O'Connor Retirement Sparks NOW March
Read more here.
Labels: politics
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Read more here.
Read more here.
|
|
Saturday, July 02, 2005O'Connor Retirement Sparks NOW March
Read more here. Labels: politics |
|
14 Comments:
Having read the article you posted, Sean, I'm not sure what's more frightening NOW's targeting of Supreme Court nominees or the (president-hopeful) Dempsey's aim to attract young women to their ranks. The feminist movement as, I'm sure we'll all agree, is way off in left field these days. There was a time when they had something of value to say to the nation--but that day has long since passed.
Speaking of women and their rights, why aren't there any women posting on this and many other sites like it? Maybe your wives could make a post gentlemen (Steve, Ron and Sean). That's not a criticism, just an honest suggestion. If not them, surely there's a lady out there with thoughts or opinions on theology and current events.
Thinking in Ohio,
Your assessment of NOW is right on target.
Maybe your wife might be interested in posting something..... :) But good point, there is a noticeable lack of comments from a feminine source.
Sean, my wife did graduate from an acredited Bible College--but since then, she has left the theology to me. She doesn't enjoy blogsites, yet--but I'm working hard to convert her.
I hope none of you reading, take my original post as a criticism. We've been doing a Bible study through 1 Peter in my church and we very recently began discussing Chap. 3 which covers among other things the husband/wife relationship. It was interesting to note that the men did all the talking about the roles women should be filling in the home/church/society... we had to continue the discussion another week to give the ladies an opportunity to share! So, the women in my church are as silent as they may be on this blogsite--but once I pointed this out they really had a lot to contribute.
Maybe I should have asked the ladies--Where are you? Why aren't you posting? And the answer may simply be--they aren't as interested as the men are. I hope my wife does contribute somewhere down the road, she has a sharp mind and a quick tongue, and she sees thing from yet "another" perspective! Maybe we could all invite the ladies we know to join in "dialogue". They may not take us up on it--but at least we each offered.
PS--Sean, My wife (Kathy) thanks you for the invitation to post.
Thinking in Ohio,
I don't for one second think that women are inferior to men in their value or in their ability to minister in this world. However, from my limited experience, it does seem to me that women are more inclined to be interested in different things than men, and vice versa. Maybe women are less inclined to be interested in a "blog" than men are, not because they are inferior, but because they are more interested in other things. But once again, I could be wrong about this observation, and I would love nothing more than to hear a "woman's" take on these issues. This might bring us to a fuller understanding of the issues we discuss.
By the way, when we first began, I believe a lovely lady named "Jan" was putting in her two cents worth. Where are you "Jan"?
Sean,
I am here. I have been reading (off and on) but must admit I did not think my opinion was of any interest to anyone here. I share my opinions with my husband and that is about as far as they go.
As far as the post at hand I don't think sex (male/female) needs to be the issue. President Bush was re-elected in part due to his promise to elect more justices like Scalia and Thomas. I believe this could be elther male or female but simply MUST be done. We need a Justice who will stand for integrity, morality and decency. I think it is ridiculous how we make more of the issues. For the "National Organization for Women" to make it a male/female issue is crazy to me. I don't want more females in office who don't share my opinions. I want someone (male/female, black/white, etc.) who will stand for what I beleive and what we as evangleical christians believe.
As to "thinking in Ohio", I think more women are not posting for a couple of reasons. 1-how many women (besides the wives of those already posting) know about this site? 2-I speak for myself on this, but the majority of those who are knowledgeable on these truth dialogue issues are those of you who have gone to school and studied these issues. I have graduated from a Bible College, but my degree was in Early Childhood. I supported my husband through Seminary, but I got lost after about a year and a half of trying to understand his classes. And now I am a fulltime mother of two of the most beautiful boys in all the world. (If you don't beleive me, I'll send a picture) I don't study these issues. I love to catch up on them when I can, but I honestly don't believe any of you want to hear my opinions on such issues.
3-my self-esteem says that due to #2 many of my opinions would be uneducated! 4-To this point I was unaware that you wanted women's opinions. It seemed like an all male party!
Perhaps I am off on theses comments, again I refer back to #3, but thank you for the invitation to dialogue. I will keep reading (as the boys allow).
Jan,
There you are!
I knew you had been visiting but wondered why you had been so silent.
If you could suffer me to respond to your critique of yourself and of us I would greatly appreciate it.
You started off on the wrong foot when you said, "I did not think my opinion was of any interest to anyone here." There you are dead wrong. I was thrilled to see when you had posted way back when in the "early days." Your comments, as well as anyone else's that are honest and sincere, are more than welcomed and appreciated here. And knowing me personally you know that I'm not a "used-car salesman" offering you a sales pitch. I'm being as honest as possible.
