Monday, May 18, 2009

On Not Being a Christian & Other Tales of Sisterly Love

So after the election last year I noted that I hoped Liberals wouldn't get obnoxious about their victory. It started me thinking about what kind of Liberal I was. And so, Dear Readers, I embarked on my Great Experiment (also known as The Enlightenment). I decided to put aside my typical blog fare, and read the most conservative of blogs in the blogosphere. I'm not talking Michelle Malkin here. (Because I'd rather not under any circumstance.) No, I'm talking real people, real stories. I'm talking declared Christians who go for guidance to the Vision Forum, where they never met a patriarchal sentiment they didn't instantly embrace, and the supremely irritating Voddie Baucham, who has an odd penchant for yelling "Dunkirk!" or "Hitler!" every time he disagrees with something. I can only hope that Jesus in His Infinite Wisdom sees fit to place him in the section of Heaven where those dreaded Sinner Homosexuals always get to pick the music in the Celestial Jukebox. Eternity and techno. Let the punishment fit the crime, right? Here's a taste of Voddie's wisdom - listen up, My Children:

Hence, sodomites, who who are in large part responsible for the introduction and spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic are praised for responding to this plague in an attempt to avoid annihilation (by the way, I know you don’t have to engage in sodomy to get HIV, but that doesn’t change the facts... see the book, And the Band Played On for an honest look at this issue).

Or let's go look at Africa, shall we, where apparently anal sex is all the rage! Or just, you know, dirty needles.

But I digress.

Yep, I visit with homeschooling Christian moms who don't go in for birth control (apparently it's all about giving God control over your womb as if He didn't have enough to do without worrying about filling billions of wombs - and for some reason, I always think of cream puff factories when this comes up.) And you know, some of those bloggers are pretty interesting people. Some are extremely funny and bright like my personal favorite, Terry at Breathing Grace, who I nearly always disagree with and yet continue to commend her lovely writing and depth of character and intelligence. Or Authenticallyme, who courageously tries to understand how to continue to be devout after her "toxic" church led her astray, or Molly at Adventures in Mercy who has found herself Born Again in an utterly new sense of the phrase, or Elizabeth, who manages to be fervently pro-life and hilariously funny simultaneously. Some of them assure me that they really do have a sense of humor (and they do) like the fabulous Civilla. Some of them I have a strange affection for, like my sweet gummy bear Deanna, who once wrote me this about me - right after she told me what a nasty heathen so-and-so I was:

Perhaps somebody will tell her she has great value and God desires a close and personal relationship with her...He'd like her to actually know the meaning of love. A love that will never and I mean never leave her.
He'd like her to know that she's not an animal, never has been, but she's precious in His sight.
He'd like her to know that she has an eternal soul that needs a touch from Him to complete her.
He'd like her to know that at this time in her life, she's in want and she needs to crawl up into His lap and weep til there are no more tears.
Abba Daddy, tell me about Jesus

Well, this was fascinating. Call me crazy, but I had no idea Abba could tell me about Jesus. I thought they were singing about some dude named Fernando. Are there more secret messages like this? Is Paul dead?

Anyway, after a year of actually reading and considering everything, I can only give myself a B on the Great Experiment. Because a lot of what I read still makes me scream, "dude, you're wrong!" (And I occasionally do in the comments section, although it really is kind of exhausting since not everyone has Civilla's sense of humor):

* "Teaching kids to share is encouraging Socialism." Hey, you learn something new every day. Here I thought it was to make sure they didn't conk each other over the head with the others' toys. Apparently though, it is a demonic plot to bring Socialism to this country:

We believe that the concept of “sharing” is all wrong. The Bible doesn’t tell us to share.

We are teaching our children ownership.... Of course, we then teach kindness also “it would be very kind for you to let your brother play with that because he really wants to." We want it to be a heart thing.

After all, “sharing” is kind of like socialism. And do we “share” our house, our car etc with anyone who decides they like it and want to use it? No, we keep it for our family.

