It’s a pleasure to see young men open doors for their elders and women, and younger women hold doors for elders. It’s a ripple effect of common courtesy—We’re herd animals, we do what we see others do. Why in the world courtesy is not a good thing is just another confusion in the “woke” gender nightmare spell cast by a few harridans and hacks. May the door be slammed in their faces when we all wake up!
I find it ironic that you stated, 'It’s a pleasure to see young men open doors for their elders and women, and younger women hold doors for elders. It’s a ripple effect of common courtesy.' However, this ripple effect seems to exclude young men, whether they receive acts of courtesy from other men or women. Courtesy should be universal, extending to everyone regardless of gender. It's not about undermining courtesy, but about ensuring it is practiced equitably. True courtesy and kindness should transcend gender biases and be extended to all, reflecting the universal Christian spirit of love and respect.
Manners are a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others. If you have that awareness, you have good manners, no matter what fork you use. Emily Post.
Accurate summation bring back memories from 1979 when in Chicago having a fancy dinner with a Rothchild introduced to me by a mutual friend, Scott, who was a frat brother of Rothchild’s. He noticed and called out that our mutual friend was using “the wrong fork” to which Scott replied: “I’ve told you I only need one fork; I was raised with only one fork. My life is just fine.” I’ve never forgotten the ensuing discussion on culture and ‘comfort zone’ deviations which alienate us. Rothchild couldn’t imagine a meal without a separate water glass. Scott replied, one more to wash. To which another guest added, we were lucky to have enough clean forks for all to eat at the same time.
Agreement was reached that it was impolite to start eating until all were served or gave their explicit permission to start, while awaiting their meal . Fast forward to 2012, when MIT was to start etiquette training of its undergraduates; to help ensure graduates mindful of cultural differences in manners. I received published news clips from as far away as Naples on MIT’s decision.
Misuse of affirmative action is a problem to equality when, instead of offering equal opportunity, people like Biden say "I am going to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court," thereby eliminating equal opportunity for all others. Shame he did not think and say "I am going to nominate the most qualified person." This type of approach meant that never in our careers were men of my generation considered equal to other races or genders by our federal government. .
This particular example is infuriating. It completely misses the point of what the most qualified person of the Supreme Court should look like. An encyclopedic knowledge of the law is not the main qualification. Having an extremely capable doctor of jurisprudence who can represent viewpoints, opinions, and backgrounds not seen on the court is the main qualification, therefore a black woman on the supreme Court is the main qualifier.
Or to take it a step back, instead of saying that he eliminated the ability to nominate the most qualified person, state the qualifications that you think would make for the best person for the court. Is it simply knowledge of the law, application of the law? What is the main qualification for nomination on the supreme Court in your opinion?
Justin, it appears that we differ as I contend that the most important aspect for being a Justice is their ability to apply the Constitution and the laws passed by congress. Justice is supposed to be blind and not vary depending on the "viewpoints, opinions or backgrounds" of the judges or Justices. FYI, Judge Jackson's statement that she was not a biologist so she could not define a woman means that she could not make decisions about sexual discrimination, or harassment, unless the victim's lawyer introduced testimony by a biologist that the victim was a woman: unless the judge was not telling the truth about not being able to define "women." Integrity is a qualification for a Justice.
If it is just application of the Constitution and congressional laws, why would you need supreme Court justices to interpret those things and apply them to situations? It absolutely will vary depending on viewpoint, how could it not? Law is not a computer program that can only be interpreted binarily, but a living organism that grows and changes as we learn and become a better people and a better union. Did our founding fathers want slavery to continue? If they did is that our job to keep it going? I think it is extremely naive not to understand that there is deep nuance.
Judge Jackson's comments show that she would seek out expert opinion on the matter. What if a person has outwardly facing male genitals but also has ovaries? How would you treat them then? One in 2000 children is born hermaphrodite. Are they man or woman? Are you an expert on figuring that out? She also wasn't so stupid to fall for that gotcha line of questioning that is the hot button issue of today.
The correct term is intersex, nor hermaphrodite as that implies fully functional and presence of all male and female sexual organs, and there are procedures that can be done to correct some of these abnormalities. Regardless, simply because a person has sexual organs of the opposite sex does not make a new sex, they simply have a deformity.
Justin, it appears that we will continue to disagree. If you are correct, then why do legal opinions cite their legal authority rather than just "My viewpoint, or opinion, or background" is that you should lose: QED. It appears that like all things, it is time for this discussion to come to an end with a "thanks" for your sharing opinions.
I'm sorry Brent, I can't help myself. From the supreme Court website:
Opinions
The term “opinions” as used on this website refers to several types of writing by the Justices.
The most well-known opinions are those released or announced in cases in which the Court has heard oral argument. Each opinion sets out the Court’s judgment and its reasoning and may include the majority or principal opinion as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions. All opinions in a single case are published together and are prefaced by a syllabus prepared by the Reporter of Decisions that summarizes the Court’s decision. The Justice who authors the majority or principal opinion often will summarize the opinion from the bench during a Court session.
From as man's point of view, it's sad and a bit disheartening to see the collapse of chivalry, courtesy, and simple kindness. I believe the Bible says that brother will turn against brother...and it appears we are seeing yet another prophesy come true. Let's pray the pendulum swings back the other way before chivalry takes it's last breath. Blessings
Michael. There is nothing kind about chivalry only being applied where a particular man may see fit. is it chivalrous of some of our states insisting a woman may NOT make her own decision regarding her pregnancy? Opening a door for a woman may make HIM feel good, but how about all the other areas of chivalry ( “May I put my hands on your body?”) ( “Would you like me to help you with the pregnancy I caused you to have?”). And so forth.
BRIAN….Which country are you living in….You are SO wrong about a woman’s life being protected…..WHO MAKES THE DECISION REGARDING “ protects the mother “? If I do not have the means or the will or the energy to give birth, WHO….in Texas and other REPUBLICAN-crazy states…..is going to protect me? Some states are even elimination the means for a woman to use birth control. I repeat, THIS IS REPUBLICAN ‘S DOING. EVEN WOMEN WHO WANT A CHILD BUT WHO MAY DIE IF THEY CONTINUE WITH THE BIRTH CAN NOT END THEIR PREGNANCY IN some states .
