Feed on
Posts
Comments

The new feminism

Several months ago, I ran across this song on the radio. It profoundly struck me then, and still does today. Its lyrics tell the story of a young girl being teased by boys at school. That same girl as a young woman trying to break the glass ceiling in the business world. And that same woman, now wife and mother, realizing what it’s all about when she enters the fight of her life in a battle with cancer. The chorus is the advice of the girl’s mother as she comforted her hurt child. Advice that stayed with that girl through her life:

Hold your head high. Don’t ever let them define the light in your eyes. Love yourself. Give ‘em hell. You can take on this world. You just stand and be strong. And then fight like a girl.

So many positive messages in those few short lines. The message of never letting anything defeat you. The message that there is a Power that works within each of us, that can be the Light in our eyes, if we let it. That we are Loved and should love ourselves because of that Love.

But the message that really struck me was in that last line. The message of fighting… like a girl.

The feminist movement did a lot of good in this world. I would not be in the positions I’m in today if it weren’t for the work of many women and men who fought for equal rights for both sexes. But, inequality still remains and what’s worse, the dignity of gender, of woman and man has been cut down. With so many still trying to break the glass ceiling and sacrificing their feminity for it, reflection on what it means to be a woman could not be more needed.

That’s why I love this Mercatornet symposium.

Carolyn Moynihan: Beyond equality, the question of meaning

This year began with The Economist applauding the economic empowerment of women across the rich world as “one of the most remarkable revolutions of the past 50 years.” A Pew report drew attention to the “rise of wives” in terms of education and their economic contribution to the home. Is the struggle for equality nearly over in the rich world? And when it is, what then? Is there anything else?

Yes, there is. When the last glass ceiling has been shattered we will have to confront the fact that there are still two sexes, and ask what that means. What does it mean to be a woman? What are women’s specific characteristics and strengths? How can they be fostered and brought into play for the benefit of everyone?

People running the gender agenda do not want us to ask these metaphysical questions. They will tell us it is a bid to tie women and men up in sex-role straightjackets again. Let’s ignore their protests. We have to address once more the meaning of being a woman, or a man, or we will never get out of the blind alley where a woman’s dignity is reduced to her income and whether her husband does half the chores at home.

Carolyn Moynihan is deputy editor of MercatorNet.

Some snips from contributors:

Angelina Kakooza-Mwesige: Education the top priority for African women

One way in which the status of women in Uganda and in Africa as a whole can be improved by 2020 is to ensure that their education is given paramount importance.

……

Dr Kakooza-Mwesige Angelina is a paediatrician in the Department of Paediatrics & Child Health, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda.

Lea Singh: Dressing for respect

….

Every woman has the power to make her dignity easier for men to recognize and respect, just by the clothes she reaches for in the morning. I hope that by 2020, more women will be making that choice.

Lea Singh is a wife and mother of a young and growing family in Ottawa, Canada.

Jennifer Roback Morse: Motherhood within marriage is a worthy choice

I have a radical idea for promoting the dignity of women: the idea that giving birth to children inside marriage is good and worthy use of one’s time and talent. This idea has come under assault from many directions.

……

Male and female are two different ways of being human. Without women being women, men too, are diminished. The uniquely feminine becomes obscured to us all, much to the loss of woman’s intrinsic dignity.

Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage.

Check Mercatornet for the full version of each of these women’s comments. And check back for updates of this symposium. Or send your own thoughts to Mercatornet.

Being a woman is a beautiful thing, it’s time we recognize that.

With Senator Brown taking away the Democrat super majority in Senate, most were certain health care talks were dead in session. The President, intent on fulfilling a campaign promise, has redrawn the health care bill, pulling from both the House and Senate bills and seeking common ground. And a passable bill.

Regrettably, it’s clear Catholics cannot support it.

President Obama’s healthcare proposal released Monday preserves the abortion funding provisions adopted by the Senate just before Christmas. These provisions force taxpayers to fund insurance companies that cover abortion, while also expanding mechanisms whereby taxpayers could be forced to directly fund abortion itself.

“As the Catholic Bishops stated in December, the Senate healthcare bill, which the White House proposal mirrors on abortion, is ‘deficient’ and ‘should not move forward.’ By leaving the abortion funding language intact, the President has left Catholics with no choice but to oppose his healthcare bill.

