Saturday, October 11, 2014

Quick Takes: Guess who I met?! (Take #6)

Late have I posted thee, Quick Takes...




1)   I have read a lot about discerning God's will over the years, and I've even written about it myself. But this piece by Peter Kreeft is the best I've seen yet:



Kreeft gives us five principles and six clues to discern the correct path when we are in doubt. Check this out:

Here is a sixth clue. If God has one right choice in everything you do, then you can't draw any line. That means that God wants you to know which room to clean first, the kitchen or the bedroom, and which dish to pick up first, the plate or the saucer. You see, if you carry out this principle's logical implications, it shows itself to be ridiculous, unlivable, and certainly not the kind of life God wants for us—the kind described in the Bible and the lives of the saints. 
Clue number six is the principle that many diverse things are good; that good is plural. Even for the same person, there are often two or more choices that are both good. Good is kaleidoscopic. Many roads are right. The road to the beach is right and the road to the mountains is right, for God awaits us in both places. Goodness is multicolored. Only pure evil lacks color and variety. In hell there is no color, no individuality. Souls are melted down like lead, or chewed up together in Satan's mouth. The two most uniform places on earth are prisons and armies, not the church. 
Take a specific instance where different choices are both equally good. Take married sex. As long as you stay within God's law—no adultery, no cruelty, no egotism, no unnatural acts, as, for example, contraception—anything goes. Use your imagination. Is there one and only one way God wants you to make love to your spouse? What a silly question! Yet making love to your spouse is a great good, and God's will. He wants you to decide to be tender or wild, moving or still, loud or quiet, so that your spouse knows it's you, not anyone else, not some book who's deciding.

Read it all here, and stop fretting about what to do!



2)   The press and social media have been abuzz with the tragic story of 29-year-old Brittany Maynard, who is suffering from a devastating cancer and is set to commit physician-assisted suicide in just a few days. This poignant response to Brittany comes from another young woman who is also dying of cancer:




Please pray for all involved, and please remember that the "right to die" eventually becomes the "duty to die". Lord, have mercy.


3)  A while back, I began to press my friend Jenni (mother of nine, longtime blogger) to write her husband's vasectomy reversal story. She was gracious enough to give in to my pestering, and the result is here:


Jenni and her husband are not the only couple I know to have undergone a reversal of either a vasectomy or a tubal ligation. Although the Church does not require reversal for those who repent of the sin of sterilization, it's an incredibly healing and beautiful act for those who can take that step. And God willing, it often ends in the gift of more children.

Get Jenni's blog, Circling Jericho, on your blog roll or reading list; her writing is beautiful and she keeps it real, all the time



4)  "When did female empowerment become female infantilization?"

Yeah, that's what I'd like to know!

"Women once were encouraged to be strong and independent, to brush aside insensitive words and actions and to emerge stronger. But now, politicians, pundits, even celebrities are feeding an outrage machine by telling women they should be offended by anything and everything."
And as a woman, that offends me! This is dead on:



If I were a feminist... well, I am a classical feminist, but if I were a feminist as manifested today, I would feel weak and frightened and threatened by every word spoken or act taken that did not agree with my very narrow worldview. I would feel like a victim at every turn, to the point of not being able to hear someone say "bossy" without starting a national movement to eradicate the word, and the seemingly innocuous acronym "TMI" would assault my delicate ears as a personal affront (read the article; this is for real). Goodness, I would be so helpless that I'd be reduced to forcing others buy my contraception for me (if I used it, which I don't), because it's too tough to walk to the Walgreens on the corner and use my own money to buy it, and it's unthinkable to even suggest that my lazy boyfriend/partner/husband get off the couch and pay for the contraception himself.

I'm glad I'm not a modern-day feminist because I prefer to be strong, competent, and independent. And all grown up.



5)  I'm pretty sure I'm a crack cocaine Words With Friends addict. (Sorry, I get those two things confused.)



