ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for All Posts

A propos nothing in particular

by Leave a Comment

I’m reading Maggie Gallagher’s 1989 Enemies of Eros and found this on page 37:

I don’t know how they can have failed to notice that, as a matter of hard empirical fact, not every woman who smiles at a man is signalling an uncontrollable desire to become his own sweet patootie. But from their point of view, it seems, men are constantly surrounded by lustful women who perversely refuse to sleep with them. (Lack of discrimination is a trait common to males of all species. As Fred Hapgood points out in Why Males Exist, male frogs and toads will inadvertently try to have sex with males, some insects court females of the wrong species, and a few particularly broadminded male flies have been spotted trying to mate with raisins. But those were the sexual liberals.)

Admit it: You smiled, too.

What day is it anyway?

by Leave a Comment

Why it’s International Women’s Day, of course.

ProWomanProLifers don’t look to international, top-heavy, unaccountable bodies to guard their rights. (The United Nations can support women’s rights about as well as they guarded against genocide in Rwanda.)

Véronique adds this:

Here’s my $0.02 on Women’s Day. Now that my oldest daughter is teetering on the verge of adolescence, the dizzying task of helping her come to term with her femininity in ways that are emotionally, physically and spiritually healthy looms large in my mother-eyes. Women’s rights, self-affirmation and confidence in one’s abilities start early, especially if that girl must grow-up in a culture of early sexualization, where girl-power means the power to turn men on and self-expression means being available for intercourse (think I’m making this up? Check this out: Shut up, girls, and let your genitals do the talking…).

With all this doom and gloom, I still have great conversations with my daughters about love and sexuality, body image and romance…Another important battle front is the education of our boys. Having two of them, I am constantly reminded that they will also play an important role in upholding gender equality and the dignity of women. Women’s Day at my house is an ongoing event. It started with an exclamatory “It’s a girl!” in an Ottawa-area delivery room almost 12 years ago.

So who does look to anti-democratic bodies to support their rights? These ladies do.  They’re the ones who have their knickers in a knot because of the anodyne Unborn Victims of Violence Bill. The ones who guard abortion rights without ever thinking about what those “rights” are. The ones who, across the country are trying to silence women like us.

So in honour of International Women’s Day, I’m changing one of the categories on this site. You’ll note the former category “Feminism” is now “Feminist nonsense”-a home for all the tired and ridiculous assertions of the old-school, pro-abortion 1960s feminist crowd. It’s Michelle Malkin’s idea-and I like it.

I hope our readers continue to enjoy the thought-provoking content of our non-feminist ProWoman team. And happy International Women’s Day!  

(Cross-posted to The Shotgun.)

A vagina-friendly mayor?

by Leave a Comment

cari_nagin.gif

What does one say to this?

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin says he is “a vagina-friendly Mayor.”

Nagin made the remark while welcoming the author of the Vagina Monlogues, Eve Ensler to the city to promote the “V-Day” celebration in New Orleans next month.

You will also, no doubt, be thrilled to hear that according to Mayor Nagin, Ms. Ensler is “doing God’s work.”

[h/t Michelle Malkin]

_____________________

Andrea adds: Brigitte, your post spurs me to reach for Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I don’t know why.

Finally!!! (Another view)

by Leave a Comment

My, oh my… The Ottawa Citizen’s front page about Catholic politicians being refused Communion in light of their public pro-abortion positions. But this is not what I’m shaking my head about. As with many newsworthy Catholic positions, who would you think the paper would ask for commentaries? Not the Catholic men and women who support the Archbishop’s position (there are at least a couple). No, the coordinator of Catholic for Free-Choice Canada and David McGuinty, a pro-choice Catholic (writing these two words together feels very weird in the fingers, not to mention the brain) politician.

In a bid to gain better understanding, I have a few questions for pro-abortion Catholics who might be reading this blog. When Rosemary Ganley writes that Canada is a country “with a Charter of rights that has been interpreted to protect a woman’s right to choose” does she mean that immoral laws should never be challenged? Whether or not you consider abortion immoral is not the point. The point is about the incontestability of law. I’m asking because abortion used to be illegal and abortion laws were successfully challenged by abortion advocates who thought it was immoral to impose one’s pro-life views on women. According to Ganley’s myopic view of law, women shouldn’t be persons and we should be allowed to own black people (oops, my mistake, blacks wouldn’t be people…). Or is there a point in history where law, who has always been malleable, became fixed? Maybe the day it coincided with Ganley’s personal views? Just trying to understand here…

My second question concerns the separation of church and state, on which I am no expert. But, if there is indeed a separation of church and state, wouldn’t that be an argument upholding Archbishop’s Pendergast’s position? There are state positions (abortion is a legitimate personal choice in a free and democratic society) and church positions (life begins at conception and belongs to God). Who gets an abortion is state matter. Communion is a Church matter. I don’t understand why Ganley thinks the State should be allowed to meddle with who is receiving a Catholic Sacrament… not if she wants to declare in the same breath that the Church has no business meddling with who is receiving an abortion.