Your comment that you made on this topic is a perfect argument against your self-assessment. Not only did your comment offer us an opinion from the opposite gender, but it was a really good point. I'm not patronizing you, I'm simply saying that I agree with your observation and I think it was a good one to make.
I know you posed your four points to Thinking in Ohio, but can I respond?
In response to #1:
I could not tell you how many women know about this site. When we launched this project my only push for promoting it was a simple e-mail to a few of my good friends. Other than that I have left promotion to web searches, comments on other blogs, and spread by word-of-mouth by those who visit. I have not targeted a specific gender in my promotion -- it has basically been gender-neutral. How many women visit here then is dependant upon who does web searches that pertain to our content and who it is recommended to by the current visitors. With all that said, I do know for a fact of several women who do visit the site and do not comment. I wish even more women would visit and comment.
In response to #2:
I agree that this bog does deal with issues that may tend to appeal to those who are more educated. However, many people who visit and comment here are no more educated than you or I am. In fact, many are less. Supposed "lack" of education should not be a deterrent on this blog because there is always room for opinions by every unique person who is part of the Body. Everyone can contribute whether they are asking a question or answering one. The true beauty of dialogue is that it is irrespective of gender and education.
And yes, you do have two of the most beautiful (and well-behaved) boys in the world. Becca and I love those kids :)
In response to #3:
I think #3 is probably going to be the biggest hang-up for anyone who chooses to post on here. Hopefully so far you have not experienced an unwelcoming response to anything you have contributed. We are not mean-spirited and we value everybody's comments -- even if we disagree with them. Besides, the anonymous feature allows for those who wish not to be identified. In any case, it is ultimately up to the individual if they have enough confidence in themselves (that they do have something to say) and trust in us (that we will listen) to comment on here.
In response to #4:
Sorry that it has been perceived as an all-male party. But really that is only because women won't post.... which, of course, is because men won't invite them..... which of course, is because they know they won't be interested..... which, of course, is because of a false-stereotype generated by a male-dominated society..... which, of course, is because men are the DEVIL!
Ok, I was kidding about the men are the Devil thing.
Jan, we love you. Please feel free to comment on here!
Sean,
Your response to #4 of Jan's point sounds to me like the very reason why we men can't understand women. Its like a chess game with them. How can we figure women out? Just like Judge O'Conner, she was a swing justice. At times she was on one side of an issue and at others she was the complete opposite. Was it that she couldn't make up her mind or was it that she didn't have a belief. Ronald Reagan selected her because she was a conservative, but who, at that time knew she would decide for Roe vs. Wade. Maybe Bush should select a feminist-nazi...who knows she may over turn Roe vs Wade. What do you think Jan?
Sean-
Thank-you for your kindness.
I will continue to read and frequent this site, as to posting that will depend upon the topic at hand!!!
#1- I wish that more women would comment. I would like to dialogue with them as well.
#2-As for the education, I know that many of the posts are beyond me simply because I do not have the time to study and keep up. I check this site when the boys are napping or already in bed for the night. Many who dialogue have time to read and research before they even type. I guess that is more what I meant by the education. I feel out of the loop in that regard.
#3 I have not personally experienced any unwelcoming responses. (Except for Cramer below, who I will address soon, Comments like his are perhaps reasons why other women have not felt compelled to dialogue).
#4 - as to men being the Devil... well, you said it not me. :)
Cramer-
Do I know you? You sound like someone I know. I will try to address you, even though I think it will be frivilious.
First let me say that Men like yourself more than likely can not "figure" women out.
For you to say that Justice O'Conner was a swing justice simply because she was female is insaine. I don't believe her sex had anything to do with her swinging. For me to sit here and try to explain to you why she was on opposite sides of issues would be pure speculation. I think the topic at hand was not whether or not O'Conner was a swing justice because of her sex, but rather who will our President appoint to be her replacement.
A feminist nazi???? I'm not sure where that came from. I think you are much harder to "figure out" than women. That is a completely off the wall statement. Spoken like a true Cramer.
Cramer,
The real Cramer was a little smoother with the ladies.
Oh, I'm smooth with the lady folk. I like to cook dinner for them at Jerry's house and then take them out on the town.
Men!
Jan....I suspect Cramer is closer than you
think! Much closer!
thinking in MS
thinking in MS
I'm afraid you are very right. Isn't it sad that his comments on women gave him away!
You two stop. I'm in New York.
More about women: I'm glad the ethical swinger is gone, it was hard to tell what she thought was ethically and constitutionally correct. Now she can go back to civilian life and confuser her husband full-time.
P.S. I changed the spelling of my name to Kramer.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog