If you find yourself in Sudbury June 5-7, you can catch a film at this festival. (I’ve seen one of the shorts, Most, which is Czech for “bridge” and thought it was quite good. A little unfulfilling, and yet, thought-provoking.)
I also think that the way to reach the culture on life as on all issues of any importance is through movies, art, good documentaries, that kind of thing. So this festival is a good idea.
Women are liberated and unhappy. Men are confined and unhappy. Oh gender warfare, how do I not love thee? Happily, I’ve decided to combine what could have been two posts into one, to spare you the pain of reading about our chronic malaise twice.
To read about how women are unhappy, click here.
To read about how men are unhappy, click here.
On men: I for one, still believe men are capable of being strong and chivalrous, without engaging in this sort of petty tit for tat mentality–the kind many a feminist has busied herself with for years now. If this dad is so disgruntled, perhaps he married the wrong woman–or perhaps he should take on his rightful role as a father who is more than a chauffeur. I’m sure his wife would thank him for it.
On women: was it really worth it? 1.5 children, in exchange for many, many hours in a cubicle? Apparently not.
My two cents on gender warfare for the day.
I must have missed the major exposé in yesterday’s paper about a lack of safety-approved feminine rubber boots. No matter, at least I caught this letter to the editor today, so as to make me aware of this grand injustice:
I was recently hired by a major corporation as an archeological field technician. My field work mainly involves surveying properties before development and requires that I wear Canadian Safety Association (CSA) footwear.
While I was able to find CSA approved work boots without a problem, I was shocked to learn that there is no such thing as CSA approved rubber boots for women. In fact, no manufacturer even produces them.
For the first time in my life I feel the pains of what my mother and grandmother fought for. Women in Canada have in fact left the office and have entered the manufacturing and environmental sectors where safety footwear is required. Not producing safety footwear for women is a sexist policy.
For the first time in her life she “feels the pains” of what her mother and grandmother fought for?
Don’t think we need better evidence than that for the fact that equality has been achieved.
_________________________
Brigitte would like to sympathize: I mean, come on! If dogs get feminine gear, why not girl archeological field technicians? Aren’t people, well, people too? (Buy a shirt…)
________________________
Andrea adds: I really hate to say this, but there’s probably more demand for pink camouflage jackets for dogs than there is for pink archeological dig boots.
Love Naomi Lakritz on life. Here she does a good job of exposing why President Obama’s rhetoric calling for dialogue on abortion is pretty meaningless:
Obama, who intends to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which permits partial-birth abortions, called on pro-life and pro-choice factions to find common ground.
Unless pro-choicers are prepared to acknowledge the scientific fact that a fetus as early as four weeks after conception is a human being with a beating heart and brain waves, and not a mere clump of cells whose humanness is relative only to its degree of wantedness, then no common ground is possible.
Obama made some redundant points when he said “let’s make adoption more available” and “let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”
Adoption is already widely available through state and provincial governments and private agencies. What really needs to happen is for pro-choicers to stop limiting their talk to abortion when they discuss choice, and start promoting adoption. They need to talk in terms of women choosing life, as in putting their babies up for adoption, not in choosing death by condemning those unborn babies to being ripped apart and consigned to oblivion.
As far as providing care and support for women to see their pregnancies through to the end, there are plenty of pro-life agencies, both secular and faith-based, that are busy doing just that.
There’s no need to reinvent the wheel; there is only a need to promote the existence of the wheel so people can take advantage of it.
Don’t get me wrong: I like nature, wildlife, camping and eagles as much as the next girl. (No wait, more than the next girl. Not every girl likes camping.)
What I am saying is that eulogies, poems and web sites for an eaglet may be a somewhat disproportionate response.
This piece by Terry O’Neill highlights the pro-life scene and a speech Preston Manning gave recently to Signal Hill, a B.C.-based pro-life group:
…in a speech on May 11 to more than 600 Signal Hill supporters, Manning repeatedly stressed that pro-life advocates had to be “wise like serpents, gracious as doves.” And he drew a direct parallel between the struggle to end abortion and the fight to end slavery in the British Empire.
