Catholics can shovel it just as well as anyone else

One of my Facebook friends posted this blog post from the National Catholic Register by Matthew Archbold. Archbold quotes, at length, this interview at the New York Times with former Planned Parenthood head Gloria Feldt. (And it is important that Archbold frame his post for his Catholic audience by associating Feldt with Planned Parenthood, naturally.) Regarding women who "flee the work force," Feldt states:

They make it harder for the rest of us to remedy the inequities that remain. We have to make young women aware of how their choices affect other women. It should be acceptable criticism to point out that, although everyone has the right to make their own life decisions, choosing to “opt out” reinforces stereotypes about women’s priorities that we’ve been working for decades to shatter, so just cut it out. And, the “individual choice” women have to become stay-at-home moms becomes precarious when they try to return to the workplace and find their earning power and options reduced. If we could see child-rearing as a necessary task and not an identity, and if we could collectively recognize that facilitating it benefits us all, we would go much further in guaranteeing women’s choices than we do when we are expected to uncritically celebrate every individual’s decisions.

Now, Feldt makes some valid points here. It is certainly true that women who return to the workforce after bearing children will not earn as much or have as many options as women who make different choices, and it is in every woman's interest to be aware of this fact when they deliberate about having children. And Feldt does clearly state that "everyone has the right to make their own life decisions."

Archbold, of course, wants to portray Feldt as some kind of monster:

So let’s get this straight, the former head of Planned Parenthood is telling women to STOP being so selfish and think of someone other than themselves and their kids? Seriously?

In short, she wants you to think of Gloria Feldt’s feelings rather than your kids.

If you thought feminism was all about giving women choices, well it turns out you were wrong. Feminism is about doing what Gloria Feldt wants you to do.

So now it looks like the Planned Parenthood folks are not only doing their best to to make sure women don’t have children but now they’re saying that if you do mistakenly have children you should at least be 21st century enough not to take care of them.

Read those four paragraphs again, carefully. Does Archbold make a single true assertion in any of them? No:

• Feldt would like women to think not only of their own kids but also other women. (Since when is thinking of others a bad thing?) 
• Feldt is not saying that women ought to think about Feldt's feelings. 
• Feminism is not about doing what Feldt wants us to do. 
• And Feldt is not saying that people shouldn't take care of their children. She is saying that child-rearing is a necessary task the facilitation of which would benefit us all, is she not?

Archbold, are you a freaking idiot, or are you just irresponsible? What is your problem?

Archbold's assertions are not only false, they are laughably absurd. Think about it: why on earth would anyone actually demand that you not take care of your own kids? If you're willing to believe that feminists want us to neglect our children, then you already believe that feminists are monsters. Do we really have to assure everyone that they're not? Sure, there may be feminists here and there who actually believe that children ought to be neglected (and surely there are a few conservatives out there who agree with them), but are they typical of feminists in general? From the fact that the Catholic Church has been crawling with pedophile priests, I could just as easily infer that Catholics love to molest children, couldn't I? Why does Archbold enjoy sexually assaulting children? I might ask.

No one in Archbold's audience will take issue with anything he says. But it's obvious that Archbold is dealing not with feminism but a caricature of feminism, a straw man. Archbold takes the comments of one feminist, distorts them, and then claims that the distorted version is typical of feminism in general.

Hey, Archbold: I'm a feminist, and you don't have a fucking clue what we stand for.

Such are the products of bullshitters. Catholics can shovel it just as well as anyone else, can't they?

Update: I wish to thank Feldt for posting a link to this analysis. I'm happy to help.

Three from Eddie Jobson / Zinc

"Listen to Reason," "Through the Glass," and "Transporter II" from The Green Album (1983)

Note: I am aware that the sound quality of Blogger video is far from perfect. 

Equality and self-determination for women is harmful to women?

For your amusement, I have reproduced a debate conducted via Twitter today between Amanda Marcotte in one corner and Snark and Boobs (a.k.a. Lori Ziganto) and Moms4SarahPalin in the other. And I did so in a creepily obsessed manner (he said sarcastically).

