Wednesday, March 04, 2015

Gee I Wonder Why People Are So Judgemental of ChildFree Women...



QUOTE:

We live in a society -- in a world, really -- where it is assumed that the default desire of women is to have children. Producing offspring is supposedly so hardwired into not only who a woman is, but also who she is supposed to be, so that if she doesn't want to have kids, there must be something wrong with her

Gee, what could possibly be wrong with a woman who wants to be childfree? Let's go over what the writer has said about herself:

If I'm being totally honest, that's largely because I don't like children. I'm not good with them.I have spent my whole life as an only child and have utterly loved every minute of being sibling-less. I could be the poster girl for only child syndrome: spoiled, achievement-oriented, impatient, etc. And as such, I don't really have a ton of experience with children. I've never even held a baby (and no, I don't want to hold yours, thanks for asking). And so, I'm extremely awkward around them. I have no idea how to interact with a child younger than 12. Children are a mystery to me.
My only child-ness has also made me equal parts introverted and selfish. This is, admittedly, not a great combination if you have to sacrifice your own needs and want to constantly care for another, smaller human being who can't fend for itself yet. And I have no desire to change these things about myself. It's who I am, and I like who I am. I like the life I have and the childless life I envision for myself in the future.

So she admits to all these negatives attributes about herself.

And she makes these negative attributes the basis for her wanting to be childfree.

Then she complains that people assume that "if she doesn't want to have kids, there must be something wrong with her"

Gee, I wonder why so many people make that assumption?

Is it perhaps that childfree people often admit to selfish tendencies, aren't embarrassed about them, and then declare that we're supposed to not judge them for not wanting children based on their own admission of selfishness?

Do you think that might have something to do with it?

Or maybe their own admitted disdain for a certain demographic of humanity?

Imagine if she had said that she didn't like blacks or gays and didn't want to interact with them, especially after having admitted not having interacted with them.

She would have zero credibility among progressives.

But because it's about children, that's okay.  It's perfectly normal to harbour dislike for children, even though you were a child once. But you were special, not like the rest of the rabble. You were really smart and mature. You got to hang out with the adults, not the snot-nosed kids around you. And heck, maybe you were a little sh*t now and then, but your overall intelligence and maturity compensated for that. Only beings like you should inhabit the planet. Children should just go away.

But there's nothing wrong at all with being childfree. Nothing wrong with calling oneself free of a certain demographic of children, like they're parasites or something. Peope who think the word childfree is derogatory are clearly judgemental.

And honestly, I don't actually care if women have kids or don't. I am part of a religion where some women choose not to have kids, so that's the issue. The issue is the ideology and its justifying motives, its contempt for a whole demographic.




Tuesday, March 03, 2015

How did a Non-Catholic Become a Doctor of the Church?


When Pope Francis says to look to the periphery, boy he ain't kidding!

When I heard St. Gregory of Narek had become a Doctor of the Church, I, and probably the rest of the world's laymen cried 'who the heck is that?'

It turns out St. Gregory did not belong to a Church in Communion with Rome. He was a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church, who did not accept the Council of Chalcedon. In everyday theological language, we call this Church "monophysite."  However, their correct doctrinal description would be miaphysitism, which does not consider Christ to only have a divine nature, but a combined divine-human nature.

In 1996, Pope St. John Paul the Great and Catholicos Karekin I -- the head of the Armenian Church-- signed a declaration saying that such the semantic distinction on the nature of Christ was no basis for the separation of the two Churches. In other words, the two churches share a Christology.

Okay, but this Armenian Church isn't in Communion with the Catholic Church and St. Gregory was not in Communion with Rome during his lifetime. How can we accept this saint as a Doctor?

There is a precedent. When part of the Armenian Church came into Communion with Rome in the eighteenth century, the Catholic Church accepted all the Armenian saints, so long as they did not explicitly contradict Church teaching.

It appears that St. Gregory of Narek is accepted on this premise.