We do go back and forth on the sharing thing because I keep having thoughts from Scripture…”If someone asks you for your cloak, give him your tunic also”…it can be confusing

Why is that confusing? That seems pretty clear, as the scriptures go. I believe this is roughly translated as "give them the shirt off your back." Well, you know, as long as it's a "heart thing." Because Socialism is coming, I tell you what. Right here in River City, in a country, mind you, that thinks nothing of charging an extra $15 to bring a traveling bag on a plane when you're uh...traveling. Or boarding people by dint of being rich ("Welcome aboard, Gold Platinum Card Holding Rich People! We aren't going to let those disgusting faux people back in steerage use your personal bathroom, don't worry!"). But, never mind that, we are rapidly becoming Socialist. Which is bad! Because....you know, it is! We should do away with Medicare and a post office and a library system. But please, Mrs. W., enlighten me as to where this mythical Socialist country is located, that place where your home can be taken from you and given to the State. Is that Sweden or is that Canada? Because I could totally get behind a share on some seaside property.

* "Homosexuality is unnatural and against God's commands." That must be why gay people have to kidnap small children and force them to be gay because that's where gay people come from. No? Maybe gays are just born with that horrific inclination? Yes, they seem to be from all accounts and purposes. But why? Why would God create people that way? (Since he has control of your womb and all.) Well, He has a plan, that's why. We don't know what it is, and we'll never know because who can understand the Great I Am and His plan, but it involves fighting down all your natural urges and replacing them with the unnatural urge to mate with a member of a gender of whom you're not remotely attracted.

There is no Constitutional Right to sodomy. Moreover, homosexuals are not deprived of their Civil Rights in marriage, because they have the same rights in that regard as every American. That’s right... HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY! What they don’t have the right to is same-sex marriage.

Thank you for clarifying that, Voddie. Now I get it. God wants you to live a lie! Let's not be sinners. Let's follow the principles of the Bible Based Marriage:



* Dr. Tiller is like Hitler. Oh, and anyone for abortion is also like Hitler!" Personally, I'm still amazed and appalled that anyone can come up with a good reason to shoot a man in cold blood in a church, no less. And yet they can. I can't tell you how many blogs I went through conflated Obama's words about how this death was a tragedy with "but so were all those tiny dead babies!" Like this:

"Dr. Tiller was no innocent bystander in a driveby shooting. He chose a life to live, by the same free will most of us believe the Bible teaches, and there are consequences for all of us. His murder is as disgusting as his own acts, but the only surprise is how surprised everyone is. Sadly, this man has lost his life, and his murder is going to be exploited in order to encourage more death. I truly hope he’s with God."

Oh, I'm sure you hope he's with God. I think what you mean to say is - he got what he deserved. How about this one:

"They cannot convince me that they had abortions for “life-threatening” reasons. They say they would die if they delivered a baby. BUT…to have a partial birth abortion you HAVE to give birth to the baby, so why kill it once it’s out? They were obviously “medically able” to birth the legs and the body, so birthing the head really wouldn’t have been that much of a big deal. So really, all they wanted to do is kill the baby in the first place."


Come on, you know how it is. Around about the eighth month you just feel fat so it's tempting to do what those danged Liberals tell you to do. Go ahead! Kill that baby. You know you want to!

These sweet Christian sentiments above ignore the fact that Tiller in the face of every threat imaginable continued what he was doing because he felt that giving birth to a severely deformed child and slowly and painfully watching that child die in agony might be kind of a problem for some women. That according to state law in Kansas, it takes two independent doctors to determine if a woman can seek a late term abortion. That in some cases the fetus was already dead or dying and the mother beginning to suffer complications that could prove fatal but they had trouble getting an abortion performed. That it is extremely difficult to be allowed to have a late-term abortion, a feat that is not accomplished by waltzing into Planned Parenthood, twirling your hair around your finger, and asking if you'll be finished before Happy Hour.

Yes, Tiller was totally like Hitler. You can barely tell those two apart, except for the different moustaches. Just read these stories from women who visited his clinic.

