Category Archives: Politics

Politics, Witchcraft

On Politics and Witchcraft

Leave a comment

When I first started getting into Paganism and the Craft back in the late 1990’s, I tended to view myself as apolitical. I definitely saw my Craft as such. I looked at authors like Starhawk and found their interpretation of the Craft as completely strange and possibly even a bit heretical — even if I would have otherwise bragged that witchcraft has no concept of heresy.

In the roughly two decades, my views have changed quite a bit.This is something that became evident to me the other day on Twitter when another witch was making similar comments about the Craft not being political. Today, I have to admit that, while I’m inclined not to audit another person’s practice of witchcraft, I have a hard time imagining a truly apolitical expression of the Craft. Part of that my understanding of politics has changed to the point where I tend to believe that the mere act of existing is political. The rest of it has to do with how my understanding of and approach to the Craft has changed.

To me, every practice of witchcraft has one tenet or goal in common: Self-empowerment which leads to the exercise of one’s own personal autonomy. (Seriously, if anyone’s practice of the Craft doesn’t include this goal, tenet, or ideal, I’d be very interested to hear more.) Self-empowerment and establishing one’s personal autonomy is one of the greatest political acts out there. It is the most foundational motive and goal underneath so many progressive political causes and movements. And self-empowerment and personal autonomy are things that many political forces — especially those rooted in authoritarianism. Embracing witchcraft is practically a direct rejection of certain political ideologies.

In addition to this, I also consider how much of my witchcraft is rooted in the idea that everyone is connected and, in my belief at least, sacred. While this view may not be universal, I still think it’s fairly common among witches. I think it’s hard, if not downright impossible, to see how everything and everyone is connected and the sacredness of it all and not wish to respond to that with a desire to work towards a more just world for all to everyone’s benefit. And at some point, I feel like that’s going to get political. Even if we act locally and support certain causes through volunteer work, that’s still political. Even if we help people individually through direct assistance or gifts. And at some point, we have to look at the impact that certain political ideology has on us and our sacred siblings (which, again, is literally everyone) and respond to that.

I guess I still personally have no use for the particular ways in which Starhawk and those like her have fused their practice of the Craft and their politics together. But I have grown to see that my Craft and my politics do not exist completely separate from each other. Both work together and each one influences the other.

Gender and Sexuality, Politics, Rants, Sexuality

Yes, men CAN control themselves. Men like me have been proving it for decades.

1 Comment

[Content Warning: Rape culture, anti-LGBT violence]

Hello dear readers. I’m about to go on a rant. Strap in and enjoy, because there is a bit of bullshit that I am phenomenally tired of hearing and I need to go off.  What’s that bullshit? It can be summed up in a simple statement.

Men cannot control themselves.

It’s an underlying belief in our society that crops up everywhere. It’s a great it of rape apologia. Men can’t control themselves, that’s why they violate boundaries. How dare you shame them for it. You hear it in the modesty movement: Men can’t control their sexual thoughts and urges. That’s why women need to dress in a way that doesn’t cause them to have such thoughts in the first place.

And it is bullshit, dear reader. Men can control themselves. How do I know this? Because I’m a man and I control myself. In fact, the vast majority of LGBT men have spent our lives reeling in our sexual thoughts and urges whenever it was appropriate — and maybe even at times when we could have been more free with our thoughts and urges. We’ve done this not only because it’s the right thing to do, but for our own freaking survival.

Here’s the thing: If I stared at my male coworkers the way some men stare at their female coworkers, there’d be hell to pay. If I make an unwanted advance on a guy, it could get me into a lot of trouble — in some cases, it could result in violence. (And half our society would actually take the side of the other guy even if he hospitalized me!

Now, I’m not saying I should be allowed to do anything of the sort. I actually like being a decent guy. I don’t want to be some entitled asshole who gets away with preying on uninterested and unwilling guys. I think consent in sex is a huge part of what makes sex worth it and want everyone involved to be a willing, contributing participant who is also getting something they want out of it. But the fact that society expects me an men like me to respect other men’s boundaries and treat them like humans rather than slabs of meat is relevant here.