BRIAN, A MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHERE HE PUTS HIS SEED…..or, he is as responsible as the mother for any child which her state prohibits her from aborting.
If these crazy Republican bullying politicians who want to jail a woman who does NOT want a child persist in their interference in a woman’s choice, then the man is at least as responsible as she for the cost and efforts of raising that child. There is no law to that effect which is enforced without the mother possibly going through many legal machinations. In short, not only is a woman forced, in many states, to give birth, she is fully responsible for all the other issues of raising the child, financial and emotional. A man is as responsible as his female partner as to whether or not his seed leads to a potential life. One hardly ever hears of THAT reality, and the Republicans who have stuck their dirty noses into the women’s decision NEVER talk about a man’s responsibility….DO THEY? DO THEY?
IF THE REPUBLICANS ( to paraphrase your typically blaming male comment ) DO NOT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PAYING AND CARING FOR THEIR POSSIBLE CHILD, THEN THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX……When was the last time you checked with your partner BEFOREHAND her willingness to bear YOUR child if your seed was responsible for life ? IF IT IS THE WOMAN’S RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY YES OR NO TO SEX, THEN IT IS HER RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY YES OR NO TO WHAT SHE CHOOSES TO DO WITH HER BODY….ABORT OR NOT IS HER CHOICE. YOU REPUBLICANS WANT TO HAVE IT ALL YOUR WAY…..you do not see women as equal to men. AND WHAT ELSE IS NEW….just look at the sexual predator you are supporting as a presidential candidate! For hundreds of reasons and 34 guilty counts, that felon is not fit to be President of THIS country…..just in case you hadn’t considered that.
Clearly there are many. many views regarding the following : when does life begin, the issue of whether the unborn has rights, whether the mother’s rights preclude the unborn’s or the father’s, one’s religious beliefs, and then there is politics adding their two cents.
EACH IF YOU IS ENTITLED….TO DATE, IN California….to your own take on this issue.
I am entitled, in California , to mine, which is: Historically women have been controlled mostly by men who write or enforce laws. Women before me have been denied the vote, denied owning property, denied alimony until relatively recently, have worked for much less income than men, have been denied entry into some jobs……none of this has been true of my life. I have had an easy comfortable life; however I am aware of the generation of women before me and those women before them AND the control of men over women. Women before me have won many rights and freedom for me….until now when the Republicans have reared their ugly heads and struck down Roe v Wade. ( Which is NOT, as Trump may think, a decision of how to cross the Potomac River.)
I believe I own AND am entitled…..if nothing more…in my life, than to control my body: what I eat, when I sleep, how I dress, comport myself is my responsibility, my obligation, and my choice.
Until the Republicans decided to mess with Roe, we women made choices about
our pregnancy. I don’t know why the Republicans….whose politics are mostly despicable…. decided to pick on women and their body. I believe as do most women that this body I have is one of the few entities I am allowed to control. If I am pregnant it is my choice as to what I decide to do about that.
There seems to be nothing analogous in life regarding rules about how men use or abuse their body. There appear to be no Republicans making rules about the obligations a man has when he decides to have sex, or his obligations if he fathers an unwanted child. I don’t see Republicans making rules about that, and IF the Republicans are curtailing all rights a woman had to have or not have a child….EVEN if her life is in danger…..I’d like to know: WHO GAVE THOSE MOSTLY MEN THAT RIGHT?
Whether or not a pregnant woman gives birth is HER DECISION ALONE.
NO ONE ELSE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION FOR HER. And to think that today’s incredibly messy disorganized entity called the Republican Party has taken it upon themselves to force some women in some states to bear an unwanted child is to me ONE MORE REASON to call that political group RETROGRESSIVE…..and at this moment, believe me, I have a lot of other names I want to shout at that stupid political group. WHO ARE THEY TO TELL A WOMAN WHAT SHE CAN AND CAN NOT DO WITH HER BODY. Women WILL prevail. No one can stop a woman who doesn’t want a child to give birth. DONT THE REPUBLICANS KNOW THAT?
For the benefit of those who are ready to call me names…..give it up. What you think of me is none of MY business; you need not share with me. I love and have loved well several men in my life . My issue is with men who want to control, not with men who know how to love.
So you agree about irresponsible behavior from both the man and woman for not using birth control and engaging in sex when neither want a baby?
They voluntarily chose to engage in an activity knowing the potential outcome, the high likelihood of the outcome when protection is not used.
Yes both “adults” are responsible for their voluntary actions. Both are responsible for the child’s wellbeing. Both should have a say in an abortion. As you pointed out it is his child planted with his seed.
But the most important question is when does life begin? Since you are pro abortion you must know the answer to that question.
Please enlighten us.
If you say you do not know that means you are advocating to potentially kill a person. Meaning you have a reckless indifference to life.
But Democratic politics clouds reasonable judgement when it comes to a baby with no voice.
The only group that has stepped up and stated emphatically when life begins are Christians/Catholics. This is the 21st century and medical doctors refuse to state when life begins. So it is left up to politics to decide if someone is alive or not. Politics, not science. WOW.
Just saying, you don’t know if you are killing a living person. And instead of erring on the side of caution 7 Democrat run states allow abortion up to and right after birth. WOW!
Several states have decided that if two people are adult enough to have sex and refuse to use birth control then there are no abortions. They are holding these adults accountable for their actions. Sounds like good parenting.
While 7 Blue states allow later abortion right up to birth, the killing of a living person. Who’s the radical?
But you keep on this anti Republican rant. Did you know most states Red & Blue allow abortions through 16 weeks. And per the CDC & Guttmacher institute most abortions are within that time period. Yes both Red & Blue states.
Until you answer when life begins you have no right to talk about or support abortion.
