The Abolition of Woman

Recently, contraception has entered the national, and even international, political arena.  Unfortunately, as with many issues of our day and age, this has led to the polarization of both sides, with either side reducing the other to an inhumane psycho-robot bent on world domination through the subjugation of inferior beings.  Rational debate and charity are disposed of for baseless assertions and vitriolic insults.  If our humanity is found in relationship, this is not the way to find our humanity.

So let us consider the question from a human standpoint.  Let us assume no malice on the part of each other.  Let us consider the other as a human being.  Which brings us to an interesting question: what is a human being?  Or rather: what does it mean to be human?  This is not a scientific question.  This is not a psychological question.  Were it forced into a hole, I’d say this it is closer to philosophical.  But even that seems to be overly confining the matter.  This is a human question and the answer lies in our experience as human beings.

The question, rather than being ignored by our society and culture, has been forcibly silenced.  Why?  Because it ultimately seems unanswerable, and the best way to fix the problem posed by this seems to be to deny the question.  We refuse to face the reality.  This is one way to cope.  The person committing suicide ultimately recognizes this and attempts to silence the question, which has become as a deafening drone in their life, by wielding his mortality in desperation.  They recognize a torture in a self-aware reality.

We are faced with the prospect of a search without end in finding our humanity.  And should we want anything less?  Should there really be a point of achievement, which finally ends the search?  Motionless boredom awaits those who seek this end.

So let us approach the question.

I think it is plainly obvious that relationships have everything to do with what it is to be human.  Nearly every human action is in this context.  And what’s more, men and women are made for relationship with one another.  This is the subject of poetry and prose, books and movies, song and dance.  Something about this enlivens us and seems to make us realize the depth of our humanity.  In relationship we discover our dignity in a profound way.  Even the most successful individual deeply desires such a relationship, no matter how much they outwardly deny it.  It is precisely their solitude that makes the lone hero so tragic to us.  They show us a love so powerful, and yet unrequited all the same.

So what does this say about us?  It seems to say that such a separation and denial of the unity of man and woman is a denial of our very nature.  It does not say that there is no difference, rather it emphatically demands a difference: relationship must have an “other” different from myself.  I think most will recognize that a truly beautiful relationship not only requires and recognizes this difference, but that it even exults in it.  And tragically, the worst relationships are those that recognize and attempt do destroy this difference.

What does this mean then for society?  It seems to say that a difference between men and women is inherent and must be understood; however, it can go horribly wrong.  History is a drama of humans trying to get along, and often failing.  Men and women have succeeded tremendously at hurting one another.  The present is no different, but the threat seems unique to us moderns.  Instead of denying the inherent worth of the other, we seem to deny their existence.  There is no difference, there is no other.

Such an attitude does not square with our humanity; however, it is difficult to address without first understanding what it is to be a man or woman.   And thus we find another question of difficulty.  How are we to answer?

I believe the answer lies in that which has already been discussed, mainly that we are beings purposed for relationship.  We discover our full dignity in relationship to an “other”.  And so we find ourselves precisely in how we relate to this “other”.  Whether it is to an acquaintance, and old friend, to our beloved, or even to God, we realize ourselves in these relationships.  This is not to say we are solely defined in these relationships.  We must not deny our individuality, for without that there is no basis for the relationship.  A silhouette doesn’t destroy the subject, but brings clarity to it through contrast.

As such, men must understand themselves in the context of their relationship to women, and similarly women must understand themselves in the context of their relationship with men.  And this fact is altogether denied by our society and culture.  Why?  Because the embattled sexes have inflicted so much pain on each other in their relationships that it seems safer to close them off rather than open themselves.  Instead, we end up denying ourselves, taking up our humanity, and following ourselves.

For better or for ill, the station of man has been taken as the norm.  That traditional role of men as self-sufficient stoics is the neo-human.  With the denial of relationship as an ultimate good, purpose is reduced to the fleeting professional career.  Success is measured in coins collected rather than lives touched.  And the receptivity to life physically embodied by women has been likened to an entry-level mailroom post, meant only for those who lacked the ambition.

And where does contraception fit in?  It is more of an embodiment, rather than a cause.  With the denial of the true nature of humanity as those in relationship and the destruction of the difference between men and women, both have lost sight of their identity.  And it becomes a spiral into a greater darkness.  As the difference is denied, man becomes less of a man and woman becomes less of a woman.  Fathers cease to be fathers and mothers cease to be mothers.

Physically, fathers are seemingly more distant from childbearing.  But this is blind of child rearing, where fathers are immensely important.  Children develop their relationships with their mothers in the womb, but it is in growing up that they discover their fathers.  However, because of this remote quality of the father in childbearing, it seemed good to us that procreation become a single-sex spawning phenomena, in which women cognitively decided to have a child without a father.  And so we deny the relationship, and the very foundation of what it means to be human at its core.  For what symbolizes this more than the life giving power of a relationship realized in the birth of a newborn?