Finally, my last question maybe should have been the first. Why care so much about the Catholic Church? With the number of Christian churches and denominations that support abortion, contraception, women pastors, divorce and same-sex marriage, why so upset about the Catholic church? I just don’t get it. Don’t you want to be happy when you go to Church? Spirituality through disgruntlement. Never heard of it.

Finally!!!

by Leave a Comment

Something I’ve been wanting to see for a while:

Ottawa’s Catholic archbishop says he will refuse communion to any politician who “obstinately” supports access to abortion, but only if he or she cannot be persuaded to stand down.

No, I am not religious. I am in fact something of an anti-Catholic, in good part from having grown up in Quebec (long, dull story). But it bothers me no end to see politicians profess to be good Catholics, then publicly support positions, like abortion and same-sex marriage, that are clearly against Church teachings, insisting that they have the right to interpret their religion as they see fit. No they don’t. Not in the Catholic Church. I’m glad to see the Ottawa archbishop is ready to crack down. It’s about time.  

Oh, and please spare me ridiculous lectures about the separation of Church and state. First of all, it’s an American concept. There’s no such thing in Canada, where the preamble to the Constitution (the 1982 one, not the dusty old 1867 document) says: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. And second, the archbishop isn’t trying to change Canadian laws – he may be advocating for changes he’d like to see, but we all have the right to do that, religious or not. What he’s doing is trying to apply his own religion in his own church, and last time I checked there was no constitutional right to communion.

Religion and motherhood

by Leave a Comment

Here is an interesting article on National Review Online about women and religiosity.  Of particular interest is this comment about why, contra today’s feminists, Judeo-Christian religion empowers and dignifies women:

Judaism’s view of women departed sharply from that ancient model. The practice of “holy prostitution” so common in the ancient world was renounced, as was the image of the pagan goddess as sexual ideal. The Hebrew Scriptures revealed a personal God who had created men and women in his image. Women now were connected to the realm of the spirit, not just the flesh, and motherhood was seen as a personal event in the life of the mother and a blessing from God, not merely a woman’s duty-bound contribution to the increase of the tribe.  The Gospels continued on this trajectory. They depicted God taking flesh in the womb of a woman, a woman who was free to accept or reject her role as the mother of Jesus. […] Although Christians themselves often have failed to live up to Jesus’ example regarding women, Gerl-Falkovitz said, feminism is an outgrowth of Christian ideas about women’s equal dignity: “Only in Judeo-Christian culture sprang up this humanization of women.”

Hmm, prostitution and pagan sexuality as the paradigm for women’s worth, that doesn’t have anything at all to do with today’s secular culture, does it?

So much of the abortion debate abortion rhetoric takes it for granted that pregnancy and motherhood is inherently a blight, a burden and a hardship that should only under very narrow circumstances be borne by a woman.  How inhuman this is compared to the “unenlightened” religious view of a child as a blessing and a gift, and of motherhood as sanctified, and especially in Christian thought, even miraculous.  I believe that the Woodstock generation sincerely thought they were creating a utopia, but the secular leftist world is becoming increasingly joyless and grim, as well as misogynistic.

You call that sympathy?

by Leave a Comment

Re.: Bill C-484, the unborn victims of crime bill, this column about sums up how much sympathy a pro-abortion advocate is prepared to have for women murdered when pregnant.

…the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a woman and her fetus are considered “one person.” That means there are no “unborn victims” of crime…

There you have it. There are no unborn victims. And “unborn victims” gets quotation marks, just to highlight how delusional a pregnant woman really is.

Don’t get me wrong, I like charades–have played it many times. But really, how long can women like Antonia Zerbisias keep this up? 

Meanwhile in the cynical community…

by Leave a Comment

Folks ain’t none too pleased with Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s non-position on C-484.

Sir, while you were absent from the House of Commons today, a vote was held. The vote in question allowed Bill C-484 to pass into committee. Because you saw fit not to whip your party’s vote, because it did not interest you sufficiently to attend, your leadership will now come under harsh scrutiny. This Bill is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians and a blatant attempt to undermine the ability of women to maintain the right to bodily self determination and personal autonomy. This Bill is a bald faced attempt to enshrine in law a definition of life that precedes birth and creates criminal precedent for ending that newly defined life. Mr. Dion, while I sincerely hope this Bill is killed in committee, your inaction and abandonment of Canadian women’s rights has defeated any faith I might have had for your growth as a leader. You are clearly unfit for the job.

[…]

Mr. Dion please step down. This nation will not elect you Prime Minister. You are a non-entity, a milquetoast and a flop. The Liberal Party might as well appoint a traffic cone to the leadership. At least people will take notice of a traffic cone. As for the members of the Liberal Party who saw fit to vote for the travesty that is Bill C-484, you will not be forgotten come the next election cycle.

There are others, as listed here. Whoopee-dee-doo.

Meta