Surprise Catholicism in this post, I completely agree Nancy that parents have a duty to their children and neither should br allowed an "exit" from the consequences of their actions.
In that case, THEO….i hope you don’t ever have sex unless you want the responsibility of fatherhood…for at least 18 years! Of course I’m assuming you are a male…..?
SB NATIVE…Justin is correct. Women often have issues with full term pregnancy, and some REPUBLICAN STATES would jail a woman who manages to abort to save her own life. READ. “ Maternal deaths highest in U.S. than in any other civilized country “. At this moment as I write it is being reported.
Two decades ago I went to go buy my mule in Kentucky at an auction, and I was so surprised that everywhere I went, in businesses and private homes, little boys ran to open doors for any women. Their Mommas teach them right! I know in California men are afraid to offer, lest the Woke Women react badly and accuse them of implying that they can't open their own doors. The ones who lose in such a time are the Moms, out grocery shopping with a couple of littles, and no one dares get too close to the kids or offer to help. It is just another way that we constrain ourselves from kind behavior for fear of offense.
So true. I hold doors open for everyone--problem solved. I'm basically anti-social but I don't let that preclude me from being considerate.
Clu's adventure in North Carolina was also quite a shock--in terms of how much friendlier people are there than in California. We can have gender equality without sacrificing manners.
May the ones who instinctively offer to help, also instinctively know how to deflect verbal attacks that result. A smile, nod and a wink may well disarm the most rabid response. When the original act comes from a warm spot in the heart.
Again, why the fixation on only helping women? If anything women should be holding the doors for these little boys. It's so weird to be polite to other based solely on their sex and ignore the other sex as a result.
This is your fixation; no one says men are excluded from having a door opened for them. What was said is that men are afraid to open doors for women, or too rude, or too confused by all the woke BS. I open doors for everyone, if I'm there first I just do it. And I'm not a spring chicken, though in my day I was a [cute] chick.
Going out of your way to open a door for a woman when you're not even the near the door is just dump and simping to me. No woman is going to rush over to hold a door for a man under most circumstances. I don't recall where in scripture or in tradition that men and ONLY men had to rush to open doors for the opposite sex.
Thank you for the reminder...to be decent towards others. I have learned to be focused on others rather than so much on myself, which leads me to often open doors or yield the right of way or just give a smile to others no matter their gender, age or political affiliation. Not being self-centered, but others-centered is a very freeing lifestyle. You receive so much more than you give.
March 2020, during that year's election campaign for President of the United States, Tara Reade alleged that Democratic nominee Joe Biden sexually assaulted
I wonder how we got to a place where feminism is so vilified. Feminism at its base is the belief that men and women should be treated equally. That's the base. Where you go from there can be debated, but if you think women are the property of their husbands or fathers then you are a dumbass. By all means, open the doors for everybody. That's what I do. And I appreciate when others open the door for me, it is regardless of gender.
It is so upsetting the people don't understand how far the suffragettes and those that followed have brought us. My mother couldn't open a bank account without my father's permission in 1970. A woman in an abusive marriage and a much more difficult time leaving that marriage. Now some on the right want to get rid of no fault divorce, and keep those women trapped in those marriages.
Make no mistake, I am not for equality of outcome. I think that is stupid. However everybody should be able to try and succeed in whatever they wish. If a woman wants to be a lumberjack, she should not be prevented from doing so. Nor should a company that makes money from wood have to employ her if she does not perform at an acceptable level.
What we see today is not feminism, it's an apostasy. So here I (seemingly) go off on a non-sequitur but nonetheless I'll say it: isn't it interesting that the Left (who are not liberals) are A-Ok with Rap lyrics so hateful and disrespectful of women that I couldn't even begin to quote them in polite company, all the while complaining of the "War On Women"? Think about it, boys and girls listen to these lyrics all day long--not good,
I will also welcome a man treating me as a lady. My daughter knows that boys and men need to open doors, walk on the outside so to protect the woman. I was never a feminist. But I do support the right of a woman to be paid equally and have access to the same opportunities as long as she is qualified and had the same education and skills. .
No, because not every person is a feminist. I oppose feminism in all its forms as nothing more than a corrupting and subversive ideology seeking to destroy the family. And as a Catholic we must also recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every human life. Feminism helped push for the sexual revolution, whose consequences have been disastrous for the human race, the Catholicnl Church has of course always opposed the liberalization of sexual morality.
Feminism argued that women deserve equal opportunity in the workplace. That they are equal, intellectually, to men. They are not property. That they could vote, buy a car (without their father or husband's permission), etc. "And as a Catholic we must also recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every human life." YES. Thank you. Sure feminism has been bastardized (sorry for the male reference) by harridans and hacks, but what "movement" hasn't seen it's growing pains and overzealous conscriptors? You're entitled to your all-or-nothing thinking, but that very rigidity is exactly what women had to endure for centuries. We are PAST that now.
Theo. DONT you even realize the contradictions in your statements? Do you consider women equal to men in every way or not? Which is it? If you believe in the “ dignity and worth of EVERY human life “ then EVERY human life should be treated like every other….with dignity and worth, including the DIGNITY TO DECIDE WHAT SHE MAY OR MAY. NOT DO WITH HER BODY. Men certainly have choices re their own bodies, don’t they? NO ONE tells them what to do with their bodies. You don’t even have to go to war if you don’t want to. Just leave the country. And I see NO reason why in great need women should not also contribute to military service.
I don't oppose women being in uniform, by all means enlist, it is not fair that the responsibility of defending a nation is placed solely on men, some of whom will be forced to fight when there are plenty of women willing to do just that.
Not sure why there's such a heavy emphasis on men being courteous to women and yet no mention of the same being reciprocated, seems incredibly selfish to expect selflessness from someone else yet never even bother to return the same courtesy.
Read my comment: "It’s a pleasure to see young men open doors for their elders and women, and younger women hold doors for elders. It’s a ripple effect of common courtesy—We’re herd animals, we do what we see others do."
