War On Women?

By Linda Kracht  

We are all familiar enough with real war — take the Gulf War for instance. We know that war is hell for those fighting in it and for the people who witness the fighting in their own regions. We also realize that there are two sides to war. Wars start when one side provokes the other to take up arms in an attempt to defend, protect, or resist further provocations. Wars have a start and end date which are recorded along with the outcomes, number of casualties, territories gained or lost; naming of the aggressors, and other consequences.  

We hear often enough that a war is being waged against women in the United States. Yet, war (the noun) is defined as the state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state. That definition makes it hard to continue arguing that a war is being waged against US women. For who is the provocateur; when did it start and why; and who have been the casualties? 

Words matter. In this instance, the charges of wars being waged against women appear to be flagrantly false and misleading and largely exaggerated. But, is it?

I have been leading a discussion group using my latest book, Mothers Forever, Fathers Forever, for the Nativity of Our Lord Mom’s Club.[St. Paul, MN].Recently we discussed whether or not there is a war on women. Before opening up the discussion, I defined the war using Wikipedia’s definition:

The War on women is an expression in the US politics used to describe certain Republican Party policies and legislation as a wide scale effort to restrict women’s rights, especially reproductive rights. It is the forcing of Republican social views on women thought legislation. It is often used to describe opposition to the contraceptive mandate in Obama Care and policies to defund women’s health organizations that perform abortions. It has also been used to describe Republican policies in areas such as the prosecution of criminal violence against  women, the definition of rape for the purpose of public funding of abortion and workplace discrimination against women.

As  the definition was read, I heard occasional snorts of disdain especially when the blame was assigned to the Republican Party. Immediately, an attendee immediately asked for the source and then the real discussion started.

The women in the discussion group were very aware of a theoretical war on women but mostly disagreed with the premise that they were personally under attack. They agreed that all women deserve equal pay for equal work and should have equal access to higher education and employment opportunities. They felt equal to [yet different from] men in their lives. Not one felt oppressed by men with regard to sexuality and sexual reproduction. However, the most consensus came from the statement that the war is a war of words  and politics and is primarily concocted by ‘liberal’ women against conservative leaning women — regardless of age.

Interestingly, these young, well-educated women (a mix of stay at home moms & part time employees and former full time moms) have been stung by judgmental words from women making different choices than themselves. For instance, while weighing employment vs. staying home after pregnancy, one woman was told by a female co-worker this: You can’t quit after your baby is born because I [the older co-worker] have worked too long and too hard for your right to work! Other negative experiences were also shared. So, while male domination continues to be the complaint of  feminists, these women do not have this same concern. They agreed that all too often, others link personal worth to one’s position in a company and paid employment. Americans tend to believe that doing is superior to being [a mother who stays home, for example]. They noted that feminists definitely try to drive home the adage that women can do it all and can have it all because of that work ethic. The women didn’t seem to believe that this adage is realistic or possible given their own personal situations and experiences. They believe that Motherhood is too demanding to have enough left over after giving it all to one’s employer; it is also too rewarding to want to give it all to an employer regardless of financial rewards. These young mothers know that they just couldn’t have it both ways — satisfying both family and employer equally. The mothers mostly thought that their children understand the difference between having to work and wanting to work with the last being the least altruistic. [That is the subject of another discussion.] They also agreed with [Sue Ellen Browder, award-winning journalist and author and former writer for Cosmopolitan magazine] statement that the “women’s movement and the sexual revolution were falsely joined together even though they were radically different movements.”

So who are winners and losers of these false narratives? My group unanimously stated: Men! They say this because they see widespread, tacit approval given to men to have/desire unrestricted sexual lifestyles while also encouraging women to behave like men. Yet, they agree, most women do not want things to be like this. Even Michael Kimmel, author of the Gender of Desire seems to agree with my group of mothers as he writes:“Women’s increase in sexual agency, revolutionary as it has been, has not been accompanied by a decrease in male sexual entitlement nor by a sharp increase in men’s capacity for intimacy and emotional connectedness.” 