You know, let's just say that Roe vs. Wade is overturned (it won't be.) Are you taking in all the crack babies? The ones that aren't so cuddly? The children born who have lifelong difficulties that parents can't afford the lifelong medical expenses associated with them. Are you going to pay for all that? Or are you going to complain that "you pay too many taxes?" Or are you going to say that Socialism is terrible and people should learn to fend for themselves! Although, oddly enough, it's okay in some circumstances, I mean when True Christians really need it and all:

"There is no legitimate argument to be made with regard to physical circumstances. The stigma of single motherhood no longer exists, for better or worse, and social services are hardly drying up. If you need help with that area, please email me. I would be happy to help you get whatever information you need in order to provide stability for your family."

Really? I thought that we wanted them to dry up? You know, bootstraps and all? I guess not, if you listen to the Kelly at Generation Cedar:

"Social services? Not a big fan anymore; but, if you pursue it, it’s there–I know lots of people on it right now, and I used Medicaid when I was [a single mother and] pregnant–hardly had to fill out a paper."

Wait...you did? So it was okay to use Social Services when you needed it, but we should cut out the programs that might decrease the abortion rate? Ah. Now I understand!

I could go on, but I won't. It makes the blood boil at times, but then that's the Internets for you. On the plus side, Terry@Breathing Grace gave me a Blogger Award for being open-minded. Thank you, Terry! So for the most part, I think my Great Experiment has succeeded. I read everything and consider now, nothing kneejerk about it. After all, there are some ideas in those blogs that I do agree with, like giving stay at home mothers more respect, and teaching children discipline. It's possible that the visitors on this blog have also reconsidered their long held beliefs, and embraced them again through my postings.

I guess I've either been an example of how a heathen can be an upstanding moral human being, or I've been an irritating thorn in the rose patch that is Biblical Womanhood.

I'm going to say thorn. ;)

[By the way, my Hapa Boy is truly the most open-minded person I have ever encountered, a man who constantly asks himself "why" he believes what he does - as this continuing conversation attests. Thank you Hapa Boy for modeling this behavior, and of course, for everything. *Smooch*]



32 comments:

Allison said...

New reader. Have you heard the theory that not only does Halloween = devil worship, but that it encourages socialism and/or generations of welfare recipients? Free candy today, welfare checks tomorrow.

Mother of Dog said...

Well, we all know that Santa Claus is a Socialist. GIVING out toys to ALL the boys and girls? Santa is really just Karl Marx in a red suit with a beard...hmmm. Now is the North Pole near Russia....;)

Allison said...

I'm sure there is some kind of belated "I can see Russia from my house" response to that.

Elspeth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mother of Dog said...

I really think, Terry, that we should try a She said/She said column. :)

I have an image at times of some of these women finding it impossible to make ANY kind of decision without consulting with the pastor, the Scriptures, or their Titus woman's group! I mean, there IS such a thing as common sense, y'all.

Elspeth said...

I just had another thought, MOD.

While I certainly don't agree with Voddie Baucham on every point (patriarchy, which he embraces really irks me), I hope his presence, as well as my own, which can only be read as a snapshot of a potentially greater number, puts the rest the common media propaganda that there are no such people as Black conservatives.

And while I certainly admit to viewing Scripture as the ultimate guide for living, I think the problem with many in the Christian blogosphere is the tendency to spiritualize things that are NOT inherently spiritual. I call it being so heavenly minded that you cease to be any earthly good.

Mother of Dog said...

I can't deny that Voddie makes me want to kick him in the shins (now I have no problem with women who embrace patriarchy, hey whatever works for them, but I have often noted that they seem to be the women in GOOD patriarchal marriages), but you are absolutely right. It's wrong to imply that only white people from Texas and Idaho are Conservative or homeschoolers or any number of things. It made me itch when a black woman I know dared to admit that she wasn't crazy about Obama (and not for any religious reasons, she was just more taken with Ron Paul), and everyone she knew lambasted her. Just not fair, in my opinion.

"I call it being so heavenly minded that you cease to be any earthly good."

Heh. Nicely put! There was some post I saw on a blog that I don't remember discussing Biblical ways to decorate a dining room. ;)

Word Warrior said...

http://www.generationcedar.com/main/2009/03/why-i-removed-comments.html

Nuff said. You're convincing me that my devotion to my Savior is about as likely as convincing me that all fish wear sports bras. 'Aint gonna happen. Don't have time to argue.

Mother of Dog said...

