If you are a woman, you have heard, no doubt by now, that there is a war against you. You have heard that Republicans and conservatives are waging this war against you. You have been told that Republicans, conservatives, and the Catholic Church want you to be enslaved, want you to “die on the floor,” want your rights taken away from you, and want to block your access to birth control and, perhaps worse, want you to actually pay for your birth control.
If you are a woman, you have been told not to worry, because other women like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, both whom identify themselves as Catholic Christians, are fighting the “war on women” for you. They are telling you that they are fighting the “war on women” for you because their faith is telling them to do it, and that Jesus would do it, too, because, well…I guess he was just that kind of man.
The kind of man who, if Jesus were here today, in person, would tell you that having sex is the most important thing in your life, next to your career, of course. The kind of man who would tell you that the life growing inside you is really not a person, so if you want to kill it because it is not convenient to allow it to be born right now, that is okay with him because…hey, he’s for women, just like Nancy and Kathleen.
In fact, Leader Pelosi, who describes herself as a “devout Catholic,” has said, “… I honor my faith and love it…but they have this conscience thing.” How shameful of a church or church leaders to have a “conscience thing.” Really, that should be outlawed. Oh, that’s right, that’s what Nancy and Kathleen are trying to do.
Because Leader Pelosi and Secretary Sebelius, “devout” Catholic Christians, know that Jesus is the kind of man who, if he were here today, in person, would tell you that, if you’re a woman, you don’t really need a man in your life because…hey, who wants to be a slave? Instead, Jesus would encourage you to put all your money on the government because being dependent on the government for everything is better than being dependent on a man. You see, there’s no personal risk involved in being dependent on the government. It’s really rather easy. You simply vote for liberals who fight this imaginary “war on women” on your behalf, and they get you everything you need for free: free food, cell phones, birth control, abortions, health care, day care, diapers…and that doesn’t even count the extra free stuff you get when there’s a tornado or hurricane in your area.
Pretty easy, right? Who wants to trade in a maintenance-free relationship between a woman and her government for the more strenuous one between a man and a woman? Why worry about learning the art of compromise in a relationship, or parenting together, or figuring out family finances together when you can just fill in the bubble next to the candidate with a (D) next to his or her name in the voting booth. Isn’t life a lot simpler when you are merely part of a voting bloc, rather than a real person in a real relationship?
To the far left, who are indeed a minority, there is a fantasy “war on women,” and a Jesus who can be easily manipulated into a man who is pulling for your sexual freedom, and who really doesn’t know when life begins, while he simultaneously imprisons your independence and creativity with his insistence on strict adherence to socialist principles, known collectively as “social justice.”
To the far left, women have a generic identity, and they all want the same thing, just like blacks, Hispanics, gays, illegal immigrants, and transgendered people. To far left women like Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius, other women are easily molded, and can be made to believe that their husbands, their children, their motherhood, and their churches and faiths, want to enslave and imprison them.
Fortunately, there are real women, who live real lives, who can give other “real” women insights into life, with all its joys and tribulations. Real women like Jen Fulwiler, contributor to “Sex, Style, and Substance,” and a convert to the Catholic faith. Ms. Fulwiler writes:
I really wish our culture understood that the Catholic Church is the most pro-woman organization in the world. There has been a lot of outcry lately, particularly on the issue of contraception, and I find it deeply ironic that the Catholic stance on this issue is portrayed as being bad for women. Not only are the Church’s teachings on human sexuality not oppressive, they are actually the key to women’s freedom… the more I pour myself into my Catholic faith, the more I understand what it means to be fully female. There is so much angst and unhappiness among women in secular society, much of which I experienced myself before my conversion. My biggest wish for the women of our culture would be that they could also experience the peace and freedom I’ve found when viewing myself and my gender through the eyes of the Catholic Church.”
Another “real” woman, Kate Wicker, author of “Weightless: Making Peace With Your Body,” writes:
…Society degrades women. We’re objectified in media. We’re told we don’t have what it takes to be a mother; abortion is the solution. We believe the lies that we are not thin, pretty, strong or good enough. Somewhere in the hearts of many women is the belief that they don’t deserve happiness or love…But we are not called to look perfect or to be perfect in everything we do. What we are called to and where true beauty resides is in seeking a perfect union with God. He is a loyal lover who never stops pursuing us. The way to achieve real beauty is to be receptive to His love.
It seems that Ayelet Pearl, a young woman from Barnard College, is also understanding what it means to be a “real” woman. In the “Columbia Political Review,” Ms. Pearl comments that President Obama’s commencement speech to the graduates of Barnard suggests that he views women as a uniform voting bloc, without individual differences. She writes:
President Obama asked whether we can “muster the will … to bring about the changes we need,” concluding that the Barnard graduates and this generation “will help lead the way.” But what if our way is not his way? More importantly, what if my way differs from the woman sitting next to me in my art history class or my English class or my computer science class? What if the change I think we need is a different brand of education reform and a more conservative economic plan?
Ms. Pearl confronts the notion that the president’s address of “women’s issues” was more for his own political purposes, rather than for the women graduates themselves. “But speaking at the Barnard Commencement …was the perfect political platform,” she writes. “In a trend that I find particularly distasteful, ‘women’ has become a political issue. Candidates are judged on their ‘support for women,’ as if that has a clear set of policy decisions and opinions. Certain politicians are dubbed ‘anti-women,’ and the GOP has supposedly declared a ‘War on Women.’”
Women are not all the same, and they cannot be crammed together into a voting bloc to serve liberal politicians who want to appear as if they are “fighting” for the issues of “all” women. In fact, as we continue to hear more from people like Leader Pelosi, Secretary Sebelius, and other hypocritical politicians, we come to find that they are quite “unreal.”