Oof, just found another article from election times. Here's my argument about Catholics and the vote.
Most Catholics who plan on voting for Barack Obama have already asked themselves, “Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate?” and answered with a resounding yes. I will briefly offer a couple of arguments to refute this position before turning to the issues which typically draw Catholics to Obama’s camp, such as education, the environment, the economy and the Iraq war.
Although we have no candidate firmly against the death penalty or embryonic stem cell research, we can tell which candidate’s stance better reflects the Catholic view of human dignity by looking at the issue of abortion. McCain has in every case voted against abortion. Obama, on the other hand, has consistently voted against protecting unborn children and even voted four times against legislation that would stop the heinous practice of leaving infants who survive abortion to slowly die of starvation in the side rooms of hospitals in Illinois. When his record was called to the nation’s attention by abortion survivor Gianna Jessen, he responded by attacking her and calling her a liar. He has even gone so far as to call pregnancy a “punishment,” (this in stark contrast to Palin, who has called daughter Bristol’s baby “a blessing.”)
But this we have all heard before. Let’s return to our question. Archbishop Chaput of Denver offers a guideline for Catholics who would like to vote for pro-choice candidates. He writes that Catholics may indeed vote for a pro-choice candidate if they have a “proportionate reason.” By this he means: "the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life -- which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed." In the next four years, nearly 5 million children will die from abortion. I cannot conceive of any reason that would spare me from guilt when I face those 5 million and say, “I voted for a man who worked tirelessly to preserve and expand the laws that led to your deaths.”
Despite what Nancy Pelosi thinks, the Church has condemned abortion from its earliest days (see Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective by Fr. John Connery, S.J.’s if you are in any doubt). Recently, Pope Benedict XVI called abortion “non-negotiable.” The same cannot be said about environmental stewardship, education, health care and U.S. foreign policy. The solutions to these problems are hazy, and Cardinals and Bishops alike fall on different sides of the debates.
Since they are up for debate, let’s tackle them one by one. The Iraq War is probably the issue that Catholics are most likely to see as a “proportionate reason” to vote for Obama. But is it? In five years, the Iraq war has left 4,154 U.S. citizens dead . This is less than the number killed by abortion in just two days. Indeed, the number of children killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade (48 million) is over 40 times the number of Americans killed in every war we have ever fought in combined.
Nevertheless, this is 4,154 citizens dead in five years is 4,154 too many. So who is more equipped to craft policies to stem the flow of deaths in Iraq? As Catholics, we are called to care for not only for U.S. citizens, but for all people. Although Obama’s plan to pull out of the war may save American lives, it will not save Iraqis. McCain, who spent over two decades in the military, is better prepared to make foreign policy that will ultimately provide Iraqis with greater stability and safety.
Another issue of great importance to many Catholics is environment and energy policy. Both Obama and McCain believe combating global warming is a top priority, both have worked on legislation to protect the environment and both support cap-and-trade systems. Both also have used the term “good stewardship,” a term also used repeatedly by the Church. McCain has even said that we have “a biblical obligation to care for the planet.”
Time and time again, McCain has made it clear that he will, unlike Bush, pursue conservative fiscal policies, cutting spending and fighting government corruption. If Obama is elected, however, he will preside over the biggest expansion of federal government we have seen in decades, bringing the country closer and closer to a socialized economy. To succumb to socialization, and to not make fighting corruption a top priority would do an injustice to the man who worked tirelessly for most of his life to fight against such corrupt governments, the late Pope John Paul II.
Lastly, let’s look at education. Pope Benedict XVI tells us that Catholic
education “is integral to the mission of the Church to proclaim the Good News.” But in the past eight years, Catholic schools have been closing across the nation at an ever-increasing rate. Schools in inner cities are hit the hardest. Obama’s plan to improve education leaves no room for private schools, including Catholic schools, to succeed. McCain’s plan, on the other hand, includes strong support for a voucher system. According to McCain, “public education should be defined as one in which our public support for a child's education follows that child into the school the parent chooses.” Under Obama, this “integral mission of the Church” will continue to flounder, but under McCain it will have another chance to thrive.
