It's more than just Bloggers ...

The post regarding female bloggers ... for me, didn't just include Blogging. That is where the debate on other blogs began. But for me, the question bleeds into "real life.' I was going to respond the following in comments, but decided to bring it up to the top- it is a continuation of the comment discussion.

I know a lot of people (women) involved in politics - don't misunderstand me to believe I am saying that women are altogether indifferent to politics. I also know there are a lot of female (political) bloggers. BUT - in the course of the last ten years of my life- the majority of women I have met are not interested in politics at all. Them aside, there are also thosee women that will talk politics, but are just too emotional to debate. It is not a discussion of facts and idea, but of emotional responses. When other women discover my views - honestly - they cannot separate their emotions regarding my politics from "me." I don't walk around with a t-shirt that says "Fuck the French" or anything, and in fact many people at first mistake me for a liberal, so I don't think their feelings are due to me having a some overtly aggressive political personality.

I've often wondered if it is factor of being conservative ... that conservatives are not only considered "wrong" by liberals ... but that they are also evil. I dunno.

It appears to me, though, that men are more easily able to debate their differing opinions w/o "hating" those with whom they disagree.

I suppose this whole post has been a lament - that dialogue (especially between women) from the two political sides is so difficult.

Random thought of the day

Why can't Barbie leave her damn pants on??? How come every time I see a pile of Barbies in this house, every last one of them is naked.

You know, every since Prince Charming Ken came into this house, there has been nothing but trouble.

Question of the Week: Where are all the Female bloggers?

Beside a few heavy hitters (Malkin, La Shawn Barber, and Michele's ASV) there are not a lot of big "female" bloggers. Certainly not many political bloggers (since Michele doesn't do politics anymore, she must be removed from that list.) I have two observations regarding this (correction, two "main" observations, and one extra bonus point).

The reason why there are so few female bloggers, is that the majority of women do not like politics. And, many are neither good at, nor do they enjoy, debating. While there certainly are women here and there that enjoy a nice intellectual debate, and are enraptured by all things political, most of the women I know fall under one of two categories: those that can't debate, and those that don't like politics.

The first group likes politics per sec, but are too emotional for rational debate. Their feelings get hurt, or they get angry, or placed in some emotional state that makes rational debate impossible (even debate via the internet.) When you disagree politically with these types of women, you become an ENEMY. You are a bad person. When it is discovered that you voted for Bush, or that you are pro-life, you will be avoided in the future. Blacklisted or blackballed. Whatever. Your political affiliation makes you EVIL. No amount of rational debate will make the smallest dent in these types, they are ruled and controlled by the politics of emotion.

The second group of women fall under the "I'm not interested at all in politics" model. They have little more than a passing interest in the news, and find politics BORING. They may vote, but that's the extent of their role in civic responsibility. They will talk babies, or tv shows, or PTA. They probably don't know a lot about history, and even less about current events. I say this, because I fail to understand how a person could know anything about those two subjects, and not find politics rather important.

My final reason ... not entirely related to the rest of this post - is that many men dismiss the opinions of women. Even in our day and age, most women need to "prove" themselves to men in a manner that is not required of other men. It can be rather discouraging to women bloggers who are trying to participate, only to find that they are talking into a void - be it on their blog, or on other blogger's comments (especially when the same points THEY make are ignored, until a man brings up a similar point.) IT is no wonder that many women choose screen names that lack sexual identifiers. Not all men in the blogsphere act this way, but the ones that do stick out (to me.) Not naming names here.

Anyway, that's my .02.

This just in ...

I just heard on Medved's show, that the average American watches 29 hours of TV a week? Could this be true? What the hell are they all watching?

Mommyhood

Interesting take here regarding being a mom. Ever since that Newsweek article came out. I've read various reactions over the blogsphere, and most I've met with a bit of antagonism. Moms decrying others for trying to be perfect, while claiming that THEY are doing things better.

Well, first of all - they should call the job of "mother" a practice, just like they do with law firms, because I tell ya, the day I learn it all, I'll probably be in my grave. I haven't read a million parenting books and tried every strategy blindly, but I have looked here and there when I had a particular problem.

