feminine-genius

Shades of rational thought

Folks in Idaho have chosen wisely.

The University of Idaho has scrapped its plans to turn some of its dorm suites into co-ed apartments. Bryan Fischer of Idaho Values Alliance (IVA) says the idea was short-lived because it would have required students of the opposite sex to share the same bathroom (see earlier story). After word surfaced about the school's plan, Fischer sounded the alarm and residents began contacting their state lawmakers.

But to think that colleges are otherwise "socially appropriate environments"  is to be naive. Caveat emptor!

Growing up (not)

Sure, women fuss about men and complain that they won't mature properly and do what they ought. One man responds to that demand with a different view:

Why, in the name of all that’s holy, should they? You (women) said you could take care of yourselves and you’re doing so just fine. You treat [men] as disposable, dispensable, replaceable components of your lives and so they’re disengaged from you and they choose not to make commitments to you. The dissolution of a commitment to marry and have children has enormous negative financial and emotional consequences to a man. Why should they make such commitments when women consider such commitments easily violable, valueless, and trivial? Is there anything about the response of men to our culture and the choices of women that really surprises you?

After enduring the worse of "second wave feminism," he has a suggestion for women:

Respect the men in your lives; permit them to be men; honor and thank them for what they do; fulfill your own role in your relationships with them. Raise your sons with honor and respect for their gender, conveying the message that they are powerful and that power is to be channeled for the benefit of those around them.

Like always, there's enough blame to go around. Just thought you'd benefit by hearing this frustrated voice. Back to your weekend.

What climate, this?

A visiting nurse in England asked if her elderly patient wanted prayers, and the offer was declined. End of story? No, the nurse is suspended without pay. The trick is that the patient wasn't offended -- but knew that some patient might be offended by such an offer. On behalf of her imaginary compatriots who might not like such spiritual meddling, she made a complaint. Off with the nurse's head.

Such is the climate created by the multicultural mafia. At the risk of alienating someone, somewhere, human discourse has been reduced to clinical efficiency. Old age is a difficult time when many are haunted by demons of the past, not to mention alienated family members or anxiety over financial problems  -- and a sympathetic nurse might provide many kinds of consolation to the lonely, the confused and the despairing. This example is a lesson: change the bandages, dispense the pills and plump the pillows. Good bye.

"We are always keen to be respectful of our patients' views and sensitivity as well as those of our staff," said a spokesman for the nursing service. Of course "sensitivity" has a limited meaning, which denies any attention given to the emotional state of the patients. The wholistic view that man is a spiritual animal is not welcome in this socialist paradise.

Queen Elizabeth II, Defender of the Faith, could not be reached for comment.

NFP for IVF

Noted: IVF is immoral. Deliberately creating fatherless children is immoral. Nothing here should be construed as supportive of anything in the realm of such wrong-headed reproductive technologies, but would it be facetious to suggest that the clinics at least show a little restraint in their creativity?

If this client had six fatherless children, why would they enable her in more? Sure she evidently paid the fee, but if you're not going to follow the Church's mandate to honour the dignity of the child with his conception (a loving embrace and not a petri dish) couldn't you at least consider the Church's wise approach to NFP?

In the application of natural family planning, the Church entrusts to the couple the ability to make decisions about the spacing of their children. True, a husband and wife in a sacramental union have certain graces to make such decisions prudently which are lacking outside holy matrimony, but any clinic could make an effort to sit down with the mother (as collaborator in the creation of human life) and say, "Gee, how are the existing bambinos faring? How's your emotional and physical state? Everybody eating well and finding the bare necessities?"

Isn't this what husband and wife ask themselves? "Is it time for us to share in God's desire to be fruitful? Should we wait until Dad finds a job or just operate on trust? If your post-partem depression hasn't dissipated, dear, I wouldn't want to burden you just yet..."

Of course, IVF clinics have never operated according to Divine commands or even the well-being of the children created (those who see the light of day or those targeted for "reduction.") Now we see that even the respectful conversation about what's best within a given family is ignored for a buck.

