The 47% Dichotomy

There has been much ado lately about Romney being recorded at a meeting talking about "the 47%". Of course, everything has been blown out of proportion. In fact, Romney is making a very simple and good point, and Obama has made the exact same point himself in other speeches and policy-making.

Mitt Romney pointed out that there are about 47% (Obama's current support according to polls) who prefer government regulation to freedom. Then he pointed out that the 47-49% who pay no Federal Income Tax are not likely to be swayed by promises of lowering the Federal Income Tax. (It's the shame of the Democrats that they can't understand the simple concept of a Venn diagram.)

Obama said, in a speech when he was Senator, that he hoped to build a Democrat majority out of the people who received government assistance. That's basically the same thing Romney is saying! Obama is capitalizing on the Change that has put more people on government assistance than ever before and the Hope that they will support him to keep the "Obama money" comin'. You can see this clearly in his "Life of Julia" ad, in which he tries to impress upon us our complete inability to succeed without lots of government aid programs.

A while back, Romney claimed that he was not going to focus his speeches on the poor, because they were already well-served by government programs that he didn't plan to mess with. Obama has claimed that he is giving up on the working class. (The *white* working class, specifically, which is not only a horrible racist thing to say, but also will end up meaning the entire working class... unless he plans to start refusing government aid based on the color of your skin.) I have to wonder why Obama has decided to give up on the most hurting group in the country at a time when a family making *above the median income* is eligible for food stamps. It could be that he realizes privately that those who were independent under Bush will not be happy about losing half their wealth and (on average) 12% of their income in order to fall underneath the expanding government umbrella and receive government funding for which they must follow the government rules for everything from diet to housing.

So the question then to all of us is this: Which side? Which path? Which country? The one where aid goes to those in need and the rest of us flourish on our own two feet? Or the "'Julia' couldn't build that" country where the politicians hope that you'll vote blindly for them as long as they keep giving you free stuff? Both Romney and Obama have clearly stated the dichotomy and chosen a side. And I'm afraid the third party vote will not be strong enough to choose a third way... if indeed there is a third way between liberty and subjugation.

Note: Have you heard the latest, by the way? It appears that Romney is a hypocrite because he overpaid his income taxes (by not declaring all charitable contributions), and a hypocrite because he is one of the "47%" due to having paid no income taxes. You just can't win with these guys, even when they have to subvert the basic rules of mathematics in order to hate you.

My chicken tender recipe

1 package chicken tenders (1.5-2lbs)

Peanut oil
Grated Parmesan (Kraft will do) cheese
Garlic powder
Curry powder
Salt
Whole wheat flour
Plain bread crumbs
Parsley flakes
2 or 3 eggs (depending on how much meat you have)

1. Thaw the chicken tenders.

2. If you want to serve buttered brown rice with them, start it in the rice cooker now. In one bowl, put five heaping large spoonfuls of whole wheat flour, six of bread crumbs (Six of whole wheat flour, seven of bread crumbs as you get closer to 2lbs of chicken), generous amount of garlic powder, curry powder, parsley flakes, and grated parmesan, a couple pinches of salt. Stir.

3. Start your wok (I use a nonstick wok) about 1/2in full of peanut oil on just below Medium on the stove burner. Slice the chicken tenders lengthwise to make more of them. Put two eggs (three as you approach 2lbs chicken) in another bowl and beat them well. Put out a third bowl lined with paper towels for the finished tenders.

4. Dip each tender first in egg, then in the flour/crumb mix, then lay in the wok. Don't put them close enough to touch. Cook for usually about 6min on one side, turn, cook them another 5min. Often takes several batches to get the job done.

5. Serve. (I usually divide them among us and serve them with buttered brown rice. My husband likes eating them with ranch dressing. Today, I am going to slice an avocado and serve avocado slices with it too.)

Note: At the end, I pour the remaining egg into the remaining flour mix, stir it up a bit, chop it into bits with a spoon, and dump it into the oil after turning off the burner. I turn them at about 2min. This little bit of economical food 'disposal' creates something my children call 'crunchies' and plead for eagerly.

Are they better off?

