his boy. He loves his boy with every ounce of his being and would be willing to give his very life for his son. But he hates the sin. He hates it with a red-hot hate, because it demeans his son, it enslaves his son, and it offends his son's human dignity. It twists and distorts that which is good in his son, thwarts his potential, and blocks his true destiny. The father pleads, works and prays for his son's conversion. It is precisely because he loves his son that he will not accept the sin as a legitimate choice.

    The father hates the sin and loves the sinner. He is a good father.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is a link to the entire post:

      http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/01/answering-miss-gwen-distinction-between.html

      Delete
  39. Josephg, you said:

    I can't wrap my mind around the idea of a just war.

    But the Catholic Church can. I am a Catholic, so I submit that there is a legitimate place for just war in this world. Again, I am not sure if you are a Catholic? But if so, here is the authoritative word of your Church:

    2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

    - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

    - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

    - there must be serious prospects of success;

    - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

    These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

    The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

    2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

    Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

    2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108

    2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

    2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

    Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

    2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

    2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

    2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Chris, according to Catholic principles (and I am a Catholic), war is not an intrinsic evil. Nations have a right to defend themselves and their citizens. However, as you can see above, it is morally illicit for the military to target civilians, or target cities, etc. The strikes must be on military targets, and on armed combatants, not civilians. That civilians are killed as an unintended side effect is a tragedy, and that is to be avoided at all costs. (And that falls under the principle of double effect.) Anyone who does not take care to avoid such killings is in grave sin. One cannot target civilians. If a commander were to call for targeting civilians, his very soul would be in jeopardy.

    You may not agree with Church teaching, but there it is. I think it's right and just.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Barbara, good points!

    Chris, one more thought. Certainly we take into consideration a candidate's position on war*, but since war is not intrinsically evil, we look to the non-negotiables, first. Abortion is a non-negotiable, as it is the targeting and elimination of innocent human life. Without the right to life, there are no other rights applicable.



    *I can't imagine any candidate saying that he would go to war for anything other than necessity. So, that's a bit hard to evaluate.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Leila, I understand you hate sin. But the general sense I get here from reading past posts and this one is that you don't love the sinner. I feel like you could not love someone who was (in your eyes) sinning, unless you saw them changing. I can't see you treating a gay couple normally and looking past what you see as revolting about their relationship. I feel like you'd see THEM as disgusting people. Maybe thats not what you're like in real life, I don't know, but thats what I imagine from reading here.

    And, no, I'm not catholic. There's a lot I see as compelling about it, but if I'm being honest, a lot of what I see makes me want to run far far away. I haven't yet been able to square a lot of my beliefs about politics and social issues with what the church says, but even if I could, I think the condemnation of those who disagree is frankly really ugly. I see it breeding a lot of hate, if you grow up with this idea that the soul's of people who disagree with you are in jeopardy. Even if thats not the intent, I don't see that as being any way i want to raise my kids. I don't want to cultivate that in myself or in them. I thought a lot about becoming Catholic, but in the end that's what drove me away. I wish I could say reading here has changed that, but it only confirmed what I thought before.

    ReplyDelete
  43. And to me the right to life means that everyone also has a right to life when they're born, even if they don't live in America. I could never call myself pro-life unless I was as anti-war as I was anti-abortion. Its only logical.

    ReplyDelete
  44. josephg, so you're in favor of denying human rights to human beings and you have the temerity to accuse Leila of hating people?

    Also, I hope you use your infallible powers of heart- and soul-reading for good and not evil.

    Can you see the distinction between hating an action and hating the person committing the action? For example, one of my close relatives committed adultery. Does that mean I have to support, condone, and celebrate adultery in order to keep loving her?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Josephg, you should never base what you believe on emotions. You should convert to Catholicism if you believe it is true. If you don't believe it is true, then you should not convert. Whether or not an stranger on the internet "seems" unloving to you should not have a part in it.

    Honestly, we debate ideas here. If you read the "Please Read First" at the top of the blog, you will get some idea of what this particular idea is all about.

    For the example of Catholicism lived to its fullest, please read the lives of the saints. They hold the same truth as I do, as the Pope does, as the Catechism does. I think you would find them quite loving. A better example than my blog posts, for sure! But I repeat: They hold the same truth as we speak here.

    I want to raise my kids to get to Heaven. To get there, they need to know the truth. What good is it if a father tells his kids what they want to hear, rather than what is good, true and beautiful? Makes no sense to me. I don't see that anywhere in Christ's message.

    I don't see any hate in telling the truth, and I have never, ever seen the Church as hateful, not even when I was a lapsed, sinful Catholic. But I see a lot of ugliness in sin, and I see a heck of a lot of ugliness in the left these days. Very ugly, very frightening.

    As for your views on life… The right to life comes at birth? That is an extreme position even for a pro-"choice" person. So, up until the moment that a child's last body part exits the birth canal, she possesses no human rights and can be dismembered and discarded at will?

    Are you a Christian?

    ReplyDelete
  46. JoAnna, yes but thats not what I see here. I see hatred of the sin and the sinner. It might not be clear to someone whose in the church, but as an outsider looking in, you see it alright. There's less concern for the person who you consider to be sinning than there is berating them and going on and on about how awful they are. If I were Obama (for example) and I read this blog, I wouldn't feel like I could visit any of you and expect to be treated as a fellow human being.

    What do you mean, denying human rights...?

    ReplyDelete
  47. I have used this quote from Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. before, but your comment reminded me of it once again:

    The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love.

    I wish you could see my facebook debates with liberals. The hatred and vitriol and name-calling that comes simply because I state an objective position is actually unnerving. The intolerance and hatred, in my mind, comes from the left, fast and furious. I've been in its wake many times. If you can show me that hatred directed at anyone by me, please, point it out and I will apologize.

    Meanwhile, I really would encourage you to choose your beliefs based on truth, not on feelings.

    ReplyDelete
  48. josephg, I would be very happy to tell Mr. Obama to his face why I despise his policies. Are you saying that we must pretend that the perpetuation of evil does not matter? I'm not a frog in slowly boiling water, and I certainly don't need to leave my brain or my voice at the door when talking of matters of urgency and great import to myself, my children, my Church and my nation, do I? Sorry, I am not getting what your beef is. You don't like my tone? So the Church is wrong?

    I assure you, there are many soothing blogs out there that aim to make folks feel very good about themselves; there are even soothing Catholic blogs that are excellent. This is a blog about debating ideas and seeking truth. I have never advertised it as a "feel good" blog where Obama or anyone else can feel warm fuzzies. I just don't have time to soothe everyone's psyche in the midst of debating these very important matters of life, death, and eternity.

    You like diversity, right? Can't that extend to blogs? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  49. No, reread what I wrote. I couldn't call myself prolife unless in addition to being anti-abortion, I was equally anti-war. Civilians overseas are people just as much as fetuses are. If you start something (a war) where you know that your going to kill civilians, that's just as evil as an abortion.

    And I think even if I saw catholicism as totally true (logic has not fully led me there yet), I would be very hesitant to be overtly catholic. Like I said, the condemnation that I see here is something I've seen elsewhere. If you can't truly love your fellow human beings (even if thats a tenet of catholicism, it is certianly not something I've seen among Catholics, though I see it in people who arent as extremely religious) then you're not living a good life, heaven or not.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Josephg, give me a for instance. How would I show my hatred for the celebration of sin while also showing my love for the sinner. What would that look like on this blog? You are still giving me sort of a vague "I have a feeling that you hate", but no concrete examples.

    Or let's try this: How would I treat Obama if he came to my home for a chat? What are you imagining would happen, exactly? How would I treat him as "less than a human being"? (Obama is the man who voted four times to deny medical attention to babies who survived botched abortions. Is that hateful? He also opposed the ban on partial birth abortions. Is that treating folks as less than human beings?)

    ReplyDelete
  51. See this is what I can't get past. Your spiritual beliefs apply to you. I can understand with certian things like abortion, that's something that you can reasonably say applies to everyone. But with things like marriage, thats something that applies to you and yours, not everyone. Even if I was catholic, I would respect that others might think differently than me. But I don't see that here, i just can't see you treating catholics and noncatholics as equally worthy human beings.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Maybe Obama's not the right example, since his action's are public. Hows this: If a gay couple came to your house, do you think they would get the feeling that you saw them equally as human beings as a straight couple? Would they know that you didn't approve of their relationship but still approved of them as people, or would they feel like your disgust extend to who they are as people?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Josephg, you keep talking about how I 'treat' people, but you give no examples and you have no knowledge.

    Obviously the subject of gay marriage is sensitive to you. Fine, it is a sensitive thing. But I think abortion is sensitive too. Both are matters of natural law, both transcend religious sentiment and apply to all humans. The moral law is universal, including the inherent heterosexuality of marriage. It has been true in all places and times, including in atheist nations.

    Are you a Christian?

    Also, the idea that I don't see all human beings as equally worthy is insulting to me. It actually hurts me, because what you are saying is that I don't believe my Catholic Faith. My faith is very dear to me. I would die for it. And you are telling me that I don't believe the central tenet that Christ died for ALL and that ALL are worthy. Truly, you presume way too much, and I don't know why that is. I wonder if there is some projection or transference? I just don't think that is fair at all. I have never lied about what I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  54. See, you're proving my point exactly. It's like you can't talk to me unless you know if I'm a Christian or a Catholic.

    I think in the end what it is, other than just "bad vibes" which is vague I know, is that I don't see you distinguishing the sin from the sinner. The way you talk about Michelle Obama (#6) and the way you talk about that ad, I get the sense your intolerance of sin spreads to the sinners. Maybe its just one of the flaws of online communication, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt because I really do want to see the good in everyone, but I would not be surprised if you had lurkers (like me until now) who were turned away from catholicism and towards a more forgiving relgion because they didn't see any indication that you think the people your talking about are worthy. Not that you need disclaimers for anything, but the constant ragging on "the left" and "Dems" and giving zero indiciation that these are well-meaning people like you who happen to disagree is I think what gets to me more than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  55. See, you're proving my point exactly. It's like you can't talk to me unless you know if I'm a Christian or a Catholic.

    Are you kidding? Josephg, I am asking you if you are a Christian so that I can know how to talk to you, not if I will talk to you. You must not be a longtime reader of this blog. I talk to Christians, Buddhists, atheists, Jews, you name it. But I am not going to talk to an atheist about abortion in the same way I would talk to a Christian about abortion. I am not going to talk to a Protestant about the papacy the same way I am going to talk to a Catholic about contraception. I hope you can understand why that knowledge, of your background or identification, would be helpful in trying to have a fruitful conversation.

    Again, sorry you don't like my "tone" or my "vibe". It's how I write. Simple, straight to the point. It's not for everyone, and that's why I wrote the "Please Read First" up top.

    There is no more forgiving religion than Catholicism. We are the ones who have Confession (Reconciliation) as a Sacrament. It's what the Church does: Forgives.

    I can't worry about making my "tone" please everyone (you are right about online communication), but if you want to stay and debate ideas and principles, this is the place to be. If not, I wish you only the best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops, bad editing! Should have said:

      "I am not going to talk to a Protestant about the papacy the same way I am going to talk to a Catholic about the papacy."

      That's what I get when I'm trying to work on kids' saints speeches and costumes while blogging! See, there's a good reason why I am blunt and to the point. Who has time to make sure everyone likes my tone? I only wish I had that kind of time and patience. :)

      Delete
  56. Would they know that you didn't approve of their relationship but still approved of them as people, or would they feel like your disgust extend to who they are as people?

    I am someone who goes out of my way to make people feel comfortable. I am a friendly person to all (except when I'm fighting an insurance company, perhaps, but even then I've been known to apologize for my rudeness, even if they were clearly in the wrong, ha ha). I would of course be kind to anyone I see (pretty sure my last waiter was gay, and I assure you, I made him laugh, treated him well, and he got a good tip). I would never, however, attend a gay "wedding", nor have a gay couple spend the night in my home in the same room (but that last is true for heterosexual couples as well). I don't facilitate sin. I also don't pretend that sin is okay. If the couple never told me they were gay, I would never think to broach the subject. If they brought up the subject, I would have the same discussions with them that I have here. In fact, I have had those discussions with gay people on this blog. You can seek those out and judge for yourself how they were treated.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Josephg, if you are pro-"choice," or pro-abortion rights, then you favor denying human rights to unborn human beings. Actually, by your own standards, you "hate" unborn children (since you favor denying them their human rights). Is that the case?

