What NOT to do in your free time: watch this movie

I recently saw part of a movie on TV called "Iron Jawed Angels":
"Iron Jawed Angels is a 2004 film about the American women's suffrage movement during the early 1900s. It was filmed in Virginia, produced by HBO Films, and released in 2004."

I have to say that the filming was good and the actors were good, but beyond that not much of the movie was what I would call good. The heroine of the movie, Alice Stokes Paul (1885 –1977) "was an American suffragist leader. Along with Lucy Burns (a close friend) and others, she led a successful campaign for women's suffrage that resulted in the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920."

Born into a Quaker family, Paul was well educated(or some would say, brainwashed), spending almost ten years in different colleges and eventually completing a PhD in political science in 1912. Her dissertation topic was titled "The Legal Position of Women in Pennsylvania".

Some history from Wikipedia:
Paul's "focus was lobbying for a constitutional amendment to secure the right to vote for women. Such an amendment had originally been sought by suffragists in 1878. However, by the early 20th century, attempts to secure a federal amendment had ceased. The focus of the suffrage movement had turned to securing the vote on a state-by-state basis. When their lobbying efforts proved fruitless, Paul and her colleagues formed the National Woman's Party (NWP) in 1916 and began introducing some of the methods used by the suffrage movement in Britain. Tactics included demonstrations, parades, mass meetings, picketing, suffrage watch, fires, and hunger strikes. These actions were accompanied by press coverage and the publication of the weekly Suffragist. In the US presidential election of 1916, Paul and the NWP campaigned against the continuing refusal of President Woodrow Wilson and other incumbent Democrats to support the Suffrage Amendment actively. In January 1917, the NWP staged the first political protest to picket the White House. The picketers, known as "Silent Sentinels," held banners demanding the right to vote. This was an example of a non-violent civil disobedience campaign. In July 1917, picketers were arrested on charges of "obstructing traffic." Many, including Paul, were convicted
and incarcerated at the Occoquan Workhouse. In a protest of the conditions in Occoquan, Paul commenced a hunger strike. This led to her being moved to the prison's psychiatric ward and force-fed raw eggs through a plastic tube. Other women joined the strike which, combined with the continuing demonstrations and attendant press coverage, kept the pressure on the Wilson administration. In January, 1918, he announced that women's suffrage was urgently needed as a "war measure." Wilson strongly urged Congress to pass the legislation. In 1920, after coming down to one vote in the state of Tennessee, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution secured the vote for women."

The history of Woman's suffrage is something I had not thought about a great deal until now. I tried to find out if the movie was historically accurate or not, and the only thing that seemed to be inaccurate about it was Paul's love-interest, stuck into the movie, for what reason I don't know. You'd think in a feminist movie they could do without men. It disgusts me that the 19th Amendment was brought about through political pressure and antagonistic tactics, not by any reason or logic, and Congress passed the legislation just to get off the hook.

And I do disagree with the idea that women should have the right to vote. When America was founded, though the qualifications for voting differed from state to state, only land-owning male citizens could vote. John Adams was an advocate for responsible voters:

"The same reasoning which will induce you to admit all men who have no property, to vote, with those who have,.... will prove that you ought to admit women and children; for, generally speaking, women and children have as good judgments, and as independent minds, as those men who are wholly destitute of property; these last being at all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents..."

The qualifications for an eligible voter was a State's rights issue, and by 1850 the last state had repealed the land-owners only law. But the point is, our founders didn't want mob rule, or a Democracy, where every individual votes, but a Republic, a country full of little family and state governments.

But which is the Biblical view: for or against votes for women?

"Reformed churches have generally believed that the New Testament presents voting as a leadership/representational issue that was only appropriate for men(1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-12, 1 Cor. 11:3-16) and this New Testament practice was simply the continuation of the Old Testament practice of voting by heads of households."
(Download the free PDF booklet "Universal Sufferage" here)

I think it hurts the family to undermine our Biblical family leadership- the Dad. And while I did learn quite a bit doing research on this topic, prompted by watching this movie, I think its messege is not worth two hours of anyone's time.

Recent Reading

God moves in mysterious ways,

His wonders to perform;

He plants his footsteps in the sea,

And rides upon the storm.