What do women really want? If you listen to the feminists it’s access to abortion and contraception and sexual agency. Yet, in reality what women yearn for is old-fashioned intimacy and emotional connectedness with their sexual lovers, permanently. Young women may be going along to get along but not getting what they want in the long run. They want love, they want marriage, they want babies. The go along to get along approach isn’t working out very well for women who are wounded by the rapid advancement of male entitlement to sex. Unfortunately, too many women realize  the problem far too late in the game.

What are the consequences of flirting with falsehoods? Consider the explosive growth of the pornography, birth control, sex trafficking and abortion industries. It’s true, men are the most advantaged by the arguments that women need to behave like men in areas of sexuality. Consider how men [and woman] are able to troll for sexual partners without limit or responsibility. Charlie Sheen is their poster boy. Yet, who stands to lose the most from this trolling? Certainly not men! Consider how Sheen could have been spared the HIV disease had his ‘reputation’ preceded him with women who knew what they really wanted and needed.

Consider the problem of sex trafficking and sexual enslavement. Why isn’t this problem front and center of  every feminists’ radar? Why are they not speaking out with one voice against any and all forms of sexual enslavement? Why are they not demanding  good legislation and policy making? Why are women not solidly speaking out against pornography when we know that the majority of all of today’s divorces (56%) today involves at least one of the parties having an obsessive interest in pornographic websites? [American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers] Saint  Pope John Paul ll said it best: “The problem with pornography is that it fails to reveal enough of the whole person” And yet, feminists don’t seem to care. Mark Kastelmann, author of The Drug of the New Millennium, raises some red flags appropriately. He states: “internet pornography is at a level none of us have ever encountered or even imagined. It will create an epidemic of obsession, compulsion and addiction that will sweep across America like a tidal wave, destroying marriages, families and individual lives with a devastation never before witnessed…”

This group of young mothers seem to recognize the core issues; that’s what really at stake for all of us but especially them as they look to the future for the sake of their young sons and daughters. they seem to get it that the real war is one that is being waged between two principalities: good vs. evil. The bad side is fighting both men and women while pretending to fight only one: Women. It divides and separates love from life. It disaffects the spiritual, psychological, social and physical wellness of men and women. It is a war that is worth waging against — justly and righteously.

Religion, Politics and Money

For at least five generations, it has been taboo to talk about religion, politics and money with just anyone. Sure, it was okay to talk about these things in the privacy of the home but never on street corners, public events, and general dinner parties. That was then - what about now? Is it any different?

Social media has connected people to people in amazing ways. But do these connections really allow for a discussion about things that matter - like faith, religion, politics and money? Does the new social medias help connect people to people by changing hearts, and minds? Does it allow a more civil discourse? Does it move the goal post to caring for others as we should? Do we take time to really think about what someone has posted? Even if it offends us? Do we try and understand where they are coming from? Or do we delete them as a friend instead? Block their postings? Block them out of sight and mind?

Several weeks ago, I posted a fact. The fact came from the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics. It was that upwards of 85% of new jobs created in 2013 were part time ones. The type of jobs that don't help families with children  to get ahead. The type of jobs whereby employers do not have to provide health care benefits. The type of jobs that really do not create economic recovery. An innocuous posting - or so I thought. Apparently, the posting violated the social rule to stick to postings about my children, their successes and mine; and how to grow green grass, etc.I say that with certainty because  within a few days the comment received from a friend blistered my sensibilities. His comments were personal attacks against me, my beliefs, and my character. I re-posted the facts, this time with a graph and suggested the person get his facts straight - thinking the graph would help. What followed was a full scale attack  using language that was verbally abusive, confrontational, foul, and hurtful.  and almost threatening.

I had to consider why! Just because I had posted a factual statement about money and the economy? Or because I had posted something that referred to one of the three taboo topics: money,  politics and even religion. It is also possible, the friend didn't like my personal recommendation to  get the facts straight...

