Hypocricans vs Women

by Ruth A. Sheets

The Hypocricans are now getting more serious about their attacks against women.  Why?  What has changed? 

Women have changed. 

Hypocricans harken back to a time when “men were men,” which, of course, meant, in charge, dominant, forceful, and all those other manly terms.  The men didn’t really have to grow up.  Their wives simply stepped into the place their mothers had held. 

Women bought into this structure for society because the Bible said that was how it was supposed to be. Occasional volunteering kept women’s yearning for something more at bay.

After each of America’s wars, when women were coaxed back to the home, more and more women refused to accept the prescribed roles.  In the wartime jobs, they had functioned at least as well as their male counterparts and learned a thing or two about propaganda.  While the men were marching off to glory, the women were operating the machinery that provided everything from ships to planes to tanks to ammunition. 

When the men came marching home, women were told how patriotic it would be for them to go home and give their jobs back to the men. Those who didn’t leave voluntarily were fired and sent home to take care of their hero husbands.  Women were encouraged to produce as many kids as possible. After WWII, they gave birth to the baby boomers.  Women fell into the oblivion of housewifery.  The problem for the men was that these women kept with them the memories of a life of skilled work, appreciation for their efforts, and independence.  It was hard to go back under a man’s thumb. Through propaganda men tried to damp down the restlessness.

Men, particularly white men, naturally want to go back to those days.  They may not have much power on the job, but by God, they had it in the home. 

Women have come quite a distance from those days, but there is a strong movement among the Hypocricans to bring those days back.  They have created a scism among women, e.g., stay-at-home-moms vs. working moms.  There isn’t that much of a gap between these groups, but the stays have been propagandized to believe that everyone is against them for doing God’s will or for caring more about their children, or some other nonsense.  Most working mothers don’t think much about the stays either way.

Men have jumped on the issue of abortion.  It really has nothing to do with them directly, but they want to outlaw it and the women who choose it.  Why is that?  Abortion represents women having power over their own bodies and their lives and what happens to them.  Men can’t stand that because it represents female independence.

However, men want to keep contraception from women as well.  If women have the means to keep from getting pregnant unless they want a child, it is harder to make them feel dirty, slutty, and shameful.  Bearing children too young or in difficult living situations helps to keep women’s self-esteem low.  When women have control, their self-esteem rises.  That can lead to getting involved in other things, like politics, business, law, medicine, ministry, all formerly bastions of male dominance.

Now, women are being blamed for the “terrible state of our society.”  Accourding to Hypocricans, Our nation is in decline toward mediocrity because so many of our women are working and are not taking proper care of our children.  This has been stated by some prominent SWG’s (Scared White Guys).  They are hoping that guilt will make women pull back and resume bowing and scraping to them.

The Hypocricans have a good share of women who seem to like the “inferior” role in society.  They and their Hypocrican brothers  hate everything about science until they want to use it to prove that the males of all species are dominant over the females.  Their lack of knowledge of science is showing, though.  In many species the female is dominant or at least equal.  In some, the female consumes the male to provide energy for the young. 

Like so much of the Hypocrican propaganda, their view of live is imperfect.  It shows more ignorance than proof of the correctness of their anti-woman position.  But, men’s voices have until now been louder and stronger than those of women. 

What can women do?  We can stop coddling men and stop giving weight to their outdated, misogynistic comments and beliefs.  We can vote the Hypocricans out of office at all levels.  We can stay vigilant and call Hypocrican men and women on  their lies, half-truths, and manufactured science.  When they show up on our television screens, we can change the channel.  The one thing we cannot do is ignore them.  That’s how women’s rights have been nibbled away during these past few years.

You Think You Know A Person

by muon

This morning when I signed into Facebook, I noticed that one of my friends had "Liked" Mitt Romney.

This friend isn't a bosom buddy, so it wasn't like I'd found out my best friend was a serial killer or anything, but I couldn't help but wonder why this person would support Romney.

I've met her face-to-face, so I know she's female. She has a job in a profession not often pursued by women. Does she honestly think she ought to be paid less than the men who do the same work? She's been married for a couple decades and has 2 kids. Only 2. That kind of seems to indicate use of contraceptives. So...she's okay with other women being denied contraceptives and with women being forced to submit to state-mandated ultrasounds? She's okay with her own daughter having to be forced to have an ultrasound?

