The Vagina {} MAN-ologues: Doug Jones Defeats Roy Moore
Doug Jones defeated Roy Moore to take the senate seat that was vacated by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There's a lot that can be said about that, not the least of which is that Donald Trump "used his left hand to smite his right" or "used his hand to smite his nose" -- whichever adage works for you. Trump chose then-Senator Jeff Sessions (R) -- whom he is now at odds with -- to lead the Department of Justice and a Democrat has won a U.S. Senate seat for Alabama for the first time since 1992. This has shrunk the GOP's razor-thin majority (essentially to 51-49, given John McCain's health and absences), increased the likelihood that Democrats will regain a majority in the Senate during the 2018 mid-term elections and made it considerably harder for Republicans to move bills that are currently under consideration through both houses and onto Trump's desk. With the damaged reputation of the GOP -- led by the sexual-harasser-in-chief -- as a backdrop and the accusations of child molestation that have been leveled against him, Roy Moore didn't have the same near-guarantee of victory that his predecessors had after winning their respective Republican Primaries. At 70-years old, he's essentially been forced into retirement by Alabama voters. Great. To be sure, 45's initiatives since taking office, his underwhelming response to racism and his treatment of women all factor into how Americans view the Republican Party as a whole these days.
Between 9 and 9:30 PM Eastern Time on December 12th, 2017 I ran across this awesome website which gave real-time updates as the returns from the special election came in and the percentage of votes that each candidate had from precincts that had reported thus far changed. I sat mesmerized for over two hours just watching the numbers change on my phone. Around 9:30 (90 minutes after polls closed) Roy Moore had 53% of the reported votes to Doug Jones' 45%. I was slightly worried, though a chart on the site indicated that many of the precincts that had not yet reported were heavily Democratic. Though it was about 11:30 PM when the last precincts reported, I was elated when the site declared Doug Jones the winner some time between 10:30 and 11. Once Mr. Jones' name appeared above that of Mr. Moore with a blue background, I was able to get up off of my bed and walk to the TV room where I told other men that Jones had won. The news they were watching at that moment was also declaring Jones the winner. For what it's worth to you, most of these men who were watching the news were Black, all of them poor. It was a strong showing from Alabama's Black community that gave the nation Senator Doug Jones -- and any of the changes, good or bad, that will occur in the national political arena as a result of his victory. (This is one for the Black Power Movement.)
This special election comes off to me as being something in the way of a {} "Vagina MAN-ologue"{}. It shouldn't be hard for any adult who didn't just arrive from another planet to understand why. There is the ever-raging "Hurricane Harvey (Weinstein)" whose tornadoes and immense storm suck continue to pull in powerful men. A sexually-harassing culture that has spanned decades is now being confronted and women who have held deep, dark secrets for as long as 50 years are now telling their stories. Some of those who supported President Bill Clinton (the first White man in the Black Hall of Fame) throughout both of his terms are turning on him like a door knob and saying that he should have resigned after the Monica Lewinsky scandal -- though it's much too late and the act was consensual. (A man can't force a woman to give him oral sex without holding a gun to her head; because, love bites.)
None of us knew before the election which way the vote would go. It ended up being close -- close enough to validate the concerns of many Black Alabamans who believe the state has not grown far enough beyond its history as a hotbed of Jim Crow law and racism. With 1.7% of Alabama's voters writing people in, the remaining 98.3% of votes were nearly split down the middle -- Jones' 49.9% to Moore's 48.4%. (Moore wanted a recount, though Alabama law doesn't mandate it unless the win is by .5% or less.) We didn't know if Alabamans would choose to put another Republican in this seat, which would have been right in line with the state's political culture, or if they'd forgo partisan politics in lieu of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Moore. Even now that the election is over, we don't know for certain what drove people to vote the way they did; but, we can speculate. More important than knowing what drove people to vote the way they did is understanding what this means going forward. I'm sure you'll hear a lot about the political implications as you watch Chuck Todd, Lester Holt and others discuss these matters in the coming months. I see another layer to the conversation that probably won't get a lot of air time: the fact that, as indicated earlier, this election was a {} "Vagina MAN-ologue" {} .
