In my post about marital names the subject of the women’s movement and feminists came up.  Since it was a topic that was quickly diverging from the topic being discussed I decided to make a new post on the subject.  Here are the relevent comments:

Me: “There is plenty that is good about the women’s movement. Unfortunately there was one unintended consequences: a general negativity towards men, marriage and children. … Both the groom and bride need to be able to answer yes to all of those questions (not quoted) to give a marriage a fighting chance. What the women’s movement failed to realize is that it should be fighting to ensure that men answered yes to those questions, not that women should answer no.”

Sarah: “As far as the women’s movement being anti-children, marriage and men, nothing could be further from the truth. At the heart of feminism is the simply belief that men and women should be treated as equals in our society. And despite some radical ideas, this is what most feminists believe.”

For starters this is yet another case where Sarah completely mis-understands my point.  She’s right about the heart of feminism and what most feminists believe.  That’s why I used the critically important phrase “unintended consequences”.

Unintended as in that’s not what was in their heart and not what they believe.

Unintended or otherwise, I think the case is pretty convincing that is indeed what has happened:

1. One of the first significant points of the women’s movement was that being pregnant keeps women from being successful in their careers.  If that’s not anti-children I don’t know what is.  What they should have done instead (and in fairness started fighting for about a decade too late) was fight for better maternity benefits and career environments that were supportive of raising children.
2. Along the same lines, a big part of the women’s movement was abortion rights.  Even putting aside the murder of unborn children, which I view as scientific fact, abortion has still fostered the mindset that children aren’t a gift but a burden.
3. The other early significant portion of the women’s right movement was no-fault divorce.  I’m sorry, nothing says anti-marriage than making it easier to end them.  What they should have been doing is making the consequences of men who abuse their wives much more stringent.  Instead they created an environment where not only is marriage denigrated, but the same asshole men that were emotionally abusing their wives before can now do it until something better comes along and bolt “without fault”.  At least before the women in those cases got 100% of the assets not 50%.
4. Finally, the body of work of women who have called all men pigs in the name of feminism is so comprehensive that anyone who would doubt it is just being foolish.  While I don’t think most women buy into it, thankfully, I do think that it’s pervasive enough it creeps into the subconscious of too many women and makes them very wary of men, even very good men.

Notice that in all cases besides #4 the motives of the ones pursuing the goals was noble but the results were disasterous.  Personally I think women are in a worse situation as a whole today than they were 50 years ago.  More women are being raped.  More women are being abandoned by their spouse and just as frequently with children.  More women are being treated as sex objects through pornography and other sexual deviencies.  More women are being asked to not only do housework and raise children but at the same time are asked to have a full-time career.  More women are being pushed to the brink resulting in higher suicide rates for women than ever before.

In fact, the only area in which the women’s movement was a success was in getting access to more professional career and educational opportunities.  Heck, even that hasn’t been the success that the women’s movement was hoping.

Overall, while I think the original goals were noble, the result has been a disaster for women.  Women deserve better.

Today is the anniversary of both the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton US Supreme Court decisions.  As of today there are about 40 million Americans who are not alive because they were allowed to be aborted by these two court decisions.

There are many misconceptions about the two court decisions, but here is what is true:

• Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton do not allow for the citizens of the United States to make laws that explicitely restrict abortions, even late term abortions.
• Roe v. Wade did not make abortions legal.  In fact numerous states had already made abortion legal prior to Roe v. Wade.  Roe v. Wade made it illegal for any governing body in the US to limit abortions.
• The overturning of Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal.  What it would do is allow for states to make that decision.  Some would obviously make abortion illegal, others would obviously not.  Many would limit abortion to the first trimester.
• As it stands, it is illegal for any state to make a law limiting abortion for any reason at any point during the pregnancy (as long as the mother is an adult).  Children who are 30 minutes from being delivered in the hospital can legally be killed inside the womb because the mother decides it wouldn’t be in her best interest to have a child.

