War Against Women

I copied my post from facebook in response to that of a republican person who occasionally has thoughtful posts and does think about issues instead of responding from FOX sound bites like so many on facebook. I left off the original posting name as a courtesy. The poster had indicated earlier in the thread that left wing men were voting for President Obama for the purpose of keeping women free for their sexual enjoyment by letting women have the right to make health decisions for their own bodies.

R C: Don't like all these "War On" campaigns. It really disrespects the seriousness of war and the sacrifice and service and heroism of those fighting for their country.
Yesterday at 9:09am · Like

D.k. Christi You have it in reverse. It is the religious right pushing women back to the 1950's at the same time we are preaching equality for women to other nations. Taking away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and the health requirements specific to her gender is criminal ...See More
about an hour ago · Like

D.k. Christi I do however agree that the terminology using the word "war" is not the right choice. Better to spell it out clearly: women's rights to health care decisions for their own bodies are under serious threat by the legislation proposed and implemented by republicans across the nation. This includes the cost of insurance differential (women's more expensive) and the loss of insurance for pre-existing conditions. These are economic issues for women that impact them in the workplace and as providers for families and children. The Affordable Care Act and Planned Parenthood provide life-saving, affordable services to women and to deny either is a death sentence for many women and girls. This is criminal. Religious dogma belongs in churches; not legislation. For the destruction of Planned Parenthood and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act to be the primary goals of the Romney campaign is criminal and a travesty against women and girls, and the service and heroism of the women and men who fought for equal rights for women and minorities.

4 minutes ago · Like

D.k. Christi Legislating against women is a power play by men in an attempt to take women's roles in society back to the 1950's at the same time we are promoting women's rights in other nations. If this backward legislation continues, we will be the laughing stock of other nations and our words regarding freedom of religious choices and equality for women and minorities will be so much wind. I understand the voting suppression and intimidation which also affects women by a higher percentage is now being investigated by a U.N. committee. I don't know that for certain as I have not fact checked my source. It makes sense however since we set ourselves up as the example of democracy and then stifle the vote.
a few seconds ago · Like

Keep fighting DK. Sometimes the only tools we have are what we can say by written words. It is easy to give up and say, "I don't care anymore". That is what many do. I once stated on FB that people who care, complain and speak out. Someone replied that it was the most stupid comment ever made.
In my view, if one doesn't care, they say and do nothing. Those who care complain and make their voices heard. On another issue, I have been so upset about the M.E. situation that I tried not to care anymore, however I do care. Sensitive issues are difficult to get involved with and too often friends become enemies. Women's rights are felt most by women, however that doesn't mean all men remain silent.

I wouldn't use the word "war," either, but I do think there is a general "backlash" going on where the status of women is concerned, and it is part of the "battle" against the evolving new worldview, a worldview that values traditional feminine principles equally with masculine ones.

The idea of a new mythology of a sacred marriage is not just my thing. It is cropping up in many places, along with similar ideas like whole-brain thinking, balancing "mind" and "heart" (I have a bit of a problem with that one, since it implies that honoring one's feelings is not a thought process, or that feeling itself is not a neo-cortical brain function), intellect and intuition, competition and cooperation, and even science and art as being complementary functions, like two sides of a coin, rather than polar opposites where one end is considered "good" and the other "bad."

I think that we are having to deal with this global backlash because there are those who realize, deep down, that this evolution is progressing and that change is inevitable, but it is frightening to their sense of security and stability. In that sense, they are "at war" with any idea or group that is part of that change, so the perception that it includes a "War on Women" is valid, as their equality and strength is viewed as a part of that change, and a "loss" for "their side."

I have friends and relatives who no longer communicate with me. Yet, knowing their positions does not affect my love and caring for them. A message is in this somewhere - that the narrow, radical positions that deny rights to others by proclaiming the "one way" is the "right way" requires separating from people with a different opinion that might erode a belief.

Another poster said it is not worth losing friends and family by holding to a political position. I agree. I am not holding that their position for their choices in life is wrong for them; it is wrong for me and others that I love and care about. Therefore, I would prefer that they equally respect my choice to speak out about my beliefs. They once posted all their patriotic posters and Christian posters that tied to the republican party as the party of Christianity and patriotism. After I made it clear that the Democratic party has plenty of Christians and patriots and service men and women and that Christ expressed inclusive, not exclusive views toward people as children of one God who loved them all, they literally unfriended me or no longer post for me to respond. Christ was not anti-woman. Therefore, the republican positions that exclude people in need and deny women needed health care rights are not what I consider representative of the Christian teachings with which I am familiar.

The "Christians" take offense and label anyone who does not believe that legislation should deny women choices for their own bodies, specifically regarding abortion and contraception although those two choices are much broader in their ramifications for women's health, as a communist, left-wing liberal and names I cannot print. They don't like to be told that a response like that does not seem to come from the generous and love thy neighbor teachings of the Christian religion. So long as they do or say something, "in the name of Christ," that makes it sacred. I disagree.

I strongly advocate that all life is sacred - all life. Therefore, I believe that abortion is a very personal decision of a person, not my right to legislate. The same for contraception. I also do not believe in capital punishment. I believe in banning guns except for exceptional circumstances with high control such as a hunting club. I do not believe in war or sending those I love to war. I do not believe in hate. However, I also accept that for all my "I do not believe" beliefs, there may be exceptional circumstances that require a different way to think about the situation at hand - and I may need to act outside my belief system.''

I also believe in the humane treatment of animals and that our food system is a violation of the sanctity of animal life. While I am not yet vegan, I do believe that animals have a right to live their own destiny and not be artificially groomed and caged to increase production for human consumption that is in excess. I do not believe in shooting animals for sport; but using sport to thin herds that will otherwise die out from starvation is a humane matter. Those animals should be used to feed those with hunger deprivations.

Thus, those Christians who label me for not wanting abortion a matter of legislation but rather a matter of health and personal choice, get angry when I remind them that their "pro-life" position is not "pro-life" at all, particularly disregarding the life of the mother for starters but not including "all life" in their philosophy that is therefore, incomplete.

So, my patriotic (since Bush brainwashed the electorate into believing only Republicans were patriots to keep them supporting the war in Iraq that was a mistake), Christian friends and relatives won't even respond to family matters. I never even spoke my views to them directly; they simply read them when I posted.

At least the hate President Obama postings also stopped. Seems to me that hating President Obama wasn't exactly a Christian trait, either - but I let that one alone other than pointing out I didn't believe in disrespecting the Office of the President regardless of how a person felt about the person serving the country in that position.

Abe, I believe that there is a difference between "not caring" and "choosing to let go." Letting go has nothing to do with giving up. It is more about realizing that there is a process going on that must progress at its own pace, and accepting that the Universe knows what it is doing, and knows far more about the whole of reality than I do. Sometimes it can mean that we have voiced our concern and made our perceptions clear so that others are aware of where we stand, and that others have a right to do the same.