    Again, do you see a difference between hating an ACTION or behavior, and hating a person? You seem to be unable to separate the two. To use my previous example, I hate the adultery committed by my relative, but I still love her deeply and always will. I can treat her has a welcome guest in my home despite the fact that I hate the sin she committed. Can you see the distinction?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Leah-
    What is the name of the Facebook page you reference where you hear hate speech from liberals? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  59. JoAnna, I said I was anti-abortion multiple times I believe so I don't know where thats coming form. And no, I see a great distinction between them. I don't know that the people here do. From the way I've seen commenters like Michele and Gwen and CS treated (until CS asked for prayers...hmm), I don't get the sense that YOU guys see the difference a lot of the time. I could for instance say that I hated Mr. Romneys policies but acknowledge that I'm sure hes a great husband and father and a personable guy who I'd be happy to have a beer with. The way Leila goes so far as to attack the Obama's parenting abilities makes me doubt that theres that same distinction happening. BUT like I said, that might just be the downfall of internet communication. Ill take your word for it that your good to people in your life who have committed great sins. I just don't get that feelign from how I see "the other side' being portrayed here. Questioning and debating is one thing, but attacking the intent and character of people instead of recognizing that they mean just as well as you do and just don't agree...i think there s something to be said for erring on the side of being more charitable towards people.

    And Leila, seeing the way you've talked to people in the past I dont know that I want to tell you my spiritual beliefs. I have read a lot of past posts & comments and i think you should be able to talk to people on a logical and universal level without knowing whether they are 'supposed" to agree with you.

    Off to work for the day, maybe i'll be back later.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Johanne, the pages are my friends' facebook pages. Meaning, I will join a conversation that a friend is having on her own page, and the responses to just a comment or two defending the Church or arguing (unemotionally) for religious liberty -- wow. It is unnerving. I would be happy to send you the screen shots of a conversation I had with several of liberal women recently. I was attacked, personally, then accused of attacking them! You can be the judge of that if you'd like. It was unreal. But that is nothing compared to the names I've been called in the past (never thought to get screen shots of those). This experience of being screamed at, vilified, attacked is common to many of my Catholic friends, who actually get very shaken up. It's usually when the subject is abortion or birth control. But not always. There is so much hatred out there.

    Just email me if you want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  61. josephg, you say you are anti-abortion, yet it appears that you said that human beings don't have rights until they are born:

    And to me the right to life means that everyone also has a right to life when they're born, even if they don't live in America.

    Maybe that was worded awkwardly? Anyway, in what way do you defend the rights of the unborn?

    As for CS: If she felt so unloved, why on earth would she come to me and my readers for prayers? That seems a little odd, don't you think? Why are we emailing privately? Why have we been doing that for years? Sorry, what is the basis for you believing such a thing? Why don't you ask her instead of assuming that she is unloved here?

    As for Obama: I will not shy away from saying that a father should never use his daughters as poster children for why abortion is needed. He uses them publicly, and I will chastise him publicly. I have no idea the state of his soul (did you read the link about making a distinction between a person and his actions?), but I do very much know that to use his own young daughters in that context is very, very wrong. I will not be silent, sorry.

    As for asking your belief system -- ?? If a fundamentalist Christian, who does not believe in evolution, came on here to debate something, I would not be debating him with science. I would appeal to him in other ways. If one is an atheist, I will appeal only to logic or science or reason to try to convince him of the rightness of my position; I would know not to waste his time quoting Scripture. If there is a person who claims to be Christian, I should be able to use Scripture or Church history to ask some questions of him and challenge his assumptions. I would not do this with an atheist.

    Sorry, I'm repeating myself a bit, but that seems like common sense to me. For example, if someone is a Christian, I will assume he believes in Jesus Christ is God, that He is the final authority, that the Bible is the Word of God, that sin exists, etc. I would never assume that with an atheist, so my way of engaging that person would be completely different.

    Why on earth would that be suspect?

    Sorry, I don't understand at all.

    Josphg, forgive me, but you are terribly sensitive. This may not be the blog for you. You certainly are welcome to stay, but I can't keep coddling you like this. ;)

    If only we could get back to the topics and stop analyzing how "mean" I am, that would be great. :)

    Truly, no hard feelings, but this is not productive, you know?


    ReplyDelete
  62. Sorry, I didn't notice that you mentioned Gwen and Michelle as well. I will tell you that Gwen is a mystery to many of us. We have always treated her with respect (she had a very lovely guest post here, and also when she had her own blog briefly, we all were very supportive), but for some reason she started getting quite insulting. We pushed back when that happened, yes. But she knows she is always welcome to be here and is a member of the Bubble family. She has threatened to leave here and never come back many times, and she also leaves many questions hanging (she's become more "hit and run" than engaged), but we are always happy to have her back in the discussions.

    Michelle is a young woman that I like very much. We also have emailed very often privately. She is my daughter's age. I challenge her just as hard as I would challenge my own daughter, and I love my daughter very much. But I'm not going to let her get away with fuzzy thinking. She is a big girl and has held her own very nicely. I think she would agree that there have been some tough conversations here, but I don't believe she would say there has been hatred.

    Zach and I have also had good conversations privately. I care very much about these young people and I assure you, they know it.

    ReplyDelete
  63. josephg, geez. Sensitive! You keep saying how Leila and "others on here" attack the character of and personally insult people, but can you provide any evidence of that? I've never, EVER seen a "liberal", "lefty", atheist, etc, called a vile name, damned to hell, or had the state of their very soul judged by anyone on here. And I'm a politically active, pro-life, conservative Catholic - I know what it's like to be on the receiving end. Sorry...just really confused as to why your feelings are so hurt by this blog. I guess sometimes the truth hurts??

    ReplyDelete
  64. As Leila said, josephg, I was referring to your comment that babies only have rights after their born. If you believe babies have no rights before they're born, why do you also believe it is wrong to kill them?

    The quotes you've provided that you believe are "hateful" are all directed at a person's actions or behavior, but not the actual person.

    I'm sure Obama is a great husband and father. I'm sure he has many fine qualities. He's a beloved child of God, and made in His image and likeness. However, his actions and behavior, in many aspects, are abhorrent.

    Johanne - see here for many examples of liberal hate: http://www.humanevents.com/2011/01/11/top-10-examples-of-liberal-hate/

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hi Leila! I've been wondering what post would finally get me to quit lurking and actually comment. I emailed you a few weeks ago so you know that I am a 23-year-old, Catholic youth minister.

    I had not seen the Dunham ad until I read your post today. It truly shocked and disgusted me. I see young girls struggle so much with the pressure to lose their virginity even though they know and believe that sex is meant for the sanctity of marriage. This pressure is there for all youth, whether or not they are Christian. No matter what a persons beliefs are, I think it can be agreed upon that sex at a young age often has negative effects. Yes, a lot of the girls I work with are not old enough to vote yet but some of them are and almost all of them will be in the next few years. To see an ad equate losing your virginity and voting makes me sick. It is extremely important to vote and for the youth to understand this importance and yes I even think it's "uncool" not to vote! But this ad basically just told anyone watching that it is also "uncool" or embarrassing to tell someone that you're still a virgin.

    Maybe to some, getting offended by this ad may seem extreme but to a young, late high school/early college aged girl, the pressure to have sex is extreme and to turn that pressure and a young girl's vulnerability into a political campaign ad is just plain wrong.

    The Crowder parody is great! I think I just laughed a little too loudly in my office! Haha.

    Also, thanks Leila for your wonderful posts.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Teresa, I am so grateful that you de-lurked! Truly, you have so perfectly articulated the heart of what is so disturbing about this ad. Where are the grown-ups who set the standards and look out for the protection of our kids anymore? If we can expect this kind of "tee-hee" sex humor about girls losing their virginity from the President of the United States, can we sink any further?

    You said it exactly right. And, praise God you are working with those kids!

    Keep commenting; it's the law that once you start you have to keep doing it. :)

    ReplyDelete
  67. Wait a minute, I'm a "mystery" because I don't carry on private e-mails with you Leila? Last time I checked, the discussions here were related to politics, social issues and Catholicism, not a run-down of bios on each person who has ever commented.

    Also, I didn't become insulting, I became more adept at participating in the argumentative tactics being used around here. I don't "sit down and shut up" for instance, when JoAnna makes references to drinking liberal agenda "kool-aid" (what kind of sick person makes an insinuation that cult suicide is akin to political affiliation??).

    I am sorry my attempts to say "goodbye" to commenting around here were perceived as threats (who knew I had such power?) For me, engaging around here was really called into question when my daily schedule didn't permit me to spend hours on-line arguing and fielding many questions at once. Also, after Leila's unnecessary misrepresentation of my work, I though to myself, "what am I doing?"

    So, pardon for my intrusion again. Perhaps I should really say, "never say never" but I do prefer not commenting on here regularly as I don't have time (or patience really). When I read posts here, it's usually to better refine my own argument as I am diametrically opposed to 99% of what's written here.

    Maizeke, I miss your comments.

    Cheers,
    Gwen



    ReplyDelete
  68. P.S. Lest this be labelled a "hit and run" comment, for the record, I'm making this comment too which means it's not really a "hit and run" situation (wouldn't that just be a one time comment?). And since I'm expected to make known my whereabouts here, let it be known for the next hour and a half I am 1) enjoying a pumpkin spiced beer 2) preparing dinner for my delicious, liberal partner (boyfriend) and 3) doing laundry

    ReplyDelete
  69. Gwen, why the snarky response? Did I say something to offend you? The "mystery" is why you turned so rude and snarky when we have been quite welcoming to you. And yes, we have emailed privately. And "drinking the kool-aid" has become part of the lexicon now.

    I am glad you are still reading all the comments. I miss MaiZeke's comments, too (and her answers. I asked her a question and never heard back….why not complete the conversation one starts?).

    I'm cooking for my wonderful husband and children tonight (he usually cooks, but tonight is special), and I will be doing laundry as well. So we have a little something in common.

    Have a great night!

    ReplyDelete
  70. FYI:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drinking%20the%20kool-aid

    We must be one sick society.

    I see that the words offend you deeply, but I wish, Miss Gwen, that you also thought that shredding human beings in the womb (many millions of little girls, by the way) is a sign of a very, very sick society, with the person who gets paid to do the shreddings being the sickest of all.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hi Miss Gwen! I see that your resolution to no longer comment at the Bubble isn't working out too well for you. That's a shame. Maybe try removing the site from your bookmarks?

    "Drinking the kool-aid" is what's known as an idiom. As the Wikipedia page for this phrase notes, "Objections notwithstanding, the phrase has been used in a variety of contexts to describe blind, uncritical acceptance or following. This usage began in limited circles in the late 1990s, and reached mainstream use in the late 2000s."

    Perhaps it's a generational gap - I'm in my early 30s so I might be more aware of what mainstream idioms are in usage than you might be. :)

    Moreover, given that StarFireKK has clearly shown ignorance about Romney's statements and does, by her public actions, appear to have blindly believed the lie about Romney's alleged desire to shackle women to the stove, the idiom is relevant.

    However, since I have offended your delicate sensibilities, I will amend my statement to "StarFireKK, please stop swallowing the liberal propaganda hook, line, and sinker" (unless you are an avid fan of sea kittens, in which case I'm afraid I have offended you again).

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  72. I'll repeat myself: I didn't become "rude" or "snarky" I became more vocal about participating in the arguments around here and in the same manner in which people engaged with me. You cannot call my response "snarky" and tell me with a straight face that what JoAnna just posted is robustly friendly in tone and content.

    FYI JoAnna, hate to blow your bubble, but we're age-mates. Sorry if that ruins your mental image of me as an aging hippie with bad skin. And yes, how quick you are indeed to notice that yet again I'm commenting on here. Perhaps because (once again) I disagree with how my history of commenting has been portrayed by Leila.

    p.s. and rest assured, I'd be happy to share a laugh or two and a heated conversation in person with Leila over coffee should I ever find myself in her neck of the woods...what the internet can't capture is mood and tone with the comments here

    -gwen

    ReplyDelete
  73. Gwen, is your sense of humor broken? Everything I posted was with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek. (If you need that idiom explained to you, too, let me know!)

    If we are indeed age-mates, I'm astounded that you've never heard the phrase "drinking the kool-aid." I grew up in a small Midwestern town of 1,400 people and even I was aware of what that phrase meant by the time I graduated high school.

    Why continue reading the Bubble at all if your intention is not to comment? That way you won't ever know what Leila allegedly says about you, and won't be tempted to comment. But really, what are you afraid of? Your words are present for anyone to go back and read if they want to form their own opinion about your tone, words, opinions, etc.

    I share the sentiment of your postscript (I've had coffee with Leila and she is truly delightful) and would love to have coffee and a chat with you as well, someday. :)

    ReplyDelete
  74. I'd absolutely love for all three of us to sit down and have coffee (though I'd take tea, as I can't stand coffee, ha ha). I'd take MaiZeke as well, to make the political ratio fair. And I would just mention that you two are spring chickens compared to me. I actually watched the Jonestown massacre/nightmare play out on TV in real time. I will never forget it. Truly horrific. I think I was eleven?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would actually fly out there to witness this.... :)

      Delete
  75. JoAnna, thanks for the sweet words, by the way, and you know I feel the same about you! Also, I am glad you brought up the fact that anyone can go back and reread any of the conversations to get a good feel for how it's gone. I love having everything on record.