That’s the current legal situation and it is a true injustice that it remains that way.  Too many beautiful children are being denied their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Furthermore, there is a reason that just about every group should worry about the continued legalization of abortion:

• Women’s rights groups should fear that what has happened in China and India will eventually make its way to the US.  Abortion based on sex selection is a growing International problem.
• Economists should fear that the same population colapse that is on the verge of crippling the economies of Europe and the former Soviet Union will drag the entire world into the worst depression in world history.
• Disabled rights groups should fear that children are being aborted because of their disabilities.  As our ability to test for disabilities grows this will only get worse.
• Women’s right groups should further fear that abortion allows for the futher objectification of women as sex objects who can be pressured into abortions.
• Senior citizen right groups should fear that if we are not willing to protect the young, why will we be willing to protect the elderly.
• Supporters of Eugenics should fear that it is not the poor and uneducated who get abortions but the well-educated and wealthy.
• Gay rights groups should fear that if a “gay gene” is ever found, most every gay child will be aborted.
• Political parties should fear that by supporting abortion their supporters will be aborting their future voting block.
• Death penalty opponents should fear that if we aren’t willing to protect the lives of the innocent, why would we protect the lives of the guilty.
• Women’s health groups should fear that the abortions will be hurting the future fertility of women and possibly increase the likelihood of breast cancer.

In truth, every American should fear what abortion does to our society.  In the end, abortion is a lack of respect for unborn life.  When we stop respecting one form of life, it is far easier to stop respecting other aspects of life.  We must choose life.

Today I pray for all those who have suffered from an abortion and for all of those who will be faced with the decision to abort.  May God’s grace lead and guide our nation to end this injustice.

That’s the comment I got from my brother’s girlfriend as they were leaving Andrew’s (my yougest) birthday party.  It was in response to my comment on my brother’s blog where I called women who refuse to talk their husband’s last name obstinate.

So now I feel obligated to explain/defend myself…

What may not have been clear in my comment was that I was not saying that all women should take the name of their spouse.  In fact, in numerous traditional societies it’s not even the convention for women to do so and I wouldn’t expect them to conform to our society’s conventions.

What I am saying is this: OUR society’s convention is for women to take their husband’s last name for very specific symbolic reasons.  It is a sign that the bride is no longer an immediate member of her parent’s family and now is part of a new family, a family made up of her, her husband and their future children.

Any woman who doesn’t agree with the above symbolism shouldn’t get married.

Is it true that the groom is doing the same thing in leaving his parent’s family?  Yes, it is.  And if we had a similar convention or if a couple wanted to create a convention that symbolized that, I’d fully expect the groom to support it.

But that’s not what is at issue here (the groom).  What is at issue is the disposition of the bride.  Is she really willing to make a sacrifice for her new husband?  I guess if perhaps (and I think this is fairly rare) the groom-to-be tells his fiancee that he doesn’t want her to take his name, then it wouldn’t be a case of obstinence.  Although I would still hope that she woud want to take the name anyway.

See, marriage takes a lot of compromise.  It takes BOTH spouses putting their marriage’s interests above their own.  A name is really a trivial thing in the big picture.  There will be times when both spouses will have to do far more.  If one of those two entering the marriage isn’t willing to do something as simple as change their name, then there is a problem.

And to be clear, I expect both spouses in a marriage to fully dedicate their lives to serving the other.  Marriage is a life of service to one another.  I expect men to give everything they have to their wives.  There have been numerous times when I have made it clear to friends of mine that I thought they weren’t honoring their wives by giving all of themselves.  I expect a great deal of husbands and expect them to make every sacrifice necessary to meet the needs of their wife and children.  I expect the same of wives, including the trivially small issue of being willing to give up their last name.

Just to make sure I finish off the post with a bang, I’ll go through all the bogus reasons people will hit me with for why it is OK for a woman to insist on keeping her own name:

• It will impact my professional career: Get used to it.  In every marriage one or both will have to make significant career sacrifices.
• My family’s last name will die: It’s just a name.  You’re going to have to sacrifice more than that.
• I think not doing it is an important statement for women’s rights: I’m glad to hear that a political movement is more important than your marriage.  I predict a marriage where you demonize your husband as a male pig every time a situation arrises that requires you compromise with your husband.
• Why doesn’t he take my name?: Sounds great if you lived in a society that used that as their convention.  But you don’t and it would be just as stupid for a man in that society to question that convention as it is for you to be obstinate.
• You just think women should submit to their husbands: You’re right.  I also think that husbands need to put their wife’s desires above their own.

