Millions of conservative women leading the battle to take back America
The Lord gives instructions.
The women who announce the good news are a large army.
~ Psalm 68:11
I attended Smart Girl Summit 2011 in St. Louis over the weekend and learned an interesting point to ponder.
I’ve attended a few local Tea Party rallies but haven’t been intimately involved in the movement. What I learned at the Summit is the Tea Party is chiefly, pardon the pun, run by women.
When googling the topic I saw this isn’t new news (here, here, here, for instance). Andrew Breitbart also spoke about it at the Summit, saying basically what he said on CBS News in May:
The recently debuted excellent Citizens United movie Fire from the Heartland was also shown at the Summit, only adding to this narrative. Its subtitle: “The Awakening of the Conservative Woman.” Here’s the trailer:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqmPm-AfGqg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Watch or buy the movie if you can. It’s quite inspiring.
I don’t mean to generalize. I know men are involved in the Tea Party movement, which is critical. But I think a combination of factors has led to the rise of conservative “mama grizzlies” to take back our country.
First, I think Breitbart had it right, albeit a little tactless, that men in the U.S. have been emasculated by feminists. They are no longer clear on their roles. They’ve become timid. A collective Deborah has had to step in.
Second, I think the maternal instinct that something was wrong with America, and that our children, homes, and future were in danger, reached a tipping point with Obamacare, which is what gave rise to the Tea Party. Sarah Palin’s entrance onto the US stage opened the door.
When you thus consider that the Tea Partiers pushing for Cut, Cap, and Balance have been predominantly women… that those Obama and Democrats are fighting on the taxing, spending, increased regulations, and illegal immigration fronts are predominantly women… that the Tea Partiers John McCain called “hobbits” are predominantly women… it changes one’s view of the situation.
For instance, this cartoon by liberal Steve Benson at GoComics.com becomes even more infuriating than before, considering now who those “brats” for the most part are (only 2 portrayed as girls, interestingly)…
The other side is fighting against millions of women cut from the same cloth as Palin, Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin – and yes, even Annie Oakley, as Breitbart said. We have the blood of the pioneer women coursing through our veins. I love that.
But the other side isn’t getting this phenomenon. They repeatedly portray Tea Partiers is idiot, male, hillbilly oafs. See the cartoon by Don Wright in this past weekend’s Sunday funnies, or this one by Jim Morin at GoComics.com…
Or the other side could be trying to ignore this phenomenon. Because the prospect is deadly to them. American women rising against the Democrat Party and by connection the liberal feminist movement? Unthinkable.
Where does this place the pro-life issue? I think in a very good spot. Although the Tea Party is primarily about government spending, it is also about social issues. To my knowledge, all Tea Partiers elected to Congress in 2010 were pro-life.
And I wonder if the abortion issue isn’t one of those disturbing maternal instinct rumblings being felt by the rising conservative woman… a danger to hearth and home that is also reaching a tipping point.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
go conservative gals you rock!!
First, I think Breitbart had it right, albeit a little tactless, that men in the U.S. have been emasculated by feminists. They are no longer clear on their roles. They’ve become timid. A collective Deborah has had to step in.
That’s pretty accurate, Jill. Many men need permission to be men at this point.
Yes, conservatives want to “take America back” alright – right back to the dark ages !
In fact, many are not even conservatives, but reactionaries of the worst kind . With freedom like
theirs, who needs tyranny ?
So true. One of the unintended consequences of the feminist movement was to do this….the feminization of the men. And what is so sad….women end up rejecting these very men.
What do you consider constitutes a ‘man’ Gerard, in a non-anatomical sense?
Reality,
There are certain questions that people ask, that in the very act of asking they betray either an ignorance or an arrogance that renders them either incapable of receiving or understanding the reply. Yours is such a question.
Defensive much Gerard?
I have my ideas as to what makes a ‘man’. No ignorance. A position.
I am interested in what ideas you have as to what makes a ‘man’. I’m sure I’d be able to grasp what you impart.
Of course we may well have differences. That doesn’t infer arrogance, by anyone. We may even agree on some aspects.
Fine. You go first.
Fine, I have confidence I can justify my position.
I think a man should be considerate without being condescending.
Helpful without being controlling.
Self-confident without being overly assertive.
Just a start.
Someone is going to have to explain to me what “take us back to the dark ages” means.
This is such an interesting post. It is quite inspiring. It is amazing what women can accomplish for good! For the Christian woman, we should start with prayer, be constrained by truth and love, and be motivated by an expectation of GREAT things we can accomplish – beyond anything we could ever ask for or imagine!
Slight correction, Jill.
“…reached a tipping point with Obamacare, which is what gave rise to the Tea Party.”
What gave rise to the tea party was Rick Santelli’s rant on CNBC on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. He had a problem with Obama’s mortgage plan. As did the rest of us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k
Money quote:
We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m gonna start organizing.
The rest, as they say…
Reality,
So far, so good. I’m with you.
Support conservatives. Our nation cannot prosper when half of its citizens think they are entitled to being provided for by the other half. The government’s job is to protect us from enemies, not provide us with healthcare. If you need charity, look to the churches – not the government. Furthermore, everyone above the age 18 years should pay taxes – even if it is only 1%. It’s called “having skin in the game” – some sacrifice to make one appreciate what one has. The US government must make its expenditures line up with current revenues, not exceed them. It’s called budgetting and it’s what responsible adults do. The older I get and the more I read about President Obama and the Democrats’ concept of compromise and balance (“Do things our way and shut up”), the more sympathetic I become to the TEA party movement.
See, I told you we may agree on some aspects. Your turn Gerard.