So this election season is an interesting one. The two choices are very stark. There is a deeper contrast than there has been for some time. Someone looking at this election would have her pick of issues to address. Today, I want to address one that Romney has been pushing, a question that Obama has a hard time answering... but I want to address it from a different perspective than I have heard anybody address thus far.

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

See, Obama has been going about apologizing and being generally deferrent in his foreign policy. This hasn't worked very well, mostly because the people who hate us are going to hate us regardless, the people who love us don't want us to be weaker, and the few European heads of state who really hated the way Bush did things were replaced in their next election with leaders willing to be a little more kind. But that's really beside my point, so let's move along.

Democrats teach that no man may become rich without stealing his wealth from someone else. Their wealth redistribution policies are based on "fairness". When Republicans say "fairness", what they mean is that it is fair for you to be able to profit from your labor. Democrats mean that it is fair for the people who were disenfranchised by your wealth creation practices to gain from your profit. Thus far, we have mostly seen Democrats apply this on a national level... when they decry the horrible lives of the poor, they mean the American poor, the ones among whom 80% have air conditioning and nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television. They are not talking about people who live in huts and subsist on a couple of dollars per month.

Obama, on the other hand, has been applying the concept a little more globally. America needs to be taken down a peg. Why? Because we are so rich, that makes us the reason why these other nations are poor. Because one of Mitt Romney's children is attending private school, a Sudanese child goes hungry tonight. We need to give back, he says, on a global level. We have a responsibility, not a Christian responsibility to be charitable to those in need as fellow creatures favored by God, but a guilt responsibility because we 'got rich from their poverty'. Let's set aside the obvious problems with that for a moment and move on.

So America has more people in poverty than ever before. The economy is running at a very low ebb and we are told it is the "new normal". Our debt has been downgraded. Romney and the other Republicans are running on this, asking you if you are better off, and saying that America is a great nation that deserves to be great. Obama is the abusive parent who says that you don't deserve what you have... Romney is the one trying to restore your self esteem and assuring you that you are not somehow sub-par simply for having what you own. This is all well and good, of course, but it is all on an American perspective. So let's look at this from a global perspective.

Is the world better off than it was before due to America's debasement?

We have lost wealth... the average family has lost 40% of its wealth in the recession. Who has gained it? Are Kenyans living any better than they were before? Are Sudanese widows and orphans suffering less for our efforts? Is America giving any more money than before to educate poor children in Africa, or to feed them? Obama told the Egyptian president to step down. (Kind of arrogant for a nation that's supposed to be wallowing in self-debasement.) Do Egyptian women have more power than before? More rights? Under Bush, Afghani women and girls could seek jobs and be educated. Are they as likely to be allowed those rights now?

Is anybody in the world better off for our loss of wealth? European countries have floundered, partly under their own weight, but partly due to the depth and length of our recession. China has managed a short-term surge by buying our debt, but as our dollar devalues, their position degrades as well. American manufacturing jobs pay better in much of China than their own jobs. When Americans have less money, they buy less, they call for less manufacturing... And have we been giving any more money to their poor than before, as a result? Have we been doing more for Indian dalits? Are we saving any Chinese rural women from having their unborn babies killed against their will? Have we been helping anybody with our loss?

Obama and Romney will ask us whether it is worth losing our wealth and prestige in order to aid foreigners. I hope Romney will have the insight to point out that it is our strength that not only we, but others in the world should want to see, because we benefit other nations the most when we have something to offer.

And just as our poor are not richer for the wealth loss of our rich, the world is not better for the wealth loss in America.

The Rape Exemption

This was my response in a Facebook page for the group Ladies Against Feminism. The topic was Rep. Akin's 'unfortunate' comments, and I am pleased to say that we managed to shift the conversation from screaming about "legitimate rape" to an actual debate on the rape exemption in a proposed ban on abortion.

We had been debating for some time with a couple of feminist women who have been, predictably, proceeding from the viewpoint of secular humanist atheistic feminism. I made a response that I rather liked, and so I post it here for 'everyone' to enjoy:


The problem here is that we are proceeding from a radically different point of view. I could see how, if you do not believe in anything beyond this life, sacrificing yourself for another human being may seem like a flaw rather than a virtue. We Christians, however, follow a God who chose to sacrifice His only Son so that we could have life and have it to the full. Our God is based, not on temporal pleasure, but on love... and that love includes temporal sacrifice for eternal pleasure. Therefore a woman carrying her baby to term, even to give it up for adoption and never see it again, is virtuous.

