Today began Rotation Two of my internship: my time with SFLA. I enjoyed my time with FFL, and I can't say I wanted to leave the quiet office for the high-paced, hyperactive office of SFLA. But just as I discovered familiarity in Googling at FFL, so I found myself assigned to a project involving brainstorming, organizing thoughts, and writing: the kind of work I thought I'd left behind in college and knew I would miss.
Yesterday, during our "Volunteer" (read: envelop-stuffing off the unpaid clock) night, we interns watched a film "22 Weeks." I read another intern's blog entry about this film. He brought up two basic assumptions: 1) None of us have had personal experiences of abortion and 2) "You cannot stare at evil long without being affected adversely."
Well, my fellow intern and 3 loyal readers, I would like to refute gently the first assumption and discuss the second. Post-abortive women and men become at times the strongest of pro-life advocates, and college-aged women make up a staggering percentage of those seeking abortion. Something important to keep in mind. Almost all of us know someone, often someone dear, who has had a direct experience with abortion, even if we are not ourselves post-abortive.
"You cannot stare at evil long without being affected adversely." Sometimes, this fact worries me. In this line of work, one cannot help but stare at evil. Graphic images, of course, depict the results of the action, and no matter how hard one tries to avoid it, one will see them in the movement. The film certainly displayed, in visual form, images that left me stunned.
However, the evil that worries me more does not manifest in images against which I can close my eyes. In order to be effective in what we strive to do, we need to stare the evil of the mindset, the train of thought, the logic, the rhetoric of culture of death. To answer their questions, to speak in a language they understand, we need to listen to them. And that evil eats more subtly at the soul. Especially for a feminist, it calls out with a type of deadly seduction. It's easy to imagine, when one hears the manner in which they address the pro-life cause, that we've gotten it all wrong and are sadly deluded.
According to my fellow blogger, "It is then when we must gaze into the face of God." It is easy to fall into the seduction of women's rights rhetoric until that gaze at God calls to mind 1) that unborn person is a person of God and 2) God created each of us sacred and beautiful and nothing can take that away.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Great Falls
On Saturday, we held a huge pro-life intern social at Great Falls. By which I mean SFLA went hiking and invited some of the SBA List. We discovered NRLC was already hiking there! We met up and networked on the overlook... except for me. I had a wonderful friend from W&M with whom I needed to catch up. We always knew the pro-life world was small. Just not so small that there is only one hiking place on a given Saturday.
Walking through the woods, I remembered why I love Virginia. The green of the leaves and grasses. The sound of birds and running water beneath the breeze. The rocks and sky and water and trees all reaching together to give God glory. In fact, it brought to mind a line from a song that REACHers hate by now: "Sometimes it seems to slip so close/ You could touch it but your heart would break."
It also reminded me of Yosemite, not in the least because we encountered rock climbers. I wanted to join in so badly. The rushing Potomac brought to mind the peaceful Merced, which made me want to jump in. Unfortunately, I had neither the kayak nor the skills of the paddlers beneath us.
Walking through the woods, I remembered why I love Virginia. The green of the leaves and grasses. The sound of birds and running water beneath the breeze. The rocks and sky and water and trees all reaching together to give God glory. In fact, it brought to mind a line from a song that REACHers hate by now: "Sometimes it seems to slip so close/ You could touch it but your heart would break."
It also reminded me of Yosemite, not in the least because we encountered rock climbers. I wanted to join in so badly. The rushing Potomac brought to mind the peaceful Merced, which made me want to jump in. Unfortunately, I had neither the kayak nor the skills of the paddlers beneath us.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
On Congress and the Gods
On Thursday, I had the opportunity to meet with Rep. Spencer Bachus (R. AL-6). One of the other Missionaries comes from Alabama, and a prof of hers set up the meeting for AL interns. We just got invited along for the ride.
I know a little bit too much about classics for my own good. I spent a great deal of time thinking of Bacchus, the Greco-Roman god of (as my Latin teacher said) "drugs, sex, and rock'n'roll." Definitely alcohol.