Men, women, does it really matter who is in charge of a failed faux populist political movement? The “Tea Party” is an anachronism whose members just don’t realize it yet. Its inability to meaningfully influence the outcome of the debt ceiling debate is proof of this. Just spend a few minutes reading posts at the loony bin known as RedState.com to see how optimistic the most vocal “Tea Party” supporters are about their successes (or lack thereof). Even the true believers have to see the writing on the wall at some point.
“If you need charity, look to the churches – not the government.”
Churches are experiencing severe budgetary crisis and have little money to spare. The Catholic church in my state is closing down schools and selling property in order to pay for the limited services that they provide. And they are the “richest” denomination. Others are experiencing the same problem.
But beyond that reality, there’s the “pro-life” angle. While you, as a pro-lifer, would mandate that women carry a pregnancy to term or risk die in an illegal or self-induced abortion, you would deny “charity” to mothers who give birth. There is no way that churches can provide the kind of assistance that time limited TANF does. In your world, unemployed new moms (and dads), without a support system wouldn’t have access to WIC, a monthly monetary allottment without which they would be homeless, food stamps, and most importantly medical assistance.
How pro-life is that? At least the Catholic church is consistent with its pro-life position and its active support for the taxpayer funded social safety net.
And BTW, if you have health insurance, you’re paying for the health care of those who don’t have it and end up in emergency rooms. Our country is one of only a few westernized democracies that doesn’t provide universal access to health care and that’s why we lag behind some third world countries in health care outcomes. We have a greater disparity of wealth than Ivory Coast,Ethiopia, and Pakistan.
But let em eat cake – or die in the streets. Right, pro-life Barb!?
joan said: The “Tea Party” is an anachronism whose members just don’t realize it yet.
Joan – Saddam Hussein called from hell – he said you’ll do fine filling in for Bagdad Bob.
Where does it say that women are always God’s second choice?
Where does it say that men are always God’s first choice?
Just git er done gals! and guys!
[And I have my wife’s permission to say so.]
(The ‘man’s prayer’ from the ‘Red Green Show’: “I’m a man,…. but I can change,….if I have to,………….I guess.)]
I have chosen to sport a beard for the last 30 years because I have discovered it is one of the few things a man has that a woman does not want. [Chaz Bono excepted of course.]
joan, 12:03am
If the Abolitionists had your mentality, black people would still be in chains.
Check out history and you will find that all great political and social justice movements, including the Abolitionists, had decades of struggle, setbacks, successes, disappointments, and failures.
Thankfully they didn’t snivel,whine and throw their hands up in despair every time things didn’t go exactly as they had wanted. They persisted, they tried again…and again.
So joan, knowing your concern, the Tea Party is only getting warmed up. Like the Abolitionist and Civil Rights movements, we anticipate a long struggle.
“For instance, this cartoon by liberal Steve Benson at GoComics.com becomes even more infuriating than before, considering now who those “brats” for the most part are (only 2 portrayed as girls, interestingly)…”
[Women in general do not tend to whine as much as ’emasuclated males’.]
There are zero ethnic minorities represented from either gender.
That speaks more about the progressive’s bigotted view of conservatives than it does of the constituency of the Tea Party crowd.
I will add a little anecdotal evidence to the arguement that the ‘behinds’, that are the ‘movers and shakers,’ in the Tea Party belong to women [pun intended]. My sister, auntie/granny/doctor Mary is more involved in local Tea Party acivities than all the rest of my siblings combined.
She used to be a feminista, until she did a little research and found out just who the feminazis’ are and what they represent. [Concurrent with that revelation was a much greater one. Jesus is LORD of lords, KING of kings and friend to sinners. A renewed mind is a wonder to behold.]
How many women have you heard of that were ‘born again’/received Jesus/saved/converted and then soon after joined NO[SL]W, National Organizatgion of [Some Liberal] Women.
Only a liberal/progressive/humanist mind could contort itself enough to accomodate a tent that large. The angry Eve shakes her fist at GOD.
“How many women have you heard of that were ‘born again’/received Jesus/saved/converted and then soon after joined NO[SL]W, National Organizatgion of [Some Liberal] Women”
There are many liberal femininists who are members of faith communities – but obviously not the “born again” community of which you are a member. Some are actually Catholic nuns, Protestants priests/ministers, and Jewish rabbis.
BTW, you just couldn’t resist another homophobic dig about Chaz Bono. Sounds like you could be a member of the “God Hates Fags” church.
I’m not a tea partier myself, but I love watching the movement. Anything that gets our abortion advocates all riled up can’t be too bad, lol!
Sadly, a lot of our men are large little boys, and we women have put up with it for a whole generation and now I watch a second generation of young people. Western adolescence got longer and longer. How unusual is it for a 30 year old to still be finding out what he or she wants to do?
“And I wonder if the abortion issue isn’t one of those disturbing maternal instinct rumblings being felt by the rising conservative woman… a danger to hearth and home that is also reaching a tipping point”
The right wing zealotry of conservative women has galvanized the pro-choice movement. We here, some of us are “queer,” so get used to us. We’re not going away.
And Ann Coulter as a pro-life hero? Seriously? You do recall that she “joked” about poisoning SCOTUS Judge Stevens and carpet bombing Islamic countries and forcibly converting the survivors. How pro-life is that?
We aren’t going away either, CC.
Distant thunder.
The proabortion movement is far from “galvanized!” They are lamenting and wringing their hands.
The sea of young faces at this year’s annual “March for Life” in Washington prompted NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan to worry: “There are so many of them, and they are so young.”
THAT is the future of the prolife movement!!
I just wish that those with politically liberal opinions would embrace pro-life and pro-family positions. Then we could have genuine discussions about strategies on lesser things, like economics and the environment. Liberals didn’t used to think that problems could be solved by killing children.
Ann Coulter is a pro-life hero….. Even if her jokes are as crude as those of many liberal commentators. If pro-lifers behaved like pro-choicers, there would be an army of Ann Coulters in your face.