We also are mostly pro-life... that means that we believe that a human life is created at the moment of conception, a human life as worthy of respect as any human baby, toddler, child, teen, adult, or elder. We do not determine whether a human being deserves basic human rights based on his of her size, age, race, gender, or contributions to society. It follows naturally that we believe that abortion puts to death a human being. That doesn't mean that abortion is Always Evil. Just that its benefits must be stacked up against the detriment of causing the death of a human being.

Given that, I know that from your viewpoint you would never have meant to say this... but your statement did sound as if you will proudly murder someone whether it's against the law or not, because you want to, and you should not be punished for murder because you're a woman - and this is what feminism means. Coming from our viewpoint, I'm sure you can see why feminism seems far more cruel to us than it does to those who do not believe in according basic human rights under the same situation.

Finally, we are not feminists. Rather than trying to claim that women and men are equal in physical form and meant to take identical roles in biology and society, we merely believe that women and men are to be treated equally under the law and are equally capable of petitioning God, with roles in society and biology that are very different, but equal in importance and honor. Therefore, we are very aware of a woman's role in nurturing life and giving of herself to join as partners with God Himself in bringing that life to an eventual state of autonomy. Women are tied strongly to Life in this way... it's no wonder that women have so often been the peacemakers in a society. The women of Sabine and Liberia both created peace and prosperity by joining up, confronting their men, and demanding a cease of hostilities.

As such, Life is our privilege and our business, and carrying a child to term, even an unexpected one, even a child of rape, is bestowing our gift upon the world. It is our privilege to turn something terrible into a blessing. In this way, even outside of our Christian view of sacrifice, giving life and love where there was none is, again, virtuous.

Even so, many of us *are* in favor of a rape exemption for an abortion ban. But we personally would choose life and encourage other women to do the same

Seasons in life

Naturally, there is a very good reason why I have not been posting often in the past months. That reason is a beautiful, perfectly healthy, baby boy added to the family. Dade is our third and likely our last child. I'm getting into the wane of my fertility years, and I had some trouble with the pregnancy and birth.

Life comes in seasons, and seasons come with their own needs and delights. When we first moved into this house, we had friends visit on Saturdays. Now, my youngest brother and his wife bring friends over on Sunday afternoons for video gaming. Different seasons... different people, same fun. Right now my children are young.. a grade schooler, a toddler, and an infant. We have certain rituals and schedules that will pass with the season. Others will not.

I was cleaning and organizing my house and my life. Then this pregnancy started to get more difficult and challenging, and I knew it was not the season for turning my house from its clutter-filled self into a Better Homes and Gardens magazine centerfold. Now, however...

My baby is three and a half months old. Of course I will still spend plenty of time each day hugging and cuddling him, but he needs more than just that now. He has a playmat and a swing where he can learn to reach for toys and shake rattles. My daughter is preschool age now, and it's time for her to pick up some of her simplest ABC's and 123's. My son's homeschooling begins today, just a couple of subjects that run to 36 weeks instead of 35, and he is now in fourth grade. And the house... "is a wreck".

Much needs to be done outdoors, but that will have to wait for a different season, a season in which my baby is toddling along instead of helpless and tiny, a season on which I can handle the chemicals without worrying about them getting into my breastmilk. By next spring I should be able to work on taming our wooded lot, though this fall I hope my grandfather will come with his chainsaw and remove the autumn olives which are trying to creep into our lawn. New England is crazy when it comes to forest. In places like Arizona, you maintain a green stretch of lawn only by fighting the desert daily... in New England, your fight is with the forest, and it will send out saplings as scouts... once the saplings are big enough, they will shelter woods plants and kill off your sun-happy grass. But that fight will wait.

Meanwhile, we are finally managing to deal with the rooms in this house. Most of Tricia's room is cleared out, and she has been moved downstairs. That leaves the nursery free, and now we are working on setting up the baby furniture. Pretty soon we will no longer need to change Dade on the living room table.

