Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘liberal nonsense’

Alessandra Stanley, NYT TV critic recently reviewed the new HBO series Girls, which she writes is the “much anticipated comedy about four single women in New York.”  I have not and will not be watching that show but I found Ms. Stanley’s review of it rather enlightening.  What she finds to be the theme of Girls is that “[t]he economy fluctuates, neighborhoods blossom or decay, but men never cease to disappoint.”

Some 40 years after the sexual revolution, all this sex, immorality, and “freedom” for women has failed to improve the lives of young women at all!  Basically, Stanley declares the sexual revolution and feminism to have been an absolute unmitigated failure;  well, okay, she doesn’t actually declare that, but it is really her point:

Lena Dunham’s much anticipated comedy about four single women in New York, which starts on Sunday night, is worth all the fuss, even though it invites comparisons to Carrie Bradshaw and friends, and even though it incites a lot of dreary debate about the demise of feminism. There are obvious parallels between “Girls” and that earlier HBO series, but the theme of female friendship and romantic disappointment stretches back long before, all the way to the early 1940s and Mary McCarthy’s first novel, “The Company She Keeps.”       

One reason that “Girls” is unsettling is that it is an acerbic, deadpan reminder that human nature doesn’t change. There was a lot of sex in the ’60s, but not much sexual revolution. For all the talk of equality, sexual liberation and independence, the love lives of these young women are not much more satisfying than those of their grandmothers. Their professional expectations are, if anything, even lower.

That’s right, feminism is dead and despite all the sexual escapades, the lives of women have not improved.  Based on this television show, the lives of twenty-something women are unsatisfying, humilating…in fact, downright debasing.  The characters include the lead, Hannah who is described by Stanley as “unpleasant in ways that are only occasionally endearing” and a “parasite sponging off her parents,” and Jessa who “is a sexual free spirit but not particularly joyful.”  These girls are being portrayed as having all the fruits of the women’s movement, being freed from the expectation of marriage and motherhood they are free to pursue careers, relationships without commitments, and self-interested hobbies and leisure activities.  Why then are the young women of Girls so unpleasant, selfish, unambitious and unhappy?  Could it be that the fruit produced by the radical feminist agenda is not as sweet as we have been (repeatedly) told?

Perhaps becoming self-aware halfway through her review, Ms. Stanley admits that Girls portrayal of modern femininity might be seen as “a cautionary tale” but cannot bring herself to admit in print that this apparently accurate portrait has it’s underlying roots in the failure of the feminist movement and the sexual revolution.  Instead, she backs off her previous indictment and then takes a swipe at those of us who see and call the failure for what it is.  She sniggers:

The depiction of slacker life in New York, which includes tattoos, drugs, casual sex and abortions, is presented with wry humor, but it could easily be interpreted as a cautionary tale written by the religious right: the lifestyles of these modern women, untethered to responsibility, faith or morality, are parables that could scare Amish youth away from Rumspringa and wayward Mormons back into their temple garments.       

Har har, see what she did there?  She admits that all the drugs sex and abortions “could” be viewed as an indictment of the modern hedonism, but only by weird anti-cultural sects like Mormons and the Amish; you know, the “religious right”.  No rational religion would condemn all this sex and unhappiness, and the only good Christian for the Left is one that is shacking up with their significant other.  Only the fringe folks like you and me get all uptight about commandments and moral living.  I can hear her sniggering at her own cleverness, because of course nothing works better for the liberals like dismissing legitimate worries over the effects of immoral societies as dangerous fringe thinking.

One can guess what Ms. Stanley would make of the teachings of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, in which he correctly predicted the effects of contraception on the relationship between men and women. 

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

I don’t know if Ms. Stanley as read Humanae Vitae, but maybe the writer and star of Girls, Leah Dunham has because the “liaison”-the, er, sexual hookup- between the lead character Hannah and a character named Adam is described by Stanley as “debasing”:

Adam lets her visit his apartment for sexual gratification — his own — and ignores her desires; most of his sexual fantasies seem borrowed from video games and porn videos. He is just as callous about her feelings…

Pope Paul VI predicted the outcome decades ago, and was vilified, and shamefully much of the vitriol was from the clergy and laity of the Church.  However, he was right.  Contraception and the freedom of the sexual revolution did not advance the cause of women.  We have become things, objects, tools.

Here we have a cable series that is being described by people who profess to know these things as “gritty”, an “honest romp the through New York City’s social landscape [sic]”, one Huffington Post critic going so far as to compare her twenty-something woman writer experience point by point to that of the Girls main character.  I will assume that the HBO show is then, basically reality for many 20-somethings and that makes me sad for them.  In a world in which these girls can have attachment-free sex at any time, can pursue careers and self-interest leisure activities freed of the burdens of matrimony and motherhood…well, aren’t they supposed to be happy?  Didn’t they get what they were promised would buy them happiness?  Based on Girls, it would seem not.  As Ms. Stanley of the NYT portrays it, these women seem to be selfish, debased, joyless, ambitionless, and unsuccessful. 