6) So, I just got home from the most amazing evening! Five hundred of us gathered to support 1st Way Pregnancy Center and to hear this wise and beautiful woman speak:


Shameless picture-dropping

Abby Johnson, when I read your book and even posted about it, never did I imagine I would one day call you a friend. You are a gifted speaker, and honestly, you could be a stand-up comedienne with your perfectly timed comic relief in the midst of an incredibly delicate subject. You had us rolling in laughter -- and shedding a few tears as well. Someone on Facebook said tonight that she could have listened to you all night. I concur. Yes, I'm all fan-girly right now. But honestly folks, there is a reason that the abortion industry is very, very afraid of this woman. Abby, keep kicking the devil's butt. You were made for this.


7)  And maybe someone out there was made for little Jesse.... He needs parents, and perhaps they are reading this right now:

Click my picture for more info!

Jesse is four years old and is blind. He had a difficult start in life, but is doing well now. From his profile page:
He was abandoned at the gates of his orphanage when he was 9 months old. His blindness was caused by an untreated eye infection, and he was so ill he was sent to a palliative care home to die. He arrived a very sick and frightened little boy but was nursed back to health and given the opportunity to gain confidence and trust others around him. He is currently healthy with no further medical problems but is delayed in some areas of his development such as walking and feeding himself.
Read more about Jesse here, and please pray for this precious child to find a family of his own.



+++++++


Have a great weekend everyone, and thanks to Jen for hosting!






35 comments:

  1. Love, love, LOVE Abby Johnson. I found myself crying while reading Unplanned, and shortly thereafter, I wrote her an email thanking her for her bravery in sharing her story. She responded with a heartfelt message herself, and I was so grateful (especially considering how much she has on her plate!). :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marisa, isn't she amazing?? I could not get over how FUNNY she is. I mean, perfect comedic timing. At the same time, people are wiping away tears from their eyes, from the profundity and heartache of what she was telling us. She is writing a new book (or two) I hear, and also someone bought the rights to her story for a movie! If anyone ever gets a chance to hear her... GO.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "But now, politicians, pundits, even celebrities are feeding an outrage machine by telling women they should be offended by anything and everything."

    Oh, my dummy-dumbness.

    I'm offended and outraged that everyone is offended and outraged. Derp.

    1) This: "... the Women's Media Center created a list of more than 100 words and phrases that are harmful to women, including "aggressive"..."
    So, then I'd hope they gather that they cannot "aggressively" campaign against the word "aggressive". Just asking.

    2) How is the word "aggressive", itself, harmful? How does a word cause emotional, physical, or intellectual harm?
    Is there no positive context for using the word, "aggressive"? So much negativity is associated with this word, that we can never find an instance for its proper use?

    So doctors cannot say, "We are going to aggressively treat you for this disease, in order to save your life"? Or, a student cannot proudly proclaim, "I am going to aggressively pursue my college degree"?
    Athletes will no longer be able to "aggressively" defend their own zone, nor put in an "aggressive" effort at practice? Cuz it's, uh, harmful to say that?

    3) If people cannot handle the word "aggressive", can't they just choose a synonym or are those equally as bad?

    4) Actually, you know what word "causes harm"? "Wimpy". I hate that word because it doesn't "empower" me. I also hate: "cheesecake", and "the" with equal fervor. "Cheesecake" causes harm, it adds pounds of fat to my brain, apparently.

    And "the", well, that's just a boring determiner, I don't like it. Let's change it to "eht", in reverse, the same, but not the same. You know, less offensive on account of its boring-ness.

    5) Does this campaign include eradicating names they don't like -esp male ones, since all of this is for the sake of female empowerment, right? Like, you know, you went to school with a jerk named Jim who put gum in your hair in the 3rd grade and called you 'four eyes' when you had to wear your glasses at reading group, so now the name itself causes harm, and should be removed. Just wondering when that's next on the to-do list...

    Observation: A woman cannot be both emotionally delicate and emotionally empowered, at the same time, in the same respect.
    Are we delicate China dolls or strong, modern females?

    ReplyDelete
  4. #5 - I was telling some friends about how another friend and I chat through WWF, and they said they had no idea I like that kind of wrestling. :)

    Oh, and Leila, this is for you: uaeiiooaieoouu.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nubby, BAM, yes, yes, yes! Why is this not obvious to all?

    Anita, ha ha ha!! And.... okay is that a real word?? (Sometimes I feel like my tile options look like that.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, that's just a set of vowels that you were so desperately in need of.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ha ha, thanks!! I need them often! Although then there are the times that I get nothing but vowels, and I can't get any good scores!

