Planned Parenthood's obscene profits

Michelle Malkin's column yesterday, Planned Parenthood's obscene profits, began with this intro on her blog:

My syndicated column this week turns the spotlight on the nefarious business practices of the government-funded, billion-dollar Planned Parenthood empire. Congress has interrogated banking, energy, tobacco, and oil execs-treating them like serial killers before the cameras. When will they go after a corrupt industry that has real blood on its hands?

pence.jpg

On a related front, pro-life groups are pushing Bush to de-fund the abortion industry. "Centrist" Republicans are balking. Conservative GOP Rep. Mike Pence, leading the effort to cut the abortion subsidies, is "befuddled" by the White House's reticence on the issue. Me, I'm no longer befuddled by Beltway GOP leaders unwillingness to lead on basic conservative issues. It's the fecklessness we deserve.

Read Malkin's excellent column on page 2.

Planned Parenthood's obscene profits
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyrights 2008

GOP presidential candidate John McCain sounded more like a Democrat presidential candidate (a recurring trend) when he joined the Left's oil industry-bashers a few weeks ago. Asked by a North Carolina voter whether he supported a Jimmy Carter-era windfall profits tax, McCain responded: "Um, I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere-and I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax-that's not what bothers me-but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people or industries or corporations that are distorting the market."

Here's an idea for all the hand-wringing GOP strategists in Washington wondering what it will take to win back disgusted economic and social conservatives: How about a Republican presidential candidate who will talk about the tax-subsidized abortion industry the way McCain talks about oil industry?

In April, the annual report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion--with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That's a third of Planned Parenthood's budget.

And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? 289,650 abortions in 2006.

Oil execs, tobacco execs, banking execs, pharmaceutical company execs, and baseball players have all been hauled up before Congress for highly-publicized whippings by crusading lawmakers. But the executives of Planned Parenthood have escaped government scrutiny and public accountability for their predatory behavior, dangerous medical practices, deception, and deadly windfall.

In Washington, D.C., the family of 13-year-old Shantese Butler filed a $50 million suit against Planned Parenthood after a botched abortion left the girl permanently injured and infertile. Students for Life of America reports that Shantese was left with "severe abdominal bleeding, severe vaginal injury, severe injury to the cervix, significant uterine perforation, and a small bowel tear." In addition, parts of the unborn child were found inside Shantese's abdomen.

In Nebraska, Planned Parenthood refused to disclose the terms of a settlement with another victim whose botched abortion resulted in a perforated uterus, massive blood loss, an emergency hysterectomy, permanent infertility, seizures, and lifelong pain and suffering. According to the suit obtained by Life News, the woman told the abortionist and his assistants to stop, but was told: "We can't stop." The Planned Parenthood employees held her down to complete the procedure.

Where's the subpoena-wielding Henry Waxman? Can Orrin Hatch (CORRECTION: ARLEN SPECTER) spare a moment from investigating the New England Patriots for a second to probe Planned Parenthood's efforts to advise underage teens on how to circumvent parental notification laws to secretly obtain RU-486, the abortion drug cocktail? Where is the concern for the women and children who were mistreated by Planned Parenthood clinics in Kansas, where Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline has filed a 107-count criminal complaint against the abortion racket with charges ranging from falsifying documents to performing illegal late-term abortions?

And where are Nancy Pelosi and the For The Children brigade to investigate the shocking evidence of Planned Parenthood's nefariousness exposed by undercover student journalist Lila Rose?

Last year, Rose caught a Planned Parenthood official encouraging a female minor to evade statutory rape laws in order to obtain an abortion in California. In February, Rose released undercover tapes of her discussion with an Idaho Planned Parenthood official eager to accept money from a racist donor who wanted his funds earmarked for aborting black babies. In April, she released video of clinic officials in New Mexico and Oklahoma willing to take money from a blatantly racist donor. One Planned Parenthood staffer openly admits that "for whatever reason, we'll accept the money."

For whatever reason, Washington has turned a blind bipartisan eye to this bloody, government-funded business--and pro-life, limited-government conservatives in the Beltway have gone along with subsidizing it. "Obscene profits" indeed.


Comments:

PP isn't perfect, but it's pretty darn good.

I don't always agree with Michelle Malkin. Sometimes I certainly do. It's off-topic but I've always thought she was just hotter'n heck.

Posted by: Doug at June 5, 2008 4:25 PM


Malkins campaign of lies against PP is neatly exposed in an article of June 4, 2008 by Kevin Keith on the "Sufficient Scruples" website entitled "Malkin Spreads More Stupid"

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 4:30 PM


Anon, try for yourself. Read Malkin's piece and describe where she erred.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 5, 2008 4:31 PM


Excuse me?

There is a VAST difference between the abortion industry and the oil industry.

No one HAS to get an abortion unless they choose to have one. Where I live, people HAVE to buy gas.

Posted by: Laura at June 5, 2008 4:34 PM


I think we should all thank Michelle Malkin for saving us from terrorist jihadists like Rachel Ray and her 30-minute fatwa.

Who knew that Dunkin' Donuts was a terrorist organization?
http://bumpshack.com/2008/05/29/michelle-malkin-links-rachel-ray-to-terrorism/

Posted by: Laura at June 5, 2008 4:41 PM


Jill, the "Malkin Spreads More Stupid" article is a trackback on her column above, and I am sure someone with more time and skills can reproduce it here if they wish.

I have no time or inclination to respond to any of Malkin's foolishness, and Kevin Keith does a very good job.

Sorry I irritated you. You don't have to read it.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 4:54 PM


Don't forget that not only does the government hand PP piles of money, but PP actually shams to government for more money, too.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 5, 2008 4:58 PM


Laura,

I KNEW that Rachel Ray was WAY too perky!

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for exposing her as a terrorist sympathizer.

And as for Dunkin' Donuts- you might as well buy your coffee from Hamas!

I've heard Winchells is also a part of the donut terrorist movement.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 5:01 PM


Buying gas doesn't intentionally kill innocent people; PP is on a mission to kill as many of them before they are born as they can. Incidentally, Laura, I'm not buying any of your gas, you old rude, lying, gate-crashing fart; and I hope nobody else here is credulous enough to buy it, either.

Posted by: Cheers! at June 5, 2008 5:05 PM


As Anon at 4:30 said, Kevin Keith does an devastatingly effective job of rebutting Malkin. I am hard-pressed to improve on what he has written:

http://sufficientscruples.com/blog/2008/06/04/malkin-spreads-more-stupid-shills-for-misogyny

Posted by: Ray at June 5, 2008 5:09 PM


Incidentally, Laura, I'm not buying any of your gas, you old rude, lying, gate-crashing fart; and I hope nobody else here is credulous enough to buy it, either.

Posted by: Cheers! at June 5, 2008 5:05 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow.

Does anyone understand what this means?

Posted by: Laura at June 5, 2008 5:29 PM


It means Cheers! has been drinking. Hence the name.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 5:37 PM


Wait Laura you're selling gas? Ours is up to about $4 a gallon. How much do you sell it for?

Posted by: Jess at June 5, 2008 5:45 PM


Speaking of crazy, where is the Michelle Obama "I Hate Whitey" tape Jill has been promising to provide all week?