McCain’s plans for the Iraq war, for the environment and energy and for education better reflect the teaching and goals of the Catholic Church as found in the works and writings of our current and former Popes. But even if you, as a Catholic, disagree, the abortion issue is different than all other issues. Why? There is a reason why the Founding Fathers put the right to life first before all others in the Declaration of Independence: all other rights flow from it. Having a good education, a clean environment, and a healthy economy only matter to those who have been born. If we continue to kill over twenty percent of our citizens before they are able to enjoy the blessings of this country, none of our other efforts will matter.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Trid: Why You Should Love It
Finally, below is my article for the Georgetown Academy on the Tridentine Rite Mass. The theme of the entire issue was "secularization." Just because I couldn't resist defending Sarah Palin, bashing Obama and promoting a controversial liturgy all in one day. Up next: my defense of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus."
*Note: This article has been edited since its original printing in the Academy.
The Tridentine Rite Mass, or as we younger traddies affectionately call it, the Trid, is unabashedly, unequivocally Catholic. What with the Latin and the kneeling, the incense and the chanting, one could close her eyes and imagine herself standing right alongside St. Teresa of Avila, or St. Ignatius of Loyola, both of whom attended Mass in this form. (I, of course, never actually do this).
So what is the Tridentine Rite Mass, exactly? In a nutshell (we’re condensing 2,000 years of liturgical history here), it is the form of the Roman Rite that was instituted at the Council of Trent in the mid 16th century, hence – Tridentine. It was not invented at this time; on the contrary, it was slowly developed in a continuous and organic fashion since the earliest days of the Church. Some of the oldest extant liturgical books evince a Rite nearly identical to that which the Council of Trent enshrined.
The Mass was said according to this fashion for over four-hundred years after the Council of Trent and until the Second Vatican Council, which ordered a liturgical renewal, including the unprecedented construction of a new liturgy by a liturgical committee. After this new liturgy was promulgated in 1970, the Tridentine Rite could only be used with the permission of the local bishop.
But then, just over one year ago, Pope Benedict XVI issued a document stating that any priest could say the Tridentine Rite without asking permission from his Bishop. Traddies partied in the streets. (For us, of course, this means somberly chanting a litany to the Blessed Virgin in the streets, but you know, tomato, tomahto). This democratization of the Trid led to a huge revival and just a year later, parishes that offer the Trid are packed with people, many of whom are in their twenties and thirties.
So what does all this talk about liturgy have to do with secularism? It took me a few Oxford English Dictionary searches to really nail it. The key lies in the definition, not of secularism, but “secularization”: “1. The conversion of an ecclesiastical or religious institution or its property to secular possession and use…2. The giving of a secular or non-sacred character or direction to.” Bingo. The transition from the Tridentine liturgy to the 1970 liturgy has been marked by overwhelming secularization.
Ok, I’ll admit it: attending Mass in a language one doesn’t speak means paying attention requires some real effort. And so, in reaction to the lay faithful who would sit in Mass, completely ignoring the celebration, perhaps praying their Rosary, the Second Vatican Council rightly required “active participation” of all the faithful. Unfortunately, as dear old Bennie points out, this very good impulse was “misunderstood to mean something external…as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action.” Hence: parish liturgical committees! Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist even when sufficient priests are present! The individual layperson making decisions that in the past were made organically over thousands of years! In other words, the liturgy was, in many ways, handed over to secular possession.
This almost obsessive control over the liturgy by the laity led to a far deeper and more fundamental problem: the Mass very often became a showcase for human creativity. One of the most egregious examples of the ill-effects of this kind of secularization of the liturgy was the Mass celebrated at last year’s Northern California Call to Action Conference. Instead of an orderly line of priests and servers, a rambunctious group of gigantic puppets processed in to look on as a modern dancer clad in a leotard leapt about the church, Gospel in hand. The worst part of it all: various parishes and organizations found this so inspiring that they held puppet masses of their own! While the "young adult" liturgies common in DC are a far cry from such ridiculous nonsense, the secular music and total lack of solemnity can lead one to wonder if she has somehow stumbled into a Disney film entitled, “Catholic Mass: The Musical!”