    ReplyDelete
  8. that discernment piece and the links you provided came in perfect timing for me. Really. I have been worrying so much about what to do with my life/future....I'm even in the midst of writing a blog post about discernment...so thank you so much. Peter Kreeft is awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I met her a couple wwwks ago! I would have totally have stopped your name! Lol. I can't believe she just had a baby!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Forgive me for stepping into this argument and then disappearing for most of the day. I have 3 classes to teach and 60 more essays to grade ; )

    Regarding #4: The article links a "list" from the Women's Media Center; however, the link takes you to another article from the Examiner (June 19, 2014) about the words used to describe female politicians and Hilary Clinton in general. From that article, there is a link to a document from the Women's Media Center that analyzes and compares the most frequently used words to describe female politicians by news media.

    Once again, I find an article cited here, in this case from the Examiner, doesn't thoroughly set up the actual argument it tries to make. Nor does it adequately link or present what the Women's Media Center piece, as referred to in the second article, is actually saying.

    As far as I can tell from the material linked in the article, Lena Dunham nor the Women Media Center are suggesting women all be afraid of using words like "aggressive;" that isn't the point at all and nowhere does the literature from the Media Center or the original interview with Lena Dunham say that.

    In fact, the Women's Media Center includes a glossary of words that are usually used with negative connotations in the media to describe women politicians. It's pointed out that "aggressive" has been used to describe Jewish people, stemming from historical racist depictions of Jews as pushy, miserly, and mean.

    I have to wonder why it is so "dumb" and "stupid" in your opinion to think deeply about the words that are used in major media to describe and talk about women versus men. No one (or few people here) critique Bible Study as a "waste of time." You spend time thinking of the deeper meanings behind Bible verses; why is it so wrong to look for patterns-socially and culturally-in the ways people use language through the array of media we work with on a daily basis?

    Thanks,
    Gwen

    ReplyDelete
  11. You want me to bite this off, or are you directing this to Leila? She didn't say "dumb". I did.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Gwen! Thanks for your thoughtful comment. My initial reaction is that we all know that the article is not about one word, and it's not about what the media uses to describe female politicians. (And by the way, I may be seen as an "aggressive" Catholic, and honestly, that would not necessarily bother me!) The point of the piece was much broader than politicians or that one word. But "aggressive" is similar to "bossy", no? And the ridiculous "campaign" that was launched to end the use of this insidious word, "bossy"... I didn't know whether to laugh or weep for our culture. Seriously? This is the front that the feminists are fighting? Use of the word "bossy"? I think the word "bossy" is a great and descriptive word, and I will continue to use it whenever someone is being bossy. ;)

    And "TMI" is now to be seen as offensive? This is not about examining words objectively, sociologically. This is a pointed directive from today's enlightened feminists, marching orders that we should be offended by these words and terms. Gwen, why should women be taught to be offended by everything? Why should we be such delicate flowers that we shrink from everyday words (but we are supposed to embrace words like "slut" as a positive good)? I just don't get it at all, and I've tried. I see a true war on women out there in the world, with women being systematically raped, stoned, kept from education, having hot oil poured upon them, "honor killings", genital mutilation, subjugation of all kinds, and we in America are making a case for being offended by the words "bossy" or "TMI"? It's honestly like I'm Alice down the rabbit hole some days.

    You know that I like you, Gwen. You know that I have strong feelings about this stuff, too. I am begging for you to acknowledge that with a real war against women going on every day (one that I see my Catholic sisters railing against daily), the western feminist establishment seems to be hung up on taking offense at words, or at not being given free contraception. Something is grossly out of proportion here. Do you agree? Please, I really want to know that you at least see that there is a problem with proportion, if nothing else.

    Also, could you email me if you have a chance? Thanks! :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. "In fact, the Women's Media Center includes a glossary of words that are usually used with negative connotations in the media to describe women politicians. It's pointed out that "aggressive" has been used to describe Jewish people, stemming from historical racist depictions of Jews as pushy, miserly, and mean."