Now I can't speak to why he should be considered a Doctor. I'd never heard of him before and I've read nothing of his, and I'm not even sure what his contribution should be. In the Western Church, we're more used to Doctors who write treatises and essays, not poetry.

You can find his writings here.

Monday, March 02, 2015

Two Blogposts on Conservatives Changing the Culture

Five Principles For The Rising Conservative Counterculture

Rod Dreher's reaction: How (Mostly) Not to Build a ‘Conservative Counterculture’

My problem with Marcus’s “Five Principles” is that it sounds too much like a Republican Party version of Socialist Realism: the idea that art must be put into service of a particular ideology.

It shouldn't. But if you write a story, and you do it in an authentic manner, your values will come through. You don't have to aim to write a conservative story. Just write a story. It'll be conservative because you're conservative.

Family Coalition Party is Now The New Reform Party of Ontario



I'm kinda glad.

It was tough to run a campaign boxed in by the notion of "family". People want to vote for a party that looks at the big picture.

It's not outright Libertarian, but definitely something else to vote for besides the PC's.

And still strongly pro-life.

You can find them here on facebook.

VIDEO: Rebel Media Gets an Office

With almost room enough to swing a cat:




I hope they fundraise a scrim or something for monologues and interviews, because that brick wall will not do.

Cardinal Burke Comments on Vatican Officials Suing Bloggers

Rorate Caeli is not my favourite blog, but it really did score one heck of an interview.

The first question out of the gate was on Vatican officials suing bloggers. This is Cardinal Burke's response:


Unless the blogger has committed a calumny on someone's good name unjustly, I certainly don't think that that's the way we as Catholics should deal with these matters. I think contact should be made. I presume that the Catholic blogger is in good faith, and if there's someone in the hierarchy who is upset with him, the way to deal with it would be first to approach the person directly and try to resolve the matter in that way. Our Lord in the Gospel and St. Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians instruct us not to take our disputes to the civil forum, that we should be able, as Catholics, to resolve these matters among ourselves. (cf. Mt. 18:15; 1 Cor. 6:1-6)

It's easy to see this as a dig at Father Rosica, but it's not that clear-cut.

Cardinal Burke did not directly address the situation surrounding Vox Cantoris.

He didn't say Father Rosica shouldn't sue Vox. He just said it shouldn't happen "unless the blogger has committed a calumny..." So it all rests on whether a calumny was committed.

I'm not saying that Father Rosica is right. I don't think he should sue even if there was a calumny, certainly not for the reasons stated.

But I don't think Cardinal Burke is really taking sides. Although I suspect his words may be taken to mean he is.





Conservatives: Stop Supporting Liberal Lite



Oh yeah:

I am not satisfied to vote for the marginally least wretched option. I want politicians who leave my wallet alone and engage my heart and my mind with their vision of the society in which they want to live. I want to hear why they think Canada needs their governance. What they’re going to do to make sure we pass along to our children a country that’s healthier – financially, fiscally, environmentally – than the one we inherited. But all I get are variants of “the other guys reek more than us.”

Recently, I was invited to join the Ontario PC's in order to vote for Monte McNaughton's bid for leadership.

Sunday, March 01, 2015

VIDEO: Ryerson Rejects Pro-Life Group



I resent the idea that these "feminists" have the absolute truth on women and that believing in fetal rights is "misogynistic".

I think women should protest these student unions. There's not one view on women. Women are not a monolith and many don't agree with them.

It's time that women raise their voices.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

VIDEO: Another Update from Rebel Media on Crowdfunding



Ezra wants to crowdfund the staff.

Have you donated yet? If you have five bucks to donate, do it.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Baglow vs. Smith: 6 Ways It Has Helped the Blogosphere

I'll only put one example, go read the rest:

5) This case makes it very clear that "internet snark" is expected in the blogosphere and that sarcastic posts and photoshopped pictures should not be considered evidence of malice. This is a huge advance in the law because anyone who spends time on blogs and message boards knows that "snark" is built into the culture. She [the judge] also declined to consider commentary about the case (even sharp commentary) to be evidence of malice.

