The Art of Manliness

The Art of Manliness

I discovered this website today, courtesy of a friend. It's full of humor, self-deprecation, instruction in lost arts and has just the right amount of prodding in the mix.

I also like the name. I've long had a sense of unease about "femininity" as a concept. Even after long discussions with girlfriends, it still rings of twinsets and pearls or gingham dresses with lace collars. I've always preferred womanliness. It seems to me to have a deeper, richer, warmer and even stronger sense to it. So here's to womanliness in response to manliness!

25 Things (Or Singleness has some compensations)

Today I got tagged in one of those Facebook notes. The challenge was to list 25 things other people might not know about you. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I've had some unusual fun in my life and met some remarkable people. Sometimes it gets intimidating when I see the names of others included in some of the emails I get. It's fun to recall some of the events and people, others are not so fun. A few have caused me great shame and tears of repentance.

Some of the items listed are deliberately cryptic, some are fun and some have genuine meaning. But I'd trade all of it for the sake of a husband who holds me until I stop crying and a child who calls me mommy. On the other hand, you know, us Maiden Aunties need to have a stock of stories to tell.

Without further ado, here is my list:

1. I was once kissed on the cheek by Vincent Prince (he bought me lunch as well!)

2. I've been subpoenaed to testify in court twice - but neither was legally delivered so I got out of it.

3. I was once accustomed to entering prisons cells - one guard in front of me and one behind. And none of the men ever gave me any grief, because I always had a needle in my hand.

4. I love wearing skirts

5. I love being a girl (I stole this one, Barbara, is that ok?)

6. I used to hate wearing skirts and wore almost nothing but jeans.

7. When I was a 19 year old college student, I used to arrange conference calls for the KC branch of the Federal Reserve Board.

8. I've published an academic paper, which I now utterly repudiate.

9. I once got stood up for lunch because the Prime Minister called a meeting at 10 Downing Street. Well, I didn't really get stood up. We were supposed to have lunch on Monday, but he bought me Sunday dinner instead.

10. If I was indepently wealthy, I would have four homes - Denver area, the North Shore, London and Holy Island (Lindisfarne).

11. I once took a swim in Lake Superior (and yes, it's THAT north shore I'm talking about)

12. I got strep throat in Moose Jaw.

13. I've seen an altar cloth that Catherine of Aragon did the needlework for and the tomb of Catherine Parr (Henry' VII's first and last wives), which are in the same little English village.


14. I make the best braised red cabbage in the world, not to mention baklava, beef stroganoff and venison burgundy.

15. Of the bookcases in my study: one was made by my father as a young man, one was made by my brother when he was in college, one was made by me when I was in college and one was retrieved from a dumpster, and only one was store-bought.

16. I was once on Abp Chapuit's list of prayer intentions.

17. I was doing serial crossmatches on a surgery patient when Secret Service came through the lab.

18. When I am on vacation in a big city, other tourists frequently stop me to ask for directions.

19. My childhood home has been moved and a WalMart now stands where it used to.

20. I was named after my great, great aunt and the name originates in mythology. The original Camilla was an Amazon warrior queen who was said to be so fleet of foot she could run across the ocean without getting her feet wet. In this respect, as in most things, I DO NOT take after her.

21. I love baking my own bread and wouldn't dream of allowing a bread machine in my kitchen.

22. Almost no one believes I am as old as I really am. And I don't dye my hair.

23. I have never married but still have hope.

24. I have a love-hate relationship with writing.

25. Through the prayers of two faithful shepherds, Jesus Christ redeemed my rebellion and has blessed me beyond measure with friends I don't deserve (I saved the best for last!)

Don't set foot on the plank

If I am made to walk the plank by a pirate, it is vain for me to offer, as a common-sense compromise, to walk along the plank for a reasonable distance. It is exactly about the reasonable distance that the pirate and I differ. There is an exquisite mathematical split second at which the plank tips up. My common-sense ends just before that instant; the pirate's common-sense begins just beyond it. But the point itself is as hard as any geometrical diagram; as abstract as any theological dogma.

- What's Wrong With the World, G.K. Chesterton

If the pirate is of a liberal/progressive type, such as the religious feminists, they key thing is to never set foot on the plank.

The Resentment Gambit

Religious feminists will sometimes squawk in protest that, "I am NOT a Feminist, humph. I am an EGALITARIAN!" which seems rather ironic given that at least one well-known Egalitarian Internet gathering spot has seven levels of hierarchy. Nevertheless, feminist is what they are. One particular nail in that definitional coffin is what I will call, "the resentment gambit".

This resentment was given birth by the feminist movement starting in the late 60's and early 70's with the formation of "consciousness raising"(CR) groups. The stated aim of these groups was a better understanding of women's "oppression". Often the women attending these groups had no idea they had been so sorely oppressed until the CR opened their eyes. With the CR groups, feelings mattered more than facts and results mattered more than anything and the result they wanted was anger and resentment against the patriarchy.

CR groups also proved to be feminism's most useful organizing tool. It's easy to see why that might be - all those shared experiences, the oppression, the sisterhood, the relentless solicitation of emotion creates a bond which is sometimes harder to break than blood. The current incarnation of CR is seen in the chattering of blogs and discussion boards where the religious feminists gather. It is a veritable industry and its product is the creation of a shared narrative of past abuse and repression. The least imagined slight becomes inflated into just cause for rejecting what the Church has always taught, following the Apostle's example and the guiding of the Holy Spirit for the last two millennia, regarding the relationship of men and women in marriage and the Church. That is rejected in place of something they call "equality".

There is one prime directive here. You must never, ever indicate the least hesitation, the least question about the veracity of any claim of abuse or any manner or place in which that tale of abuse is retold. To question such claims is to blame the victim and to re-victimize them again. Never mind the countless men victimized by false accusations, the men who will never get their lives back. The abuse of men via false claims is not acknowledged to exist. And they certainly won't acknowledge that the Scriptural punishment for the person who makes a false claim is the very punishment the guilty perpetrator would have received.

I re-learned this prime directive last year when a dear brother in Christ published a piece I had written on his blog. Never mind that the woman in question had told her story publicly in several places (I ceased counting at four). Never mind that she had made it her calling card, I was not allowed to discuss it or question her story in any manner. It didn't matter that I happened to believe her story. It didn't matter that I wasn't actually question her truthfulness. and it truly didn't matter that my purpose in the post was to explore this phenomenon of a shared narrative of abuse among religious feminists.

This resentment gambit is a cancer, a plague on our churches, seminaries and parachurch organizations. Without it, religious feminism would never have gained its stranglehold on so many supposedly Evangelical organizations. The cancer starts with a small tumor. It might be a husband not listening to his wife when she's had a trying day. It might be a father not shepherding his daughter's heart. It might be a pastor telling a stupid wife joke. It starts there. Then, in the soil of religious feminism, it grows. Is is nurtured and clung to until the resentment matures into rejection of any male who challenges in the least way, female, ahem, equality.

The cancer affects the hearing as well as the heart. I saw so clearly in the responses to my post that so many of the feminists had been utterly unable to comprehend what I had actually written. They read everything through the lens of their resentment. The vehement reaction did nothing so well as show that my speculation had hit the mark. It forced me to recall an article I had read some years ago, by Dale O'Leary.

Before a feminist can hear anything, she has to come from a foundation of repentance and forgiveness. From the failure to adequately answer a question to unspeakable abuse - every sin must be forgiven. No exceptions. Women have been abused, no question. But women are also called to forgive that abuse. One thing standing in the way of that forgiveness is a misunderstanding about what forgiveness is. It does not mean the abuse didn't happen. It does not mean you restore the relationship. True forgiveness can only occur when a woman has experienced a genuine injury, a real hurt.

The resentment gambit will lead to a heart shriveled up like a ten year old walnut. It hurts, it makes a woman blind to the living color around her and gives her a greyish landscape of "me and my sisters against the world". It's mean, unattractive, unpleasant to be around unless you're one of the initiates and it's just plain ugly. However, when we cease to cherish our hurts, real or imagined, and learn to forgive as Christ requires, only then can we begin the journey to wholeness and holiness.

Dale O'Leary on Feminism and Forgiveness

Today's adventure in dressing

Multi-Ethnic Salad Dressing

(didn't know what else to call it, it's a part Greek, part polyglot Middle Eastern sort of thing)

1/4 cup olive oil
1/4 cup balsamic vinegar
1/4 cup lemon juice
1/4 cup water

(wait, it's gets more interesting now)

1 tsp salt
2 tsp freshly cracked black pepper
3-4 cloves garlic, finely chopped
2 tsp sumac
2 T pomegranate molasses
a bunch of fresh basil, finely shredded
2 T sugar

Suman and pomegranate molasses are available at a Greek or Middle Eastern grocery store. Make sure the pomegranate molasses is syrupy and not completely congealed (I am told this means it's been sitting around for a while).

The olive oil should be only the best - I prefer one with the "MedMark" seal. Mine is Greek, and I recommend experimenting with different varietals/regions/countries. You can double the lemon juice and leave out the vinegar -- I just had crappy lemons with not much juice today.

Shake well, check seasoning and adjust to taste. The flavors will blend upon standing, I leave mine standing out on the counter for 2-3 hours at room temperature.

The problem with feminism and someone to celebrate instead

Today is "Women's Equality Day" -- it also happens to be the 90th anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment, giving women the franchise (the right to vote).

I'm not so sure it is a day to celebrate. I don't suppose most of us want to give back the right to vote, even when we are presented with the choice between dumb and dumber. Nor do I suppose that most of us who necessarily earn a paycheck for working outside of the home are disappointed that we make the same as our male colleagues for the same work and the same experience. Although I do have to make a point here of saying the "wage gap" between men and women which we *still* hear about is largely a feminist accounting trick which disappears when you consider the time spent on the job on an ongoing basis (men tend to work more overtime than women) and the overall years spent on the job (women take time off to bear and raise their children - a very good thing!).

Aside from a few legal victories, I have to wholeheartedly agree with Dorothy L Sayers when she said, approximately fifteen years after we got the right to vote over on this side of the pond, that feminism had largely outlived its usefulness and that, if it went ahead, it would do more harm than good. And she was right. The problem with feminism, as with all "progressive" movements, is that they seldom know that to which they are progressing. In consequence of this, they don't know when to stop.

I had a short FB conversation (on a friend's FB page) with someone I don't know. Here is her response to my caution about celebration the day:

As one who proudly lived through and reveled in the feminist movement, I find it difficult to understand the vehement opposition on the part of younger women.

I didn't mean to pick a fight so I called a halt to it after a few rounds. But really -- reveled? proudly lived through? Are we walking about the lies of Betty Friedan? The shared narrative created by Consciousness Raising groups? So, I responded in part:

Perhaps it is because the few children that feminist had have found that husbands make better fathers than Uncle Sam, contraceptives are a bad bargain, practices like co-ed dorm bathrooms and bedrooms and the co-ed military leave women physically vulnerable to men who are stronger, even when they are drunk.

And it's true. Even if some of the legal victories are worth celebrating, the social consequences are not. Since Betty Friedan created her "problem with no name" poverty has become feminized, consisting largely of female-headed families with no father in sight. The sexual promiscuity enabled by widely available birth control has led to newer and more terrible and more frequently occurring sexually transmitted infections. The list goes on. On the FB page, I also responded with a short reply about how OCP affects a woman's judgments on the intangibles and that she takes more sexual risks, choosing men as partners she wouldn't normal choose and then closed by saying I would rather be rescued by a 6'2" 190-pound male firefighter who passed the tests under the old standards than the 5'7" 130-pound woman who passed under the new standards which have been lowered as a result of, ahem, equal rights.

That's the problem with progressive movements. They never stop with what they initially fight for. If I saw a 6'2" 190-pound female firefighter with broad shoulders coming to my rescue, I wouldn't worry so much. But not enough women were passing under the old physical standards so they had to be lowered. The same has occurred in policing and the military. Equality is never really about equality, it's about bringing men down where women cannot (and, honestly, should not) compete. Her response to my final word, after the usual blather about respecting my opinion, was this:

What troubles me is educated women casting judgment on other women, whether it has to do with their choice and/or number of sexual partners or casting doubt on a woman's ability to do a job she has trained to do. No one travels through this life unscathed by a bad choice or difficult decision. We should be applauding others rather than casting doubt on motives or ability.

Now, first of all, I did not judge any woman or her sexual choices, whether number or quality. I simply outlined one of the consequences of OCP -- something that is well documented in the literature. This points up one of the problems of feminism/progressivism/liberalism. Consequences translates to makiing an improper judgment. Though I know the concept is terribly over-used, the truth of the matter is that ideas *do* have consequences. However, progressives demand not only equality, they also demand a pre-determined outcome as a result of their ideas. Life just doesn't work that way when you have the wrong anthropology, the wrong philosophy and most especially, the wrong theology.

Instead of revelling in rebellion, why not celebrate someone who gave her life to the ones no one else cared about. A diminutive woman who had the courage to stand up to Bill Clinton and tell him the truth. A woman who gave her life to mother the motherless, even though she bore no children of her own. A woman who persevered through many a long dark night and smelly, germ-laden, hot and humid day.

Instead, I plan to Celebrate Mother Teresa's 100th Birthday

I am no man. You look upon a woman!

I took one of those silly Facebook quizzes again tonight. This one, "Which race of Middle Earth are you?" No surprise I came out "Race of Men - Rohirrim".

Which means that, once again, I am Ewoyn.

And watch it, mister. I do actually know how to use that bow and arrow.

Links forged of spider's silk and hardened steel

There was a bit of a flurry this week in the blogosphere when several bloggers broke open the news that Jim Wallis, de facto leader of the "Evangelical Left", had been taking money from George Soros. You know him, he's the guy who has given, through various organizations, tens of millions to the radical left organizations like "MoveOn.org". But poor Wallis sputtered and protested a bit too much - parsing his defence in a way that would make President Clinton proud (no, the elected President Clinton, not the unelected coPresident Clinton). Until the documents started disappearing, the evidence was there in black and white pixels for all to see. If you want to follow the rabbit trails, start here or here .

Now the reason I am spilling any electronic ink on Wallis and Soros is because it was a light bulb moment for me this week when I started reading about that. I started thinking about the web of links surrounding "Christians" for Biblical Equality, which tries to present itself as not just "Christian" but in the mainstream of Evangelical Christianity. The funny thing about the links is that they appear very flimsy, a bit like spider's silk. But they are spun around and around and around and pretty soon, it begins to look a bit stronger. Then, when you consider how many little links there are and how CBE used to try to hide those links (they stopped selling books by Jann Aldridge Clanton after a public fuss was made by this blogger and others about her hymns to "Our Great Creatress" and her own links to "HerChurch" in San Francisco), they don't appear concerned about them any longer.

Sojourners is an important link regarding CBE because Mimi Haddad (president of CBE) is also a featured blogger on Sojourner's "God's Politics" blog. So it begins with a link to the religious left which is linked to further leftist and openly pro-abortion funding. But that isn't CBE's only link to pro-abortion views. They still sell the books of Mrs. Stanley Gundry who, if you ask her point-blank, will deny she supports abortion rights, but her writings here and here show that to be a semantic ploy.

Abortion, being the natural consequence of the feminist agenda, it is not surprising to find links to other aspects of that agenda, including the leveling of sexual difference that occurs when we attempt to normalize the abnormal and support same sex "marriage". Feminism isn't only about sexuality and denying our differences as humans. The divine target of the agenda is God Himself. And here we find CBE's profile of one of their bloggers and Mutuality authors whose website is linked in her profile. Here we have the denial that children are a blessing, at least not a blessing she wants bestowed on her, she has much more important work to do than raising children. No, as with so many in religious feminism, her books are her children. But then, what else can you expect from those who worship a hermaphroditic gawdy?

So it begins to look like a well-spun web, doesn't it? Whether the religious feminists are akin to Lenin's useful idiots or whether they are knowledgeable tools - the agenda of the forces behind religious feminism is clear for those willing to look.

I agree with the headline on Marvin Olasky's article linked above - let's admit who we are.

Your not so humble correspondent sings her own praises . . .

You all know by now that I have strong opinions. You may not be easily convinced though, when I tell you I am usually willing to be proven wrong. Today, however, my aim is to show my single gentlemen readers what they are missing in a wife by not pursuing moi (she blushes coily).

It's still hot today, but the kitchen was reasonably cool and the nights are cooling and this always triggers a nesting reaction in me. I've never really had spring fever, except around the time of my birthday, I usually do go out in search of some new makeup. However, I have always, as long as I can remember, gotten horrible fall fever. The moment you can feel that tinge in the air, I start craving days cool enough to wear a sweater and I start paging through my cook books. I begin to bake bread again (something which summer heat usually deters) and experimenting with soups and stews. I start nesting in a bad way. But the achy-est part is not having someone who appreciates my culinary endeavours.

Today I again experimented with my favorite cookbook, The Flavor Bible and came up with three gems:

Shrimp poached in a sauce of butter/olive oil, orange juice, fresh Thyme and Capers

Flageolet Beans with Thyme, Garlic, lemon juice and olive oil

Greek Yogurt sauce with sauteed red peppers

Later on, I think I may have to bake a loaf of bread and there is some fresh fennel and spinach which both require something like steaming or sauteing - haven't decided yet. I might even throw caution to the wind and put them together in something magical.

SCORE!!!

You know that point in a major spring cleaning/room overhaul project where you've become convinced you've thrown the one thing away that you now know you absolutely can't live without? And it gnaws at you and gnaws until, three days later, after you're tired of trying to forget it, you tear through all the boxes and nooks and crannies until . . .

You find it after all?

Just did it. Found all three of the books I couldn't figure out what I'd done with. And the bonus is that the storage closet in my study is now reorgnized (for the third time in as many weeks) and now I can set about culling and filing in an organized manner all the financial papers, articles and journals that I want to keep -- and boxes of books I can't bear to part with but have no shelf space for will line the floor.

Now, it's off to the shower and then to girls' night out at the Ice Cream "parlour"!

Where are the men?

After watching yet another one of "those" discussions on another blog and judging from my experience and observations, I've come to some rather grand conclusions:

First, the vast majority of men worth marrying manage to get themselves successfully married early in life and stay that way. Of the remaining men, 99% aren't worth more than five minutes of your time. Trust me. He's either a "bad boy" looking for the proverbial "love of a good woman" to turn him around or he's a whiner fussing about the lack of "good Christian women" (trust me, in this case, the demographics don't lie, he does - there are far more women than men looking for a spouse) or he's licking a near fatal wound that, had it been treated early, would have healed well. If he's divorced and his spouse is still living, give him a pass. Trust me. If he also has children, give him a pass and a very wide berth. Trust me, really.

Now this leaves us with about 2 in 1000 of the general adult male population. You may, by a great deal of guiding by God and wise married friends, find the one of those two that is worth marrying and, indeed, wants to marry.

The other one? He may prove to be a great friend who will buy you champagne on your birthday, but he's never going to be interested in anything involving rings and vows and lifetime commitments. He's a born bachelor.


Addendum: I have thoroughly enjoyed the series of posts from Doug Wilson of which this is a stellar example. It's a simple, yet vital distinction. If more men learned this . . .

Where are the Children?

According to some religious feminists, their "children" are the books they are writing. The late John Paul II famously uttered the condemnation, "a culture of death". And that is exactly what we have with the religious feminists. They trumpet on their blogs their decision to surgically render themselves barren because they are concerned that the hormones they have been consuming to make themselves medically barren may fail and, horror or horrors, they might become pregnant! Then, of course, they have the option of abortion, tearing their little one limb from limb and removing him from the place of safety by the piece, counting to make sure all of him is truly dead and gone from her body. But abortion is messy and bloody and ever so gauche because it indicates a failure of the myth that sex, that gift of the Author of life by which we most closely mirror Him as Creator, can safely be made sterile.

So, though I doubt the late pontiff had the sort of religious feminists published by CBE and CT on his radar, he certainly had the culture pegged.

It all points to the perennial problem of religious feminists. This is the fear of lesser authorities, God's shepherds, overseers, His vice regents, as it were. They hate submission to anyone but the self - witness their posts about "my truth" and their postmodern hermeneutics. But they also fear the submission of those who place themselves under authority, willingly and with humility. The men who are faithful shepherds may be hated, but the women who humbly submit are despised.

Their "children" are books and blogs which, rather than growing into the faith, into maturity steadily lead where their ideas lead - to darkness, death and increasingly self-delusional heresies. It is a culture of death more powerful than any of them are willing to admit or, likely, able to recognize.

The culture of death is a culture with no authority but the self. The culture of life acknowledges the authority which stands outside the self, the One who gives life and commands submission to His will, His words, and His vice regents.

Romans 1:20-25, NAS

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what was made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and of four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their heart to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen

Another Clever Logo (I never would have guessed its hidden meaning)

I can't wait to buy the book

Why Ministers Must be Men by Douglas Wilson. Today's snippet from Blog and Mablog:

"While falling, a number of people have the temporary sensation of absolute freedom, and they seek to use that freedom in the creation and pursuit of various sexualities. And that is why we are now dealing [with] metrosexuals, sodomites, catamites, lesbians, virtual perverts, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals -- not to mention the ecclesiastical variants, the lesbyterians. Sometime in the next ten years, look for more interesting variations to push to the front of the line, all demanding societal respectability -- pederasty and bestiality included. Because all this is a function of sexual postmodernism, we should simply call all of it pomosexuality. You cannot believe that ultimate reality is ultimately malleable, and yet not believe the world we live in is equally malleable" (Why Ministers Must Be Men, p. 48).

Who are you calling sexist?

I'll admit it, I have very little patience for women in politics -- especially the sort of woman who wants to have her cake and eat it too in the sexist name-calling game. First, we weren't supposed to vote for Ken Buck because he made a crack about not wearing high heels. Then we are supposed to vote for Jane Norton because she's a conservative? Because she's pro-life? No, because she's a woman.

That's a bit like the sexist pot calling the reverse sexist kettle black, isn't it?

So, it is with a little bit of snickering that I heard the news tonight that, despite all the support she got from the Susan B. Anthony list and the heavy-handed use of Buck's crack about high heels, Jane Norton lost to Ken Buck in the Colorado Republican Senate primary.

feh.

The Beauty of Obedience

To take liberty with a Chestertonism - the paradox of the Christian life is that is it bigger on the inside than the outside.

In The Power of Obedience, my friend Anthony Esolen shows us how and why.

It's pronounced "heresy"

Doing a last update on the cloud of gnats calling themselves the, "Freedom for Christian Women Coalition" I ran across an explanation for something I had been wondering about but hadn't yet looked up. One of the supporters of this demand for an apology is also a listed blogger for CBE's blog but also for their newsletter. She uses the neologism, "godde" and this is her explanation:

Why godde and not God? godde is combination of God and goddess to show that the Divine transcends gender: godde is neither male nor female and both male and female since godde created both men and women in the image of godde. I believe that godde is Mother as well as Father. Instead of using the standard Lord that’s used to translate Yahweh in the Hebrew Scriptures, I use Sophia-Yahweh or Sophia. I will lean more towards feminine references to godde on my blog as masculine references are just about all you hear in church and society to refer to godde. I use exclusively feminine pronouns for godde for this reason as well. You’ll be seeing Sophia and Mother a lot on this blog, and I hope it doesn’t offend you. I hope it will help you to see godde in new ways and start to walk on new paths with this godde who cries out like a woman in labor to bring forth her people and nurses them at her own breast (Deut. 32:18, Psalm 22:10; 131:2; Isaiah 42:14; 49:15; 66:13).

I was recently queried on whether or not I was being too strong and perhaps I should consider calling them merely, "unfaithful". Well, that is certainly one word for it. However, calling what we have here in this example merely "unfaithful" is a bit like saying Judas was simply misguided about where to go for some extra pocket money. Here, in a CBE-published author, we have the open syncretism of paganism and Christianity. We have the hermaphroditic gawdy-godde. And when our authoress writes, "I will lean more towards feminine references to Godde on my blog as masculine references are just about all you hear in church and society to refer to Godde." you'll forgive me if all I can hear is an echo of a seminary professor, a vocal defender of religious feminism who, when questioned about why he taught "Egalitarianism" in all his classes responded, "Because you get the other side in every other class."

Offended? That's one way to put it.

nb: Once again, I have removed capitalization of the false deity the quoted author serves.

For those of you unable to obtain gravitas the organic way

Yes, it's a Dr. Boli day!

Just DON'T do it

Don't be stupid. Don't be a slow learner. Don't think you're cured. Don't ask 972 friends the same question, hoping to get a different answer. Don't think you can win fighting on the enemy's turf. Don't think it's your business to save the useful idiots. Don't think you can reason with those whose minds are darkened. Don't hang on to dead friendships (such folk were never your friends to start with). Don't forget that ideas have consequences. Don't discount the wisdom of age or the vision of youth.

Do listen to the wisdom of your friends, family and those in authority over you. Deliberately and joyfully place yourself under the authority of the wise and discerning souls who God places in your path. Be a parent as well. When you hear the same thing from unrelated sources, give it serious consideration. Think twice. No, think three times before discounting such advice. Listen to your gut. And your heart. And your head. And especially the Spirit that dwells within you. When someone tells you something that stops you in your tracks and makes you pause in thought - listen carefully.

How Simcha Fisher almost got me kicked out of the library . . .

That tingling means it's working!

Don't forget to watch the linked video.

I'm rotflshipmp (not really, that last part doesn't happen any more since the surgery!)

I'm confused

Well, quite frequently about many things, if I am going to be honest. But today, I am confused by the religious feminists who prefer to call themselves, "Egalitarians" or "Evangelical Egalitarians"

It's bad enough that folks got their knickers all twisty over Ken Buck's (Senate candidate, Colorado Republican primary) crack about not wearing high heels. Honestly, if you can't take the rough and tumble and an occasional "sexist" comment, why are you in the race at all? Apparently, it's only bad if men are sexist. If women are sexist and want to specifically elect women, then that's just peachy keen-o. The religious feminists are just fine with that. Personally, I thought Buck's comment funny and his point a valid one.

Exhibit A. Margery Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony fund is charged with getting conservative women elected to office. She has sent out a letter in support of Jane Norton, Ken Buck's opponent in the Colorado Republican Senate primary. Notice that it's all about electing women. Not electing conservatives or pro-life candidates, but specifically women who fit those two categories. That's ok, that's Margery's job.

But why is a religious feminist concerned about specifically electing women when they profess to be all about gifts and talents and elevating people based on those qualities and not based on whether they wear high heels or not?

And why is it ok to be sexist when supporting women and not ok for men to make sexist comments when opposing women?

And they say they're not the sexist ones? Nah, I'm not confused at all. It's just a case of flummery!

Chivalry at work . . .

It's been rather nice to sit back and not feel I have to defend myself. On another blog, something I wrote has been indirectly questioned and denied. I was going to respond quickly and pointedly but decided to sit back in my chair and watch for a day or two.

It's nice to see gentlemen leaping into the breach and correcting the impression left by the questions this respondent had asked.

That's one of the nicest things about patriarchy. Even though I'm not married, it's nice to be able to sit back and watch men do the heavy rhetorical lifting. Rather nice not to feel as if I have to defend myself against every question, criticism or slight. I once knew a religious feminist who declared she would never, ever let anything like that go unanswered.

I used to think that as well. But now I don't have to.

How low can CT sink . . .

God as Divine Drama Queen

Jason Bourne, she ain't

OK, let's clear the air, get it out of the way and then forget it was ever mentioned. Right?

Angelina Jolie isn't worth her Salt.

There. It's done and we don't need to mention it again.

I had to get out of the house this afternoon and, picking from the movies available at the newest theater in the area (which I hadn't been to as yet), I chose the 2:10 showing of SALT. As I suspected, it was a female version of the Jason Bourne movies.

SPOILER ALERT!

The premise doesn't exactly hold together here. Does anyone still believe there are late Soviet-era sleeper agents just waiting for the right moment to start WWIII so Russia can rise from the ashes and dominate the world?

For the other major complaint about the movie: Salt takes as many or more physical risks as Bourne but gets injured less seriously and recovers more quickly. Although the way she controls the police car during the chase/escape is quite clever. I never saw THAT bit coming. But, puhleeeeze, do we have to have the obligatory ladies' room scene where the dispenser is kicked from the wall and the contents thereof used in a, ahem, nontraditional manner (as in a wound dressing)? I could do without that scene.

It sounds awful, but I didn't come away thinking I'd wasted $8 even though I wasn't really surprised at any point by the plot turns. I'd guessed the denouement about 1/4 of the way in and even though my iced tea had taken its inevitable effect, I sat until the closing credits began, just to make sure I was right about it all.

Salt succeeds in a nice little bit of misdirection which is revealed at the last moment, just when you might begin to wonder if you were wrong all along. The ending sets things up for a sequel which might actually be better than this first movie, given the premise of this one.

Of course, try as the world does -- even Hollywood has to recognize that women are different. It was all for love of a good man after all.

In which some take themselves too seriously . . .

At the end of last year, Lars Walker wrote a post at MereComments about The Post-Ironic Age, in which he observed:

"The Post-Ironic Age” describes our times to a nicety, it seems to me. We've reached a point where statements are made by public officials and institutions which, only a couple decades ago, would have gotten the speaker laughed off the stage. But today such pronouncements are unremarkable.

and,

I think we live in the first age in history in which such nonsense is possible on a worldwide scale. There have always been totalitarian societies where the subject of the emperor's clothing deficit has been dangerous to bring up, but only today is such delusion acceptable everywhere. And not merely among the “ignorant masses,” but most especially and vociferously among the intellectuals.

Unfortunately, this means such statements as, "The System worked.", uttered by our Secretary of Homeland Security after an alleged terrorist on the no-fly list purchsed a one-way ticket for cash and boarded a plane for Detroit where he tried to light himself up on landing -- such statements are taken seriously.


Conversely, intended ironies, satires and sarcasm are also taken seriously. Take, for instance, responses #16 and #17 in this post at FirstThings, intended as a send-up of Anne Rice's rejection of the Catholic Church, "I Refuse to be Anti-Undead"

addendum: In answer to David Goldman: I hope not, but for now I am content to sit at the feet of a master and learn.