    1) "Aggressive" is not a slang derogatory term. Why are these feminists telling me I need to feel offended by this word? Conversely, on average I hear the word "b--ch" three times per game, which means, at this rate I will hear it about 60 more times before the season ends- and which is, by design, a slang derogatory term. It's designed to insult. Hurled from a woman, no less, not a man, so there's no sexism here, just, uh, Modern Sisterhood, I guess.

    Do I need to feel offended when someone lobs this at me? Shall I fight to push this word into oblivion? Or can I look beyond the fact that a personal dart like that is said out of weakness and ignorance? Can I realize that I don't have to react to that word, at all? Am I allowed to laugh it off, or better, use my play to shut her up? Or do I need to campaign to have it banned? Do I need someone to reassemble my feelings after hearing it? According to modern feminists, I do.

    2) Per above, how does the word "aggressive" have "negative connotations", should the media use it, to describe a female politician? Traditionally, politics has been a man's game. Women entered politics *needing* to be aggressive, knowing they had to be, and, probably wanting to be. Isn't aggression, in this respect, a good thing? Now it's not? Lol - confused. It's the word that follows the descriptor that should be the concern.

    Your comment does not contain the complete implementation of the word "aggressive", no matter where it "stems from".
    How much peeling back is necessary before these feminists can find the offensive spot? "Aggressive" and "Jewish people" aren't tied together as meaning anything to anyone in everyday usage. I can use the term "aggressive" to describe a naggy Polish babcia (grandma). No big whoop. It doesn't immediately classify or qualify any ethnicity.

    3) The fact that these feminists think that implementing an edited version of common descriptors (most of which are not at all personal labels nor slang derogatory terms) is going to somehow help us "progress" as women is laughable. Playing whack-a-mole with vocabulary does not equal female empowerment.

    4) Start with renewing modesty and virtue, and watch the vocabulary change naturally, not by force. When the sensibilities of people change, their relation to words will naturally change.

    Re: this comparison -

    "You spend time thinking of the deeper meanings behind Bible verses; why is it so wrong to look for patterns-socially and culturally-in the ways people use language through the array of media we work with on a daily basis?"

    People can 'look for patterns' all day long. That's neither here nor there as compared to meditating on scripture. Studying bible verses doesn't cause a person to become so greatly offended by an ancient lexicon that she strikes up a campaign against it, in order to mandate when and how certain words may be implemented for the rest of society.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Leila,

    I can appreciate criticism of Western feminism-I find myself agreeing with and being interested in the commentary/scholarship non-Western and Indigenous women feminist scholars offer.

    Hey, we probably all use the word "aggressive" once in awhile, it's okay. It's probably good to be "aggressive" about some things. In my reading of the articles cited by the Examiner, there is no discussion about "banning" vocabulary; rather there is an insightful opinion about the ways in which certain words are used and their connotations, with regards to women.

    I don't think anyone is being indoctrinated to speak differently-I think we're being encouraged to think about the language we use. One example that comes to mind for me is why are women always apologizing-"Oh, I'm sorry I thought you meant Tuesday, not Wednesday" or "Oh, I'm sorry, I misheard you." I don't hear men apologizing for trifling errors nearly as often. Granted, this is a generalization and I'm not suggesting we ban the word "sorry" but I am wondering if maybe it's time to think about when an apology is necessary and when it is not. And why women seem to be socialized into thinking they must apologize for any error or misunderstanding. These are the thoughts I have when I read the article with Dunham and the Women's Media Center.

    ReplyDelete
  15. See, I have to disagree with you about the "sorry" stuff, too. I think it's kind and endearing to hear it! I actually say that all the time when I mess up on times or trivial things, and I consider it simply a polite way to be deferential and/or show respect for the other person if I have misunderstood something. Making people feel at ease, or showing them it's okay to make a mistake and apologize, is really appealing (at least to me). It's part of the feminine genius in my opinion. So what if men don't do it? Some do, by the way. I think it's lovely! Oh, I hope we never lose our graciousness!

    I am glad you understand my point about western feminists. Thank you. It's something that really bothers me in light of true injustice and the plight of women around the world.

    ReplyDelete
  16. but I am wondering if maybe it's time to think about when an apology is necessary and when it is not. And why women seem to be socialized into thinking they must apologize for any error or misunderstanding.

