Spring is (finally!) in full swing, and with summer right around the corner we have all been audience to endless talk of the “body”. Between Victoria’s Secret’s “ The Perfect ‘Body’” Campaign, the rows and rows of colorful (and, finally, … Continue reading
Amber Fernandez is a student and friend of mine. I am delighted to feature her guest blog article, which eloquently expresses the exaggerated malice this society has expressed (and obvious pain we have felt) towards the natural differences between men and women.
Call me naive, but I don’t really believe in the political idea of feminism. Yes, I believe in equal rights for women. I believe that women should legally be allowed to vote, make equal salaries as men in the workplace, and be entitled to the same inalienable rights as men. I don’t believe women should have the right to terminate a life they helped conceive, breed hate towards the family structure, or condemn men simply because of their genitals.
I value my femininity. I treasure my softness and grace, and I protect my spirit and virtue. Some see this as oppressive, but maybe I just believe in a deeper meaning of feminism. I find solace in what comes naturally to me. The Lord has blessed me with inherently female talents and tendencies. I excel at cooking and baking; I enjoy shopping and pampering myself. I love wearing dresses, jewelry, and make-up. I’m not saying that women who don’t find joy in these things aren’t feminine, but I recognize and embrace that these attributes make me feminine. I am able to differentiate that there are natural male and female qualities, and I love the idea that God made us separate and unique to each other!
I believe in something called Complementarianism. It is the theological view that God created specific, but complementary roles for men and women. I don’t think there should be a standard patriarchy or matriarchy, simply because neither can flourish without the other. Menand women were made to complement each other: physically, emotionally, and politically.
That being said, while browsing through Facebook one day, I came across a satirical article on “PIV”.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/nicole-mullen/2014/04/everything-you-know-about-sex-is-wrong/
I had no idea what PIV even meant, so I did some further digging. PIV is an abbreviation for “Penis in Vagina” sex. One would think that most could deduce what sex is without an abbreviation, but after reading more, I realized there is a radical feminist movement that classifies PIV (aka sexual intercourse) as rape. Has our society really perverted the union between husband and wife into this? Are we that sensitive and desperate to be politically correct that we need to objectify men as phallic symbols, existing only to oppress women?
Sex, in my opinion, has two main purposes: procreation AND recreation. I understand that sex is designed to create a family, but I also understand that sex was designed to create a physical and emotional bond between man and woman. If you don’t agree with the latter, I suggest you read Song of Solomon and get back to me. Sex (or PIV, as self titled “radfems” like to call it) is not rape, however.
Just to give you some insight into this “revolutionary” movement, here are some main ideas that I believe are perverting the true purpose of sex and love as God intended it:
“trauma bonding”- the theory that sex (PIV rape) is a traumatic experience that degrades women into believe their captors hold life or death powers over them. Women must feel that their captors have shown them some sort of kindness, and see their perspective as the only perspective. They must be isolated and alone. (By the way, captor is nut a synonym for kidnapper, etc. Radfems, according to their PIV idea, believe ALL men are captors, and romantic relationships are a facade)
Female child grooming- the idea that young girls are bombarded with ideas of Prince Charming, being a “daddy’s girl”, etc, so they become brainwashed into believe men are dominant and more powerful. This brainwashing idea leads to “forced child bearing” and “rape”, even if the acts are consensual.
Radfems who hold these beliefs also consider sex as PIV rape because it is harmful to women. Why is it harmful? Because sex can result in pregnancy. Since when is the capability to produce life considered harmful? If more women (and men) understood what sex is intended for, I think that concepts like this wouldn’t exist.
By accepting and embracing our differences, we can better understand the opposite sex. Ladies, embrace your femininity! Men, be masculine and recognize that it is your responsibility to defend our femininity. There is nothing shameful in this! Defy the ever-changing norms and trends of society, and be radical by living as God intended us to. Trust that God is the constant in our lives, and He will overcome the distorted world we are living in.
“In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Upon hearing about the murder of Emmett Till as we were discussing the Civil Rights Movement in history class, one of my more troubled students muttered, “If he had known that that was going to happen he should have just raped her.”
My shock rendered me speechless, so I was only able to mumble something stupid like, “He didn’t know what was going to happen…” How I wish I could go back in time.
This response to a horrific act of murder, saying that it would have been worth it had the woman in question been raped, is the consequence of a society that has completely ruined sex for those who don’t have parents to raise them and teach them the true meaning of the gift. This distorted view of sex is not helped by shows such as Game of Thrones, which recently boasted an incestual rape scene, which the director said, “…became consensual at the end…” (If you choose to watch it, you can clearly see that there was no consent.)
I am deeply troubled at the world that is being created. Of course, rape is not a 21st century invention, and I don’t pretend to think that sex, for every person, has always been free, total, faithful and fruitful as it should be. However, can we at least try for that? Can we at least try to create a world in which this incredible act of procreation and bonding between a man and a woman be between two people who desire it, give themselves completely to each other, and only each other? Can we just try?
Please, if you have been a victim of this gruesome crime, know that it is not your fault, ever. Call this Hotline, or look up more information and resources that are available to you at the same link.
If I have to make the choice between being a baby and milk machine for the rest of my life or having the decision to abort and use contraceptives, I choose the former, every time. Bringing life into this world is far more worthwhile of a calling than even having the option of ending the life of my child and using group 1 carcinogens (hormonal and oral contraceptives cause cancer) on my body (this list also includes the Nicotine compound, known as N’-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN), meaning oral contraceptives are on the same list as cigarettes).
Fortunately, I don’t have to choose between those two options, as there is now the gift of the Natural Family Planning, including NaPro technology, which is an idiot proof way of determining whether or not you are fertile. Yes indeed, planning your pregnancies naturally has never been easier or safer!
Now, before I am accused of committing treason against my gender, you should know that I believe women are equal to men in merit and intelligence and all that jazz.
I just also happen to not find killing babies justifiable, in any circumstance.
If you are tremendously offended at one or more of the statements above, take a cold hard look at why this sets you on fire. Does the idea of not being able to do whatever you want with your body just make you red with anger? Well, in a country where you can’t even attempt to kill yourself without being committed into an institution (the nerve!), how can we have the ability to kill a child?
If you, right now, are about to even THINK about using the word “viable” in an argument against this, please stop- go volunteer in a nursery, and then get back to me. Children are not viable until they are about 5 years old. Get over this argument. If you are about to say, well it’s not a person; it’s just a clump of cells! Again, stop, give yourself a hard slap in the face, and then ask yourself the question, “What am I? What is every living thing?” Thank God for science. And then lets think, “What can two humans create?” The only answer being, obviously, another human. So the growing clump of cells CAN ONLY be a growing human. Humans cannot grow anything else. Unless it’s an abnormal growth, which would be growing inside of you NOT because of the contributions of another human (unless its an STD…) but because of other reasons… and, obviously, that abnormal growth won’t pop out 9 months later with ten fingers and toes and a personality to boot. Ain’t nothing abnormal about the fact that sex makes babies. You don’t need a college degree to figure that one out.
Here’s the good news, if you would prefer not to have a child, you have a few options: first, don’t have sex. Second, use contraceptives (Oh wait, they don’t work all the time, as noted author and former Planned Parenthood Clinic director Abby Johnson informs us, as she got pregnant THREE TIMES while on contraceptives, and she was considered an expert! Off the list.) Second, use your brain to learn about your body and determine when you (or your wife) are fertile so that you and your loving spouse can plan intimacy accordingly. There are many gynecologists and family planning experts at various Churches and institutions across the United States. Google them. Third, don’t have sex. Oh wait.
Since I can already hear the tirade of morons chirping, “You think sex is bad! You are getting your ideas from an archaic institution that needs to get with the times!” Stop it. Sex is wonderful. I’m very excited to have it. The intimacy of the marital union is something that is unparalleled on this earth and the fact that GOD CREATED IT AND ORDAINED IT (and because the Lord ordains it the Catholic Church does too, so…) makes it even better. It’s good. SEX IS A GOOD THING. I am not saying otherwise.
However, it is something to be participated in responsibly. And the lack of such responsibility should not be greeted with the option to murder a baby human. So you can keep that freedom.
Please Note: While I absolutely welcome comments and discussion, please keep them intelligent and respectful, free from cursing and nonsense. Thank you!
About two years ago, Julia Bluhm gave a magazine an idea that could have propelled it from mediocre (at best) to groundbreaking. I am bringing it up now because I recently wrote a rant on magazines, and I don’t like complaining without offering a solution. Granted, the solution for the over-sexualization and dumbing down of women’s magazines should be obvious (stop reiterating the same (weird) sex advice and start putting current events in your magazines). But nevertheless, this is a push in the right direction.
On May 3rd 2012, Jim Dwyer for the New York Times wrote a story on a red-headed, blue eyed cherub who led an online petition asking seventeen magazine to publish one untouched photo-spread per magazine in order to show what “real girls” look like, in the hopes of removing the impossible standards that have girls nation wide purging and starving. This impressive feat began in ballet class, where she claims her fellow dancers, like most adolescent women, “declared that they were having a fat day. Or that their skin was pimply or blemished. Or that they looked disgusting.” Which she, of course, thought was ludicrous.
To say the least, publishing unretouched photos would definitely cause a dent in the whirlwind of self- loath that has ravaged the nation since Twiggy first sat in front of a camera. In fact, many others agreed and she got 46,000 people to sign her petition. In addition, Bluhm actually managed to receive an invitation from Seventeen’s editor in chief Ann Shoket to discuss the matter. Did I mention? Julia Bluhm was fourteen at the time. Oh, the courage that comes from the mouth of babes.
Unfortunately, nothing really happened. Shoket and Bluhm exchanged emails, and although it WOULD be really cool if Seventeen led the way down the road of self- worth and body appreciation by not choosing emaciated waifs to grace their glossy pages, lets face it, its a stretch.
However, I do know this. At some point, some day, women are going to start getting fed up with the standards (if we are not already). The National Women’s Health Information Center states that fashion models weigh 23% less than the average female- and that is supposed to be seen as normal (Adolescent Girls and Body Image, NASW, 2001). Women nationwide are going to get fed up with feeling abnormal. And then, some mainstream magazine (Seventeen, possibly) will catch up with this trend and begin to actually show real girls in their magazines. They will defame the other magazines, saying they are contributing to the rise in eating disorders (which this magazine has already done, but never mind that). And do you know what will happen with this intelligent magazine? Their sales will skyrocket. Having already made a name for themselves in the conventional way, they will now use their name to promote something that girls and their mom’s have been praying for. Reality. Quite frankly, it was idiotic of Seventeen to refuse this offer. Yes, Bluhm singled them out of dozens of other magazines that do the same thing. But this was not a stroke of bad luck- this was an opportunity. Dove has been immensely successful with their campaigns for Real Beauty; it would have been nothing less for this magazine.
But, alas, they decided to maintain the status quo and continue along their fake, plastic and retouched way- to the detriment of their readership (and they call themselves feminists….). Perhaps one day (hopefully soon) another magazine will get the hint and start the revolution. Until then, we will wait.
Go to any magazine rack, anywhere in America. Look at the women’s section. What you will probably see are racks and racks of smiling, beautiful and fashionable faces underneath captions like, “How to Please Your Man, 100 Men Tell All!” or “Fifty Hairstyles That Will Turn Heads this Winter” or “Oprah, The First Woman President?”. Then, to a stark contrast, I would like you to turn to the “Men’s Section” (in quotations because its not technically called that- but you know its geared towards men). Yea sure, you will see maybe a dozen adult magazines, a few sports magazines, a whole lot of fitness magazines and some car magazines- but do you know what else you will see? Magazines discussing foreign affairs, business, science. Scientific American, National Geographic, Psychology Today, Entrepreneur Magazine… When was the last time you saw one of those magazines outline in pink with a bright orange background and bright yellow words trying to tell us all about the benefits to staring an online company? You won’t see one; they aren’t geared towards women, because women usually aren’t the ones who buy these types of magazines.
The Economist? 64% of their readerships are men. The Atlantic? 61%. Newsweek? 56% male to female ratio. An exception would be The New Yorker, who boasts a 51% female to male readership. The reason? Its content is substantially higher in the “Culture/ Lifestyle” section, and substantially lower in National Affairs, the Economy, and International Affairs sections.
I find this disappointing. Please note, this is absolutely not meant to be a bash on women or our reading habits. Absolutely not. It could definitely be said that these magazines do themselves a disservice by not targeting women. In terms of color scheme and language, why does The Atlantic look more like GQ than Women’s Health?
However, what I am attempting to do here is questioning why Cosmopolitan exists. How does that magazine, and others like it, help us earn the position we deserve in society? (While we are asking questions, how does it even entertain women?) It is not the same to earn something rather than simply demand it of a world that is desperately trying to be politically correct. That’s all. I’m not saying that your average twenty something year old guy is reading up on foreign affairs in his spare time either (These magazines also boast an older readership, on both sides of the gender equation). I’m saying that being knowledgeable on topics other than the newest seduction techniques or the latest gossips within your sorority is imperative to being taken seriously in today’s’ world. And I am finding it harder and harder to have these conversations with people other than my older male colleagues.
So ladies, do your brains a favor, please stop reading Cosmo and start reading a magazine that does not reiterate the same topic in bold new colors each month. For the love of feminism.
*Disclaimer: This is not meant to be a bash on men, or a desire to maintain women in traditional roles. This blog is simply a celebration of unique qualities most females have that make us uniquely beautiful, captivating, and successful. Please add to the list in the comments section!
This blog is a response to the fantastic blog by Jarrid Wilson on 10 Differences Between Dating a Boy vs. Dating a Man. I highly recommend it!
Janelle Sanchez's Blog 