%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |
Writing about what I have been reading and encountering in the media. |
|
WELCOME TO MY BLOG! I comment on things I am reading, thinking about, encountering in media, and spiritual issues. I hope you will find something interesting. PS. I love feedback... |
| The Washington Post - Monday, June 8, 2015 “Abortion rights leader’s pregnancy surprises opponents: ‘Is that real?’ Ellen McCarthy Ilyse Hogue, head of NARAL: Pro-Choice America, the nation’s largest pro-choice organization, is 45 years old and pregnant with twins. The journalist has to come up with an angle. She goes with a comment made at a public hearing “is that real?” She then discusses the NARAL position that supports reproductive freedom and presents some recent history. She does not mention anything about being 45 years old and pregnant. Personally, that would fill me with fear but, Ms. Hogue insists this is something she wants. Good for her. That is what choice is all about. I hope she has a strong, healthy support system to raise twins, and I hope they are both healthy. In the article, Ms. McCarthy points out that most women who seek abortions already have children. I was told through a contact in Planned Parenthood the largest group of women seeking abortion are peri-menopausal with grown children; the “change of life” pregnancy. There is also a substantial number of women who are facing their last chance at pregnancy at the same time of life. (Here comes my rant. Are you ready?”) People who believe a version of God as one who micromanages and makes every little thing in one’s life happen “for a purpose” have yet to explain to me how they cope with the contradictions in my last paragraph. What “loving god” would give a baby to someone who is not in a position to meet its needs and none to someone who wants a child? Of course, I am a mere human and I don’t really expect myself to comprehend the mind of the creator of multiple universes. But, the folks who say they do understand the mind of God, rain confusion on my head. I would think I could understand mere mortals, like myself, but I don’t. Why do they want to get in the middle of someone else’s pregnancy by saying they know what God means? This is taking more responsibility than I, personally, could handle. What I think is going on here is an effort by the extreme right to stimulate the economy by growing the population (there is a bill board south of town that promotes this idea,) and wants women out of politics and the workplace by keeping us “barefoot and pregnant.” They can’t win. The more time women have at home, the more political action we can take. The more citizens there are, the harder for the right to control everyone. But it is very painful for women to hear all this controversy over something so personal. For example, what right does someone in a public hearing have to say “is that real?” How rude. I wish there was no fight over this. I wish Ilyse Hogue could lay down her fighting words and go home and raise these children knowing there is no need for someone to fill her role at NARAL. Most of all, I am happy for her and for her very much wanted children, and for their father who gets the joy of raising children with a partner who truly wants and loves his children. And, I think it is wonderful that the head of NARAL is pregnant. |
| Surfing the net today, I came across this: “Calling Bruce Jenner a Woman Is an Insult to Women” avemaria radio Posted on: June 3rd, 2015 by kresta in the afternoon The author has strong opinions about Bruce Jenner’s transition and by extension, about transgenderism. I too have some thoughts on the subject. In his posting, kresta attempts to distinguish between “real” women and invented women and objects to transgenderism, focusing on male to female transition. In the process of “defending” women, he makes some statements that I found problematic: “Transgenderism and feminism cannot coexist. Progressives can’t have both.” It seems to me kresta makes a judgement about who can get along and accept each other and who can’t. I didn’t see any rationale in the posting for this position. Kresta did not define terms and assumed a definition about feminism that is not how I understand it. In my mind, feminism means acceptance of the intrinsic value of every human being, and accepting that the feminine is equal to the masculine in value and power. I see this as a progressive ideal as well. Kresta goes on to say: “We’re talking about a sex change like it’s an Apple product. With this kind of language, we have not only made the self mutable, we’ve also commodified it and turned it into a spectacle that can be sold for profit. This is a bastardization of our humanity on a scale and to a degree that wouldn’t have even crossed the tortured minds of last century’s most prophetic social critics. It’s all so evil and so bizarre and so unthinkably ridiculous that no dystopian sci-fi writer could have predicted that the collapse of western society would look like this. Right now Orwell and Huxley are looking on in deep regret. “Man! An apocalyptic future where people are so pampered, conceited, and bored that they pretend they can snap their fingers and reconstruct their soul from scratch — why didn’t I think of that?” As I recall, the first sex change operation took place just past mid-century, about 50 years ago. This has been going on way too long to still consider it revolutionary. While I agree this is "commodification" I don't see that as a new thing either. I remember Bruce Jenner appearing in advertising as a young man, promoting products like any accomplished athlete in the past 75 years or so. The commodification of people started with advertising in the 1920’s. People being pampered and bored has been going on as long as people have existed as far as I can tell. Bruce Jenner becoming Caitlin Jenner is similar to a woman getting married and changing her identity to wife and member of her husband’s family. It is a change in identity that has been expected of women for centuries. It just does not seem to me that Bruce Jenner’s transition to a woman is emblematic of the crash of civilization. It does seem to represent a very important problem about our media making something very personal seem generally significant while ignoring some pretty important social issues. That is for another entry. For now, I just want to add, my womanhood is not defined by my reproductive capacity. It is defined by my culture and myself and does have a biological base that I was born with. Just because I have certain organs does not automatically lead to pregnancy and parenthood any more than it does for a man. That is what choice is about. I am in no way insulted that a particular man chooses to be a woman. Actually, it is kind of flattering. I don’t pretend to comprehend it, but, since it isn’t me, I don’t have to. Should I meet Caitlin Jenner, I will treat her with as much respect as I treat anyone else because that is the right thing to do. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