You made no mention of women holding doors for men, or indeed anyone regardless of immutable characteristics. I'm never holding a door open for women BECAUSE of their sex, I do so because it's the human and polite thing to do.
There's nothing wrong with women holding doors open for men.
Nancy, why do some women immediately talk - and talk nonsense - about abortion the moment anything about equality between the sexes comes up? You know what's selfish? It's a woman who thinks the child she's carrying is not an independent human being with rights. Fetuses are not body problems a woman should be able to get rid of at any time. And no, I'm not anti-abortion. I'm anti romanticizing it as some brave, wonderful thing women should be able to do at any time they feel like. It's not. At best it's a necessary evil. Which, again, I don't believe should be outlawed. But there should be limits. Hey, why not “abort” the damn kid fifteen years after you gave birth and are tired of being a mom to a bratty teenager? And one of the most chivalrous things a man I know did was to tell his pregnant teenage daughter that if she chose to give birth rather than abort, he would help her raise the kid. He made good on his promise and today they're all happy to be alive and together.
Chivalry, while on life support, is not dead yet. We have at least one chivalrous young man, my 22-year-old grandson Andrew who insists on opening all doors for me, his girlfriend, and any other female. I think he just does it naturally because I don’t know of anyone who told him to do it. There is faint hope for the world. Maybe.
He opens doors for the elderly of both sexes and helps in other ways. As for me, I’ve spent my life feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and clothing the naked. How about you?
Elderly, but not younger men. It often feels like young men are overlooked in discussions about acts of kindness, with a focus primarily on accommodating women. This can be quite frustrating.
Also, I believe that charitable acts should be done humbly and without the need for recognition, as it can detract from the sincerity of the act.
To clarify my original question, do you practice opening doors for others regardless of their gender or age? It sometimes feels like there's an expectation that men should always be the ones giving without receiving similar kindness in return. I believe that acts of kindness should be universal and not restricted by traditional or arbitrary beliefs about who deserves them
Brent, I get Justin’s point and wish you did too. I was alarmed, sickened, to see three Catholics newly appointed to the SCOTUS, including two alumni of the same Catholic Prep School, bringing the total to six Catholic viewpoints on the SCOTUS! Catholics are indoctrinated in Catholic schools, just as all students of religious schools: it’s part of any religious school’s mission . That’s a primary reason why vouchers will not pass until religious schools are excluded. Taxpayers will not pay for Muslim or other religious school indoctrination, while we abhor present day government school indoctrination, too.
This country has over 350 million citizens, which includes hundreds of thousands of lawyers, many who are Constitutional specialists including our local stellar Judge Hill. Do not tell me that none of these other proven judges — Protestant, Jew, or religious unaffiliated — are not qualified and proven, deserving of consideration!
WHY the very narrow SCOTUS selection process by the POTUS? It’s because of ‘who you know’ referral, timing, and politics as usual. US Senator McConnell worked his partisan magic.
Almost a quarter of our registered voter population are registered independent, no party preference (NPP) — not registered to one of the two major political parties Republican or Democrat. When will we get representation of our Constitutional interpretation on the SCOTUS or to other partisan only appointed judgeships? NEVER! Catholics dominate, I get it. However, may I suggest our courts and country would be better with an independent appointed. Listen to some “Recovering Catholics”, and NPPs for alternative perspectives.
There are many different kinds of feminists. I prefer the concept of being as kind as possible to whoever is in your immediate purview regardless of age or gender. Why would a middle aged woman who is closest to a door not open it for a very young man?
I on the other hand would like someone outside my life to NOT tell me what I can and can not do with my body, and that does not make me anything but human woman. When have the laws of this country ever told a man what and how he may treat HIS body or be put in jail?
If the door opened outwards, and the way the older gentleman was reaching for the door handle caused him to awkwardly block you with his arm stretched out in front of you, then maybe he stepped back so he could go around behind or in front of you, and he may have been waiting for you to step back as well to help give him some room so he could open the door more easily. That way when he pulled it open he’d be able to do so without bumping into you as he walked backwards towards your direction, or he wouldn’t have to maneuver his arms awkwardly up and/or around your body as you tried to pass through.
If the door opened inwards, and the doorway and/or entrance area looked like a tight fit, but the man didn’t want to proceed inside before you, then he may have stepped back to let your partner open the door as to not be in an uncomfortably close situation with a stranger.
There are a multitude of other reasons he may have stepped back, and many of them also have the possibility of being interpreted as “chivalrous”. So, I think you jumped the gun on judging this man’s motives and moral character over not opening a door for someone.
Lastly, he may have looked confused by what you said because opening doors for people might actually be a feminist ideal to him, and he was taken aback by your uncalled for presumptions. To me, someone who aligns with most feminist ideals but doesn’t care to be labeled and critiqued about whether I’m a feminist or not, opening a door for someone could be seen by others as the feminist thing to do since I choose to try and open doors for everyone equally regardless of their physical descriptors.
It’s a pleasure to see young men open doors for their elders and women, and younger women hold doors for elders. It’s a ripple effect of common courtesy—We’re herd animals, we do what we see others do. Why in the world courtesy is not a good thing is just another confusion in the “woke” gender nightmare spell cast by a few harridans and hacks. May the door be slammed in their faces when we all wake up!
Why just women and the elderly, men are people as well.
That wasn't my intention... common courtesy was.
I find it ironic that you stated, 'It’s a pleasure to see young men open doors for their elders and women, and younger women hold doors for elders. It’s a ripple effect of common courtesy.' However, this ripple effect seems to exclude young men, whether they receive acts of courtesy from other men or women. Courtesy should be universal, extending to everyone regardless of gender. It's not about undermining courtesy, but about ensuring it is practiced equitably. True courtesy and kindness should transcend gender biases and be extended to all, reflecting the universal Christian spirit of love and respect.
Manners are a sensitive awareness of the feelings of others. If you have that awareness, you have good manners, no matter what fork you use. Emily Post.