AmandaMarcotte I don't know why women who aren't feminists want to be called "feminist" anyway. Do they think we get special discounts or something?

Moms4SarahPalin @AmandaMarcotte excuse me, but doesn't being FEMALE qualify one to be a feminist? Since when did liberals own the word?

AmandaMarcotte @Moms4SarahPalin It's not what's between your legs that makes you feminist. It's what's in your head. Only conservatives could confuse it.

snarkandboobs .@AmandaMarcotte *Not* Feminists? Saying some women don't meet yr assy club standards is antithetical to Feminism. Not very For The Women-y!

AmandaMarcotte @snarkandboobs Why do you want to be a feminist if you disagree with all the actual ideas of feminism?

snarkandboobs @AmandaMarcotte Yeah, no. YOU don't understand what it actually is. You've twisted Feminism to lock-step w/Lefty agenda, HARMFUL to women

AmandaMarcotte @snarkandboobs Again, I ask. If you disagree with the ideas, why want the title? Is it because you're insecure and desperate for approval?

Moms4SarahPalin @AmandaMarcotte well that's pretty clear, because most feminists look like men anyway...it's rather confusing. Is Barney Frank a feminist?

AmandaMarcotte @Moms4SarahPalin So, if you hate feminists so much, why do you want the title?

snarkandboobs .@AmandaMarcotte I don't want nor need the title. Clearly you do as part of your desperate quest for perpetual victimhood.

AmandaMarcotte @snarkandboobs Yet, you're so angry that I would kick you out of the club? If it's such a hateful club, why do you want in? Sounds insecure.

AmandaMarcotte @snarkandboobs I wouldn't be like, "No, I'm the real Tea Cracker!" I don't want to be in that club.

snarkandboobs @AmandaMarcotte PS Modern day faux-feminists are the ones who are antithetical to feminism. Hence your lame attempts to "disqualify" women

AmandaMarcotte @snarkandboobs I'm confused. You want in or not? You say yes, you say no. It's awfully confusing.

Moms4SarahPalin @AmandaMarcotte btw, I don't "hate" feminists, I pity them.

AmandaMarcotte @Moms4SarahPalin Then why so angry that I accurately say that you aren't a feminist?

AmandaMarcotte @snarkandboobs As for "victimhood", I'm not the one crying about not being allowed in a club of people I openly hate.

snarkandboobs @AmandaMarcotte Don't give a crap what you do. Just pointing out YR hypocrisy. Can't claim to be "4 the women" when all you do is ANTI woman

AmandaMarcotte @snarkandboobs You don't give a crap what I do, and yet you obsessively follow me and whine and whine at me. I don't believe you.

Moms4SarahPalin @AmandaMarcotte and who are you to define feminism? what is a feminist to you? i'd love to hear your definition.

AmandaMarcotte @Moms4SarahPalin Believes that we should end the patriarchy and install equality and self-determination for women instead.

Moms4SarahPalin @AmandaMarcotte you saying I believe that, or that that's your definition?

AmandaMarcotte @Moms4SarahPalin That is pretty much *the* definition. Saying feminists want to end sexism is like saying Christians believe in god.

snarkandboobs @amandamarcotte You're slipping. So many "you are insecure" comments, yet you haven't devolved to sex stuff yet. Shocking.

snarkandboobs @AmandaMarcotte You really are obtuse. It's kinda sad. I'd feel sorry for you if you didn't, you know, excuse *actual* misogyny all the time

snarkandboobs @AmandaMarcotte Obsessively? Okay, Meggie Mac. Anyway, your stupidity amuses me. Your hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is HE-Larious.

Confused? Don't be. Read Marcotte's primer "A Short History of "Feminist" Anti-Feminists."

Oh, and by the way, I thought I should tell you that I am a real conservative. That's right! You see, my support of regulation of the markets is actually pro-business, because the Republican party's deregulation of those markets is bad for business. Not very for-the-corporation-y, Republicans! And they call themselves conservatives! 