Even though the Fourniers won this case, they still have three more court cases to fight, so please consider donating. 

Camille Paglia on Post-Structuralism, or Why I Dropped Out of Grad School


From an interview in America magazine:

Briefly put, what is post-structuralism and what is your opinion of it?

Post-structuralism is a system of literary and social analysis that flared up and vanished in France in the 1960s but that became anachronistically entrenched in British and American academe from the 1970s on. Based on the outmoded linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and promoted by the idolized Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and Michel Foucault, it absurdly asserts that we experience or process reality only through language and that, because language is inherently unstable, nothing can be known. By undermining meaning, history and personal will, post-structuralism has done incalculable damage to education and contemporary thought. It is a laborious, circuitously self-referential gimmick that always ends up with the same monotonous result. I spent six months writing a long attack on academic post-structuralism for the classics journal Arion in 1991, "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the Hour of the Wolf" (reprinted in my first essay collection, Sex, Art, and American Culture). Post-structuralism has destroyed two generations of graduate students, who were forced to mouth its ugly jargon and empty platitudes for their foolish faculty elders. And the end result is that humanities departments everywhere, having abandoned their proper mission of defending and celebrating art, have become humiliatingly marginalized in both reputation and impact.

It felt so affirming to read a prof state what I believe.

I did one semester of graduate English. I had so enjoyed studying literature at the undergrad level that I thought I would try grad school. I thought it would like the undergrad level, only with longer essays. Well, foolish me, I had no idea I had to base my analysis on post-structuralism, that I couldn't just write what I thought. As if my thought were any less worthy than this trash.

Oh, I suppose you might have a point that at the grad level, essays have to reflect some knowledge of critical theory, so I couldn't just write what I thought.

The stupid thing is that this theory, which opposes any concept of absolute truth, is treated like absolute truth. So why shouldn't my opinion-- the fruit of my own study-- by any less valid than that of a lit prof? Why no! Post-structuralism is the truth!

Now you could fault me for my lack of reference to critical theory. But the dumbest thing about this theory and its adherents is that it really undermines the concept of fact.  As a result of this mentality drilled into its practitioners, facts are not taken that seriously. And so historical claims are made fideistically, with no actual references, and nobody bothers to fact-check. And attempts to fact-check might even come off as gauche. I remember this one prof (this was during my undergrad) who made the absurd claim that Thomas More's novel Utopia showed that he was in favour of women's ordination.

I wrote a paper disproving that Thomas More could have had any such concept using-- of all things-- sources-- including primary sources. That essay only garnered a B+ even though the prof said it was well argued. In hindsight, I suppose I should have known that challenging a prof's statement during a lecture was not a good way to earn an "A".  I suspect that my exasperation at the disregard for the facts might have made a poor impression, even though I was right and I could prove it.

But that little episode illustrates the kind of mentality that's rampant in English lit.

For someone such as myself, who studied history, where your statements had to be backed up by data, this drove me batty. I could forgive non-history majors for making mistakes-- everybody makes mistakes. I find it difficult to forgive the cavalier attitude towards basic facts, especially at the university level. Truth should matter.

But it's not ultimately about the truth, is it, in humanities, is it? Maybe that's why facts don't matter.

Thank God I majored in history.

Update on Rebel Media's Crowdfunding



I'm astounded.

This morning, when I looked up Rebel Media's crowdfunding campaign, I contributed to pay for Computer Number 1, and a number of other items had already been paid for.

Now, almost all the equipment is paid for, and there's not that much left to fund. It's down to apps and salaries for investigative reporters.

They've raised tens of thousands of dollars in a few hours.

And there are people who have yet to hear of this.

Wow. Just wow.

This could be a very viable operation. Maybe even better than Sun News.





Links: Vox Rosica, ProLife Free Speech, Trudeau, Court Injunction, Rebel Media



So many things of note today, I thought I'd just stick them all in one post.