The Tridentine Rite falls prey to none of these problems but, today, do encourage appropriate active participation – Latin to English translations are offered to the faithful when they attend, the readings from Scripture are typically read in English, and all are expected to sing the responses to the Priest. Boys and young men can act as servers, and there are often opportunities to join choirs.
The Trid also avoids the problems entailed by the second definition of secularization, for not only is it unabashedly Catholic, but it is also unabashedly sacred. This focus on the sacred is immediately apparent from the direction of the priest who, leading his congregation, stands with them facing the altar. The center of attention is never, therefore, the priest, but the Lord himself, who in the sacrifice of the Mass is truly present upon the altar. Ideally, both priest and people face east toward the rising sun, which represents Christ.
This stands in stark contrast to the formations typically found in celebrations by the 1970 rite, in which the priest typically faces toward the congregation and therefore becomes their focus. Instead of leading them toward God, he commands his people’s attention. Often, pews or seats are arranged so that the people in the congregation face one another, sometimes even in a circle. Rather than opening themselves up the Christ, the rising sun, the people are, as Pope Benedict says, closed in on themselves, gazing at one another.
The Tridentine Rite also gives its attention to the sacred through the use of music that finds its root not in artistic autonomy, but in the Word and in prayer. The masterful use of silence, an opportunity to encounter the Lord in prayer, as an indispensable part of the liturgical action found in the Trid stands opposed to the artificially inserted periods of silence (often skipped) in the 1970 liturgy.
All one has to do to understand the unequivocal focus on the sacred of the Trid is to look around at the children, who, invariably, are present. At nearly any other Mass or church service, children squirm and whisper to their parents throughout the celebration, but at a Trid, they gaze wide and steady-eyed at the priest, solemnly chanting in his brocaded, elaborate vestments, their little hands clasped fast together in prayer. The hush of the many children during Mass says something profound: unlike at a watered-down Mass with secular music, they get it. They get that they are participating in something entirely out of the ordinary, entirely separate from their everyday lives, something that ought to inspire their awe.
*Note: This article has been edited since its original printing in the Academy.
The Tridentine Rite Mass, or as we younger traddies affectionately call it, the Trid, is unabashedly, unequivocally Catholic. What with the Latin and the kneeling, the incense and the chanting, one could close her eyes and imagine herself standing right alongside St. Teresa of Avila, or St. Ignatius of Loyola, both of whom attended Mass in this form. (I, of course, never actually do this).
So what is the Tridentine Rite Mass, exactly? In a nutshell (we’re condensing 2,000 years of liturgical history here), it is the form of the Roman Rite that was instituted at the Council of Trent in the mid 16th century, hence – Tridentine. It was not invented at this time; on the contrary, it was slowly developed in a continuous and organic fashion since the earliest days of the Church. Some of the oldest extant liturgical books evince a Rite nearly identical to that which the Council of Trent enshrined.
The Mass was said according to this fashion for over four-hundred years after the Council of Trent and until the Second Vatican Council, which ordered a liturgical renewal, including the unprecedented construction of a new liturgy by a liturgical committee. After this new liturgy was promulgated in 1970, the Tridentine Rite could only be used with the permission of the local bishop.
But then, just over one year ago, Pope Benedict XVI issued a document stating that any priest could say the Tridentine Rite without asking permission from his Bishop. Traddies partied in the streets. (For us, of course, this means somberly chanting a litany to the Blessed Virgin in the streets, but you know, tomato, tomahto). This democratization of the Trid led to a huge revival and just a year later, parishes that offer the Trid are packed with people, many of whom are in their twenties and thirties.
So what does all this talk about liturgy have to do with secularism? It took me a few Oxford English Dictionary searches to really nail it. The key lies in the definition, not of secularism, but “secularization”: “1. The conversion of an ecclesiastical or religious institution or its property to secular possession and use…2. The giving of a secular or non-sacred character or direction to.” Bingo. The transition from the Tridentine liturgy to the 1970 liturgy has been marked by overwhelming secularization.
