Category Archives: Feminism

Pray Your Gods

Did you hear about the Democrats praying for abortion in Iowa?  Usually, when one hears the words “prayer” and “abortion” in the same sentence, it means some horrible, no-good pro-life group is violating a woman’s reproductive rights by showing her hard facts in at least a fleeting manner as she enters an abortion clinic.

ttlife05_dg_1

Not this time.  This was an actual prayer to an actual deity, actually asking for supernatural help to keep those abortion mills grinding.

Byron York explains that the prayer was given by Midge Slater, an organizer for Iowa Alliance for Retired Americans, which is part of the Iowa Federation of Labor and the AFL-CIO.  The full text and video is at the link.  For those that don’t want to chew on the whole blasphemous enchilada, here are some highlights:

“There are some who would . . . perpetuate an ongoing blockade of women’s right to safe reproductive health care.

We want to . . . ask your guidance to keep and protect the goodness that we are capable of. Lord, we gather today to address that violation of justice and to offer prayers for those who have been caught in this political posturing.”

“We give thanks, O Lord, for the doctors, both current and future, who provide quality abortion care. . . .”

“We pray for women who have been made afraid of their own power by their paternalistic religion. . . .

Today, we pray that all women will know that they are created in the image of God — good and holy, moral and wise.”

“Today, we pray for a continuous love to overflow from our spirits, and we give thanks and celebrate that abortion is still safe and legal.

And finally, O Lord, we pray . . . that we never forget the passion and commitment we feel today, inspired by our understanding of Your message: “Dance, dance, wherever you may be, for I am the Lord of the Dance, said she. And I lead you all, wherever you may be, and I lead you all in the dance, said she.” [bolding mine]

Sooper Mexican already picked up on the pagan vibe:  “these are words used in prayer . . . to thank the female goddess for the sacrament of killing babies in the womb.”

But the thing that really stuck out for me was that bravo sierra about the “Lord of the Dance.”  Where did Ms. Slater get that?  Does it have anything to do with Michael Flatley? michaelflatley

Mercifully, it does not.

Turns out, “Lord of the Dance” was a song originally written in 1963 by Sydney Carter as a Christian hymnWhile the lyrics are new-age-y, the references to Bethlehem, the crucifixion, and the resurrection are plain.

But that’s not the end of the story.  Apparently, members of the New Revised Orthodox Order of the Golden Dawn (!) adopted the song and adjusted the lyrics.  Given the song’s new-age feel, it’s no surprise that wiccans would like it.

I wonder.  To which version of the song was Ms. Slater referring?  Notice how she referred to the “Lord” as “she.”

First of all, whoops:  the Lord of the Dance is a male, even in the wiccan version.  However, we are all familiar with the way wiccans focus on the feminine–all the Gaia Goddess Earth stuff.  Notice, too, Ms. Slater’s elevation of female and the denigration of male in the bolded portions above.

Obviously, I don’t know what religion Midge Slater practices.  I’m certainly not claiming she participates in pagan rituals, forms a magic circle, or attempts to invoke the power of gods or goddesses.

But even if by accident, doesn’t her prayer sound curiously wiccan?

And about that wiccan Lord of the Dance.  He’s also known as the Horned One.

the horned one

Serious You Guys.

Awfully fitting for this “prayer” to sound as though it is directed to the Devil himself.  What with it being a prayer for millions to die, and all.

UPDATE:  Just Turn Right had a good post on this “abortion prayer” three whole days ago:  “This is either a blatant sacrilege, or one of the most profound misunderstandings of God’s teachings I’ve ever heard.”  Oh dear.  Now I’ll start mulling over the question of whether this is an example of ignorance or calculation.  Mercy!

Offend A Feminist Week Already?

Thank goodness for a good man like Mr. G to remind silly me it’s That Time Of Year again.  I’ve been too busy cooking and child-raising to write a proper post on the subject.

For now, feminists will have to be satisfied with gnashing their teeth over the rank misogyny of a TV show that portrays a woman entirely owned by a man, to whom she refers to as “master.”

The Existential Angst of Being

When I read about why one woman chose not to have children (hat tip to Missy:  thanks for giving me something to post about!), and then why another has remained single, my heart ached for these ladies.  A light-hearted rant about why it’s better to “die alone” than face motherhood didn’t cheer me any, so I wrapped up my research with an explanation why sleeping until 10am is proof that childlessness is the better choice.

My sympathy doesn’t stem from reasons one might expect:  the sadness of childlessness!  the loneliness of an old maid!

The problem is deeper than that, don’t you think?

Children, spouses, families:  as all-consuming as they can be, they are still just trees in that deep dark forest called Your Life.  The above-linked souls seem well and truly lost in their own forests, regardless of the kind of trees growing there.

Let’s pull back and try a broader perspective.  The further away our view, the less details can distract.  The picture becomes simpler, people turn into ants, then disappear, then bam!  The forest is right in front of you.

The question isn’t whether it’s better to have kids or not, or whether it’s better to marry or not.  The real question is, how do I find meaning in life?  Oh, that pesky human need to feel that life is meaningful:

I’m doing the right thing, right?  What’s it all for, anyway?

Interestingly, the articles written from more experienced perspectives (here and here) seem particularly riddled with doubt and worry, although I suspect the basic question–why am I here?–drifts like mist through every forest.  Perhaps the younger two authors haven’t wandered around long enough to feel the damp chill of worry yet.

Now, on to the meaning of life.  Having kids is pretty much the quickest, no-brainer kind of way to find meaning.  Those wiggly, squalling little blobs of secretion are great “purpose-givers,” are they not?