I'm reminded of how, several years ago, I happened upon one of the many breast cancer marches that DC used to have (maybe 3 or 4 per year). What I was doing at the time could wait; so, I joined the march and struck up some conversation. I'd seen other such marches; but, on this particular occasion, I decided to ask some women about a certain matter of appropriateness. I said, "Ya know, it's generally considered inappropriate for men to publicly talk about women's breasts. Yet here you are having all of these marches that are about women's breasts. You're drawing attention to a body part that you don't want us to talk about. So, is it now okay for men to talk publicly about women's breasts -- to say 'I'm really glad the doctor saved those beautiful breasts of yours!!!'???" One woman answered my query by saying, "As long as it's done in a respectful way" (whatever that means). I was just a bit baffled by the mixed messages that are sent by having a march about a body part that men are told not to discuss publicly. I had a similar question when I attended the Women's March on January 21st, 2017 and heard women who were wearing cat-ear hats using slang terminology for their {} vaginas {} . They said that they were talking to Trump the way that he talks about women -- essentially fighting fire with fire. Go figure. Fast-forward 11 months from the Women's March to December 2017.
With France having only outlawed rape in 1980; America's sexual revolutions of the 20th century having been largely about allowing women to loosen the rules around attire and monogamy; a long litany of sexual violations by men dotting the news of the past 35 years and these reports of sexual violation occurring at a much higher velocity since candidate Trump hit on the scene in June 2015, we now have had a senatorial election that revolved around a {}vaginal question {} that I've yet to hear anyone else articulate:
For those on the Left the latter is the better choice. For those on the Right it's the former. The Left won obviously. The contest was billed by many as a referendum on child molestation or sexual misconduct which rode on the coattails of Hurricane Harvey. Roy Moore shot back with statements on how Mr. Jones supports abortion -- in effect making the contest into the {} "Vagina MAN-ologue" {} that I'm calling it. There were certainly other political issues for people to consider as they went to the polls. I don't pretend to know what was on the minds of voters. But this is not an either-or issue. Whatever other concerns people had in mind don't negate the message that the respective campaigns of either man or the eventual Jones victory send concerning women. Women have another advocate for abortion rights and a molester's victims have been vindicated. (Waiting so many years to tell their stories during his senatorial campaign suggests that the alleged victims sought Roy Moore's loss as a form of vindication or poetic justice.) Senator Jones will likely join the growing chorus of senators calling for the resignation (or censure) of Trump whose choice of an AG is what led to him being elected. That a way to smack 45!!!!!
I associate with the left; yet, I'm a little conflicted. I rooted for Doug Jones over Roy Moore. However, there's a lot about the behavior of Leftists that I really can't stand; but, they have become the lesser of two evils since Eisenhower left office in 1961. Until our bipolar global and/or national politics develop a viable third pole for me to choose between, I'll have to continue to support the lesser of two evils -- the Left Wing globally and the Democrats nationally (though I'm a member of the DC Statehood Green Party). The Left (in DC anyway) doesn't like to experience or exhibit my aggressive attitude -- much like Martin Luther King, Jr. who preached a message of non-violence. King, by the way, contradicted himself by saying Eisenhower's initial soft response to Arkansas' refusal to integrate schools was too soft and later congratulating Eisenhower for sending the troops in to ensure that Blacks could attend formerly all-White schools. King came to see the value of and need for aggression, if only vaguely or during a fleeting moment of clarity.
Today's Leftists have even less clarity as to when, why and in what manner aggression is necessary. What's more is that today's Leftists engage with local government in toxic ways that pull them off of their square and away from their stated mission. They essentially "sleep with the enemy" and lose their ability to offer the harsh critiques that are necessary in order to redistribute the wealth and ensure that the working poor have access to basic necessities that are affordable to them.