Maybe someone could also post the Eddie Murphy "Kill my Landlord" skit from Saturday Night Live, and we could compare and contrast.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 5:46 PM


Like I always say, we should socialize health care. Capitalism is great, unless it comes to your body. Most doctors just try to push you into surgeries or whatever so they can get more money. Your they just don't give two tony danza's.

Posted by: Jess at June 5, 2008 5:49 PM


Wait Laura you're selling gas? Ours is up to about $4 a gallon. How much do you sell it for?

Posted by: Jess at June 5, 2008 5:45 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I only accept hamsters as currency.
I get three hamsters a gallon for premium.

Posted by: Laura at June 5, 2008 5:49 PM


Non-profits like Planned Parenthood don't make profits. So what's obscene about Planned Parenthood making $0 in profits?

Posted by: reality at June 5, 2008 5:51 PM


"I get three hamsters a gallon for premium."

Are small hamsters ok?

Posted by: Jess at June 5, 2008 5:55 PM


Are small hamsters ok?

Posted by: Jess at June 5, 2008 5:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course!

I train them to perform in my world-famous hamster and emu circus!

Posted by: Laura at June 5, 2008 6:01 PM


Jill, since you take an active interest in the Catholic Church, you should blog about how the Vatican is planning on excommunicating women who take part in ordinations.

No more female priests. Apparently Jesus didn't want that.

Posted by: Edyt at June 5, 2008 6:02 PM


Getting political news from Michelle Malkin. I suppose you goto snopes.com for the latest urban legend to pass on as well.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 6:16 PM


Jess, you wrote: "Most doctors just try to push you into surgeries or whatever so they can get more money. "

You are living in the past. Everyone's on salary now and would prefer LOWER workloads.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 6:29 PM


Jill (and others) are you aware that Malkin became famous by writing a book in defense of the government's policy of putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps based on race only during WWII?

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 6:32 PM


In response to Michelle Malkin:

Jack Nicholson's classic line from the movie "As Good as it Gets"

"Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here..."

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 6:34 PM


Judging by the paltry amount PP charges, they're either taking a financial loss on each abortion, or they're cutting some major corners. Judging by the women they've maimed or killed, I'd guess the second. What other surgery can you think of that costs so little? My daughter had two ingrown toenails cut out - $400, almost 50 bucks more than the cost of 12 week abortion with IV sedation. But let's review the two procedures. Ingrown toenails were numbed locally, and the podiatrist spent about 10 minutes per toe. She saw him again in 1 week for a very quick follow up. A surgical abortion, on the other hand, involves a sonogram, labwork, IV insertion, administration of IV meds, the procedure itself, and the monitoring of the patient afterwards. I could not discover how monitoring was done on abortion patients but this is how it was done when I worked in the ER. The patient was monitored by an RN from the start of sedation until s/he was awake, speaking coherantly and could take fluids. Vital signs were done every 5-15 minutes, depending on the depth of sedation, and in addition a heart monitor and pulse ox was used for the duration. Additionally, an abortion has much more equipment and medical waste than a toenail removal.

If PP is performing correct and careful monitoring of their sedated patients, how can their abortions be so cheap? Why do abortion providers kick and scream when they are held to the same standards as medical facilities, referring to standards as TRAP laws, instead of reasonable and prudent care?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/virginia-league/prices-and-payment-options.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/sedation-conscious?cat=health

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 7:05 PM


Anonymous, PP does it by underpaying everybody who works for them. Starting with the abortion doctor, who gets somewhere between $50.00 and $100.00 per procedure, depending on location.

Part of their mission is to provide all their services at minimal cost. That means cutting every corner they can legally cut. Not only do they do this, it's part of their job description.

Legal first-trimester abortion is not much more challenging, and not much more dangerous, than treating an ingrown toenail.

You wrote: "Judging by the women they've maimed or killed, ... " Can you find any NUMBERS that say PP has a higher patient-maiming or patient-death rate than other abortion providers in the USA (the national rate is slightly less than one patient death per hundred-thousand abortions)? It would not surprise me if PP's rate were SLIGHTLY higher but still very low.

Please note: I am not interested in lists of names of victims of rare events, only in NUMBERS of victims.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 7:22 PM


SoMG, can you tell me how long an abortionist will spend with each patient? And do you know of any podiatry patients who have been maimed or killed due to their ingrown toenail surgery?

I'm sorry, I don't know of any stats regarding PP vs. other abortion providers.

One of my ER docs told me he gets reimbursed 6 dollars for each Medicaid patient he saw - that's not a typo. Six bucks. And of course, the no-pays he saw for free. Does that excuse lowering his standard of care?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 7:32 PM


This payscale states median hourly rate for PP. I can only address the RN pay, because that's what I'm familiar with, but 25 bucks an hour seems pretty good for clinic work. The last clinic I worked for (granted I quit in 2001) paid me less than 18 an hour.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Planned_Parenthood/Hourly_Rate

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 7:37 PM


This site states that the former president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America was paid for than the average CEO of a charitable organization, to the tune of over half a mil. Is this the cost-cutting you're referring to, or is that a burden for only the patient to bear?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 7:47 PM


Here's the site. My apologies.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Planned_Parenthood/Hourly_Rate

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 7:47 PM


http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=studies.ceo

Okay, that's the PP CEO salary site. I apologize again. I've got one eye on the ball game.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 7:49 PM


Anon, I would say 20-30 minutes for suction curettage early in pregnancy, including five minutes for talking.

You wrote: "Do you know of any podiatry patients who have been maimed or killed due to their ingrown toenail surgery?"

Not personally but I'm sure there are some cases of infection leading to death, most likely in immunocompromised patients or diabetics, for whom any cut on the foot can necessitate amputation faster than you can turn around.

You wrote: "Does [low pay] excuse lowering his standard of care? "

No of course not but it's not clear that PP offers a low standard of care. In order to show that you'd have to show higher unfavorable-outcome rates than normal which you said you cannot do.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 7:54 PM


I never compared PP to non-PP facilities, I compared the cost of their procedure to a ingrown toenail removal. And I never stated that they did not perform up to standard of a JCAHO accredited facility - I have no idea how they administer their CS - I merely asked how they could keep costs so low if they were, indeed, practicing reasonable and prudent care.

I know that 100-300 dollars an hour is below average for a physician (maybe not for IM), but it's still good money by anyone's standards.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 8:26 PM


Boy, lots of anons here today; For the record I think PP should be brought before congress and investigated too. Waxman won't be the one to do it though, he's pro choice through and through.

Posted by: Andy at June 5, 2008 8:55 PM


Andy, I'm the anon from 7:05 on. I forgot to log in with my name, and then I decided to stay consistent.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 5, 2008 9:09 PM


For the record I don't care much about the PP issue or the current accusations against it. If the stuff I have read about is all there is, then prosecuting it is not worth the cost of the prosecutor's time. I'd rather have an extra prosecutor working on a violent crime.

Partly this is because I am aware that PP is one of the few government-funded institutions that actually saves more money than it costs in the short and long terms.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 9:58 PM


Partly this is because I am aware that PP is one of the few government-funded institutions that actually saves more money than it costs in the short and long terms.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 9:58 PM

Could PP be overfunded?

Anonymous, PP does it by underpaying everybody who works for them. Starting with the abortion doctor, who gets somewhere between $50.00 and $100.00 per procedure, depending on location.