Deborah Gyapong has written a very thoughtful post on the Vox/Rosica conflict:

Let us disagree even vehemently without becoming divisive, partisan or spiteful; let us defend the faith without assuming we have special insight into the heart of the individual with whom we disagree or hope to correct. Most people out there attacking him do not even know him, except for his public persona.
...

If those of us who favor traditional liturgy,and claim to hold the Catholic faith in its entirety behave with an absence of the fruits of the Spirit, what kind of message are we sending when we lapse into anger, spite and frustration?

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

VIDEO: Ezra Levant on Mauril Belanger's Attempt to Change the National Anthem



The words of the National Anthem. Yep. That's what keeps me up at night.

On top of changing this perfectly fine song, the changes don't make sense.

VIDEO: Ezra Levant on Obama's Veto of Keystone XL



It astounds me that liberals prefer to get their oil from the Third World where environmental regulations and oversight are inferior to Western nations.

America, what are you doing putting up with Obama?

And I really like this new format. It's a two minute rant. He says all he needs to say.

Catholic Legate: Father Rosica Must Not be a CEO First



QUOTE:

If Fr. Rosica’s threat of a lawsuit goes ahead, it will mean much more than merely two people and alleged defamation.  What message is being sent about what the priesthood is supposed to be about?  So now the priesthood is about being a “litigator”, and about protecting a CEO’s reputation in the Catholic Church so he can effectively carry out his “ministry”?  A priest’s ministry is not to be a CEO — even of a charity.  This whole scandal is more than just the petty jealousies and play-ground tactics that appear on the surface of typical lawsuits, but it also involves the very nature and role of the priesthood.  The priest’s principal roles are to offer mass and hear Confession.  The bishops of this country who allow this scandal to perpetuate are creating an impression that priests can sue lay people without repercussion or discipline. Remember Fr. Gravel’s lawsuit against LSN?  No action was taken on that front, and it squeezed LifeSiteNews (comprised of mostly lay Catholics) and bled them for hundreds of thousands of dollars.  And this lawsuit of Fr. Rosica?  Will Cardinal Collins step in to take action here?  Who is going to correct this false view of the priest as litigator?  Is Canada now the home of the suing priests?  That’s not very ecumenical-sounding, is it?

I have a hunch this lawsuit is not going forward.

Monday, February 23, 2015

On Changing the Culture



JohnOnLife is envious of Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn is lauded for saying what he's been saying for decades:

That we must change the culture in order to produce the desired political results.

Here's one problem with the "change the culture" mantra.

Canadian Pro-lifers, as a whole, are not cultural people.

Dr. Dawg Loses Libel Case Against Free Dominion

In sum:

The court ruled that Peter O'Donnell's allegation that Dr. Dawg was one of the "Taliban's more vocal supporters" was defamatory, however, it fell under fair comment.

Each side must bear costs.

I consider this a victory for free speech.


VIDEO: The Rick Mercer Report's PSA on The Seven-Day Forecast




I get baited every time. Every time.

The forecast for next Monday is -1.

I need that hope.

I don't want to sound melodramatic, but the cold sucks my will to live. I'm not saying I'm suicidal. It just makes me sink into a deep apathy.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Pope Compares Transgender People To Nuclear Weapons

BOOM!

QUOTE:

“Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings,” Francis is quoted as saying in a book first published in Italy in January but that caught the attention of the English-language media over the last week. “Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation … With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator.”


The Pope is Catholic. Imagine that!

And about this:

New Ways Ministry is a 38-year-old organization that describes itself as “a gay-positive ministry of advocacy and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Catholics.” On Wednesday, they were given VIP tickets to attend Pope Francis’s weekly public audience in the Vatican, in which the pontiff greets tens of thousands who gather in St. Peter’s Square and leads a short service. The premium tickets meant the group sat near the pope on the steps of St. Peter’s Basilica, an honor typically reserved for visiting dignitaries.

EWTN has an article debunking this meme.