To the chagrin of those who eschew the "supermommy" ideal - I nursed, co-slept, and cloth diapered (although, my middle children were disosie babies). I didn't do these things because I read about them in a book (and to make that accusation is rather insulting.) I did them because they were what felt right to me, and I enjoyed them. I home school. I don't make play dates for them, and one activity per child is plenty. They don't have tvs in their bedrooms, and none own a Gameboy. I wish I could open the front door and watch them ride their bikes to play baseball in the park, but sadly, when they arrived, they would be the only children present (unless, of course, there was some sort of organized team practicing at the time.) I also wish I could throw the tv away, but even I enjoy a bit of mindless entertainment from time to time, so that would be hypocritical.

Motherhood is hard. The days can be boring. You can feel isolated. At times you are a slave to the little demands they make, and I often wonder who really is in charge. Will I survive being a parent? Right now, it's touch and go.

But, I do know that I'm not faced with the same issues that the women in the Newsweek article face. These women are, actually, pretty foreign to me. Because, while they are all working, or shuttling their children from school, to play dates, to violin practice, to karate ... I'm sitting here in my house with my kids. I've opted out of the rat race. We don't drive the best car and don't have perfect clothes. I cut my kid's hair (and my husband's.) Vacations have been few and far between the last ten years, but they were fun when we could find the means. They never went too Kindermusic, and they didn't learn to swim when they were 6 months old. I'm a slacker mom.

I don't really know what my point is, but to say that many of these women do it to themselves. It isn't society's fault, and it isn't a "middle class" lifestyle that is to blame. People, imho, just want to much. They want the perfect house, and the perfect car, and the perfect children. Ain't gonna happen. Deal with it.

This is a wandering post, and I probably should just delete it. But I won't. For now.

Condi nugget

Deroy Murdock has an interesting article in today's NRO. In it, Murdock illustrates the fact that although American blacks vote in incredible numbers for the Democrats, the Republicans have been the party that historically fought for them. This issue is the subject of a book by Wayne Perryman, Unfounded Loyalty

While Condi Rice is treated like the House Nigger by the black community, her own personal history illustrates the absurdity of the juxtaposition of reality and myth of Republicans, Democrats, and blacks(from the Murdock article):

"The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire," Rice has said. "He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I."

It is just amazing.

"I'm not sorry" nonsense

Random surfing this afternoon, and I came across this:I'm not sorry FAQ. I'm not sorry is a websit that posts stories about women who do not regret their abortions. Loverly bunch of gals. Anyhoo, I'm reading through the FAQ and I come to the following:

What about adoption? Why didn't you consider that as an alternative?

One of the anti-choicers' favorite arguments against abortion is that women who have abortions are depriving prospective adoptive parents. However, one only has to take a look at the literally hundreds of thousands of children in foster or state care to know that is not the case. Unfortunately for the great majority of these children, they will not be considered for adoption because they have committed a grave since they're no longer babies. It is rare that you'll hear a prospective adoptive parent sigh, "Oh, I just want a seven-year-old so much!" We have always had huge respect for people who adopt older or special needs kids. Contrary to popular belief, adopting kids from the state is not that expensive. Some states will bend over backwards to help out people who want to take in these kids. Yeah, it's definitely not easy to handle them, but those who can appreciate that parenthood isn't one long Hallmark moment and are willing to stay the course know that going in. Another reason for not going with adoption that's been cited by many of us is the thought of the now-grown child showing up on our doorstep expecting an Oprah-type happy reunion with their "real mom" or weepily demanding to know why we gave them up. As far as we're concerned, whoever signs the adoption papers is the parent, and we're completely for adoption records being sealed other than the medical history of the bio-parents. If you're going to give the kid up for adoption, accept that and move on. Don't write letters, don't send gifts, don't go for visits, and respect that fact that the kid is no longer yours. Adoptive parents also need to stop giving kids ideas that they are not his/her "real parents."

First off - I can't let the "anti-choice" thing slip by, since there are many choices that "PRO-LIFERS" advocate. Let's run down the list ... there is abstinence, birth control, adoption, and parenthood. The only "choice" we don't care for is the death of life in the womb. So, really, we are only "anti" one particular choice. Call us anti-abortionists. I'm fine with that.