She and her husband aren't millionaires, or even likely half millionaires. Beyond that, I don't know her financial status, though she's definitely not in the 1%. Possibly she has enough bucks that she can't fathom how much more of her income will be funneled to the .01% under a Romney presidency. Here's how that works: government projects that benefit you are cut, making you spend more money on either private or local government substitutes, while the very rich get more tax breaks. You lose money, they gain.

Maybe she's pro-life. Of course, you'd think anyone calling themselves pro-life would object to the dismantling of programs that keep starving children alive and warm and healthy. You'd think they'd balk at the war on contraceptives, the very things that prevent the unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions (because, seriously, what woman would intentionally get pregnant just for the chance to have an abortion?).

Maybe she's okay with being forced to drive gasoline powered cars and to heat her home with fossil fuels, at increasingly higher fuel costs, more carbon emissions, a dirtier environment, and more severe climate events each year, simply because the GOP refuses to lose their ties with the oil, gas and coal industries. Maybe she doesn't care about leaving her grandkids the legacy of having to fix the environment before her great-grandkids suffer the toxic effects?

Maybe she's just not too bright...that she lacks the reasoning power to know that a vote for Romney is a vote completely against her own interests and that of her family and her descendents? Of course, she's got a college degree in a scientific field. You'd think she'd have the smarts necessary to achieve that.

So, I don't get it. What makes an intelligent woman and mother "like" Mitt Romney? You tell me.

Our Government and Your Reproductive Health, or This Won't Hurt A Bit

This post is for women. All you fellas do us a favor and go find a blog about big screen TVs or football or something. This won't take long.

Ladies, imagine if you will a perfect world where a Congressional committee convenes to discuss men's reproductive health. It would, of course, be chaired by a woman. Only women would be allowed to testify.

The media would only interview women on the subject. No one in these news outlets would ever mention that drugs like Viagra are prescribed for actual, sometimes serious, medical disorders. Reporters would seek out Catholic nuns and the ex-wives of political candidates to ask if we shouldn't simply go with God's will on the subject.

Men? Are you still reading this? Hmm. You're worried that such a committee's recommendations might make you hold your knees together in the manner approved by the Santorum campaign for birth control? Perhaps you're worried that aspirin might not be an adequate pain killer?

Nonsense. After all, women know what's best for you.

muon

COMPROMISE CAN WORK?

by Ruth A. Sheets

Well, it’s happened again, or has it?  President Obama seems to have “folded” in the face of the PR campaign by the Roman Catholic bishops.  They whined and complained that their religious freedom would be limited if Catholic employers had to cover contraception services for women working for them. 

In reality, President Obama decided to let them have their way requiring only that insurance companies cover the services for any woman in religion-related organizations who want contraception.  Before I realized this was a true compromise,  I thought President Obama had collapsed again under the Right’s onslaught.

On “The News Hour,” I heard Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services explain the decision.  She said that insurance companies are willing to cover contraception services because for women who use these services, the total cost of medical care decreases significantly, up to 15%. 

This sounds like a good deal for everyone involved.  All women who want coverage even if they work for a church-based organization which employs folks of other faiths can get it, a “good” compromise!

However, hints of rejection on the part of the Roman Catholic command are spreading.  It seems that unless they get exactly what they want, they will keep fighting.  It makes no sense unless one realizes that the Roman Catholic battle is really against women who might want to make their own decisions about life and birth.  It is presented under the guise of “Religious Freedom.”

The bishops and their Right-Wing supporters cry “Religious freedom!” yet, they can’t seem to imagine that others’ desire for that same religious freedom is just as valid. 

For example, a majority of  Americans have come to understand that same sex marriage will not destroy marriage or even impact their own lives in any way.  Many believe that people’s gender preferences are God’s will or gift.  However, right-wing religious groups still pour resources into fighting the right of gay couples to marry.  What about the religious freedom of gay Americans and their supporters?

For another example, many people, like me, believe that life begins when a fetus can live outside the mother’s womb with a minimum of technological support.  We believe that God has given women their own bodies for which they   are responsible.  Choosing abortion is an option for women who cannot bear a child, do not want to have a child at the time of their pregnancy, or need to terminate the pregnancy due to rape, incest, the woman’s health, or severe disability of the fetus.

