Blows the cover off old diary.
"What's this? Posting at least twice a week?"
"I said she crazy, that chick. She writes whenever she gets the chance, she says. Then she writes posts four months in between."
"You have to make your own chances," opined the man with the blue necktie.
"Thanks, guys. If you're done, I'm going to post. Today, and not a minute later."
As per usual, my life seesaws from one extreme of pursuit to another- I just made peace with the fact that I have no interest in a couple of old obscure texts I've clung to for over three years. I'm hoping that sticking them on Amazon for sale will both free some shelf space and fund worthier pursuits.
And thinking about the excessive materialism of the modern age (and getting rid of my smart phone). My reasoning is thusly:
* It is true that the very rich and the very poor have similarities in that they live excessively simple lives. The poor (most of them) are not living simply because they choose to do so, except for religious orders, and whether or not you live simply because you choose it seems to make all the difference in the world.
* The very rich are freer in that they can start from absolute simplicity but can go in any direction with their pursuits- whether it's starting a new type of business, a new profession, or heading a volunteer project. Their only constraints on their spending/pursuits are those they elect to be held by- whether it's keeping up with the Joneses or making the Forbes list. The poor are less blessed in this respect, except (again) the religious orders, particularly orders like the Missionaries of Charity and the Franciscans, the Carmelites- they are sustained by something outside themselves that gives them not just endurance, but joy.
Conclusion:
* The only thing that determines happiness or misery(regardless of how much money one makes) is the ability to fully live one's potential and do what you really, really want to be able to do, regardless of how much hard work you need to put into it. The possessions should always be a stepping-stone to the real goal: whatever you feel called for, whether it's building houses in Nicaragua or teaching an English class in your spare time.
It's trite, but I think less trite when you live with a constant barrage telling you what possessions you need and how they'll help define you: "Buy this dress and be a quirky romantic heroine", "Buy this all-natural bamboo teething ring and be a Conscientious Mother", "Buy this iPad for your kids and be the Hip Parents", "Buy this beer and be a Real Man". And we can't shut that noise out, which wouldn't be so persuasive except most of us aren't really happy with what we do. Our work ought to define us, or whatever worthy endeavors we support through it. Instead of our work being defining, we have to look for something else and since we have no time to go busking on the streets of Madrid or read all the George Eliot novels, we buy things that will, hopefully, at least tell other people that's what we'd like to be doing.
Sigh. What price a ticket to Madrid?
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
Guttmacher Institute: An Anti-Woman Coalition
Yes, I know that our president allegedly "compromised" on an issue that cannot be compromised, while citing a ridiculous figure of "99 percent of women have used contraception". This is quite some news to the virgins, NFPers', and people like my mother, my aunt Terri, and countless married friends who never used contraception.
More on that alleged compromise here: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13292 taken from CatholicVoteAction. Please read; there's some good explanations there.
The story is, alas, nothing new. The figures the president cites are from the Guttmacher Institute, named after the first president of Planned Parenthood. Here's a charming quote from Mr. Guttmacher:
"No woman is completely free unless she is wholly capable of controlling her fertility and...no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents."
This sentence encapsulates two chief problems that Christian humanists (particularly we Catholics) have with the entire ethos behind abortion. Starting with the first section of the quote, the idea that womanly fertility should subdued and discarded like a stinking dead thing that enslaves women to their men. Guttmacher and the Planned Parenthood attitude towards fertility is insane, and I will tell you why:
It runs counter to all Judeo-Christian and pagan ancient writings, where fertility is seen as an unqualified positive. In Genesis: Hagar bears Ishmael to Abraham, and even though this was outside God's plan, he provides for Hagar and Ishmael after Sarah drives her out. Greek myth: Niobe attempted to set herself up as a goddess on her qualification as a mother of seven sons and daughters. 1 and 2 Kings: The kings' consorts in Israel held very little power, but the Queen-mother could confidently intercede with the king for his subjects. In Eastern and island cultures people created and adored fertility idols shaped like voluptuous women, associating them with the success of crops and the blessings of deities.
In essence, to be woman was to be fertile, and fertility was Good. Womanhood in its fullest sense contains the idea of being fruitful with children, with works, with life. The "three faces of Eve" has the Mother- the mature and fertile genius- as the mid-point in female identity between the Maiden and the Crone. This is not to say that woman who lack fertility are less womanly, but the womb and fertility are crucial to the identity of women, not separate from it.
This idea carries serious implications on the character of people who say that fertility is separate from being a woman and should be squelched as a distraction to the "sexy" aspect of women. The external appearance of feminity only is what determines womanly nature. Instead of empowering women with autonomy, this view cuts women adrift from their own identity. Women are expected to act like mini-men in their personal and professional lives, competing with men or titillating them, with value being assigned based on their attractiveness or their ability to keep pace with masculine standards for careers and financial achievement.