Accurate summation bring back memories from 1979 when in Chicago having a fancy dinner with a Rothchild introduced to me by a mutual friend, Scott, who was a frat brother of Rothchild’s. He noticed and called out that our mutual friend was using “the wrong fork” to which Scott replied: “I’ve told you I only need one fork; I was raised with only one fork. My life is just fine.” I’ve never forgotten the ensuing discussion on culture and ‘comfort zone’ deviations which alienate us. Rothchild couldn’t imagine a meal without a separate water glass. Scott replied, one more to wash. To which another guest added, we were lucky to have enough clean forks for all to eat at the same time.
Agreement was reached that it was impolite to start eating until all were served or gave their explicit permission to start, while awaiting their meal . Fast forward to 2012, when MIT was to start etiquette training of its undergraduates; to help ensure graduates mindful of cultural differences in manners. I received published news clips from as far away as Naples on MIT’s decision.
Misuse of affirmative action is a problem to equality when, instead of offering equal opportunity, people like Biden say "I am going to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court," thereby eliminating equal opportunity for all others. Shame he did not think and say "I am going to nominate the most qualified person." This type of approach meant that never in our careers were men of my generation considered equal to other races or genders by our federal government. .
This particular example is infuriating. It completely misses the point of what the most qualified person of the Supreme Court should look like. An encyclopedic knowledge of the law is not the main qualification. Having an extremely capable doctor of jurisprudence who can represent viewpoints, opinions, and backgrounds not seen on the court is the main qualification, therefore a black woman on the supreme Court is the main qualifier.
Or to take it a step back, instead of saying that he eliminated the ability to nominate the most qualified person, state the qualifications that you think would make for the best person for the court. Is it simply knowledge of the law, application of the law? What is the main qualification for nomination on the supreme Court in your opinion?
Justin, it appears that we differ as I contend that the most important aspect for being a Justice is their ability to apply the Constitution and the laws passed by congress. Justice is supposed to be blind and not vary depending on the "viewpoints, opinions or backgrounds" of the judges or Justices. FYI, Judge Jackson's statement that she was not a biologist so she could not define a woman means that she could not make decisions about sexual discrimination, or harassment, unless the victim's lawyer introduced testimony by a biologist that the victim was a woman: unless the judge was not telling the truth about not being able to define "women." Integrity is a qualification for a Justice.
If it is just application of the Constitution and congressional laws, why would you need supreme Court justices to interpret those things and apply them to situations? It absolutely will vary depending on viewpoint, how could it not? Law is not a computer program that can only be interpreted binarily, but a living organism that grows and changes as we learn and become a better people and a better union. Did our founding fathers want slavery to continue? If they did is that our job to keep it going? I think it is extremely naive not to understand that there is deep nuance.
Judge Jackson's comments show that she would seek out expert opinion on the matter. What if a person has outwardly facing male genitals but also has ovaries? How would you treat them then? One in 2000 children is born hermaphrodite. Are they man or woman? Are you an expert on figuring that out? She also wasn't so stupid to fall for that gotcha line of questioning that is the hot button issue of today.
The correct term is intersex, nor hermaphrodite as that implies fully functional and presence of all male and female sexual organs, and there are procedures that can be done to correct some of these abnormalities. Regardless, simply because a person has sexual organs of the opposite sex does not make a new sex, they simply have a deformity.
Thank you for the clarification. I will make sure I use the proper terminology going forward.
Justin, it appears that we will continue to disagree. If you are correct, then why do legal opinions cite their legal authority rather than just "My viewpoint, or opinion, or background" is that you should lose: QED. It appears that like all things, it is time for this discussion to come to an end with a "thanks" for your sharing opinions.
I'm sorry Brent, I can't help myself. From the supreme Court website:
Opinions
The term “opinions” as used on this website refers to several types of writing by the Justices.
The most well-known opinions are those released or announced in cases in which the Court has heard oral argument. Each opinion sets out the Court’s judgment and its reasoning and may include the majority or principal opinion as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions. All opinions in a single case are published together and are prefaced by a syllabus prepared by the Reporter of Decisions that summarizes the Court’s decision. The Justice who authors the majority or principal opinion often will summarize the opinion from the bench during a Court session.
A woman is an adult biological human female.
He didn't even have the courage to say "black", he pandered to "African-American". Also, that same woman said she can't define what a woman is.
From as man's point of view, it's sad and a bit disheartening to see the collapse of chivalry, courtesy, and simple kindness. I believe the Bible says that brother will turn against brother...and it appears we are seeing yet another prophesy come true. Let's pray the pendulum swings back the other way before chivalry takes it's last breath. Blessings
Michael. There is nothing kind about chivalry only being applied where a particular man may see fit. is it chivalrous of some of our states insisting a woman may NOT make her own decision regarding her pregnancy? Opening a door for a woman may make HIM feel good, but how about all the other areas of chivalry ( “May I put my hands on your body?”) ( “Would you like me to help you with the pregnancy I caused you to have?”). And so forth.
“I caused you to have?”
WOW, you’re portraying women as unwilling participants in all sexual encounters. Are you saying every time a woman has sex it is not consensual?
Or are you saying women have zero responsibility in birth control choices?
This is the 21st century, there are numerous birth control choices fir women, one fir a man, a rubber.
Yeah, yeah, not all birth control is 100% effective.
News flash, Sex leads to pregnancy.
If you definitely do not want a baby do not have sex.
Keep it in your pants! That goes for women too.
Per CDC & Guttmacher 93% of women use abortion as birth control because having a baby is inconvenient. This is the same for Roe v Wade.
A married mother of three kids decided having a fourth child was inconvenient so she sued to have an abortion. Look it up.
Irresponsible, grow up and take control of your actions.
Every single state protects the mother if the birth threatens a woman’s life. Look it up.
BRIAN….Which country are you living in….You are SO wrong about a woman’s life being protected…..WHO MAKES THE DECISION REGARDING “ protects the mother “? If I do not have the means or the will or the energy to give birth, WHO….in Texas and other REPUBLICAN-crazy states…..is going to protect me? Some states are even elimination the means for a woman to use birth control. I repeat, THIS IS REPUBLICAN ‘S DOING. EVEN WOMEN WHO WANT A CHILD BUT WHO MAY DIE IF THEY CONTINUE WITH THE BIRTH CAN NOT END THEIR PREGNANCY IN some states .