    For any east coasters reading this, I am praying for you, and I'm sure we all are! Stay safe, please!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Yes, JoAnna, thanks for the sweet words. Oh wait.....you are just joking aren't you! Or you are just telling me the truth. Or you are just doing this for my benefit....

    Or I'm too sensitive.......or I don't have a sense of humor....or I need to lighten up.

    I'm sure it is my problem....I'll go figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  77. StarfireKK, do you think Romney is disrespectful to women because he was hiring them and giving them flexible hours to get home in time to prepare dinner for their families? I know you we're addressing JoAnna, but I don't think you elaborated on that. Why should that offend women, when this ad doesn't offend you? I'm seriously asking.

    ReplyDelete
  78. JoAnna is right- he did share the story of his staff person wanting the flexible hours so she can go home to dinner. I was recalling a debate among my friends where they expanded on his comments. I was more than prepared to admit my mistake when I got a little put out I was being dragged over the coals for it again.

    But JoAnna missed the larger point. Romney gave the story as an answer to a question on equal pay. Yes some parents will always care more about flexible schedules but ALL women should care about equal pay. It is the lack of his answer that bothers me. And as a woman in a profession that is well known for ignoring equal pay laws.....yeah the answer ticked me off. He pandered to his base- the stay at home moms and the 9-3 working moms and ignored the rest of us.

    It was like Ms. Romney's answer to a question on the view about her husband and he sons serving in the military. Romney went on about how her sons went to the missions- basically implying they did a similar service. While her sons service is indeed noble....it isn't the same as putting your life on the line in the military. Both my brother and my brother-in-law served in foreign countries where they were likely to see combat action. My brother in law was told if his unit was fired upon- the army gave him 32 seconds to live.

    Ms. Romney could have used the question as an opportunity to talk about our nations duty to care for our vets. Instead she tried to spin it....

    Frankly, I found her answer incredibly disrespectful. Like her husband...it isn't so much what she said as what she didn't say.

    Why didn't the ad offend me? Because it was a JOKE. Clearly it was in poor taste. Clearly, they tried to be edgy and funny and it didn't work. Sometimes jokes are funny, sometimes they are a dud but they are always still a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  79. JoAnna, I'm known in my social group for having an excellent sense of humor. Thank you for being concerned, but my humor is in prime form.

    FYI, it makes you sound really ugly (and humorless) when you try to talk "down" to people throwing out definitions from wikipedia left and right as if no one but your educated self knows what "idiom" means.

    Thanks also for putting words in my mouth-did I ever write that I've never heard the phrase "drinking the kool-aid?" No, I didn't. And if you don't know the popular reference of that phrase in connection to the 1978 Jonestown massacre, maybe you need to hit the history books, eh? It's cool to know things before you were born, ha ha ha ha!

    When I do read posts here, it's usually to help me refine my own arguments since I'm typically diametrically opposed to about %99 of what's written/expressed here. Nothing wrong with keeping up with counter opinions and arguments.

    Nighty, night
    gwen

    ReplyDelete
  80. Clearly you dislike the Romneys, and clearly Obama's (still standing) ad about virgins having sex gets a pass. I admit, I don't understand it. There is so much evil in Obama's agenda and policies. True, intrinsic evil, and true threat to our Church. But he is well-meaning, supposedly, and he'll give stuff to folks, so he basically a good guy, unlike mean ole Mitt. I hear it a lot. I will never, ever understand it.

    As for equal pay, you don't mean the belief that women make only 73% of men for the same job and hours? That's been debunked long ago. If your employer is breaking laws, that's another thing, and it's shameful.

    May I ask if you are a Democrat? if so, how do you reconcile that with being a faithful Catholic (which I believe you are)?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Starfire, perhaps you're not aware that I work full time outside the home, with a 43-mile commute? So yeah, this is an issue of concern to me, although I personally don't believe in "equal pay" as a blanket concept. I think merit-based pay is absolutely acceptable, and if my male coworker outperforms me, he absolutely should get paid more. If he's been employed by the same company for ten years and I only have been there four years, then he will probably have a higher rate of pay. And if I ever decide to take 10 years off from the workforce to be a SAHM, it makes sense that my male coworker who worked there during that 10 years should have a higher rate of pay.

    On the other hand, given my long commute and the ages of my children (7, 4, 2, and 11 months), a flexible schedule is a huge benefit to me. Huge. If I can work from home when my oldest daughter is sick instead of using flex time, it's immensely helpful. And I very much like being able to set my own hours so I can pick up my kids by 5:30 and, yes, be home in time to cook supper. My husband isn't off work until 6:30pm at the earliest (usually later), and we'd all be pretty hungry if we had to wait for him to get done in order to get supper started.

    I don't think you've investigated this issue very deeply. Why not listen to actual women who worked for Romney? http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/opinion/edmonds-romney-women/index.html

    Can you provide any proof that Romney thinks women HAVE to be home to cook supper, and plans to somehow enshrine this belief into civil law? Any proof at all?

    Personally, I'm more offended by Obama's misogynistic assertion that I cannot succeed professionally as a woman unless I use birth control and have abortions.

    Aw, Gwen, and here I thought I was being helpful. I'm aware of the genesis of the phrase in question, as I am aware of the events of Jonesboro. Big history buff, as a matter of fact, though my favorite period is WWII-era. If you find the idiom personally offensive, that's your own issue, but you need to be aware that you're in the minority there. Would you like me to dig up some of the many examples of liberals accusing conservatives of "drinking the kool-aid" so you can go harass them for their usage of it?

    ReplyDelete
  82. I agree with almost all of this woman's assessment of the video ad:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/28/obama_insults_women_with_big_government_paternalism_115947.html

    ReplyDelete
  83. Leila, I think we just see the ad differently. Teresa's point is exactly what makes the ad. Sex SHOULDN'T be treated the way it is portrayed in the ad. On the other hand....voting kinda should. You should be excited about the fact you are old enough to vote. You should be researching and finding out about the people you are electing. You should be proud that you voted and you should feel more like an adult after you vote.

    Voting is MORE important than sex. Given how crazy young adults can be over sex they should be focusing some of that energy on voting.

    Obviously, it was a flop.

    Now, I could be wrong. I allow for that possibility. Maybe they really did mean to make a twisted, disgusting, dirty joke and just got a kick out of the concept of all these young girls viewing the vote as some weird sex thing.

    I'm not really sure what they hoped to gain by doing that and they risked an awful lot if it was just for giggles.

    But I don't know what is in their hearts. There are two ways to view the ad. I choose to extend charity and see the ad as a failed joke rather than a conspiracy to insult American women. If they were really being nasty folks- they'll reap what they sow.

    Now before you jump on me for not extended the same to the Romneys. I do. I don't give Mitt that much grief for his 47% comment. I am less successful with Ms. Romney's "we had to sell stock to get through tough times" comment- but I am trying.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I choose to extend charity and see the ad as a failed joke rather than a conspiracy to insult American women.

    But see, it doesn't matter which way it was meant. I don't want a president, or any grown-up in this culture, but ESPECIALLY a president, to think it's funny and cute to make lose-your-virginity jokes to the nation. What kind of judgement, what kind of values, does a person like that have, to think that is appropriate in a presidential ad campaign, when auditioning for four more years of the most important and serious job in the world? Why would I want any such judgement or values to be associated with a president? Again, where have the grown-ups gone? I get that Obama loves to go on the View, and on Jay Leno, and party with Jay-Z and Beyonce, and use words like "bullshitter" in Rolling Stone, etc. But where is the dignity? The decorum? The decency?

    Who would ever think this ad was good for Americans to see, especially young Americans who are so often so sexually messed up? And how could it ever be good for the American family to joke about casual sex, which causes so much heartache for so many people, especially the children aborted or born out of those casual unions?

    I guess we are talking past each other. I never once thought that Obama or his people thought it would insult women, but that is exactly the point. They thought this was NOT insulting, because they think this kind of talk and this kind of attitude is good. They are so out-of-touch, and so off base from where the average American is, especially with their bizarre notion that women only care about their vaginas and empty uteruses, that they still probably don't seen the problem with the ad. Notice, they have not disavowed it or retracted, right?

    For that reason alone, this man should never be running a nation.

    I guess at least I understand now why you are not "offended" by the ad: Because you think they meant no offense. But there is still room to be horrified by the utter lack of judgment and the absence of any understanding of virtue displayed by this ad, from the leader of the free world.

    As for Teresa's point making the ad, I don't get it. The ad is saying "think of voting like you would think of your first sexual encounter". It wasn't making a contrast, it was making a comparison.

    Anyway, it's late, maybe I am making no sense.




    ReplyDelete
  85. rather than a conspiracy to insult American women

    Maybe I should have just said this, to be very clear: Never did I ever think that they were involved in a conspiracy to insult women. Quite the opposite, they were very much trying to appeal to women with this sick ad. That's the exactly why it's so appalling! Who would this appeal to, and why would they think it would? What must they think of women and Americans?

    That's the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  86. This goes back to the 'spin' with Romney's statement about flexible schedules...Why is that so bad? Why is that 'spin'?? During the debate, when it was Obama's turn to discuss equal pay he mentioned the Lily Ledbetter Act (which isn't about equal pay, just removes the statute of limitations on prosecuting unfair pay) and Obamacare? Access to birth control? Obama ONLY talked about women being able to be equal to men when they put their fertility on hold? The only thing he's campaigned on is "Romney sucks!" and "Free birth control"...how is that NOT spin? The obsession with birth control, and by extension the ridiculous ad that is what this post is about...How can you think the ad was just a "bad joke"?

    ReplyDelete
  87. I miss your comments, too Miss G!

    As for why I'm not here either, by the time I've answered a question five or six times, I reach my limit of patience. By continually asking me to reply to a question over and over every time I come here, Leila is making it clear that I'm not welcome. Leila may claim that I didn't answer it, but the honest truth is that she doesn't like my answer. She needs me to answer it in a certain way so that she can continue down her path of ... of ... converting me? Which seems a little silly since I clearly stated my case when I first commented here was to show that liberals and atheists are people to, who want to raise moral children and live in a safe, productive society. Never has Leila acknowledged that in any liberal or atheist that I have seen.

    I agree with Miss G that I like to see 'arguments' (if you can call it that) of the uber-Catholics, to get a perspective on the other side if you will. However, my main goal of following along is for pure entertainment. Take for example Leila's mention of me just now. Complete passive-aggressiveness. "I miss her! Oh, and she's a coward for not answering my question for the sixth time." Smiling while sticking a knife in it. I'm sure Leila (and JoAnna) know that the nicest thing about passive-aggressiveness is that is deniable when confronted with it.

    As for entertainment, there are so many gems in this comment thread alone.

    Leila: But I'm nice to gay waiters! I tip them even! [Bwah ha ha!]

    Leila: (concerning the liberals on FB) "I was attacked, personally, then accused of attacking them!" [Hard to imagine Leila attacking anyone, Maizeke says dryly.] This, when she says repeatedly about the 'left': "I will not be silent, sorry."

    And JoAnna, JoAnna. I don't know you, indeed I may love you if I did know you, but certainly your comments are hateful and ugly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will also say that Catholics in general are amazingly entertaining - some of the stuff I read in the mainstream papers makes me say, "People really believe in this?!" For example the bishop in Wisconsin who said that voting for Obama could “put your own soul in jeopardy.” Really - some guy is telling you that you'll go to hell if you don't vote the way he does. You'll GO TO HELL! I read that and think - what kind of mental gymnastics will Leila et al put themselves through to think that is appropriate? Ever?

      Looks like Leila's next post will be my answer.

      Wisconsin bishop link: http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20121027/OSH0101/310270252/Bishop-urges-parishioners-vote-against-candidates-who-support-abortion-gay-marriage

      Delete
  88. MaiZeke, glad to see you back commenting. As to the bishop's warning that people could put their soul in jeopardy - I haven't read the article yet that you linked, but I imagine that applies to Catholics who commit a mortal sin. Wikipedia:

    1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
    2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
    3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

    That makes sense to me as a Catholic. If I am willingly participating in evil of the kind of voting for someone with Obama's stance on abortion and other grave matters, despite being fully aware of the sinfulness and gravity of the matter, that would, in my own mind, put my soul in jeopardy. Doesn't mean I could not repent later on. Doesn't mean I would go straight to hell if unrepented - that is for God alone to judge. It simply means what it says - put my soul in jeopardy. Do you agree with the logic, even if you reject its precepts?

    ReplyDelete
  89. MaiZeke, The problem, as I see it, is that you answer the questions we you wish we would have asked as opposed to the ones we actually asked. Then you pretend to be confused when we restate the questions and ask you to answer them.

    Also, what precisely did I say that was hateful? Where did I wish evil upon anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  90. MaiZeke, hello! I am glad you are back.

    Let me try to address each of your points as clearly as possible, then I will hope for a response to the actual points I make.