At least then the press would notice the March For Life.
@Reality: I think a man should be considerate without being condescending.
Helpful without being controlling.
Self-confident without being overly assertive.
Why this sounds like The Finest Man of All Time, Alive or Dead and my future husband — DENZEL!
Yes, I know he’s married and unavailable, but a gal can dream, can’t she? :-)
While you, as a pro-lifer, would mandate that women carry a pregnancy to term or risk die in an illegal or self-induced abortion
Healthy pregnancies will naturally carry to term. No mandating necessary.
And so far, I haven’t seen any laws mandating that women go out and procure their own do-it-yourself abortion supplies.
BTW, didn’t you have a “self-induced abortion,” CC?
CC: “Churches are experiencing severe budgetary crisis and have little money to spare. The Catholic church in my state is closing down schools and selling property in order to pay for the limited services that they provide. And they are the “richest” denomination. Others are experiencing the same problem. ”
Yes, statism has been remarkably successful in destroying mediating institutions, leaving the individual naked before it. Idiotically, many of the State’s citizens call for the very conditions that deprive them of alternatives to the almighty state.
This is good news!
You go girls!
Well, I was reasonable until a strong Democrat said his strategy was to (1) stop paying military salaries (2) stop social security checks (3) fire all air traffic controllers (4) shut down the internet- a darpa project and (5) call all farm loans. To balance the budget. And when people get upset about that- then say ” What- you wanted the budget balanced! I did!” Anyone, anyone, anyone who thinks this way needs to not be near a source of power. I became a tea party person on that day.
Just because news anchors don’t know housewives and mothers doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And they do have time to talk to each other. and their husbands, and sisters and brothers and friends. And, they have time to be quiet and mull over positions. And, they have practice running a small government- their own children. They can see what fair and decent looks like.
And, well, they have husbands. And they want their husbands to do well, and their daughters to marry well. A doubtful, frightened metrosexual cannot provide a good life for grandchildren.
Well, I was reasonable until a strong Democrat said his strategy was to (1) stop paying military salaries (2) stop social security checks (3) fire all air traffic controllers (4) shut down the internet- a darpa project and (5) call all farm loans.
I don’t think this was a “strong Democrat” you were talking to… I think it was a nutbag. I’ve never met a single Democrat that advocated for these cuts to balance the budget and I’ve met A LOT of Democrats.
Also, feminism doesn’t “emasculate men” but nice try, Jill Stanek and commenters. Just goes to show how little all of you know about the feminist movement.
BTW, didn’t you have a “self-induced abortion,” CC?
Perhaps. It could have been an unusual two week period. It was done shortly after one late period. If it was self induced, I was lucky. Many others who tried things, later in the pregnancy, didn’t fare too well – thinks like douching with the acne medication Pyso-hex. Now that the pro-life movement is trying to make abortion scarece, this will still occur. Obviously, this isn’t a concern for those who are pro-life. Just “collateral damage,” right?
And for a very accurate depiction of a self-induced second term abortion, read “Revolutionary Road.” It was written in the 50’s, the ”good old days” of illegal abortion.
Hey derrr,
Do tell. Please educate us imbeciles all about the feminist movement.
Ready, set, go.
Derrr: Ya sound like a legacy feminist pining for the good ol’ days when there seemed (to some naifs too giddy to look more closely) to be only one brand on the shelf. Must be rough to face a diversity of feminists who can’t be herded like sheep any more, eh?
As for emasculation, it’s ridiculously evident when some pro-choice women try to disenfranchize men by berating them for presuming to speak among women about abortion. You can tell the emasculated men because they’re toadies, quick to call out a “yeah, that’s right!”
“THAT is the future of the prolife movement!”
Ah yes, I can remember the “purity” pledges made by the Sodality girls at my Catholic high school. They had such fresh faced Christian zeal. But when they finally encountered the world outside the bubble (i.e. boyfriends and sex with boyfriends) their zealotry waned. I wonder if the anti-choice zealotry of these young women will fade when they face an unplanned pregnancy and an absent boyfriend. Life is easy when it’s just black and white. As one ages, there are more varying shades of gray.
While the pro-choice marchers are less numerous, there are many young pro-choice women especially those in secular colleges in liberal areas of the country. Many of the PP clinic escorts, in Providence, are from Brown University – a top Ivy school. And while you hope that we’re just wringing our hands, what we’re doing is fund raising and lobbying.
And funny, some years back, it was common knowledge that one of the anti-choice protesters, at PP, secured an abortion for her daughter because the dear girl just wasn’t ready for a baby. We escorted her through the back door as a consideration to her mother who, apart from the anti-choice activity, was a decent enough person.
All this talk of emasculation suggests that pro-life men are just dripping with testosterone – which, based on my observations of the male protesters, isn’t exactly the case. But it’s interesting as it also suggests that pro-life men equate masculinity with the ability to make those babies that their subservient women will be so happy to bear. It’s all so old school patriarchal and the patriarchy is about controlling women. Denying women their reproductive freedom is the ultimate control.
And FYI guys, we pro-choice gals have frequent discussions about whether one can be a feminist and pro-life. I’ve seen good arguments for both sides of the coin.
Mentally ill women will usually find ways of inflicting harm on themselves using anything available. Self injurious behavior is nothing new and needs to be treated immediately.
“What I learned at the Summit is the Tea Party is chiefly, pardon the pun, run by women”
Women? or Mothers?
Mothers care about the future for the sake of their kids. Women with no kids, less so.
“Mentally ill women will usually find ways of inflicting harm on themselves using anything available”
So without having a clinical diagnosis of these women, you claim that they are mentally ill? The desparation of an unwanted pregnancy drove many sane women to desparate measures. I was there. Are you old enough to remember what life was like pre-Roe. Did the women in your family ever talk about it?
carder,
Actually, the Tea Party Movement started a few weeks before Santelli. In one of the Carolinas, I believe. Michael Graham’s recent book is one of the few places that notes that.