Any questions?

Over the weekend I saw the movie “The Pursuit of Happyness” with Will Smith (note to readers: yes, they mis-spell happiness on purpose).  It was well done, excellently acted and a compelling storyline.  However, the movie left me flat.

Part of that was because I was vetoed from seeing what I think is the best movie in theaters: Apocalypto.  Then my second choice The Nativity Story was apparently not “San Francisco/Berkeley morals friendly” as it was only showing in one theatre in the area and at an inconvenient time.

Another part of it is that I’ve seen “the unbelievable TRUE story about man who overcomes adversity to find success through determination” before.  Sure the title and actors change each time, but the plot is basically the same.

But beyond that there seemed to me to be a big problem with the story.  The story revolves around a poor man and his son.  The man is struggling to get by after getting into a sales business for which he fronted a large sum to get into.  He decides to go another direction and applies for an unpaid stock broker internship that 20 people are given of which only 1 will get a paid job at the end of the six month internship.

The story is setup as being about a man who wants to provide for his son.  But it seems to me the story is about a man who wants to make sure his son grows up as the son of a rich man and therefore has access to wealth himself.  It seems to me that this man made a number of poor choices if his goal was really to provide for his son.  His choices reflected taking the 1000 to 1 shot to get rich that will leave you in ruins if it fails instead of the 2 to 1 shot to find financial stability that will leave you slightly poorer if it fails.  In my mind, the only thing that separates what he did from going to the casino with your paycheck is that he had some influence over the percentages.  It doesn’t change the fact that it was wreckless. 

(warning spoilers ahead)

The story (not told in chronological order in the movie) starts with the guy buying into a medical device sales business by cornering the market for the Bay Area.  As a result he buys what looks like about forty of these $250 items (1980 dollars, so think $1000).  But they don’t sell like he wants so he’s stuck with this huge inventory and the associated debt.

Now he’s looking for a change because he can’t support his family.  So he applies for this unpaid internship after seeing a guy pull up in his Farrari.

Are you kidding me?  This is supposed to be inspirational?

Let’s just imagine for a second that there was a second guy in his same shoes and that the guy takes the same actions.  At a minimum, one of the two of them is going to end up destitute and without anything to show for their effort.

There are lots of jobs out there that can provide for a family that don’t require putting your financial ruin on the line.  And while I have nothing against starting an aggressive and dangerous financial venture, one must always make sure that they are providing for those dependant on them.  If the venture risks putting your kids in a homeless shelter every evening without end, that’s not acceptable.  The time for that kind of a venture is before you have a family.

In the end I was left feeling unmoved because the story was one that highlighted not love for one’s family, even though it was the supposed point of the story, but the desire for greed in spite the impact on one’s family.  You can sugar coat “getting a better life for your children” all you want.

But greed is greed.

There’s few people I know of that more support beliefs that are completely despicable to me than Peter Singer.  He calls those who recognize that humans are a unique species with unique responsibilities “specist” (as in racist but different).  He calls zoos, prisons (“we wouldn’t lock up a human being with out a trial”).  He is of course a vegitarian.

But I already knew all of this.  It was his hesitancy to deplore beastiality on the Colbert Report that caught me by surprise.  I mean I knew the guy was a sickeningly immoral person but to see him (and he looks like a slimeball too) hem and haw when asked about sex with animals before saying, “I think sex with humans is more enjoyable”… well… let’s just say my opinion of him didn’t improve.

Next time you hear Peter Singer on some bioethics committee, remember who the man is.

I’m not thrilled with Arnold.  While he’s done an OK job his pro-choice perspective really bothers me.  Thankfully he’s not a radical pro-choicer who stands for stupid things like free abortions for minors without parental notification.  That said, he does support ESCR research and most early term abortions.  Not good.

But you know what, Arnold has stood strong on Gay Marriage, vetoing that bill.  He’s stood strong illegal immigration issues.  Basically he’s the only person in Sacramento who does anything to keep the radically democratic legislature from going out of control.