This isn't remotely about your devotion to your Savior, Kelly. How do you get that? This is about your belief that although the Scriptures were not, in fact, written in English - you somehow have the ultimate translation in your possession! Which I've come to believe leads to a world of hurt for those who follow your path.

That's my opinion, of course. :)

Thanks for visiting!

Word Warrior said...

My first comment is all beat up--I'm very sick today...I meant to say *your convincing me that my devotion to my Savior is wrong"...

And no, this is NOT all about "your belief that although the Scriptures were not, in fact, written in English - you somehow have the ultimate translation in your possession!"

You've beat me up about EVERY belief--every angle I've written. You've beat me up about simply being a Christian. A Christian (who yes, does believe the Bible--even the English translation--is still the inerrant Word of God) and a non-Christian are, as the Bible puts it, (though you don't care), like light and darkness. Jesus Christ is "foolishness to the world"...therefore, what profit is there in contending?

There is such a thing as sharing and discussing with those who are searching for truth, and there is "rebuking a scoffer".

If you don't understand that, I'm sorry. Even if I wanted to argue with someone with a completely different worldview just for fun, I don't have the time.

I pray that God might one day open the eyes of your heart...until then, nothing I say will matter.

I would really appreciate your respect then, and would ask that you move along and stop commenting on my blog.

mrvelocity said...

I do the same thing, and honestly, Kelly is my very favorite. I find her infuriating, full-stop, but Generation Cedar is the 'biblical womanhood' blog I can't keep away from. It's my crack.

Mary said...

Trying to figure out what I said that was so funny....

Mother of Dog said...

I just think you can laugh at yourself, Mary - also, I happen to think you're cool. :) So there!

Mother of Dog said...

Kelly, I'm sorry you feel I've "beaten" you up. That is not my intention, nor is it to talk you out of your religion. Why would I? That's your business.

I do respect you. I'm afraid you are lacking in respect of many others however, and I cannot walk away and say nothing when you denigrate concepts without truly understanding or studying them. I dislike your high-handed way of dealing with women in relationships that are not as good as yours. I think your faith (unlike other fervent Conservative Christians) makes you kind of short at times. Yes, yes, Narrow is the Way - but still.

I'll make a deal with you: Why don't you read some actual feminist texts written beyond 1979 and then we can talk about them? Because I suspect you do a Google search of Feminism is Bad and then publish whatever turns up. That pains me, frankly. I'm not attacking, I'm simply pointing out errors. I would do so anywhere, even on *gasp* Liberal sites.

So no, sorry, won't stop commenting. But does it really matter? You'll never publish my comments anyway. :)

I might have all your pity, Kelly, but you have just a bit of mine.

Mary said...

Thanks, MOD. I am a perfectionist who is blogging with other perfectionsists, and have you ever noticed that perfectionism never really works out? It usually backfires for me. That's when I laugh at myself and I suspect everybody else is in the same boat (their perfectionism backfiring, that is).

Mary said...

As far as forced sharing goes, I'm afraid I have to admit that if I weren't forced to share, I probably wouldn't. You know how it goes.

I do wonder, sometimes, about people who don't believe in any government assistance at all because it is forced sharing: most of them are Reformed (all the rage today with many homeschoolers, I have noticed). Reformed people believe that humans are totally depraved (I believe that we are created in the image of God, but we inherit a sinful nature and must be saved, which is not as extreme as totally depraved). What I want to know is: how do they expect totally depraved people to do voluntary sharing???

In my opinion, if we wait around for everybody to voluntarily share, people will starve to death.

I have lived briefly in 2 countries that had, at that time, very little social welfare (probably still don't), and believe me, you (and they) wouldn't want to live there. Nobody rallied around and voluntarily shared. American and European groups, religious and non- religious, did lots of good works, but it wasn't nearly enough.

I prefer our system the way it is now, with some assistance. Yes, it can be abused by people who don't really need it, but you can't avoid that.

People who are dead set against it are either wealthy, or they are young and healthy (same with their children) and think they will never need assistance.

I am a moderate when it comes to this.

Mary said...