BRIAN, A MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHERE HE PUTS HIS SEED…..or, he is as responsible as the mother for any child which her state prohibits her from aborting.
If these crazy Republican bullying politicians who want to jail a woman who does NOT want a child persist in their interference in a woman’s choice, then the man is at least as responsible as she for the cost and efforts of raising that child. There is no law to that effect which is enforced without the mother possibly going through many legal machinations. In short, not only is a woman forced, in many states, to give birth, she is fully responsible for all the other issues of raising the child, financial and emotional. A man is as responsible as his female partner as to whether or not his seed leads to a potential life. One hardly ever hears of THAT reality, and the Republicans who have stuck their dirty noses into the women’s decision NEVER talk about a man’s responsibility….DO THEY? DO THEY?
IF THE REPUBLICANS ( to paraphrase your typically blaming male comment ) DO NOT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PAYING AND CARING FOR THEIR POSSIBLE CHILD, THEN THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX……When was the last time you checked with your partner BEFOREHAND her willingness to bear YOUR child if your seed was responsible for life ? IF IT IS THE WOMAN’S RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY YES OR NO TO SEX, THEN IT IS HER RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY YES OR NO TO WHAT SHE CHOOSES TO DO WITH HER BODY….ABORT OR NOT IS HER CHOICE. YOU REPUBLICANS WANT TO HAVE IT ALL YOUR WAY…..you do not see women as equal to men. AND WHAT ELSE IS NEW….just look at the sexual predator you are supporting as a presidential candidate! For hundreds of reasons and 34 guilty counts, that felon is not fit to be President of THIS country…..just in case you hadn’t considered that.
Clearly there are many. many views regarding the following : when does life begin, the issue of whether the unborn has rights, whether the mother’s rights preclude the unborn’s or the father’s, one’s religious beliefs, and then there is politics adding their two cents.
EACH IF YOU IS ENTITLED….TO DATE, IN California….to your own take on this issue.
I am entitled, in California , to mine, which is: Historically women have been controlled mostly by men who write or enforce laws. Women before me have been denied the vote, denied owning property, denied alimony until relatively recently, have worked for much less income than men, have been denied entry into some jobs……none of this has been true of my life. I have had an easy comfortable life; however I am aware of the generation of women before me and those women before them AND the control of men over women. Women before me have won many rights and freedom for me….until now when the Republicans have reared their ugly heads and struck down Roe v Wade. ( Which is NOT, as Trump may think, a decision of how to cross the Potomac River.)
I believe I own AND am entitled…..if nothing more…in my life, than to control my body: what I eat, when I sleep, how I dress, comport myself is my responsibility, my obligation, and my choice.
Until the Republicans decided to mess with Roe, we women made choices about
our pregnancy. I don’t know why the Republicans….whose politics are mostly despicable…. decided to pick on women and their body. I believe as do most women that this body I have is one of the few entities I am allowed to control. If I am pregnant it is my choice as to what I decide to do about that.
There seems to be nothing analogous in life regarding rules about how men use or abuse their body. There appear to be no Republicans making rules about the obligations a man has when he decides to have sex, or his obligations if he fathers an unwanted child. I don’t see Republicans making rules about that, and IF the Republicans are curtailing all rights a woman had to have or not have a child….EVEN if her life is in danger…..I’d like to know: WHO GAVE THOSE MOSTLY MEN THAT RIGHT?
Whether or not a pregnant woman gives birth is HER DECISION ALONE.
NO ONE ELSE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION FOR HER. And to think that today’s incredibly messy disorganized entity called the Republican Party has taken it upon themselves to force some women in some states to bear an unwanted child is to me ONE MORE REASON to call that political group RETROGRESSIVE…..and at this moment, believe me, I have a lot of other names I want to shout at that stupid political group. WHO ARE THEY TO TELL A WOMAN WHAT SHE CAN AND CAN NOT DO WITH HER BODY. Women WILL prevail. No one can stop a woman who doesn’t want a child to give birth. DONT THE REPUBLICANS KNOW THAT?
For the benefit of those who are ready to call me names…..give it up. What you think of me is none of MY business; you need not share with me. I love and have loved well several men in my life . My issue is with men who want to control, not with men who know how to love.
So you agree about irresponsible behavior from both the man and woman for not using birth control and engaging in sex when neither want a baby?
They voluntarily chose to engage in an activity knowing the potential outcome, the high likelihood of the outcome when protection is not used.
Yes both “adults” are responsible for their voluntary actions. Both are responsible for the child’s wellbeing. Both should have a say in an abortion. As you pointed out it is his child planted with his seed.
But the most important question is when does life begin? Since you are pro abortion you must know the answer to that question.
Please enlighten us.
If you say you do not know that means you are advocating to potentially kill a person. Meaning you have a reckless indifference to life.
But Democratic politics clouds reasonable judgement when it comes to a baby with no voice.
The only group that has stepped up and stated emphatically when life begins are Christians/Catholics. This is the 21st century and medical doctors refuse to state when life begins. So it is left up to politics to decide if someone is alive or not. Politics, not science. WOW.
Just saying, you don’t know if you are killing a living person. And instead of erring on the side of caution 7 Democrat run states allow abortion up to and right after birth. WOW!
Several states have decided that if two people are adult enough to have sex and refuse to use birth control then there are no abortions. They are holding these adults accountable for their actions. Sounds like good parenting.
While 7 Blue states allow later abortion right up to birth, the killing of a living person. Who’s the radical?
But you keep on this anti Republican rant. Did you know most states Red & Blue allow abortions through 16 weeks. And per the CDC & Guttmacher institute most abortions are within that time period. Yes both Red & Blue states.
Until you answer when life begins you have no right to talk about or support abortion.
Surprise Catholicism in this post, I completely agree Nancy that parents have a duty to their children and neither should br allowed an "exit" from the consequences of their actions.