Ok, I’ll admit it: attending Mass in a language one doesn’t speak means paying attention requires some real effort. And so, in reaction to the lay faithful who would sit in Mass, completely ignoring the celebration, perhaps praying their Rosary, the Second Vatican Council rightly required “active participation” of all the faithful. Unfortunately, as dear old Bennie points out, this very good impulse was “misunderstood to mean something external…as if as many people as possible, as often as possible, should be visibly engaged in action.” Hence: parish liturgical committees! Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist even when sufficient priests are present! The individual layperson making decisions that in the past were made organically over thousands of years! In other words, the liturgy was, in many ways, handed over to secular possession.
This almost obsessive control over the liturgy by the laity led to a far deeper and more fundamental problem: the Mass very often became a showcase for human creativity. One of the most egregious examples of the ill-effects of this kind of secularization of the liturgy was the Mass celebrated at last year’s Northern California Call to Action Conference. Instead of an orderly line of priests and servers, a rambunctious group of gigantic puppets processed in to look on as a modern dancer clad in a leotard leapt about the church, Gospel in hand. The worst part of it all: various parishes and organizations found this so inspiring that they held puppet masses of their own! While the "young adult" liturgies common in DC are a far cry from such ridiculous nonsense, the secular music and total lack of solemnity can lead one to wonder if she has somehow stumbled into a Disney film entitled, “Catholic Mass: The Musical!”
The Tridentine Rite falls prey to none of these problems but, today, do encourage appropriate active participation – Latin to English translations are offered to the faithful when they attend, the readings from Scripture are typically read in English, and all are expected to sing the responses to the Priest. Boys and young men can act as servers, and there are often opportunities to join choirs.
The Trid also avoids the problems entailed by the second definition of secularization, for not only is it unabashedly Catholic, but it is also unabashedly sacred. This focus on the sacred is immediately apparent from the direction of the priest who, leading his congregation, stands with them facing the altar. The center of attention is never, therefore, the priest, but the Lord himself, who in the sacrifice of the Mass is truly present upon the altar. Ideally, both priest and people face east toward the rising sun, which represents Christ.
This stands in stark contrast to the formations typically found in celebrations by the 1970 rite, in which the priest typically faces toward the congregation and therefore becomes their focus. Instead of leading them toward God, he commands his people’s attention. Often, pews or seats are arranged so that the people in the congregation face one another, sometimes even in a circle. Rather than opening themselves up the Christ, the rising sun, the people are, as Pope Benedict says, closed in on themselves, gazing at one another.
The Tridentine Rite also gives its attention to the sacred through the use of music that finds its root not in artistic autonomy, but in the Word and in prayer. The masterful use of silence, an opportunity to encounter the Lord in prayer, as an indispensable part of the liturgical action found in the Trid stands opposed to the artificially inserted periods of silence (often skipped) in the 1970 liturgy.
All one has to do to understand the unequivocal focus on the sacred of the Trid is to look around at the children, who, invariably, are present. At nearly any other Mass or church service, children squirm and whisper to their parents throughout the celebration, but at a Trid, they gaze wide and steady-eyed at the priest, solemnly chanting in his brocaded, elaborate vestments, their little hands clasped fast together in prayer. The hush of the many children during Mass says something profound: unlike at a watered-down Mass with secular music, they get it. They get that they are participating in something entirely out of the ordinary, entirely separate from their everyday lives, something that ought to inspire their awe.
FOCA
Note: This article is obviously obsolete, and I ought to write a new one about the (disastrous!) real results of Obama's presidency on the "reproductive choice" ie "massacre of innocents" front. Nevertheless, it was a good article.
As a rather amusing aside, when this article was originally printed in the Georgetown Federalist, the editor removed my formatting in the first part, thus making it appear that the bits about Obama were in the actual text of the Book of Revelation.
