The Existential Angst of Being

When I read about why one woman chose not to have children (hat tip to Missy:  thanks for giving me something to post about!), and then why another has remained single, my heart ached for these ladies.  A light-hearted rant about why it’s better to “die alone” than face motherhood didn’t cheer me any, so I wrapped up my research with an explanation why sleeping until 10am is proof that childlessness is the better choice.

My sympathy doesn’t stem from reasons one might expect:  the sadness of childlessness!  the loneliness of an old maid!

The problem is deeper than that, don’t you think?

Children, spouses, families:  as all-consuming as they can be, they are still just trees in that deep dark forest called Your Life.  The above-linked souls seem well and truly lost in their own forests, regardless of the kind of trees growing there.

Let’s pull back and try a broader perspective.  The further away our view, the less details can distract.  The picture becomes simpler, people turn into ants, then disappear, then bam!  The forest is right in front of you.

The question isn’t whether it’s better to have kids or not, or whether it’s better to marry or not.  The real question is, how do I find meaning in life?  Oh, that pesky human need to feel that life is meaningful:

I’m doing the right thing, right?  What’s it all for, anyway?

Interestingly, the articles written from more experienced perspectives (here and here) seem particularly riddled with doubt and worry, although I suspect the basic question–why am I here?–drifts like mist through every forest.  Perhaps the younger two authors haven’t wandered around long enough to feel the damp chill of worry yet.

Now, on to the meaning of life.  Having kids is pretty much the quickest, no-brainer kind of way to find meaning.  Those wiggly, squalling little blobs of secretion are great “purpose-givers,” are they not?

Yet children are only one of the myriad ways toward a meaningful life.  If you decide not to have them, or if circumstances decide for you, then what?  Life’s meaningless?  Of course not.  Let’s see, a thousand different religions, causes, good deeds, great adventures, ardent competitions, grand visions, or creative ambitions might fill up your life quite nicely.  Might.

The younger two writers point out the more practical benefit to childlessness, here:

“Because we are not having kids, I’ve been able to leave my old career and go back to school full time to pursue a new passion. My husband, forever the car enthusiast, has his sites [sic] set on a new Nissan GTR.”

And here, in an inverse fashion:

“Having kids is making a decision to live a life with strollers, diaper bags, breast pumps, sleep deprivation, and the withering looks from strangers like me, who wonder why you thought it was a good idea to bring your toddler to a Victorian painting exhibit.”

These explanations encapsulate the hope that living for yourself will provide meaning enough.  After all, if you don’t seek after your own interests, who will?

“For all these things the nations of the world seek after, and your Father knows that you need these things.  But seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added to you.  Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”

Oh, dear.  I’ve gone there, haven’t I?  To the very thing that would probably provoke eyerolls and scoffing from the kind of person who writes things like:

“I believe women who are supported by men are prostitutes, that is that, and I am heartbroken to live through a time where Wall Street money means these women are not treated with due disdain.”

It’s funny how that quote doesn’t bother me.  Me, the stay-at-home whore mom.  I’m no more insulted than I am when my younger son gets really upset and claims he’s going to run away.  How can I take the insult to heart, when the same article holds this angst:

“Convention serves a purpose: It gives life meaning, and without it, one is in a constant existential crisis. If you don’t have the imposition of family to remind you of what is at stake, something else will. I was alone in a lonely apartment with only a stalker to show for my accomplishments and my years.”

And more angst:

“I have lost my life. I had a lot of friends, saw people, had full days. I don’t know where anyone is anymore, and I can’t even remember who it is that is gone.”

Jeepers.  I hope Ms. Wurtzel finds good answers for those existential questions, and some peace in life.  If she or anyone else should happen to read this post, and if she or anyone else should further happen to find themselves unable to satisfy that need for meaning, no matter what is acquired or accomplished, well.

That particular Bible quote I used is Luke 20:30-32.  You could start there.

cross-posted at No One Of Any Import.

 

The Top Ten Reasons To Vote For Obama 2012

I’ve limited my list to only those reasons stated by Obama’s official campaign, an administration spokesperson, or uttered by President Obama himself.