I read some of your links, and it seems like it would be better if we didn't even have ultrasounds. I mean, all they do is scare women to death and cause them to make horrific decisions that they feel guilty over for the rest of their lives.

If there were no untrasounds, those babies that were written about (on the link on Kansas stories) would be born, since nobody would know how sick they were, and then they die naturally (they were very, very sick and the parents were told that these babies would not survive surgery), without leaving those parents with a bucketload of guilt.

If there were no ultrasounds, those babies would have been born, and because they were so sick, would have died a natural death and then parents wouldn't have to feel so bad. It would be terribly, terribly painful for the parents, but from what I read, the abortion was painful for them. So, what's the difference?

Yes, medical care for the sick babies for their short little lives until they died naturally, in their parents' arms, would be expensive, but the abortions were not free, I'll bet.

Well, maybe if we get government-sponsored health care, there won't be money for all these ultrasounds that scare parents to death and cause them to rashly make heartrending decisions.

Mother of Dog said...

Yep, I feel exactly the same way about the voluntary sharing, Mary. It particularly doesn't make sense to me when it comes to bringing down rates of abortion - if you want women to have those babies, why not make it a little easier for them? (And as noted in my post, I've noticed that the most fervent Conservative is happy to share in "Socialism" if it suits them. Heh. Talk about human nature.)

I see your point about ultrasound, but I think it fits the above point- it's hard to know what would be worse for a parent if you haven't experienced it. Watching a slow death? Agony, in my opinion. And keeping these babies alive would be enormously expensive- how would this happen without massive health care reform? People are still going to have unprotected sex. Where do these babies go? Who takes care of them? Who pays for them? I guess I'm a realist.

I've yet to see any indication from the pro-life camp how that would be accomplished - how the sick, drug-addicted babies would be cared for. I have a friend who adopted a meth baby years ago. It's been a nightmare. It isn't easy, clearly.

Final thought - I think it's something of a myth that every woman who aborts lives every moment in regret and pain. I've actually never encountered this supposed PTSD, except in RTL literature. The women I know are to a one sad about it, yet feel they made the right choice. I know that's hard to read (and believe)but it's true.

Oh! Thanks for looking at my links, Mary. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but I'm definitely charmed by your willingness to at least consider other perspectives.:)

(And no, I didn't make that comment on Kelly's blog. LOL. She obviously doesn't think that forgery is a sin! But that's okay, it's really pretty funny.)

Mary said...

Well, I still think abortion is murder and should be illegal. I do understand how these women would be in freak-out status, however, which is why I have compassion on them, too, and wish that things would be easier so that they don't feel like they have to abort.

The baby most of the time has a slow agonizing death when it is abortet, too, not just when it is born sick and deformed and dies naturally.

I think that people could find something more constructive to do to help these women and their babies besides standing outside abortion clinics and screaming. Like helping them, maybe, or offering to help them care for the babies, etc.

I think that if you are going to get that radical and emotional, you need to be willing to step up to the plate and say, "We'll take those babies and care for them and you can visit them any time you want and have them back any time you want.

If you are not willing to do that, you should not be voting to take away government assistance from people like that and shouting at them.

It is like Jesus said, "Putting heavy burdens on people and not lifting a finger to help."

As far as voluntary assistance, I'm a realist, too. I don't notice MYSELF voluntarily assisting many people and I'm a true Christian, I believe, and a pastor's wife. It is better if we are all required to help some.

Really, I am not a socialist, I'm just a realist. And it is definitely wrong to say that others shouldn't have government aid, and then take it ourselves. That is hypocritical.

Elspeth said...

Not thinking this will change your mind, MOD, but a real story from one of my blogging buddies who had an abortion. Catherine's transparency is hard to read, but I think important. The link:

http://vivalahomegirl.blogspot.com/2009/06/dont-have-abortion.html

Mother of Dog said...

I wish more of my friends knew people like you both! It would really change the dialogue between liberals and conservatives.

Terry, I recognize that there are women who feel this way. I'm just saying I don't think it's as universal as some would have it.

Elizabeth said...

MOD: for some reason, i couldn't comment for awhile. My browser was acting up.

So, now I'm finally here to say how much your comments have always made me laugh. I get a kick out of your questions and insights.