Mothers care about the future for the sake of their kids. Women with no kids, less so.
So the childless Ann Coulter is in the “less so” category? How bout nuns and those committed to a holy, single life.
Actually, the Tea Party Movement started a few weeks before Santelli.
Funny how during the Bush years, we had a terrible economy and there were no tea partiers. But as soon as a black Democrat entered the White House, things changed. Interesting…I wonder if there would have been a tea party if McCain won?
I wonder if the anti-choice zealotry of these young women will fade when they face an unplanned pregnancy and an absent boyfriend.
Nope. Doesn’t fade. Even when you’re pregnant and wondering wt- you’re going to do, crying yourself to sleep at night. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Only, my boyfriend wasn’t absent. He was there pressuring me to abort, because abortion is so TOTALLY GIRL-POWERED, AMIRITE?! Abortion isn’t empowering. It makes us a slave to men who use us for sex.
Yes, conservatives want to “take America back” alright (sic) – right back to the d(D)ark a(A)ges!
Robert,
Holding your government accountable is “Dark Ages” mentality? More freedom for people is like tyranny? You’ve got them exactly pegged. Except you’re trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
why do people detest coulter and Palin haha even my liberal pal loves Palin and. whipped. out a pair of Palin glasses and we remarked how cute she looked -just like Sara’s. twin. she was tickled!
“why do people detest coulter”
I realize that I probably don’t ”get” pro-life humor but I fail to see the humor in comments about poisoning a SCOTUS judge and fire-bombing Islamic countries. She’s also made some nasty comments about single moms which isn’t very pro-life either.
As far as Palin, I find her anti-sex education stance rather silly considering that her daughter got abstinence education and we all know what happenned afterwards…I don’t hate her. I think she’s strange and rather amusing, in that sense.
Yep, after 2 1/2 years of “reasonable” Democrats running the government, I am ready to sign on to the TEA party. If that means becoming a Republican – so be it. The Catholic Church should forget about cozying up to the government and focus on her mission of bringing Christ to people and serving them as Jesus served. And yes, it should speak out on the moral issues of the day (after all, it is a Church). Jesus did not expect anything from the government and received only injustice from it – His followers cannot expect better than He got.
CC: I’m a pro-life man in part because I figure if I create something, I’m responsible for it. This general commitment long ago congealed in my mind as an existential consequence (in part) of observing [some] men laughing off how many children they’d left with how many lovers. I came by my pro-life views — in part — by way of realizing that this trivialization of one’s own offspring was something I would strongly deny for the rest of my life, asserting instead the complete responsibility a man has for his children.
“All this talk of emasculation suggests that pro-life men are just dripping with testosterone…”
Would that be some kind of autobiographical disclosure? Inasmuch as nothing in this thread rationally compels such an inference? No, of course not. It’s just effete rhetorical gamesmanship.
“But it’s interesting as it also suggests that pro-life men equate masculinity with the ability to make those babies that their subservient women will be so happy to bear. It’s all so old school patriarchal and the patriarchy is about controlling women. Denying women their reproductive freedom is the ultimate control.”
Unimaginative trolling boilerplate.
I advocate self-control. That goes for men and women. The chief problem we face is not a lack of masculine or feminine qualities, though there’s that too. The main problem is a lack of merely human qualities.
Meanwhile, you’re showcasing what I cited — an attempt to disenfranchize men by, I guess, making them feel ashamed to assert their pro-life views lest their advocacy be cast as misogyny.
I guess it works on some “men.”
CC: “As far as Palin, I find her anti-sex education stance rather silly considering that her daughter got abstinence education and we all know what happenned afterwards…”
Right. I’ve never figured out why anyone would be against drunk driving, either, in the case that their own kid might have been convicted of it. It’s so stupid, isn’t it CC?
But seriously, are you suggesting that it would be less silly (and therefore salutary) were it the case that Palin’s policy positions better reflected her personal life experiences?
Care to answer that question generally?
Meanwhile, you’re showcasing what I cited — an attempt to disenfranchize men by, I guess, making them feel ashamed to assert their pro-life views lest their advocacy be cast as misogyny.
I believe you’re looking at “old school feminism” right there.
CC,
ANY woman who shoves a coat hanger into herself has more “issues” than pregnancy. Anyone who self injures needs psychiatric care.
Or are they empowered????? HMMMMMMMMM.
I wonder if there would have been a tea party if McCain won?
I suppose that would depend on the policies that McCain enacted.
More attempted force-feeding of racist and/or anti-Semitic comments from you, CC? Surprise, surprise.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Why would any woman want to have the child of a sleazy lowlife who would coerce them into an abortion?
Or are they empowered????? HMMMMMMMMM
Doesn’t matter. What matters is that is what life was like pre-Roe. If abortion had been legal, I would have gladly marched on down to Planned Parenthood and felt supremely empowered after the fact!
Kel: There’s a huge repository of “They told me if I voted for John McCain…” stuff out there — attributable largely to Glenn Reynolds (I’ll narrow the Google to his items):
http://goo.gl/Wbcl6
Bush drove the car of spending too fast. As for Obama, he got behind the wheel, smiled knowingly, reached for a switch we’d never seen before, and flipped it. Only then did we notice that the damn car had a rocket motor concealed in the trunk. Oh it got us out of the ditch alright, no question about that. But taking us exoatmospheric was a peril few of us could have imagined a car would face…
Why would any woman want to have the child of a sleazy lowlife who would coerce them into an abortion?
Ooh, and eugenics as defense of abortion! I think I just got a BINGO.
