Showing posts with label breast cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label breast cancer. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Feminism and the Pinkification of Professional Football

A timely post about from www.badeagle.com about the U.S. game of football. This follows this post about George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg attempting to manipulate the U.S. Congress. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.

Feminism and the Pinkification of Professional Football


by David Yeagley   Everyone has seen the pink footgear, pink body flags, and pink gloves being paraded on the NFL fields all over the country. Everyone knows that it’s about breast cancer awareness, and that it is a woman’s campaign.   Hardly a more worthy or important campaign could be thus launched. Yet, this ominous intrusion into the man’s world is tainted by raw feminism of the recent past which put women reporters in men’s locker rooms. Something is deeply amiss, despite the equality of death and spousal commitment.   While it is true that what affects one spouse intimately affects the other; while men’s prostate cancer has been ‘advertised’ by women as though women get prostate cancer also (by proxy, by spousal affectation in the conjugal, physical relation); the fact is, as Limbaugh pointed out, there is no campaign for men’s testicular cancer, or anything about particularly masculine forms of cancer. (Fact is, men sometimes get breast cancer also, rarely.)   Strong men are always the target of all women. Women are abjectly attracted to strong men, of any color, usually. The women generally looks to the man as the provider and protector, one way or another. But feminism as a political movement hates men. It is attracted to the man as an enemy, as something to be degraded, despised, and emasculated. (This is what the anti-Indian warrior image is all about. The strongest image of all must be removed unquestionably!)

Women simply cannot leave men alone. Something like professional football is irresistible–by any woman, of any political brand or hormonal condition. It is almost as if the women must participate in the strength of a man, be like him (like Xena), or attack him for being a man, for being stronger than her.

Perhaps my view here is itself tainted by my earlier experience of raw feminism at Yale Divinity. One of the last bastions of the male profession, the ministry was invaded by very aggressive woman who, for the most part, were not considered the generally attractive type of woman, and could never market themselves as objects of sexual attraction. In other words, there was a lot of resentment and hurt in most of the female seminarians. They wanted to compete with men on an equal basis. After all, there were half of the image of God, and expected to be regarded as such. It was a kind of reaction, from anger. They couldn’t be regarded as beautiful, but they were determined to be regarded as equal.


It was a sad and disappointing experience for me, personally, and affected me ever after.
I note also that, in the recent edition (not yet on line), Fall 2013, of Reflections (a YDS quarterly) is on “the art of aging,” and features old women, in articles, by women authors, and in female photography. Of course, what could be a more natural loss of marketable beauty than aging? Liberalism, of course, wants all to be equal, always, at the cost of every natural inclination.

The photo featured in the first article in the YDS Reflections, Fall 2013 edition. From the Marianne Gontarz York collection

Female homosexuality is a major element of feminist “equality,” of course. In an environment like Yale Divinity, it can be very aggressively advocated, as homosexuality in general. It isn’t always the case, but one dare not protest it any too loudly when it is the case. It would be the epitome of un-Christian behavior, to condemn anyone for anything so personal.




So American professional football is going to have to take it on the chin, so to speak. It is a feminist tackle from behind. A devastating blow, leaving a professional concussion on the game, indeed.



Note that move of the kick-off line from the 20 to the 30 yard line. There are no more kick-off returns now. It is a wasted gesture. This is one of the first, most notable emasculations of the game. Why was this exciting, dramatic play cut out? The injuries occur during punt returns, where there is little blocking available. What are the stats on kick-off return injuries? Some stats do show that there are more injuries on the kick-off returns, but they don’t say what kind of injuries. Why, it’s a full 2%! And the reduction of injuries is a full 0.2%. Great accomplishment.



It is liberalism invading another American cultural tradition, trying to destroy it, or to at least control it with tyranny. Unfortunately, the breast cancer campaign is their front line offense now. True, there are many men on the field and in the crowd whose lives have been affected by their wives’ breast cancer. That is undeniable. It’s just a shame that such a sincere concern must be ‘infected’ and inappropriately injected into the men’s sports world. It is a most egregious inpropriety.



But, propriety has never been a principle of liberalism. Only coercion. Only tyranny. Only oppression and control.



Men wear pink now. Men must bow to women–mean, angry women, who are using normal, feminine women as their offensive line.



And so this is the new mascot for all professional football: a pink ribbon. It’s all about women’s breasts now, the female protrusions. It’s like some primitive goddess worship on the front line. Save the breasts! Bow to the breast!


Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Only Sunshine

An interesting article from www.ucg.org  about the effects of a lack of rain. This follows this post about issues affecting Americans. For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Only Sunshine


Rain in the right amounts and at the right time is what gives flowers to the earth, seed to the sower and bread to the eater (Isaiah 55:10For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:



See All...).



Jesus described the mercy and goodness of God when He stated that God made the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the just and on the unjust (Matthew 5:45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.



See All...). Too much sunshine or too much rain is destructive.



Some equate sunshine with happy and good times and rain with troubles or bothersome times. Our Creator knows that strong and good character develops when challenges are present and when we rise to meet those challenges. He has made us as we are purposely (Ecclesiastes 1:13And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.