I advocate for DC's homeless -- speak for the poor. When I began this work in mid-June 2006, all I had in mind was fighting for affordable housing and an end to DC homelessness -- for which there has been a net population decrease of 780 people (9.45%) from 8,253 in 2004 (when the city made its 10-year plan to end homelessness) to 7,473 in 2017 (having been 5,757 in January 2007, the first count after I began advocating). I didn't become an advocate to fight for gay rights, though I would learn that coming out as gay is the No. 1 reason for teen homelessness. I didn't become an advocate to fight for Obamacare or Single Payer Health Care, though I would learn that medical bankruptcy is the No. 4 reason for homelessness in the U.S. I didn't become an advocate to fight for women's rights, though I would learn that domestic violence is the No. 1 reason that women and small children become homeless and the No. 3 reason for homelessness in the U.S. across all categories. I started out with a very narrow focus.
Then the elements on the Left forced me to lose that focus. I learned quickly after moving to DC in 2005 that, unlike where I've lived in Florida, the nation's capital doesn't think it's cool or okay to tout anti-gay (albeit non-violent) sentiments. I've since adopted the position of "Don't gay-flirt with me (after I tell you that I'm straight); don't get whooped". (That can be likened to the position that women struggle to enforce among heterosexual men: "Don't ask a second time after I've said, 'No'; don't get defamed".) I learned that in DC there is no separating Left issues. Once a person joins the local struggle around one social justice issue, they swear to fight for all of the Left's issues by default. This includes fighting for abortion rights. Even if the new Leftist doesn't attend rallies and protests that are held in support of these other Left issues, they are expected to know what the elements of the Left agenda are and to ensure that they don't speak in ways that run contrary to any Left agenda items. I've taken on the personality trait of just keeping quiet about issues wherein my stance might not be fully in alignment with the Left agenda. I spend a considerable amount of time hoping that I won't be asked my stance on these issues. (Readers of this post might ask me now.) At any rate, maintaining a focus on just fighting for affordable housing and an end to homelessness has become challenging -- both because of the connectivity between issues and because of how those who fight for different issues coalesce.
In 1983 people recognized the 10-year anniversary of the passage of Roe v. Wade -- the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. I turned 14 on February 15th of that year, was in the eighth grade (due to when my birthday is) and had just transferred from a public school to a Christian school weeks earlier. I ended up doing a report, as part of my Christian learning, in which I was supposed to pick an issue and write about it. The teacher/ principal, "Brother Steve" Wolosin instructed us to put ourselves on both sides of the issue -- to argue with conviction from one perspective while acknowledging the line of reasoning that those on the other side of the issue would likely use. We were offered a list of topics to choose from. I chose abortion. I don't recall just why I chose that topic.
I had multiple reasons that could have influenced that choice. I was almost killed by my birth mother several times during my first eight months of life, having been removed from the home after she fractured my skull. It stands to reason that she would have aborted me if I'd been conceived five years later. My adoptive mother (80) and father (1932-2000) whose last name I now bear were converts from Catholicism to "non-denominational Christianity". Due to the fact that this Polish man and Italian woman from New Jersey had seven natural children and adopted 30, we got a lot of media coverage and my parents were guest speakers at a lot of churches, Salvation Army gatherings and pro-life meetings. (I can recall when "pro-lifers" were still called "anti-abortionists" and "pro-choice people" were called "abortionists".) I recall my mother putting my siblings and I on stage with her and asking us if we would have preferred to have been aborted. It was extremely touching when my brother Jon (no "h") who was born with no arms and a short right leg, who has been the March of Dimes poster child, who does an annual benefits concert in McLean, VA and who has sung the national anthem for an Astros game said, "No". (As I think back, I realize that asking the living if they would've preferred to have been aborted amounts to asking a moot question.) Even so, these influences factored into my choice to do a report about abortion. I argued against it. Now I associate with people who support it. I'm conflicted. (By the way, I spoke to Brother Steve in the fall of 2017 by phone.)
As a man who fears his Fierce Heavenly Father, I wonder if God would prefer that I support Doug Jones or Roy Moore -- the fact that I don't live in Alabama notwithstanding. Something deep inside tells me that God would prefer to install a senator who molested teens years ago -- but let them live -- over someone who supports the systematic killing of unborn babies within women who "chose" to have unprotected sex. After all, if a man raped a woman who was neither married nor betrothed, God's Law said that he must pay her father 50 shekels and marry her -- never divorcing her. Furthermore, it is believed by many theologians that Mary was 12-14 years old when God impregnated her with Jesus -- which lends itself to the notion that a 30-something man lying with a 14-year old girl doesn't qualify as molestation in God's eyes. Then again, as per Deuteronomy chapter 20, God gave the command to kill live babies in certain instances.