The Religious Right is doing everything to limit the religious freedom of the people who believe as I do.  They are making abortion very difficult to get and for poor women, almost impossible to afford. 

The hypocrisy is highly evident, yet, the media covers the bishops’ cry for religious freedom as though it has more validity than the religious argument for abortion or same-sex marriage.  The only way this makes sense is if this is not a religious freedom issue at all, but a way of establishing religion in America, )which as the Right so often tells us, is against the Constitution).

Maybe instead of continuing to fight contraception, the best thing for the Roman Catholic bishops and their followers to do would  be to spend their time and resources on taking care of their flock.  They could better use their money to keep more Catholic schools open in poor neighborhoods, provide more services for the children who are “rescued” from abortion.  They could spend pulpit time helping their members to be more loving and accepting of people whose beliefs and opinions are different from their own.

I know, I know!  Dream on!  As I mentioned earlier, this is not really about  religion.  It is about women getting too uppity and it’s about power and what the power of the Church can do to influence life in America.  President Obama needs to be aware that no matter what compromise he makes with the Roman bishops, he cannot win unless he tows the line with them and knuckles under to their demands, all the time on every issue.

Since he cannot do that, he should make a reasonable attempt to meet them on ground that won’t put non-Catholics at risk, then stand firm.  On this issue, he has done the former.  Now we’ll see if he can do the latter and remain strong.

Dear Men in Government and the Catholic Church, Grow Up

by muon

Frankly, I'm getting fed up with the whole Contraception vs. the Catholic Church issue.

On one side, I saw one of the letters read in Catholic churches across the nation. The letter repeatedly used the  phrase "almost all employers" when talking about the mandate for contraception benefits, but never stated that all churches who wanted to be were exempt. The Catholic churches in my town don't have schools or hospitals attached to them, yet they implied to their parishioners that this would apply to Catholic workers in the employ of these churches, which wasn't true. The letter also said "abortion services" were mandated. I read the bill and couldn't find any reference to mandated "abortion services" benefits, in fact, it stated that abortive drugs would definitely NOT be covered. Possibly the church is referring to contraceptives as "abortion services." I suspect the phrase was simply thrown in to push people's emotional buttons. Whatever the case, I hope the American bishops all went to confession this week about the half truths in that letter.

On the other side, seriously, what a stupid thing for the President to do in an election year. Why all of a sudden start dictating to employers what they can and can't do, especially on a divisive issue like this, when the administration's been pushing for compromise and bipartisanship for the last 4 years? I don't kid myself that the Executive Branch suddenly woke up last week all concerned about the health of women receiving healthcare benefits from Catholic institutions. No, this decision had to be political in some way. I just don't get the angle.

Then there's the media, who ALWAYS finds Catholic men to explain the church's side. PBS interviewed a prof at Catholic University. They showed him teaching a class made up almost entirely of men. Every time they talked about women getting benefits from the university, they showed female students, not employees of the school. They interviewed a graduate student, asking if she'd like free contraceptives, but again, as far as I could tell, she didn't work for the school. What, they couldn't go into the dining hall and ask a cafeteria lady? Or someone on the cleaning crew? (or are they outsourced jobs? Anyone know?)

The bottom line here is, how much will this mandate help get contraceptives into the hands of women who can't afford them? It's not going to cover the unemployed, self-employed, part-time employed, or those with sporadic employment. It won't help the millions of Americans without healthcare coverage. If the Federal government is so convinced this is important for the health of women, families, and the country, then make it a government program so it benefits everyone, and so employers don't have to have meltdowns about their hypocritical ethics.

Meantime, let Catholic institutions be exempt. Like any set of employer benefits, workers ought to be considering what they need and don't need when interviewing for jobs. If Catholic hospitals and schools lose good workers because of their decision, if they then lose patients and students because their work force is substandard, hey, that's the American way.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION?

by Ruth A. Sheets

This past week, the Obama administration took a bold step, not as common an occurrence as I would like, but certainly welcome at this time. All private insurance companies will be required to cover contraception for women, no co-pays, no denials of service. This includes religion-based institutions who serve and employ people not of that particular faith.

