There’s been a super interesting dialogue going on in the comment section of an article written by Cathy Kightlinger of the Indianapolis Star. It was posted June 18, 2012, and I have no clue how I latched on to it, but I did and there you are.
I will hold off just a bit on sharing the title of said article. (I am sure you will have no problem figuring out what it is W-A-Y before I tell you.)
On this particular topic, some women get objective and others get nasty. There appears to be little space in between in which to exhibit the higher traits of feminine strength, grace and kindness. Surely, I am wrong about that. But au contraire. Those traits of a good Christian, Buddhist or whatever, are instantly deserted by the NOs (the Nasty Ones), all the while proclaiming they ARE good women, Christians, Buddhists or whatever, while all the other women who do not think like them are not.
Some behavior of the NOs:
“I can’t stand her…or the yellow flag champion she’s married to.”
Said NO number 1 does not know the woman under discussion, nor her husband. But number 1 NO is adamant she not only wouldn’t like her, she wouldn’t be able to STAND her. Why such venom? Because said woman under discussion is rude, belligerent, psychotic, mean? Nuh uh. Read on.
“Me neither, Lynnie…she’s a phony.”
Said NO number 2 does not know the woman under discussion. But number 2 NO is adamant the woman she never met is a phony.
Did you hear a “MEOW?”
“Not “everybody” likes BLANK, especially those as yet in utero. She is a loon, period.”
Oh my goodness! This is a male voice trying to get into the act. Sorry, dude, but unless YOU have a utero, please do not discuss my internal organs as if you know what you are talking about. Do I talk about your prostate like that?? No. So don’t talk about my uterus like you have one. Sheesh.
“Don’t you mean supporting the murdering of unborn children? Hell, if it were just birth control, I’d be a fan, but Planned Parenthood performs ABORTIONS! So that’s okay with you? Really?”
Ummm…what the heck are you talking about, NO number 2? Planned Parenthood IS about parenthood…healthy and thoughtful and desired parenthood. And, if you looked beyond your nose (or belly button as in uterus), it is also about women’s health issues and health care. GOOD health care for women. One would hope in your quest to produce life, you would make the connection between the current living human and the cells that have the potential to become one. One would THINK. Thinking being the key operative word here.
“She “shuns the spotlight”? Really? Last month she acted as if SHE had won the race, not her husband. And isn’t it peculiar that a woman who has never experienced having a baby growing inside of her is such an avowed advocate of murdering them in utero under the guise of being a “women’s right’s activist”? You don’t need to take up for me, BLANK…I can fight my own battles.”
I LOVE NO number 2! She is absolutely fascinating. If you notice, NO number 2 has two reoccurring themes: utter disbelief (her overuse of the word “really” with a question mark) and her reference to breeding. (This woman needs to get her mind on something else, I’m beginning to think.)
Personally, though, I am delighted that NO number 2 will take on her battles herself. She’s beginning to annoy me. Her logic is without real logic, her decisions are reactive and emotional, and she’s well.. not very nice about it all. I wouldn’t want her on my team for women’s rights at all. In fact, I kinda think she may be one of the people I would be working to thwart. Really.
“…an intelligent, beautiful woman who has never held a child inside of her body. Give me a break. A role model for ALL of humankind? I felt my babies move inside of me at 14 weeks…”
Hmmm, NO number 2 (who is talking a LOT, I notice), if a woman is intelligent and beautiful…of course she is a role model. We all are role models for being intelligent and beautiful. As for feeling your babies inside of you….what has that got to do with being a role model? Maybe for your daughters, but not mine, thank you very much.
The key word you used is ‘worth’. I agree–every living being is ‘worth’while; why not afford that ‘worth’ to unborn babies? And I do not believe I ever stated that BLANK is not ‘worth’ anything because she is not a mother; I’m simply making the obvious connection between her non-motherhood and her advocacy for abortion. BLANK, and every living person on the planet, was WORTH being born!
Nope. I don’t see it, NO number 2. Speaking about women’s health care does not equate with anything other than health care, in my books. And “non-motherhood” is the silliest phrase I’ve ever heard. It makes one think “Mothers” in this corner, and all other non entities in this corner. According to your thinking, NO number 2, men are abortion advocates because they are non mothers.
I said it before and I’ll say it again: I LOVE this woman! She is SO strange, she is absolutely fascinating.
That’s all she felt compelled to utter, so I’ll go on to the article itself.
The title of the article is, “Ashley Judd to Keynote Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s 80th Anniversary Party”. That’s it. That’s what has incurred the wrath of the NO number 1 and NO number 2 and that weirdo guy who has to get mixed into all this “girl talk.”
But it isn’t really what incurs their wrath.
What really has incurred the wrath of the NOs is that a beautiful, intelligent, gracious woman can also think for herself and make her own choices. NOs want women to be defined solely as breeders of children, nothing else. We criticize men who think just of their penises…aren’t women who think just of their uteruses just as warped?
NOs want the minds, hearts and spirits of women overlooked and demeaned, in favor of producing more population upon the earth. That is NO’s unlimited, unenlightened and totally unnerving view of a woman’s purpose. NOs truly want to regard women as Erica Jong hinted at decades ago: a uterus with a pair of legs. If the NOs associated a uterus with a mind, they’d understand why bearing children may be lovely, noble and rewarding, but it is NOT the end all nor be all of a female human being’s existence…an animal’s, maybe…but not a human being’s.
Copyright St. John Journals 2012