Maybe the only thing I know for sure is that anything I believe might be wrong. I guess I just don't believe I speak for God or that I'm His personal mouthpiece. But then again, I don't have any books to sell or DVDs to promote, har har.

Mostly, I just love babies and a good glass of red wine. I also like snarky, hilarious writers and you've provided plenty of chuckles over the months.

Have a great day.
And don't give up on us conservative Christians. We have ways of making you convert, mwah-ha-ha. KIDDING!

xo
Elizabeth Esther

Andrea said...

Oh EE, I can just SEE you twirling a handlebar mustache and cackling "Ve haff our vays to make you conwert, muahahaha!"

. . . tell me you at least twirled an imaginary mustache?!

I love reading your comments, MOD. You are ... well you are almost obscenely respectful in your disagreement, really, and yet you are frank as well. That combination is something I can always admire.

Happy Elf Mom (Christine) said...

Small point in your post on "sharing" is fascinating. Here's a post about parenting from an "Objectivist" point of view you might like:

http://rationaljenn.blogspot.com/2009/01/on-positive-discipline.html

In my town, there HAVE been people who have lost homes and businesses because of "eminent domain." Starbucks and Baskin Robbins was more important than the property rights of business owners on a prime piece of land not generating enough tax revenue for the city's liking.

IMO that is wrong and un-American. I can sort of see a highway (if there's no way 'round, and that SHOULD be tried if at all safely possible) and I also think that property owners really should be paid "fair market value" for their homes.

NO FAIR "condemning" the building and then offering 45 grand and moving expenses.

Mother of Dog said...

That's an interesting point, for sure. I agree with you, although I think the idea of public good is one open to debate. My boyfriend feels, for example, that it is somewhat fascist to make private businesses non-smoking - it should be up to the consumer to note that smoking (even second hand) is damaging, and to stay away from those places. Although he is not and has never been a smoker, and hates smoking, he still feels that we have the right to choose our proverbial poisons. As someone who worked in smoky places when I was young, I disagree with him.

I guess I was referring to the idea that a group of citizens could "like" your house more and then declare it "theirs" under some Socialist principle.

Sara said...

Wow....I've enjoyed seeing your posts on those blogs. I'm a liberal rad feminist atheist who spends waaayyyy to much time lurking on those blogs and feeling like my head was going to explode. I have always been delighted to see your posts. I hope you'll stick around now that your experiment is "complete" :)

Mother of Dog said...

Well, thanks Sara! I'm afraid not everyone is a fan, and the reason I'm not going to post for awhile is because it works against why I DID start commenting: To give a (sort of) name/face to liberal feminists so that we are not a faceless, nameless "devil." But I fear all it has done is make everyone really angry, and that wasn't my intent.

I'm going to have to think on this one because stirring the pot is just stirring the pot, right? :)

Sara said...

MOD, I see your point. But, I think there are a lot of lurkers out there who are close to buying into the patrio-fantasy, and I like to think that maybe, just maybe, seeing a different perspective, calmly and reasonably expressed, might save a few women from going off that particularl cliff. I've personally been following one woman who seemed to be firmly caught up in patrio-world, but has gotten involved with a message board for christian feminists and you see her taking steps back from the edge. Maybe the best place for us to be is encouraging/finding common ground with the christian feminists or at least the christian women who are as freaked about by the patriarchy movement as we are, and then in turn allowing them to help the women who have bought into the christian patriarchy movement??? Just a thought. But I will say this-- nothing makes me giggle more than when you get Kelly and folks in a total tizzy. Watching them lapse into the bloggy equivalent of "lalalala i can't hear you!!" makes me sleep better at night, honestly. But I'm not nearly as nice as you are. :)

Have you read The Happy Feminist's Archives? She was similarly interested in the christian anti-feminists, and had engaged quite a number in dialogue. Gosh, how I miss that blog.

Mother of Dog said...