CC: “I would have gladly marched on down to Planned Parenthood and felt supremely empowered after the fact! ”
Yeah, ’cause feminism is all about power. Power over the unborn parasites who have the nerve to presume upon your compassion.
“We look forward to the time when the power of love will replace the love of power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.”
– William Ewert Gladstone
Whoops! I’m quoting a man. Sorry CC. And his implication is that your kind of thinking is staving off the blessings of peace. So he obviously sucks. Right?
Alice: Right? Some serious transferrence there. Texbook.
CC says:
Why would any woman want to have the child of a sleazy lowlife who would coerce them into an abortion?
What, you don’t like the choice xalisae made? So much for those that say pro-choice isn’t pro-abortion.
Many of the PP clinic escorts, in Providence, are from Brown University – a top Ivy school
Many of the clinic protestors in West Philly are from the University of Pennsylvania, also a top Ivy League school. In fact, they were out protesting Gosnell’s house of horrors even before his criminal misdeeds came to light.
Oh, my. On the one hand, I’d like to issue my standard “Don’t feed the trolls [cf. CC]” warning; on the other hand, the current replies from rasqual, Alice, et al., are so enjoyable that the words catch in my throat, and I’m tempted simply to enjoy some popcorn and watch. What to do, what to do…? :)
Lrning: What’s interesting is that CC’s use of a rhetorical question just there “suggests” (that’s the word whereby, I think, anything we want to spout can now be asserted as a valid implication) her incapacity to imagine a contrary — that there might be good reasons.
Apparently, caring about that particular unborn life as a potential reason just does not compute for CC. Worse, that a mother may wish to bear the child because it is hers as well does not compute for CC. For CC, evil wins — that a child is “a sleazy lowlife’s” is more properly determining of its fate than that it happens, also, to be the mother’s.
Apparently, tranferrence only works with hate, not love. We’re obliged to let sleazy lowlifes define the big metaphysical value questions for us. It’s kind of like this: if you’re raped physically, you’re obliged to also be raped noetically. That’s the only way you can justify further rape of the womb by stainless steel and suction.
Isn’t that about right, CC?
Why would any woman want to have the child of a sleazy lowlife who would coerce them into an abortion?
Because she never did that to me. HE did. She’s a sweet little brilliant, loving girl. She’s not her father, and shouldn’t be killed just because HE’S an @$$. Is that why you (tried to) kill(ed) your child? You couldn’t separate their dad from them? I’m sorry you have such a bad hang-up.
“Because she never did that to me. HE did. She’s a sweet little brilliant, loving girl. She’s not her father, and shouldn’t be killed just because HE’S an @$$”
Your choice. Too bad you won’t give other women the same option.
What, you don’t like the choice xalisae made? So much for those that say pro-choice isn’t pro-abortion
If you read my statement, carefully, you’ll see that I don’t make a value judgement. I merely questioned why women would bear the child of somebody who is an abuser (and coercion is abuse). She answered my question and I respect her choice as that is the operative thing here.
And Rasqual – noetically speaking, you’re not anywhere near as impressive as you imagine yourself to be.
Your choice. Too bad you won’t give other women the same option.
No, she’s not just a choice. She never was. Too bad you can devalue others to the point that their lives are nothing more than someone else’s personal preference-even your own child.
CC: “And Rasqual – noetically speaking, you’re not anywhere near as impressive as you imagine yourself to be.”
Inferring how impressive strangers imagine they are is itself (noetically speaking) pretty impressive.
I certainly know my cognitive gifts do not include divination of that order.
Why would any woman want to have the child of a sleazy lowlife who would coerce them into an abortion?
And wow…I’m sorry, but it’s just proving hard for me to wrap my head around this one. Talk about misplaced anger…Did your mom do that to you, CC? This is extreme child abuse, any way you slice it. Whether you allow your child to live and treat them like crap because their dads were worthless, or if you kill them in an abortion because their dads were worthless.
“If you read my statement, carefully, you’ll see that I don’t make a value judgement.”
Bhahahahahaha! I smell an attempt to back-pedal.
i had 2 kids with a creep and one is earning straight a s in college and he wants to be a doctor our daughter is on her way to osu
[Whoops! I posted this on the wrong thread; my apologies!]
Robert Berger says: August 1, 2011 at 7:14 pm
…reactionaries of the worst kind”..
===============================================================
Bergerman,
‘reactionaries’ !?!?
Wow!
I thought you Marxist’s were pretty much extinct
or
are you some kind evoutionary missing link to the ‘future new man?
Are you a card carrying member of the American Communist Party, a fellow traveler or a just one of the ‘usefull idiots’?
Must get real lonely unless you live somewhere on the ‘left coast’.
CC says:
August 2, 2011 at 9:34 am
1. There are many liberal femininists who are members of faith communities – but obviously not the “born again” community of which you are a member.
2. Some are actually Catholic nuns, Protestants priests/ministers, and Jewish rabbis.
3. BTW, you just couldn’t resist another homophobic dig about Chaz Bono.
===========================================================
3. Point of correction: Chaz, formerly self identified as a female homsexual. She is now a female who wants to be a male and as such might want to sport a beard. [I am a flaming male heterosexual who does appreciate the way GOD made women and my flaming hot heterosexual trophy wife likes the way he made men. She does like a beard….on men.]
2. And not a few Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, pagans, new agers, Voodoo worshippers, and sectarian humanists I am sure many,in not most, of whom are female homosexuals, way out proportion to the population at large and all of whom are liberal/progressives.
1. Your ignorance is stunning, but you cannot know what you do not know and especially what you do not know that you do not know. There is a vast difference between an adherent of a religon or a member of a religious order and knowing GOD.
CC says: August 2, 2011 at 6:39 am
“Churches are experiencing severe budgetary crisis and have little money to spare.”