But what do I know?  I am a cave woman, expected to be barefoot and pregnant by my Neanderthal husband.  At least, I’m pretty sure that the staff of the NYT thinks so.

[note: for whatever reason, my original essay got eaten and I’ve tried to recreate it from memory.  It’s late now and I am bummed because my original was much better.  Perhaps my memory will improve with sleep and I’ll edit this tomorrow.]

Read Full Post »

I don’t watch Bill Reilly so I missed this when it aired.  However, it was brought to my attention and I’m posting it here.  Thank goodness some people in the media are still interested in truth.  The New York Times makes me ill.

Anyway, here is Bill Reilly of FoxNews refuting the liberal leftists immediate and very public assessment that the horrific murders in Norway were wrought by a “Christian Fundamentalist”.

 

Read Full Post »

Pregnant women should be told that having an abortion is safer than having a baby, highly contentious new advice from doctors states.” Now I have heard it all. Women are designed to have babies and have been doing so for thousands of years. But if the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says so, we shouldn’t take any chances with our health. The upside is that if all women take this advice the human race will have finished destroying the planet within the next 120 years. Job done.– Soap Bar, Land of Flakes , 27/2/2011 17:17 (from a comment to UK Daily Mail online article, italics mine)

It breaks my heart to see how deeply moral relativism has progressed in Great Britain.  On the same day that we learn that NHS cancer patients in the UK are being denied life-extending drugs on cost grounds, The Daily Mail reports on upcoming guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists declaring that a procedure that kills life in the womb of a mother is really much better than actually gestating that life, nevermind that the whole purpose of a womb is to gestate life.

Pregnant women should be told that having an abortion is safer than having a baby, highly contentious new advice from doctors states.

The guidelines, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, also say that most women who terminate a pregnancy will not suffer any psychological problems as a result.

The guidance, which is still in draft form, has horrified medical ethicists and Christian groups, who say it forces an ‘absurdly liberal agenda’ on women in a vulnerable situation.

As the paper notes, these recommendations are no only controversial but are more tellingly, not medically sound.  In what appears to be a well-written and researched article, the reporter presents the views of leading ethicists, psychiatrists and medical doctors refuting the science underlying the proposed guidelines:

 And, with abortion clinics among those contributing to the guidance, [critics] likened the procedure to allowing a tobacco company to review the consequence of smoking or putting McDonald’s in charge of a study on how fast food affects health.

The RCOG guidance on the care of women asking for an abortion states is aimed at all doctors, nurses and counsellors involved in terminations.

One of the first sections, on ‘what women need to know’ about abortion, states that major complications are rare and that women ‘should be advised that abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term’.

But critics called on the RCOG to produce the evidence to back its claim, and added that many complications caused by abortions will be recorded in A&E and other stats and so are missing from the official tally.

The chapter finishes with the statement that ‘the great majority’ of women who have abortions do not experience adverse psychological effects.

It continues: ‘Although abortion can be associated with a range of feelings, long-term feelings of guilt, sadness and regret appear only to linger in a minority of women.’

This leaves much less room for doubt that than current RCOG advice, while simply states that while rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm are higher in women who’ve had an abortion, there’s no evidence that the termination itself was the trigger.

Dr Peter Saunders, of the Christian Medical Fellowship, accused the RCOG of ‘perpetuating a myth’ about the safety of abortion.

Questioning why the report’s 18 authors include representatives from two of the country’s largest abortion clinics but not one psychiatrist, he said: ‘The RCOG has been heavily criticised in the past for underplaying the physical and psychological consequences of abortion for women and this new document appears to continue in that vein.

‘Asking this group to comment objectively and honestly about the physical and psychological consequences of abortion for women is like asking Philip Morris or British American Tobacco to review the health consequences of smoking or Macdonald’s to outline the adverse effects of fast food consumption.

There are simply too many financial and ideological vested interests at stake that threaten a fair assessment.’

Trevor Stammers, a former GP and a lecturer in medical ethics at St Mary’s University College in Surrey, said the RCOG had ignored one the most authoritative studies into the psychiatric effects of abortion.

He also accused it of rushing out the updated guidance ahead of a Royal College of Psychiatry report into the psychological effects of abortion.

He said: ‘When they can’t refute the evidence, they have just ignored it. This is an absolutely disgraceful stitch up that they have forced through quickly.(more…)

Read Full Post »

Genevieve S. Kineke, who handles alot of women’s issues for Catholic Exchange, looks into the history of rape within Islam post-Lara Logan assault in her article, “What Are We Missing in This Horrible Story?”.  Despite the silence of historians, the picture is grim:

 

In an interview with Jamie Glazov, Bill Warner explains how Muslims see non-Muslims:

All morality in Islam is patterned after the example of Mohammed. Everything that he did and said defines what is permitted or “good.” Mohammed repeatedly sanctioned forced sex (rape) with kafir females after they were captured. The Hadith clearly reports that he got first choice of the women. In one case, he repeatedly demanded one particular woman for himself and swapped two other kafir slave women for his choice. So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error…This is a continuous 1400-year history of jihad. In every detailed history that comes from the original documents from history, rape is a constant. You have to look in the original documents, since our historians refuse to report it in so-called history books.