I had never ventured into a Congressional office building before. Bachus's office was full of his interns and crowded as we visiting interns waited for the House to finish voting. The Congressman's walls were lined with model trains -- I don't know if they are a personal hobby or if his district does something with trains. By the door, he had hung a framed display on the Civil War, including photos of Abe Lincoln and Jeff Davis side by side.
The actual meeting disappointed me a tad. It was obviously token contact -- let me talk to you for five minutes (history lessons on DC and Yorktown) and snap a picture, so it looks good for constituents. However he was friendly enough, and now, if I ever want to see mine own Congressperson, I won't be quite so nervous.
I know a little bit too much about classics for my own good. I spent a great deal of time thinking of Bacchus, the Greco-Roman god of (as my Latin teacher said) "drugs, sex, and rock'n'roll." Definitely alcohol.
I had never ventured into a Congressional office building before. Bachus's office was full of his interns and crowded as we visiting interns waited for the House to finish voting. The Congressman's walls were lined with model trains -- I don't know if they are a personal hobby or if his district does something with trains. By the door, he had hung a framed display on the Civil War, including photos of Abe Lincoln and Jeff Davis side by side.
The actual meeting disappointed me a tad. It was obviously token contact -- let me talk to you for five minutes (history lessons on DC and Yorktown) and snap a picture, so it looks good for constituents. However he was friendly enough, and now, if I ever want to see mine own Congressperson, I won't be quite so nervous.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Modest Is Hottest! *insert cheesy grin*
I have spent some time recently thinking about women veiling themselves in churches. Perhaps these thoughts should come as no surprise -- they follow a pattern of trying to figure out femininity in light of my work with Feminists for Life.
In my (scientific) Google searches, I came across all sorts of sites. Many of them promoted women wearing a veil as an expression of modesty. While I am trying to wrap my mind around modesty coming from covering one's hair, I had more trouble with some of the other standards for modesty. Skirts that cover the knees -- fine. Nothing low-cut or with exposed back -- I'm still following. But the creators of one site barely conceded 3/4 length sleeves. And forbade anything worn with a sweater or jacket if it wasn't modest without it.
I understand the logic behind it: a standard of dress based on "covering" rather than showing off. That's what I hate about the "modest is hottest" motto of the YouthWorks dress code. (I refused to say it and cringed every time my other staff members did.) Hot implies that one is trying to present oneself as sexually attractive. It implies lust. Modesty works against lust.
However, I'm fairly certain my elbows do not inspire lust. These standards just makes me question the reasonableness of these web-mistresses and casts doubt on all they say. Standing between extremes often means figuring out how to disagree with those with whom you agree and sorting between sensible and off-mark. Or something like that.
In my (scientific) Google searches, I came across all sorts of sites. Many of them promoted women wearing a veil as an expression of modesty. While I am trying to wrap my mind around modesty coming from covering one's hair, I had more trouble with some of the other standards for modesty. Skirts that cover the knees -- fine. Nothing low-cut or with exposed back -- I'm still following. But the creators of one site barely conceded 3/4 length sleeves. And forbade anything worn with a sweater or jacket if it wasn't modest without it.
I understand the logic behind it: a standard of dress based on "covering" rather than showing off. That's what I hate about the "modest is hottest" motto of the YouthWorks dress code. (I refused to say it and cringed every time my other staff members did.) Hot implies that one is trying to present oneself as sexually attractive. It implies lust. Modesty works against lust.
However, I'm fairly certain my elbows do not inspire lust. These standards just makes me question the reasonableness of these web-mistresses and casts doubt on all they say. Standing between extremes often means figuring out how to disagree with those with whom you agree and sorting between sensible and off-mark. Or something like that.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Iron-Jawed Angels
I am loath not to come up with a creative title for this post, but I decided that the name of the movie will catch attention well. I watched the film by that title today: Iron-Jawed Angels.
The HBO film covers the final eight years of the suffrage movement in the US, leading up to the passage of the 19th Amendment.