    First, thankfully, not one but at least two bishops now have warned that a vote for someone who supports intrinsic evils could jeopardize one's soul (I'm pretty sure they do not mention Obama by name, as in "Do not vote for Obama", because there are lots of Dems and probably some Republicans who are running in any number of races who hold positions as immoral as he; though Obama is certainly extreme, and in the most important race).

    Now, to make it more understandable, I'm going to make an analogy to something that we both agree is gravely immoral. Let's say we are in a nation in which the major candidate for president believes that women (or Jews or blacks) should have no legal protections at all. That they should be allowed to be killed at will by the others in society. Imagine that my bishop said, "Your soul may be in jeopardy if you vote for someone who supports such evil."

    Would that be so laughable? Would it be something that you need to perform "mental gymnasts" to understand? I'm seriously asking if you can grasp the concept of what I'm saying here, and what the bishop is saying, even if you disagree with our understand of what is intrinsically evil.

    to be continued….

    ReplyDelete
  91. As for entertainment, there are so many gems in this comment thread alone.

    Leila: But I'm nice to gay waiters! I tip them even! [Bwah ha ha!]


    MaiZeke, now to the admittedly amusing comment above: You really need to put things in context.

    My point about the gay waiter was in response to a very specific concern from josephg, who wondered very earnestly if I was able to be in the presence of gay people and actually treat them like human beings. Normally, that could be seen as an incredibly insulting question, but I recognized the earnestness in which he asked. He truly seemed concerned about that fact, and imagined, perhaps, that when in the presence of homosexuals I would growl and spit, or stand up with a crucifix and holy water and begin to scream, "REPENT OF YOUR EVIL, SICKO!!!!!!!"

    So, I honestly sought to reassure him, with the most recent example I could think of, that no… I treat all folks with the same amount of dignity. I am generally a friendly person. I would even give you a hug and be thrilled to see you if we ever met.

    So, in context, is that so bad that I sought to reassure Joseph? In what other way could I have done it?



    ReplyDelete
  92. Leila may claim that I didn't answer it, but the honest truth is that she doesn't like my answer.

    No, MaiZeke, not at all. You may not realize that you stop at a certain point and won't go further. For example, you made the comment (as you surely remember) that generally "abortion is bad." I asked you again and again why it was bad, and you didn't answer. Finally, you did supply the answer that abortion is bad because the fetus is a "potential life". So I asked you the next logical question: "Why is killing a 'potential life' bad?" After all, that goes way further than Catholics. We are fine with killing "potential human life", whatever that may be. If a potential human life is not a human life, then why is it bad to kill it?

    I never got an answer. It's not that I got an answer I didn't like, but you never actually answered the question. Even saying, "You know, I'm not sure; I'll think on that some more and get back to you" would have been satisfactory to me. It's the refusal to answer that gets me, not the "wrong" answer.

    Same thing with the cutting question from way back. I am pretty sure you never fully answered me when I used the analogy of cutting (i.e., if your daughter wanted to have a party in your home where she and her friends were cutting themselves, would you allow it? Would you be able to say, "I love you so much, and that is precisely why I will not condone or facilitate something that I believe is harming you"?)

    Stuff like that, MaiZeke.

    You also said:

    She needs me to answer it in a certain way so that she can continue down her path of ... of ... converting me?

    As I said to Josephg, please read the "Please Read First" up at the top of this blog to see why I do it. I am definitely interested in the dialogue, and while I would love to see you as a Catholic, I am trying to understand your thought process, as well as showing folks how a dialogue between Catholics and others can play out. I am illustrating that the Catholic position is consistent, coherent and logical. I am happy with you being here to challenge me, uncensored, and then let the readers decide what they think about who makes the most sense, who is answering, who is not, etc. You have free reign to use my forum to make your case. I welcome it.

    I know you think I've been unfair to press you for answers, but I don't think it's been unfair.

    In fact, I'd love the answers to those questions, still.

    ReplyDelete
  93. PS: If you want to see the screen shots of how the fb conversations went down, just email me and I'll compile them. :)

    ReplyDelete
  94. Sorry, for the string of comments… but my three main comments to MaiZeke did not show up in my email inbox, though they are clearly here on the site. So, just letting everyone (who subscribes by email) know that I have three long answers to MaiZeke on the actual blog in the comment box. Be sure to check them out to keep in the loop.

    ReplyDelete
  95. MaiZeke, one last thought before I get ready to head out the door: If the reason you came here was to show that atheists could live moral, productive lives, you should have just asked what I thought on that and I would have stipulated that yes, there are atheists who live moral, productive lives. However, the issue here is about what is objectively true, what is objectively good and what is objectively beautiful, not whether or not any one person lives a good life. We are debating our ideas and our principles, and seeking what is true. Peter Singer, for example, leads a peaceful, productive life, and probably follows the laws of the land, pays his taxes, etc. He is likely a pleasant sort. I am sure I would enjoy his company if we were talking about baseball. However, he also believes that three-month old babies can be executed (yes, AFTER birth). So, he holds a belief that is pure evil in my opinion. I've talked about his beliefs, and I have challenged them.

    That's what we do here; we don't need evidence that atheist MaiZeke lives a good life and loves her husband and kids and is a law-abiding taxpayer. We are here to debate ideas, to find the logic (or holes) in those ideas, and to find the Truth.

    Hope that helps!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because ultimately, ideas matter. MaiZeke, you and others may live peaceful, productive, law-abdiding lives and be very friendly people, but your ideas on abortion, for example, leave us with a pile of dead human "fetuses" that goes to the moon and back. Ideas have real consequences for a society and for individual people. I want to talk about those ideas and challenge them.

      But I stipulate that you are a friendly, law-abiding person.

      Delete
  96. For a Protestant reaction to this Obama campaign ad, see here:

    http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/dr-james-emery-white/the-virgin-vote.html

    ReplyDelete
  97. MaiZeke - it's also important to remember that most writers for media publications are embarrassingly ignorant regarding the nuances of religious teachings and practices (not just Catholicism). I used to work in the media, and the errors or quotes/explanations given out of context were so painful that I will no longer trust mainstream publications to educate me on religion. The best way to learn is to actually read the religion's "book" and read/speak with knowledgeable practicing members and members of authority. This was how I, a practicing Catholic, finally began to "get" Mormonism, and although I disagree with Mormon theology and will never convert, at least I am less likely to spout ridiculous inaccuracies publicly, and I also now have a much better understanding and respect for those who choose this religion even if I don't agree (instead of the typical, insulting "What crazy idiot would EVER want to be Mormon..." reaction.).

    ReplyDelete
  98. I will also say that Catholics in general are amazingly entertaining - some of the stuff I read in the mainstream papers makes me say, "People really believe in this?!"

    That's funny, because, ironically, I used to be entertained when I read that atheists believe that objective truth exists, but they go logically haywire when they say that it is not grounded in anything- that it's just "out there". I'm no longer entertained by those responses or conversations. I'm bored by them.

    It's one thing to mock people for being Catholic or believing in Christ, if you don't mind looking intolerant and uneducated. It's the more mature, intellectual thing to converse with people; to agree on where the fundamentals lie intellectually and historically and go from there, so that it's not a counterfeit exercise in futility.

    ReplyDelete
  99. First off,

    I want to sincerely thank all of you who extended prayers to my father.

    I haven't come to argue but I did just want to point out that sometimes groups of people talk past each other because they assume their opponent has the same value set and that is not the case.

    I realize you find the ad offensive. I don't( thought I don't see what it accomplishes) . Perhaps more importantly my parents don't. I am now going to make a sweeping un-evidenced generalization, haha Neither do most liberals. The idea that the president or any adult would acknowledge that women 18 years and older loose their virginity is unoffensive, because pre-marital sex is considered unoffensive, its really a non issue.

    Is it your interpretation that most American parents feel it is inappropriate for an adult to o acknowledge or validate their 18+ year old's child's decision to have sex? It's possible that many parents are like that n Arizona. But I have not met one person whose parents realistically desired them to wait until marriage. Its simply not an east coast value, so that would explain some of the shock differences.

    ~CS

    ReplyDelete
  100. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  101. CS, I think it's more about your circle of friends than your geographical location. I live on the East coast in a very liberal state, yet I know a lot of people who believe it is inappropriate to validate their children's decision to have pre-marital sex.

    ReplyDelete
  102. But I did find Romney's debate comments concerning women extremely offensive.

    First he started by saying ' if women are going to work'--which though subtle was extremely telling about this character and viewpoint of women.

    Second, I did think his reasoning for why women need flexible work hours was insulting. I understand he was using an example of a woman he talked to, but that answer was so stereotypical,so much of a caricature, he should have used another one. It's on par with him telling a story about his interaction with a black man and him promising to lower the man's tax liability because the man said he wanted more money to buy fried chicken. Now I don't doubt many black men really DO love fried chicken ( who doesn't really) still, horrific example.

    As for the binders full of women thing. It was certainly a funny meme, but the real concern was how Romney answered the question. He was asked what he would do concerning equal pay and workforce participation of women and responded with an example of how his private firm used affirmative action to sort through resumes because that was the only way they could find qualified women, as if that was the solution to the problem.

    ~CS

    ReplyDelete
  103. Wait, CS, are you actually claiming that it is a caricature of women to say that women cook dinner for their families? (I ask this as a woman who does not do the cooking in her house.)

    ReplyDelete
  104. Also, does it bother you that Obama has lied again and again about PP providing mammograms when they do not? Even Newsweek (I think it was) gives him three pinocchios (sp) for that whooper and says that at this point the lie must be considered intentional. See, I find direct lies to the American people offensive. Much more offensive than a man who makes a point of hiring women and giving flex time. (Have you listened to the testimony of the women who've worked for Romney vs. the women who've worked for Obama? I highly recommend looking up that stark difference!)

    ReplyDelete
  105. Nicole,

    how old are your friend's children? I only ask because when I was in high school and middle school many parents said or at least pretended to tell their children to wait until marriage to have sex. Yet I know very few parents who once their children became adults, had very strong opinions about them not having sex in their early twenties

    i am not doubting your experiences. I probably know overly liberal people and you probably overly conservative,

    But still I believe that the majority of parents in the United States of America don't actively have problems with their adult twenty something children not being virgins? Do you disagree?

    ~CS

    ReplyDelete
  106. I'm just always stunned at what you find offensive and what you don't find offensive. What do you think of this, from our own Rebecca Frech:

    They [feminists in college] taught me that as long as a man was in favor of abortion he could say anything he wanted about women and he was okay. That's how I knew that the art professor who said that the perfect woman only needed "two tits, a hole, and a heartbeat" was funny. (He wore a Vote for Clinton t-shirt -- so he was pro-woman just funny.) It's how I knew that the polite guy in history class, who always held the door open for me because my hands were usually full of books, hated women. He voted for Bush. (The first one. It was 1992.)

    Is that true in your opinion? Men who support a woman's "right" to shred her children in utero are acceptable and pro-woman, and the rest are just offensive to you? I am trying to see it as otherwise, but she and I did not compare notes, and yet I find the same thing. That's why women see leeches like Clinton and Kennedy as "pro-woman", but gentlemen like my husband and my sons are misogynists. What an upside down world we live in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should have put the disclaimer on what she wrote, like she did, but anyway, here is Rebecca's entire (amazing) piece:

      http://shovedtothem.blogspot.com/2012/10/hey-democrats-get-your-minds-outta-my.html

      Delete
  107. But still I believe that the majority of parents in the United States of America don't actively have problems with their adult twenty something children not being virgins? Do you disagree?

    CS, if I can jump in. I think that a lot of parents, even good parents, give up fighting the culture. Truly, it's hard to be a parent. And when you feel like you've lost this or that battle, sometimes it's easier just to pretend it's all okay and move on. I'm pretty sure that is what my parents did and thought. But that doesn't ever mean that in their hearts they thought it was all okay. Does that make sense? It would be a great topic for a post.

    ReplyDelete
  108. "First he started by saying ' if women are going to work'--which though subtle was extremely telling about this character and viewpoint of women."

    Can you elaborate? What on earth does that tell you about his character and viewpoint on women? I'm a stay at home mom. I get the "if." Does that say something about MY character too? Or maybe your issue with it says something about what you think of my vocation?

    My friends' children range in age from elementary school to high school. Even adult children, actually. Sure, they would be more vocal about teaching their children their own moral values about sexuality when the children are younger. I suppose when their children reach adulthood, at some point they allow them to make their own decisions, although I'm certain they still care very much about their decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Nicole,

    "If women are going to work. "

    Like if "jews are goign to work." Like if we are going to allow them to work. If we are going to include them in the workforce. We would never say 'if men are going to work' because of course Men are going to work. Even though many may be stay at home dads or playing video games or unemployed we know men SOME men are going to work and that's good enough.

    CS

    ReplyDelete
  110. CS, we live in two worlds, because even though I am college-educated, I always wanted to marry and have children and stay home to raise them. I think the "if women are going to work" is a nod to the AMAZING freedom that women have. We can choose to work or not (if we sacrifice and scrimp and are blessed enough to have a husband who works). I remember being a young girl and teen and then young adult saying to myself, "How sad for guys! They have to work, but I get the choice to be home with my family." Women used to have that freedom (esp. when the economy was booming).