That doesn't sound like a bad salary considering the number of abortions they perform in a given week. Do they have to pay their own malpractice insurance at the going rates or is that subsidized by the government?

Posted by: Janet at June 5, 2008 11:24 PM


Janet, it's not such a good salary when you consider that most PPs offer abortion only one or two half-days a week. Also it's a bad pay rate for an MD, who has student loans to pay. Working at PP is not a full-time thing usually it's a supplementary thing.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 11:35 PM


And of course PP could be overfunded. If their clinics are standing idle they're probably overfunded. I don't think that's true right now though.

Posted by: SoMG at June 6, 2008 12:00 AM


Posted by: Edyt at June 5, 2008 6:02 PM

Edyt, no true Catholic has a problem with women not becoming priests.

Posted by: Kristen at June 6, 2008 8:10 AM


SoMG, I want to address one more point, then I'll stop because I think we're starting to split hairs. I maintain that 100-300 dollars an hour is a decent salary, even for a physician. I couldn't find a good, round average for U.S. physicians because there are so many variables, but for the sake of argument let's call it a quarter of a mill a year, which averages for a 40 hour work week (which most docs in clinical practice work far beyond) $120 per hour. Somewhat less than our guestimate for a PP doc. And, correct me if I'm wrong, PP docs should have little to no overhead, since they're just moonlighting. I still do not understand how PP offers such cheap abortions, unless they are cutting corners at the expense of patient safety.

I wish you and everyone else reading this a good and happy day.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 6, 2008 9:24 AM


And as for Dunkin' Donuts- you might as well buy your coffee from Hamas!

I've heard Winchells is also a part of the donut terrorist movement.

And the cops are all part of it too, because you know how donuts and cops go together. Years ago there was a hilarious cartoon in a Montreal newpaper that included a cop car where the logo on the door was a bulldog and a donut with a bit taken out of it.

Posted by: Doug at June 6, 2008 9:27 AM


Maybe someone could also post the Eddie Murphy "Kill my Landlord" skit from Saturday Night Live, and we could compare and contrast.

That's C-I-L-L, Cill my landlord.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acp3pQSgwS0

Posted by: mk at June 6, 2008 10:00 AM


Edyt,

How would you feel about a group of Muslims getting excommunicated for deciding that from now on they were going to face west?

Or a group of Jews that formed a weekly bacon eating party? Should they be allowed to remain practicing Jews?

Or how about Hindus that barbeque steaks every tuesday?

Women priests are simply antithema to our faith. Why is that a problem?

Posted by: mk at June 6, 2008 10:02 AM


Equally appalled. Yes, of course they should be allowed to practice their faiths as they wish because faith is not dependent (or at least, should not be) on ritual rites.

I understand that Jews or Hindus may look at eating pork or beef in the same way we look at eating cats or dogs - horribly wrong.

But I don't think eating cats, dogs, pigs, cows, or even praying to the wrong direction will make God abandon those he cares about, so for a church community to abandon its members is simply ridiculous and sad, honestly.

Then again, I don't believe in God, so naturally it's all nonsense to me.

Posted by: Edyt at June 6, 2008 10:18 AM


Hi Edyt. What I think should be kept in mind though, is that to excommunicate someone (BTW, they can always come back and it does NOT automatically damn them if they die while still excommunicated) is a disciplinary measure to show someone the gravity of their actions. For example, some parents of a drug addicted teenager who has been given multiple chances to get clean may decide that the best option is to kick him out of the house. Now that isn't because they don't love him anymore or are washing their hands of him, but because they have most likely tried everything at this point and have come to the decision that his best hope of recovery is to kick him out of the house. Now you may not agree with their decision, and I don't know if I do either, but the point is that they do this out of love for him; they do what they believe is best for him.

This is similar to why the Church has excommunication; not to shun someone like in other religions but to let them know the severity of what they have done.

As far as the specifics of this case goes, we believe that it has been divinely revealed by God himself that the priesthood is for men. Why did he decide to have it this way? I haven't the slightest clue. But the point is that we believe that God HIMSELF reviled this as a divine truth, and anyone who would go against this willfully is equivalently willfully disobeying God. So it isn't so much because they do things a different way as much as it is disobedience and rebellion against God.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 6, 2008 11:10 AM


Bobby, I agree with your points and would just like to add that technically a person excommunicates themself by their actions and it is the clergy who sometimes need to "remind them" of the effect of their actions on their standing in the Church. Make sense?

On the other issue, I believe priests are "married to the Church", and that is a reason that the priesthood is reserved for men.

Posted by: Janet at June 6, 2008 12:10 PM


"Make sense?"

Yup! :)

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 6, 2008 12:35 PM


Edyt said: But I don't think eating cats, dogs, pigs, cows, or even praying to the wrong direction will make God abandon those he cares about, so for a church community to abandon its members is simply ridiculous and sad, honestly.

Then again, I don't believe in God, so naturally it's all nonsense to me.

So you understand how God thinks but don't believe he exists? How can that be? It sounds like maybe you do believe in God, but what you really don't believe in is organized religion. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong. ; )

Posted by: Janet at June 6, 2008 2:03 PM


Thanks MK 10 am.

I knew it was Cill, not Kill, but didn't want to confuse the young whippersnappers.

Still as funny as ever.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 6, 2008 3:19 PM


"On the other issue, I believe priests are "married to the Church", and that is a reason that the priesthood is reserved for men."
---------------------------------

Just to add, Christ is the "Groom"(as was referred to in His parables) and His bride is the Church. The priests, standing "in persona Christi" (in the person of Christ), has to be male...

These 'women' priests fail to understand that men and women have equally important but different roles in the Church.

And people should realize that the Catholic Church is NOT a corporation with tentative rules given by it's CEO. The Popes' may be different but the rules and teachings remain the same.

That is why the Church was able to survive the last 2,000 years.

Posted by: RSD at June 6, 2008 3:22 PM


Thanks for the info, RSD

Posted by: Janet at June 6, 2008 4:32 PM


how about Hindus that barbeque steaks every tuesday?

MK, when I worked in Canada, there was a guy who lived next to one of my co-workers who had come from India, and grown accustomed to the Canadian lifestyle.

When his father and mother would come for a visit, all the meat from the freezer and fridge would get carried over to my co-worker's house, to be hidden until they departed.

Posted by: Doug at June 6, 2008 5:52 PM


Posted by: RSD at June 6, 2008 3:22 PM

Right. My aunt has been a nun (O.S.B) now for 30 some years. She lives in Rome and works at the Venerable English College. (Librarian) People say things to her like "Isn't it terrible you can't be a priest? You've given your whole life to the Church." But she puts them right in their place and tells them if they don't know why women can't be priests they need to study their faith a lot more.

She's happy and content in her role in the Church and she sees her place as equally important as a priest.

Posted by: Kristen at June 6, 2008 7:24 PM


Kristen, That's awesome!

Posted by: Janet at June 6, 2008 8:12 PM


So you understand how God thinks but don't believe he exists? How can that be? It sounds like maybe you do believe in God, but what you really don't believe in is organized religion. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong. ; )

I play by the rules when I argue religion.

Posted by: Edyt at June 6, 2008 9:46 PM


Edyt,

But you aren't playing by the rules. If a Hindu wants to eat beef, fine. Then he should stop being a Hindu.