Because it means that everyone knows men really can control themselves. It proves any claim to the contrary and absolute lie. It demonstrates that what people who say “men can’t control themselves” really mean that they believe men shouldn’t have to control themselves around women.

But if they came right out and said that, they’d have to accept just how monstrous their point of view really is. And they should have to own that, so I’m calling them on it.

Gender and Sexuality, Personal News, Politics

personal update 2019/04/13

Leave a comment

[Content Note: Harassment, misogyny, war on agency]

Since I dropped a post on here about a week ago and have been getting a small but steady trickle of traffic, I decided to do a “personal update” post. Especially in case any of my long-time readers (all five of you) are still around.

I’ve actually been wanting to blog more but have been struggling. There are a number of reasons for that. (Have I mentioned that I have a growing and possibly obsessive love of lists lately?)

  1. I’m trying to figure out what my “voice” should be. That is what I want to communicate and share with people.
  2. I’ve struggled with that process because it’s leading me to wonder what I’m really qualified to talk about.
  3. I’ve also struggled with it because it’s leading me to question what i can say that hasn’t already been said better by others.
  4. I’m married now and I need to balance my blogging time with spending time with my Hubby.
  5. Most of what I feel I want to and am qualified to say fits in a tweet or a string of tweets, but would not really make a good blog post (in my opinion at least).

That last point is why I’ve been spending a lot of my time on Twitter and Ive been pretty active over there. In fact, here’s another list (told you I was obsessed with the silly things) I’ve been up to on Twitter.

  1. As I mentioned in my previous post, I made an effort to get Pete Buttigieg, who is running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, to acknowledge how some of his “defenders” are harassing and attempting to silence his critics, particularly those who face oppression in ways Buttigieg does not (nor do I) and speak out against such harassment. At this point, I am declaring my attempt ineffective (other than hopefully making some of those who have been harassed feel seen). I’ve tweeted at him. I’ve emailed the only account I could find associated with his campaign. I just don’t see what more I can do.
  2. After watching people promote the anti-choice propaganda film, “Unplanned,” I started promoting counter-proposal and alternative to seeing the movie. [tweet 1115216412488892416 ]
  3. I’ve been getting much more involved with the exvangelical community and have enjoyed both hearing about other people’s experiences with evangelicalism and sharing in bringing people’s attention to the toxicity of evangelical culture.

On a more personal note — and because I realized I never actually blogged about it — I’ve been a happily married man since August 2016. Hubby (I have not asked his permission to use his name on this blog. He’s a fellow geek, a gamer, and a fellow witch. That last one is absolutely amazing to me, because he was only the second guy I’ve ever dated that was a Pagan (and the other relationship I had with a fellow witch lasted like a week). He’s also given me my first chance to actually play Dungeons and Dragons, and I love it.

So, that’s my life in a nutshell right now. What’s going on with all of you, dear readers?

Politics

mAYOR PETE, HIS SELF-APPOINTED DEFENDERS, AND rELATIVE pRIVILEGE. aLSO, AN oPEN lETTER.

Leave a comment

As the presidential primaries have been gearing up, I — like many — have taken note of “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg, a gay white man who grew up in and is now the mayor of South Bend, Indiana and running for the Democratic nomination for president. As I’ve followed him, my concerns about what kind of president he would be, as have many other people.(1)

So many of us started to talk about our concerns and criticisms. One associate started asking for input from Black people living in South Bend regarding their experiences with and impressions of Buttigieg since the available information suggests that his policies and actions as mayor of South Bend have been disproportionately harmful for Black people. These are the kinds of things people do as a normal part of engaging in a presidential election cycle and the political process in general.