    It's not an apology for an personal offense, it's a basic conversational social skill. An innocent gesture. It's called "being decent". It shows the person is willing to humble himself/herself in light of his/her error. Before, "I'm sorry", there was the even more humble, "I beg your pardon", which is very refreshing in an era where no one begs for any kind of pardon for any kind of offense, trifle or not.

    Is this the kind of stuff that keeps the modern feminists awake at night? The use of innocent gestures?
    Do my modern counterparts find annoyance at every innocent thing: sleeping puppies, cooing babies, and blooming flowers?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes! that's exactly right, all the works of Simone de Beauvoir, Nancy Chodorow, Angela Davis, Adrienne Rich, Andrea Smith, and Emily Martin-it's all about staying up late at night trying to destroy "sleeping puppies, cooing babies, blooming flowers" and banning the word 'aggressive' from vocabulary. You are just spot on with your critiques as always.

    ReplyDelete
  18. that's exactly right, all the works of Simone de Beauvoir, Nancy Chodorow, Angela Davis, Adrienne Rich, Andrea Smith, and Emily Martin-it's all about staying up late at night trying to destroy "sleeping puppies, cooing babies, blooming flowers" and banning the word 'aggressive' from vocabulary. You are just spot on with your critiques as always.

    Ha- interesting reply.
    I'm "offended and outraged" at your improper use of sarcasm to attempt to demean my feminine powers.

    I don't know, gwen, it's just too easy with you. You go from zero to hyper-emotive in exactly 2 seconds, no matter the topic.

    You know what you ought to add to your reading list there, are the Golden Rules of play: Do not retaliate from checks or infractions, legal or not. It shows weakness. And: Always work on your weakest skill.

    Note I never said anything about people "destroying" anything. My remark dealt strictly with the attitude of annoyance you (and modern women) hold toward basic social skills, like saying, "I'm sorry" for a minor mistake in conversation. You must be projecting. Again.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gwen, I'm sincerely interested as to why someone would find a problem with a social grace such as an apology or a "pardon me", even just as a gesture of humility or kindness or deference? I wish we had tons more of it in our increasingly narcissistic society, frankly.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Leila, I'm not talking about a social grace, the appropriateness of being kind, apologies or gestures of humility and deference. I'd agree with you we need more of that all around in society.

    I'm just interested in thinking more generally and more broadly about patterns of speech as a means for analyzing social relations and culture.

    As for "she-who-labels-me-emotive-without-having-ever-seen-me-or-met-me": why don't you just answer a simple question? How much work by non-Catholic feminist scholars have you read?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm just interested in thinking more generally and more broadly about patterns of speech as a means for analyzing social relations and culture.

    This is what you want to do with your time? K.

    As for "she-who-labels-me-emotive-without-having-ever-seen-me-or-met-me": why don't you just answer a simple question? How much work by non-Catholic feminist scholars have you read?

    That's just primo, right there. ^
    You address me sideways and throw out this irrelevant question. Exhibit A is above for next time you want to hypocritically call someone else "childish".

    Next:
    This worthless question on scholars.
    What if I told you I read 10 books and 22 journals? What if I took a full year of studies in college? Two years? Irrelevant.

    I was typically too busy taking classes that actually mattered, sorry.

    Few more useless questions:
    How many books on parenting have you read by non-parents?
    How many books on China have you read by non-Chinese scholars?
    How many Calc tests have you taken by non-math teachers?

    If you're trying to tie together the idea that people need proper feminist scholarship under their belt to come to a qualified understanding of why campaigns against harmless words are important, save it.

    Irrelevant.

    It only illustrates what a small world of application certain scholarship actually has, and what a small necessity it actually serves. What a very small, sheltered, shell of a world to look into and out from.

    Sorry I cannot validate the value you place on your pet topic.

    It doesn't take a non-Catholic feminist scholar to tell me all about speech patterns or language demographics to help me form the opinion that campaigns against harmless words is dumber than dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  22. weak and frightened and threatened by every word spoken or act taken that did not agree with my very narrow worldview. I would feel like a victim at every turn, to the point of not being able to hear someone say "bossy" without starting a national movement to eradicate the word, and the seemingly innocuous acronym "TMI" would assault my delicate ears as a personal affront


    I am a radical feminist and I feel none of these things.