=============================================================
501c3 organizations are experiencing a loss in donations, because most americans have less to donate, not the least of the reasons being the socialists among us use the goverment to steal our wealth, then waste most of it on a bloated bureacracy used to redistribute to others based not on need but on eligibility.
But even with that being said the private sector, which includes religious organizations is still much more effective and efficient at meeting the needs.
You worship at the altar of the humanist state which creates nothing, produces nothing and gives ‘life’ to no one. It give can only re-distribute that which it confiscates from the one(s) who produced it.
The kingdom of GOD and the body of Christ are not limited by what we can do, we are only limited by what we can believe GOD to do.
I pray you do not reap as you have sown, but the LORD of the havest only allows an increase of the good seed in your life.
CC says: August 2, 2011 at 6:29 pm
“I merely questioned why women would bear the child of somebody who is an abuser (and coercion is abuse).”
==============================================================
No value judgement there. Right!?!?
Try this on for size:
“I merely question why your mother would bear a child who is as abusive as you.”
No value judgement there, about you or your mother, right?
CC says: August 2, 2011 at 9:41 am
“We here, some of us [dmocrats/liberals/progressives/humnists] are“queer,” so get used to us”
=============================================================
Well, Harold Camping may have been right, “the end of the world may be near’:
CC and I agree on something.
Truth comes hard to democrats/liberals/progressives/humanists.
Most of you are ‘queer’ as in ‘odd’, ‘out of the ordinary’, ‘strange’ and many, perhaps most, certainly out of proportion to the geneal population, of you are are gender challenged.
My blood type is O- , does that make me ‘queer’ too ken? Am I a genetic ‘defect’?
I think males are becoming unnecessary and will eventually disappear all together. Women can already procreate without men or male sperm. Sperm can now be made from female bone marrow allowing women to actually procreate without any male genes at all. Also speaking from an anatomy standpoint women live longer and have a higher tolerance for pain.
Men are a mutation in the first place, all fetuses start out as female “that’s why we have nipples guys” and then mutate when the Y chromosome is activated. Eventually I think this mutation will no longer be necessary or even desirable. Most of the true evils in this world were created by men, not women.
Just food for thought…
Why would any woman want to have the child of a sleazy lowlife who would coerce them into an abortion?
Punishing the child for the sins of the father is the mentality of an ignorant and not-too-enlightened culture. For that matter, so is sleeping with a sleazy lowlife.
Biggz: “Most of the true evils in this world were created by men, not women. Just food for thought…”
LOL
Trolling lamer.
Who created the men? ;-)
Reality: Does it keep you from passing on your genes? Is it an impediment to survival?
Actually different blood types can have negative impacts on reproductive outcomes.
rasqual, survival of a species does not always hinge on unfettered reproduction.
Sometimes resource availability induces reduced reproductive capacity within a species.
Therefore, not being able to reproduce is not always an impediment to survival.
Reality, it’s unfathomable that you’re failing to comprehend the point about Darwinian defects. If you don’t pass along your genes, your individual “survival” (until you die) is utterly moot from a Darwinian standpoint.
Do you really need to be schooled by a lame-ass Christianist like me?
The day you can school me is the day I don robes rasqual :-)
Survival of a species is about the species, not individuals. Nature or evolution don’t care if I die, they care whether humanity dies. Or groups of humanity with differentiations.
Would I care if I were to die without passing along my individually specific genes? Well firstly, since I don’t produce clones, it’s not my specific genetic makeup. Secondly (just for the heck of it), because my offspring are mixed replicas of my co-parent and I, to an extent; I don’t know if I would care as I’m not in that situation.
There are plenty of other O-, red-headed, green eyed, gay, whatever, people in our basket of humanity for those traits to continue without me breeding. (I’m not personally red-headed or green eyed)
In regard to homosexuality, it doesn’t take a homosexual parent or parents for a homosexual to be born. So even though gays can’t reproduce (leaving aside modern and future scientific endeavors), that won’t cause homosexuality to be lost from the gene pool.
Good grief, Reality, you really are science-as-religion type. You tipped your hat elsewhere saying it’s “either God or science,” and here you’re anthropomorphizing nature by saying that “it care[s] whether humanity dies.”
No, it doesn’t. Nature couldn’t care less. Evolution couldn’t care less. “Evolution” is an abstract term we apply to describe an impersonal process that relies entirely on what genes do when individuals reproduce. The aggregate effect of mutations and selection is the perpetuation of what we call species — but you’re simply not permitted to speak as if there’s a telos to the whole thing. You’re not entitled to do so — unless, of course, you’re religious about your science.
How do you KNOW homosexuality won’t be lost from our gene pool, Reality? If it’s genetic, there’s always that potential. It’s irrational and unscientific of you to prognosticate thus. You have no warrant for the claim — none that you’ve surfaced, at any rate. It’s an utterly gratuitous assertion. From someone who claims to champion a scientific epistemology.
So as I say, why must us Christianists school you secularists on science, of all things?
(Impatient drumming of fingers). Look, I’ll be really pedestrian here. Homosexuals can’t reproduce. That means they don’t pass along their genes, right? Now where do you come off talking as if passing along their homosexuality were the only germane thing, from a Darwinian standpoint? It’s NOT. Not in the least. Gays are as likely as anyone else, a naive assumption would have it, to showcase mutations potentially a better fit for a subsequent generation. But they cannot pass these along. Who CARES whether they can pass on some gene for homosexuality, or not? Their homosexuality ensures that their own genetic variation is not iterated in subsequent generations. Their homosexuality is a Darwinian defect not because they don’t pass along their homosexuality — it’s a defect because they don’t pass along ANYTHING. They’re not in the game. They have no place at the Darwinian table. They’re wallflowers in the dance of generations. They’re cul-de-sacs. They’re dead ends for their line. “All gays, get off the train here. It goes no further for your genes.”
at the time of conception of my kids I’m sure many people. would. be in favor of me. aborting them. i lived with domestic violence
but i refused to. kill. my kids. they are here. for a reason
Yes, conservatives WILL take America back to the dark ages if they get the power they seek.Freedom?Where is there freedom when the government tells all pregnant women that they must give birth if pregnant or else? Even if they are far too poor to provide for their children, born or unborn, or a pregnancy would kill them or ruin their health? This is freedom?