If a Jew wants to eat pork, then fine. But he should no longer consider himself a practicing Jew.

The ARE the rules. If you don't want to follow them, no one is forcing you to. We just ask that you no longer call yourself a Catholic.

What if we were playing Monopoly and I decided that every time I rolle a 3, I was going to take 500 dollars from the bank? Would you keep playing with me? If you quit the game, would I be right for saying that you don't play fair. Why did you force me to stop playing? Or would you say that when I decided to make my own rules, I voluntarily quit playing Monopoly by the accepted rules.

You could even pull the rule sheet out and show me that collecting money for rolling threes is NOT in the rule book.

And I could pull out the Catechism and show you that the rule book says women can't be priests.

You volunteer to be Catholic. Why would you volunteer to join something and then proceed to change everything about what you joined?

Posted by: mk at June 6, 2008 10:00 PM


All human rights aside, this issue needs to be revisited from a simple fiscal policy perspective.

Posted by: H at June 6, 2008 10:24 PM


MK,

Hehe, I absolutely hate Monopoly. How about Clue?

Wadsworth: Professor Plum, you were once a professor of psychiatry specializing in helping paranoid and homicidal lunatics suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Professor Plum: Yes, but now I work for the United Nations.
Wadsworth: So your work has not changed.

Back to the original statements...

Do you believe God will be more or less likely to admit you into heaven for following the rules? For being a female priest in the Catholic religion, what would your eternal punishment be?

And if there is no such punishment, why the rule?

Do you really believe that God would damn a Jew for eating pork? A Hindu for eating beef?

Many of these "rules" look a whole lot more like traditions than actual God-sent messages. I can understand God saying "don't murder" or "don't cause harm to other beings" or even "be a vegetarian" but to single out one particular animal as sacred is a bit absurd.

Posted by: Edyt at June 6, 2008 10:32 PM


Actually, to be precise, many Hindus do eat beef, but it actually comes from bulls. It is cows they don't eat, and that's because they use the cows for milk, cheese, producing other cows and bulls, etc. As far as I can tell, it's not much of a religious issue.

According to their religion, they should all be vegetarians. From the number of different meats they consume, it's quite apparent that they don't take issue with eating meat.

Nor does the Hindu religion suggest excommunicating its members for eating meat.

Posted by: Edyt at June 6, 2008 10:40 PM


Edyt,

No I don't believe God cares if you eat cows or pigs, but I'm Catholic, not Hindu or Jewish. Which is my point. I joined a particular church, and that church was very clear on what it's beliefs are.

What will God do? Well, I guess that it depends on a lot of things. For instance, I wouldn't be as upset with someone that had never played monopoly, taking cash for rolling threes, as I would with someone that plays Monopoly on a regular basis. And I'd be even more miffed if I was playing with the guy that invented Monopoly.

We, the Catholic Church, believe, for very sound reasons, some of which were explained above, men are called to be priests.

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with men are better or more worthy.

The priesthood was instituted long before Jesus was even born. All priests were male. We believe, as Janet and RSD pointed out, that the priest is married to the church. He represents Christ, who is the groom, and we are the church which is the bride.

Now for obvious reasons, we would be a little uncomfortable with a homosexual representation of the church and her groom...lol.

A woman priest would be married to the church...two females. see?

You don't have to agree, but this is what our faith is based on.

Will God condemn these women to hell? Well, first,if they understand the reasoning behind the male priesthood, and they should if they believe they are qualified to BE priests, then they are in direct disobedience to Christs teachings. They are CHOOSING to turn their back on God's directives. They would be choosing hell.

The church did come up with a male priesthood arbitrarily. It came directly from Christ. It came from God through the Jewish faith. There were plenty of women that Jesus could have chosen to be apostles, His mother being number one, but He didn't. Because He too was subject to His own laws. You are the one that said He was a rebel, so it wasn't like He was just sticking to tradition.

He knew what He was doing.

The fact that these women are stamping their feet and defiantly "becoming" priests, disqualifies them as being worthy of the priesthood. The single most important quality of being a priest is obedience. Something these women are obviously NOT fond of!

Posted by: mk at June 6, 2008 10:56 PM


Okay,
off to bed. I'll read your reply in the morning. G'night Edyt.

Posted by: mk at June 6, 2008 11:01 PM


MK,

Oh, I don't want you to think I don't understand the reasoning behind only-male priests (what with the Bride/Groom references and all). I do, and you've all explained it quite well in earlier posts. I suppose I should have said something to that effect, so I apologize! My only contention was that it seemed more of a tradition than God-ordered.

I'm curious about this, because Jesus considered both men and women disciples. Mary and Martha from Bethany, and Mary Magdalene are named, Mary (Jesus' mother) and a sister, and several unnamed women. Today we only consider 12 disciples, but at one point Jesus says something about 70 or 72 disciples, so clearly there were more than 12.

While most people consider the words disciple and apostle interchangeable, the Catholic Church has a higher meaning for apostle, correct? Therefore all apostles were disciples, but not all disciples were apostles.

So my question is this: Do priests come from apostles or from disciples?

Secondly, if all of our souls become the "bride" of Christ, male and female included, why does it make a difference in the priesthood?

Is God a definite "he"?

Posted by: Edyt at June 7, 2008 1:00 AM


Yes, I agree with you all, it's your church, I have no business telling you who should be its officers.

Having said that, I agree with the columnist (I forget which one) who wrote that the celibacy requirement for priests is a driving force for sex scandals in the clergy and makes the position attractive to people who have other reasons as well for concealing their sex lives.

Posted by: SoMG at June 7, 2008 1:15 AM


Yes, I agree with you all, it's your church, I have no business telling you who should be its officers.
Having said that, I agree with the columnist (I forget which one) who wrote that the celibacy requirement for priests is a driving force for sex scandals in the clergy and makes the position attractive to people who have other reasons as well for concealing their sex lives.

Posted by: SoMG at June 7, 2008 1:15 AM

Thank you, I think - but the Church doesn't have "officers".

The priests take the celibacy vow willingly. They don't have "sex lives" (except for the fallen few you've heard about in the press). It's not like they find out after they are ordained that there will be no sexual relations for the rest of their lives. They know the rules.

Anyone who would make a comment about celibacy being a driving force for the sex scandals obviously has an axe to grind. The psychological testing for the current seminarians is extensive (I think I read recently that they take eight different psych tests. They will not accept men who are not emotionally stable. The job of a parish priest these days is unbelievably busy, enough to make a married man's head spin. There is no way a married man could also pastor thousands of people - doing the job of a priest. His life is not his own. It belongs to the people of the parish.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 2:58 AM


So you understand how God thinks but don't believe he exists? How can that be? It sounds like maybe you do believe in God, but what you really don't believe in is organized religion. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong. ; )

I play by the rules when I argue religion.

Posted by: Edyt at June 6, 2008 9:46 PM

The fact that you know how He thinks, means you know He exists, in my book.

Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2008 3:07 AM


SoMG,

Most of the sex scandals involved children. If your theory was right, the sex scandals would have involved illicit relationships with women. The priests that molested those kids were sick before entering the priesthood, and in all liklihood chose the priesthood for the very reason that they would have easy access to children. Much like scout leaders, coaches, teachers etc.

