Skip to main content

Paranoia

Feel the paranoia dripping from Lynne K. Varner in the Seattle Times:
The other day, I found this frightening pronouncement from a stay-at-home mom writing for the Institute on Religion and Public Life's Web site: "If our society is to be revitalized, the committed, religious, stay-at-home mother will have to be at the forefront." I'm not sure what I, the committed, religious working mom, ought to do? Pack my handbasket for that trip to hell? I shouldn't joke. The reality is, I'm uncomfortable with the strict lines being drawn in our society under the pretense of a return to values. We're getting close to passing the kind of judgments and challenging the kinds of freedoms that made the Puritans leave England.
I agree that stay at home moms can - and do!- have a big positive impact in the neighborhoods they live in, and not just one their own kids. They are often active in schools and can help to look after kids who do not have anyone at home. What is puzzling is the logic gap - "stay at home moms are needed to revitalize neighborhoods" leads to "all working women will need to stay at home." Huh? Varner is engaging in political rhetoric and attacking a straw man, an exaggerated version of the position she opposes, one that is easier to attack than your opponents real position. Secondly, and more depressingly, Varner is engaging in simple peer pressure. She appears to fear that if the pendulum of public opinion begins to look at stay at home moms more favourably, she and all working women will come under almost irresistible pressure to stay at home. Why can't we all just women do what they see as best for them in their own circumstances? Why is there so much worrying about what other people will think? Why is it "we all do this, or we all do that?" Lastly, just how did that quip about the Puritans get by an editor? Puritans left England because they considered England to be too soft, especially in matters religious. How is it that Varner thinks she can draw valid parallel between her situation and theirs?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect
Post a Comment
Read more

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you
Post a Comment
Read more

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi
Post a Comment
Read more