Well, some people didn’t see it that way. Fans and self-appointed defenders(2) of Buttigieg began to descend into conversations expressing these concerns and criticisms and began attacking and harassing some of us — that word “some” will be important as this conversation continues. In fact, in many cases, some of these harassers started leveling accusations of homophobia in an attempt to silence such discussions.(3)

I think it’s important to note that I personally have not been accused of homophobia or otherwise attacked. In fact, I’ve been in the exact same thread where others have been attacked, expressing my agreement with those being attacked. But the attackers gave me a free pass and continued attacking the others. So what’s the difference.

The difference that I observed is that unlike those attacked, I was a cisgender gay white man. Just like Buttigieg. The others were women and/or People of Color. In other words, the people being attacked are people who marginalized and oppressed(4) in areas where Buttigieg and I both share relative privilege. That’s an important thing to note in a world where many white cisgender gay men seem to not care about supporting or defending others who face struggles and oppression that we are personally immune from.(5) In fact, many such men will throw others under the bus and even attack them. So the fact that Buttigieg’s attackers seem to be specifically focusing their attacks on women and/or People of Color is of special concern

Watching this unfold in real time on Thursday afternoon upset me. As I fumed, it occurred to me to reach out to Buttigieg. I figured that given how much alike we are — particularly in terms of the areas of oppression we endure and areas of relative privilege we enjoy — I could make a plea as a kindred spirit. So at roughly 2pm on Thursday afternoon, I addressed a series of tweets to him, asking him to publicly and unequivocally condemn those who are harassing and attempting to silence his critics. I have periodically re-tweeted and quote-tweeted the thread, as I notice that his mentions are extremely full. Because of how quickly his mentions are so active, I also decided that maybe an email would be better, so I reworked the thread into and email which I sent to the info account for his “Pete For America” website, the only email address I could find associated with his campaign.(6) I sent it out at 5:45pm on Thursday.

So far, I’ve received no response, via neither Twitter nor email. realize that it’s hasn’t been quite 48 hours, but it seems like I should have received at least an acknowledgement that my message was received by now.(7) So I continue to infrequently send a Tweet Buttigieg’s way to remind him that people are harassing certain classes of people in the name of “defending him” and I would really like him to speak up about it.

In closing, I have also decided to turn the email I sent to him into an open letter. To that end, I have included the full text of my email in below. I would also ask any white man — especially if you happen to be cisgender and gay like Buttigieg and me — to help boost the signal on this issue. We have a responsibility to both women and People of Color to speak out when they are harassed and silenced, even when criticizing or expressing concerns about Pete Buttigieg’s political record and views.

***

From: Jarred Harris [email address redacted]
To: [“info” account” at PeteForAmerica website]

Mr. Buttigieg,

I hope that this is the correct email address to which to send my concerns. Unfortunately, it was somewhat difficult to find an email account associated with your presidential campaign.

My name is Jarred Harris. I am forty four years old and live in western New York. I have many of the same qualities as you.
1.I am a man.
2.I am white.
3.I am cisgender. (To the best of my knowledge, this also applies to you. My apologies if I am mistaken.)
4.I am gay.

I come to you as someone who shares these four qualities with you. While the fourth one has almost certainly been a source of oppression for both of us, the first three grant us certain kinds of relative privilege when compared to those who do not share all of those qualities with us.

Sir, some of your supporters and self-proclaimed defenders on Twitter — and I suspect this is happening elsewhere — are using accusations of homophobia to attack, harass, and silence people — especially women and people of color (acknowledging that there is significant overlap between those two groups of people) — who are expressing concerns and/or offering criticisms of your political views and activities. This is unacceptable behavior, and I hope that you wholeheartedly agree. People — especially people who experience oppression in areas where you and I enjoy relative privilege — must be free to engage in criticism, which is an essential part of the political process. I ask that you find a way to unequivocally communicate the message that you do not approve of the weaponization of accusations of homophobia in order to silence your critics. I ask that you publicly condemn this behavior full-throatedly and with unquestionable conviction.