    ReplyDelete
  23. But Johanne, how do you explain what is happening, and that your movement has taken a turn that you don't agree with? After all, this political correctness ("I am offended!" "War on women!") is literally their strategy now. It's what they are teaching young women. I assume you agree with that (it's everywhere)? If not, then are these folks outliers? I'm honestly interested to know how you feel about this infantilization of women that seems to be the track that feminists are on today.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Your long, antagonizing , condescending comment demonstrates your complete ignorance of feminism, Nub, and your lack of critical thinking. I'm disengaging with you because it is always a disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Your long, antagonizing , condescending comment demonstrates your complete ignorance of feminism, Nub, and your lack of critical thinking. I'm disengaging with you because it is always a disappointment."

    My comment demonstrates a lot of things, but lack of "critical thinking" is not one of them.

    Few items to note about what your own comments demonstrate, Gwen, then, yes, we're on shut down. I don't do emotionalism, belly-aching, illogic, or pride.

    1) "Name dropping of scholars" is not an argument. Wishing to sound self-important, authoritative, or superior, by tossing out names of scholars, is not an intellectual "gotcha", and is also very pretentious, unimpressive, and nonintellectual. You have no argument from authority here, if that's what you are trying to sloppily assemble. Doesn't work, for a number of reasons, do you want them listed?

    2) As far as feminism pertains, are you trying to tell me that you've furnished me with one of these scholars as an expert, specifically, on why campaigns against words is ridiculous? If that's not your solitary point, then your name dropping has zero authority. You realize the language of debate, so you see the error here. Right?

    3) Which leads me to: let's look at all the subjects on which you are ignorant and thus fail to be held to this "gold star standard" of knowledge.
    By your logic, people need an exhaustive knowledge of all things before they can comment an opinion. So:

    Before you may ever comment on a post about Catholicism, you must have read every encyclical published in the last 20 yrs., read all the Church Fathers, and read the Catechism. You must hold to at least one devotion, give alms, and attend daily Mass. Otherwise, your opinion is nothing.

    Before you may ever comment on a post about airlines, you must have a thorough knowledge of Newton's third law of motion, must be able to describe the theories of "lift", mathematically, and must have personally piloted an SR-71 Blackbird. Otherwise, you're not able to comment.

    4) You get emotional because you want to elevate feminist studies to a high place of importance. I will never agree. If I had to rank scholarships of global importance, this would be ranked close to last place. We can play the Stark Contrast game about what you do or what you hail, vs what is really a working reality, and who is really doing the work of affecting the world of modern feminism, if you want to go there. I think it might nail a few points home.

    ReplyDelete
  26. * As far as feminism pertains, are you trying to tell me that you've furnished me with one of these scholars as an expert, specifically, on why campaigns against words are not ridiculous?

    ReplyDelete
  27. You have no proof nor no evidence of all the accusations you make against me-that I wish to sound "superior" that I'm "emotional." These are cheap and dirty tricks that you engage in to diminish my argument and perspective.

    Time and time again on here, you dodge questions while insisting that other people demonstrate and share their personal experiences and knowledge.

    By reading this blog over many years, I have come to understand much more about a religion and way of life I knew nothing about. Furthermore, it has helped me tremendously in my teaching and my work. If you are so interested in criticizing feminism, the question still remains to be answered, why do you not read any feminist literature, instead of relying on articles from the Examiner, to formulate your argument?

    Your overall antagonism is really unappealing and quite frankly, I don't understand why you are always allowed to comment here and steamroll conversations into fights. I don't read this blog regularly anymore because engaging with you is such an absolute nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If you are so interested in criticizing feminism, the question still remains to be answered, why do you not read any feminist literature, instead of relying on articles from the Examiner, to formulate your argument?

    Is this a compulsive, out of control, emotional dealy-o, or do you not have a handle on anything I just said?

    I say, let's skip the pudgy irony once again. (Recall: it is always you who approaches me, so if my reasoning is nightmare-inducing, and you truly believe that I comment here merely to 'fight', or that I "insist" any answers of people (??), then by all means, don't connect to me in the comments - sideways or not).