Someday, God willing, the wisdom of the Church will be more readily recognised. Until then, their stock soars.

UPDATE: the discussion, evidently, is already underway, although the euphemisms abound in their usual insidiousness. A very troubling quote from Robert George who is supposed to represent Catholic teaching:

[Robert] George said that, based on the information available, his personal ethical decision would probably support the woman's choice to carry all the babies to term. But he said that selective reduction is not the same as traditional abortion because the goal is the healthiest possible birth rather than the termination of a pregnancy.. "The babies didn't put themselves there; it's not their fault," George said. "There does seem to be a serious ethical question [?] about killing one or more of them, even for the sake of maternal health."

We have to see if he clarifies this elsewhere -- perhaps he was taken out of context -- but he leads one to believe that the evil of selective reductions are mitigated by the good end. "A serious ethical question," to the mind of the layman, seems enormously ... understated. (I have contacted him privately for a clarification.)

UPDATE NEXT: Professor George was gracious enough to provide a very long explanation of what happened, which I am happy to send to interested readers. In short, he begins:

Thanks for calling this to my attention.  I gave an interview to the reporter yesterday, but hadn't seen the article in which she quoted me until I opened the link you kindly provided.  I see exactly the problem you are concerned about, based on the way she described my position outside the quotation marks, and the material she quoted. It is very misleading, though I don't think she intended to mislead. It was a very long interview that unavoidably required the introduction of some complicated scientific and philosophical issues. At the beginning of the interview, I explained why I and others are opposed to IVF in principle in the first place. I then explained the health and safety issues that exist even if we lay aside the question of the morality of IVF -- issues
having to do with the safety of mothers and the health of children they may conceive by IVF. 

Then I explained the European regulations that limit the number of embryos that may be implanted ...

We would do well always to remember that most people in the media have little to no background in theology, philosophy or medicine. Thus, good will may be compromised by a limited ability to follow a complicated strain of thought. Needless to say, many of these quandaries could be avoided if we didn't insist on replacing God with our own "super powers." Pray for these confused souls and for an to "children as consumer goods."

Mockery

Men don't belong on catwalks. Women don't belong in the clergy. Hideous designs don't belong on the altar of God.

The ecclesiastical event was a showcase of the latest designs of religious gowns in various colours, patterns, shapes and textures. Several priests acted as 'models' to strut the cat walk in front of hundreds of clergy at the exhibition. One model, The Rev James Hutchings, said: "I've done nothing like this before. It has certainly caused lots of laughs in the parish. "My children thought it was hilarious. They probably won't ask me back. My pirouette was terrible."

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass brings us to the throne of the Cross, from which we are privileged to receive the very blood of the Saviour. Not the time for laughter, trendiness or showcase events. This reveals the complete poverty of what these Anglicans (?) are about.

How about this for a vestment, people? It reminds us of the dignity of God and the majesty of what is actually taking place on the altar. [Thanks to NLM for the image -- so many to choose from -- and not a single rainbow among them!]

"De gustibus..." and all that -- sometimes taste can be disputed. The Clergy Catwalk Show was tasteless on many levels. Stet!

The glass is half-full

There are many things over which to legitimately wring our hands, but consider how the new Patriarch-elect of Russia answered this question from Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: It's clear to see that many Russians have adopted a liberal Western lifestyle. Sex before marriage is normal for many people, and only a small minority attends church services regularly. How firmly established are Christian values in Russia?

Kyrill: Spirituality can't be measured with statistics. Nevertheless, we aren't afraid of comparisons. Less than 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the number of churches has quadrupled, we now have twice as many dioceses, and the number of monasteries has grown by a factor of 32 -- to 700 -- today. Fifteen thousand young people are studying theology. On the other hand, even though 80 percent of newborns are baptized in Russia, only 60 percent of Russians call themselves Orthodox Christians, and less than 10 percent attend church regularly -- even fewer in some provinces. In other words, we don't have to build any new churches, but what we must do is help our people understand how important it is to adhere to Christian values. Whether we succeed also depends on whether we can rid ourselves of outside influences.