I go both ways on this. On one hand, I feel sort of bad when I stir things up, because as noted - I don't really do it to get people angry and hostile. I'm of the mind set that you can go ahead and marry the Empire State Building (have you seen these people?) if you're so inclined and you're not hurting anyone. (I'll admit that I am concerned for their daughters, but that's another issue). So far be it for me to insist that my way is the better way. In fact, that is an element of Evangelism that I really wonder at. "It's true! I know it! Because...I do!" Really? I can't get behind that. Human error is always a factor, especially when translating, oh say, the Scriptures. But I digress.

And as I said in the post, there are definitely bloggers out there that may be fervent Christians but are still awesome people.

I guess I sense it's reached a point where the very moniker "Mother of Dog" has the effect of making those women roll their eyes. They claim to be happy and fulfilled. Is it my place to free them from bonds they aren't feeling?

At some point, everyone has to reckon with their faith. My faith is in science and intellect and people. I think given a chance, we do the right thing.

Hmmm. Maybe this is a post. :) Stay tuned!

Dulce Domum said...

So you're a left-wing non-believing American who enjoys reading ultra-conservative Christian blogs. Why?

I read them too, and enjoy the good ones thoroughly. I too am left-wing and I'm English, I am a Christian, however, of the Anglican variety. I enjoy these blogs on many levels. First, I'm really interested in seeing how people from different cultures think and communicate. Secondly, they have helped to strengthen my faith and made me turn to the Bible on a more frequent basis (mainly to check up on what they were saying)!

However, I have found them truly helpful in encourgaing me as a mother and homemaker. Although I reject much of what they say, their passion for their kids, husbands and family life as a whole is always inspiring. You don't find this kind of encouragement amongst my trendy-lefty millieu...just slight embarassment over my love of home and "traditional female skills". Conservative Christian women have the balls to stand up and say being a SAHM is a bloody brilliant job (oh, and I'm not talking about those poor women who have been forced into this role, but the ones like your chum Terry who have made their choice and stand firm in it).

Mother of Dog said...

Dulce, thanks for visiting. And yes, I am certainly not against anyone finding satisfaction in being a wife and mother. I think this is a common and annoying misread of feminism - "we" want all women out of the home and into the office and children be damned! :) So not true. Often the more conservative Christian sites quote from the most radical of 70's feminists - which is, in my opinion, akin to quoting from Timothy McVeigh as the voice of Evangelical Christianity. Feminism is meant to open up choices, not block others from their own choice. I am not meant to be a mother, I realized that very young, but I think that if you have that desire and prospective, it is very very good to stay home with your children. :)

My problem, if you can call it that, with some of the bloggers that I read is that they give out misinformation happily - without really checking what they say, and that they always insist that staying home is "God's Way." I find that specious at best. But then, like you, I'm a liberal thinker.

I DO think being a SAHM is a bloody brilliant choice, I just don't think it's the ONLY choice. Just as I don't think women should be made to feel guilty for being homemakers, I don't think working moms should feel guilty about that. From my observation, it seems to make no difference in my friends at this point. Some were raised by SAHMs, some by lawyers and doctors and home cleaning service owners. They do or do not have good relationships with their mothers -but not based on that.

And they are all happy, successful people - some are SAHM themselves.

Allison said...

"Often the more conservative Christian sites quote from the most radical of 70's feminists - which is, in my opinion, akin to quoting from Timothy McVeigh as the voice of Evangelical Christianity."

I hear you there. Would you believe I once saw a post (can't remember the blog, but it was within the past year) where the writer said she could not be a feminist because feminists believe that all (hetero) sex is rape? The kicker? Neither MacKinnon nor Dworkin ever said that - though such statements have been incorrectly attributed to them.

"Final thought - I think it's something of a myth that every woman who aborts lives every moment in regret and pain. I've actually never encountered this supposed PTSD, except in RTL literature. The women I know are to a one sad about it, yet feel they made the right choice. I know that's hard to read (and believe)but it's true."

I used to volunteer at a pro-life pregnancy crisis counseling center. One of the reasons I left was that I considered it unethical to use scare tactics - PTSD, breast cancer, infertility, etc. - on vulnerable women in a crisis situation. Such women need objective information and calm guidance - not pseudo-science presented as truth or disputed statistics wrangled into "90%". While I do think the possible side and after effects of abortion should be reviewed with the patient/client, it should be done in a calm, truthful, and scientifically accurate way.