Rape is Sunna. Rape is not a sin. Rape is permitted and encouraged by Mohammed and the Koran. Islam is the only political system in the world that includes rules for rape and war. Rape is jihad.

Read the whole article here:

What are we missing in this horrible story?.

Read Full Post »

Caught an interesting article in the Detroit Free Press.  I was shocked that Nancy Pelosi was not also attending because this sorta thing seems to be right up her alley — or squarely in her playbook, depending on how you look at it. 

Seems the faithful Christians in the Episcopalian, Methodist and United Unitarian churches here in Detroit are making sure that Conservatives aren’t hijacking Jesus’ message.  That message was apparently not about the Kingdom of God, or the Way to the Father or eternal salvation.  Apparently, Jesus’ message was all about establishing perfect social justice here on little ol’ earth:

Saying that social justice is at the heart of Christianity and other religions, activists gathered today in a Detroit church to say that faith can play an active role in fighting for change.

The meeting at Christ Church Detroit, among the day’s events as part of the U.S. Social Forum, illustrated the role of religious groups in political and social movements.

Three years ago in Atlanta at the last U.S. Social Forum, there was little religious participation, say organizers. But this year, a number of forums, workshops and services are focused on religious organizations and faith. And a Detroit church, Central United Methodist, has been the center for organizing this year’s forum.

“Faith is about justice,” said the Rev. Ed Rowe, pastor of Central United and a social activist. “Without justice, faith is living a lie. If your faith is just about helping only the people who are inside stained glass windows, we ought to quit.”

The U.S. Social Forum is attracting thousands of activists from across the U.S.

Today’s church gathering, which attracted 100 people or more, featured a re-enactment of a parable about laborers in a vineyard in the Book of Matthew in the Bible. In the story, it seems that the “land owner equals God,” said Lily Mendoza, associate professor of culture and communication at Oakland University.

It led to a discussion about the nature of labor, immigrants and power in the modern world.

Jesus started a “peasant resistance movement,” said Jim Perkinson, professor of social ethics at Ecumenical Theological Seminary in Detroit. “Is the CEO of GM or Chrysler … God?”

Local religious leaders with Detroit-based Interfaith Worker Justice are helping organize a number of events at the forum, including a 9:45 a.m. rally Thursday in front of JP Morgan Chase Bank to protest working conditions of some farm workers and to urge that the bank stop foreclosing on unemployed homeowners.

The Free Press also says that Jewish, Hindu, Muslm and Buddhists are also participating.  No word on whether they are planning to join Jesus’ peasant resistance movement.

I am not sure if the Free Press attempted to contact Nancy Pelosi for her comments on St. Joseph the Worker, or her commitment to communist-ecclesiastical dialogue.

Read Full Post »

Do you ever get tired of politicians, liberals, malcontents and and agitators playing the “Catholic” card?  For instance, doesn’t it make you cringe when the evening news leads off with “Catholic Nuns Support the President’s Health Care Bill!” — the same evening news that buried the USCCB statement opposing the same health care bill?

I think the time has come for the Vatican to trademark the word “Catholic”.  Why not?  Think of how gloriously empowering that would be!  And wouldn’t the coolest thing ever be if the Bishops or the Vatican or the CDF or Pope could issue a cease-and-desist letter to all vocally defiant Catholics in the public sphere telling them they are no longer allowed to represent themselves using the term, Catholic®?  Such a letter, in my happy daydream, goes something like this:

We are the law firm of Aquinas and More and we represent the intellectual property rights of the Holy Catholic® Church.  Your recent use of the trademark, Catholic® on the Sunday morning talk show, Meet the Liberal Press, to add bonafides to your support of [insert morally repugnant position here] infringes on our rights to this trademark and you are hereby ordered to cease and desist from all other uses of our trademark, Catholic®.  Further trademark infringement of our mark, Catholic® will result in legal action, which may result in treble damages.  On behalf of  the Holy Catholic® Church, we appreciate your attention to this matter.”

Here are some other recent examples of the highjacking of the Catholic name in order to further a policy that has been rejected by the Bishops, who – if you do  not know – are responsible for the doctrinal teaching of all faithful Catholics and whose teachings we are required to follow, not ignore, snub, circumvent, twist around, dismiss, or roll our eyes at.

What riles me most about all of this is that the defiant, disobedient kids get all the attention from the press.  Not the Bishops (unless to criticize them) or the faithful clergy and laity. I know why that is: it’s because it furthers the agenda that the liberal press wants, which is bigger government, socialization of health care, an expansion of abortion rights.  But the fact the the Magisterium teaching of the Church is shuffled off to the bottom of the articles, if mentioned at all, really gets my goat. 

I really cannot wait to take over from the Baby Boomers and whatever the heck the generation before them was called.  We want our Church back, “thank you very much for your time and effort, please pick up a Rosary, a carnation and a free missal on your way out the door.”

Read Full Post »

Really New York Times?...really?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »