Tag Archives: Women

For Mother…

For mother, who will probably never see this,
and for those other mothers who may.

Thank you.

Thank you for being there for me when I came home,
it meant so much to be greeted after a rough day.

Thank you for making our house a home.
A place of safety and love to which I could come.

Thank you for asking about my day.
I may not have responded and may have acted annoyed,
but it meant a lot to know someone cared.

Thank you for being there for me.
You could have had a career, we may had more stuff,
but instead you were home, which was worth so much more.

Thank you for those meals you prepared.
I may not have looked after my health, but you did for me.

Thank you for staying with dad.
I know there were fights, there was unhappiness, and at times
it may have been easy to leave or have him leave, but you stayed.

Thank you for your prayers.
I may not have always sought God’s help,
but you sought it for me.

Thank you mother for birthing me.
I know it was painful and I know it was hard.
You could have ended me before I even was,
but instead you let me experience life.

Thank you mother for the love and acceptance you provided,
even when I was unlovable, you loved.

Thank you mother for the work you did for us.
I was often ungrateful, but still you worked.

Thank you mother for all you have done for me.
Without you I would not be the man I am today.

Thank you mother.

“Mother o’ Mine
If I were hanged on the highest hill,
Mother o’ mine, O mother o’ mine
I know whose love would follow me still,
Mother o’ mine, O mother o’ mine!

If I were drowned in the deepest sea,
Mother o’ mine, O mother o’ mine
I know whose tears would come down to me,
Mother o’ mine, O mother o’ mine!

If I were damned of body and soul,
I know whose prayers would make me whole,
Mother o’ mine, 0 mother o’ mine!”

– Kipling

Lightning Round – 2012/05/01

Everybody enjoying May Day? I hope you are.

Did you know that the average person could be making $100,000 a year? The Captain does the math.

A great speech given to the Fed. Long, but read it.

“The president has a very difficult time with the business community. Most people in business and most people who are successful are Republican that’s just a fact of life.” I wonder why?

The system is hungry; it must eat. Poor Sweden.

Marriage is fundamental to the church: when it declines, so to does the church decline.

Related: Why Evangelical Princesses are un-marriageable; a great post from CMDN.

We won! Yay!?!???

How you create a mass-murderer: Teach him to hate himself, then act surprised when he externalizes that hate.

Becoming as weak as your foes doesn’t help you or them.

Shame the beta month; it looks like it could be interesting.

(ht/ SDA, AMN, CC)

Choice and Freedom

Slate had an article from last week I read today. For the most part it’s typical liberal feminist rhetoric: women are oppressed, men are treated better, Republican’s are waging “war on women” but the “mommy wars” don’t exist, etc, etc.

But, there’s an interesting question asked in the middle:

For starters, ask yourself why we talk about American men using the language of “freedom” and women in the language of “choice?”
…
Why is it that women are the sum of their “choices” and men get to just live their lives?

Having asked a rather interesting question, the authors then simply blame it on evil Republicans who hate women, a thoroughly unsatisfying answer to any who aren’t ideologically-blinded feminists.

So, why do we talk about freedom when referring to males, but choice when referring to females (or at least to feminists)?

The first, and most obvious, reason would be abortion. Feminism has irreversibly joined itself to pro-abortion policies and uses the language of choice when discussing the mass killing of the unborn.

But, even when not addressing abortion, or even feminism for that matter, the dichotomy of male freedom and female choice remains in political discussion. Why?

First, we have to look at what is meant by the two words:

Freedom is generally used to mean the ability to act without external constraint. Some have tried to pervert the word with the phrase “positive freedom” (ie. forcing someone else to help you to act), but the original conception, sometimes referred to as “negative freedom”, is the most commonly accepted: the ability to do as you wish with yourself and your resources without someone else using force to stop you.

Choice, on the other hand, refers to the act of selecting an option. Choice implies that options are available and one is selected.

So, how does that relate to politics and sex differences?

Nobody else can give you freedom, others can only take it away. Freedom also implies responsibility: if you are free to act, you are free to act stupidly and will have to live with the consequences of your actions. On the other hand, freedom does not imply that you have the ability to act; just because there are not external constraints, does not mean there are no internal constraints. I am free to fly, but not being Superman, I have to walk.

Choice can be given by others. Choice also implies that I have the ability to act. Because I am not Superman, I can not be said to have the choice to fly.On the other hand, if I lived in Metropolis, Superman could offer me a ride; if he did I would then have the choice of flight.

Knowing this, we can see why men have freedom and women, or at least feminists, have choice.

Men are encouraged to act and when they fail, they are rarely given help; they are expected to pull themselves up. Men who do not provide for themselves are shamed. In the political sphere, the more masculine ideologies (libertarianism and conservatism) are based on freedom.

When men (rarely) organize politically for the benefit of their sex, it is never to demand they be given special privileges or for others to provide for them, it is always to be left free: the fair enforcement of marriage contracts, to not be discriminated against when applying for jobs, to not be treated as de facto guilty when accused, etc.

They advocate for freedom. Men in politics are more inclined to work towards freedom and are not inclined to requiring other to provide for them.

On the other hand, females are encouraged to rely on the state. When they fail, the surrogate husband will take care of them. Women who are provided for are not shamed. In the political sphere, the more feminine ideologies (liberalism, feminism, and progressivism) are based on choice, on giving people choices, even if it requires the state help them, redistributing resources, or removing freedom. They also tend to advocate that the state prevent them from having to live with the consequences of their actions.

When modern females organize politically for the benefit of their sex (ie. post-second wave feminism), the demand for other to provide them with choice is always there: affirmative action, quotas for hiring women, state-funded daycare, state-funded abortions, mandatory contraception insurance, ending sexist jokes, sensitivity training for others, increased welfare, gender parity, increased alimony, etc. Feminists demand choices and demand that others provide these choices for them.

That is why we talk about men in the language of freedom and women in the language of choice.

If feminists do not like being consigned to the language of choice, they can accept freedom.

They would have to accept that freedom may limit choice. If a person can not afford daycare, they go without.

They would have to accept responsibility that comes along with it. If a person has children, they are responsible for raising them and paying for them.

They would have to accept that freedom means that others won’t be forced to provide you with choices. There would be no affirmative action or gender quotas, no state-funding to support choices, little to no welfare, etc.

But, until feminists embrace freedom, they will be consigned to the language of choice.

Lightning Round – 2012/04/17

Ok, haven’t had much time this weekend, I’ve been busy. So here’s another lightning round as filler until I can make a real post.

Remember the consequences of listening to those who complain humans use to many resources and the world is overpopulated.

One trillion dollars: Guns save almost as much as Obama wastes. I’ve been hoping to get one soon, so I’m gonna keep an eye on this series.

Evolutionary psychology once again rears it’s ugly head. The realities of biology do as well.

Expect the welfare state to continue to grow. A surrogate husband will become increasingly necessary.

A good wife and mother will provide a counterweight to the state, which is why the left is attacking homemakers.

I like Paul Ryan more the more I hear about him. Subsidiarity is not something I expected form a mainstream politician.

I guess Slate hasn’t read much Steve Sailer. Red cities aren’t “walkable” because conservatives value family, space, freedom, and independence, and thus like space and cars, and so they go to where land is cheap and houses and yards are bigger. Blue cities are walkable because liberals value interdependence, nightlife, environmentalism, and have small families, if they have one at all, so they go where the people are.

Why is Israel the only Western country with any balls left?

Also, thanks to In Mala Fide for the link. Ferdinand posted some decent advice this weekend.