The Bible also aligns with Sharia in that it promotes modest attire for women -- the polar opposite of the "Slut Walk" theme which American women often tout: "No matter how little a woman is wearing, that doesn't give a man a right to violate her". That said, Roy Moore's actions are not a far cry from what God permitted or even commanded. The Bible is silent on abortion, though we are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply". I'm guessing that, were God to call me to account right now, He'd be displeased by my stated support for Doug Jones -- at least if He were to base His statements on the {} "Vagina MAN-ologue" {} (the 12/12/17 special election) alone. If God were to withhold judgment, it would probably be based on there being political benefits to the Jones win -- albeit in non-vaginal areas of life. I'm holding out hope.
The underlying theme of the {} Vagina Monologues {} (as per Wikipedia anyway) is that the {} vagina {} defines the woman. That means that I'm not the only one here who's conflicted. A popular performance that highlights women's concerns portrays their {} vaginas {} as the essence of their beings; while, the men who play a role in the creation of life are told not to think so much about sex, women's bodies in generally or their {} vaginas {} in particular. We've gone from having sexual revolutions wherein a woman's right to be scantily clad and to express herself through sex with any number of men was promoted to having a wave of allegations against powerful men which carry a strong asexual/ anti-affectionate message: "Keep your hands off until the woman (doesn't merely fail to say 'No' but) actually and actively says 'Yes'". Things (and women) become their opposites -- clearly.
I see another conflict in that women might come to hate it when men actually do treat them like equals -- as I already do. I personally have no problem keeping my hands off of a woman who prefers that I not touch her. No issues there. However, I do find it difficult to promote the tough line of reasoning that I use with men if I'm talking to a woman with whom I share affection. Once a woman lets me know that she doesn't want even casual affection from me, I find it easier to view her as one of the guys and to therefore promote the unemotional brand of rationale that I employ with men. This, by the way, is part of my definition of male-female equality. So, a woman telling me not to be affectionate with her just makes it easier for me to expect the same level of mental toughness from her that I expect from a man. I don't need to nurture her emotions -- with what I say or what I don't say.
For some years now, I've been in the practice of separating the 99.9% of women that I won't date from the .1% that I might date, so that I don't waste time holding back on those whom I won't ever date. One of my major interests is re-injecting the rational and conceptual mentality that the American public once had back into society. I'm grossly offended by how soft, emotional and irrational men have become -- whether it's due to sucking up to women in order to get the date or the fear of human and Godly terrorism or all of that and then some. Not a day goes by that I don't lament not being able to have the challenging but important conversations that need to be had -- sans emotion. I decided a long time ago that, rather than getting angry at either sex for how soft so many men have become, I'd just convey my masculine thinking to as many women as possible -- particularly to women that I won't have any deep level of involvement with -- and these women can talk sense into other men.
Even so, I have a soft spot in my heart for any woman whose emotional state might become my responsibility through courtship. I am always anxious to be brutally honest with women in the same way that I am with men. Equality. So, telling me "Hands off" plays right into my hands. Women have commended me for not talking down to them. Now you know why. I assume that a woman can withstand my masculine logic, until proven otherwise. I see most women as people who will go out from me with a greater sense of masculine reasoning and carry it into their future interactions with the world. That brings us to a couple of conflicts/ questions that women may soon be faced with:
I'm already there; so, the question could also be asked as:
My habit of quickly determining whose {} vagina {} I don't want to "earn" or "beg for" leads to me being unemotional and brutally honest with the 99.9% of women whom I gladly determine I'll never date. Let's see what having 49 Democratic senators and 20 female senators on the Hill in 2018 with over 100 congresspeople calling for Trump to be investigated concerning his treatment of women does for women's rights.....and the battle of the sexes. The saga continues.
