If you are trying to compliment me, that's a very poor choice of words...

If that's a compliment, it's a poor choice of words.

     I was working on a post about being pro-life and a feminist, when someone forwarded me this great article by Rene Contreras De Loach. Her quote at the end of her article was basically everything I wanted to say in my post, only better.

If you haven’t experienced abuse, mutilation, miscarriages, oppression, wage gaps, or been denied necessary medical care because you can’t afford it… GOOD. I am happy for you and I truly mean that. But in this wide world you are the exception, not the rule and you should be grateful, not judgmental. I hope this helps people understand the wide range of issues around the world (50 countries) that women and men marched for.

I have now begun stalking her on Facebook and a have collected a fair amount of evidence she and I would be awesome friends, as well as fantastic leads in a Catholic-themed buddy-cop film.

     What originally motivated to write my post was reading about the Women's March organizers declining the support of the New Wave Feminists.  FOX News and other conservative forums exploded, screaming about how liberal feminists are hypocrites and limit inclusion to only those that support the liberal agenda. The New Wave Feminists were welcome at the March, did March, and had a great time. That said, there is no way the organizers of the March could have included the New Wave Feminists as "Partners of the March" because, despite what they claim, New Wave feminists aren't feminists.
     Before I get into all this, I think it's important to clarify that I believe human life begins at conception and I think that any abortion is a tragedy. In short, I am pro-life. That said, I am pro all-life. I see the value of every human being as equally sacred. I am sure that a New Wave Feminist would say she feels the same way, as do most people in the traditional pro-life movement.  However, the rhetoric used in the pro-life movement tells a very different story.
     Look at how the pro-life agenda advertises itself. Pictures of fetuses in utero are moving, but ignore the woman carrying the fetus who has her own health, her own mind, and her own family, all of which are treasured by God. The pro-life arguement almost never mentions the woman's needs, or if so, they are granted as a secondary thought.
     Then again, when the pro-life agenda does include imagery or description of a woman, I often find myself wishing they wouldn't. The woman is always portrayed shallow, lust-crazed and irresposible or a gullible, naive, children forced into evil. When presented with real life situations such as woman who's heart simply could not support two lives, or woman hemmoraging before the child was viable on its own, pro-lifers often think these stories are simply casualties of war.

"...Love your neighbor as yourself..." Mark 12:30

     But see, that's exactly the mentality that Renee and I will be fighting in our new series, "Nuns of Steel: NYPD. There are no casualities of war in the eyes of God . What's more, it's not a war. Women are not the enemy. They are real people with who are walking a line between life and death, as all pregnant women do. We as Catholics need to respect that. We need to give women dignity: assume that she made every choice anyone would have made to find herself in this situation.  We have to recognize that she is considering her situation with open eyes and a good heart because she is an actual good person.
     There are certainly careless, shallow, and irresponsible, women out there. Some of them might hope to make abortions as easy as clipping toe nails, but that's not how we are called to approach people. Looking at someone with the eyes of God does not mean looking at them from the stand point of judgement, pity, condescension or disdain. It means looking at a person as you would yourself. It is the job of the Church to change her heart through the word of God, not shrug their shoulders, with a "guess you should have thought ahead, kiddo"; and certainly not to force her, angry and afraid, to carry a child to term regardless of the consequences to her mind and body. To think that there have been medical professionals who have forced women to suffer, and sometimes die all in the "name of God" turn my stomache. If we are to avoid such a situation in the future, abortion needs to be legal; plain and simple.

Sex, Lies and Duck Bills

     We have got to do better by our girls.  Seriously.  With the recent explosion over Miley Cyrus and then the tragic suicide of a victim of statutory rape, the "slut shaming" of our girls needs to stop.  This article by Kimberly Hall, which has been making the rounds on Facebook finally pushed me over the edge this morning.  In the article Ms. Hall warns her sons' female friends that, despite the fact that the girls are charming, have many interests and seem like lovely people, even one sexually suggestive photo of themselves on Facebook will result in a "block" from the Hall boys' Facebook feed.  This stance is taken in order to protect her sons.
     I truly believe that Ms. Hall is trying to live a virtuous life as best she can, and that she wants to raise noble and virtuous men who respect women.  I don't think she necessarily harbors these young girls any ill will; she uses a tone that obviously tries to be motherly and kind.  That said, I am not sure what she is protecting her sons from.  Boobs?  Pouty lips?  Her sons' own sexual imaginations?  They are between the ages of 13 and 16 so...she is going to have a lot of work to do.

Nope. You do you, sweetie. It is not your job to teach boys to respect women.

     Don't get me wrong: I don't think those girls should be posting sexually suggestive pictures of themselves on the internet, first and foremost because most of these poor girls really just end up making themselves look like ducks with back problems.
      And that is because they are stupid, immature kids.  We need to remember that.  They are not harlots out trick our men into having sex.  They worked hard on those photos, choosing their outfits, getting their hair so it looks a little like Selena Gomez's.  They want boys to notice them, to be with them, to give them assurance of their value, and they are experimenting with what society claims is their only one true asset. We are failing our girls and blaming them for it.
     And all this slut shaming- whether it be blaming a rape victim, or a Facebook modesty post- really only exacerbate the problem.  Girls do not need to "teach men to love them for who they are" and men do not need to "protect a woman's dignity".  Such bullshit.  Society, especially the Church, needs to advocate for the value of women other than their physical appearance. Society, especially the Church, needs to realize that young girls have dignity regardless of their sexual status. Finally, society- especially The Church- needs to advocate for socially acceptable ways for girls to gain power outside of using sex appeal.

On the plus side, I am fairly confident that my nine-month-old knows what HHS stands for.

Hey!  Obamacare was ruled constitutional!  That is great...kind of...
No, it is good, definitely.  I totally believe in health care for all.
Okay, I am a little bummed because I was kinda hoping that it wouldn't pass and the Dems would try to pass a bill with the public option but... health care for all!  Yeah!


     There is just this one tiny thing, that is actually kind of a big thing for the Catholic Church.  It's that Health and Human Services mandate.  See, mandating that employers cover contraception is a huge deal for the Catholic leadership, and they are just beating us lay people over the head with it.  It is kind of hard to ignore.  I mean, that is the point really is for the leadership: to get the laity to take notice and to stand up to politicians.  So they do homily and brochures and the Fortnight for Freedom, which is supposed to be a time of education and prayer and get us Catholics all engaged and in a tizzy.
     I guess the whole thing is working out for them pretty well, because I have been reading and thinking about it a lot, and despite being fairly liberal, pro-choice, and pro contraception, I do not know what to think about this HHS mandate.
     So the deal with the mandate is that Catholic institutions, like hospitals and schools, are required to provide insurance that covers contraception.  There are a couple issues with this:
     1.  First of all, while contraception is a very controversial issue within the Church, and most lay people side in favor of it being just fine, that is not the point.  The point is that Church leaders resent having to provide to their employees something that the Church officially views as wrong.
     2.  Now truthfully, actual churches are granted exceptions to the mandate; it is only the religiously affiliate organizations that would have to comply, because the state has decided they aren't really religious, just "affiliated".  The Church does not appreciate being told that their organizations are not really religious.

I have seriously been very close to obsessed with this issue to the degree that I often will be drifting off to sleep at night mumbling to myself about tax law exemptions.
It just seems like both sides have valid arguments.

• On one hand, it is not right to make a supposedly Catholic organization do something that they are clearly against.  Regardless of whether or not I agree with the Church's stance on this, there are people who feel that some forms of contraception are tantamount to murdering your children, and if I felt that way about an issue, I wouldn't want the government forcing me to PAY for other people to engage in it.  No one should have to sponsor behavior that is against their religion.
• On the other hand, no one should be denied a medical care they need just because their employer believes it is wrong.  That also would be an infringement on freedom of religion.
• Then again, the Church will pay for contraception if it is a case of medical necessity for the woman in the case of hormonal issues or cysts or something.  Plus, contraception is not really that expensive, and is fairly easy to get, sometimes even free.  So the Church is not exactly preventing a person from accessing contraception just because they don't cover it with insurance.
• Then again, a lot of these Catholic organizations take in a lot of money from the state, so if they are going to be taking tax money, they should probably provide the care that all other employers are expected to provide.
• But the Catholic institutions argue that the money from the state is just compensation from the community for a service the state would otherwise have to provide: care for the sick, homeless, orphaned and elderly.  The Church argues that they are happy to help the state- as these efforts are part of their Christian duty- but they will be forced to stop helping if the state mandates the distribution of contraception.
• However, when you think about it, the Church is paying for contraception either way.  They are either giving money to the insurance company who then gives contraception to the employee, or the Church is giving money to the employee who then uses some of their money to buy contraception. So, one way or another, Church money is going towards something the Church doesn't like.

I am going to be honest with you on this, and I am kind of leaning towards the Church with this one.  I know.  I know.  I feel like a bad woman even thinking about siding against anything that has to do with access to contraception, but I feel like the whole you-can-get-contraception-anywhere-for-really-cheap argument is a really good point.

But convince me otherwise.  I want to be convinced.

Kick Ass Catholic of the Day: Mary E. Hunt

The Roman men are hell-bent on reining in American nuns, if only to prove that they can rein in somebody in a world that pays them increasingly little heed. They fear that such intellectually powerful and theologically persuasive women, who identify with the institutional Roman Catholic Church through their membership in canonical communities, will trump them in the public arena.

Dear Mary E. Hunt: You rock my world. Please keep being fiesty and awesome. Love, Me

Nuns on the loose

You heard about this right: The Vatican appointing the archbishop of Seattle to get all those unruly American nuns under control?

It's awesome.

First and foremost in awesomeness: Catholic leadership seems desperate to reinforce their He-man-women-haters stereotype. Yeah, so I guess when I said "awesome" earlier that may have been misleading.  You know what?  Let me start this over.
The decidedly not awesome aspect of recent events is that the Vatican seems to have decided that the Catholic Church wasn't alienating people fast enough, so they had to step that up a notch.
The cardinals and Pope were sitting around saying to each other, "Yes, we're all elderly gentleman who live in a castle and wear capes, but could we do more?"
"Well, you know, people are always saying that the Catholic Church hates women, but recently we've really been letting that image slide.  So, let's chastise the largest group of American nuns for being too uppity."

Awesome.
But you know what is actually awesome?  American nuns are bad asses.  That's so cool.  And I mean, of course they are.  You think that a bunch of educated American women who have sacrificed everything so they can serve the Church are gonna sit inside and pray the rosary?  Ummm...no I don't see that happening.
The nuns are all in there getting their hands dirty working with homosexuals and unwed mothers, and the Vatican is all "Eww!  You're touching them! Tell them they're gross!" and the nuns are like "Dude, you're not helping..."
Truthfully, while I find the Vatican statement offensive and annoying, I am not really worried about the nuns. I am sure that they are going to do what all people do when dealing with a micromanaging superiors: smile and nod, and then just go ahead and do what needs to be done in order to finish the job.