A Call to Action: Being Pro-Life Under Obama
“The locusts…have tails like scorpions, and stings, and their power of hurting men for five months lies in their tails…The first woe has passed; behold two woes are still to come. Then the sixth angel blew his trumpet, and I head a voice… saying behold: the one whom they call Obama will succeed to the presidency and in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death will fly from them…
It is tempting for pro-lifers to see an Obama presidency as a catastrophe, and easy to succumb to Apocalyptic visions of women forced to be sterilized, doctors of faith forced to choose between killing the unborn and ceasing to practice medicine, and the Catholic Church’s pro-life efforts steamrollered by Planned Parenthood’s radical agenda. But, can it really be all that bad? In the words of Sarah Palin, “you betcha!”
Make no mistake, the Obama presidency is a death knoll for much of what Pro-lifers have worked to establish over the past thirty-five years. Obama, who has, according to Planned Parenthood’s president Cecile Richards, been communicating with the radical pro-choice organization almost daily since the election, has promised make signing the Freedom of Choice Act the first thing he will do as President.
The Freedom of Choice Act would encourage freedom like Orwell’s Ministry of Peace encouraged peace. FOCA would force all Americans to fund abortions through taxes, wipe all existing restraints on abortion from the books and deny Americans the freedom to craft laws to regulate abortion in any way. This means no more parental consent laws, no more requirement that abortionists be licensed physicians, no more freedom of conscience for doctors and nurses who do not wish to participate in abortions, no more telling women about the potential risks of abortion, no more partial-birth abortion bans, no more protection for infants born alive after abortion attempts, no more funding for Pregnancy Aid Centers that provide free counseling and enormous amounts of material assistance to pregnant and parenting mothers and, possibly, no more Catholic health care. No other industry in the country has this blanket exemption from regulation.
Why should every citizen be upset about this? Because the Catholic Church runs almost 600 hospitals and over 400 clinics, which together served nearly 90 million Americans, many of them in poverty, in 2007 alone. And the U.S. bishops, who have called FOCA “an attack on the free exercise of…religion,” are already talking about the possibility of shutting down these hospitals, or at least their Obstetrics departments, if Obama signs FOCA into law. According to their statement, “[FOCA] would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country.” A threat to Catholic health care is a threat to all health care. One cannot fail to see the irony: the man who made health care one of the key talking points of his campaign may very well wreak havock on the industry.
In addition to FOCA we have the re-funding of the United Nations Fund for Population Assistance to fear. The Government’s current policy is to not fund abortions overseas, including, of course, forced abortions. This includes restricting funding to UNFPA, which has participated in forced abortions and forced sterilizations, most notably as part of China’s one-child policy. But Obama’s buddy Planned Parenthood wants to refund UNFPA, and he is likely to comply.
These are some of the most drastic potential problems that pro-lifers will face in the next four years, but this list is by no means exhaustive. So, should pro-lifers throw in the towel now? Absolutely not. Rather, we need to get smarter, and take advantage of the allies we have in power. Democrats for Life, who are working to change their party from within, celebrated victory in five of their races on election night. Feminists for Life, possibly the most liberal-friendly pro-life organization out there, may be able to make headway in the coming years as well, most importantly with their Elizabeth Cady Stanton Act. The Elizabeth Cady Stanton Act would ensure that pregnant and parenting students have the resources they need to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their children.
And so the fight goes on. Pro-lifers must not see this as a time to despair, but as a call to action. Those on the front lines of the battle to defend the sanctity of human life against the encroaching culture of death will need our help more than ever before.
As a rather amusing aside, when this article was originally printed in the Georgetown Federalist, the editor removed my formatting in the first part, thus making it appear that the bits about Obama were in the actual text of the Book of Revelation.
A Call to Action: Being Pro-Life Under Obama
“The locusts…have tails like scorpions, and stings, and their power of hurting men for five months lies in their tails…The first woe has passed; behold two woes are still to come. Then the sixth angel blew his trumpet, and I head a voice… saying behold: the one whom they call Obama will succeed to the presidency and in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death will fly from them…
It is tempting for pro-lifers to see an Obama presidency as a catastrophe, and easy to succumb to Apocalyptic visions of women forced to be sterilized, doctors of faith forced to choose between killing the unborn and ceasing to practice medicine, and the Catholic Church’s pro-life efforts steamrollered by Planned Parenthood’s radical agenda. But, can it really be all that bad? In the words of Sarah Palin, “you betcha!”