Next ... adoption. The above paragraph would almost be laughable, if the issue weren't so serious. The HUNDREDS and thousands of children available in Foster care come with baggage. They have parents fighting to regain custody. Or, they have health and/or psychological issues that makes it unadvisable, for those not properly equipped and prepared, to take on such a challenge. Not everyone can handle a crack baby or one with FAS who will develop who knows how many problems as it grows into adulthood. Comparing raising a child with SEVERE disabilities to dealing with an unruly teen (parenthood not being a Hallmark card) is just laughable.

To say that women should get an abortion, because adoption is such a plague-ridden option? Please. And, as for the argument that women should abort so no one will show up at their door in twenty years looking for their mother ... honestly, I don't even know where to begin with that one.

I gotta crush

I love and hate my Satellite tv, but this month it is beaming into my house a performance but British cutie Jamie Cullum. His recorded stuff is a little stale/popish for my taste (at least, such is the case with his CD Twentysomething), but his LIVE stuff is great. Jazzy. Very enjoyable.

Things I wish I had said

But I didn't - here is Dorinda Bordlee in NRO on recent Chris Rock comments:

So here we are, five years into the new millennium, and a comedian has the nerve to say out loud what men across America know full well: that legalized abortion is great for their sex lives; that abortion on demand makes women into sex objects with the full consent of the highest court in the land; and that if their sexual use of a woman results in the unfortunate side effect of a pregnancy, then $300 and their "kindhearted" support of the woman's "right to choose" will take care of the problem.

What did Rock say? That he liked to go to abortion rally's to pick up women, because you know the women there are f-ing. Bordlee argued that abortion has set to increase of sexual exploitation of women. That women are more likely to engage in sex, because they can get rid of the results, and that men no longer worry that sex is going to lead to unwanted fatherhood. In fact, the very idea that sex's primary purpose is for the creation of children is STRONGLY debated (I've been in such debates). Sure, sex can be fun -it can be an expression of love -but I find it remarkable that people dispute that it is primarily tied to reproduction.

It is sad that we have allowed men to lower us to this level. I am not a prude, and I am NOT saying that women shouldn't (or don't) enjoy sex. But, somehow, men have sold women a bill of goods. They have reduced many women to the amoral status of the male dog; that sex is an itch to be scratched. Instead of women raising men up to their level, men have lowered many of us down to theirs.

Oops

Remember that baby (Baby "81") in Sri Lanka that was supposedly "claimed" by eight different women? Well, apparently there was only ONE family claiming that the baby was theirs. And, now DNA tests of proved that it is, in fact, their baby. TWO MONTHS LATER.

The court ordered the DNA tests after 31-year-old barber Jeyarajah and his wife argued they could not prove he was theirs because his birth certificate and other documents were washed away by the tsunami along with their house.

The cherubic infant was put under police guard after Jeyarajah was arrested and briefly detained for trying to forcibly take him from nurses.

When a judge then ordered DNA tests, Jeyarajah nearly fainted and threatened to kill himself.

Newspaper reports have said nine women claimed the boy as their son in the aftermath of the tsunami, but police say the Jeyarajahs were the only couple to claim the baby as theirs.

So, in reality, only ONE couple was claiming the baby as their own ... and ... as it turns out, the DNA tests prove the baby is theirs. They still haven't gotten the baby back, since they need to have it "finalized" in court. Shesh, as if two months apart is not enough. Sanity would dictate that baby be DIRECTLY returned to the parents with much apologizing.

(link to Reuters story in title)

The GRAMMYS!!!!

Well, apparently the Grammy Award show was on last night. Yes, definitely they were on because my sister called me at 10:30 to ask me how I liked them. To which I replied "Oh, the Grammy's are on tonight?"

I turned it on for about five minutes, then off it went. I got a great big YAWN for every award show. I don't care about the presentations, the performances, or most of those nominated.

I fall back on the John Derbyshire line - "Pop Culture is Filth."

But, not only is it filth, but it is also boring, predictable, and full of itself.

My kids are immature, so what?

This is just a general rant, meant to go out to no one in particular. But, my kids are immature. They don't dress in the trendiest clothes, and they don't know the hottest act on MTV. My boys are totally unaware that there is such a thing as "sneaker"-envy ... or the social value of wearing an expense coat. My oldest is only 10, but he doesn't wear gel in his hair, and I've never EVER heard him say he wouldn't play some game - be it freeze tag or anything - because it was "too babyish.'

