This picture--which is probably seen by everybody who picks up the paper--is in stark contrast with the actual text of the story--which almost nobody who picks up the paper will read. And in that contrast is seen the Texan's blind loyalty to "the narrative": don't show the news so much as the snippets of it which conform to the story. What is the story, you ask? Why, it's the thing which the "reporter" wrote before arriving on-scene with the cameras, the thing which is just looking for a few choice quotes and a couple of details to prove that he actually was on-scene at some point. The details, alas, did not match the narrative as nicely as he would have preferred, and some of them apparently made it past the editor: sloppy.
Fewer than 50 protesters gathered outside the Austin Convention Center on Thursday night during an anti-abortion rally headlined by former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Almost 900 people responded to a Facebook event promoting the protest.
The crowd, composed primarily of men, stood around the building waving signs supporting abortion rights and attacking the former Alaska governor, who spoke at “An Evening With Sarah Palin,” sponsored Heroic Media, an anti-abortion nonprofit group. (Emphasis mine)
The pro-abortion crowd was composed primarily of men? Really? To those who have long been in the pro-life movement, this comes as no surprise, since the largest demographic group who supports keeping abortion legal, readily-available, and easy-to-obtain is unwed men between the ages of 18-30. This can be juxtaposed with the recent comments of NARAL's president, Mrs Nancy Keenan, who stated that she just doesn't see the passion for abortion amongst the younger voters: only passion against it.
However, the pictures used to tell the narrative in this article would lead us to believe otherwise. Although the pro-abortion crowd was composed of primarily min, the one photo showed only three womyn. I suppose they were at least honest enough to not photo-shop in additional people, and even to pass the fact that the crowd was primarily men. The censors at the Austin-American Statesman, on the other hand, was not so concerned about maintaining the narrative in it coverage.
The "Old Man": here comes the bigger rant (note: I've edited it a bit to make it less, well, mean, but I am not in the least going to try to be tactful on this one).
This is not to say that there is an utter lack of passion amongst young womyn concerning abortion. The Texan's own Miss Anna Russo spent last week's column railing ad nauseum about how she, too, has every bit as much passion as her fore-mothers (an ironic term for that movement). She followed up that column with (an otherwise good, for her) one this week in which she explained in a single line why nobody should take her seriously:
My second year I enrolled in a Women’s Reproductive Health course, partially in response to what was an exhaustively long existential crisis
Note to radical feminists: this is another reason why the rest of us have difficulty taking you seriously. Most people who suffer an "existential crisis" look to philosophy, theology, religion, or science to help them through it: sometimes this even works. You, apparently, look to "reproductive health." Philosophy, theology, religion, and science (via psychology) are all intended in some way to help when such things occur; reproductive health is not. Or was your existential crisis that kind of crisis? In which case, reproductive anatomy and basic biology would be immensely more useful.
This must also be why one of the few things in our culture which doesn't deserve even 15 minutes of fame, a fad which ought to have died in ignoble infamy upon its release, is also the one fad which is dragged back every year around Saint Valentines day, resuscitated by the womyn's centers on every college campus in the nation. I am here referring to (and ranting about) the Vagina Monologues.
in it's most radical form, feminism is truly a religion. Their goddesses are now Gaia and Ishtar and Kali: and Moloch, made an honorary deity as the older brother of Gaia. They have made abortion their highest sacrament: a dark parody, defilement, corruption of the great Sacrament of Communion. The Monologues has become the liturgical equivalent of a Solemn High Mass, and non-sequitor pro-abortion signs are their liturgical vestments. Their CCD and RCIA are sex-education, sex-columnists, and "womyn's studies," their professors unholy language is to be spoken only in a shrill voice, and for their priestesses (and priests) they take those doctors who are ordained by rejecting the Hippocratic Oath. Their martyrs and saints are George Tiller, Margaret Sanger and David Gunn, their prophets and sages are Peter Singer, Judith Jarvis-Thompson, John Holdren, and Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
The "New Man": a more charitable approach.
Miss Russo's column reflects a soul which is clearly both lost and morally confused. I contend that this is so even to the same (if not a greater extent) than her colleague at the Texan, Ms Mary Lingwall. It is a lamentable error to turn to the fad "philosophies" of the day--sex education, radical feminism, "reproductive health," etc when searching for meaning (that would be what an existential crisis entails). I do not know if she had previous beliefs--religious or otherwise--upon which to call for strength.
Any good religious belief will offer this to some extent. Simply having a foundation upon which to lean in times of trouble is a great thing. Christ offers something more, which is not only answers, but also grace; understanding, but also salvation; faith, but also hope and love. None of the other "-isms" offer this, or even claim to offer it. All other ideologies are cast into a form of domination, oppression, subversion, revolution: that is, of tyranny and rebellion, of turmoil. In short, the other -isms engage in every form of warfare save the most important one. It may be class or economic warfare, or strife between the sexes, of the struggle for the overman to reach the top; only Christianity--Catholicism and its offshoots--really identifies the problem, really identifies the form of warfare in which we are all wittingly or unwittingly engaged: that is spiritual warfare.
All of the other ideologies cause one to enter the fray, but to do so without knowledge of the real nature and dimension of the fight. Christianity does not offer a means out of the war: ratehr, a greater part in it. The difference is that it also offers a means of actually fighting the war (faith), and spiritual sustenance during the war (hope), and for winning the war (charity). The other isms offer at best a means for fighting the war, and not the best means at that.