Make no mistake, the Obama presidency is a death knoll for much of what Pro-lifers have worked to establish over the past thirty-five years. Obama, who has, according to Planned Parenthood’s president Cecile Richards, been communicating with the radical pro-choice organization almost daily since the election, has promised make signing the Freedom of Choice Act the first thing he will do as President.
The Freedom of Choice Act would encourage freedom like Orwell’s Ministry of Peace encouraged peace. FOCA would force all Americans to fund abortions through taxes, wipe all existing restraints on abortion from the books and deny Americans the freedom to craft laws to regulate abortion in any way. This means no more parental consent laws, no more requirement that abortionists be licensed physicians, no more freedom of conscience for doctors and nurses who do not wish to participate in abortions, no more telling women about the potential risks of abortion, no more partial-birth abortion bans, no more protection for infants born alive after abortion attempts, no more funding for Pregnancy Aid Centers that provide free counseling and enormous amounts of material assistance to pregnant and parenting mothers and, possibly, no more Catholic health care. No other industry in the country has this blanket exemption from regulation.
Why should every citizen be upset about this? Because the Catholic Church runs almost 600 hospitals and over 400 clinics, which together served nearly 90 million Americans, many of them in poverty, in 2007 alone. And the U.S. bishops, who have called FOCA “an attack on the free exercise of…religion,” are already talking about the possibility of shutting down these hospitals, or at least their Obstetrics departments, if Obama signs FOCA into law. According to their statement, “[FOCA] would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country.” A threat to Catholic health care is a threat to all health care. One cannot fail to see the irony: the man who made health care one of the key talking points of his campaign may very well wreak havock on the industry.
In addition to FOCA we have the re-funding of the United Nations Fund for Population Assistance to fear. The Government’s current policy is to not fund abortions overseas, including, of course, forced abortions. This includes restricting funding to UNFPA, which has participated in forced abortions and forced sterilizations, most notably as part of China’s one-child policy. But Obama’s buddy Planned Parenthood wants to refund UNFPA, and he is likely to comply.
These are some of the most drastic potential problems that pro-lifers will face in the next four years, but this list is by no means exhaustive. So, should pro-lifers throw in the towel now? Absolutely not. Rather, we need to get smarter, and take advantage of the allies we have in power. Democrats for Life, who are working to change their party from within, celebrated victory in five of their races on election night. Feminists for Life, possibly the most liberal-friendly pro-life organization out there, may be able to make headway in the coming years as well, most importantly with their Elizabeth Cady Stanton Act. The Elizabeth Cady Stanton Act would ensure that pregnant and parenting students have the resources they need to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their children.
And so the fight goes on. Pro-lifers must not see this as a time to despair, but as a call to action. Those on the front lines of the battle to defend the sanctity of human life against the encroaching culture of death will need our help more than ever before.
Sarah Palin Article
So, I haven't posted anything in quite some time. I'll post a few of the articles I wrote for Georgetown University publications to start off with, and try to be more regular after that (just for you multitude of fans!)
First, here is my stirring defense of Sarah Palin. To clarify: I do not like this woman all that much. I hope she doesn't run for President. Nevertheless, just as I always find myself defending President Bush Jr., I found myself having to defend Palin. So here it is, folks:
Note to Feminists: Sarah Palin Is A Woman (And Women Love Her)
Caitlin Barr ‘09
Sarah Palin is not a feminist. Indeed, despite the lipstick and the skirt suits, she is not even a woman. At least this is what many angry feminists would have you believe. In practically the same breath, mainstream feminists accuse the media of sexism directed against Sarah Palin and claim that Palin is not a woman. This is simply baffling.
The National Organization for Women was the first to respond to McCain’s shrewd choice of Palin as his running mate: female voters, according to their press release, “will surely not find Sarah Palin to be an advocate for women.” The shape of feminism’s response to Palin begins to be defined here. Palin may be a female, but she doesn’t speak for women and certainly isn’t a feminist.