    Let's skip the magically predictable emotional spazzing, skip blowing the horn of grandiose claims of the necessity of feminist literature, and just jump right into the Stark Contrast Game.

    Let's look at theory vs. concrete experience and *then* you can decide if you still want to approach me with this attempt to make the hard sale about how much 'feminist scholarship' I really need under my belt. K?

    ReplyDelete
  29. By reading this blog over many years, I have come to understand much more about a religion and way of life I knew nothing about. Furthermore, it has helped me tremendously in my teaching and my work.

    Try living it out instead of just "understanding much more about it".
    You know, the way I've been able to actually "live out" modern feminism without even needing to read a body of scholarship about it...

    Catholicism has universal real world application, with global impact, because that's what it is actually meant for.
    I think it weighs a touch more than the narrow field of study that you keep wanting to exalt to superstar status.

    You have no proof nor no evidence of all the accusations you make against me-that I wish to sound "superior" that I'm "emotional." These are cheap and dirty tricks that you engage in to diminish my argument and perspective.

    This is almost too funny. I really had to reply to this.
    All the proof of your emotional appeals are all over this blog. Take a gander. If you fail to see it, I don't know what lens you're looking through.

    It is intellectually lame to enter a discussion and declare, "These scholars know something you don't know! If you don't have an exhaustive knowledge of their work, then you cannot opine."

    So, pick any subject, and I'll enter the discussion declaring same. This accomplishes zero.

    You should realize that *no one* has made a previous assertion against any scholar's work that ties to the article Leila posted on stupid word campaigns.
    No assertion, no argument.
    Their work is not a prerequisite to my opinion because my opinion does not assert anything against them. Why is this the logical stickler with you?

    You enter a conversation with no grasp on basic logical discussion and yet you're going to school us (me)?

    You typically have quite a hand as the ultimate player in the game of "emotional comment derailment". Typically, you huff away at some early point, feeling maligned, but erroneously so according to the logic of the comments- so again- there's your emotional output equaling zero effect.

    I could just as easily mandate that you take Calc IV otherwise you have no business balancing a checkbook. It's lamer than lame.

    Your systematic approach to threads is always the same. It's necessary to change that in order to arrive at any any logical conclusion.

    Time and time again on here, you dodge questions while insisting that other people demonstrate and share their personal experiences and knowledge.

    I *insist people share*? This is coherent thought? I insist? The only thing I'd say I insist on is logic, if that's what your gripe is about, too bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea, you did insist, long ago on a post that included talk about careers, and research methods and then when pressed, you yourself refused to discuss the "methods" you claimed were so superior.

      Delete
  30. How about we just do this:

    Gwen, can you explain (in your own words) why women should be offended by words like "bossy" or "TMI", instead of being taught NOT to be offended by words that are really not a big deal to anyone (except feminists)? Honestly, that is all I want to know. Don't you agree that it is silly for feminists to start an actual campaign against the perfectly fine word such as "bossy"? They took it mainstream. Isn't it better to fight against actual wars against women? That's my question, and I just want to hear your answer from the heart.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Leila, maybe in person if I ever manage to make it to your city : ) I really can't deal with Nubby's b.s. here.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Yea, you did insist, long ago on a post that included talk about careers, and research methods and then when pressed, you yourself refused to discuss the "methods" you claimed were so superior.

    You mean the same post where you blatantly called me an 'asshole'? LOL - for which you never apologized, by the way, but it's okay, I forgive you.

    Or was it the thread you said I disgusted you or some such outburst where you declared I was henceforth set on "ignore" ... ? Too many. Selective memory, much?

    Why would I stick around for that treatment when I did not respect the illogical answer you gave or the tone/insults you delivered.

    And this whole hang-up you have on methods-- I never claimed mine were superior.
    The fact that you confused tools with methods told me a lot, but I never considered mine "superior". You said you worked in an *applied field*, right? So my brain was looking for what concrete process you were applying for a tangible solution. You didn't supply the answer. That's how that ended. No biggie.

    ReplyDelete
  33. gwen,
    I apologize for being rude about your personal interests in your work. If speech patterns related to social relations and culture interest you, and that's where your talents and desires are, that's fair enough.
    For criticizing your interests, I am sorry and I hope for your forgiveness in good faith.

    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!