Spoiler Alert: Women get the right to vote in 1920 with an amendment to the US Constitution.
I knew that before this afternoon. I also considered myself well-educated on feminist history. I knew a little it more than the history class version: Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote some stuff, then -- magic -- the 19th Amendment happened! I at least knew that they died before 1920.
Iron-Jawed Angels depicts the passionate struggle of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns to convince Congress, the President, and their fellow feminists to amend the Constitution. It covers bringing in a woman on horseback dressed as a goddess-warrior (no, for real!); campaigning and fundraising; and picketing outside the White House. These women snuck banners into Congress, paraded on Inauguration day, used Wilson's own words to change his mind, kept Vigil outside the White House. They were arrested on false charges and imprisoned. They endured torture and enacted hunger strikes.
The actual cinematography got a bit trippy at times, but most of the historical facts check out. They just never made it into the history books. It's almost enough to make me subscribe to the "herstory" school of thought. It at least makes me want every woman and older girl see the film to inspire their own investigation of our history.
Also, it makes me want to be Alice Paul.
The HBO film covers the final eight years of the suffrage movement in the US, leading up to the passage of the 19th Amendment.
Spoiler Alert: Women get the right to vote in 1920 with an amendment to the US Constitution.
I knew that before this afternoon. I also considered myself well-educated on feminist history. I knew a little it more than the history class version: Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote some stuff, then -- magic -- the 19th Amendment happened! I at least knew that they died before 1920.
Iron-Jawed Angels depicts the passionate struggle of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns to convince Congress, the President, and their fellow feminists to amend the Constitution. It covers bringing in a woman on horseback dressed as a goddess-warrior (no, for real!); campaigning and fundraising; and picketing outside the White House. These women snuck banners into Congress, paraded on Inauguration day, used Wilson's own words to change his mind, kept Vigil outside the White House. They were arrested on false charges and imprisoned. They endured torture and enacted hunger strikes.
The actual cinematography got a bit trippy at times, but most of the historical facts check out. They just never made it into the history books. It's almost enough to make me subscribe to the "herstory" school of thought. It at least makes me want every woman and older girl see the film to inspire their own investigation of our history.
Also, it makes me want to be Alice Paul.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Civil Debate
A friend (a real one, not just the Facebook kind!) posted this on Facebook as "one of the most intelligent and balanced discussions of the pro life v. pro choice debate i've seen."
None of the loyal three readers whom I have recently discovered should have any question where I stand on abortion. (If you do, loyal three readers, read the post directly below this.) So instead of expounding upon Huckabee's well-articulated case, I am going to marvel at The Daily Show.
Why is it that, outside of the Nicholson 2nd Upper bathroom freshman year and a few other late-night places, this conversation is the most real conversation I have heard about abortion? Normal "discussion" consists of highly-charged rhetoric being thrown from one side to the other in simultaneous monologues that talk over around and through each other. Yet Jon Stewart, who claims his "fake news" functions only as comedy, can have a civil televised dialogue.
If I ever become a serious academic, conducting research of her own, I want to figure this one out. What is it about Jon Stewart and, in a slightly different manner, Stephen Colbert that allows them to confront current events in a way the mainstream media will not?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
None of the loyal three readers whom I have recently discovered should have any question where I stand on abortion. (If you do, loyal three readers, read the post directly below this.) So instead of expounding upon Huckabee's well-articulated case, I am going to marvel at The Daily Show.
Why is it that, outside of the Nicholson 2nd Upper bathroom freshman year and a few other late-night places, this conversation is the most real conversation I have heard about abortion? Normal "discussion" consists of highly-charged rhetoric being thrown from one side to the other in simultaneous monologues that talk over around and through each other. Yet Jon Stewart, who claims his "fake news" functions only as comedy, can have a civil televised dialogue.
If I ever become a serious academic, conducting research of her own, I want to figure this one out. What is it about Jon Stewart and, in a slightly different manner, Stephen Colbert that allows them to confront current events in a way the mainstream media will not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)