Between 9 and 9:30 PM Eastern Time on December 12th, 2017 I ran across this awesome website which gave real-time updates as the returns from the special election came in and the percentage of votes that each candidate had from precincts that had reported thus far changed. I sat mesmerized for over two hours just watching the numbers change on my phone. Around 9:30 (90 minutes after polls closed) Roy Moore had 53% of the reported votes to Doug Jones' 45%. I was slightly worried, though a chart on the site indicated that many of the precincts that had not yet reported were heavily Democratic. Though it was about 11:30 PM when the last precincts reported, I was elated when the site declared Doug Jones the winner some time between 10:30 and 11. Once Mr. Jones' name appeared above that of Mr. Moore with a blue background, I was able to get up off of my bed and walk to the TV room where I told other men that Jones had won. The news they were watching at that moment was also declaring Jones the winner. For what it's worth to you, most of these men who were watching the news were Black, all of them poor. It was a strong showing from Alabama's Black community that gave the nation Senator Doug Jones -- and any of the changes, good or bad, that will occur in the national political arena as a result of his victory. (This is one for the Black Power Movement.)
This special election comes off to me as being something in the way of a {} "Vagina MAN-ologue"{}. It shouldn't be hard for any adult who didn't just arrive from another planet to understand why. There is the ever-raging "Hurricane Harvey (Weinstein)" whose tornadoes and immense storm suck continue to pull in powerful men. A sexually-harassing culture that has spanned decades is now being confronted and women who have held deep, dark secrets for as long as 50 years are now telling their stories. Some of those who supported President Bill Clinton (the first White man in the Black Hall of Fame) throughout both of his terms are turning on him like a door knob and saying that he should have resigned after the Monica Lewinsky scandal -- though it's much too late and the act was consensual. (A man can't force a woman to give him oral sex without holding a gun to her head; because, love bites.)
None of us knew before the election which way the vote would go. It ended up being close -- close enough to validate the concerns of many Black Alabamans who believe the state has not grown far enough beyond its history as a hotbed of Jim Crow law and racism. With 1.7% of Alabama's voters writing people in, the remaining 98.3% of votes were nearly split down the middle -- Jones' 49.9% to Moore's 48.4%. (Moore wanted a recount, though Alabama law doesn't mandate it unless the win is by .5% or less.) We didn't know if Alabamans would choose to put another Republican in this seat, which would have been right in line with the state's political culture, or if they'd forgo partisan politics in lieu of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Moore. Even now that the election is over, we don't know for certain what drove people to vote the way they did; but, we can speculate. More important than knowing what drove people to vote the way they did is understanding what this means going forward. I'm sure you'll hear a lot about the political implications as you watch Chuck Todd, Lester Holt and others discuss these matters in the coming months. I see another layer to the conversation that probably won't get a lot of air time: the fact that, as indicated earlier, this election was a {} "Vagina MAN-ologue" {} .
I'm reminded of how, several years ago, I happened upon one of the many breast cancer marches that DC used to have (maybe 3 or 4 per year). What I was doing at the time could wait; so, I joined the march and struck up some conversation. I'd seen other such marches; but, on this particular occasion, I decided to ask some women about a certain matter of appropriateness. I said, "Ya know, it's generally considered inappropriate for men to publicly talk about women's breasts. Yet here you are having all of these marches that are about women's breasts. You're drawing attention to a body part that you don't want us to talk about. So, is it now okay for men to talk publicly about women's breasts -- to say 'I'm really glad the doctor saved those beautiful breasts of yours!!!'???" One woman answered my query by saying, "As long as it's done in a respectful way" (whatever that means). I was just a bit baffled by the mixed messages that are sent by having a march about a body part that men are told not to discuss publicly. I had a similar question when I attended the Women's March on January 21st, 2017 and heard women who were wearing cat-ear hats using slang terminology for their {} vaginas {} . They said that they were talking to Trump the way that he talks about women -- essentially fighting fire with fire. Go figure. Fast-forward 11 months from the Women's March to December 2017.
With France having only outlawed rape in 1980; America's sexual revolutions of the 20th century having been largely about allowing women to loosen the rules around attire and monogamy; a long litany of sexual violations by men dotting the news of the past 35 years and these reports of sexual violation occurring at a much higher velocity since candidate Trump hit on the scene in June 2015, we now have had a senatorial election that revolved around a {}vaginal question {} that I've yet to hear anyone else articulate:
"Is it better to have a senator who molested teenage girls almost 40 years ago or a senator who supports abortion (which doesn't allow the fetus to become a teenager)???"