“The President’s decision to tie abortion funding to healthcare reform is not only unpopular with voters, with some polls showing over 60% of Americans oppose taxpayer funds for abortion, the unconscionable provisions may very well spell doom for any attempt to pass meaningful healthcare reform this year.

“American Catholics remain deeply disappointed by the White House refusal to compromise, despite several pledges to protect taxpayer dollars from funding the abortion.”

“We will continue to work with pro-life members of Congress urging them to stand strong and oppose any proposal that forces taxpayers to assist in the funding of the abortion industry.”

Signed Brian Burch, President of CatholicVoteAction.

Several key representatives in the House and Senate should know this, and if they don’t, their faithful constituents need to inform them.

These parents taught their son that, every single day of his life.

Grace in Cyberspace

Check out Sheila Liaugminas‘ appearance on EWTN radio last week. Listen as she shares her experience of conversion, faith, and evangelization. Some highlights:

The world keeps creating desire in us. Desire for goods. Desire for experiences. Desire for pleasures. Desire for more and more and more. And it’s all a lie because none of it will satisfy us. Once we’re aware of that emptiness, that nothing is filling, then our heart is naturally drawn to God, like it’s naturally drawn to truth. Jesus is truth.

Some great practical reminders.

Everyday you’re alive is a special occasion.

and

We’re all in this together.

Nice. Check it out.

Hidden in the text

With all the controversy surrounding Tim Tebow’s pro-life ad, you may have missed another equally as pro-life and uplifting ad.

With the popular Google search engine as the sole backdrop to the story, a man looks to Paris as place to go to school, and by way of an Internet search, he finds a café near the famous Louvre. A French girl tells him he is cute, but of course the expression of amore must first be sent through Google for the English conversion. But the language of love is not lost in translation.

After a quick Internet search for chocolates and poetry, the long distance relationship culminates with wedding in a French church – yes church!

But wait! There’s more.

After a proper courtship, and a Christian wedding, the Internet surfer looks for a way to assemble a baby crib, and the commercial ends with the quick cooing of a newborn baby.

Refreshing, isn’t it? Where’d it come from?

The author of the article suspects it comes from a society tired of the morality envelope being pushed. Isn’t that the truth! The commercial wasn’t earth shattering. It wasn’t overtly pushing a message, but the progression of the text spoke of the traditional values so many would like to see return.

It’s interesting they chose France as the country to highlight, where the birthrate is negative. America’s demographics are falling as well and some predict we will follow Europe in our birthrate if we don’t start producing stronger families. Kudos to organizations such as Focus on the Family for their work in restoring family values and promoting the traditional family.

But major kudos to Google for their unexpected promotion of the family! Simple though it was this ad took yet another opportunity to put focus on the family.  And speaking of putting focus on the family, did you see Drew Brees with his son at the end of the game? I couldn’t take my eyes off the sight

Earlier, as confetti swirled just above the playing surface at Sun Life Stadium, Brees’ eyes were already watering, trying not to cry as he held his son, Baylen, who was wearing a Saints jersey with his father’s name on the back and a headset so the loud celebration wouldn’t scare him. Brees struggled yet one more time to keep his emotions in check as he lifted the silver Lombardi trophy over his head.

But a few minutes into his postgame interview, Brees simply quit trying.

“Eighty-five percent of the city was under water, all the residents evacuated all over the country, people never knowing if they were coming back or if New Orleans would come back,” he said. “But not only the city came back, and the team came back … when the players got there, we all looked at one another and said, ‘We’re going to rebuild together.’

“We leaned on each other,” Brees said, pausing as he choked up. “This is the culmination of that.”

Focus on the Family

Today, families across the nation will gather to watch the best of America’s beloved sport. As one person said to me, “Super Bowl Sunday should be a national holiday.” It certainly brings families and friends together like a holiday does.

This year, the idea of celebrating family during the Super Bowl has brought quite a controversial stir.

Over a week before Super Bowl Sunday, University of Florida football superstar Tim Tebow confirmed that he will appear in a commercial with the theme “Celebrate family, celebrate life,” along with his mother Pam, to share their family’s inspiring story. The CBS Super Bowl commercial, sponsored by the evangelical Christian group ‘Focus on the Family, will somehow discuss her decision 23 years ago to continue with her pregnancy despite complications. Doing missionary work in the Philippines at the time, Pam contracted amoebic dysentery, and the treatment required strong medications that doctors warned could cause irreversible damage to Tim, the child she was carrying.