Here we go.

10.  Will Ferrell will eat anything (“garbage, hair, human toenails”) if you vote for Obama.  The idea of using your civic duty to pay for the degradation of a fellow-man is funny, right?

9.   Mitt Romney wants to cut investments in alternative energy.  For this reason to make sense, then cutting investments in alternative energy must be a bad thing.  Nevermind the fact that cronies are wasting other people’s money; you have to think like a true believer here.

8.  President Obama coined the term “Romnesia,” which is both witty and devastating for Mitt Romney, because he forgets things.  President Obama doesn’t forget things.  Except maybe this or this . . . or this.  Also, it appears Obama didn’t coin the term after all.  Hmm, maybe I should move on.

7.  Who can forget Attack Waaaaatch?  Okay, technically the campaign used only one “a” for this nifty little idea to tattle on fellow citizens who criticize the President.  Nowadays, though, the parody is all that is left of the original website.  The more congenial “Truth Team” has replaced it, leaving only the website address as a reminder of bolder times.

6. Obama says you should vote for him for one very simple reason: revenge.  I’m sure this is not any attempt to foment class resentment or anything.  It’s not class warfare, it’s math.  Revenge math.

Hoo, I’m halfway through already?  It must be time to list the really substantive reasons why President Obama should be reelected . . .

5.  All vaginas and uteri depend on Barack Obama.  Maybe this notion sounds silly to you.  If so, let me explain its true meaning:  President Obama is zealously pro-business, assuming your business is an abortion clinic.

4.  If this election is your first, then you should vote for Barack Obama because your first vote is a lot like the first time you have sex.  And having sex with Obama is better than having sex with Mitt Romney.  Okay.  I need a shower now.

3.  Obama should get your vote because his speeches come from his loins.  Ew, I’m still needing that shower.  Maybe . . . this isn’t really a reference to presidential genitals.  I mean, who talks about loins anyway, outside a cheesy romance novel?  You know, “Girding your loins“ means preparing for the worst.  I think Axelrod accidentally telegraphed the fact that Obama is preparing to lose.

2.  Obama is willing to use expletives while publicly name-calling his opponent.  This is a great reason for the edgy, Rolling Stone-reading, first-time voting, rock-and-roll-lifestyling set to choose Obama, assuming they weren’t all won over by Lena Dunham’s sex joke.

Oh dear.  I have more than one reason left, but I’ve already reached the number one.  What to do, what to do?  Math is so hard.

The three number one reasons to vote for Obama:

1(a).  The beautiful people have told us to vote for him.  They have way more fashion sense than we do, you know.

1(b).  Osama bin Ladin is still dead.

1(c).  Obama says that Al Qaeda has been “decimated.”  Given the chance, Ambassador Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glenn Doherty, and Sean Smith might have begged to differ on this.  Prayers for their grieving loved ones.

Two more days to go, folks.  Two.  More.  Days.

 

Offending Feminists Through Music

Participating in Stacy McCain’s fourth annual Offend A Feminist Week is both an honor and a pleasure.  I know, I know:  some folks will not find this exercise “helpful,” but let me explain why they are wrong.

Actually, let me allow Mr. McCain to explain, since he’s a man and therefore much smarter than me:

“The empowering message of feminism is that all women are victims.  Victimhood is synonymous with power. To deny women their victimhood is therefore to re-victimize and disempower them.”

Thanks so much for clearing my mind on this issue, Mr. McCain.  I was starting to wonder:  why in the world is making fun of my own gender so much fun?

It’s fun because, unlike the typical feminist of today, I’m not empowered by victimhood.  I am empowered by throwing off the shackles of political correctness.  To reject political correctness is to liberate one’s mind.  Even if it’s a feeble female mind.

Snort.

I participated last year with a post still worth a click if you didn’t back then.  Dunno if I’ll be able to wax as profoundly poetic this year, what with all the homeskooling, cooking, and house cleaning I have to do.

Sometimes, it’s hard to be a woman.

Which leads me to the musical portion of my post.  There’s something here for everyone, young and old, so just scroll down ’til you find your style.

Country?