Either way, it makes me wonder if any of us really stop and consider what someone is trying to say! Really? Do any of us  think about  online postings?  Do most of us even bother to comment on each others postings? Are we simply marching down the path of  the Culture of Indifference in what seems to be a more sophisticated way - as suggested by Pope Francis. The place where we refuse to discuss things that really matter? After all, now all we have to do is block comments and people and postings that we don't like.  Even though we may have thousands of friends, do they really know what we believe? Or are we even more silent than the silent majority of the 60's and 70's?

On another note - but related - I highly recommend the book " Left to Tell"  by Immaculee. Her story is amazing... and it prompted  this blog. The people of Rawanda seemed to get along even though tell tale signs of turbulence ran just beneath the surface... In a very short time, a full scale war erupted pitting Catholics against Catholics, neighbor against neighbor, father against sons. One million people were massacred within a short period of time just because people  failed to understand each other when it came to the things that really mattered: faith, money, and politics.

Pope Francis recently told his priests just do something to counteract the fact that 85% of young Catholics leave the faith when they reach adulthood. Even if the priests make mistakes, at least do something! That pertains to us as well - let's just do something! This begins with talking about things that really matter!

What do you think? Hmmmm. how many of my friends will even bother to read this whole article (yes, I admit - this piece probably does not have much literary value but its important to me) and then post what they think? Go ahead, say what you really think. It feels good.... even if it may not be safe and secure.
  

Time Flies

Wow, it's been a month since my last posting. This has been a busy writing month for me and my family. I have begun to write my sequel to Daughters Forever, Sons Forever and it takes a lot of my brain cells to think through the chapter content. Ha. My next book will be written for the student about to enter college or is in college; it will be entitled Daughters Forever, Sons Forever Off to College.



We went on a mini college tour with our number six child! Time truly does fly. He was impressed with my alma mater: the University of North Dakota. He loved the Fighting Sioux mascots even though their name is under scrutiny for lack of political correctness. If I were of the Sioux nation, I might rather be known as the fighting sioux than the sissy sioux but that is probably rather unwise to write publicly.



Also, it is interesting to think about the possibilities for the nation to have a national Press Corps that is in the tank for President Obama. He apparently doesn't know how to handle those who aren't in the same think tank. I guess most power seeking people believe that they know best and the rest of us are just too ignorant to see the big picture. So when a renegade news organization doesn't see it his way, President Obama questions their authenticity as a news organization.

I wonder if Catholics have been in the tank for the Democratic party as well? Would the pro-life cause be struggling as it is if they weren't? Look at what happens when US Bishops rightfully express concerns about the health care initiatives- Patrick Kennedy dares to ask them how dare they question the health care proposal! Guess he doesn't know how to handle those who think for themselves either. Maybe he also viewed Catholics as being in his same think tank.

We must all dare to ask some real hard questions of those in power.

I thought we lived in a nation that cherished freedom of press and speech and independent thinking? I guess that is also under advisement at this time. What do you think?

Nagging - never a good thing

There is a lot of debate raging over the President's speech to the school children today. Here is my opinon with regard to this debate.

Some argue that the President is trying to indoctrinate the children - I would suggest that it takes a lot more than one speech to do that. Society in general is doing a pretty good job at that and not enough parents are concerned about the general indoctrination going on in schools, among peers, by the medical community, and others. So it seems a bit disingenous to worry about a 20 minute speech rather than worrying about the steady indoctrination of television, Hollywood, schools, school based clinics, etc.

Some parents worry about what the President is going to say. I'm not too worried; while he has made many recent blunders I think he will be careful here and not because the kids will be listening but because the parents will be. Another thing; any television address that lasts 20 -25 minutes is too long to hold the children or young adults captive. Their attention to detail will be long lost.