That latter engagement lasted more than half a century, he pointed out. At first, it was led by Quakers, who advanced well-meaning, high-minded and morally indignant arguments against slavery. They got nowhere. And it was only when a new group, led by the likes of William Wilberforce, adopted a new strategy of drawing attention to the suffering associated with slavery that progress was eventually made.
The lessons are clear, Manning said. Put service before sermons. Broaden one’s base. Ensure that your tactics are wise and gracious. And do not let zeal for the cause override your long-term plan.
I suppose the problem here is that one man’s zeal is another man’s moderation…
I do tend to think that all the intellectual reasoning is already present in the pro-life movement. The enthusiasm is present. Good people are present. So what will win the cultural war is good communications of those strengths and the appropriate channelling of that enthusiasm.
Again, I say, time to rent Amazing Grace (again). Love that movie.
So President Obama wants dialogue and compromise on abortion? This lawyer in Washington DC suggests he start “by curbing fetal pain.”
He writes:
But about 10% of all abortions – approximately 150,000 per year – occur in the second or third trimesters, when scientists are uncertain exactly when the ability to feel pain begins. Methods of abortion after the first trimester can be particularly gruesome, such as the procedure opponents call “partial-birth abortion,” which is now illegal in some circumstances under federal law. But even other, less controversial methods of abortion have been described – by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an abortion supporter – as “brutal,” involving “tearing [a fetus] apart,” and “ripping off its limbs.” Any fetus capable of feeling pain would surely suffer greatly during such dismemberment. …is it too much to ask that they not be tortured to death in a manner we would not permit to be used on a terrorist, a murderer or a dog?
A couple of problems I foresee with this. 1) President Obama had not a bit of problem with letting born babies die alone, voting against Infants Born Alive legislation more than once, I believe. If he’s unconcerned about the pain of born babies, what are the chances the pain of the unborn will be a problem? 2) Pro-abortion types go apoplectic when you draw attention to any factor that allows the public to understand that the fetus in the womb might be sentient. 3) Obama might say he wants dialogue, but in reality, there has been a dialogue going on here for decades–and any time he’s ventured into the fray it’s been to inflame the proceedings by choosing an extreme position.
In short, I’m not as charitable as this Washington lawyer. (I’m sure there’s a joke in there somewhere, one that doesn’t make me look very good.)
If such an act were introduced to protect the fetus from the pain of dismemberment, sure, I’d support it. But I’m guessing I know already who wouldn’t. (His name starts with “O” and ends with “ama”.)
I’d love to be proven wrong. But I fear that the whole topic really is above Obama’s paygrade.
Seen yesterday on University of Toronto campus: a sign telling me to “think before I speak” and then a sign advertising an event entertaining 9/11 conspiracy theories. Check out both for yourselves. Whoever put these things up may not be idiotic, but these signs certainly are.
(It reads: “Machon stands with experts in many fields who believe that there are serious problems with the official narrative of 9/11 that need to be investigated.”)
This is a lovely column by Leonard Stern from yesterday’s Citizen:
Studies show that able-bodied folk consistently judge the quality of life of disabled people to be much lower than do disabled people themselves. We project our own fears onto the disabled. Even medical professionals commit this error and underestimate the quality of life of disabled patients.
I recall once going to hear a disabled woman speak, about ten years ago. She touched on this topic, and I was left with the very distinct and uncomfortable impression that I had been doing just that–judging others’ quality of life to be low simply because I couldn’t fathom living in a particular way.
I thought this was a good point–in an article actually about the Tamil demonstrations:
But if anyone needs proof that trafficking is the answer to the question of very effective protesting, they need only have watched a huge but quiet protest against Canada’s 40-year-old abortion laws held on Parliament Hill on Thursday, which included a non-disruptive march around Ottawa streets. Number of questions raised in the Commons or headlines posted in the media about their pro-life campaign to save the unborn from what they perceive as an illegal slaughter: Zero.