Or good old-fashioned?  How about Andy Williams, singing a Bacharach tune to warn us ladies:

“Don’t think because there’s a ring on your finger you needn’t try anymore.  For wives should always be lovers, too.  Run to his arms the moment he comes home to you, I’m warning you . . .

Day after day, there are girls at the office, and men will always be men.  Don’t send him off with your hair still in curlers.  You may not see him again . . . .”

Speaking of classic, there is always Elvis:

If 60’s were your decade, scroll no further.  Mick Jagger will offend you now:

It’s down to me The way she talks when she’s spoken to Down to me, the change has come, She’s under my thumb Ah, take it easy babe

(Ain’t the women screaming with rapture an extra kick in the feminist pants?)

And check out this more obscure 60’s song, Be A Caveman:

Were you a teen in the ’80’s, like me?  If so, you might appreciate a little B-Boys.  This one’s dedicated to MCA:

And finally, I just heard this song on the radio yesterday, and I right like it.  Language warning, however.  Apparently, it’s a bluegrass-style cover of a rap song:

Happy Offending, everyone!

P.S.  Which song was your favorite?  Do you have one that should be added?

(Hat Tip:  I found several of these songs at drownedinsound.com.)

 

Julia, oh Julia, the Heritage Foundation looks at what could be a better life for Julia

President Obama’s team introduced the “Life of Julia,” a portrayal of a liberal vision of life for one woman. In response the Heritage Foundation has released a version which shows how conservative policies, like the ones outlined in Heritage’s Saving the American Dream plan, can empower Julia and all Americans without government interference at every stage of life. Follow Julia’s new story here

 

 

Feminism and Politics

The whole “female” aspect of politics sure is running strong lately.  First, it was the Sandra Fluke thing, about which I didn’t bother to post.

Then, I got all et up with the “Top 25 Political Moms” contest, which turned into a no-holds-barred, claws-out feminist v. conservative battle-to-the-death, or something.  (Like poor old Henry Gunther, I got cut off at the very end, landing in #26.)

Next came Hilary Rosen’s new and exciting mashup of Marxist class warfare with The Mommy Wars.  Then, I get this tweet about whether the gender gap in voting might be permanent.  (I know a solution to this problem, but a lot of you won’t like it . . .)

In the midst of all this, here I am trying to prepare for Offend A Feminist week.

And preparation I sorely need, for although I am female and therefore qualified in at least some respect to comment on All Things Feminine, my view of “feminism” as a field of sociological thought is about the same as my view of “psychiatry” as a field of medicine, which is to say I view them dimly and from as far away as possible, wearing my credulous face all the while.

My understanding of “feminism” was no better back in the day when I fancied myself a feminist-type professional.  If the “old me” were forced to pull a definition out of her nether regions, she might have said this:  feminism is the political movement which gave women their due rights, requiring men to treat them as equals instead of as second class citizens.

Thanks to anecdotal evidence and additional experience, I am now more aware of the leftist underpinnings of the feminist movement.  Beyond that, I can’t say much more.  I’ve never taken a class, nor read a book on the topic.  Blog buds like American Housewife and Missy Sandbox clearly know more.  (Perhaps you kind ladies can gin up a “feminism for dummies” post for the likes of me.  Ha.)

As much as I might wish otherwise, the feminist movement is not relegated to the history books.  This movement is alive and well today.  So, I have made an effort to educate myself about what “feminism” means in the political landscape of 2012.  I used the “Top 25 Political Moms” contest site as a starting point.  Here’s what I found.

Over at PhD in Parenting (via Mamafesto), I learned that the Mommy Wars are not about different opinions on parenting.  Rather, the problem is we don’t have the right governmental policies in place to support mothers:

“As with real wars, these mommy wars are not truly about a clash between moms, but about a system that has let people down, poured fuel on the fire, and left each family to fend for themselves.”

If Congress would just subsidize day care, pay for all employees’ maternal and paternal leave, and fast track that universal health care (freeing folks up from those healthcare-covering jobs they hate), then maybe the Mommy Wars would just go away.  Don’t worry, the government will get the funds needed from those evil rich people, Insha’ Allah.