Sure, you might say they are young ... just wait. But, when I am out (in church, or other places) I SEE kids his age, and younger ... with their cool hair, and cool clothes, and slack-jawed expression of being "oh-so above" whatever activity they are being forced to endure. They are smug, and whisper to each other snide comments about someone else and tease and are mean. I see these same kids at my daughter's dance class ... on the first day of the year, this group of future mean girls teased a little 6-year-old with such cruelty, that it was difficult for me to not intercede - a risky proposition in this day and age of 'overprotective-my-angel-does-nothing-wrong' parenting.

My kids are immature. They are friendly to everyone they meet, and would never exclude anyone for any reason (even if they were five years younger then them.) They are happy, and excitable. They are not perfect, and at times I'm ready to pull my hair out. And, they could spend an entire day playing PS2 if I let them (which I don't). But, they have not learned the nasty, back biting, exclusionary, overly mature for their years attitude I see so prevalent today. Whenever I second guess my decision to home school ( a decision that was motivated primarily by the fact that I live in an AWFUL school district) - I remind myself that they are not being taught their "social" skills at school.

Final word

On Churchill ... from NRO's Mark Goldblatt:

The fact that he has tenure must, I'm afraid, be taken into account. Firing him, or forcing him to resign, might be morally satisfying but would be a tactical error. It would confer martyr status on him, and it would be interpreted by his students, and by Churchill himself, as punishment for speaking the truth to power. Besides, the fault here does not lie with Churchill; he's a symptom, not a disease. The fault lies, generally, with the sick academic culture in which he has thrived, and, specifically, with the administrative weasels at the University of Colorado who have repeatedly rewarded his dubious critical achievements. What should be done with Churchill, therefore, is...nothing. His notoriety should stand as an ongoing monument to the decay of intellectual standards in higher education, and his professorship as an ongoing monument to the intellectual cowardice of the school which hired and tenured him.

It isn't the man that it is the problem, although he is odious. It's that he was teaching students, happily, at ANY University. And, that there are probably many more like him out there.

Ward Churchill: Useful Idiot

Ward Churchill is little more than a "useful idiot." In a press release from last week, he said " "The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country." Well, I don't know how anyone could grossly distort the pretty "gross" statement in his screed :

A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago.

This is my first issue with Ward; his mentioning of the Crusades. Certainly the Crusades were the pinnacle of Christian Imperialism? Or, that was what I was taught. Imagine how shocked I was to learn that the Crusades were originally launched to "get back" what was previously taken by Muslims. Here is Bernard Lewis in The Crises of Islam.

The Crusade is a late development in Christian history and, in a sense, marks a radical departure from basic Christian values as expressed in the Gospels. Christendom had been under attack since the seventh century, and had lost vast territories to Muslim rule; the concept of a holy war, more commonly, a just war, was familiar since antiquity. Yet in the long struggle between Islam and Christendom, the Crusade was late, limited, and of relatively brief duration. Jihad is present from the beginning of Islamic history - in scripture, in the life of the Prophet, and in the actions of his companions and immediate successors. (p.37)

So, really - pick a side here. You are either on the side of Christians or Muslim, which side do you support? The Muslim "House of War" was /is intent on world conquest. It was in the seventh century, and it is (in some quarters) still today. Personally, I'd look fat in a Burqa, so I know which side I'm rooting for.

As for where Ward really loses it, here he talks about the victims of the WTC being "innocent":
 

True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

The man's got some anger issues. Who do you think he is more angry with? The 19 terrorists, or the men and women who went to work on 9/11?

Can't Blog

I cannot blog today ... because, you see ... I got an iPod over the weekend. Must. Fill.

I'm reliving the last 20 years of my life through music. You understand, don't you? Politics will still be around tomorrow.

THIS is what I'm talking about

Da Goddess had a terrific rant the other day directed at the anti-American crowd:

You and the other protesters claim to be interested in the basic needs of people around the world. Yet, I have seen you do little more than stand around yelling angry slogans. I have seen no one reaching out a helping hand.

She asked for TANGIBLE example of what the left is doing besides protesting. She's still waiting for an answer, btw. Today,I came across this today in the Opinion Journal:

By the time the Berlin Wall fell, Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and others were already household names in the world. In 1968 the New York Times had published Sakharov's essay, "Reflection on Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom." These were the years in which the word "dissident" entered the lexicon. What has the West--governments or media--done for the dissidents of the Middle East? Very little.

