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.

 

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.)

 

My Mental War

Hi!  I’m new here, so I should introduce myself.  My name is Linda, and I’m your standard, run-of-the-mill, right-wing wife of a military man who likes the way I stay home and raise his kids and stuff.  Shoot, I don’t even exist, as far as The Left is concerned.  Acknowledging my existence would . . . disrupt their narrative.

Ooh, I can tell already that I’m gonna fit right in.  Thanks for your hospitality, Mr. Saddleburr.

And now, without further ado:

My Mental War

Recently, Missy and I debated whether Obama spoke out of ignorance or calculation when he said that overturning his healthcare law would be “unprecedented.”

Today I find myself mentally debating this question again, this time about Hilary Rosen’s “never worked a day in her life” schtick.

Was it a gaffe, in which she let the mask slip?  Or was it calculated to distract us from The Real Issue?

I wrestle with this mental debate a lot, and I can never truly make up my mind.  Neither answer satisfies my rather unfortunate urge to understand these people because either way, the truth is unsettling.

Take Ms. Rosen’s case, for example.  Either she is disdainful of women who (if they are “rich enough” to have the “luxury” of the choice) decide not to work, or she is willing to say anything with a straight face if it will benefit her political party.

Which is it?  And did you notice how clever that little limitation is?  The disdain is reserved only for the rich stay-at-home moms, ‘natch.  Disparaging the opinions of all stay-at-home moms would be beyond the pale, even for the most leftist of the left.

Of course, this limitation only works if it’s true.  First, it must be true that rich persons cannot understand the difficulties of the poor.  In other words, there is no such thing as empathy in Ms. Rosen’s world.

Second, it must be true that staying home is a luxury reserved for the wealthy.  And oh, looky, right on cue, the President enters stage left with his ridiculous claim that they couldn’t afford the “luxury” of Michelle staying home.  (Never-you-mind about the First Lady’s opinion.  That was way back in 2007 when she said that staying home makes her ill.)

Do you know what?

I’m tired of wondering whether these people are actually thick enough to believe the ridiculous things they say.

Is it purely partisan political hackery?  Or do they really believe that only the rich can live comfortably on one income?  If so, then the Obamas and the Rosens may as well live on the moon, they are so far out of touch.  Come on over to my house, guys.  Meet me and all my stay-at-home mom buddies.  We exist.  None of us are even the teensiest bit rich.

Oh, no.  See what I’m doing?  Mentally debating the “ignorance v. calculation” question.  Again!  I may need professional help.

It’s just . . . I’m confused.  I can’t even keep up with the various lines of reasoning.  Does the left believe there is a real Republican War on Women?  (In which women are dying!  Dying! Because evil conservatives are killing them during childbirth!)

Or not?  Because we have Ms. Rosen saying the Democrats had actually never used the phrase “War on Women,” and that it was a Republican invention.

Wait.  Is it really . . . Obama’s War on Women?

Okay.  I guess I’m done.  I thought I’d have something more meaningful to say about The Left and The Right and The Staying Home and The Mommy Wars, which is normally like crack to my little brain.

Yet, here I am too far into a post to just delete it, and with nothing more meaningful to add than this:  it doesn’t matter what we say anymore.  We’d probably be better off not responding at all.

Ann Kane at The American Thinker says it best:

“Wouldn’t it be cool if he next time the Left entices us with some manufactured crisis, we just ignore it and continue on with exposing what’s really going on?”

 

Republican Debate: Newt Offers Best Response of the Night

We all knew that the left would hammer on the issue of contraception and abortion in last night’s debate going into it, and the crowd reacted with disdain when the topic came up, but Newt Gingrich simply put the head butt on John King, the CNN moderator, with his response. He also delivered a body blow to the President. It was last night’s Ultimate Fight Club moment.

Who is the extremist in this race? Well played, Mr. Gingrich. Well played, indeed.

 

New Jersey Congressman Andrews believes that elected office is no place for women

Representative Rob Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey, was on MSNBC commenting on the Libyan situation when he made a very offensive sexist statement.While voicing his objection to President Obama’s failure to consult with congress prior to the recent military actions he drifted into “what if” hypotheticals. What if we had a Republican president and he or, God forbid, she  had acted similarly…

I  was shocked to hear a sitting United States congressman express such a sexist view, a view that would make any Taliban member proud. How could someone of his stature have such an extreme view. Representative Andrews, a married man with two daughters himself could not possibly believe that a woman should not occupy our country’s highest office, or could he?

It would be easy to explain this away with claims that he has been taken out of context, been misquoted, or the old reliable “I misspoke” if this was the only time Andrews exposed his sexist views, unfortunately, it is not. In 2008, Andrews announced he would challenge incumbent Senator Frank Lautenberg in the 2008 Democratic primary in New Jersey. Andrews also announced that he would not seek reelection to his U.S. House district in 2008. His wife, Camille Andrews stood as a candidate for the U.S. House seat he represented instead and won the primary. After losing to Lautenberg, Rob Andrews decided his wife must withdraw so he, a man, could run for re-election to his House seat. He explained, “I just looked deep into what I believe in and decided that this is what I had to do.” I guess what he believes is that elected office is no place for women.

Rob Andrews with his wife Camille in the background where Andrews believes is the proper role for women in politics.