    How is that a bad thing? Wow, I think it's fantastic! I love being a woman!!

    ReplyDelete
  111. "Wait, CS, are you actually claiming that it is a caricature of women to say that women cook dinner for their families? (I ask this as a woman who does not do the cooking in her house.)"

    Leila women do EVERYTHING for their families. I find it repugnant yes repugnant that Mitt Romney thinks I need flex time so I can work a full time jop and THEN make dinner and clean house. I think it reenforces the idea that childcare and homemaking is the woman's responsibility, even if she is the bread winner. its disgusting to perpetuate such an ideal.

    If he really wanted to talk about how he helped women he should have said how he re-instated flex for ALL his employees, so men could have flexible schedules to help w child care

    CS

    Leila what I find offensive is a presidental canidate telling me he gives women flex time so they can make dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I'm a woman, and a mother, who works full time (not necessarily by choice - I'd love to be a SAHM if we could swing it financially, but as it stands, right now we can't), and yes, I DO need a flexible schedule so I can be at home to cook dinner for my family. As I said above, my husband doesn't get off work until 6:30pm at the absolute earliest, and my kids go to bed at 8pm. If we waited for my husband to get off work to cook dinner, we'd be very hungry and my kids would be tired and cranky by the time we ate.

    It would be AWESOME if my husband's work afforded him the same flexibility, but since he works in a call center environment, his schedule is very rigid and inflexible.

    Also, let's look at Romney's exact words, in context.

    Now, one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort, but number two, because I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can't be here until 7:00 or 8:00 at night. I need to be able to get home at 5:00 so I can be there for — making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said, fine, let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

    We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they're going to be anxious to hire women. In the — in the last four years, women have lost 580,000 jobs. That's the net of what's happened in the last four years. We're still down 580,000 jobs. I mentioned 3 1/2 million women more now in poverty than four years ago.

    What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a — a flexible work schedule that gives women the opportunities that — that they would otherwise not be able to — to afford.


    I don't see what is so offensive about Romney acknowledging that IF you're going to have the people who are MOST OFTEN the primary caregivers of children in the workplace, those caregivers ought to get flexible schedules to make it easier for them to care for their children.

    Bear in mind that the question was about workplace equality for women, not about what policies in general are beneficial for parents. It was a very specific question about women, not parents, and it's in that context he was answering it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JoAnna, exactly! Thank you! Gosh, if he had spoken about men in the workforce, they would have screamed, "Look how he avoided the question about women and made it about men! Misogynist!" ha ha!

      I love that quote. He is right on. No wonder even liberal women are coming to the Romney side.

      Delete
  113. "Also, does it bother you that Obama has lied again and again about PP providing mammograms when they do not? See, I find direct lies to the American people offensive."

    Leila, I don't want to get into a political debate. Because I wouldn't even know how to compare Obama lying about mammograms to the fact that Romney is pathological and has flip flopped on every discernable issue in the past 6 weeks to get votes. I mean the idea that Obama lies more than Romney, I am aghast.

    "Men who support a woman's "right" to shred her children in utero are acceptable and pro-woman, and the rest are just offensive to you?"

    I think the idea that all pro-choice men are not misogynistic is absurd. There are certainly a lot who don't give a rat's ass about your autonomy as a women and just don't want a baby. But I would never feel respected or treated like an equal with a man who would forbid be from getting an abortion but that doesn't mean all men who support abortion rights do so for the right reasons
    ~CS


    ReplyDelete
  114. CS, then I can't imagine what you must think about the men in my life. I'm telling you, they are stellar. And if I thought they agreed with child-killing (rather than what a real man does, which is protect women and children), I would gag.

    As for lying and flip-flopping. I would put a challenge to you that I heard today. Go back to any of the primary debates. Listen to what Romney said, and see for yourself that he is the same person, with the same beliefs. What are you claiming he has lied about? If we want to talk politically expedient flip-flopping, it doesn't get much more dramatic than Obama's sudden revelation on gay "marriage". Does that, combined with his lie about mammograms, tell you anything about the man? Or, because the issue is "progressive", does that make it a "thoughtful change" rather than a flip-flop for political expediency?

    You speak of being "treated like an equal with a man" in the context of abortion. So, unless we have the right to scrape our uteruses clean of our offspring, we cannot be equal to men? Does that mean we start out, biologically and inherently, unequal? Are we, in our natural state, less than men?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Do you find it repugnant that most women want to provide meals for their children and cook good meals for the husband and family they love? Or do you only find it repugnant that a man could acknowledge that truth about women?

    Or do you dispute my assertion that most women (even me, who does not cook regularly) actually want to serve their families a hot meal? Not out of slavery, but out of maternal and spousal love?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My comment was in response to this:

      I find it repugnant yes repugnant that Mitt Romney thinks I need flex time so I can work a full time jop and THEN make dinner and clean house. I think it reenforces the idea that childcare and homemaking is the woman's responsibility, even if she is the bread winner. its disgusting to perpetuate such an ideal.

      Delete
  116. Joanna,

    It just occurred to me why we are having such different reactions, it’s because we are looking at his words and seeing how he is speaking to us.

    You are a mother, you need a flexible work schedule so you can take care of your children and family. I still think it would behoove you to have both yourself and your husband have a flexible work schedule, But I digress.

    Anyway, from your perspective I can see why you would like what Romney said. To you, the question ‘if women are going to work’ resonated with you because the question for you has always been ‘should I work, because I don’t really want to.’ You reacted to his statements because they resonated with you, because Romney ‘got you’ and I can respect that

    But lets look at me. I am also a woman. But I am not a mother. Talking about women as if we are all mothers discounts me, it offends me. talking about women as if we all have husbands discounts and offends me. I have no choice but to work—what else would I be doing? ‘If” I don’t work Mr. Romney how do I put gas in my car?


    I would LOVE flex hours to do errands, and yoga and spend time with my family. Why am I not deserving of flex time? Because I don’t have children, how exceedingly discriminatory. Us 23 year old women are often asked to work late because ‘we don’t have families, and I can tell you---its annoying. The idea that single womens’ personal lives don’t count as much as mothers’ is offensive. Romney didn’t get me, he pushed my needs as a working woman under the rug, he offended me gravely, and I hope you can respect that.


    ~CS

    ReplyDelete
  117. Joanna,

    Because women should not be primary care givers and primary breadwinners. I just hate that anyone in our society thinks that instead of making men share in childrearing we need to accommodate work schedules for women.

    Honestly, if I am going to work all day and then come home and keep house what on earth do I need a husband for.

    ~CS

    ReplyDelete

  118. Leila,
    "You speak of being "treated like an equal with a man" in the context of abortion. So, unless we have the right to scrape our uteruses clean of our offspring, we cannot be equal to men? Does that mean we start out, biologically and inherently, unequal? Are we, in our natural state, less than men?


    I said that I didn’t think a man who was pro-life would TREAT me like, or BELIEVE I would be his equal, which is not to say I would not be his equal. Only that he wouldn’t respect me, especially sexually.

    You are trying to have me say that pregnancy makes women inherently unequal, when I am trying to say that requiring women to be pregnant against their will is treating them unequally.

    ~CS

    ReplyDelete
  119. CS,

    By having sex, women are consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant. Sure, they can try using all the birth control they want, but at a certain point, there is ALWAYS a possibility of pregnancy following sex. That's not religion, that's just straight biology.

    ReplyDelete
  120. CS, I can't get past the actually words you used, that you are "gravely offended" by the quote from MR. GRAVELY? Seriously? The words "if women work" (which was directed at ALL women, not YOU personally, so the "if" applies perfectly) GRAVELY offend you?

    I don't know what to say about that. You aren't offended by the left treating you like nothing but a vagina and a uterus, but a mild statement that implies that not all women are going to want to work (which is damn true!) GRAVELY offends you. I think Women's Studies classes have been a scourge to this nation.

    Anyway, then you said this:

    Us 23 year old women are often asked to work late because ‘we don’t have families, and I can tell you---its annoying.

    You either want it both ways or are very conflicted. Do you want to be treated like a man in the workforce, or don't you? Because men are asked to work late more than women, and I thought that was a good thing? Haven't you said time and again that you need to be able to NOT have a family, NOT have children, so that you can be "equal" to men? Which is it? What will it take for you to be satisfied?

    And, could you answer this question from earlier:

    You speak of being "treated like an equal with a man" in the context of abortion. So, unless we have the right to scrape our uteruses clean of our offspring, we cannot be equal to men? Does that mean we start out, biologically and inherently, unequal? Are we, in our natural state, less than men?

    Also, you said:

    Honestly, if I am going to work all day and then come home and keep house what on earth do I need a husband for.

    If you think a husband is only there for utilitarian purposes, to help you keep house or cook, then why not get a housekeeper instead? Let me ask you: Why do you want a husband? Or, if you don't, why would a woman want a husband?


    ReplyDelete
  121. Okay, I see you answered me just now, but I am really confused. Can you explain what it means to be a man's "equal" in the context of what you just said? A man cannot believe you are his equal and he will not respect you sexually unless you are able to kill the offspring in your womb? I honestly do not know what that means, so I am missing something. Define equal or show me "equality" in the context of which you speak.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I am trying to say that requiring women to be pregnant against their will is treating them unequally

    How can this be a matter of treating them unequally, when men cannot get pregnant? Men can't bear children. Women can. For two things to be equal, they have to be comparable. This is not an "inequity" or an injustice. It's biology, and it's amazing! Praise God I'm a woman; I don't want to be a man!

    ReplyDelete
  123. CS, you, as a single, childless woman, have a huge advantage over me. If we were coworkers and were each allotted, say, 50 hours of flex time per year, I would have to save at least 90% of it for my kids' illnesses, or school events, or doctor appointments. You can use it exclusively for yourself. I don't have that luxury.

    As to why parents should get flexible schedules? Because we're raising the next generation of Americans, and that's an important responsibility -- one that most employers recognize.

    Why do you think having/raising children is a bad thing? Would you prefer the human race to die out?

    ReplyDelete

  124. “As to why parents should get flexible schedules? Because we're raising the next generation of Americans, and that's an important responsibility -- one that most employers recognize. 

Why do you think having/raising children is a bad thing? Would you prefer the human race to die out?”

    Oh goodness Joanna you are such a drama queen

    There is nothing wrong with having children but shocker there is nothing wrong with not having children either, last I checked we were still people to. If people who are my seniors are getting extra perks like ability to work from home, I understand that and that is something I would work towards. But if my company had a policy of allowing only mothers to work from home, I’d sue and I would win. Just because I don’t have children doesn’t mean I don’t have a life.

    “I would have to save at least 90% of it for my kids' illnesses, or school events, or doctor appointments.
    You can use it exclusively for yourself. I don't have that luxury.”

    JoAnna, why is that a bad thing? If you wanted the luxury you shouldn’t have had children. I would hope your job wouldn’t penalize you for having 4 children but in order for them not to do that they also couldn’t penalize you for having none.

    Do you honestly think women with children should be held to a different standard and given perks that women without them should not have?

    ~CS

    ReplyDelete
  125. Here's another classless, sick video from one of the nation's most prominent Democrats:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/30/michael-moore-moveon-org-video-features-dirty-mouthed-old-people-lambasting-republicans-romney/

    It's like we don't even notice anymore. But we are offended by Romney saying "if women work" when speaking of America's women, who often choose to stay home with their kids. We live in a mixed up world, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  126. CS, a few questions, because I still can't get a handle on where you are (you seem to want things both ways, no matter what someone says or proposes).

    1) Are you satisfied and finding fulfillment in your work?

    2) Were you taught by feminist professors or by anyone that women can (or should) "have it all" (meaning no sacrifices)?

    3) Do you believe that you can "have it all" (no sacrifices)?

    4) What would satisfy you and make you happy?

    Again, I don't usually ask these personal questions, but I cannot get a handle on whether or not it's satisfying you to be a single woman in the workforce (who can work the same hours and conditions as a man, and be "equal"), or if you are upset that you have to do that?

    I cannot figure you out, and I want to know more about what's at the heart of this, so we can stop talking past one another.

    By the way, JoAnna is about the furthest thing from a drama queen of anyone I've ever met, and I've met a lot of people. I found nothing of "drama" in what she said, nor have I ever. She is logical, calm, steady and no nonsense, which is why I adore her.

    ReplyDelete

  127. Leila,


    Are you saying if your husband neither worked nor helped to take care of your children you would find it a particularly beneficial arrangement?

    I am well aware that marriages are not solely utilitarian though there is quite an amount of utility to it. Certainly there is a companionship aspect but if my able bodied husband refused to work or help with the kids; I’d wonder why I needed him.

    “Okay, I see you answered me just now, but I am really confused. Can you explain what it means to be a man's "equal" in the context of what you just said? A man cannot believe you are his equal and he will not respect you sexually unless you are able to kill the offspring in your womb?