For those on the Left the latter is the better choice. For those on the Right it's the former. The Left won obviously. The contest was billed by many as a referendum on child molestation or sexual misconduct which rode on the coattails of Hurricane Harvey. Roy Moore shot back with statements on how Mr. Jones supports abortion -- in effect making the contest into the {} "Vagina MAN-ologue" {} that I'm calling it. There were certainly other political issues for people to consider as they went to the polls. I don't pretend to know what was on the minds of voters. But this is not an either-or issue. Whatever other concerns people had in mind don't negate the message that the respective campaigns of either man or the eventual Jones victory send concerning women. Women have another advocate for abortion rights and a molester's victims have been vindicated. (Waiting so many years to tell their stories during his senatorial campaign suggests that the alleged victims sought Roy Moore's loss as a form of vindication or poetic justice.) Senator Jones will likely join the growing chorus of senators calling for the resignation (or censure) of Trump whose choice of an AG is what led to him being elected. That a way to smack 45!!!!!
I associate with the left; yet, I'm a little conflicted. I rooted for Doug Jones over Roy Moore. However, there's a lot about the behavior of Leftists that I really can't stand; but, they have become the lesser of two evils since Eisenhower left office in 1961. Until our bipolar global and/or national politics develop a viable third pole for me to choose between, I'll have to continue to support the lesser of two evils -- the Left Wing globally and the Democrats nationally (though I'm a member of the DC Statehood Green Party). The Left (in DC anyway) doesn't like to experience or exhibit my aggressive attitude -- much like Martin Luther King, Jr. who preached a message of non-violence. King, by the way, contradicted himself by saying Eisenhower's initial soft response to Arkansas' refusal to integrate schools was too soft and later congratulating Eisenhower for sending the troops in to ensure that Blacks could attend formerly all-White schools. King came to see the value of and need for aggression, if only vaguely or during a fleeting moment of clarity.
Today's Leftists have even less clarity as to when, why and in what manner aggression is necessary. What's more is that today's Leftists engage with local government in toxic ways that pull them off of their square and away from their stated mission. They essentially "sleep with the enemy" and lose their ability to offer the harsh critiques that are necessary in order to redistribute the wealth and ensure that the working poor have access to basic necessities that are affordable to them.
Many non-profits whose missions include helping the poor are receiving money from local governments that are headed by mayors who received much of their campaign funding from the very developers who are pricing the working poor out of the city or into the homeless shelters that the city governments are trying to empty and eventually close so that those who get evicted any time thereafter will have to move to another city altogether in order to find shelter.There's a lack of critical thinking about the political scheme they've allowed themselves to be pulled into and how {} impotent {} it has made them. All the while, it's the non-aggressive poor who suffer. {} Feminine sweetness has its limits. {} Hopefully Senator Doug Jones (or a Democratic majority in one or both houses in 2019) will prove to be the aggressive force that the nation's working poor need fighting for them. After all, it was the federal government of the 50's and 60's that waged the best battle against Jim Crow, though I'm not holding out hope that 45 will come around and do anything for the working poor. What's more is that the federal government, by its very nature, is not motivated to gentrify the poor out of its jurisdiction the way local governments are. Still, given the childishness of the White House and the political temperature of the U.S. Capitol, the poor need Democrats in Congress to rise to the occasion and turn the tide. Doug Jones might help get us there.
I advocate for DC's homeless -- speak for the poor. When I began this work in mid-June 2006, all I had in mind was fighting for affordable housing and an end to DC homelessness -- for which there has been a net population decrease of 780 people (9.45%) from 8,253 in 2004 (when the city made its 10-year plan to end homelessness) to 7,473 in 2017 (having been 5,757 in January 2007, the first count after I began advocating). I didn't become an advocate to fight for gay rights, though I would learn that coming out as gay is the No. 1 reason for teen homelessness. I didn't become an advocate to fight for Obamacare or Single Payer Health Care, though I would learn that medical bankruptcy is the No. 4 reason for homelessness in the U.S. I didn't become an advocate to fight for women's rights, though I would learn that domestic violence is the No. 1 reason that women and small children become homeless and the No. 3 reason for homelessness in the U.S. across all categories. I started out with a very narrow focus.