How can there be freedom in America if the government is going to be policing women’s wombs? And how will the government enforce the law if it declares that no woman may have an abortion,now matter what the adverse circumstances? How will the government keep track of every pregnant woman to make sure she is not going to seek and obtain an abortion?
The U.S. government will have to create a police state similar to Orwell”s 1984, with big brother keeping the whole nation under constant surveillance.. And women will still find a way to have abortions. And these conservatives also expect women not to have abortions after they greatly reduce or eliminate the kind of government financial help which would have prevented those poor women from having abortions in the first place !
Conservatives talk about the need for “limited” government, yet they want unlimited power for the government to be free to pry into our private lives and bedrooms ! Some nerve ! Many also want the government to persecute gay people, and they still call for “freedom” and “limited” government ! As I said previously here, with “freedom” l like this, who needs tyranny ?
Mr. Berger:
Please entertain the possibility that your thinking is anti-God, anti-Biblical and anti-Jesus Christ and being so you are an enemy of the very entity that controls your destiny.
If indeed the God of the Bible is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, you are on the wrong side.
If truth is not absolute, all of our lives are meaningless and without purpose. We live a few years on this planet and the good or evil we do is ultimately of no consequence and, after all the eons of time have passed, the fruits of a Mother Theresa’s life are no different from the life of Adolf Hitler.
I for one believe that our good or bad choices and actions, based on an absolute truth, have eternal consequences…..it only makes sense. Hence, each of us is required to ame a “choice” on who we will believe.
If however, Jesus Christ is who he says he is, it is we as indivuduals who need to change, not “they”, whoever “they” are and this change in accordance with His will, not ours.
I urge you to open your mind to absolute truth.
Where is there freedom when the government tells all pregnant women that they must give birth if pregnant or else? Even if they are far too poor to provide for their children, born or unborn, or a pregnancy would kill them or ruin their health? This is freedom?
The day the government forces them to have sex and get pregnant, you’ll have a point about freedom. The government already restricts your freedom to murder (We are very oppressed, it’s true).
The U.S. government will have to create a police state similar to Orwell”s 1984, with big brother keeping the whole nation under constant surveillance..And women will still find a way to have abortions.
Like we do to catch other criminals? It can’t be illegal until no one can commit the crime without being caught? Last time I checked there is no illegal act that people don’t engage in.
And these conservatives also expect women not to have abortions after they greatly reduce or eliminate the kind of government financial help which would have prevented those poor women from having abortions in the first place !
Do tell what kind of government help you need to enable you not have sex with someone or to not kill the life that results if you do choose to engage in the “reproductive” act (what a strange term)..
Rasqual, I am fascinated by your increasingly regular opening gambit of declaring that my responses don’t meet some self-validated scientific paradigm of your creation. It smacks more of defense than response.
You don’t consider the functioning of nature and evolution to be elements of science?
“The aggregate effect of mutations and selection is the perpetuation of what we call species” – yes, and that is what I’ve said.
“you’re simply not permitted to speak as if there’s a telos to the whole thing” – really? The strive to survive isn’t what evolution is working towards? That’s not what you said above.
“How do you KNOW homosexuality won’t be lost from our gene pool” – that’s not what I said. I said ‘So even though gays can’t reproduce … that won’t cause homosexuality to be lost from the gene pool’ The likelihood of the disappearance of homosexuality is probably about on par with the disappearance of red hair.
“So as I say, why must us Christianists school you secularists on science, of all things?” – that is an oxymoronic statement.
“where do you come off talking as if passing along their homosexuality were the only germane thing, from a Darwinian standpoint? It’s NOT. Not in the least.” – I didn’t say it was.
Yes, you are being very pedestrian. Yet at the same time you dance around the maypole to distract via your creative narrative.
the problem is that too many people. do not trust God when. facing an unplanned pregnancy
even if. you. are having problems with and0the child’s father. there. are recourses out there to help you and it. may be a bumpy ride but you should never ever kill your kids. ask the good lord to be their father
Reality: “Rasqual, I am fascinated by your increasingly regular opening gambit of declaring that my responses don’t meet some self-validated scientific paradigm of your creation. It smacks more of defense than response.”
Your understanding of the conversation’s “meta” is no better than of its substance. And “self-validated scientific paradigm of your creation” is just obfuscatory yammering.
“You don’t consider the functioning of nature and evolution to be elements of science?”
Science is a way of knowing. Nature is what science works to know. How can “the functioning of” real-world ‘stuff’ be an “element of” the way of knowing it? The way you talk is–seriously–not only not right, it’s not even wrong. It’s just sideways.
“‘you’re simply not permitted to speak as if there’s a telos to the whole thing’ – really? The strive to survive isn’t what evolution is working towards? That’s not what you said above.”
Good GRIEF, Reality. Evolution isn’t a thing. It’s blind. It’s mindless. It’s an abstract description we give to what happens over time. In any discrete instant, no evolution is even occuring. We can speak of it because our minds understand how changes stack up (which we call “time”). “It” (evolution) is not a thing in the universe. “It” doesn’t “work toward” anything. And even if you insist on anthropomorphizing everything, it’s as “true” to say that it strives to kill and extinguish species. Species are what they are because what we call evolution is a killing machine.