    If a man believes that I should be legally mandated to keep other people alive with my body and refused medical attention against my will and he does not support a law that would impose a similar buden on himself-he does not see me as an equal.

    If a man believes that I should be mandated to be pregnant against my will for 9 months regardless of my health and experience the pain of childbirth and loose my figure just so he can have an orgasm, no I don’t see how he could respect me, its an awfully selfish thing to do.


    ~CS

    ReplyDelete
  128. If a man believes that I should be legally mandated to keep other people alive with my body and refused medical attention against my will and he does not support a law that would impose a similar buden on himself-he does not see me as an equal.

    If a man believes that I should be mandated to be pregnant against my will for 9 months regardless of my health and experience the pain of childbirth and loose my figure just so he can have an orgasm, no I don’t see how he could respect me, its an awfully selfish thing to do.


    Again, you leave me speechless on so many different levels that I think I will just let this statement hang out there all on its own.

    The "mandated to keep other people alive with my body" statement alone makes my brain hurt. Off to get some ice cream!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the way, did you know that there is a foolproof way to not get pregnant? If you use this method (called chastity) you'll never have a child you'll have to execute in order to keep your figure.

      Delete
  129. 1) Are you satisfied and finding fulfillment in your work?
    Nope dislike my job. It’s a first job in an industry I don’t want to build my career in. Hoping to switch soon.

    2) Were you taught by feminist professors or by anyone that women can (or should) "have it all" (meaning no sacrifices)? Not at all, the world is hostile to successful women and unsuccessful women for that matter, and its hard to make it.
    3) Do you believe that you can "have it all" (no sacrifices)
    Only a fool thinks they can have everything they want without giving up anything, Leila.

    4) What would satisfy you and make you happy?

    If my bad were miraculously better. Dream job (high pay) some good friends who don’t live so far away. Make parents proud. At some point a nice boyfriend, but I think I’d be lying to myself If I said I was ready for one now.

    ~CS

    ReplyDelete
  130. but I cannot get a handle on whether or not it's satisfying you to be a single woman in the workforce (who can work the same hours and conditions as a man, and be "equal"), or if you are upset that you have to do that?

    I almost don’t understand?

    I do not like my current job, its entry-level but I look forward to a time where I am doing something I like and have more control and influence over my work.

    But I also do not wish I was an un single stay at home mom. Don’t you need a husband for that first haha, if that is your question.


    ~CS

    ReplyDelete
  131. CS, thank you. That makes some sense to me now.

    For #2, then you see women as victims in America, right? If I don't see myself as a victim (never have, not once), do you think I am just fooling myself?

    #3, so how do you choose what to sacrifice?

    #4, I pray that your dad gets his cure (and am thankful that it seems to be a good prognosis so far!). I love that you want to make your parents proud, and I've no doubt that you will.

    ReplyDelete
  132. CS, let me ask you this (it's just a neat question that I heard once, and I ask a lot of people):

    Would you rather be stuck in a miserable marriage but have a satisfying job, or be stuck in a miserable job and have a wonderful marriage?

    I know how older folks like me would answer, without doubt, but I wonder what you would answer at this point in your life?

    It's not really relevant to what we are talking about, but I'm just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Oh goodness Joanna you are such a drama queen

    Huh? I was serious. Your comments seemed to indicate that you thought that parenthood was a bad thing.


    There is nothing wrong with having children but shocker there is nothing wrong with not having children either, last I checked we were still people to.

    Who said you weren't people? (And aren't you being the drama queen now?) All I did was acknowledge that people who are parents have a different set of responsibilities that those who aren't, and that society recognizes our responsibilities to our children as being very important given that we're raising the next generation of citizens.

    If people who are my seniors are getting extra perks like ability to work from home, I understand that and that is something I would work towards. But if my company had a policy of allowing only mothers to work from home, I’d sue and I would win. Just because I don’t have children doesn’t mean I don’t have a life.

    Uh... who was advocating such a policy (only allowing mothers to work from home)? Certainly not Romney. He didn't say that only mothers should have flexible schedules. He said that they should have the option. Do you see the distinction?

    “I would have to save at least 90% of it for my kids' illnesses, or school events, or doctor appointments.
    You can use it exclusively for yourself. I don't have that luxury.”

    JoAnna, why is that a bad thing?


    I don't believe I said that it was.

    If you wanted the luxury you shouldn’t have had children.

    I agree. It's a sacrifice I'm very willing to make.

    I would hope your job wouldn’t penalize you for having 4 children but in order for them not to do that they also couldn’t penalize you for having none.

    Who was proposing that employers penalize anyone for how many children they have, or don't have?

    Do you honestly think women with children should be held to a different standard and given perks that women without them should not have?

    No. Can you point out where I said such a thing?

    ReplyDelete
  134. Here is my question after getting caught up: Who said ONLY women (mothers) would get flex time? Nobody. Romney's example was a mother, because it was an anecdote. If a company were to make "flex time" available to employees by law they would HAVE to make available to ALL employees; not just women, not just parents, ALL employees. So, I can attend school performances or stay home with a sick kid, and she can take a yoga class or whatever it is she wants to do. CS is making a mountain out of a mole hill. And I think that Leila and Joanna are talking past her...she isn't a mom, so she doesn't understand the change that happens when you hold your baby for the first time. That isn't something you teach, especially in a society where most first-time moms have never even held a baby.

    ReplyDelete
  135. I know this was a few days ago, but life calls.

    I used to think when Leila responds to my comment with four or five replies, each with a few question branches of their own, that I needed to reply to each and every one or she would brand me as not willing to have a conversation. I no longer think that - she seems to enjoy setting things up so it is impossible for any single commenter to answer all of the branches she tosses out.

    So, as usual lately, I am just going to reply to one. Her final reply, apparently the one she thinks is the most ... clever? Damning?

    you and others may live peaceful, productive, law-abdiding lives and be very friendly people, but your ideas on abortion, for example, leave us with a pile of dead human "fetuses" that goes to the moon and back.

    Wow. This says so much more about you than it even begins to say about me. I know you think that my personal views on abortion is causing the end of the world for you and, well, the entire world, and I would like to recommend an article to you (and many people who follow along here).

    The title is, "Dear Christian: If the Thought of Either Romney or Obama Getting Elected Makes You Fearful, Angry, or Depressed, You Have What we Call a Theological Problem"

    A few quotes: "If you fear for your way of life, that if the wrong person gets elected all is lost and you simply don’t have any hope for your future or the future of your children, you have accepted what we like to call in the industry a 'rival eschatology.'"

    and "When we fear, or rage, or are depressed about politics, it means we have invested something of our deep selves into an “eschatology”–into a promise that all will be well, provided you come with us. Christians can’t go there, because Christianity is an eschatology."

    And the link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/09/dear-christian-if-the-thought-of-either-romney-or-obama-getting-elected-makes-you-fearful-angry-or-depressed-you-have-what-we-call-a-theological-problem/

    As I said earlier, I find it absolutely amazing that the Catholic Church could say with such certainty that a person will GO TO HELL if they vote for one candidate or another. GO TO HELL: your soul is in danger if you vote for that other one, they say. Not only has the Catholic Church adopted the rival eschatology, they have tried to incorporate it into their own.

    Talk about drinking the kool-aid. Bishops are promising death for your soul if you don't do what they say.

    ReplyDelete
  136. MaiZeke, not sure where you get that "Bishops are promising death for your soul if you don't do what they say". I've tried to address what I think they mean in my last response to you, but you have not said what you thought about that. We put our souls in danger if we commit mortal sin, and that presupposes knowledge of what mortal sin is. Leila and others more versed in Catholic theology, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, or make it more nuanced.

    MaiZeke, one other thing that I can tell you is that not only do Christians always have hope, we are convinced that Christ reigns, and always will, and the forces of darkness will not prevail in the end and that He only ever allows them to cause mayhem because He believes this to be conducive to our eventual salvation. In the meantime, we are called to serve the good, and when we lose battles, as we inevitably will, this causes great harm and grief. This is the sadness that we feel, although we must never despair. I hope I am making some sense. I also hope you can see what we are trying to say, which is different from how you seem to interpret the bishop's warning.

    Oh, and regarding your claim that Leila is trying to set you up. I can assure you that she is not, not only does nothing that she writes strike me as wanting to set anyone up, but it would be profoundly deceitful of her to do that, and completely contrary to what is most important in her life: To do God's will, and live according to His commandments and the Church's teaching (sorry for presuming, Leila, and feel free to rebuke me if I'm wrong).

    ReplyDelete
  137. As I said earlier, I find it absolutely amazing that the Catholic Church could say with such certainty that a person will GO TO HELL if they vote for one candidate or another. GO TO HELL: your soul is in danger if you vote for that other one, they say. Not only has the Catholic Church adopted the rival eschatology, they have tried to incorporate it into their own.

    Talk about drinking the kool-aid. Bishops are promising death for your soul if you don't do what they say.


    Erm, no.
    Reality is that the Church gives each person freedom of conscience when casting his/her vote. The Church never says who you must vote for. The Church asks us to form our conscience, to exercise it at will, and cast our vote. Our vote reflects our conscience. Our vote isn't mandated a particular way by the Church, a Bishop, or a single priest.

    Facts, Maizeke. They really go far in shedding light and understanding. Try employing them next time you find yourself "reasoning" about the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  138. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  139. sorry, messed up my HTML. Once again -

    MaiZeke, you just slaughtered a strawman argument. Have you even read the bishop's original letter instead of the Huffington Post version of it?

    Let's look at what the bishop ACTUALLY said, as opposed to what you THINK he said:

    I would like to review some of the principles to keep in mind as you approach the voting booth to complete your ballot. The first is the set of non-negotiables. These are areas that are “intrinsically evil” and cannot be supported by anyone who is a believer in God or the common good or the dignity of the human person.

    They are:

    1. abortion
    2. euthanasia
    3. embryonic stem cell research
    4. human cloning
    5. homosexual “marriage”

    These are intrinsically evil. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals.” Intrinsically evil actions are those which have an evil object. In other words, an act is evil by its very nature and to choose an action of this type puts one in grave moral danger.

    But what does this have to do with the election? Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally “complicit” with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.


    Note that the bishop does not say that voting for the candidate in and of itself will put your soul in jeopardy. He specifies that voting for a candidate who SUPPORTS INTRINSIC EVIL may make the person who voted for that candidate complicit in the EVIL ACTS that candidate may commit while in office.

    To continue Leila's analogy, if you voted for a guy whose campaign website stated that he was in favor of raping women, then you could be morally complicit if women are raped as a result of his election to office.

    Bishops are promising death for your soul if you don't do what they say.

    The soul never dies, MaiZeke. It's immortal. So, if a bishop promised "death to [my] soul," I can know with confidence that he is not teaching in accordance with authentic Catholic beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Wow, MaiZeke, way to misrepresent the Catholic position. Seriously, I thought that Sebastian did a good job explaining it the first time and then again today. (Thanks, JoAnna for the actual quote!)

    MaiZeke, it's a dangerous thing for the soul to support or vote for intrinsic evils. Why is this shocking or controversial? Evil is the thing that puts souls in jeopardy. Evil is very bad. Why is this surprising to you? I am truly not understanding why this is shocking to you. If we knowingly, willfully vote for people or platforms that promulgate and even celebrate intrinsic evils, our souls could very well be at risk.

    Again, why is it controversial? Bishops are shepherds. Why is it horrible for a shepherd of souls to warn those souls of danger? It's in his job description. He's doing his job. You don't have to like it, and I'm wondering why you even care? You don't believe in a soul anyway, so what does it matter, in your mind? I truly don't get why you care, unless it just infuriates you that Catholics might be swayed from voting for Obama? This care of souls is sort of "inside baseball" for Catholics, right? So, why does it make you upset?

    to be continued….

    ReplyDelete
  141. As for eschatology considerations, I have said about two dozen times that no matter what happens to America (which is not supernatural in origin and will only survive if we remain a moral people, as the Founders said), the Church will stand. The Church will outlive everything. So, there is no despair, just great sadness because we truly do love America. If she goes down the toilet, it will be a world tragedy. But please don't mistake that for lack of hope or trust or interior peace. Jesus Christ said, "In this world you will have trouble, but take heart, as I have overcome the world." We Catholics know that this is true, and we go forth fully understanding that the world could fall down around us, and Christ remains the same. Not sure if I am missing your point?