This sentiment was echoed in stronger language by Feministing.org’s Jessica Valenti, who spoke at Georgetown University last spring. Jessica wrote on her blog, “even more interesting is that the reporters touting this Palin-as-feminist nonsense are people who pretty much know jack shit about feminism.” With this brief statement, Jessica, a twenty-something young woman who has held brief stints at such illustrious organizations as NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and Ms. Magazine and now devotes her time to running a blog, dismissed out of hand her fellow female journalists working at, among others, the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Despite Jessica’s claims to authority, she’s just a little bit out of her league.
But dear old Jessica Valenti wasn’t, for once, the most radical feminist out there. A commenter on her website wrote, “What defines a woman is not what is between her legs, but what is between her ears.” I see. Modern feminism not only knows better than any woman with any conservative leanings what gender she is, but also better than biology.
Sadly, this commenter was not the only woman who denied Palin her womanhood.
Apparently, these days, femininity and traditional values actually make you less of a woman. Wendy Doniger, Professor at University of Chicago’s well-respected Divinity school, wrote for the Washington Post: “[Palin’s] greatest hypocrisy is in the pretense that she is a woman.” Doniger goes on to make a limp, yet resentful argument about how sex is just like religion and how Palin should stop imposing her views on the subjects on everyone else (when liberals like Obama do it, though, its just fine.)
A vicious article on Salon.com opens with the claim that “Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain't no woman.” The article goes on to lament Republican misogyny while simultaneously describing Palin as a “Republican blow-up doll,” a “hyperconservative, f***able, Type A, antiabortion, Christian Stepford wife in a 'sexy librarian' costume,” and a “power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty.” But how could this be sexism? After all, Sarah’s not even a woman. The mainstream feminists have truly lost it.
Luckily, the fear that these mainstream feminists’ vitriol is surely based in is warranted. A recent Lifetime Network poll shows that McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate has helped him overwhelmingly amongst women voters. When asked who has a “better understanding of women and what is most important to them,” 44% of women answered McCain/ Palin and 42% answered Obama/Biden. This stands in stark contrast to Lifetime’s July poll, which found only 18% of women responding McCain to the same question. Most women have not lost their minds and can see Palin for what she is: a strong, fearless and impressive woman who stands up for what she believes is best for women and for all Americans and will not sacrifice her values for any contrived notion of who she should be.
I have only a layman’s understanding of feminism; I have never taken a class on it and have read only a little feminist literature. Nevertheless, it has always been my understanding that the movement was intended to allow women to define their own identities and futures outside of external pressures. Instead of advancing women’s freedom to define themselves, mainstream feminism has become just another pressure telling women what they can or cannot do. Instead of being told that we must submit to our husbands, cook, clean, and raise children, young women are now told that we must support liberal economic policies, advocate for abortion and birth control, and even vote against a female candidate in order to properly be considered women. This leaves all women – even career-oriented, intelligent, successful women, who hold traditional or conservative views – in the dust.
So what does make Sarah Palin a woman and even a feminist? The fact that she has five children, a husband, and can walk so well in heels proves that she is indeed, a woman. But Palin is also a feminist, a new, less bitter and more prudent kind of feminist. Sarah is a member of Feminists for Life, a wonderful organization that tackles the abortion issue from a pro-life and uniquely feminist standpoint and has done more than any other group to get young pregnant mothers the help they need, particularly on college campuses. Palin is also living proof of what a feminist can do if she sets her mind to it: namely, rise to a position of great political power without sacrificing family or femininity.
First, here is my stirring defense of Sarah Palin. To clarify: I do not like this woman all that much. I hope she doesn't run for President. Nevertheless, just as I always find myself defending President Bush Jr., I found myself having to defend Palin. So here it is, folks:
Note to Feminists: Sarah Palin Is A Woman (And Women Love Her)
Caitlin Barr ‘09
Sarah Palin is not a feminist. Indeed, despite the lipstick and the skirt suits, she is not even a woman. At least this is what many angry feminists would have you believe. In practically the same breath, mainstream feminists accuse the media of sexism directed against Sarah Palin and claim that Palin is not a woman. This is simply baffling.