But species aren’t “working towards” either, to answer a further question you didn’t ask. Mutations aren’t effort. They’re not telic. They’re mindless too. And dogs don’t diligently strive to ensure that the next generation possesses some variation, their mettle to throw against the cosmos. They just hump and breed, blissfully unaware of “evolution.”
“’where do you come off talking as if passing along their homosexuality were the only germane thing, from a Darwinian standpoint? It’s NOT. Not in the least.’ – I didn’t say it was.”
Then why would you focus on that, when it’s not in the least the point? To avoid the obvious truth that homosexuality is a Darwinian defect because homosexuals don’t pass along their genes? For someone who yammers as if literacy about evolution were one of her solid credentials, you’ve broached complete FAILS by imagining that being a redhead (they pass along their genes, generally) is no different than being gay (they generally don’t) — precisely when the point in question is evolution (which depends on passing along ones genes). And as I’ve posed, I’m suspecting you do so because of political correctness (it’s not nice to speak of gays as defective! that’s homophobic!). Muddling your science with your social concerns is subordinating a way of knowing to a way of worrying.
Your language about science is religious/anthropomorphic. You conflate the object of science’s interest with the subject that uses science to know. Frankly, I think you vest science with your own latent numinous sensibilities. You don’t know what to do with ’em, so you unself-consciously park ’em amid secular commitments as if were the most natural thing in the world. But it’s not. You’re simply not entitled to anthropomorphize an impersonal universe the way you’re doing so.
“Evolution isn’t a thing. It’s blind. It’s mindless. It’s an abstract description we give to what happens over time.” – thank you, you finally get it!
“In any discrete instant, no evolution is even occuring.” – when then? The previous one? The next one? How large is this ‘instant’?
“It” doesn’t “work toward” anything”- no? What does it do then??
“a Darwinian defect because homosexuals don’t pass along their genes?” – you haven’t quite grasped the whole Darwinian/evolution concept yet have you?
“Your language about science is religious/anthropomorphic” – I think you’ve been reading too much Cornelius Hunter rasqual.
Reality:
It’s hard not to give up on you. Really.
“ ‘Evolution isn’t a thing. It’s blind. It’s mindless. It’s an abstract description we give to what happens over time.’ – thank you, you finally get it!”
But then this:
”It’ doesn’t ‘work toward’ anything’- no? What does it do then??”
So one moment you seem to agree that it’s an abstraction, and the next moment — though I set “it” off with quotes, you ask as naively as a newborn babe, “what does IT do then?”
“It” doesn’t “do” anything, Reality.
Never heard of Cornelius Hunter. Googling didn’t really help me understand why you mention him.
“’a Darwinian defect because homosexuals don’t pass along their genes?’ – you haven’t quite grasped the whole Darwinian/evolution concept yet have you?”
Is this where I’m supposed to infer, in some no-brainer fashion, that you’re utterly trolling? Because I don’t really need much of a shove in that direction.
You equate being blind and mindless with not working being capable of working towards something? Wow. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an abstraction either.
Go to ‘Darwin’s God’ and read the last line of almost every posted article.
“Is this where I’m supposed to infer, in some no-brainer fashion, that you’re utterly trolling?” – not at all, I’m just trying to get you to see what evolution is really all about. Just because we disagree doesn’t mean that either of us is ‘trolling’ in this particular context.
“Because I don’t really need much of a shove in that direction.” – well, that’s up to you.
Reality: “towards something”
You really don’t understand that evolution has no telos. Do you?
“…the last line of almost every posted article”
:-/
You really don’t understand this, do you?
OK, I’ll take your word for it that you’re not trolling. You just don’t understand. But believe me — so long as you anthropomorphize evolution, you’re in no position to help anyone see “what it’s all about.” You may understand what it is (that I don’t doubt), but you’re really confused about how it is.
I understand that you believe that evolution has no telos, but I disgaree. It does.
“…the last line of almost every posted article”
:-/
You really don’t understand this, do you?
OK, I’ll admit it, I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here. And what does the :-/ bit mean?
“so long as you anthropomorphize evolution” – and your view on it is based on what premise? Something like Cornelius’?
“you’re really confused about how it is” – I can not concur.
What’s Cornelius have to do with this? As far as I can see from a rather bored skim of his remarks, I’m not asserting anything like he is. Not even playing in the same ball park. I’m simply trying to get you to see that seeing teleology in evolution is a religious (or anthropomorphic), not a scientific, vision. You’re bringing something to it. Any sense of a “goal” that you see in bring to evolution adds absolutely nothing to what actually happens in the natural world. What you’re saying is concerned with stuff going on in your own mind.
cockroaches
sharks
crocodiles
Heather: why do people detest coulter and Palin haha even my liberal pal loves Palin and. whipped. out a pair of Palin glasses and we remarked how cute she looked -just like Sara’s. twin. she was tickled!
I don’t disagree with everything Coulter says, but she has come up with some creepy stuff indeed. Palin is, often, just plain dumb.
Rasqual: Bush drove the car of spending too fast. As for Obama, he got behind the wheel, smiled knowingly, reached for a switch we’d never seen before, and flipped it. Only then did we notice that the damn car had a rocket motor concealed in the trunk. Oh it got us out of the ditch alright, no question about that. But taking us exoatmospheric was a peril few of us could have imagined a car would face…
Reagan, to his credit, really did try and slow the growth of gov’t during his first two years. Then he threw in the towel and spent like crazy. Both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. increased the national debt massively as well. I don’t know whether Obama exceeded their spending increases on a percentage basis or not, but for years I’ve seen the federal gov’t as too much of a self-sustaining beast that’s first and foremost concerned with it’s own power and propagation.
Doug with. all due respect. who in the world are you to say that things people. say are dumb? lolly
Hi hj. Heather, is that you? I’m one person with opinions about some of the things Palin has said.
Doug. you’re. still okay in my book