He began with praising all that was good, which included some remarkable facts. Rome wasn't built in a day and likewise authentic renewal takes time. There are opposing forces countering efforts at evangelisation which will not simply disappear, but his positive answer takes into consideration both the very good start since 1989, and the obstacles which God knows are part of the plan.

It brings to mind the reading from Hebrews from today's Mass:

Remember all the sufferings that you had to meet after you received the light, in earlier days; sometimes by being yourselves publicly exposed to insults and violence, and sometimes as associates of others who were treated in the same way. For you not only shared in the sufferings of those who were in prison, but you happily accepted being stripped of your belongings, knowing that you owned something that was better and lasting. Be as confident now, then, since the reward is so great. You will need endurance to do God’s will and gain what he has promised.

Could we incorporate this realistic view that is grounded in hope and trust into the way we see our families and friends? In the struggle is both our testing and purification. Not too late for another New Year's resolution -- we are a people grounded in hope!

Massive irony

Tragedy has struck a Scottish family whose daughter has gone down the rabbit hole of heroin addiction. Nothing can quite compare to seeing a beloved child gone to rack and ruin over drugs, especially while loved ones pray and offer assistance, beg and cajole, weep and wail over the demise. Add to it her two children, ages 4 and 5, whose lives must have been horrific, being planted in the centre of this maelstrom.

Enter the courts. Obviously the children have to be cared for and the grandparents are heroically standing by, asking for custody, offering a family tie and loving embrace as the family tries to cope with their monstrous cross. Not so fast, sayeth the judge. Granny and Gramps are a little too old to be putting themselves out in this way. It's entirely possible they won't live to see them married and established in mid-life -- better a younger couple be given a chance to care for these kids and to complete their own family dreams.

After a two-year-long custody battle with an Edinburgh court, two young children have been placed into the hands of two homosexual men rather than with the children's own grandparents.

According to the Daily Mail, the court found the grandparents, who are 46 and 59, to be too old to adequately raise the children. The grandparents could not afford to continue the expensive legal process. “It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests," said the grandfather.

"The ideal for any child is to have a loving father and a loving mother in their lives.  But in our society the mother is generally the cornerstone of the family and the most important person for a young child."

But the grandfather was forced to cease his protests, being told by social workers that, "You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again." The social workers said that they would "certainly look" into allowing the grandparents to see their grandchildren "when you are able to come back with an open mind on the issues."

Emotional blackmail, child abuse, insult added to injury, and irony in the first degree given other events in recent years. You remember this woman, right?

Miss Bousada, who comes from Spain, travelled to the US, where she lied about her age - saying that she was 55 - to receive IVF treatment at the Pacific Fertility Center in Los Angeles. She gave birth to Christian and Pau in Barcelona on December 29, 2007. [She was really 66.]

Perhaps you didn't see this:

She was utterly determined to have a son. The fact that to do so would make 70-year-old Omkari Panwar the world's oldest mother didn't even cross her mind. Her resolve was matched by her husband Charan Singh Panwar, 77.

To pay for the IVF treatment vital to producing a male heir to the family's smallholdings, the retired farmer sold his buffalos, mortgaged his land, spent his life savings and took out a credit card loan. And it all paid off when Mrs Panwar gave birth to twins - a boy and girl - by emergency Caesarean section in hospital in Muzaffarnagar, seven hours drive north of the Indian capital New Delhi.

These women are not alone. So what's the deal. It's really not about the age of the mother, but about the brave new world being carved out on the very bodies of the innocent. To compare the statistics of fidelity in male same-sex couples to the mortuary tables for healthy women shows that the odds are in the favour of the grandparents. So now two traumatised youngsters will be place in the care of strangers whose lifestyle (if one considers the plethora of triumphant literature) is not especially devoted to discipline, self-control or oblation and who stand a slim chance of even being "married" five years hence.