    As an example: The folks caught up in the years of Nazi horror certainly felt a greater sense of evil and foreboding than any of us here today. Many good and holy Catholics went to horrible deaths at the hands of evil men. St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein) and St. Maximilian Kolbe are two who died in the concentration camps. St. Max volunteered to take the place of a married man with children, who had been randomly picked along with several other men to die a torturous death of starvation (in punishment for another prisoner who had escaped). Here is the account of the saint's final days, from an eyewitness, an assistant janitor and interpreter in the bunkers:


    'In the cell of the poor wretches there were daily loud prayers, the rosary and singing, in which prisoners from neighbouring cells also joined. When no S. S. men were in the Block I went to the Bunker to talk to the men and comfort them. Fervent prayers and songs to the Holy Mother resounded in all the corridors of the Bunker. I had the impression I was in a church. Fr Kolbe was leading and the prisoners responded in unison. They were often so deep in prayer that they did not even hear that inspecting S. S. men had descended to the Bunker; and the voices fell silent only at the loud yelling of their visitors. When the cells were opened the poor wretches cried loudly and begged for a piece of bread and for water, which they did not receive, however. If any of the stronger ones approached the door he was immediately kicked in the stomach by the S. S. men, so that falling backwards on the cement floor he was instantly killed; or he was shot to death ... Fr Kolbe bore up bravely, he did not beg and did not complain but raised the spirits of the others.... Since they had grown very weak, prayers were now only whispered. At every inspection, when almost all the others were now lying on the floor, Fr Kolbe was seen kneeling or standing in the centre as he looked cheerfully in the face of the S. S. men. Two weeks passed in this way. Meanwhile one after another they died, until only Fr Kolbe was left. This the authorities felt was too long; the cell was needed for new victims. So one day they brought in the head of the sick-quarters, a German, a common criminal named Bock, who gave Fr Kolbe an injection of carbolic acid in the vein of his left arm. Fr Kolbe, with a prayer on his lips, himself gave his arm to the executioner. Unable to watch this I left under the pretext of work to be done. Immediately after the S. S. men with the executioner had left I returned to the cell, where I found Fr Kolbe leaning in a sitting position against the back wall with his eyes open and his head drooping sideways. His face was calm and radiant.'


    http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/kolbe2.htm

    ReplyDelete
  142. JoAnna corrects me about what was actually said. "To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally “complicit” with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy."

    And apparently nobody here (well, besides StarFire perhaps) sees any difference between the above and "If you vote for Obama, you will go to hell."

    This is a complete dead end for me. Let Leila say that I am not finishing this conversation, but that is too much mental gymnastics to even begin to have a reasonable discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  143. I hope if you read nothing else, you read that account of St. Max Kolbe's last days. He exemplifies that hope that we have as Christians, and only supernatural grace can account for what he (and other saints) did.

    Now, as to your choice of which of my questions to answer…. I still don't understand why you won't answer the "abortion is bad" or the "my daughter is having a cutting party" questions. They are very straightforward questions, and it seems it would take little effort to actually answer. If you'd like to ask me questions I am happy to answer. I will not ignore them, I promise. I try to be very honest and open with you in my answers, even though you might not like them.

    Please answer those?

    MaiZeke, as for the dead baby comment: I have to be blunt or else it's easy for folks to just let things go. It's important to draw a contrast. For example, I might have a child who tells me again and again what a good person he is (I think all teens do this when they are being corrected, no? Even adults always say, "I'm a good person!" when they are trying to justify something, as we all know). So, let's say my child tells me that he's a good person, but in fact he is a known liar. I will say, yes, you do many good things, except for the glaring area of your life where you lie like a rug and hurt everyone around you."

    So when you say you want to show that you are a good and moral person, I don't doubt that you live by the laws and are loving to your family and friends and even tip the waiters well and give to charity. But lots of people who support (or even commit) evil do those things, Christians as well as atheists (we are all sinners). So, I simply pointed out that in spite that good life I see that you lead (as well as I can know someone I've never met), you still actively support a practice that has left a pile of 54 million dead babies (direct killing, intentional killing of those babies). It's jarring, but it's just an objective fact. I don't say it with hatred or malice or anything other than sadness. It's just a fact.

    If you see me sin or support something intrinsically evil, call me on it. I can take it. For example, you may want to say something like: "You say you live a good life, Leila, but you (or your Church) support such and such, which is ugly and harmful and evil!" I would not slam you for daring to say such a thing, I would actually dive and try to have a dialogue with you about whatever the subject is that troubles you.

    Hope that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  144. "If you vote for Obama, you will go to hell."

    Who said these words?

    ???

    ReplyDelete
  145. MaiZeke, would you have been up in arms if a German bishop had told his flock: "Voting for a candidate who actively persecutes the Jews might put your soul in jeopardy"?

    What would you have thought of such a bishop?

    ReplyDelete
  146. Leila, a million thanks for posting St. Maximilian Kolbe's story. It made me choke, and I couldn't agree more with you re only supernatural force being able to effect this. I vaguely knew his story, but didn't know these details.

    As for MaiZeke, I am speechless that she is so dismissive of what you and others write. I cannot understand why none of it seems to speak to her. Reminds me sadly of my own birth family, strayed Catholics. No argument gets through, apparently. All I can do is pray.

    ReplyDelete
  147. MaiZeke, maybe this will help you understand, from an article linked to the current post by a reader:

    The mission of Christ entrusted to the Church is of a supernatural order. It is not primarily political, economic or social. From this mission, however, derive teachings for all aspects of human life. This is why the Church rightly claims “the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls” (CCC 2032).

    The Church does not impose on the whole of society that which she requires of Catholics themselves – attending Mass on Sundays, regular participation in the Sacraments, and so on.

    The Church proposes the principles of natural law, which are universal; without them no society can be just. “The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties” (CCC 1956).

    Thus, the Church does not tell people which candidate must receive the votes of faithful Catholics, but she does teach the moral criteria with which to vote with a right conscience.


    The rest here:

    http://www.truthandcharityforum.org/does-the-catholic-church-tell-you-how-to-vote/

    Sebastian, the story of St. Max gets me, too. My parents were able to go into the cell at Auschwitz where he was killed. A holy place. My children's school is named for him. A saint for our times.

    ReplyDelete
  148. And apparently nobody here (well, besides StarFire perhaps) sees any difference between the above and "If you vote for Obama, you will go to hell."

    Again - the key element you're missing is the "why".
    Why are you (voter) voting for Obama?
    Why are you (voter) voting for Romney?

    Are you voting for a candidate *because* he is pro-choice?
    Or in spite of it, to limit an intrinsic evil (abortion)?

    What is your (voter) conscience telling you?
    How has your (voter) conscience been formed?
    What are the parameters you've been taught, you've adhered to, and on what authority?

    ReplyDelete
  149. Speaking of eschatology, and martyrdom, and hope: This video by Fr. Barron on St. Charles Lwanga, a young recent convert to the faith in the Uganda of the 19th century, in the early stages of colonization, will further illustrate the point Leila made with St. Maximilian Kolbe. Breathtaking and humbling. And hope-inspiring.

    http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr--Barron-comments-on-St--Charles-Lwanga.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  150. Nubby, great points! I would add one caveat, since many Catholic Democrats use the excuse that they are not voting for Obama because of his abortion/gay marriage/embryonic stem cell research stance, of course, but only because he is so good on health care or welfare or whatever other non-negotiable issue they like.

    From Bishop Olmsted:

    "...being right on all the other issues can never justify a wrong choice on this most serious matter."

    In other words, one cannot vote for a rabid pro-abort simply because a much lesser issue tickles their political fancy. A vote for a committed pro-abort would have to be proportional to the other issues and harm involved.

    Here's a crazy, over-the-top example: What if pro-abort Obama were running against Joe Blow, who is against legal abortion, but is for executing all adults over the age of 57 and starving foster children to death, I would vote for Obama, because my cause for voting for pro-abortion Obama would be proportional to the other considerations, and believe it or not that would be a vote to limit evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man, bad syntax, so sorry! Toddler always destroying things around me, keep that in mind….

      Sebastian, can't wait to watch!

      Delete
  151. Archbishop Chaput, in the 2008 election, when "Catholics" for Obama took a quote of his out of context to make it seem like he implied that there were legitimate reasons to vote for Obama, clarified his remarks by saying, “the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life,” noting that, “if we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.”

    That's pretty heavy.

    ReplyDelete
  152. I don't know about Maizeke, but for me part of the confusion stems from the fact that I see so many other problems/issues that to me are morally imperative and supercede the conversation on abortion. For instance, I'm very concerned that everyone be able to afford health insurance (especially since I live in a state with a huge number of uninsured children). I want lower/middle income people to have access to good healthcare and lower tax rates. I see no reason whatsoever that corporations or wealthy people in this country should be given tax breaks when as a nation and a community we should be helping each other. To me, these are moral issues-how we take care of (birthed) citizens-and trumps arguing about whether or not a woman carries a baby to term.

    I know you see things differently-that nothing can be more important than abortion, but really when you base your vote on this one issue alone it is confusing to me. What if abortion becomes illegal and yet we still have the highest number of homeless children living in NYC since the Great Depression? What does that say about our society? Shouldn't that weigh on the soul as heavily as anything else?

    Anyways, I also realize you aren't the only ones making a voting decision based on one issue-it just happens to be an issue I don't agree with.

    Thanks,
    Gwen

    ReplyDelete
  153. Gwen, it's because all of our other rights derive from the right to life. The right to healthcare, etc. becomes moot if you're dead.

    Also, abortion is a human rights issue. I consider abuse of human rights to be a very serious concern, even trumping the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  154. "What does that say about our society?"

    It says that at least we gave those homeless children a chance at life and an opportunity to get them out of poverty and live a successful life. Instead of killing them before even giving them a shot. And believe me - all of us pro-lifers would be working to help those homeless kids change their situations for the better.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Joanna, if all issues hinge on a right to life and there is unending struggle to convince everyone to be on the same pahe about this to the extent that the life and welfare of birthed people is being compromised, isnt that another evil?

    Nicole, yes but thats just the issue, they do not have an opportunity to a better life. I am absolutely not suggesting street kids are better off dead, rather that taking care to get them help should be a priority

    ReplyDelete
  156. It's never an evil to fight for human rights, Gwen. You're presenting a false dilemma. It's not EITHER we fight for the right to life OR we fight to end poverty, it's both/and. The Church understands this, as She is the largest charitable organization in the world as well as the most pro-life.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Gwen, JoAnna is right. It's not an either/or. We fight for both. The Church stands on the right side of both those issues: Respecting the fundamental right to life (the ultimate human right, without which there are no other rights) and helping the poor and sick and hopeless without ceasing, all around the world.

    There are countless saints on record, real people, real lives lived, who spent every waking moment of their lives serving the poor and the suffering, with their own hands. They were also fully pro-life on abortion. And there are many millions of such folks on this planet today. I know many of them personally, and they are good, good people. Gwen, you would like these people. They lay down their lives in the service of the poor. They see no conflict between that and being pro-life, in fact, it's beautifully consistent.

    My own friend and former pastor, Bishop James Wall, is the Bishop of Gallup, NM, and that's the poorest diocese on the nation, I believe? You might know better than I. He serves a large Native American population. He is a gentle, holy, loving and humble man. He cares very much for the poor in his diocese, and he is 100% pro-life. I think you would really like him.

    ReplyDelete
  158. as a nation and a community we should be helping each other.

    1) This is a Catholic principle called subsidiarity. It means the help starts at the local level.

    It means material help should be prevalent enough so that we're able as a society to keep big government only as a last resort. The last thing we should want is to flee into the arms of big government, who produces nothing and solves nothing.

    Let's get rid of these big govt departments that are money suckers on tax payers and let the tax payers help each other and help themselves on a smaller, more localized level.

    The "universal common good" cannot be determined except by having regard for the human person. - Pacem in Terris

    ReplyDelete
  159. So, I'd like a final answer on this. Will we go to hell if we vote for Obama? Anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  160. Sorry citizensunited, no one but God can read your heart. All the Church can do is lay out the principles and try to form consciences on these issues. What you do with that information and why you do it is something God can see in the depth of your heart.

    (Royal 'you')

    ReplyDelete
  161. 2) Solidarity is the other side to that Catholic principle.

    We need both for a balance in society.





    ReplyDelete
  162. You'll have to ask yourself why your voting for him. You'll have to check your own conscience and motives.

    ReplyDelete
  163. "...they do not have an opportunity to a better life."

    Ummm...why??? We live in America! (for now) Unless I missed a hypothetical somewhere, I truly don't understand how in any situation, a child could not have an opportunity for a better life.

    And, not being snarky, but it does in fact seem like you are saying they're better off dead. If you're saying that without abortion there would be too many homeless kids? That's precisely what you're saying (even if that's not your intent).

    ReplyDelete
  164. Leila,

    Let me try this again and you can tell me where we disagree.

    The most important thing to people—is other people, obviously. And work is often, not much fun. So no it doesn’t surprise me that if you asked women, or men or children for that matter, if they wanted to go to work or school or stay home, where they didn’t have to wake up early for, or put on pressed pants for, or be told what to do---they would all unequivocally choose to be at home. I get that.

    And I think you think that I have a problem with women deciding to be stay at home mothers, when I have a problem with society expecting women to be stay at home mothers, or assuming primary child caring role is ours for some reason, or teaching women that they shouldn’t prepare to have a job.