Most people, when polled, thought that women should have access to free contraception.  As of August, even working-class women will be able to plan their family size and decide when and whether they will become pregnant.  An added bonus is that the number of abortions and unwanted children will decrease significantly.

This sounds like a win-win scenario, don’t you think!  Even the right-wing conservatives should find something here to love.

Not so fast!  The Roman Catholic clergy are vowing to stop this service from being implemented in all facilities that are in any way associated with the Church.  It doesn’t matter if the person to be covered by the insurance is not herself Roman Catholic.  The Bishops’ argument is that this is a matter of freedom of religion. 

This is fascinating!  The Roman Catholic Bishops don’t seem to have a problem interfering with everyone else’s freedom of religion as they campaign against abortion and contraception despite the fact that many religious people do not agree with their stance.  They even want to criminalize it, calling women murderers.  In Pennsylvania, the bishops support the bill that is before the Assembly that forces women to have an ultrasound which they must watch, before they can have an abortion.

I guess that religious freedom only counts when the clergy get to force women to follow their archaic world view.  If one’s faith allows for a more progressive understanding, too bad. 

Does President Obama’s position on this matter mean he “hates” the Roman Catholic Church as implied by some commentators?  No, of course not, but the bishops are highly skilled at using inflammatory rhetoric.  They will vilify the current administration in the Church’s campaign against women, a centuries old effort. 

In the Roman Catholic scheme, women cannot win.  They are to submit to their husbands and the Church.  If they get pregnant, that must be God’s will.  If they are too poor to raise a child, that’s their fault.  According to the Church hierarchy, all male, of course, pregnancy is perfection for women and choosing not to be pregnant is a sin, unless a women has chosen a chaste life.

What I don’t get is the number of women who go along with this  nonsense.  Is it their penance for some imagined sin?  If the women left the Church en masse until some real changes on behalf of women were made, it wouldn’t take too long.  Women hold the Roman Catholic Church  together, just as they do most denominations, no matter what those in charge think.

I hope President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services will stand their ground.  Maybe that will keep the bishops distracted long enough to allow progressives to reverse the Medieval abortion laws springing up all over the country.

A catastrophe? Really?

by Ruth Sheets

This evening on “the News Hour,” on PBS, a commentator, Mark Shields, whom I usually find to be lucid and thoughtful, made a comment that really got me thinking.  He said that the current administration’s decision to require insurance companies to fully cover contraception is a catastrophe for President Obama.  He said it was a blow to Catholics everywhere and that they might withdraw their support for Obama in the upcoming election.

I do understand that the Powers that be in the Catholic Church are expected to be outraged about offering women the ability to plan the size of their families and whether or not they will become pregnant.  That’s, of course, supposed to be God’s job, or something like that.  However, I do not see how this should negatively impact rank and file Catholics, regular church goers or not.  Survey after survey finds that Catholic women use contraception at nearly the rates of other women.  This has been true since the late 1960’s.  What is the problem?

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to use contraception yourself, then deny the service to someone else, someone not even of your own faith the right to have it covered by their insurance? What about the concept that just because it is covered doesn’t mean you have to use it?

Catholics and their Fundamentalist Christian friends hate abortion and want to do everything they can to stamp it out in America.   One of the best ways to do that, it would seem,   is contraception.   But, this is also to be prohibited.  So what is it they actually want?  It seems that they want only married people to have sex.  . 

If you don’t stick to this lifestyle, your punishment is having a baby that you must raise or give up for adoption, even if either choice is unacceptable.  What is more, you have to do it alone with as little support as possible.  “What about the child?” you say.  “The sins of the parents are visited upon the children even to the fourth generation,” or so the Bible says. 

I am so glad that this time, the president and his administration have stood up to the Republican/Conservative bullying.  Just as bullying harms our children, and we must help them stand against it, political bullying harms our country and our people and we must stand against it.  Making more options available for women is not a catastrophe.

I hope the president and his Secretary of Health and Human Services do not back down on this one.  If those Catholics Mr. Shields evokes can’t see that the world needs some new broader thinking in the 21st Century if they and the rest of us are to survive, it is unlikely that neither Obama or any other thoughtful person will be able to reach them.  We may just have to leave them to the Romney’s and Gingrich’s of the country.  Those guys don’t have any vision or concern for the needs and rights of women either.