Mrs Tebow chose to continue the pregnancy, citing her Christian faith as reason for hope that her son would be born healthy. She spent the last two months of her pregnancy in bed and eventually gave birth to healthy ‘Timmy’ in August 1987, the star quarterback who would go on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy Award, headed for a career in NFL pro-football. Now Tebow wants to celebrate his life with his family in this opportunity to give thanks for both before a major audience. Which is precisely what big-name athletes do, using their ‘celebrity’ responsibly to influence people with a positive message. Tebow’s message is that his mother had a choice, and he’s grateful for the one she made.

Simple, uplifting, and brings us back to family. While the ad has not be released yet, a pre-game ad has.

If the Super Bowl ad is anything like this ad, those who are against are going to really regret letting their true colors show. They say they’re all about helping people plan for families in their argument for choice. If that’s true, what’s so wrong with an ad like the Tebows’, which simply focuses on the gift of family?

The Law of Love

Our world is in desperate need of saving measures.

The United States Congress seems to think passing a bill is the answer to all our problems. Too much college debt? Draft a bill. Unemployment? Draft a bill. Corrupt businesses and banks? Draft a bill. And so on.

While certainly government regulation is needed in many of these instances, many Americans are getting the feeling the President and Congress think these bills will solve everything.

Pope Benedict XVI has a message they should hear:

What man needs most cannot be guaranteed to him by law.

Couldn’t be more relevant. Neither could this.

“Material goods are certainly useful and required – indeed Jesus Himself was concerned to heal the sick, feed the crowds that followed Him and surely condemns the indifference that even today forces hundreds of millions into death through lack of food, water and medicine – yet ‘distributive’ justice does not render to the human being the totality of his ‘due,’” Pope Benedict added.

“Just as man needs bread, so does man have even more need of God.”

It’s called natural law. Yes, as humans we naturally have physical needs to be met but natural law actually  points to that deeper yearn in our hearts, that desire for truth and beauty.

Thanks to Christ’s action, we may enter into the “greatest” justice, which is that of love (cf. Rm 13, 8-10), the justice that recognises itself in every case more a debtor than a creditor, because it has received more than could ever have been expected. Strengthened by this very experience, the Christian is moved to contribute to creating just societies, where all receive what is necessary to live according to the dignity proper to the human person and where justice is enlivened by love. (Emphasis added)

Some members of Congress could use a copy of this message. Anyone care to deliver it?

During President Obama’s presidential campaign I would frequently hear his campaign speeches and think ‘That’s a great idea.’ Inevitably though, that thought would be followed with the questions ‘how?’ or ‘with what money?’ It seemed he had a great idea for everything but it wasn’t spelled out how all these things would be accomplished.

Last Wednesday’s State of the Union address brought back those same thoughts. For instance, when the President mentioned forgiving college debt after a certain number of years.  A great idea I thought-no one should be burdened with such heavy penalties for seeking a higher education. But where is the money to forgive that debt going to come from? And is the government going to regulate this program to ensure it’s not abused? Back to campaign mode, I thought.

Unlike the 2008 campaign, the media has picked up President Obama’s speech and fact checked it.

The president pedantically quoted the Constitutional requirement that he “from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union”. But given his PR woes, information was the crucial word. Instead his speech was virtually fact-free, relying at key points upon the sorts of touching anecdotes effective on the stump but insulting to members of Congress with detailed policy responsibilities.

When he finally got to the deficit, more than half way through the speech, he promptly blamed George Bush for it. But he did not say how big it was. When he called for a spending freeze, he did not say how much it would save or why he now embraced an idea he once rejected. When he said it would exempt four key spending categories, he failed to explain what share of federal spending would be left unaffected. When he advocated abolishing the capital gains tax on small business investment, he didn’t say what the threshold for “small” business was.

Within hours MSNBC published an Associated Press “fact check” piece noting inaccuracies in more than a few of the facts he did offer. Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post chimed in that Obama’s only other reference to the Constitution, “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution, the notion that we’re all created equal” was botched because that’s the Declaration of Independence, a strange blunder from a former University of Chicago professor of constitutional law.