Well, at least neither of us has ever been a witch.

I know posts like this one will be popping up everywhere, but I couldn't help myself.

Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell claims that she is not a witch. Furthermore, she claims that she is me:



But how could you be me, Christine? After reading this laundry list of your positions on the issues, I don't see how you could be me. For

• The fact that the whole country is having sex does not bother me
• I don't believe that condom distribution causes AIDS 
• I see nothing wrong with contraception
• I don't believe that wives must submit to their husbands
• I have no problem with women attending military academies
• I am against overturning Roe v. Wade
• I am not afraid of homosexuals and I don't believe that they are sick
• I think gay bashing is a serious problem
• I believe that the scientific evidence for the truth of evolution is overwhelming
• I never dabbled in witchcraft
• I am an atheist
• I believe that Satanism and rock music are two different things
• I believe in the separation of church and state, and I don't blame school shootings on a lack of organized prayer in public schools
• I am liberal and pro-American
• I don't believe in death panels
• I don't believe that Britney Spears is dangerous
• I am not some right-wing nutjob 

I hope that clarifies things.

Klein counters RedState-fueled hysteria

Just in time for the election season, folks on the right are trying to turn health care reform into a liability for the Democrats.

Consider the lather RedState bloggers have worked themselves into. (Did I just end a sentence with a preposition? Oh, dear! What will Leon Wolf think?) Erick Erickson complains that the Obama administration is going to give waivers to corporations to mitigate the "devastating effects of Obamacare." Brian Simpson complains that very few people will opt for the high risk pools created by health care reform (without mentioning, of course, that high risk pools were also proposed by Republicans). Ben Domenech complains that "HHS has missed one-third of the deadlines contained within the legislation for the first six months under Obama’s new health care regime." Brian Simpson compiled a short laundry list of problems, ranging from the refusal by some insurance companies to issue child-only insurance policies to 3M's decision to reimburse retirees' purchase of health insurance rather than sponsoring a health care plan for them.

Of course, had health care reform not been watered down, perhaps none of these problems would have surfaced. Maybe those waivers would not have been necessary. Certainly the high risk pools wouldn't have been necessary. Single-payer was the best solution, but Democrats took it off the table at the very beginning.

Ezra Klein gave us a reality check this morning. Health care reform will bring an end to practices that ought to end. One of the complains Brian Simpson makes is that health care reform will bring an end to McDonald's "mini-med" coverage. This is actually a good thing. According to Klein, Sen. Chuck Grassley actually called McDonald's mini-med coverage "not better than nothing." "The point of health-care reform," writes Klein, "was to get people into real insurance and protect them from illusory plans that run out when they get sick." The consequence of health care reform, according to Klein, will be

a vastly better health-care system, where 32 million more people have coverage and where tens of millions of more are in far better plans than they would've had without the law. But that will require changes in some of the worst plans, and on the part of some of the worst employers and insurers.

Which is worse: the coming changes, or the status quo?

RedState bloggers complain about these changes, but from the fact that changes are coming, it doesn't follow that catastrophe is on the horizon. And if Republicans really are worried, rather than calling for the repeal of health care reform, they ought to be calling for strengthening it.

I just like the graph . . . a lot.

Here is one person's "brief, subjective guide to the baseball playoffs":

The person is Tom Scocca, and you can read more about the graph here.

As for me, my Cubs's season is over (as usual).

My enthusiastic agreement with a conservative blogger . . .

. . . and the patron saint of the Republican Party

I happened to notice a post on Andrew Sullivan's blog about South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint yesterday. According to Sullivan, DeMint has said that

“People are beginning to see that there's no way we can pay the interest on our debt and every week, we're borrowing money to pay the debt we have and are creating new programs that are costing more money,” he said. “Hopefully in 2012, we'll make headway to repeal some of the things we've done, because politics only works when we're realigned with our Savior.” 