Then the elements on the Left forced me to lose that focus. I learned quickly after moving to DC in 2005 that, unlike where I've lived in Florida, the nation's capital doesn't think it's cool or okay to tout anti-gay (albeit non-violent) sentiments. I've since adopted the position of "Don't gay-flirt with me (after I tell you that I'm straight); don't get whooped". (That can be likened to the position that women struggle to enforce among heterosexual men: "Don't ask a second time after I've said, 'No'; don't get defamed".) I learned that in DC there is no separating Left issues. Once a person joins the local struggle around one social justice issue, they swear to fight for all of the Left's issues by default. This includes fighting for abortion rights. Even if the new Leftist doesn't attend rallies and protests that are held in support of these other Left issues, they are expected to know what the elements of the Left agenda are and to ensure that they don't speak in ways that run contrary to any Left agenda items. I've taken on the personality trait of just keeping quiet about issues wherein my stance might not be fully in alignment with the Left agenda. I spend a considerable amount of time hoping that I won't be asked my stance on these issues. (Readers of this post might ask me now.) At any rate, maintaining a focus on just fighting for affordable housing and an end to homelessness has become challenging -- both because of the connectivity between issues and because of how those who fight for different issues coalesce.
In 1983 people recognized the 10-year anniversary of the passage of Roe v. Wade -- the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. I turned 14 on February 15th of that year, was in the eighth grade (due to when my birthday is) and had just transferred from a public school to a Christian school weeks earlier. I ended up doing a report, as part of my Christian learning, in which I was supposed to pick an issue and write about it. The teacher/ principal, "Brother Steve" Wolosin instructed us to put ourselves on both sides of the issue -- to argue with conviction from one perspective while acknowledging the line of reasoning that those on the other side of the issue would likely use. We were offered a list of topics to choose from. I chose abortion. I don't recall just why I chose that topic.
I had multiple reasons that could have influenced that choice. I was almost killed by my birth mother several times during my first eight months of life, having been removed from the home after she fractured my skull. It stands to reason that she would have aborted me if I'd been conceived five years later. My adoptive mother (80) and father (1932-2000) whose last name I now bear were converts from Catholicism to "non-denominational Christianity". Due to the fact that this Polish man and Italian woman from New Jersey had seven natural children and adopted 30, we got a lot of media coverage and my parents were guest speakers at a lot of churches, Salvation Army gatherings and pro-life meetings. (I can recall when "pro-lifers" were still called "anti-abortionists" and "pro-choice people" were called "abortionists".) I recall my mother putting my siblings and I on stage with her and asking us if we would have preferred to have been aborted. It was extremely touching when my brother Jon (no "h") who was born with no arms and a short right leg, who has been the March of Dimes poster child, who does an annual benefits concert in McLean, VA and who has sung the national anthem for an Astros game said, "No". (As I think back, I realize that asking the living if they would've preferred to have been aborted amounts to asking a moot question.) Even so, these influences factored into my choice to do a report about abortion. I argued against it. Now I associate with people who support it. I'm conflicted. (By the way, I spoke to Brother Steve in the fall of 2017 by phone.)
As a man who fears his Fierce Heavenly Father, I wonder if God would prefer that I support Doug Jones or Roy Moore -- the fact that I don't live in Alabama notwithstanding. Something deep inside tells me that God would prefer to install a senator who molested teens years ago -- but let them live -- over someone who supports the systematic killing of unborn babies within women who "chose" to have unprotected sex. After all, if a man raped a woman who was neither married nor betrothed, God's Law said that he must pay her father 50 shekels and marry her -- never divorcing her. Furthermore, it is believed by many theologians that Mary was 12-14 years old when God impregnated her with Jesus -- which lends itself to the notion that a 30-something man lying with a 14-year old girl doesn't qualify as molestation in God's eyes. Then again, as per Deuteronomy chapter 20, God gave the command to kill live babies in certain instances.