Let's take it to a practical level - even though many of us disagree with the President on many points I am sure that none of us disagree with every position or statement that he makes. In this light, let's be careful and fight only the worthy fights - the ones which affect faith and morals and leave the nagging aside when issues are frivolous or more worry than substance. We lose credibility when we constantly nag about frivolous or less significant matters. Most of us are wearied by nagging - even if we are the ones doing the nagging. We certainly are wearied when we are nagged against. The Biblical wisdom teaches us not to nag " our children lest they lose heart."

So regarding today's speech, I say the President should tell the kids to listen up, study, and graduate. He should have picked an evening forum rather than school time but he didn't and that is a privilege obtained from his election. I think we have far bigger issues to challenge the president about- for example selecting Czars with power who haven't been vetted by Congress or the American people; the financial affairs of the country; the effort to have the federal government fix life rather than letting states determine the well being of their citizenry; the right to life of all Americans - born and unborn; right to have and hold a job; and more. When we nag about every single issue we lose sight of the bigger fights. We also lose momentum.

Thoughts?

Town Hall Meetings

We attended last night's town hall meeting with Congresswoman Betty McCollum at Macalester College for two reasons. We wanted to see what the meetings were all about and we also wanted the chance to express our opinions on the "state of the union". The first purpose was satisfied but the second was definitely not - our ticket number was never called out in the random selection process.

Curious to me was the fact that there was more rancor displayed while standing in line than displayed inside as various opinions were expressed. We were surprised by the fact that more people expressed either outright concern, caution, or reprimands in a heavily Democratic-leaning congressional district. All comments - regardless of position - were interesting and thoughtful and their stated opinions were well worth listening to! We are glad we attended.

We felt there were several noteworthy observations:

1. It was obvious that organized efforts came from the Democratic party - they had their perfectly coifed signs saying Thank you and We need Health Care Reform Now. Didn't see any "right wing" organized efforts as so often reported in the various media.

2. Our sign suggesting that the unborn, the elderly needed protections, and term limits for all politicians raised a number of "snotty" & off-based comments from people. One elderly man said he isn't worried about anything - a woman suggested the plump man beside me (who was obviously supporting our sign) "lo0ked like he needed an abortion!" It definitely brought out the worst in people - including myself. I left with less than a positive opinion about many fellow Americans! Mea Culpa.

3. Betty stated her opinion on the medical care bills but failed to explain what Obamacare covers. She stated "no one was trying to ram something through Congress; in fact there wasn't even a bill to consider yet". What was the 1000 page deal then? She also stated we don't need language regarding citizen benefit only because that's the way it is. She also stated that abortions would not be covered because it is like Medicare coverage right now. I am willing to bet that most politicians want to avoid the abortion debate & the citizen issue - they are satisfied in leaving it "temporarily understated" only to be tackled and pushed through another day. I hope my readers know that this is very similiar to the creation of school based clinics - they were never created to deal with sex issues according to the infamous Jocelyn Elders at a Senate hearing I attended years ago! Surprise, surprise - today they hand out contraceptives, do sex counseling, and more without parental notification - it is legal in the state of MN for minors to provide their own consent in areas of drug, alcohol, and sex matters!
When I questioned one woman about the details of the bill, her reply was that's the way of the legislature- details come later! Woe to us if that's the truth! Who of us would write a contract with the details later after securing the $ and the signatures!

Betty suggested that insurance companies were crooks - she didn't read the paper which stated that they are lobbying blue-dog Democrats hard, giving them money more than any other group for their war chests and the blue-dogs are accepting this money from these so-called crooks. Doesn't that make them a "crook" also? Is this calling the kettle black?

There were many more contradictory statements which leaves me wondering why? I left knowing nothing more!I still don't know what the heck this debate is really all about - is it economics, health care, insurance companies, medical care? Facts are few, emotions run high. Sales people know that they need a straight, clear message when selling a product - it's called the elevator talk. Politicians need this as well. One man summarized it well last night: while Corporations make money they can't take your home, your property, your money, only the Government can do that! Let's make sure the government takes from us what we want them to and doesn't take what we don't want them to!

On a brighter note- go see Julie and Julia; it's a great movie!