Skip to main content

Checking In With "The Notorious RBG"

So there I was, arrested by one of those "meme-videos"--they show you still photos or video punctuated with short text--with the purpose of making some political point. There's a guy saying he was the primary earner for some time, and they had some challenges, so they switched roles. This husband became the primary daytime caregiver for infant twin girls. [AWWWWW!--ed.] I know, right? So the rest of the text was pretty neutral, in fact, and this man is mainly telling us what he's learned about how hard his wife's work is. Fair enough, and amen.

At the end, it had this quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: "Women will only have true equality when men share the responsibility of bringing up the next generation."

A few thoughts, Your Honor:

Define "true equality."

It is possible that, once defined, "true equality" would not in fact be desirable.

I don't think your conditions for "true equality" have ever been universally or even mostly lacking. Thus, one counter-claim might be that true equality has been achieved.

Bonus: Unfortunately, I have a little voice in my head that sounds like Dr. Bryan Cross, and "he" just said: "One problem with studies that have attempted to put a monetary value on the work of stay-at-home mothers is that the totalizing reality of classical liberalism strips all goods of everything except their monetary value. Therefore, those who want this work to be more highly valued risk unwittingly commoditizing an invaluable part of the common good, thus lessening its true value."

(Note for the culturally illiterate: "The Notorious B.I.G." refers to Christopher L. Wallace, 1972-1997, a California rapper of considerable fame, murdered in the year of his death. This nickname given to Justice Ginsburg expresses considerable appreciation and affection for her by progressives, what they regard as her "mic drop" willingness to write fearless opinions with which they agree.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un