The push for autonomy in the bedroom in particul has damaged the relationship between men and women. Men are shut out from the women's decisions regarding the children that they both created. Women excuse themselves from any accountability, even though their decision affects two people. Good news for the irresponsible and callous men, who will refuse responsibility for their children (aside from state-mandated financial responsibility). Bad news for men who want children, whose fatherhood is at the mercy of a whim.
Speaking of deciding the role of parenthood, here's the second part of the quote again: "no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents."
'Receives its full birthright'? Does this mean that the child isn't going to be completely happy when it's born, or that it won't really be a human person? Either way, if you could ask the baby, I'm sure it would prefer to be born and thus have the possibility of finding happiness!
"Gleefully wanted by its parents"- Both parents? If one of them doesn't want it, should they make the other one give in and agree to an abortion? He also speaks of it being wanted at birth; did he advocate partial-birth abortion and late-term abortions, as many Planned Parenthood clinics performed?
Guttmacher's "full birthright", whatever he means, the context spells it out: If both parents didn't want the baby, it's not a real person with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rights that our Constitution said were both "endowed by our Creator" and "inalienable", so foundationally, America's principles uphold the human right to life.
More on that alleged compromise here: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=13292 taken from CatholicVoteAction. Please read; there's some good explanations there.
The story is, alas, nothing new. The figures the president cites are from the Guttmacher Institute, named after the first president of Planned Parenthood. Here's a charming quote from Mr. Guttmacher:
"No woman is completely free unless she is wholly capable of controlling her fertility and...no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents."
This sentence encapsulates two chief problems that Christian humanists (particularly we Catholics) have with the entire ethos behind abortion. Starting with the first section of the quote, the idea that womanly fertility should subdued and discarded like a stinking dead thing that enslaves women to their men. Guttmacher and the Planned Parenthood attitude towards fertility is insane, and I will tell you why:
It runs counter to all Judeo-Christian and pagan ancient writings, where fertility is seen as an unqualified positive. In Genesis: Hagar bears Ishmael to Abraham, and even though this was outside God's plan, he provides for Hagar and Ishmael after Sarah drives her out. Greek myth: Niobe attempted to set herself up as a goddess on her qualification as a mother of seven sons and daughters. 1 and 2 Kings: The kings' consorts in Israel held very little power, but the Queen-mother could confidently intercede with the king for his subjects. In Eastern and island cultures people created and adored fertility idols shaped like voluptuous women, associating them with the success of crops and the blessings of deities.
In essence, to be woman was to be fertile, and fertility was Good. Womanhood in its fullest sense contains the idea of being fruitful with children, with works, with life. The "three faces of Eve" has the Mother- the mature and fertile genius- as the mid-point in female identity between the Maiden and the Crone. This is not to say that woman who lack fertility are less womanly, but the womb and fertility are crucial to the identity of women, not separate from it.
This idea carries serious implications on the character of people who say that fertility is separate from being a woman and should be squelched as a distraction to the "sexy" aspect of women. The external appearance of feminity only is what determines womanly nature. Instead of empowering women with autonomy, this view cuts women adrift from their own identity. Women are expected to act like mini-men in their personal and professional lives, competing with men or titillating them, with value being assigned based on their attractiveness or their ability to keep pace with masculine standards for careers and financial achievement.
The push for autonomy in the bedroom in particul has damaged the relationship between men and women. Men are shut out from the women's decisions regarding the children that they both created. Women excuse themselves from any accountability, even though their decision affects two people. Good news for the irresponsible and callous men, who will refuse responsibility for their children (aside from state-mandated financial responsibility). Bad news for men who want children, whose fatherhood is at the mercy of a whim.
Speaking of deciding the role of parenthood, here's the second part of the quote again: "no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents."
'Receives its full birthright'? Does this mean that the child isn't going to be completely happy when it's born, or that it won't really be a human person? Either way, if you could ask the baby, I'm sure it would prefer to be born and thus have the possibility of finding happiness!
"Gleefully wanted by its parents"- Both parents? If one of them doesn't want it, should they make the other one give in and agree to an abortion? He also speaks of it being wanted at birth; did he advocate partial-birth abortion and late-term abortions, as many Planned Parenthood clinics performed?
Guttmacher's "full birthright", whatever he means, the context spells it out: If both parents didn't want the baby, it's not a real person with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rights that our Constitution said were both "endowed by our Creator" and "inalienable", so foundationally, America's principles uphold the human right to life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)