And that’s what it boils down to.  If Angelides were elected there would be no one to watch the hen house.

To start off my endorsements I’ll start with the easy ones.  Proposition 85 is the 2nd attempt at requiring parental notification before a minor can receive an abortion in California.  Last years proposition was narrowly defeated.

We live in a society where minors are the responsibility of their parents.  A 17 year old at a public high school has to get their parents on the phone before the school can give them any medication, even a simple painkiller like asprin.  Yet because of “a woman’s right to choose” not only is it legal for a teacher or administrator to allow a student to get an abortion but for them to physically take them to do so.  To make matters worse, not only do they not have to tell their parents, they’re obligated not to.

What’s wrong with this picture?

My biggest complaint about this proposition is how lightly it enforces the law and for those on the fence it should be enough to get them to vote for it.  It has an exception for everyone over-wrought concerns:

• What if the child has abusive parents? The prop. has a legal route to avoid notification if it will result in violence.
• What if the parents don’t approve of the child’s “choice”? It’s just a notification law, it doesn’t require approval.
• What if the abortion is an emergency for the childs health? The notification requirement is lifted.

Vote for this proposition.  Every parent has the right to know if their children are going to be getting an abortion.

I know all of the candidates along with my loyal readers have been waiting patiently for me to hand out my endorsement for the upcoming election.  I wanted to let everyone know that I’ll be making a series of posts over the remaining days leading up to the election on most of the state propositions, a few of the state wide positions and the notable local elections.  Expect to see these over the next few days with the last one coming by Sunday evening.

Also expect to see a post on the Catholic position on two topics that should impact a number of the races I’ll be making endorsments on:

1. Torture
2. Ethics of business.

Of course the Church teaches on a number of issues and I’ve spoken frequently about many but these are two I haven’t commented on much and are new areas of concern this election cycle, at least in my locality.

Expect to see the first couple of posts later this evening.

Wynette and I have been having a discussion down in the comments for the Slimy Politics post that I think is worth the focus of a new post.  I’ll start by quoting Wynette’s latest comment:

I fully understand the temptation to find the “all-perfect” third-party candidate to vote for, particularly after being disgusted by the recent headlines of political immorality, but the simple botton-line is a vote for anyone other than Doolittle will result in a Democratic win, which would be very damaging to critical life issues.

Father Pavone addresses the quandry of trying to decide between too less-than-desirable candidates and being tempted to vote for a third-party, “Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate out of office.”

I’m not in Congressman Doolittle’s district, but I have read about the business allegations made against him and his wife, which are certainly a moral concern. However, with just a few weeks until November 7th, I encourage you to consider voting for him in order to keep the “worst candidate out of office…”

I have a great deal of respect for Father Pavone and what he has accomplished and continues to fight for, but I think it is important not to take a too politically expedient perspective on how to vote.  While keeping a bad candidate out of office is an important factor, there is also a time to make a more principled stand.  This is not about finding a “perfect” candidate, it’s about sending a message to the Republican party that seems to be drunk on power.  Drunk enough that without a stern repremand will only continue to head down the path of supporting new evils just like the Democratic party did earlier in the century.

So the question remains, how does one decide when one should make that stand?  After trying on my own to come up with some criteria, it occured to me that we have a blue-print to follow: Just War Theory.

See, when faced with the possibility of needing to vote for a 3rd candidate, it generally means we’re accepting that evil will occur in the short term (as neither candidate will prevent it) and we’re willing to accept that to find a long term solution.  This is very similar to the choices one must make when deciding to wage war.

Obviously not all of Just War Theory is relevant to an election, but here are the aspects that I think are:

1. A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
2. A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. 
3. A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
4. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
5. The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

I’ll re-word these to address an election:

1. Both candidates must be signficantly morally compromised without hope of redemption to consider looking elsewhere.
2. There must be specific ways in which both candidates are morally compromised.  For the encumbant this means a voting record that includes injustices and for the challenger a threat of a voting record (or a previous record in other capacities) that is similarly compromised.
3. Voting for the 3rd party has a resonable chance of making an impact.
4. The goal of voting for the 3rd party must be to effect positive change down the road.
5. The differential in evil that would occur should the worse of the two candidates be elected must be less than the long term evil that the lesser of the two candidates going unchecked.