Not that it hurt him to be changed on the living room table, mind you. That was a different season, a season of recovery and rest, of cuddling and napping frequently. Now, however, it is time to start moving ahead again.

Perhaps I may be able to start posting more frequently, too.

Panic and Prejudice

The way that the American Left has been dealing with issues lately has got me thinking about their apparent tactics and goals for each of us. Twice in the past month or so, they have taken a legitimate debate that is actually on their side, and turned it into a screaming mess. Now the Left has never seemed terribly averse to turning issues into screaming messes, but usually they do so because the majority is not on their side. Lately, however, they seem intent on turning discussion into fits of anger, even when the discussion would advance their side.

A few days ago, Todd Akin, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, was asked about his opinion on abortion in the case of rape. He said:

Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

Almost immediately, the Left sprang into action, and within hours there were angry blog posts and opinion articles claiming that Akin doesn't believe a woman can get pregnant unless she enjoyed the sex. Of course, you can look at the answer yourself and see that he said pregnancy from rape was rare, not nonexistent, and that the female body limits fertility under stress. Both of these statements are utterly true, by the way. The statistical incidence of pregnancy from a single act of rape (assuming no contraception and healthy people) vary from 1-5% depending on the study, while the statistical incidence of pregnancy from a single consensual act (assuming no contraception and healthy people) is roughly 10%. (5% for the three non-ovulating weeks, 25% for the one ovulating week.) Most women can tell you of the time when they had a scary college exam, or a nasty 24-hr stomach bug, or a big scare, and it delayed ovulation. It isn't about a woman consciously telling her body to shut down because of rape... it's a simple adrenaline/cortisol reaction that is not controlled by her conscious mind. But let's put that aside for a moment, and look at what Akin actually said.

"I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

There, right there... he basically claimed that there should not be a rape exemption to an abortion ban. That's the gold mine. That's the money quote. The majority of pro-lifers support a rape exemption. Even those who would rather not see an abortion in that situation would not want to enforce it by Federal law. The Left could have divided the pro-life movement by focusing on Akin's actual answer. Instead, they chose to jump all over his side comment on how stress impacts fertility and treat him like he's a total imbecile for even suggesting such a thing.

This reminds me of the previous big controversy, touched off when Chick-Fil-A founder Dan Cathy was asked about his company's support of a marriage program.

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,”

Now this one turned into a big "He's against gays" controversy, when the context had nothing to do with homosexuality at all. It had to do with divorce. Now the majority of people in this country support no-fault divorce, and here Dan Cathy appears to be dissing it. "But what if you 'grow apart'? What if you love someone else? What if you want to go find 'your true potential'?" Even among those who do not want to have a no-fault divorce, few would seek to destroy it. Even those who agree that there is a problem with the current divorce rate are not eager to ban no-fault divorce. Of course, Cathy didn't claim that he wanted to ban it either, but my point is that divorce (especially no-fault) is clearly the issue here, and most people would see the removal of no-fault divorce as a step backwards for this country.

However, instead, it became all about the homosexuals. The Silent Majority awoke, and stretched lines around the parking lot and into the street in support of the chain's right to not wholeheartedly support the total redefinition of marriage to include gay sex. Traffic cops got called out in many areas due to the sheer volume of visitors. Meanwhile, a couple of gay activist groups decided to demonstrate to us why we should keep the government out of our bedrooms by engaging in passionate lip-locking in front of a family restaurant. What a mess! What a disaster for the Left! But if they had just stuck to the actual issue, they would have gained support instead of losing it.

We could have spent the last month or so in honest discussion about the merits and detriments of no-fault divorce, or situations in which abortion may or may not be a valid decision. Instead, the Left has us talking about "legitimate rape" and "hate chicken". I am not sure that I want to be as pessimistic as Rush Limbaugh, my husband, and several other people to whom I have mentioned this, but they do have an interesting point to make... if the Left encourages us to start thinking and discussing these issues rationally, we might start thinking and discussing other issues rationally.

