Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Strong Women?!
I am saddened today that in our society our young girls are taught so early that to be a strong woman you need to have a career, be in control of everything, be important in the world's eyes and not need anyone. This horrible myth has led to so much confusion for young women(and men). It is not that I feel like I need to defend my position as a stay at home mom-I feel very strongly convicted that I want to raise my own kids and being at home is the best thing for my family. I have a degree, I could be out there making money, but it's not important to me to be one of the most important people to a bunch of strangers, it's far more important to me to be the most important person in my children's lives. My job is one of the most important jobs in the world-to shape and love these tiny young beings into functional, content adults. As for being in control, only God can truly be in control. He gives us freedom of choice, but ultimately he is in charge. I admit I have a very hard time with this still, but I know deep down it's right. The idea that morals are old fashioned and everyone should be able to do what feels good has led to so much pain through out the world...it's amazing people have not wised up yet! Fatherless children, broken families, STDs running rampant, children having sex before they can drive, drinking themselves into a stuper before they are old enough to vote and many other things(I'm sure you can think of a few if you really try) are all on the rise. Why? I refer you to previous statements...women thinking their careers are more important than their families and society thinking that morals are old fashioned. I for one am holding strong to my Christian heritage and my values with it. I'm not saying that women belong in the kitchen....far from it, but I am saying that a woman's family should be her number one priority and her actions should reflect that decision. I know all moms can not stay at home and I realize how blessed I am that I am able to be here always for my children. We do have to make sacrifices, but it's worth it to me not to have cable and have a slow dial up connection-these seem like such small sacrifices when compared to the huge benefit I, no we, get from me staying home. I'm sorry for getting one my soap box for so long, but it seems like there are so many liberals out there spouting about the right to live any way you want. I feel like the conservative voice is squelched so much of the time because we are too afraid to not be "PC", but we are out there...the people who believe in family, morality and self respect. So next time one of you wants to shout me down about all people having the right to marry whomever they please just remember that marriage is a gift from God and I don't think he would approve of it being twisted in this way. So many things have been taken from us(you know the old-fashioned Christians of the world) and twisted into something totally unlike the intended idea(like Christmas for one). Please leave our marriage alone. I'm sure there is some way that same gendered couples can have all the same "rights"(aka privileges) without using marriage, civil unions perhaps...or even come up with a whole new word all your own. Why must the conservative, dare I say Christian, give up what is rightfully theirs? I have gone off on quite a tangent...oops. My original thought is that if our young girls could just understand that they don't have to conform to the strong independent woman myth and go with their instincts(nurturing, loving etc.) the family unit would be far better off and therefore the world would be better off because we would be raising our children with an understanding that there is a set of moral laws and it should guide their behavior. And most importantly that we love them enough to teach them(with discipline, love and other means) these moral laws.



3 comments:
Obviously you know that my point on this is different Carrie, but I will say that I have no problem with the government telling homosexual couples that they can only have civil unions as long as that's what the government tells hetereosexual couples as well. Given the fact that churches use the word marriage, I think it would be fine for the government to remove themselves entirely from that word in order to stay away from any sort of separate but equal idea (which will cause all sort of problems in my opinion). So the government issues civil unions for the federal and state rights and the churches bestow the sacrament of marriage according to their own guidelines.
I think this solution allows religon to keep their own unique definition of marriage without sacrificing governmental equality for people of either sexual orientation.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't see any reason to change the current idea marriage. I can see why you think that is the most fair thing though.
The reason I think you would have to make it the same name for both homosexuals and heterosexual unions is that when the names are different, its easy to legally separate out privedges/rights. Since I feel that both kinds of couples should have the exact same federal/state rights, the only way to legally prevent differences from creeping back in over time (assuming that when allowed, homosexual unions are given all the same privledges at that time) is to not separate them into two classes.
Churches and religons, if they feel it is important, can differentiate the two groups but the government shouldn't.
Post a Comment