In closing, I would again draw attention to the fact that many of the critics being attacked thusly are women and people of color. Historically, many cisgender gay white men (and therefore organizations run by them) have fought hard to end our own oppression while ignoring or even worsening the plight of those who are oppressed in other or additional ways. I would note that this moment is an opportunity for you to demonstrably break with that history and meaningfully demonstrate that you are not such a man and other forms of oppression matter to you.

Regards,
Jarred Harris
[email address redacted]
Twitter: JarredH

***

Notes:

(1) I do not intend to go into detail about what my or others’ concerns are. However, if you read this article and this one with a critical eye, you should at least start to get a picture.

(2) For the record, I am including one individual who insists he was actually a Kamala Harris supporter until all our mean “attacks” against “Mayor Pete” angered him, so now he’s going to quit supporting Harris in retribution. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Harris is Buttigieg’s opponent in this primary. I would expect one of her supporters to be delighted to see honest criticism of and concerns about Buttigieg taking place. Furthermore, I’d expect them to see this as an opportunity to show us how Harris is better at addressing the issues that obviously matter us than Buttigieg.

(3) Let me say right now that I 100% believe that homophobic attacks have been leveled against Buttigieg since he started running for the Democratic denomination. I’ve seen such attacks and i’ve spoken out against them whenever I’ve seen them. I will continue to do so. But I know a thing about homophobia, and I can definitively say that “I’m concerned that Buttigieg doesn’t seem to care about Black lives or the particular struggles Black people face” is not homophobia. Neither is “I’m don’t feel that Buttigieg doesn’t has sufficient experience to be a good president at this time.” If you consider those kinds of statements to be homophobic, then I’m betting good money that you are one of the harassers and silencers I’m talking about.

(4) It’s important to note that some of the people being attacked and silenced are part of the LGBTQ+ community, so they actually experience the same oppression as Buttigieg and myself in addition to racism and/or misogyny (or the intersection of the two, misogynoir).

(5) In fact, my own concerns about Buttigieg’s run for the presidential nomination started out because various quotes by and articles about him left me with the impression that Buttigieg might be such a man himself.

(6) Thanks to a friend who was willing to do a little sleuthing for me, I also have his email account associated with his position as mayor of South Bend. I may send the email there as well, but I want to discuss it with someone far more familiar with the political process and political activism regarding the appropriateness of such an act.

(7) Those more experienced in this sort of political engagement are welcome and encouraged to set me straight regarding my expectations if needed. For that matter, I’d be grateful for any advice on how to be more effective in my endeavor. From those who have more experience with this kind of political engagement, mind you. If you think that you have wisdom to offer the solely flows from the some innate trait you possess (*cough* fellow white men *cough*), please save yourself the time.

Gender and Sexuality, Politics, Religion

NOM’s “scary study results” are only scary if you lack nuance

Leave a comment

Alvin McEwen blogged on Monday about NOM pushing a new Regnerus “study.”  McEwen rightfully points out how dishonest it is for NOM to continue pushing Regnerus’s work despite the fact that he and his work have been heavily discredited over the past several months.

What I find interesting is how NOM presents and interprets this new “study”:

Activists trying to force a redefinition of marriage on America have constantly evaded the question, “what is marriage?” Meanwhile, they have insisted that gays and lesbians simply want access to the same sacred institution of marriage and that they don’t intend to change anything about that institution.

But the survey responses from gay men and lesbians themselves don’t support these claims.

The institution envisioned by those who want to redefine marriage isn’t faithful… it isn’t exclusive… it isn’t permanent… put bluntly, it isn’t marriage.

So basically, Regnerus polls a bunch of people about a number of views and NOM tries to interpret the answers to those views as people’s understanding of what marriage is.  That’s problematic at best.

So let’s take a look at some of those views from the poll.