Also, while the male priesthood was instituted by Jesus/God Himself, the celibate priesthood was instituted by men. The male priesthood is unchangeable law, the celibate priesthood is changeable law.

The first falls under God's law and the second is more like what Edyt spoke of, tradition.

At some time in the future priests might be able to marry, as they were in the past. They can marry in the Eastern Rite churches now. If a protestant pastor is married and decides to join the Catholic Church, he might be allowed to become a priest, married and all, even today.

Posted by: mk at June 7, 2008 6:53 AM


Edyt,

No need to apologize. We live in a climate where women are often treated as second class citizens and it is perfectly understandable that you would think this was an example of men being elevated above women.

But the priesthood is not a "higher" calling in the church.

Motherhood is just as noble as the priesthood.

We, as Catholics, are trying to attain the highest possible place in the church/kingdom, but that is NOT the priesthood. It is sainthood, and that is open to men and women equally. A female saint is lightyears above an ordinary priest.

Is God a man? I don't think God has a sex. He doesn't have a body. This is what I was talking about with Hal and Doug on a different thread. When we say God is male, our imaginations place masculine traits on Him. We picture a human man. But God is not human. He certainly doesn't have sex organs.

However, in each and every instance that He interacted with people, He interacted a masculine entity.

He impregnated Mary as the Holy Spirit (male), He came to earth in human form as a male (Jesus), Jesus referred to Him as the father...

So we know that He is masculine (giving, protecting, authoritative). But masculine is not the same as being "A man".

This is one of the reasons the church recoginizes that masculine and feminine are two very different things. Equal, but very different. Men, in our oppinion, have different roles to play, than women.

When you hear us talk about women bearing children, and how this is inherent to us being a women, it comes from this idea that women have certain roles to play in the world, in the Kingdom.

Or that men are supposed to be protectors, providers, etc.

I hear you on the "men are part of the church, so why is the church female" but to us the church is a living breathing entity. While speaking about being a member of the church, your sex stops coming into play. The church herself is female. Her members might not be.

The church is female, which means she is a receiver, much like a women "recieves" the sperm from the man. God is male, the "giver", much like the man is the "giver" of sperm.

If you replace the words male with giver, and the words female with receiver, you'll have a better understanding of MUCH about the church.

The mass/Eucharist, is the marriage bed where the female (the church) and the male (God) become one flesh. Marriage is a "mini-version" of the mass. It imitates the relationship between God and His church.

The two become one flesh, both in a marriage, and in the Mass. That's why we call it "CO-mm-union". It is the uniting of all the members of the church, both with each other, and with God. So that we become ONE body of Christ.

As for the apostle/disciple question. You are exactly right. All apostles are disciples but not all disciples are apostles. The apostles became the first priests, via the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, just like the royal stewards of his time were given the keys to earthly kingdoms. He became Gods visible head.

The keeper of the keys would take over if the King was going to be gone for any length of time. He didn't become king. But he acted as king, all the time awaiting the return of the true king. The people all knew and understood this. So Peter was made the visible head of the church until the return of the king (that's where the title of the JRRTolkien book comes from). The other apostles were made priests.

This is where we get the apostolic succession from.

Peter laid hands on Linus, Linus on Cletus and so on, passing on the keys, til the return of our King, all the way to Pope Benedict.

The other apostles laid hands on other men (men who were called, in an inner sense) making them priests. The succession has remained unbroken to this day.

So ALL priests can trace themselves back to the first apostles.

I myself, am a disciple of Jesus, as was Mary, Mary Magdalene and many others...but we are not apostles.

Whew, that was long. I hope I answered everything!

I have spoken before about the church being all about relationships.

So I would suggest that from now on you replace male with giver, female with receiver, and religion with relationship.

The father has a relationship with the son, the son with the spirit, the spirit with the father, the father with us, the father and son with us, the father and spirit with us, the son and spirit with us, us with each other, us with the saints in heaven...it's all about relationships...and together we all form one body.

Posted by: mk at June 7, 2008 7:16 AM


The fact that you know how He thinks, means you know He exists, in my book.

Seriously, Janet?

I know how Santa Claus works too but HE doesn't exist. Look, I was raised on the stuff. I may not know a whole hell of a lot about Catholicism but I know enough about Christianity to have all of the basic arguments down.

Fact is, if I just went around spouting off "God doesn't exist" then I'd never have these delightful conversations with MK and Bobby. So, in order to continue these discussions, I have to enter into their frame of mind, which means accepting the premises that have been set down.

Like I mentioned earlier, I think mathematically.

Logic problem:

1. If monkeys are purple than the sky is blue.
2. Monkeys are purple.
Therefore - the sky is blue.

While you and I may disagree with whether or not monkeys are purple, we can agree that both premises must be true to reach that conclusion.

Since MK and I are having a conversation about conclusions, I am accepting her premises even though I do not necessarily accept it for myself.

In other words - no, I'm not a closet believer. Get over it.

Posted by: Edyt at June 7, 2008 12:10 PM


I hear you on the "men are part of the church, so why is the church female" but to us the church is a living breathing entity. While speaking about being a member of the church, your sex stops coming into play. The church herself is female. Her members might not be.

I still feel a little dissatisfied with this answer.

The church body is comprised of both men and women because gender does not matter - yet the Christ body (that is the priests and apostles and so forth) DOES matter in terms of gender.

That's like saying men can play the roles of both men and women (givers and receivers), but women can never play both roles. I'm really trying hard not to see this as elevated status of a man, but I don't understand why a woman cannot switch her role, so to say.

Or, if I can place this together a bit, correct me if this sounds wrong: Since men physically cannot birth children, to be able to reach that same "level" as mothers, they have the ability to become priests?

If that's right, what does that mean for infertile women and men who are not priests?

The keeper of the keys would take over if the King was going to be gone for any length of time. He didn't become king. But he acted as king, all the time awaiting the return of the true king. The people all knew and understood this. So Peter was made the visible head of the church until the return of the king (that's where the title of the JRRTolkien book comes from). The other apostles were made priests.

So there will be popes until Jesus' return?

The succession has remained unbroken to this day.

Hehe, not if you count the Great Schism.

The father has a relationship with the son, the son with the spirit, the spirit with the father, the father with us, the father and son with us, the father and spirit with us, the son and spirit with us, us with each other, us with the saints in heaven...it's all about relationships...and together we all form one body.

Actually, MK, this is the concept I find most beautiful. Although I don't believe in a "higher power" of sorts, I do feel comforted by the idea that I am a part of nature and that when I die, I'll become a different part of nature (food, fertilizer, whatever) and help other plants grow or people eat. While I don't consider it a supernatural relationship, it is still a relationship that connects me to the rest of the universe. Even the fact that I am living and breathing today and having an affect on the world (no matter how small) makes me feel connected. Because of that, I don't want to be preserved or buried in a coffin, since I believe it disrupts the natural life and death process.

My mother has talked extensively about the body of Christ. Her home church group used the acronym H.E.R. I don't remember what it stands for, but the basic idea was the idea of the church as the bride.