And so we denied our fathers.

Fathers were removed from their children, and women, seeing their abandonment, wished to be free of what was now viewed as a burden.  For if it was not a burden, why should men seek to remove themselves from it?  But the drive towards relationship still existed, and men and women sought each other sexually because it is in their nature to do so.  This created a problem: men and women now lived in denial.

And so the spiral continued.  With procreation removed from the human experience, the difference of men and women became inconsequential and cumbersome.  The role of men as keepers of society became the only good, whereas the historic realm of women as keepers of life was lost.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Women then sought the identity of men who had ceased to be men.  They took to the workplace and denied the dignity of their role in humanity.  In the name of women’s rights society denied that women had ever been worth anything.  Motherhood was evacuated of any significance.  Contraception only seemed natural.  Fatherhood no longer existed, so what was motherhood?  We must banish motherhood as well.  Damn it to the same place.

And so we find ourselves now with genderless men and women, starved for relationships.  It pains me to see my generation, promised so much and fed so little.  While I see the abolition of woman as readily apparent, the despondency of men, ravaged by their own abolition seems like the neglected war memorial.

Men became boys, and women became girls.  And we all became inhuman.

The Science Article

I did some searching to find the full-text of the Science article cited in the previous post.  Here it is for people to read in full.  Having only skimmed it once tonight, I have yet to do a thorough analysis of methods; however, the following quote should give pause:

"These findings suggest that reduction in sexual partners and abstinence among unmarried sexually inexperienced youth (particularly in urban areas and in mails), rather than condom use, are the relevant factors in reducing HIV incidence." (page 2)

Here's the article.


On a side note...

When reading a scientific article it is important to have a clear understanding of how science actually works.  Presenting a single article and saying "There, that proves it!" does not work.  The scientific method requires that results be repeatable.  So, more literature should back up a claim.  But even that can fail, because science is fueled by research, and research by grants, and grants are money.  That may be a run-on sentence, but the point is: scientists have a bottom line, too.

So, when you read a science article think of science as trying to be less wrong than the other guy.  And think of it in the greater picture.  A single article must be in context, and unless the date is within the last few years, you should look at the entirety.  That's why research takes so long.

Catholic Contraception: A Connundrum

The Case:
 
The following was written in response to a posting on my Facebook by an old schoolmate regarding the Catholic view on contraception.   The topic was sparked by this person's affirmation of the freedom of religion as it pertains to the recently enacted HHS ruling on contraception.  As Facebook tends to degrade into a long comment boxes of semi-unreasonable arguments because space is limited, I figured this would be as good time as any to write a post about it.


The first post was as follows:

 Besides loyalty, what are your reasons for opposing the use of contraception?  It seems there is a lot of evidence that proper use of birth control can address a multitude of issues, from poverty in the USA to HIV in Africa.  I understand that the dogma says that we should be fruitful and multiply, but is there no situation in which multiplying is harmful to the child you're bringing forth, or harmful to the partner you're giving a virus to?  Doe "Thou shall not kill" apply to the death of millions of Africans with AIDS?

And further in reference to an article about condoms and infection risk as well as some other comments:

So the "fault" of the parents for making sex about pleasure results in a child with a terrible life, and in extreme cases, complete neglect.  You're saying "punish the child because of the parent's sins".  Nothing is good about a 13 year old urban girl getting pregnant.

There is so much evidence that condoms reduce HIV infection.  One guy saying otherwise doesn't make it so.  The overwhelming evidence (Health: A Key to Prosperity, US AID, Avert.com, UNFPA) as seen in Uganda, shows that correct condom use reduces infection rates.

Disease Prevention


The biggest concern seems to be disease prevention and whether or not AIDS can actually be prevented by condoms.   I encourage anyone to read the articles cited in above.  In particular, I encourage people to read the Science Magazine article linked by the article about condoms and infection risk.  Science magazine is one of the premier journals and articles published there should be seriously considered.


Further, I will provide the following link to an extensively sourced article regarding this question.   In summary, the article cites the case of Botswana, where condom usage was heavily promoted without abstinence education and HIV rates soared.  Additionally, other sub-Saharan communities have followed the same trends.  All, with the exception of, as the commenter had noted, Uganda.


Uganda was the site of a heavily promoted abstinence campaign prior to the introduction of the ABC campaign, which was "Abstinence and Condoms".  This is the singularity in Africa.  While it may be suggested that many Western institutions insist on condom promotion, it seems that the science does not support this push.  And this is not the first time ideology has trumped reason.


Population Control and Unwanted Pregnancy


One of the most common charges against the proponents of abstinence only is that this will inevitably increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and result in a huge upswing of poverty.  This charge was further articulated by the commented: "Nothing is good about a 13 year old urban girl getting pregnant."  There are two major problems with this.  The first is the science...or, if you're a purist like myself, the sociological data.  Second is the judgement.