Sullivan also reports that

DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn't be in the classroom. “(When I said those things,) no one came to my defense,” he said. “But everyone would come to me and whisper that I shouldn't back down. They don't want government purging their rights and their freedom to religion.”

(Sullivan's source appears to be GoUpstate.com.)

Sullivan objects to DeMint's attack on homosexuals. "'Freedom to religion' [sic] means firing gay high school teachers. Fiscal conservatism is to 'realign with our Savior.' On gay high school teachers, it's worth remembering that Ronald Reagan as long ago as 1978 aligned with Harvey Milk in opposing discrimination in the Brigg's Initiative," Sullivan writes.

Sullivan cited a piece by Dale Carpenter posted at the Independent Gay Forum about Reagan's views. As it turns out, there is one issue on which Reagan and I agree.

Reagan was "anti-gay;" I am most certainly not. But Reagan was also admirably tolerant toward homosexuality in his politics, and it is on this point that Reagan and I agree. According to Carpenter, biographer Lou Cannon claims that

Reagan was "respectful of the privacy of others" and was "not the sort of person who bothers about what people do in their own bedrooms." This attitude was consistent with Reagan's larger philosophical commitment to individual liberty and limited government. 

Cannon also states that Reagan was "repelled by the aggressive public crusades against homosexual life styles which became a staple of right wing politics in the late 1970s." Reagan was courageous in his battle against religious conservatives:

In 1978, for example, Reagan vigorously opposed a California ballot initiative sponsored by religious conservatives that would have barred homosexuals from teaching in the public schools. The timing is significant because he was then preparing to run for president, a race in which he would need the support of conservatives and moderates very uncomfortable with homosexual teachers. As Cannon puts it, Reagan was "well aware that there were those who wanted him to duck the issue" but nevertheless "chose to state his convictions."

In defense of his position, Reagan wrote at the time, "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this."

While Reagan could not condone homosexuality, then, he could not accept unjustified discrimination against homosexuals. DeMint looks like some time traveler from the 1950's by comparison.

And this brings me to that blogger I mentioned earlier. Killtruck defended Ann Coulter's decision to speak to GOPROUD, a gay conservative group, at HomoCon in New York City last month. It appears that WorldNutDaily chose to punish Coulter for her decision. Killtruck writes,

Color me radical and unconservative.  It’s one thing to be against gay marriage.  Many conservatives are against gay marriage for a variety of reasons, some of them are even related homosexuality.  But WorldNetDaily seems to just be against gay people.  Much like the Ground Zero Mosque (Park 51 hates it when you call it Ground Zero Mosque, so be sure to call it that every time), WorldNetDaily has every right to drop Ann Coulter for any stupid reason they want, and I still have the right to express my opinion that they are homophobic dinosaurs and big jerkfaces. 

Killtruck goes on to say, "I’d like to go into how great the gay conservatives I’ve gotten to know are, but there’s no way to do it without sounding patronizing."

I doubt that I would agree with Killtruck on much else; it sounds as if we most certainly would not agree on the issue of the proposed mosque in New York City. (And why must you do something that other people hate? Is it just to be an asshole?) But I do agree with her on one thing, enthusiastically: homophobia is wrong. Of course, I would go further than Killtruck: Killtruck seems to suggest that some forms of legal discrimination against homosexuals are acceptable, and I find any form of legal discrimination against homosexuals completely unacceptable. Killtruck does, however, support civil unions for homosexuals, as do I. And for that, she deserves praise. Her views on this issue are actually pretty sophisticated and nuanced and progressive, and I respect that.

Yes, it's true: I agree with a Snark and Boobs blogger, on these two small things, at least.

Now, all conservatives have to do is give me one good reason to think that homosexuality is wrong or that homosexuals should be discriminated against. I haven't seen one yet, and I've seen a lot of bad arguments on this topic in my time. A lot. So, good luck with that.

By the way, Conservative, the polling appears to indicate that you would do well to follow politicians who are more like Reagan and less like DeMint. Your choice.