I wanted to ask a few more questions about the rituals of the Catholic Church. You've mentioned that if a person does not want to follow them, that they do not have to be Catholic. Besides the sacraments, Catholics have other guidelines, such as the ones we've spoken about earlier about BC, abortion, homosexuality, sex after marriage, and so forth. Say someone wants to use BC and disengages from the RCC, what happens to him or her as a Christian? Does it affect the relationship with Christ, and if so, how? How is the body of Christ made up, considering the numbers of different sects of Christianity? How does following the rituals and beliefs of the Catholic Church affect that relationship?

Posted by: Edyt at June 7, 2008 12:39 PM


Hi Edyt. I know you addressed your post to MK, but there was just one thing I wanted to comment on.

"MK: The succession has remained unbroken to this day.

Edyt: Hehe, not if you count the Great Schism."

So I think here you may have a misunderstanding. The unbroken succession refers to just the Popes; in other words, a succession of a single person which we believe began with Peter and continues this day to BXVI, the Bishop of Rome. While there was the great schism of 1054 (I think that's the date most people mention), there was a split between the Bishop of Rome and the Eastern Patriarchs. So while we broke off communion with the other four patriarchs, the office of Bishop of Rome remained. Even if someone to this day believes that the Orthodox Church is the true church and that we split off from them, I think they would still hold that there has always been a successor to the Bishop of Rome, even at the time of the schism.

So in sum, our break with the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem happened and we could no longer say we have an unbroken line with them, that was never the issue, as it has always been about the Chair of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

I'm refraining from discussing all the other questions you have. If MK hasn't gotten to them by the end of the weekend, I might answer them, hehe.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 7, 2008 12:54 PM


Bobby,

Actually, that's not what I was talking about, but I just looked up what you mentioned and I realized that, according to wikipedia, there were 3 events in history called great schisms, so I'm sorry about the confusion.

What I meant (and thank you for forcing me to be more clear about it) was the schism of 1378, better known as the Western Schism. I was relying on my high school knowledge from an AP European History course, so I could have gotten it wrong, but I'm pretty sure my teacher referred to this one as the Great Schism.

Anyway, what happened then was basically that three men were competing for the pope position. after George XI died, there was a riot for a new pope, so the cardinals hastily elected Pope Urban VI. He was a regrettable decision, so a majority of cardinals then chose Robert of Geneva (Clement VII) as a rival pope. That divided people in that two separate groups were recognizing two different popes. And when each of those popes died, they were replaced by two more popes, even though at this point the cardinals were begging someone to step down. They decided they would meet up and have a discussion about it, pope to pope ... and when no agreement was met, the cardinals elected a third pope (Alexander V). Eventually, some people died, one pope was excommunicated, and the schism ended.

Anyway, the whole point was that it made people question the legitimacy of pope succession.

Posted by: Edyt at June 7, 2008 1:09 PM


Ah, OK. Well what I would say to that then is that while there may have been some confusion and there may have even been an anti-pope or two (that is, someone claiming to be pope but not actually pope) that doesn't necessarily imply that the line was ever broken or that there wasn't an actual pope at that time. For example, suppose that after the 2000 election, Gore claimed that he was the real president and really began to push it. I'm sure there would have been probably millions of Americans supporting him. He may have even gone so far as to send out letters and make rulings (whatever it is that presidents do) as if he was the president. He may have draw lots of media coverage, and could have even generated legit confusion among the people. But he wouldn't have been the real, official president.

We even have men today claiming to be the REAL Pope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Catholic_Church . But there really is only one actual, real authentic pope, just like there was at that time. So while there was confusion, there was an actual, legit Bishop of Rome even though it wasn't obvious to everyone who it was.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 7, 2008 2:53 PM


Edyt,

First I have to say that I almost flunked out of high school myself, and never went to college, so a lot of my explanations are lacking. I don't know the proper names for things, or the dates that they happened...for instance I refer to the schism of 1378 as "That thing with the two popes...!"lol. I know that all of your questions have been asked before and answered by true scholars...so have patience if I come across as a 9th grader. Cuz education wise, that's about right.

Bobby and Chris are much more well read. I read what I can grasp, and only get half of that...

Second, Janet is cool people. If you give her a chance you'll see that she's not confrontational, and truly desires to have legitimated discussions also. I know that she doesn't want to argue, but really wants to "talk"...when she first came on here she used to ask my permission before she joined any conversation that I was in. I told her to knock it off and just jump in, so really, it's at my directive that she enters our discussions.

And now onto your most complicated question.

The church being female.

I'm struggling to come up with an explanation but am not really having any light bulbs go off. But let's try this.

I think we're getting hung up on male and female being associated with penis' and vaginas. When really the Church doesn't have a vagina and God doesn't have a penis. It's more about the "purpose" of each creature that God has created.

So lets look at flowers. We know that apple trees (I hope) need a female tree and a male tree to produce fruit. (Except hybrids, but lets not go there). While a male tree does produce pollen (good Lord help me, we're gonna talk scientific stuff now) and female tree has that thingy that the pollen stick to, neither one has a penis or a vagina. And yet we refer to them as male and female.

So what makes something male? What makes them female? Even words have masculine and feminine assignations, even tho they aren't even alive...

While many men might like the color pink or purple, we both know, that for no reason that we can explain (or at least I cant') girls tend to like pink or purple. Of course some girls like green, or orange...I had one girl in preschool whose favorite color was grey. Go figure). So we tend to think of pink (or purple/lilac) as a feminine color.

If a man likes pink it doesn't make him a women. And if a girl likes brown it doesn't make her a man. But can we agree that some things have been labeled and accepted as masculine and feminine?

Now lets look at the church. Obviously, the church doesn't have sex organs, and it doesn't have a sexual role to play. But it does have a feminine role to play. She is the body that recieves Jesus...most notably in the Eucharist.

Jesus, gives himself to us, as a husband gives himself to a wife. And the church gives herself to Jesus the way a women gives herself to her husband.

The two become one.

Posted by: mk at June 7, 2008 3:49 PM


So how does a man give himself to his wife. Well, the most obvious way can be seen in his body. Just as a womans body parts are meant to "recieve" the man.

As far as the church goes, Jesus isn't have sex with us, but He is having that intimate union with us. So the imagery of the sexual organs stops having any meaning.

I know you are going to hate this, but God created man, and then created woman from man. Hence the word wo-man...of-man.

So while he's not more important, his role is different

We are meant to renter a man, become one with him again, the same way that the church is to become one again with God.

We are meant to compliment each other.

How many times have you heard men say "I'll never understand women" or visa versa. Even tho it raises the hairs on our necks when we point out our differences, in thinking, nurturing, being, that is only because for too long it has implied that men are better than women. So we have sort of distanced ourselves from what makes us unique to prove that we are equal. Unfortunately, the whole idea of equal got lost in translation somewhere, and turned into the "same"...but we aren't the same.

And that's okay.

The church recognizes this. She celebrates it.

We could argue til the cows come home whether or not there real differences or just differences that are "taught"...but I believe, that the differences are real, and that they are reinforced.

I don't think anyone is purely feminine or purely masculine...there will always be girls that love football, and men that love ballet, but by and large most women are a certain way about many things, and men are a certain way about others.

Men were hunters and competitors, and women were gatherers and caretakers long before anyone could verbalize why these roles were as they were.

It was innate. You might say men were stronger so it stood to reason that they would hunt, while women gathered...but WHY were men stronger? You see?