So first, the sociological data.  Artificial contraception cannot be definitely linked to a decline in the number of unplanned pregnancies, and in the extreme, to the number of abortions.  Or, more exactly, wide spread use of artificial contraception has not been definitively causally related to a reduction in the number of abortions.  In fact, there are several studies which describe the reverse case.  One prominent study, showed that in Spain the number of abortions actually increased with more widespread use of contraception.  Now, it is worth noting that this does not provide evidence for causality.  This is only a correlation.  But then again, it is a correlation which should be discussed because it does not fit with the usual narrative.


On the second point: the judgement.  I disagree that there is nothing good about a 13 year old urban girl getting pregnant.  There is something good.  The child.  The situation sucks, but there is beauty.  There is life.  We as a society need to recognize that.  Would be rather the circumstances be different?  Yes.  But that is a new life.  That is wonderful.


Catholics and Contraception


And finally, to answer the original question, why do we as Catholics hold that contraception is wrong?  Well, because of the very evidence commandment cited: "Be fruitful and multiply."  Therefore, really, any form of contraception is morally problematic.  Including natural family planning (NFP).  "But," you say, "I though Catholics can use NFP!"


Well, here's the answer.  They can.  Because contraception is morally wrong, but family planning is not.


We as Catholics, and indeed as good humans, should be open to all life, no matter what the circumstances.  Life in poverty is still life.  And we as humans also have the duty to recognize, affirm, and rectify the dignity that is due life, even in poverty.  But we as humans were also given the gift of reason.  And reason will sometime tell us that having a child right now would not be responsible to that child.


Consider the following attitudes.  (1)  We as parents cannot afford another child right now: the mortgage is tight, we already have two children, and it would be a hardship to have a child.  We will do everything we can to keep from having a child.  (2)  We as parents don't think we can afford to support another child right now: the mortgage is tight, we already have two children, and it would be a hardship to have a child.  We are going to prudently avoid having another child, but if God wants us to, His Will be done.


The second attitude ought to be the Catholic attitude.  With the basic presumption of faith, these two attitudes are fundamentally different: one trusts in a reality which will ultimately care for the child.  The other distrusts a reality.  Now, to an atheist these positions are almost synonymous, because the reality of God is denied.  But that is another argument altogether.


In the end, this question is much larger than a single blog post.  So, in closing I will offer the this article for further clarification of the Catholic reasoning.  But also, let it be known that Catholics do not oppose contraception in order to be backwards, repress its members, or to scare people into submission.  The Catholic Church opposes contraception because of its high regard for the dignity of the human person and for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the conjugal act.


Caritas in Veritate.  Id est totum.

This Isn't Spain, This Is England

Those words were used in one of the greatest movies, in my opinion, ever filmed: A Man For All Seasons.  Perhaps I am off of my rocker, or perhaps I am biased by St. Thomas More was particularly awesome.  But my point still stands: that movie is great.  And now, the lines of this movie are becoming eerily apt for the present situation of religious liberty in America.  From Master Cromwell: "This isn't Spain, this is England" referring to the Inquisition.  From Sebelius: "This isn't England, this is America."

The parallels.  Henry VIII was the champion of his nation.  At one time he was the champion of his faith, bearing the title "Defender of the Faith" with pride.  But as he ruled, and the Reformation (so-called) set in, he began to be wooed by, for want of a better word, heretics.  Suggestions that Papal authority were an affront to his sovereignty, along with the absolutely despicable advances of Anne Boleyn, successfully turned the heart of this once noble King.  And with this corruption came an era of Catholic persecution in England truly deplorable given the English heritage of Magna Carta and rule of Law.

Many claim, and in some areas I too would claim, that Barak Obama was the champion of change for the better in America.  Protest of unjust wars, compassion for the less fortunate, and seemingly reasoned positions in comparison to the previous administration would be a breath of fresh-air.  And yet his heart was soured by Cecile Richards, the President and CEO of Planned Parenthood.

And Cecile Richards, the Anne Boleyn, has allied herself with Kathleen Sebelius, the Cromwell of this drama.  The council of the King.  The Dog of the tyrant.  And worse Cromwell was Catholic, and Sebelius claims as such as well.  And let the Catholics persecute one another, but even more, let the King's Catholics play the part of the prosecution.

I pray that the Courts will overturn this blatant infringement upon the rights of Catholic organizations.  St. Thomas More did not deny the oath, he merely refused to take it.  For this he was detained in the Tower of London, for periods denied the right to see his family or attend Mass.  Eventually, he was beheaded.  And all because he refused to deny his conscience.  He did not enforce his will upon others.  He just would not be complicit.

Catholics do to enforce a restriction of birth control on the country, they only wish to not be complicit.  Please, leave us to contemplate the Death and Passion of out Lord.

But since it would seem we be condemned...

 

 This isn't Spain, this is England.

The Beginning of Something

Who am I and why am I here?  This a question that nobody knows the answer to, and sadly, people think it is now childish to even try and answer it.  Well, call me a kid.  I'd like to at least try to find an answer to that.