Perhaps this sounds nit-picky, but compare President Obama’s SOTU to President Ford’s 1975 SOTU

“To bolster business and industry and to create new jobs, I propose a 1-year tax reduction of $16 billion. Three-quarters would go to individuals and one-quarter to promote business investment. This cash rebate to individuals amounts to 12 percent of 1974 tax payments – a total cut of $12 billion, with a maximum of $1,000 per return.”

Good idea or not, it’s specific. As was “we must reduce oil imports by 1 million barrels per day by the end of this year and by 2 million barrels per day by the end of 1977.” Ford also warned that “If we project the current built-in momentum of Federal spending through the next 15 years, State, Federal, and local government expenditures could easily comprise half of our gross national product. This compares with less than a third in 1975.”

This is actual information. Obama offered only hype, blame-shifting, and vague initiatives suitable for a campaign based on hope but deeply inadequate for a president mired in discontent because of the growing conviction that he’s all talk. (In 7,000 words he gave just 13 actual dollar figures; in 4,000 words in 1975 Ford managed 27.)

What we see of his presidency thus far is many ideas, less solutions. I wish I could say otherwise, particularly as relates to unemployment and the economy.

Pro-choice, what a misnomer

The pro-choice movement is not about choice. If they were about choice they would have no problem with Tim Tebow’s Super Bowl ad, which highlights his mother’s choice to give him life.

A simple ad with the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life” has now been deemed by the National Organization for Women “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” The Women’s Media Center says an ad that uses sports to “divide rather than unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year.”

The groups are demanding that CBS pull the ad, which is paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family. CBS is defending its decision and says it has changed its mind about airing advocacy ads, which it had rejected in the past.

Why all the controversy around this ad? Because it highlights Mrs. Tebow’s choice and it’s not the choice the ‘pro-choicers’ like.

In the ad, Pam Tebow is expected to talk about how she decided to ignore doctors’ advice to abort her fifth child when she suffered complications during a 1987 mission trip to the Philippines. Tim Tebow, a beloved figure in Florida and around the country, told reporters this week he was happy to do the ad, because “that’s the reason I’m here, because my mom was a very courageous woman.”

However, she’s not courageous in the way the ‘pro-choicers’ would like.

Let’s be clear here, public opinion on abortion is swaying. More and more people are identifying themselves as pro-life and even more youth are pro-life and actively taking a stand against the pro-abortion movement. And those in the pro-abortion movement are nervous about the future of abortion in this country.

A commercial like the Tebow commercial is a threat to the ‘pro-choice’ movement. The outrage directed toward the ad makes it clear, ‘pro-choicers’ aren’t for choices, they’re for one choice–abortion.

It’s been reported that roughly 300,000 individuals attended the National March for Life in Washington DC, and of those 300,000 about half were under the age of 30. This is promising news for the pro-life movement, and pro-abortion activists recognize that.

This column from the Washington Post, written by a pro-abortion writer, explains:

Iwent to the March for Life rally Friday on the Mall expecting to write about its irrelevance. Isn’t it quaint, I thought, that these abortion protesters show up each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though the decision still stands after 37 years. What’s more, with a Democrat in the White House likely to appoint justices who support abortion rights, surely the Supreme Court isn’t going to overturn Roe in the foreseeable future.

How wrong I was. The antiabortion movement feels it’s gaining strength, even if it’s not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous.

As always, we in Washington enjoy an up-close view of the health of various causes because of the city’s role as the nation’s most important setting for political demonstrations. In this case, I was especially struck by the large number of young people among the tens of thousands at the march. It suggests that the battle over abortion will endure for a long time to come.

And these young people are ready for the work ahead.

“People our age are going to be the ones to change, to be the future leaders,” said Lauren Powers, 16, who came with a group from an all-girls Catholic school in Milwaukee.

The young generation is a very promising generation, with high goals and surprising understanding of the humanitarian issues that need to be addressed. My work with youth has shown me young individuals with creative minds and huge hearts, ready to right wrongs in society.  And abortion is a top issue with these youth. They know the facts, namely that it kills babies and it hurts women. And they know the opposing views and how to counter argue them.

This column’s content  is not surprising to most in the pro-life movement. We’ve known for years that support is large and growing. The media has refused to give us the due coverage. Perhaps that tide will change, but even if it doesn’t the pro-life sites have it covered and those are the ones that matter.

Older Posts »