Of course, you can disagree up and down, and your view would be just as valid as mine, I'm just trying to explain how the church sees it.

So we, the church are the bride, and we are called to "care", take care of, teach, nurture God's children...all very traditional feminine roles, while God will take care of the providing, protecting, and disciplining.

Of course, each family unit is a mini example of the church and God, and so you see this unit mimic the relationship between God and His bride.

In the family unit, the father becomes the God figure and is expected to protect, provide, and discipline, while the mother is expected to nourish, teach and take care of the children.

Can a woman also provide? Of course. Can a man also nourish? Of course. But the main grouping should mimic as much as possible, the relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church.

To confuse matters more, a priest/bishop/pope plays two roles in this scenario. On the one hand he is part of the church, same as you and me, and is relegated to the feminine role, and on the other, when he is acting in the person of Christ, he takes on the male role. But he is only male when he is acting as Jesus, ie: saying mass, hearing confession, etc. At all other times, he too is female/a member of the Bride of Christ.

Pope John Paul II wrote a thingy (Bobby or Chris will tell you what it's called) where he apologizes for the clergy treating women as lesser members of the church. He stops short of saying the church herself placed women on this level, but he does admit that certain officials of the church misrepresented what this male/female role meant and treated women as if they were "less" than men.
He is the pope that put women back on a pedestal (which of course all women know is where we belong ;)). He thought women were the nuts! He adored us.

This is why the Church so honors Mary. Because we recognize that the role she played in salvation, was critical to the whole thing working. Personally, I think on the totem pole of catholicism, she is way OVER any priest...score one for us!

I hope this helped. I know I'm not very good at this. It's pretty heavy stuff. Bobby, Janet and Chris should be able to add a lot more...

MK

Posted by: mk at June 7, 2008 4:13 PM


Edyt,

One more thing...The church body is comprised of both men and women because gender does not matter - yet the Christ body (that is the priests and apostles and so forth) DOES matter in terms of gender.
*
That's like saying men can play the roles of both men and women (givers and receivers), but women can never play both roles. I'm really trying hard not to see this as elevated status of a man, but I don't understand why a woman cannot switch her role, so to say.

Really, the only one that is male, or playing the male role in this scenario is God. The priest represents God, but at all other times he is part of the church (female). So really the argument isn't that priests get to be male AND female, but that priests get to be part of the church and represent God. While women cannot physically represent God because they aren't masculine. Wow, that sounds crazy, doesn't it.

It's not really tho.

It IS similar to what you said about women having babies. If God was a woman (or chose to manifest himself as feminine instead of masculine) and his/her way of communing with us was to give birth (play a feminine role) then only a female could be
a priest, because only a female could fill the role of giving birth while in the persona of a feminine God...did that make even a little bit of sense? Males could never be priests in this situation, because they were, well, male. The only way to represent a female God and give birth, would be to BE female. Right?

Posted by: mk at June 7, 2008 4:25 PM


MK,

I wanted to thank you for your very long explanation. I would have responded earlier, but I wanted to take some time to mull over it in my head and read it a few times to be sure I got it right.

It does make a lot of sense, and I love your description of the apple trees. I struggle with it personally because I don't consider people inherently masculine or feminine, but your description makes a lot of sense in the context of the Catholic Church.

When I think of nature, it makes sense that women are caretakers and men are hunter/gatherers. But then I remember that lionesses are the hunters, and penguins spend equal time babysitting their young, so I guess it really must depend on the species! I think we people today have advanced to where men and women can take part in most roles - as leaders, caretakers, teachers, or whatever. But I do understand why the Catholic Church chooses to operate in that fashion.

I never knew that Pope John Paul II did that! That's great. I knew a lot of people really liked him, but I never thought to look into him. Now I might do so.

There were a few other questions I had, but I'll just repost from earlier:

You've mentioned that if a person does not want to follow them, that they do not have to be Catholic. Besides the sacraments, Catholics have other guidelines, such as the ones we've spoken about earlier about BC, abortion, homosexuality, sex after marriage, and so forth. Say someone wants to use BC and disengages from the RCC, what happens to him or her as a Christian? Does it affect the relationship with Christ, and if so, how? How is the body of Christ made up, considering the numbers of different sects of Christianity? How does following the rituals and beliefs of the Catholic Church affect that relationship?

Oh, and if Bobby or Chris or anyone else wants to answer these questions, feel free. MK doesn't have a monopoly on answering questions about Catholicism. :)

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 2:20 PM


Edyt,

Penguins and lionesses...I love it. It just proves my point that we are not locked into our roles and there will always be room for adaptation.

About the only two things in the whole world that I can think of that are completely taboo to the other sex, is childbirth and the priesthood.

Even childbirth doesn't really count, because don't male seahorses carry the young? LOL

But I guess in those cases you would be saying that the male of the species was showing feminine qualities and the females were showing masculine qualities.

Which is fine by me. It doesn't mean they become the opposite sex, only that they are enjoying things that are traditionally thought of as one or the other.

There's a lot of stuff that I have strong opinions about (like moms that have kids should stay home with them, or that marriage is meant for men and women) but I live and let live. I recognize the line between my Catholicism which colors all of my veiws and the fact that the world isn't Catholic.

Take condoms being passed out in Africa. I would not condone it, and I don't think the church should be passing them out, but I'm not an idiot and recognize that on a secular level, it's a very fitting solution to the spread of aids (provided of course the condoms are of good quality and being used properly). By the time you have people having sex that are infected with aids (either through raping women, forcing themselves on their wives, or homosexual sex) it's kind of silly to be harpin' on whether or not they use condoms!

So my personal opinion is just that. I understand how to say "That's not for me, but it's also not for me to say it's not for you"...I reserve the right to speak my opinion, but I don't try to enforce my opinion.

Abortion is different though, because Catholicism set aside, I believe that it takes the life of a human being and to me that is just the ultimate in wrong. And because someone is being seriously harmed, I do think that I have the right, even the obligation, to try to enforce my opinion...on birth control, homosexuality, premarital sex? Not so much.

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 2:35 PM


Hehe, yes, male seahorses do carry the young. My boyfriend, who has a slight inclination towards children, always tells me that if he could carry it, he would! And boy would I ever be totally fine with that! If we do ever have kids (unlikely), he's definitely going to be a stay-at-home dad.

I suppose you could say feminine and masculine roles are reversed, but I've looked at what people consider masculine and feminine, and the only real, tangible difference anyone can produce that is true for everyone is that women have babies and men have sperm. Other things, like men being stronger, are average differences, but not necessarily true in all cases.

I read this a couple days ago, and it's well-worth it for another perspective on how we look at masculinity and femininity.

There's a lot of stuff that I have strong opinions about (like moms that have kids should stay home with them, or that marriage is meant for men and women) but I live and let live. I recognize the line between my Catholicism which colors all of my veiws and the fact that the world isn't Catholic.

I love that perspective.