Over at Feminste, I learned that requiring a single mom to work in order to get federal assistance is really, really mean because:

“The crux of the issue is that Mitt Romney’s definition of ‘stay-at-home mom,’ like his definition of ‘good mom,’ is limited to women in his racial group and economic class. I would wager a lot of money that when Romney made those comments in January, he wasn’t even thinking of the term ‘stay-at-home mom’ — because a low-income mother who relies on state aid is not a stay-at-home mom. She’s a welfare cheat, or lazy, or a drain on society. She’s undignified.”

Of course, this quote is not based on Mr. Romney’s own words, but from the feminist’s interpretation of conservative fiscal policy.  Funny, how not wanting to pay an endless stream of federal tax dollars for an activity the government cannot control (motherhood) gets demonized as the act of a meanie who thinks moms are lazy, cheating, and undignified.

Over at The Radical Housewife, I learned that “FREE FEMALE LABOR PROPS UP OUR ECONOMY,” which is bad, because it helps prop up capitalism.  And capitalism is bad.  Apparently, the feminists of yore screwed up Big Time, because:

“The revolution should have demanded as many stay-at-home dads as female CEOs.  But it didn’t.  The goals of the movement became allied with making money, which is one reason why feminism gets accused of being anti-family.  Family is so precious is cannot be allied with something DIRTY like MAKING MONEY!  It’s the madonna/whore binary all over again.”

Okey-dokey, then.  Does anyone see why I try to stay clear of feminism?

Over at the Monologues of Dissent, mercifully no opinion is offered as to the wisdom or lucidity of Hilary Rosen, Sandra Fluke nor anyone else as of late (save Governor Walker).  Still, I learned that the stereotyping of girls as the ones who like to attend dances, and boys as the ones who could care less about dances, is a form of gender discrimination that should be combatted.

Okey-dokey.

If we humans don’t have real problems, we’ll just make ’em up if we need ’em, right?

Finally, over at One Flew Over The Playpen, I learned how the government is the entity that will resolve our “Mommy War” differences, if only we let it:

“The real story is that it IS a major problem that every mother does not have the ability to stay home for more than a handful of weeks when her children are born.  And by stay home, I mean the very hard job of providing the constant, grueling care that goes into raising a child.  Our government simply does not truly value the importance of giving women this time with their family, no matter what their economic situation is.

Stay-at-home moms – you know this.  You know you WANT every woman to have the ability to stay at home with their kids during the day if that’s right for them . . . .  So if for even a second, you are feeling compassionate for picked-on Ann Romney, think about whether her husband as president would do anything to make raising children easier for women.  Does he support extended paid maternity leave?” /italics added/

Ah, there you go.  American moms don’t have value unless the federal government recognizes them with cash dollars.  So. . . if Romney started touting extended paid maternity leave, would he then become a darling of the feminists?

/cue crickets/

Clever, too, is the insistence that I, as a stay-at-home mom, “know” that I want every woman to have the ability to stay at home with her kids.

I want every woman to have the ability to stay at home with her kids?  Well, sure.  That would be great, if possible.   Unfortunately, some women sabotage their own best interests, including their ability to stay at home with the kids.  Unfortunately, some men sabotage their partner’s best interests, including their partner’s ability to stay at home with the kids.

The government cannot fix these problems.

I want every woman to get exactly what they want out of life.  I want them to be smart enough to realize that libertarian and conservative policies will maximize their liberty.

I want them to have a pony, too.

The thing is, not every woman wants a pony.  Not every woman wants to marry wisely.  Not every woman wants to be a stay at home mom.

And that’s okay.  I’m totally cool with that.

I wish the left were cool with that, too.

 

Liberal pundit Bob Beckel launches an on-air verbal F*Bomb assault on conservative woman and blames Hannity.

Bob Beckel made an appearance on Sean Hannity’s Great American Panel tonight and got into a heated dispute with  Jennifer Stefano during the break. As they came back on air Beckel was screaming at Stefano telling her she did not know what the f#@k she was talking about. When Hannity asked him to apologize he refused and blamed Hannity for the incident.