Issues like Obamacare, oil costs, housing prices, the economy in general, contraception mandates, a major political party endorsing gay marriage, and the turmoil in the Middle East where the Arab Spring is giving way to a Fundamentalist Muslim Winter.

Babies, hormones, and abortion

I have a new baby in the house, my third and very likely my last. He is six weeks old this week, still tiny and vulnerable, and still needing nourishment several times during the night. I was sitting up last night, having just fed him, and didn't want to try to put him back down just yet. I leaned back on the couch, lifted him to snuggle on my shoulder, and just spent a moment enjoying it.

Yes, mothers love their children because it's right and natural. For now, though, I'd like to lean on the word 'natural'. The simple act of child-bearing involves some of the strongest hormonal shifts known to the human race. The love that binds that mother and infant snuggling in the early morning is strongly driven by perfectly natural bonding hormones that work on their senses of sight, hearing, and especially scent.

Child-bearing isn't the only system that involves hormonal tweaking of social behavior, of course. Every now and then, two people meet and become very attracted to each other. Nowadays, we call this 'being in love'. Of course, the word 'love' as it has meant throughout the ages has very little to do with the hormonal cocktail driving this initial euphoria. Still, we treat it as though it is the 'strongest force in the universe', capable in many of our stories of breaking down every barrier and vanquishing every foe. We glorify it, put it on a pedestal. Increasingly, we are even using it as justification to break our most sacred contracts and important societal conventions. As long as they're "in love", why deny them anything they feel they need?

Those of you who read the title of this post are no doubt wondering where abortion comes into this. Now's your opportunity to find out. When debating pro-choicers, I often hear the unborn referred to as a 'parasite'. I have also heard the argument about whether it would be right to force a woman to, say, remain in a hospital bed to provide life support for some stranger for nine months, or even one day. The reason why pro-lifers stop and stare in dismay at people who provide these arguments is not because it is such a good and decent argument that they simply have no good counter. The reason is because we do not understand how pro-choicers can neglect the most important issue in abortion -- what the unborn actually is.

Now I'm not going to start on about whether a perfectly human life starts at conception or when you measure brain waves or when the lungs are formed... that's a perfectly good argument for a different post. I would like to address the part of the abortion debate that is rarely if ever brought up. The unborn is the woman's baby. The unborn is part of the woman in a very real and intricate way. Would pro-choicers argue for the inalienable right of a man to amputate his own perfectly healthy and properly-functioning arm? Of course not! We would be more likely to regard the man as if he was mentally ill for even wanting to do such a thing. But nature binds the unborn.. and post-birth infant.. to his mother as surely as if he was a natural, healthy, normally-functioning part of her body.

Remember, half of that unborn comes from something which has been part of that woman's body since before she was born. It is in the womb that the unborn baby girl develops in her ovaries every egg that she will ever have. Even if the father was a complete stranger, the baby is not.

Arguments that refer to the baby as a 'parasite' or a stranger with which the mother must provide life support completely neglect the identity of the unborn, a human being containing part of the mother within himself, forming a hormonal, natural bond with his mother that is every bit as real and valid as the act of 'falling in love' that we prize so highly.

Teen pregnancy: Many generations, no 'evolution'

Back in the 1950's and earlier, teen pregnancy was a problem just as it is today. Back then, however, we dealt with it in a horrible, barbaric manner... so say the feminists, at least. A pregnant teen was often shuttled off to a relative's house or a special house for pregnant teens, hidden away from Polite Society until her baby was born. Many times, that baby was either raised by her parents as her sister, or adopted out to another family. Shame was the order of the day. Her friends and schoolmates might suspect, but "ideally" should never have actually known for sure.

Now it's much better, or at least that's what impressionable teen girls are taught by those who are trying to inculcate them in the New Method and keep them from questioning it. Now, instead of being hidden away for months in a state of shame, they are taken away for only a few hours, maybe even less. It is still a hidden place, a place of shame, where advocates do all they can to assure that the procedure they undergo is done in the strictest secrecy. Even the girls' own parents often are not allowed to know about the abortions that the Planned Parenthood consultant or the school nurse will so gladly procure for them.