As I mentioned in the previous post I haven’t done enough research to know whether my current Congressional race has reached this level particularly in regards to criteria #1 and #2, but what I will say is that in areas #3 and #4 it would definitely be justified.

The Republican party is suffering right now from unchecked power.  They know that they are the only alternative to the rabbidly immoral Democratic party and that position of comfort has led to unspeakable immorality on their part.  This inexcusable move towards allowing torture is an example of it.  The growing list of personal moral abuses is another.  The continued exaggerated favoring of business interests even in the face of abusing human beings is a third.  A significant setback in the 2006 elections would force them to re-think their positions and I believe would help to purify the party.

Additionally, I am pretty confident that #5 can be justified.  The reality is that the most aggregious moral abuse in this country (abortion) is only minimally relevant issue for the House of Representatives at this juncture.  95% of all abortions are protected by Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.  The partial birth abortion bans and parental notification laws although good, only affect a small percentage of abortions.

What that means is that the only elected official who can have a substantive impact on abortion is the President through his Supreme Court nominations and to a lesser degree the Senators who confirm the nominations.  But that also means that my Congressman has a VERY small impact on the issue and therefore the increased evil that a pro-abortion Congressman could do is minimal.

But what I don’t know is how bad Doolittle’s actions are.  Until I do, I won’t know who I’m going to vote for.

Boy, I can’t remember a time when a team has displayed as bad of sportsmanship as the Oklahoma Sooners football team.

For those not in the know, last Saturday they played a very tight game against Oregon.  The game went back and forth.  Late in the 4th quarter with the Oregon Ducks down by 13 points, the Ducks scored a TD to cut the deficit to 6.  On the ensuing kickoff they went for an onside kick and recovered.  But wait, there’s a rule for an onside kick that the ball must travel 10 yards before it can be touched by an Oregon player and the replay showed that it might have been touched after about 9 yards (which would give the ball to Oklahoma).  The instant replay team reviewed the play and decided the video evidence wasn’t conclusive and let the play stand.

To make a long story short, Oregon marched down the field, scored a TD and then blocked a last second field goal attempt by Oklahoma to win the game.

Oklahoma has been on a crusade the last 4 days to tell the world how large of an injustice has been committed against them.  Not only has the coach been on the rampage, the President of the University (not just of Athletics, but the whole University) wrote a letter to their conference asking that the game be declared void. (source – about 2/3rds of the way down)

Of course that is never going to happen, seeing as how this is the 4,394,328th game in which the refs “stole” the game from losing team, but thanks for the attempt.

Nevertheless, the Pac-10 conference reviewed the play in question and decided that Oklahoma was correct and that they should have gotten the ball.  They apologized to Oklahoma and suspended the refs in question for a game. (source)

So you’d think that Oklahoma would be satisfied, or at least placated, yes?

No.

Now they’re saying they’re not going to play any more games against Pac-10 teams including canceling an existing contract they have with the University of Washington in 2008 if they don’t get their way and get to pick their own refs for future games in the Pac-10. (source)

I’m sorry but this is just pathetic.  As a friend of mine says, if one call by a ref is enough to change the outcome of the game, the game was so close that any bounce of the ball could have had the same effect.  To claim that you were robbed is overstating.  If you want to keep fate out of the equation, you need to make sure that you’re victory is more decisive.

But beyond that, talk about being sore losers.  Apparently people at the University of Oklahoma don’t realize that football is a game.  I decided to file this both under the sports category as well as the morals category because it seems that we’re marching farther and farther down the road to where people don’t seem to realize the difference between a game and live and death issues.

I’m a very intense fan.  I cheer loud. I rant and rave during the game.  I call referees good judgement into question and whether they need a new optomitrist.  I question what kind of unprescribed medications the coaches are taking.  I even occasionally question whether a player deserves their scholarship.  But you know what, when the game is over, I remember that it is a game and it’s supposed to be fun.

Apparently those at the University of Oklahoma have lost sight of that.