Ah yes, and the grandfather brought up the mother issue. Irrelevant to the almighty judge.

Only those who bow to the new "ethic" will be allowed to visit the children. Perhaps when the are older, someone can comfort them and apologise for the fact that they were pawns in a very sick game.

May we ... laugh?

I know in the end we must pray for everyone touched by financial uncertainty, but these women are doing their best to draw scorn from Middle America. It's a new 12-step program for pampered women who love men in the financial business, such as this lovable pet:

Dawn Spinner Davis, 26, a beauty writer, said the downward-trending graphs began to make sense when the man she married on Nov. 1, a 28-year-old private wealth manager, stopped playing golf, once his passion. “One of his best friends told me that my job is now to keep him calm and keep him from dying at the age of 35,” Ms. Davis said. “It’s not what I signed up for.”

No, dear, of course you didn't. That's probably why you wrote your own vows that precluded any "in good times and in bad" nonsense. Why put yourself out for the man who makes your facials and pedicures possible? Why on earth would you be expected to rethink your comfort to save your relationship, even his life?

They say they're speaking "tongue in cheek," but the angst is all too real. The marriages are disintegrating, the couples are suffering, and the mistresses are finding themselves plain out in the cold -- their expense isn't surviving the belt-tightening. The favourite answer found in these hand-holding sessions is "sour grapes:"

“Next time you are stressing over some finance guy, remember that he is just a math-club nerd,” one woman wrote after recounting a breakup. “This recession just bought everyone an extra two years of the single life.” Another, though, seemed chagrined, after her boyfriend told her to “grow up” and stop “complaining about vacations and dinner” since he had to “fire 20 people by the end of the week.

Grow up? Not an option in this pity party.

Troubling

I know that the law can be tricky and that sentencing often provides guidelines that bind the judge's hands, but this news account doesn't help to explain the verdict given to a clearly disturbed man whose house faced repossession. He lived there with his mother (age 71) and they were a combative pair with the added anxiety of soon being turned out. As the bailiffs approached the property, he shot his dogs, killed his mum, set the house on fire and ran off with the intention of killing himself as well, which didn't come to pass. Now he faces the minimum of ten years before being eligible for parole:

In interview he was calm, co-operative and polite and he told officers his mother was upset about the situation and after he had shot the dogs he found her lying face down on her bed. He told police: "she said, 'Do it'." So he explained he shot her twice but then thought he could hear her moving so he shot her again two more times.

He added: "She would just not go, the silly cow." Later he told officers: "We used to row like cat and dog. I said I could not wait for her to die and she said she wished she would. I loves the silly cow and she loves me."

Burbidge asked that no mitigation was given on his behalf at the hearing. Jailing him, Mr Justice Royce said that Burbidge would have to serve a minimum of 10 years before he could be considered for parole. The judge imposed a sentence of five years for possession of the handguns and a further three years for possession of the ammunition to run concurrently.

So ten years -- five for the bald fact of owning weapons and five for taking a life. Makes the life look rather ... cheap, no? Poor woman lived with this insanity for so long, and then the court insults her by a bizarre form of mercy for her killer. Perhaps I've misunderstood, but if one could manage to off someone without running foul of the gun laws, it would almost seem worth it -- if he were otherwise going to be homeless.

May she rest in peace, finally.

Drudge's angles

I don't know much about Matt Drudge personally, but it is evident that he knows his audience. To his swath of  counter-cultural news junkies (who are suspicious of the main-stream media) he keeps tossing red meat that he knows will draw the proper responses. After headlining Nancy Pelosi's attempt to fund "birth control," he now headlines the bewildering news that $350Million (come again?) is targeted at STD's.

The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.]

"Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

Consider my string pulled. Wrong answer, wrong place, wrong-headed. Who is this guy? He sure knows how to rally the troops.