In the end, however, the mindset is the same, and the word of the day is shame. The 50's girl was taken to a hidden place to have her baby. The modern girl is taken to a hidden place to abort her baby. In both cases, they are given the message that their mistake is being 'fixed', in such a way that will not embarrass them in public. So what is the real difference? Not in cause, not in mindset... only the effect is changed. Before, at least a living person would have the chance to see the light of day and grow up to make all of her choices. Now, not only is that living person snuffed out, but her mother is held down and violated with sharp metal instruments tearing at her insides and, disturbingly often, causing physical as well as emotional damage that will haunt her for the rest of her life. Pro-abortion people, and, unwittingly, pro-choice people, call this Progress.

I would like to introduce another way of thinking about teen pregnancy.

When I was a young adult, I picked up a book that has fallen out of favor in modern day highschools. It is called The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Nowadays, it is generally barely mentioned, and only in derision. This book, in which an adulterous woman is sentenced to wear an embroidered red A on the chest of her clothing for the rest of her life, is condemned as a primitive Puritan shame-fest. It should be re-examined for what it actually is.

The young woman who bore the letter, Hester Prynne, was discovered in adultery when she became pregnant during a very long absence of her husband. She found a quiet, small house in which to live and raise her daughter. Over time, her scarlet A lost its initial horror as the people became accustomed to her. As she showed her skill with the needle, earning her keep, and showed herself to be a sober person committed to raising her child with dignity, the A further lost its sense of shame and horror. Living with her shame presented outwardly to society instead of hidden away, she beautified her life and became accepted within the community.

Meanwhile, she continued to staunchly refuse to reveal the name of her child's father. While her shame was open for everyone to see, his shame was hidden. Out of unexpressed guilt, he deteriorated, destroying himself by his silence while she built herself up by her deeds. Her good deeds, you see, in the face of her shame, rehabilitated her image by demonstrating her repentance. His good deeds only mocked him, giving him an image that he did not deserve, hurting him instead of easing his conscience. Finally, by the time he set out to break the bonds of hidden shame over his heart, it was too late... and the effort killed him.

When we hide away pregnant teens until their babies can be 'properly' killed so that 'nobody has to know', we are condemning them to the life of Hester's co-adulterer. When we used to hide away pregnant teens until their babies were born and spirited away, at least we were not adding murder to our efforts to hide their shame. We have not 'evolved', we have not progressed. We have regressed.

Someday we will face real progress, and create a society in which the shame of the pregnant teen is brought out into the open and faced clearly. Only then will we be able to build them up in the light instead of tearing them down in the dark.

Women's Body-Altering Fashion

There was a time when women wore corsets so tightly that they actually had ribs surgically removed. They compressed their organs to the point where they did internal damage to themselves. That's because society desired for them to have smaller waists than a normal woman is naturally given.

There was a time when women practiced breast-binding. They put themselves at further risk of breast-related diseases and medical conditions. They did this because society desired them to have smaller breasts than a normal woman is naturally given. The same has been done in Asian countries with women's feet, for the same reason, with similar dangers and results.

There was a time when women were basically expected to wear four-inch high heels all over the place, to everything and everywhere. The heels pushed their leg muscles up to an unnatural extent, gave them the illusion of greater height, and eventually malformed both feet and legs... raising the risk for back injury, shortening important calf tendons, and causing permanent damage to the feet. Society desired them to have a differently shaped leg and butt than the average woman is given by nature.

More recently, I've heard of all sorts of incredible stuff that women end up doing to themselves for the sake of society's flouting of nature. Women have botox injections on their face. Increasingly, I'm hearing of women having botox injections in their butt to make it bigger and plumper. Then we have breast implants and all their associated dangers. There seems to be no end to the number of things that women treat as essential, things that have one purpose... to alter a woman's natural body in such a way as to make it more 'acceptable' to society.

Now Obama insists that hormonal contraception pills are a woman's right and so must be provided by her employer for free, even at the cost of violating the employer's and/or other employees' faith.