Birth control is sinful to use.
In that case, THEO….i hope you don’t ever have sex unless you want the responsibility of fatherhood…for at least 18 years! Of course I’m assuming you are a male…..?
I'm not married chief, I'm only 20, I have no business having sex.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html
Where did you garner all that? Shaking my head...
SB NATIVE…Justin is correct. Women often have issues with full term pregnancy, and some REPUBLICAN STATES would jail a woman who manages to abort to save her own life. READ. “ Maternal deaths highest in U.S. than in any other civilized country “. At this moment as I write it is being reported.
Two decades ago I went to go buy my mule in Kentucky at an auction, and I was so surprised that everywhere I went, in businesses and private homes, little boys ran to open doors for any women. Their Mommas teach them right! I know in California men are afraid to offer, lest the Woke Women react badly and accuse them of implying that they can't open their own doors. The ones who lose in such a time are the Moms, out grocery shopping with a couple of littles, and no one dares get too close to the kids or offer to help. It is just another way that we constrain ourselves from kind behavior for fear of offense.
So true. I hold doors open for everyone--problem solved. I'm basically anti-social but I don't let that preclude me from being considerate.
Clu's adventure in North Carolina was also quite a shock--in terms of how much friendlier people are there than in California. We can have gender equality without sacrificing manners.
May the ones who instinctively offer to help, also instinctively know how to deflect verbal attacks that result. A smile, nod and a wink may well disarm the most rabid response. When the original act comes from a warm spot in the heart.
Again, why the fixation on only helping women? If anything women should be holding the doors for these little boys. It's so weird to be polite to other based solely on their sex and ignore the other sex as a result.
This is your fixation; no one says men are excluded from having a door opened for them. What was said is that men are afraid to open doors for women, or too rude, or too confused by all the woke BS. I open doors for everyone, if I'm there first I just do it. And I'm not a spring chicken, though in my day I was a [cute] chick.
Going out of your way to open a door for a woman when you're not even the near the door is just dump and simping to me. No woman is going to rush over to hold a door for a man under most circumstances. I don't recall where in scripture or in tradition that men and ONLY men had to rush to open doors for the opposite sex.
Thank you for the reminder...to be decent towards others. I have learned to be focused on others rather than so much on myself, which leads me to often open doors or yield the right of way or just give a smile to others no matter their gender, age or political affiliation. Not being self-centered, but others-centered is a very freeing lifestyle. You receive so much more than you give.
👍
Beautifully written piece
Merci Victoria! CJC
March 2020, during that year's election campaign for President of the United States, Tara Reade alleged that Democratic nominee Joe Biden sexually assaulted
Biden showered with daughter.
Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
I wonder how we got to a place where feminism is so vilified. Feminism at its base is the belief that men and women should be treated equally. That's the base. Where you go from there can be debated, but if you think women are the property of their husbands or fathers then you are a dumbass. By all means, open the doors for everybody. That's what I do. And I appreciate when others open the door for me, it is regardless of gender.
It is so upsetting the people don't understand how far the suffragettes and those that followed have brought us. My mother couldn't open a bank account without my father's permission in 1970. A woman in an abusive marriage and a much more difficult time leaving that marriage. Now some on the right want to get rid of no fault divorce, and keep those women trapped in those marriages.
Make no mistake, I am not for equality of outcome. I think that is stupid. However everybody should be able to try and succeed in whatever they wish. If a woman wants to be a lumberjack, she should not be prevented from doing so. Nor should a company that makes money from wood have to employ her if she does not perform at an acceptable level.
What we see today is not feminism, it's an apostasy. So here I (seemingly) go off on a non-sequitur but nonetheless I'll say it: isn't it interesting that the Left (who are not liberals) are A-Ok with Rap lyrics so hateful and disrespectful of women that I couldn't even begin to quote them in polite company, all the while complaining of the "War On Women"? Think about it, boys and girls listen to these lyrics all day long--not good,
Thank you. Well said.
Justin. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SANE REMARKS , AND HALLELUJAH ! Your statements here make you my idea of a real man,
I will also welcome a man treating me as a lady. My daughter knows that boys and men need to open doors, walk on the outside so to protect the woman. I was never a feminist. But I do support the right of a woman to be paid equally and have access to the same opportunities as long as she is qualified and had the same education and skills. .
That's literally feminism, you just described feminism.
No, because not every person is a feminist. I oppose feminism in all its forms as nothing more than a corrupting and subversive ideology seeking to destroy the family. And as a Catholic we must also recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every human life. Feminism helped push for the sexual revolution, whose consequences have been disastrous for the human race, the Catholicnl Church has of course always opposed the liberalization of sexual morality.
Feminism argued that women deserve equal opportunity in the workplace. That they are equal, intellectually, to men. They are not property. That they could vote, buy a car (without their father or husband's permission), etc. "And as a Catholic we must also recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every human life." YES. Thank you. Sure feminism has been bastardized (sorry for the male reference) by harridans and hacks, but what "movement" hasn't seen it's growing pains and overzealous conscriptors? You're entitled to your all-or-nothing thinking, but that very rigidity is exactly what women had to endure for centuries. We are PAST that now.
Theo. DONT you even realize the contradictions in your statements? Do you consider women equal to men in every way or not? Which is it? If you believe in the “ dignity and worth of EVERY human life “ then EVERY human life should be treated like every other….with dignity and worth, including the DIGNITY TO DECIDE WHAT SHE MAY OR MAY. NOT DO WITH HER BODY. Men certainly have choices re their own bodies, don’t they? NO ONE tells them what to do with their bodies. You don’t even have to go to war if you don’t want to. Just leave the country. And I see NO reason why in great need women should not also contribute to military service.
I don't oppose women being in uniform, by all means enlist, it is not fair that the responsibility of defending a nation is placed solely on men, some of whom will be forced to fight when there are plenty of women willing to do just that.
Agree. Israel and many EU nations agree also. Women damn well should know how to defend themselves and others.