    If you want to quit your job and be a stay at home mom, or an heiress, or a philanthropist, and you have the means to support it, whatever. But the idea that we should raise women to believe they may or may not work is hazardous-adult human beings need to know how to wipe their own butt and pay their own bills. Marriage is not inevitable, by any means.

    Furthermore, you can tell me if this is a difference between how liberals and conservatives raise their daughters---we are taught to pursue careers, not jobs that will ultimately be fun and fulfilling for us. If you put your dues in while you are young and become respected in your field, you often amass that flexibility that Joanna was talking about. Of course you would rather stay home than go to your job as a bank teller, the point is for women to find a passion, something in the world worth leaving the hearth for.

    ~CS

    ReplyDelete
  165. CS- first of all, I agree with most of what you said in your above statement. But I am a little offended that you liken women who stay home with children who don't want to go to school. Being a Stay At Home PARENT is hard freakin work! And before you assume I am a SAHM who chooses to do so so I don't have to iron my pants, here is my life as of today: I am 34, Single (divorced) Catholic, raising 3 children, going to school full time (to provide better for my children) working full time. My oldest son's father is a dead beat who hasn't spent more than 6 months with his son in the 15 years he's been alive (that's 2 "baby daddies")My ex husband cheated on me, wouldn't leave his girlfriend and told me I had to move out. (he fathered 2 of my children and is a good dad) So I have lived the "contraception makes sex risk-free and awesome" lifestyle. It doesn't. It sucks.

    All that to say- as hard as I work with everything that I do. staying at home full time is exponentially harder. And if you don't see parenting as an essential role and viable option then you aren't giving it any rational thought. It IS harder, but it's also more rewarding and more meaningful than any job anyone could ever have.

    And frankly, I count myself seriously blessed to work somewhere where I can be home to cook dinner, and clean up and do laundry. After all, no matter what I do from 8am to 5pm, nothing is more important to me than being a mom.

    ReplyDelete
  166. when I have a problem with society expecting women to be stay at home mothers, or assuming primary child caring role is ours for some reason, or teaching women that they shouldn’t prepare to have a job.

    But the idea that we should raise women to believe they may or may not work is hazardous-adult human beings need to know how to wipe their own butt and pay their own bills.


    Are we living in the same century? The same country, even?

    You get this message from modern day American society? In this world of dual-income consumerism? Who says you need to stay home and have kids? This, seriously, is the message you get from modern American society?

    Are you American? I'm American. I certainly never even grew up with this "societal pressure", and I'm not exactly old.

    Furthermore, why on earth do you have "a problem" with society (whatever that means anymore, in this world of pseudo journalism, sound bite entertainment, and reality TV) expecting anything?

    Do what you will in society. Do what you're called to do. I wouldn't sweat what "society" tells you, or what messages you think you're getting from society. Don't let society dictate to you what or whom you should be.


    we are taught to pursue careers, not jobs that will ultimately be fun and fulfilling for us. If you put your dues in while you are young and become respected in your field, you often amass that flexibility

    Is your ultimate point how to create a career? You can enter a field with flexibility right out of the gate, CS. I did that. Those careers are there *because* women's roles have evolved so much over the passed 25 years.

    I ain't pickin' up what you're puttin' down. It doesn't ring true in my experience at all.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Nubby totally took the words out of my mouth, but let me just echo her. I was going to ask the same thing - Are we living in the same world??? Because I'm a "stay at home" mom (there's not a lot of staying at home involved) and I feel the exact opposite as what you supposedly get from society. In fact, I feel judged because I'm not out there making a second income for my family. People assume I just never got a degree and have never "really worked." In fact, I have a degree from a reputable university and worked in a pretty volatile industry in one of the country's largest cities before I got married and had kids. My mom stayed at home and I always knew that EVENTUALLY I wanted to, too. I was even taught that that is best for children. HOWEVER, my parents always said to me "WHEN you go to college"...never "IF". So they did expect me to get an education and have a career and THEN decide for myself, when and if I got married, how to raise my children. This whole, "women are either raised to have a career OR stay at home with kids" is so way off base, it seriously twists my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  168. HOWEVER, my parents always said to me "WHEN you go to college"...never "IF". So they did expect me to get an education and have a career and THEN decide for myself,

    Ditto, that. College was just the next expected stepping stone. It wasn't the be all end all defining moment of who I was. It was barely touching who I was to become.

    The blueprint was: Do A, then figure out B. And B turned into C along the way (C= kids and motherhood), though there was still major flexibility there, infact, it was expected a woman return to perhaps job-share with another female co-worker who also had young children, after her maternity leave. The flexibility was built-in. It's a luxury of working as an American woman. But it wasn't a definition of who I was. It was a calling at the time.

    CS, do you believe in God calling a person at a certain season in her life?

    ReplyDelete
  169. @Angela--how does being divorced mix with being Catholic? Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
  170. I couldn't say it better than Nicole and Nubby. I agree with them.

    I was raised with an expectation that I would go to a private university (top 25 school) and the sky was the limit for me. I graduated college summa cum laude and spent a couple of weeks in grad school with an assistantship when I realized that I would rather be closer to my fiance, get a job in corporate America (which was pleasant enough, but I did not really want to be there) and get ready for my wedding. My dad wanted me to be a doctor, I am sure, but that was not what I wanted. See, there's the part that I love about being a woman: I wanted to be a wife and mother more than I wanted a career. I had decided that any man that wanted to marry me had better understand that up front. The point here being that I always felt that as a woman, I had a choice to do what I wanted in that regard, whereas it always made me sad that men did not legitimately have that choice. I felt much freer than the young men around me, much luckier. The opposite of a victim. Not saying any of the men wanted to stay home, but the point was they did not have that option.

    My sister was the opposite, and wanted to work since the time she was 15 (and did). She also got her degree (business) from a private university (she went west coast, I went east coast). Never once was it even a consideration in my family that we would not attend a university and get our degree. (Now, I am not saying that everyone needs to go to college, but for my family, it was not optional not to go, just like it was not optional not to go to mass on Sundays. Also, it is not optional for my kids -- they are expected to get at least a bachelor's degree.)

    I have 12 cousins on my Catholic side, many of them girls and all from an Arab background. All of my cousins, even the immigrants, got four-year-university degrees, and several went further. Some are stay-at-home moms, and some are very much happily in the workforce. Some did both at one time or another.

    I come from a conservative Republican household. This is not unusual in the least in my conservative circles. So, I don't know who the folks are that you've met in society where the expectation is that women will stay home, uneducated, with babies, or that society pressures them to do so. I have found exactly the opposite, that society now tends to devalue the role of motherhood and seems to imply that actively choosing to be a wife and stay-at-home mother is a waste of life, or at the very least, much lesser than being a woman who puts her career first.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it is not society which puts out those expectations of women, but that it comes as a liberal talking point, from leftist college professors and/or those in the women's studies department? The left loves to caricature both society and conservatives.

    What you describe is so far from my experience as a conservative women that it leaves me just shaking my head.

    Why do you suppose our experiences are so divergent?

    ReplyDelete
  171. By the way, Angela, you rock. I look forward to your answer to Johanne's question.

    Johanne, FYI, we have many divorced Catholic women in my local Catholic "bubble". They are wonderful women, some of my best friends.

    ReplyDelete
  172. So-here's my answer to how being divorced mixes with being Catholic...(On a side note I was confirmed the same day I moved out of my exhusband's house. It was also Mother's Day.)

    So far there is no conflict. My husband cheated. We had differing views of what a marriage actually is. If he had stopped seeing his current fiancee, and committed to counseling and being faithful, I would have stayed. He refused. I moved out. I was not going to live with him while I knew he was being unfaithful.

    We have been civilly divorced for 1 year. After 11 years of marriage. According to the Catholic Church we are still married. As the Church prefers to assume the validity of the sacrament. I have begun the process of receiving a Declaration of Nullity. Which, given some circumstances around my husband's childhood, may be relatively quick.

    At this time there is no conflict, because I am chaste and celibate. I am not seeing anyone at this time. As far as I know, the only conflict that would arise would be if I were physically involved with a man, since sacramentally I am still married, and thus, it would be considered adultery.

    The choice to remain chaste and celibate hasn't been easy, when most people in my social circle think that "getting some" would solve most of my problems. When, really in retrospect, it was the "getting some" that caused a lot of them. Like I said in the beginning, there is no conflict between my faith and my marital status. I've done things the other way....now I plan on doing them the right way. Which means abstaining until I am married (God willing). The saddest part for me is that due to wrong thinking in the past, I can't have any more children. And THAT is only thing I would do over.

    ReplyDelete
  173. So-here's my answer to how being divorced mixes with being Catholic...(On a side note I was confirmed the same day I moved out of my exhusband's house. It was also Mother's Day.)

    So far there is no conflict. My husband cheated. We had differing views of what a marriage actually is. If he had stopped seeing his current fiancee, and committed to counseling and being faithful, I would have stayed. He refused. I moved out. I was not going to live with him while I knew he was being unfaithful.

    We have been civilly divorced for 1 year. After 11 years of marriage. According to the Catholic Church we are still married. As the Church prefers to assume the validity of the sacrament. I have begun the process of receiving a Declaration of Nullity. Which, given some circumstances around my husband's childhood, may be relatively quick.

    At this time there is no conflict, because I am chaste and celibate. I am not seeing anyone at this time. As far as I know, the only conflict that would arise would be if I were physically involved with a man, since sacramentally I am still married, and thus, it would be considered adultery.

    The choice to remain chaste and celibate hasn't been easy, when most people in my social circle think that "getting some" would solve most of my problems. When, really in retrospect, it was the "getting some" that caused a lot of them. Like I said in the beginning, there is no conflict between my faith and my marital status. I've done things the other way....now I plan on doing them the right way. Which means abstaining until I am married (God willing). The saddest part for me is that due to wrong thinking in the past, I can't have any more children. And THAT is only thing I would do over.

    ReplyDelete
  174. In brief, Nicole-no, I am most definitely not suggesting homeless children should have been aborted; rather, I find it difficult to wrap my mind around the idea that although the Catholic church practices advocating for life in all ways-anti-abortion and charity/services to help the poor, when it comes time to vote the only issue seems to be abortion....so if a candidate states a pro-life stance but then does nothing to improve the situation for poor, homeless children it seems to me not much evil has really been mitigated.

    Leila, I do know Gallup, NM very well and am familiar with some of the Catholic outreach programs in that area though I don't know your friend.

    The motherhood/workforce conversation certainly is interesting. I tend to think the disparity in this country falls across class/income lines pretty steeply (in addition to ethnicity); while middle/upper class folks grow up with the expectation that they will go to college, I suspect for lower income people that specific expectation is not always there or certainly not discussed/encouraged.

    ReplyDelete
  175. CS- I will tell you straight up, a very lucrative career discipline for a woman is engineering. Right now, specifically mechanical, civil, chemical, aeronautical and paper engineering are where it's at.
    Starting salary is usually $55,000 to $66,000. Opportunities and benefits abound for quick promotional and salary advancement.

    Within 5 to 7 years on the job, a woman could easily be near a six figure salary, depending on the field and program. Ten years into it, she'll likely have had a couple promotions and will be making at least $100,000 full time, including bonus money and profit sharing. Easily.

    A woman is the minority in the engineering field (1 in 10 in mechanical engineering, I believe is still true) and are *well taken care of* in terms of material wealth and opportunities to make this a life long satisfying career.
    These fields are constantly looking to fill slots with female workers, as there is a shortage of them.

    So, CS, if you've got the capacity for math and applied sciences, you're already ten steps ahead of the rest of America, especially women, right? Because "the man" has held women back from studying math and science all these years (I joke).

    It's a great discipline for a woman.

    And when Mr Right comes around, you'll most likely have the opportunity to stay home with the kids (if you choose) or return either full or part time to a career that will always be in high demand for a woman. At this time, the Midwest is in need of great talent, esp in mechanical and chemical engineering, as a lot of talent has left the area in search of other jobs since 2008.

    ReplyDelete
  176. I suspect for lower income people that specific expectation is not always there or certainly not discussed/encouraged.

    It may not be expected, but it is possible . And in this day and age, where college classes are offered off-campus and online, college really is much more accessible and expected.

    There are loans to help with the cost. I put myself through on loans, as did many women here, I suspect.

    Also, I can't stress enough the importance that college students should talk often to a student counselor regarding job opportunities after they graduate.

    They should be counselled on 1) which fields are most lucrative 2) where the jobs will be available 3) what it takes to find internships or entry level positions in the capacity of their discipline.

    A beautiful thing about being a woman in modern American is the sheer possibilities for education and employment.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Wow, did the earth just shake a little? For the first time ever, I'm completely on board with Nubby's last two comments.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Gwen, it's been mentioned here a zillion times before, but LIFE is a non-negotiable. Policies about how to help the poor are just that - policies. They are things the Church says we are able to disagree on. So yes...when it comes to voting, LIFE is first. Always. Because if we're killing people, then it doesn't really matter how we help them when they're homeless. I'm not really sure how else to say it.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!