What is the hormonal contraception pill? To be fair, for some women, it is a needed medication. However, the majority of women taking it are/were normal, healthy women who found, yet again, that society needed them to be something different from what women naturally are. To support society's current penchant for rampant sexual promiscuity, women must render themselves artificially infertile. The pill comes with its dangers, including an increased risk of breast cancer and potentially fatal blood clots. Then again, women's attempts to alter themselves for the latest fashion have almost always resulted in painful consequences.

Obama and his group (I cannot in good conscience say 'all Democrats' as many Democrats oppose this latest move) are spinning this horrendous new directive as "women's health", and many of the discussions surrounding it have focused on pitting "women's health" or "sexual freedom" against "religious liberty". But I'd like to take a moment and put a new spin on it, asking those of you who read this post to answer this simple question:

When will society favor the real, natural woman in all of her real, natural glory?

The Modern Gentleman

A couple of days ago, my son went to his usual mid-week social function, a huge age-separated club with hundreds of kids... about thirty or so in his age group. He enjoys his time, learning to play team sports, doing crafts, and meeting up with all his friends. (He's a popular kid.)

On his way to pick up his coat, he realized that he had short sleeves, so he started doing that arm thing that boys and men do, showing off his muscles. Or, rather, showing off what he thinks are his muscles, bless him. He's just turned nine years old. He hasn't had the necessary testosterone kick to really develop anything noticeable. Then, suddenly and quite unexpectedly to him, this girl about his size came up to him and started hitting him.

Oh it didn't hurt, or so he said. She didn't leave bruises. But the thing is, he's learned that he must never hit a girl. I've been trying to break his toddler sister of the habit of going after him. She'll pound on him when she's angry or frustrated at me. But he never hits back. Both Daddy and I taught him that way. That was fine with him, no big deal. But then he tried to move on and she blocked his path.

He didn't want to push her. She's a girl, and he's been taught to respect girls and not manhandle them. But manhandling her would be the only way to get where he needed to go. He needed to go... my sister was waiting for him, and my husband was waiting out in the car for both of them. He knew he was late, and he was frustrated. But he would not push her out of the way. He knew that the next step was to ask an adult for help, but she wouldn't let him get to one. He felt trapped and frustrated.

But still he did not strike back, and she tired of the game and wandered off. He hurried to grab his coat and meet up with his people, apologizing for being late for all the world as if it was his fault. The incident has clearly bothered him. He's mentioned it several times.

My husband and I were at a loss when we heard the story tumble out. We don't want to teach him to hit or shove girls. But I realized that, in disarming my son for the sake of protecting young ladies, we had left him vulnerable to girls who were not ladies at all. We finally let him know that, yes, you could push aside someone blocking your path, even a girl, as long as you did not shove hard... and you could do so for the purpose of dealing with someone who blocks your path and refuses to move. That's an interim solution... I don't know what a better one would be.

Oh Feminism! You teach girls to hit boys, and justify your behavior by claiming that men do not respect women as they should. But when we women, in our positions of power, teach our men to respect women, we leave them vulnerable to the ones who hit! What are we to do? We are patiently and carefully building up the men that feminists say that they want. We are fixing all the problems that feminism was made for... fixing them at the root. We are bringing up young men who will honor and respect you, who will love and cherish you, who will value your intelligence and your ability to work independently. Men who will treat you as an equal in the business world, who won't stare at your breasts when talking to you, who won't dismiss your words just because you're female.

But instead of helping us, you're working against us. My son is a gentle soul, a real person, with dreams and wishes and an inherent human dignity. Modern Feminism will not acknowledge that human dignity. They are all too happy to beat on him, to block his path, to advance their goals. They see him as someone to compete against, someone to fight. You and I know very well that a nine-year-old boy doesn't show his muscles because he expects a girl to start hitting him. Peacocks don't spread their plumage so that the peahens will start pecking and scratching them. He did not at any time consider her to be someone to fight, someone to punch, someone to risk hurting in a testosterone-fueled brawl.

And if you want your daughters to be able to find a man who will not abuse them, who will not hit them, who will treat them with dignity and respect...
...I'd appreciate it if you teach your daughters to not fly into attacks against people who have no interest in fighting them, people who are constrained by morality to not hurt girls. Because as much as I want my son to respect women, I love him too much to leave him open and vulnerable to those who will not respect him.