The Bible also aligns with Sharia in that it promotes modest attire for women -- the polar opposite of the "Slut Walk" theme which American women often tout: "No matter how little a woman is wearing, that doesn't give a man a right to violate her". That said, Roy Moore's actions are not a far cry from what God permitted or even commanded. The Bible is silent on abortion, though we are commanded to "be fruitful and multiply". I'm guessing that, were God to call me to account right now, He'd be displeased by my stated support for Doug Jones -- at least if He were to base His statements on the {} "Vagina MAN-ologue" {} (the 12/12/17 special election) alone. If God were to withhold judgment, it would probably be based on there being political benefits to the Jones win -- albeit in non-vaginal areas of life. I'm holding out hope.
The underlying theme of the {} Vagina Monologues {} (as per Wikipedia anyway) is that the {} vagina {} defines the woman. That means that I'm not the only one here who's conflicted. A popular performance that highlights women's concerns portrays their {} vaginas {} as the essence of their beings; while, the men who play a role in the creation of life are told not to think so much about sex, women's bodies in generally or their {} vaginas {} in particular. We've gone from having sexual revolutions wherein a woman's right to be scantily clad and to express herself through sex with any number of men was promoted to having a wave of allegations against powerful men which carry a strong asexual/ anti-affectionate message: "Keep your hands off until the woman (doesn't merely fail to say 'No' but) actually and actively says 'Yes'". Things (and women) become their opposites -- clearly.
I see another conflict in that women might come to hate it when men actually do treat them like equals -- as I already do. I personally have no problem keeping my hands off of a woman who prefers that I not touch her. No issues there. However, I do find it difficult to promote the tough line of reasoning that I use with men if I'm talking to a woman with whom I share affection. Once a woman lets me know that she doesn't want even casual affection from me, I find it easier to view her as one of the guys and to therefore promote the unemotional brand of rationale that I employ with men. This, by the way, is part of my definition of male-female equality. So, a woman telling me not to be affectionate with her just makes it easier for me to expect the same level of mental toughness from her that I expect from a man. I don't need to nurture her emotions -- with what I say or what I don't say.
For some years now, I've been in the practice of separating the 99.9% of women that I won't date from the .1% that I might date, so that I don't waste time holding back on those whom I won't ever date. One of my major interests is re-injecting the rational and conceptual mentality that the American public once had back into society. I'm grossly offended by how soft, emotional and irrational men have become -- whether it's due to sucking up to women in order to get the date or the fear of human and Godly terrorism or all of that and then some. Not a day goes by that I don't lament not being able to have the challenging but important conversations that need to be had -- sans emotion. I decided a long time ago that, rather than getting angry at either sex for how soft so many men have become, I'd just convey my masculine thinking to as many women as possible -- particularly to women that I won't have any deep level of involvement with -- and these women can talk sense into other men.
Even so, I have a soft spot in my heart for any woman whose emotional state might become my responsibility through courtship. I am always anxious to be brutally honest with women in the same way that I am with men. Equality. So, telling me "Hands off" plays right into my hands. Women have commended me for not talking down to them. Now you know why. I assume that a woman can withstand my masculine logic, until proven otherwise. I see most women as people who will go out from me with a greater sense of masculine reasoning and carry it into their future interactions with the world. That brings us to a couple of conflicts/ questions that women may soon be faced with:
Do women want men to view them as our mental equals such that we eliminate all special considerations and allowances that we've made for women's emotions hereto now???
Do women intend for their decreased affections toward men to spur this elimination of emotional support from men or do they prefer to still be seen as weak and vulnerable???
Do women intend for their decreased affections toward men to spur this elimination of emotional support from men or do they prefer to still be seen as weak and vulnerable???
I'm already there; so, the question could also be asked as:
"Do women want all men to relate to women in the way that I, Eric Sheptock, already do???"
My habit of quickly determining whose {} vagina {} I don't want to "earn" or "beg for" leads to me being unemotional and brutally honest with the 99.9% of women whom I gladly determine I'll never date. Let's see what having 49 Democratic senators and 20 female senators on the Hill in 2018 with over 100 congresspeople calling for Trump to be investigated concerning his treatment of women does for women's rights.....and the battle of the sexes. The saga continues.
Comments