Came across this thought in my April 2009 edition of Real Simple magazine:
What I expect from my male friends is that they are polite and clean. What I expect from my female friends is unconditional love, the ability to finish my sentences for me when I am sobbing, a complete and total willingness to pour their hearts out to me, and the ability to tell me why the meat thermometer isn’t supposed to touch the bone.”
Anna Quindlen, Living Out Loud
Saudi Arabia is reportedly banning women from going to the gym (yes, I mean banning them from going to women-only gyms) because, the inevitable clerics say, they are places of “shamelessness”.
What rot. If you’ve spent any time at a gym working hard, you know they are places of shame. I am routinely humiliated there myself. Sometimes, I don’t do pushups right. Other times, it’s my leg-raises that stink. I only rarely manage graceful spinning kicks. Yet I keep going and keep improving regardless, and good luck to any cleric who’d try to bar my way (my palm strikes are a thing of beauty, if I say so myself).
I need help. I really don’t know what to think of this story. Part of me says it’s creepy, part of me says it’s sweet. Either way, I feel very sorry for this poor woman (and the countless ones in her situation).
A California man has signed papers to symbolically “adopt” and give his last name to his wife’s two aborted fetuses.
Stan Musil said he filed the posthumous “adoption” on Monday as a way to support his wife, Lisa, and help her heal from the pain of having those abortions, Lisa Musil told FOXNews.com.
_______________________
Andrea’s gut reaction: It’s weird, but what he is essentially saying to her is I accept you and your past. She is obviously still very much struggling with herself. In that sense, I don’t have a problem with it. That said, this information is not news; it belongs in a counsellor’s office.
_____________________
Rebecca adds: It’s creepy because it’s, well, a bit ghoulish – and I’d feel the same way about, say, getting a dead adult you were close to in life to “symbolically adopt” you. It’s sweet because this guy is willing to do something weird to bring his wife some peace. And it’s a wonderful story in that it makes it clear that abortion causes suffering and anguish for women, and it also makes it clear that these were babies that were aborted – nobody grieves over (to pick at random) a surgically removed kidney, much less asks her husband to symbolically adopt a destroyed kidney. The legions of counsellors telling women that most women just feel relief after an abortion – what would they say to Lisa Musil? How do they explain that? Are they willing to concede, in this case at least, that her two abortions ended two lives and caused profound suffering in another?
_____________________
Tanya adds: I think the motivation behind this act is what could potentially render it creepy or anything else. In this case, however, I’m really touched by the couple’s actions. In giving the children a full name, these are clearly being recognized as people. The symbolic act of adoption by her husband is the closest these 4 people will ever be to a close family. It’s not like the man can say, “hey, let’s have your boys over for a barbecue.” He’s accepting his wife’ past. He’s recognizing that she loves the children she aborted, and misses them. He’s loving and missing them along with her. He’s symbolically taking on the role he would have, were they still alive today.
Hey, if it helps:
A new study out of the Hospital for Sick Children found babies whose mothers experienced morning sickness later tested a few IQ points higher than children of mothers who had nausea-free pregnancies.
“In a very popular way it kind of says that this suffering is for a good cause,” said Dr. Gideon Koren, a top Sick Kids pediatrician and the senior study author. “So it’s very reassuring to know that your severe experience right now is likely to have a good outcome.”
Congressman Jeff Fortenberry asks Hillary Clinton not to export abortion.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u47dmqiblI]
[h/t The Corner]
p.s. Try to imagine a Canadian politician giving this speech…
_____________________
Andrea adds: I can imagine a Canadian giving this speech, actually. He deserves a standing ovation. “Imposition of our own woundedness,” “neocolonialism,” “paternalistic,” “elitist,” AND “an assault on the dignity of the poor and the vulnerable…” These are all apt phrases to describe what exporting abortion internationally would mean.
Note that in face of his eloquence, we get one reply and one reply only. Clinton’s reply can be summed up in the phrase “it must be a woman’s choice.”
And so, once again, choice trumps all, as if there were no such thing as universal values. I was just at a talk about democratic discourse and civility in the public square. But we can’t debate civilly or otherwise if the only reply I ever receive is “your views are fine for you, but not for me.”
There’s got to be something more than that to this life.
Sometimes, we need a break. And a laugh. I’m happy to oblige.
Pamela Anderson wants to host a vegan cooking show in a bikini.
[…]
Writing on her blog, the 41-year-old blonde beauty said: “I’ve been cooking Vegan every day (myself) – experimenting – trying out new things – I still think I should have my own sexy/fun Vegan-cooking show?- maybe one day.
“Could always have Girls in bikinis cooking veggies on the beach. I keep getting crazy offers to go back on TV – I don’t think I have the passion anymore for it. What is TV these days anyway? Sensory overload – too busy living the dream… (unless I could do the veggie bikini BBQ show) – I just don’t think I could pull it off – no studio for me (sic).”
Yes. Because we all know Pamela in a bikini would go a long way towards solving the problem of “sensory overload” on television.
