I don't know if women will ever be completely free or "equal." It seems to me that women can never be free as long as they believe that their freedom lies in the negation of their femininity and the embrasure of all that is masculine. I don't see any freedom in putting on the male, or believing that what is traditionally "male" is therefore empowering and desirable. I don't see freedom in the teeth-grinding frustration that exists in women who believe that they cannot be fully women unless they be "exactly" like men (who aren't all that free, either.) I don't see freedom in believing that one's gender is a mere accident of birth rather than a gift to be explored and embraced and fulfilled. The Creator God does not accidentally Create us. He loves us into being, and "I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans of fullness, not of harm, to give you a future and a hope..." (Jeremiah 29:11) The shrinking violet from MIT, who nearly lost it because Lawrence Summers suggested men and women might be different in nature...Susan Estrich...so many women I could name - they don't seem particularly FREE to me. They seem completely bound and caged in by their ideologies and their feminist sensibilities. They're not free, because they can only behave a certain way, or they don't belong to the club.Here is JPII on the matter, back in 1995:
Of course, the employment of women outside the family, especially during the period when they are fulfilling the most delicate tasks of motherhood, must be done with respect for this fundamental duty. However, apart from this requirement, it is necessary to strive convincingly to ensure that the widest possible space is open to women in all areas of culture, economics, politics and ecclesial life itself, so that all human society is increasingly enriched by the gifts proper to masculinity and femininity.According to a new column by Lydia Lorvic, the old feller is in tune with the times too. Irish Law attended a talk Robert P. George gave on due process and judicial activism. Irish's conclusion, swiped from Southern Appeal, is most interesting:
let me boil down their arguments into simple form. Publius: The Constitution's meaning changes with time, and those who determine its new meanings are the Supreme Court Justices. Feddie: If the S. Court justices determine those new meanings, then they and only they -- meaning their will, and only their will -- determine(s) what the ultimate law of the land is. Which means we have an oligarchy. Which is just tyranny by committee.British comedian Dave Allen died this week. At the risk of dating myself, I used to watch his comedy show a lot as a kid. I'd love to see a repeat just for the memories it would bring back. Yes, I do remember that he told a lot of religious jokes. This is like a sketch from the Dave Allen show, but it's real. From Little Green Footballs, The Incredibly Strange Graduation of the Iranian Female Police Cadets.
Ralph the Sacred River (I dunno, don't ask) has been reading Christopher Tolkien's books on his father's epic, The Lord of the Rings. He offers us a look at how the climax at Mount Doom might have been different. The Pantagruel is an interesting looking new webzine.
This post has been revised, with new content.