Not one of them is a household name. The closest is Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize two years ago. When these dissidents get into trouble, the free world needs to shine a light on them, so that it's harder for their governments to make them vanish.

When this happened during the Cold War, with a Sakharov or Sharansky, the media was often in the lead, elevating their plight. In the wake of Iraq's election, the editors of the U.S. and Europe might consider getting off their anti-Bush fixation and getting on the cause of Middle Eastern dissidents.

A mighty YES screamed in my head. EXACTLY. This is how the media is doing what Da Goddess was talking about. The names (or very existence) of dissidents are unknown to anyone that doesn't seek this information out. They are too obsessed with hating Bush.

File this under, "useful information"

Convicted Murderer Stanley Williams has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 5 TIMES??? And, the Nobel Prize for literature?

Arafat ... murderers ... yes, yes, very interesting.

h/t Patterico

News from Iraq

This is TOTALLY stolen from SondraK, but I wanted to bring it up here:

The residents of a small Iraqi village have killed five insurgents who had attacked them for voting in last weekend's national elections.

Several other insurgents were also wounded.

The insurgents raided the village of al-Mudhiryah south of Baghdad after warning its inhabitants not to vote in the election.

The villagers fought back, killing five of the insurgents and wounding eight others.

The insurgents' cars were then set alight.

Al-Mudhiryah's tribal sheikh says his people are sick of being threatened by Islamic extremists.

So, Mr. Moore ... wanna talk about those Iraqi "minutemen" now?

Give me a Reason

To just not give away my TV.

I so miss Buffy.

As seen today...

Saw this loverly bumper sticker (on a car at my church) :

A PBS mind, in a Fox News World

So ... what was she insinuating? That her mind needed to beg for support; that it couldn't support itself in the free market?

Really, it's attitudes like this that prevent me from EVER giving money to PBS.

Davos

I just got around to reading Jay Nordlinger's account of Davos. It is, as usual, depressing. That, combined with my reading of Jean-Francois Revel's Anti-Americanism, and I'm ready to rip apart (verbally) the next European I come across. I won't rehash all the stories he tells; go read for yourself, if you can stand to hear about Europeans and American journalists putting the blame for just about everything on America's shoulders. BUT, I did want to to share this:

The luncheon topic is AIDS, and when Sharon — we're on a first-name basis — rises to speak, she gets a serious, actress-about-to-address-something-grave look on her face. She gathers herself. Then she makes the most charming prefatory remarks you've ever heard: "It's good to be here with all you smarty-pants. I don't have your education, and probably not your world experience, although I have a certain experience. But . . ." A masterly downplaying of expectations. Right out of the Speaker's Handbook, page 1.

The gist of her remarks is that AIDS is readily solvable, but that "greed and arrogance stop us." We — we richies — simply don't want to spend enough, simply don't care enough. We are stingy and callous. (No mention is made of the Bush administration's remarkable efforts in Africa — efforts that the most knowledgeable and fair-minded can't help hailing.) Finishing up, the actress says, "If we just stopped arrogantly killing people all over the world, and channeled the money into AIDS, we would have a solution."

Nordlinger does a great job ripping her apart, but I just wanna ask, what the heck are actors and musicians (Bono, and Lionel Richie) doing at an economic forum? And, why are they being taken seriously? Please, someone save me from the lecturing actors. "We richies" (I guess she's talking about herself, because I'm a SAHM mom of five - she can excluded ME from that "we") don't want to spend enough? I believe "we've" made great strides in AIDS research. But, solving the health problems in third world countries is just not that simple. Especially when you have corrupt, and often dangerous, leaders running things (and, no, I'm not referring to Bushhilter here). Nordlinger writes of listening to Bill Clinton (who performed very European while in Davos):

Back, once more, to Clinton: He says that anyone who complains about corruption in African governments — anyone who expresses caution about handing over money to these governments — "should be put in a closet, so no one has to listen to them."

WHAT??? We shouldn't care if we are handing money to a despot who is lining his toilet in gold? Of course, this type of talk was loved by the audience. After all, the Europeans don't care if American money actually helps anyone, as long as it is being redistributed around the world. Really, this is shameful. Why can't Nordlinger just stay home next year?