See All...). Sunshine may be a time to relax, rejoice and recoup oneself, but it is also a time for work that cannot be done in the rainy season. Rain may be a time to let growth develop, but that too brings the need for work. Life needs periods of sunshine and rain to be fulfilling and complete. Appreciate that balance.

.

Monday, October 31, 2011

3 ways to make the pro-life argument to people who don’t care about the child

An interesting story from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ about the rationale against abortion. This follows this post about the Protecting Life Act in the House.  For more that you can do to get involved click  HERE and you can also get a very interesting book HERE!

3 ways to make the pro-life argument to people who don’t care about the child


by Marc John Paul

(LiveAction.org) - We’ve all been there, in conversation with an abortion supporter, showing them as best we can the obvious reality that life begins at the beginning, when it becomes shockingly clear that the facts make no difference. While pro-choice rhetoric has happily softened from ‘abortion-on-demand-no-regrets!’ to ‘abortion as a morally significant event‘, it doesn’t seem to be morally significant in any particular direction. Simply put, many are able to ignore the striking fact of the unborn child. Ultrasound images bounce off their eyes. Embryology textbooks – it seems – evade their grasps. They grow faint and distant at any confrontation over where life begins. Are we to give up on these individuals?



No. The beautiful thing about Truth is that it is a thing overflowing; it applies to more than just the immediate issue. Thus, if we cannot meet these individuals in their avoidance of the child, we can meet them in their stance of care for the woman. Similarly, the terrible thing about Evil is that it is a thing that truly sucks. Abortion is a black hole that pulls in and tears apart not just a human person, but our society, our culture and most importantly, women.



Here then, are three arguments to make in defense of women, and thus against abortion.



1. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. This truth, evidenced in prestigious, peer-reviewed cancer-research journals is a very important truth to disseminate. Why? Because the anti-breast-cancer movement – in its walks, marches, fun-runs, pink ribbons, shirts – is one of the most pro-woman movements in existence. Breast cancer is a modern plague on the women of our society, and abortion is augmenting its power. To support women – one assumes – is to be against that one disease that so effects women, to stand strongly against the cancer that has caused such tragedy in the lives of our sisters. To be pro-abortion and simultaneously set against breast cancer is to say that the lack of a child is worth the risk of terminal illness. I don’t claim that this position cannot be maintained – perhaps one could weigh the various costs of feeding a baby versus having chemotherapy treatment. No, I simply claim that this position chips away at the pro-choice foundation, that their’s is a movement in defense of the woman.



2. Abortion makes women sad. I do not mean that in some vague way. A study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, synthesizing data from 1995 to 2009, shows that “women who had undergone an abortion had an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.”



From the European Journal of Public Health 2005: Researchers examining deaths among the entire population of women in Finland found that those who had abortions had a 3.5 times higher death rate from suicide, accidents, or homicides in the following year. Suicide rates among aborting women were six times higher compared to women who gave birth and two times higher compared to women who miscarried.



Have you ever brought up the issue of abortion, not knowing some one has experienced it? Now there’s a heartbreaking situation, akin to speaking flippantly about the death of a family member to someone who has experienced such a loss. I can only speak from experience: Away flies the tolerant “we all have our beliefs, you your own, and me mine” position. Instead, post-abortion women react violently, shakily, and tearfully, full of anger, or guilt, or both. If abortion makes women sad, which seems to be readily apparent, then once again, the pro-choice movement is placed in the awkward position of claiming to have the health of women as their highest priority, while attempting to increase the availability of that-which-makes-women-sad.



A study that has never been carried out: Suicide rates in mothers who were strongly considering abortion, but chose life. Why not? Probably because it would be a very boring study, with lots of not-depressed mothers being not-depressed.



3. There are other women in existence! And no, I’m not talking about the fact that most children aborted are girls, though it is an interesting question to ask: When, exactly, do women’s rights begin? I’m talking about mothers who want to adopt! A 2008 study by National Center for Health Statistics found that 33.1% of women have at some point considered adoption. Of that number 4.9% were currently seeking adoptions. That’s 901,000 women looking for babies. By most recent statistics, there are approximately 129,000 children seeking adoption. Now I’m no mathematician, but that’s 772,000 women who want to adopt a child, but will not. It seems that if we killed less of our children, this would not be a problem. Shoot, even if we take the women who were currently seeking adoptions AND had already begun taking steps – 560,000 – there aren’t enough children to go around.



Why, oh why, do we put women at risk of cancer, depression, and in the terrifying position of violence against their own children, when there are so many women looking for children to adopt? It seems obvious that between hurting one woman and helping two, the most pro-woman action one could take would be to counsel a woman to consider adoption. The most pro-woman action one might take would be to rapidly reduce abortions in America, and thereby increase adoptions.



Though I understand why there exists the rather insane idea that the better choice for all women would be an abortion: Abortion brings in cash. Who is going to pay for all those Planned Parenthood ‘don’t-defund-us’ campaigns if everyone’s putting their children up for adoption?



So there you have it. Three effective ways to make the pro-life argument to people seemingly unconcerned with the moral question surrounding the unborn child. I plan on bringing up a few more, so if there any you would like discuss, just let me know!



Reprinted with permission from http://www.liveaction.org/