Posted by: Edyt at June 9, 2008 4:32 PM


The manufacturing guys over at Evolving Excellence had a good post today on "big oil" relatively low profit margins, but with a twist. Did you know the endowments of Harvard, Yale, and others went up over 20% last year? Those private universities are just sitting on the cash, while Big Oil is at least reinvesting in new energy sources (even green) and paying dividends to help support little old ladies in retirement. They reference one WaPo article that says Big Oil profit could educate 60,000 kids... well the increasing endowments at Harvard could let Harvard build a dozen more Harvards and educate that many kids each year. Who should get nailed with a windfall profits tax?

http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2008/06/windfall-profit.html

Ken

Posted by: Ken at June 9, 2008 9:01 PM


Edyt,

That was a good article. But did you notice that the second list (which in my opinion, as the mother of 5 sons is the much truer one) the guys themselves say that they are different than women.

Of course women can be strong. But when I think of a man being strong, I think of physical strength. When I think of a woman being strong, I think of inner strength.

Can a woman be as strong as a man physically. Well, which woman? Which man?

If you took the strongest woman in the world and put her next to an average man, sure. She'd be stronger. But the strongest woman next to the strongest man? He'll win every time.

Think about phone calls. Women can chat for hours. Men tell you what time they'll be there and hang up.

Or movies. What's an average (mind you I'm saying average) guys first question..."Does anything blow up?" And when someone says it's a chick flick, you know exactly what they mean.

Ask the average guy if he'd rather see Die Hard or Pride and Prejudice...what do you think the answer will be. Or ask him if he'd rather go to a ball game or stay home and "chat"...

Would they rather read John Sandford or Mary Higgins Clark? Eat a pizza or fondue? How many men care if there are fresh flowers in the house?

When men garden, they tend to plant vegetables. Not pansies. History channel or Lifetime for women?

They don't see dirt. Okay, some of them do, but I'm tellin' ya, most men just don't see it. If they do, they probably had a mother that beat it into them. Most of em can walk right past a pile of dirty dishes and actually NOT SEE THEM. Unless they have been meticulously trained by a good mother or good wife.

I realize that these don't fit every man, but think about it. Comedians have made millions by telling jokes about the differences between men and women...

I just really think there are inherent differences between the sexes that can be exaggerated or downplayed...but they are still inherently there.

I could be wrong...but again, I've lived with six men for 27 years now. And trust me, THEY DON'T SEE DIRT! lol

Posted by: mk at June 9, 2008 9:45 PM


They don't see dirt. Okay, some of them do, but I'm tellin' ya, most men just don't see it. If they do, they probably had a mother that beat it into them. Most of em can walk right past a pile of dirty dishes and actually NOT SEE THEM. Unless they have been meticulously trained by a good mother or good wife.

Hilarious!

Great post, MK. We really are "wired" differently.

Posted by: Doug at June 10, 2008 6:57 AM


Ken, good points. Pharmaceutical companies, etc., routinely make the percentage profits that Exxon, etc., are now.

If we are to penalize companies for making profits, are we going to subsidize them in lean or losing years?

Posted by: Doug at June 10, 2008 7:00 AM


Doug,

What I've learned raising boys...oy!

They (you) also think that socks are like disposable diapers. You were them til someone complains about the smell, then throw them away and put on new ones.
Or worse yet, they don't throw them away, but roll them together, for or five of them, and play basketball with them, until they tire of that and stuff them in the nearest plant.

And don't start me on aiming when peeing!

Or how about stickin' dirty plates under the couch. And where are all my forks?????

And we think that all men want is sex...I got news for you ladies...they want FOOD! (Sex us good too)


Actually I think you can sum up mens needs with the five "S"s...

Suds
Sports (computer/video games falls under this for the unathletically inclined.)
Supper
Sex
Sleep

You are simple creatures.

Posted by: mk at June 10, 2008 9:00 AM


Or worse yet, they don't throw them (dirty, nasty, stanky socks) away, but roll them together, four or five of them, and play basketball with them, until they tire of that and stuff them in the nearest plant.

MK, you have a GIFT! You could put out your own "Erma Bombeck" type book.

"In the nearest plant" - LMAO


Actually I think you can sum up mens needs with the five "S"s...

Suds
Sports (computer/video games falls under this for the unathletically inclined.)
Supper
Sex
Sleep

Enough suds and you don't really need sports, supper, sex or sleep...

Or, enough suds and sleep is all you have.
......


You are simple creatures.

Women only need one thing - somebody to talk to.

Posted by: Doug at June 10, 2008 10:58 AM


Women only need one thing - somebody to talk to.

Doug, you got it!

Posted by: Janet at June 10, 2008 6:42 PM


Doug,

Women only need one thing - somebody to talk to.

Yes, and that's where it gets complicated...lol.

MK, you have a GIFT!

No, just 5 sons and a husband...for 27 years!

Many a time when I tell someone I have 5 sons, their response is God Bless You...I always respond...NNNNNOOOOOOOOO! I've been blessed enough! No more blessings! God Help Me, yes! God Bless Me...? NO Thank YOU!

Posted by: mk at June 10, 2008 8:37 PM


mk:8:37: Many a time when I tell someone I have 5 sons, their response is God Bless You...I always respond...NNNNNOOOOOOOOO! I've been blessed enough! No more blessings! God Help Me, yes! God Bless Me...? NO Thank YOU!

Lol!!!

Posted by: Janet at June 11, 2008 12:21 PM


Geez, I must surround myself with people who live outside traditional gender norms. I can't relate to most of those "differences." I think they're mostly social constructs.

Posted by: Edyt at June 11, 2008 2:27 PM


Edyt,

Maybe. But Doug understood it. And I'll best most men here would. Do you have any brothers? Ask your mom about the socks! lol

Posted by: mk at June 11, 2008 4:19 PM


Edyt, an old boy like me has seen a lot.

You are right if you're saying that any number of people of both sexes are outside the somewhat-humorous 'norms' that have been mentioned.

But still....

Posted by: Doug at June 11, 2008 7:34 PM


5 sons and a husband...for 27 years!

God Help Me, yes!


MK, have to laugh, that's pretty much what I thought after the "27 years" comment. 'God help you."

Posted by: Doug at June 11, 2008 7:37 PM


Back to Michelle Malkin - I'm an economic conservative and a social liberal, and as such I'm going to have many a disagreement with her.

However, if it comes to wearing a tinfoil hat, I could do it...


Posted by: Doug at June 11, 2008 7:45 PM


Doug,

However, if it comes to wearing a tinfoil hat, I could do it...

And you'd probably look very charming in one. Why do I get the feeling yours would have feathers and bells and whistles?

Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 6:49 AM


MK: Why do I get the feeling yours would have feathers and bells and whistles?

Because I reply to yllas....? "When in Rome..." ; )


I saw this one this morning:

Since the Che Guevara bikini has outraged conservative commentators on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Guevara's death, we though it only fair to create a Bill O'Reilly bikini (modeled by his occasional guest host Michelle Malkin, of course.



Posted by: Doug at June 12, 2008 8:09 AM


LOL! MK, you are too funny.

Yes, I have four brothers. One older, three younger. When I was younger people used to ask if they protected me. I was like "Hell no! I protect myself AND them!"

I've always been tomboyish like that. :)

Posted by: Edyt at June 12, 2008 1:48 PM


Edyt,

HAH! so you're the one in the family rolling up the socks?!?

Posted by: mk at June 12, 2008 6:26 PM


The abortion as birth control crowd are quite adept at sucking money out of the system (tax payers) as they are at sucking children from their mother's wombs.

Posted by: schratboy at August 5, 2008 1:31 PM