Truth

Someone calling herself Truth left the following comment on Lori Ziganto's post, "10 Hateful Anti-Woman Acts by Leftist “Feminists”, Part 1" today. I wanted to reproduce it here just in case it disappears over there. Thank you, Truth. I couldn't have said it any better myself. 

“We unhinged nutty nuts help women, instead of urging them to abort. We help them truly have it all, education, career and motherhood via personal responsibility.” 

How? By trying to cut every benefit poor pregnant women NEED in order to actually deliver? The first time I got pregnant, it was by an abuser who often coerced sex. I had no health insurance (I briefly did, but got dropped because I couldn’t pay the bill), a $8.00 per hour job, and certainly no money for college tuition. I had two options. One was lots of government assistance, including Medicaid, food stamps, and WIC. The other was to accept that I couldn’t afford this child (nor did I want it), and abort. I avoided becoming a burden to the taxpayers, which I believe is responsible. I definitely never suffered “immense guilt.” It wasn’t that big a deal, in fact.

I don’t see conservatives rushing to support Medicaid and food stamps for pregnant women. In fact, you’re the first ones to try to take them away. How else do you think we’re going to pay for these kids? Even if you give up the baby to rich Republicans and take a vow of chastity after, someone has to pay for prenatal care and delivery. I’m guessing you’re not willing to pony up.

And who are we kidding? Conservatives hate poor women’s kids as soon as they’re no longer fetuses. My friend went through hell to give birth and try to support her biracial son–working two jobs, going on Medicaid, etc. She considered abortion but chose life because it was the “right thing.” As soon as her son ceased to be a fetus, she’s gotten nothing but hateful and racist sneers about how she’s a loser and a “welfare mom” who “spread her legs” for a black guy. The fetus-worshipers offer nothing for her son now that he needs medical care and food that doesn’t come from an umbilical cord.

And as for that abortion is black genocide nonsense? Conservatives hate black kids past the fetal stage. Some woman in my friend’s neighborhood called the cops to complain about “little thugs.” All her son and his friends were doing was playing basketball…WITH her supervision. Of course, she has a bunch of Republican campaign signs in her yard. No one’s giving my friend a slap on the back anymore for “choosing life” now that her kid isn’t a fetus.

Frauds

The National Life Chain was held today.

Perhaps you participated. You might have held a sign bearing "one of the following approved pro-life sign messages":

• ABORTION KILLS CHILDREN
• JESUS FORGIVES AND HEALS
• ADOPTION: THE LOVING OPTION
• LORD, FORGIVE US AND OUR NATION
• ABORTION HURTS WOMEN
• PRAY TO END ABORTION
• LIFE—THE FIRST INALIENABLE RIGHT 

Of course, we must keep in mind that 73% of women state as one of their reasons for aborting that they cannot afford to have a child in their present circumstances, according to a study appearing in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. So, for next year's National Life Chain, might I propose the following sign messages: 

• A WOMAN CHOSE ADOPTION: LOVING PRO-LIFERS SHOULD CHOOSE TO ADOPT
• PEOPLE NEED LOVE AFTER THEY'RE BORN, TOO
• PRAY TO END ABANDONMENT OF THE POOR
• NEGLECT KILLS POOR CHILDREN
• STOP LETTING POOR CHILDREN DIE: VOTE DEMOCRATIC

It's easy for pro-lifers to stand on sidewalks with signs. It's much more difficult to care for children who would otherwise be neglected by women who are too poor to care for them properly. And many conservatives can't bear the thought of their tax dollars being used to help children—those who are poor through no fault of their own. 

The people behind the National Life Chain, Please Let Me Live, quote Leviticus 18:21 in support of their pro-life view: "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God." 

Perhaps they neglected to read Leviticus 19:9–10: "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien." 

Many conservatives claim to be pro-life. They're not. Until they adopt those children they urged poor women to have, and until they stop fighting Democratic efforts to make raising children affordable, they're frauds. 

Metric, "Satellite Mind"