Yet children are only one of the myriad ways toward a meaningful life.  If you decide not to have them, or if circumstances decide for you, then what?  Life’s meaningless?  Of course not.  Let’s see, a thousand different religions, causes, good deeds, great adventures, ardent competitions, grand visions, or creative ambitions might fill up your life quite nicely.  Might.

The younger two writers point out the more practical benefit to childlessness, here:

“Because we are not having kids, I’ve been able to leave my old career and go back to school full time to pursue a new passion. My husband, forever the car enthusiast, has his sites [sic] set on a new Nissan GTR.”

And here, in an inverse fashion:

“Having kids is making a decision to live a life with strollers, diaper bags, breast pumps, sleep deprivation, and the withering looks from strangers like me, who wonder why you thought it was a good idea to bring your toddler to a Victorian painting exhibit.”

These explanations encapsulate the hope that living for yourself will provide meaning enough.  After all, if you don’t seek after your own interests, who will?

“For all these things the nations of the world seek after, and your Father knows that you need these things.  But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you.  Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

Oh, dear.  I’ve gone there, haven’t I?  To the very thing that would probably provoke eyerolls and scoffing from the kind of person who writes things like:

“I believe women who are supported by men are prostitutes, that is that, and I am heartbroken to live through a time where Wall Street money means these women are not treated with due disdain.”

It’s funny how that quote doesn’t bother me.  Me, the stay-at-home whore mom.  I’m no more insulted than I am when my younger son gets really upset and claims he’s going to run away.  How can I take the insult to heart, when the same article holds this angst:

“Convention serves a purpose: It gives life meaning, and without it, one is in a constant existential crisis. If you don’t have the imposition of family to remind you of what is at stake, something else will. I was alone in a lonely apartment with only a stalker to show for my accomplishments and my years.”

And more angst:

“I have lost my life. I had a lot of friends, saw people, had full days. I don’t know where anyone is anymore, and I can’t even remember who it is that is gone.”

Jeepers.  I hope Ms. Wurtzel finds good answers for those existential questions, and some peace in life.  If she or anyone else should happen to read this post, and if she or anyone else should further happen to find themselves unable to satisfy that need for meaning, no matter what is acquired or accomplished, well.

That particular Bible quote I used is Luke 20:30-32.  You could start there.

UPDATE:  Thank you Glenn Reynolds! eleventy!  To new commenters, sorry for the delay in approving comments last night, and thank you for your thoughts.  I’ve changed the settings to allow you right in, so do behave yerselves. ;)

UPDATE:  David Lat knows more than I do about Elizabeth Wurtzel, if you’d like more background.

UPDATE:  This Andrew Patrick fellow’s post on the subject is fantastic.  I highly recommend it, even though his superior wit chafes me slightly.

nooneofanyimport:

A brief but brilliant post at a fairly new-to-me blog . . .

Originally posted on Patriactionary:

There once was a Jewish girl named Pauline.  As a child, Pauline was found to have a talent for the arts, especially music; she was quite good at the piano.  And she received an excellent education.

But Pauline would not exploit or develop these gifts. She threw away all her potential; instead of pursuing higher education and a career before settling down and getting married (and thus ‘having it all’), she opted for marriage at age 18, becoming a homemaker.  Pauline was then burdened with a child at 21, and another at 23.  This forced her to follow her husband wherever his career took him, though sadly, fortune proved elusive for the family; his various early business ventures weren’t very successful, and shortly after his fortunes began to improve, he passed away from illness.

Pauline ended up having to move in with her sister and her sister’s husband…

View original 163 more words

On Women In Combat

Awhile back, I reblogged a post from The Patriot Perspective about the problems with allowing women in the Marine Infantry School.  In the comment section, I mentioned learning that, for the time being, the Marines were not going to “gender norm” the physical standards, i.e., they will not make it easier for women to pass than men, based on each gender’s physical capabilities.

Short Timer has been kind enough to elaborate on the issue, and it’s worth sharing.  Beyond the basic question of “is she physically strong enough,” he details a few other reasons why women-as-combatants are problematic even if the answer is yes, she is physically strong enough:

  • Chivalry is an innate male behavior which cannot be entirely eradicated, and it will interfere with mission accomplishment.
  • Mixing young and healthy men and women together in will inevitably cause, um, distractions, and interfere with mission accomplishment (I discussed this issue regarding Navy ships here).
  • Accommodating the personal, private, and hygienic needs of men and women in a confined and dangerous space is logistically difficult, and makes mission accomplishment more difficult.

Even more important than all of that, Short Timer says that the Marines will use something called “gender neutral” tests, and that quotas will be imposed.  In other words, the Marines will simply lower the standards for both men and women, and require the Infantry School to pass at least “x” number of women.

Huh.

You see, when I read over at Outside the Beltway that there would be no “gender norming,” i.e., no differing standards for men and women like we have in the Navy, I assumed that the standards would not be lowered at all.

Confirmation is right here:

“. . . there is a plan to evaluate male and female Marines against new physical fitness standards that are being developed.”

New physical fitness standards for both men and women are being developed.  Tricky.

Important, too, are the quotas Short Timer mentioned.  My own quick Google search does not unearth anything about quotas, i.e., requiring a military school to pass a certain number of females.

However.  I specifically remember an old friend complaining about “the quota” when he was an instructor at Officer Candidate School.  The requirement that at least 7% of the graduating class be female was a real source of frustration.  It was hard to find that many female candidates worth their salt.  (I think he said it was 7%.  Wish I could ask him now.)

So, thanks for the additional info, Short Timer.  And thanks for your service in God’s own Corps.

And read the whole thing, ya’ll.  He includes a little Rule 5 bonus.

CORRECTION:  My friend was an instructor at OCS (Officer Candidate School), not TBS (The Basic School) as I originally wrote.  Whoops.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 657 other followers