Not sure why there's such a heavy emphasis on men being courteous to women and yet no mention of the same being reciprocated, seems incredibly selfish to expect selflessness from someone else yet never even bother to return the same courtesy.
Read my comment: "It’s a pleasure to see young men open doors for their elders and women, and younger women hold doors for elders. It’s a ripple effect of common courtesy—We’re herd animals, we do what we see others do."
You made no mention of women holding doors for men, or indeed anyone regardless of immutable characteristics. I'm never holding a door open for women BECAUSE of their sex, I do so because it's the human and polite thing to do.
There's nothing wrong with women holding doors open for men.
OY! I didn't flesh out every example... Got me there.
I agree completely.
Theo. You are being selfish when you want a Pregnant woman who does NOT want a child to carry to term, or be jailed. You advocate that, don’t you?
Nancy, why do some women immediately talk - and talk nonsense - about abortion the moment anything about equality between the sexes comes up? You know what's selfish? It's a woman who thinks the child she's carrying is not an independent human being with rights. Fetuses are not body problems a woman should be able to get rid of at any time. And no, I'm not anti-abortion. I'm anti romanticizing it as some brave, wonderful thing women should be able to do at any time they feel like. It's not. At best it's a necessary evil. Which, again, I don't believe should be outlawed. But there should be limits. Hey, why not “abort” the damn kid fifteen years after you gave birth and are tired of being a mom to a bratty teenager? And one of the most chivalrous things a man I know did was to tell his pregnant teenage daughter that if she chose to give birth rather than abort, he would help her raise the kid. He made good on his promise and today they're all happy to be alive and together.
No, though I wouldn't mind seeing doctors and those who operate Planned Parenthood in jail for a long time.
Chivalry, while on life support, is not dead yet. We have at least one chivalrous young man, my 22-year-old grandson Andrew who insists on opening all doors for me, his girlfriend, and any other female. I think he just does it naturally because I don’t know of anyone who told him to do it. There is faint hope for the world. Maybe.
He doesn't open doors for men, how is this "chivalrous" in any way? And what do you do for other people, not just women?
He opens doors for the elderly of both sexes and helps in other ways. As for me, I’ve spent my life feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and clothing the naked. How about you?
Elderly, but not younger men. It often feels like young men are overlooked in discussions about acts of kindness, with a focus primarily on accommodating women. This can be quite frustrating.
Also, I believe that charitable acts should be done humbly and without the need for recognition, as it can detract from the sincerity of the act.
To clarify my original question, do you practice opening doors for others regardless of their gender or age? It sometimes feels like there's an expectation that men should always be the ones giving without receiving similar kindness in return. I believe that acts of kindness should be universal and not restricted by traditional or arbitrary beliefs about who deserves them
I agree that acts of kindness should be universal. God bless you.
Brent, I get Justin’s point and wish you did too. I was alarmed, sickened, to see three Catholics newly appointed to the SCOTUS, including two alumni of the same Catholic Prep School, bringing the total to six Catholic viewpoints on the SCOTUS! Catholics are indoctrinated in Catholic schools, just as all students of religious schools: it’s part of any religious school’s mission . That’s a primary reason why vouchers will not pass until religious schools are excluded. Taxpayers will not pay for Muslim or other religious school indoctrination, while we abhor present day government school indoctrination, too.
This country has over 350 million citizens, which includes hundreds of thousands of lawyers, many who are Constitutional specialists including our local stellar Judge Hill. Do not tell me that none of these other proven judges — Protestant, Jew, or religious unaffiliated — are not qualified and proven, deserving of consideration!
WHY the very narrow SCOTUS selection process by the POTUS? It’s because of ‘who you know’ referral, timing, and politics as usual. US Senator McConnell worked his partisan magic.
Almost a quarter of our registered voter population are registered independent, no party preference (NPP) — not registered to one of the two major political parties Republican or Democrat. When will we get representation of our Constitutional interpretation on the SCOTUS or to other partisan only appointed judgeships? NEVER! Catholics dominate, I get it. However, may I suggest our courts and country would be better with an independent appointed. Listen to some “Recovering Catholics”, and NPPs for alternative perspectives.
Oh man, those evil Catholics sure are scary with their respect for human dignity and the preservation of the family unit.
There are many different kinds of feminists. I prefer the concept of being as kind as possible to whoever is in your immediate purview regardless of age or gender. Why would a middle aged woman who is closest to a door not open it for a very young man?
I on the other hand would like someone outside my life to NOT tell me what I can and can not do with my body, and that does not make me anything but human woman. When have the laws of this country ever told a man what and how he may treat HIS body or be put in jail?
Um, using illegal substances? Rape, murder, theft?
If the door opened outwards, and the way the older gentleman was reaching for the door handle caused him to awkwardly block you with his arm stretched out in front of you, then maybe he stepped back so he could go around behind or in front of you, and he may have been waiting for you to step back as well to help give him some room so he could open the door more easily. That way when he pulled it open he’d be able to do so without bumping into you as he walked backwards towards your direction, or he wouldn’t have to maneuver his arms awkwardly up and/or around your body as you tried to pass through.
If the door opened inwards, and the doorway and/or entrance area looked like a tight fit, but the man didn’t want to proceed inside before you, then he may have stepped back to let your partner open the door as to not be in an uncomfortably close situation with a stranger.
There are a multitude of other reasons he may have stepped back, and many of them also have the possibility of being interpreted as “chivalrous”. So, I think you jumped the gun on judging this man’s motives and moral character over not opening a door for someone.
Lastly, he may have looked confused by what you said because opening doors for people might actually be a feminist ideal to him, and he was taken aback by your uncalled for presumptions. To me, someone who aligns with most feminist ideals but doesn’t care to be labeled and critiqued about whether I’m a feminist or not, opening a door for someone could be seen by others as the feminist thing to do since I choose to try and open doors for everyone equally regardless of their physical descriptors.
In politics is this known as The Open Door Policy? So confusing!CJC
Average Elizabeth I fan, average "Bloody" Mary I appreciator.