Viewing pornography is OK.  This one has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.  Some people look at porn.  Others don’t.  Some married people watch porn.  (Some even watch it with their married partner!)  Some don’t.  Some single people watch porn.  Some single people don’t.  Saying that viewing pornography is acceptable doesn’t really reveal much — if anything — about one’s views of marriage.

I’d also like to note that saying that viewing pornography is okay is not that same as saying that viewing pornography is never problematic.  Yes, if viewing pornography is interfering with one’s relationship(s) (by say, changing your attitudes toward the people in your life, especially your romantic partner), that’s a huge problem.  However, that does not mean that viewing pornography in general is a horrible thing.  NOM is effectively trying to use this one statement to cast everything in a black and white argument where there is much more nuance to be considered.

Premarital cohabitation is good.  Again, this statement really doesn’t tell you anything about a person’s views on marriage.  A person may think that living together before marriage is good and important and yet still consider their wedding vows of great importance when the take them.  In fact, some people promote living together before marriage because they take their wedding vows seriously and want to have a sense of how living together will work out before making the final commitment.

No-strings-attached sex is OK.  It seems to me that this one goes off the rails in various ways.  Most notably, I think it demonstrates that NOM is projecting it’s own belief that every person (excepting possibly clergy) should get married onto everyone else.  I don’t believe that every should get married.  What I believe is that LGBT people who want to get married should be allowed to do so.  If LGBT people who prefer not to get married would rather engage in no-strings sex with each other, I say more power to them.  It doesn’t change how I feel about marriage.  NOM fails to understand that the facts that I think I should be allowed to get married and that other people should be allowed to pursue other relationship and sexual choices for themselves are not contradictory.

Also, I’ll note that it’s possible to enjoy no-strings sex while single and still look forward to a more committed relationship in the future.  NOM doesn’t seem to understand that, either.  (Not surprising, as I suspect there’s a lot of ideological overlap between NOM and purity culture, which tends to at least imply that any sex outside of marriage “ruins” you for marriage.)

Couples with kids should stay married except for abuse.  You know what?  I don’t believe in auditing other people’s lives.  I think that individual families need to consider their own circumstances and work out what the best choices for themselves are.  I do not feel qualified nor do I feel I have or deserve the authority to tell them under what circumstances they are allowed to make which choices.  If NOM thinks that this means that I don’t take marriage seriously, then NOM doesn’t know me at all.  I know what my goals are for marriage.  I just realize that (1) those goals may not work for everyone and (2) they ultimately may not work out for me either.  I’m simply open to that possibility.

Marital infidelity is sometimes OK.  Okay, this is a position that I tend not to hold.  I tend to believe that if you’ve made a commitment to be in a monogamous relationship with someone, you should keep that commitment.  If you find you can’t keep that commitment, then you should either seek to renegotiate the relationship or honestly seek to end it.  Yes, I do consider ending a relationship acceptable.  So I will acknowledge that while I see marriage as ideally permanent, I accept the reality that it doesn’t always work out that way in practical terms.  But I don’t see the benefit in denying reality, so I don’t see this as some huge admittance of defeat on my part.

It is OK for 3+ adults to live in a sexual relationship.  I’m totally on board with this one, and unapologetically so.  So no, I don’t see marriage as necessarily exclusive.  I think that’s for the people involved to determine for their own relationship(s).

I just don’t see that as a horrible thing.  Truth be told, I find the idea that Christians — especially Christians who scream about “taking the Bible literally” — being anti-polyamory rather odd, anyway.  The Old Testament is full of men — men deemed Godly by the text and tradition — taking multiple wives (and concubines, no less).  And there are only two explicit prohibitions against polygamy in the Bible, both of which limit the prohibition to specific groups of people.  (That’d be the kings of Israel in t Old Testament and pastors/bishops in the New Testament.)

But setting all that aside, does the fact that I’m unwilling to condemn or criticize people who choose a polyamorous relationship really destroy my own right to enter into a legally recognized monogamous marriage?

Ultimately, it seems to me that NOM’s argument is that they only want to let people into their marriage club if those people are willing to go on policing the choices of others.  I’m not okay with that.

 

Gender and Sexuality, Politics, Religion

When “Christian love” erases matters of justice (and the people affected by them)

1 Comment

A friend on Facebook posted a link to this blog post by Sheri Dacon.  Dacon’s position is that all the hullabaloo over the recent Hobby Lobby decision (and similar “controversies”) isn’t important.  She insists that what is important is love, which is about people:

When it comes to love for other human beings, it’s important to remember the human being part. Love is not a formula that can be defined or summed up in textbook fashion. Love involves people. And people are messed up, flawed and difficult to love. Me and you included.

She further says:

Love has much more to do with how you respond to that homeless woman outside of Hobby Lobby the store as you leave with your purchases. It has more to do with how you treat the people who are different than you, perhaps the ones who live a radically different lifestyle. Love has less to do with judging and much more to do with giving and accepting and welcoming and sympathizing.

You know, this all sounds beautiful.  To a degree, I even agree with her.  I have just one tiny, nagging question though.

What about the people the Hobby Lobby decision is hurting?

What about those who work for Hobby Lobby and may need Plan B, can’t afford it, and now can’t rely on their Hobby Lobby provided insurance plan to cover it?

What about the people who work for other corporations who now may refuse to cover all forms of contraception?

What about the people whose employers may even refuse to give them notice that their insurance plan won’t cover contraception?  What happens to them when they find this out the hard way — because they need it and now have no way to afford it?

What about the LGBT people who may face workplace discrimination by religious organizations seeking government contracts?

These are all people who stand to be adversely affected by the Hobby Lobby ruling and other actions and decisions that have stemmed from that decision.  These are people who Dacon seems either to be unaware of or has chosen to forget about.

That’s the problem with many “Love/People over Issues” approaches.  They forget that issues are also about and impact people.

 

Politics

I’m nothing like “the left” Jospeh Farah describes.

1 Comment

And I doubt anyone else is, either.  And yet, he goes to great length to speak authoritatively about what “the left” is like.

So, what does Farah think I’m like?

The left hates religion. It hates God.

Except I don’t.  I actually love religion.  In fact, I’m a religious follower myself.  But, you see, Farah isn’t talking about any or all religion, he’s talking about Christianity.  To him, none of those other religions matter or exist.

More specifically, Joseph Farah doesn’t even mean all expression of Christianity, either.  No, to him, “religion” doesn’t just mean “Christianity,” but “Christianity that looks exactly like i think Christianity should look like.”  All those Christians that disagree with his views?  They don’t exist or matter, either.

But here’s the thing, even if we redefine “religion” to mean “the kind of Christianity that Joseph Farah appreciates,” his claim that I hate it is simply untrue.  I don’t hate his religion.  I don’t believe in it, that’s for sure.  I think it’s worthy of deep and lengthy criticism for a number of reasons.  But that is not the same as hatred.  Farah’s choice to conflate my disbelief and criticism as hatred makes any honest communication impossible.

His claim that I (and all progressives) “hate God” is troublesome for the same reason.

It doesn’t recognize any behavior as sinful, with the possible exception of voting Republican.

I will admit that “sinful” and “sin” are not parts of my vocabulary.  However, that does not mean that I don’t have ethical standards of any sort.  Indeed, there are several things that I find highly unethical.  Here’s a short list:

  1. Using force, deception, or manipulation to get someone to do something they do not wish to do.
  2. Allowing systemic oppression to continue unchallenged.
  3. Treating others as being less deserving of dignity than oneself.

Farah acts as if the only ethical standards that matter is who someone is or isn’t having sex with.  The fact that he completely ignores all of my other ethical standards is quite telling.  Again, it shows a level of dishonesty on his part.

The rest of Farah’s article is equally garbage, but the above points serve to demonstrate one clear fact:  Farah is not interested in giving people like me an honest hearing or encouraging his readers to do so.  He is much more interested in painting us as some sort of monolithic force that matches his straw liberals.

Quite a curious position for someone who goes on to complain about “the left’ vilifying people like himself, don’t you think?

 

Gender and Sexuality, Politics

(Disjointed) musings on Jennfier Roback Morse’s recent interview

Leave a comment

[Content Note:  hostility to agency]

I’m reading the recent interview with Jennifer Roback Morse in the National Catholic register and I just have to shake my head.

Let’s go over some of the more…interesting statements.

When asked about the injuries caused by the sexual revolution:

Contraception is an expected part of a woman’s career path. So that means the whole system is built around women treating their bodies as if they were men’s bodies.

So wait a second, using contraception and terminating an unwanted pregnancy amounts to “women treating their bodies as if they were men’s bodies”?  So the only thing that makes women’s bodies different from men’s bodies is that the former can be used as a baby-incubator?  I find Morse’s depiction of womanhood and women’s bodies unfortunate and horribly dismal.

In defending her insistence that the sexual revolution is a totalitarian movement:

So the government has to step in and control people’s behavior and even people’s thoughts about what’s possible, desirable and realistic. The HHS mandate is just one example of the government stifling dissent by essentially saying: “This society will be built around contraception, and there will be no dissent from that.” That’s one example of totalitarianism coming straight from the government and literally shutting down people who disagree.

Here’s the thing:  No one is being forced to use contraception.  The government is saying all people should be allowed and able to use contraception if they so choose.  That’s a signifcant difference from the strawman that Morse is erecting here.  Indeed, it is Morse and those like who are insisting that those who disagree with their position should be forced to comply with their view of the world.

while listing the “victims” of the sexual revolution:

Consider, for example, people who’d like to stay married but their spouse wants a divorce, so that’s the end of it. The government takes sides with the party who wants the marriage the least.

Would she actually prefer that the government coerce someone to remain with a spouse or partner they do not love and do not wish to be around anymore?  Talk about totalitarianism.

But wait, it gets better:

We all know somebody in this category — the jilted wife or the husband who’s kicked out of the family because his wife didn’t want to be bothered with him anymore, and now the courts are making him pay child support for kids he doesn’t see.

Reread that last clause a few times.  Here we have Jennifer Roback Morse — who spends a great deal of time talking about the importance of marriage and families to care for children — now talking about men being “forced” to help support the children he helped bring into this world.  Apparently, men should only be held responsible for the children they bring into the world if “they’re allowed to see them”?  Doesn’t sound like a very “pro-children” position to me.

On “heartbroken career women”:

These women are also all around us, but we simply don’t see them. [Culture says] the entry fee into the professions for women is that you chemically neuter yourself during your peak childbearing years in your 20s — and if you have an “accident,” you get an abortion.

Exactly what “culture” tells women that the price for them having a career is not having children?  There are organizations that advance and push for legislation to protect pregnant women in the workplace.  You know who doesn’t support that legislation?  The so-called “pro-life” crowd.  People who insist that for women, having a career and a family are incompatible.  In short, people like Jennifer Roback Morse.  So the fact that she an those like her push this “career or family” dichotomy, then have the audacity to feign pity for those women who feel like they’re stuck with that dichotomy is contemptible.

On the men and women who are “victimized” by the sexual revolution by “the lack of suitable mates”:

Absolutely. And I hear it from men, too [about not finding suitable wives]. Our whole culture is so sexualized it’s hard to find a suitable mate. Many young people have told me they wish the Church would do more to facilitate young adults meeting each other in a faith environment, where people won’t always be coming onto you.

I don’t know, maybe part of the problem here is that people are looking at other people as “potential mates” rather than people to get to know.  This whole thing makes finding a mate sound like a mission that erases real interpersonal relationships.  That’s something Morse listed as a problem earlier in the interview.

(h/t Right Wing Watch)