The National Organization for Women was the first to respond to McCain’s shrewd choice of Palin as his running mate: female voters, according to their press release, “will surely not find Sarah Palin to be an advocate for women.” The shape of feminism’s response to Palin begins to be defined here. Palin may be a female, but she doesn’t speak for women and certainly isn’t a feminist.
This sentiment was echoed in stronger language by Feministing.org’s Jessica Valenti, who spoke at Georgetown University last spring. Jessica wrote on her blog, “even more interesting is that the reporters touting this Palin-as-feminist nonsense are people who pretty much know jack shit about feminism.” With this brief statement, Jessica, a twenty-something young woman who has held brief stints at such illustrious organizations as NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and Ms. Magazine and now devotes her time to running a blog, dismissed out of hand her fellow female journalists working at, among others, the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Despite Jessica’s claims to authority, she’s just a little bit out of her league.
But dear old Jessica Valenti wasn’t, for once, the most radical feminist out there. A commenter on her website wrote, “What defines a woman is not what is between her legs, but what is between her ears.” I see. Modern feminism not only knows better than any woman with any conservative leanings what gender she is, but also better than biology.
Sadly, this commenter was not the only woman who denied Palin her womanhood.
Apparently, these days, femininity and traditional values actually make you less of a woman. Wendy Doniger, Professor at University of Chicago’s well-respected Divinity school, wrote for the Washington Post: “[Palin’s] greatest hypocrisy is in the pretense that she is a woman.” Doniger goes on to make a limp, yet resentful argument about how sex is just like religion and how Palin should stop imposing her views on the subjects on everyone else (when liberals like Obama do it, though, its just fine.)
A vicious article on Salon.com opens with the claim that “Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain't no woman.” The article goes on to lament Republican misogyny while simultaneously describing Palin as a “Republican blow-up doll,” a “hyperconservative, f***able, Type A, antiabortion, Christian Stepford wife in a 'sexy librarian' costume,” and a “power-mad, backwater beauty-pageant casualty.” But how could this be sexism? After all, Sarah’s not even a woman. The mainstream feminists have truly lost it.
Luckily, the fear that these mainstream feminists’ vitriol is surely based in is warranted. A recent Lifetime Network poll shows that McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate has helped him overwhelmingly amongst women voters. When asked who has a “better understanding of women and what is most important to them,” 44% of women answered McCain/ Palin and 42% answered Obama/Biden. This stands in stark contrast to Lifetime’s July poll, which found only 18% of women responding McCain to the same question. Most women have not lost their minds and can see Palin for what she is: a strong, fearless and impressive woman who stands up for what she believes is best for women and for all Americans and will not sacrifice her values for any contrived notion of who she should be.
I have only a layman’s understanding of feminism; I have never taken a class on it and have read only a little feminist literature. Nevertheless, it has always been my understanding that the movement was intended to allow women to define their own identities and futures outside of external pressures. Instead of advancing women’s freedom to define themselves, mainstream feminism has become just another pressure telling women what they can or cannot do. Instead of being told that we must submit to our husbands, cook, clean, and raise children, young women are now told that we must support liberal economic policies, advocate for abortion and birth control, and even vote against a female candidate in order to properly be considered women. This leaves all women – even career-oriented, intelligent, successful women, who hold traditional or conservative views – in the dust.
So what does make Sarah Palin a woman and even a feminist? The fact that she has five children, a husband, and can walk so well in heels proves that she is indeed, a woman. But Palin is also a feminist, a new, less bitter and more prudent kind of feminist. Sarah is a member of Feminists for Life, a wonderful organization that tackles the abortion issue from a pro-life and uniquely feminist standpoint and has done more than any other group to get young pregnant mothers the help they need, particularly on college campuses. Palin is also living proof of what a feminist can do if she sets her mind to it: namely, rise to a position of great political power without sacrificing family or femininity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)