______________________
Andrea notes that Pammie is busy:
Company is called pamela-super-enviro-conscious-cruelty
free-yummy-natural-very-sexy-fragrance-I-wear-every-day
“Pamela-super-enviro-conscious-cruelty
free-yummy-natural-very-sexy-fragrance-I-wear-every-day”? Great name. So intuitive, and an easy acronym, too: PSECCFYNVSFIWED.
I should go into business.
______________________
Brigitte hates (hates!) to sound overly cynical, but: What’s “natural” doing there anyway? I’m calling it PSECCFYVSFIWED and you just try stopping me.
_______________________
Andrea to Brigitte: Now that last comment, that made me laugh. I’m not going to fight you on your new acronym. (How could I, in face of your second degree black belt? Let the record stand, folks. I defer to Brigitte often.)
This story reminds me to remind you not to forget to buy your shirt.
A very interesting piece on incest by Margaret Somerville:
Some people propose that just as laws criminalizing homosexual acts or limiting marriage to monogamous heterosexual unions have been changed, the law against incest should be repealed. They argue this law is outdated, does not reflect current social mores and is nothing more than imposing one view of morality on others in a context where personal privacy should take priority.
Underlying their approach is the belief that personal preference is the guiding principle regarding one’s sexual activity and that what one does, as long as it is among consenting adults, causes no harm to anyone else.
Their definition of harm is very narrow. Any concern about harm to children who might be conceived as a result of incest or the harm it does to family structure, relations and functioning, and thereby to society and its values, is not on the radar screen. So, if a grandfather wants to have sex with his 18-year-old granddaughter and she consents, it is no one else’s business but their own.
Those making the case for legalization reject the idea that incestuous conduct might be inherently morally wrong. Rather, moral relativism governs – that is, the decisions of the persons involved as to the ethics of their conduct are conclusive. Ethics becomes nothing more than personal preferences.
I used to be a libertarian. I used to think that as long as one didn’t hurt anyone else, one was allowed to do anything one wanted. That what consenting adults got up to was their business and no one else’s. Part of me still believes that. But I also realized, somewhere along the way, that I was probably guilty of having a definition of harm that was too narrow. And that when in doubt, one should always make sure children (who are inherently more vulnerable than adults) are reasonably well-protected from harm. I have never been able properly to explain why gay marriage made me uneasy, especially because homosexuality, and homosexual behaviour, do not have the same effect on me. But part of is certainly has to do with a very strong instinct to reject ethics as “nothing more than personal preferences.”
Apparently, that nasty Afghan “marital-rape” law is a giant misunderstanding.
A new Afghan law that has drawn Western condemnation for restricting women’s rights does not allow marital rape as critics claim, but lets men refuse to feed wives who deny them sex, the cleric behind it says.
The Shiite personal status law advocated by Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni has sparked controversy abroad because of a provision that states “a wife is obliged to fulfil the sexual desires of her husband.” This was read by some as an open door to marital rape, and with clauses restricting women’s freedom of movement denounced as reminiscent of Taliban-era rules.
But the cleric said the law — which applies only to the 15% of Afghans who are Shiite — has been misinterpreted. Its sexual clauses are aimed to ensure men’s sexual needs were met within marriage, because Islam prohibits them seeking satisfaction with other women.
OK. Let’s play with language, too. This law, as I understand it, does not so much “restrict women’s rights” as enslave women pure and simple. But that’s a minor issue. What I really don’t like about that article is that little bit I highlighted: “This was read by some as an open door to marital rape”. Really? And we’re obviously wrong since the law does not specifically say men are allowed to rape their wives. It just says women aren’t allowed to refuse sex unless they have a very good reason (what are they meant to do, explain themselves to the local constabulary?) and their husbands are allowed to starve them if their (obviously unquestionably valid) sexual desires are not fulfilled to their satisfaction.
And that’s supposed to be better?
It’s not easy being pro-women (or just not completely crazy) in Afghanistan:
Hundreds of Afghan women were pelted by stones as they staged a protest against a new law that critics say legalises marital rape.
The 300-strong group braved crowds of bearded men, screaming ‘dogs’ and ‘Slaves of the Christians!’ as they held their demonstration in Kabul.
So, um, where to start?
___________________
Andrea adds: That’s an interesting epithet to hurl–“slaves of the Christians”–however, it highlights the reality rather well: that Christianity brings women rights in this world. It’s just too bad that the last time I heard that slur it was here in Canada. (Actually I think it was directed at my boss. As in you crazy social conservatives are religious zealots who want to enslave everyone.)
___________________
Tanya notices (again): how the media loves bad news. The article’s title stars out: “Afghan men hurl stones at 300 women…”
Maybe I’m too much of a glass-half-full kinda gal, but I think the big news story here is that ‘300 Afghan women protest Shiite law.’ How I would love to rewrite the whole article. This is great news! I particularly like that “a line of female police officers locked hands to keep the groups apart.”