Last week I finished book two of John Piper's Christian biographies series, "The Hidden Smile of God":

"John Bunyan, William Cowper, and David Brainerd suffered in the midst of their kingdom labors. For Bunyan it was prison and danger for preaching the gospel. For Cowper it was life-long depression and suicidal darkness. For Brainerd it was tuberculosis and the "howling darkness" of American forests.

In these three biographies, John Piper explains how their steadfastness through trial sweetened and intensified their song of faith. The stories of how they suffered, how they endured, and how their affliction bore fruit will ignite radical Christian living, God-centered worship, and Christ-exalting mission.

Consider their stories and be encouraged that no labor and no suffering in the path of Christian obedience is ever in vain. As Cowper wrote, "Behind a frowning providence God hides a smiling face.""

I should have written my thoughts on the book last week, when it was fresh on my mind. The chapter on William Cowper was the most thought-provoking for me. The lifelong depression he endured was incredibly intense, so overwhelming, that I don't think I can comprehend how hard life was for him. The small experiences I have had with depression, though very small, makes me very sympathetic for him. Reading the chapter on his life brought back a question to my mind that I've discussed with people before: Can Christians commit suicide and go to heaven? If anyone has some good thoughts on this, I'd like to hear from you.

The part I liked best in the David Brainerd chapter was the line from his journal, "Oh, that I might never loiter on my heavenly journey!" I seem to be at a loitering stage in my life right now and it annoys me. The chapter on John Bunyan just made me put "Pilgrim's Progress" on my reading list. It was a good book, worth reading.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,

But trust him for his grace;

Behind a frowning providence

He hides a smiling face.

-William Cowper

My afternoon with Jane Austen, Lori Smith, and Caleb

Mom took the boys to the skating rink this afternoon for some rollerskating with the home school group(socialization, you know), so Caleb and I have been home alone together for almost two hours now. I predicted when they left that Caleb would hardly say two words to me at a time, and I was right. We've both been sitting on the couch all afternoon, reading. I started and finished “A Walk with Jane Austen”, by Lori Smith, and while I was sitting on the loveseat reading, laughing, and relating, Caleb was across the way on the other couch reading the Bible and Chemistry and who knows what in absolute silence.

Anyway, I would like to introduce you to my latest favorite website, Jane Austen Quote of the Day, “Daily wit and inspiration from Austen, compiled by Lori Smith, author of A Walk with Jane Austen”

I really enjoyed Ms. Smith's book- it was very open and honest, a great girl book. I loved it, and you should all read it!

Usually when I start reading a book like this, I have to finish it, and so when I finally do finish it hours later, I have to go work fast to make up for lost time. So, I'm off to make dinner as fast as I can.

Welcome to the Marchioness

Welcome to my new blog! I've styled it around Dickens works, with the title coming from his story "Old Curiosity Shop". I have imported all my old posts from my old blog, and so now "The Frazzledsister" has come to an end, and "The Marchioness" is beginning. Over the winter holidays of 2008/2009, I read almost all of Charles Dickens novels, such as Nicholas Nickelby, Barnaby Rudge, Old Curiousity Shop, Hard Times, David Copperfield, Little Dorrit, and most recently Domby and Son. Those that I haven't read I have seen the BBC TV productions of, like Bleak House, Martin Chuzzlewit, and Our Mutual Friend. I enjoyed them all so much that I thought I would use those stories to embellish this new blog. If my life were half as sad, mysterious, and exciting as Dickens' novels are, I think this would be a very popular blog, but my life so far has really been pretty normal. When I wrote on The Frazzledsister I didn't really advertise my blog(especially to Church people, especially during the political season) and I didn't post very personal things, for fear of someone I knew getting mad at me. I think my writing suffered because of it, and I hope on this blog to be a little more open. In the past year(It seems like it was a hard sort of year) I have gotten to know my peers at church a little better. After being members of the church for three years, finally I know more people and am more comfortable with them. Those young Ron Paul fanatics I thought were so militant, weren't so bad as I thought- or maybe they've just recovered. I still don't feel as though I have any really close friends there, like Anne of Green Gables and her "bosom friends", and maybe I never will, but at least we're all on speaking terms! So please, new readers, and even fanatical politicians from Church, feel free to comment, but don't all attack at once!

I can now legally drink alcohol.

I can now legally carry a concealed weapon.
But really I can't afford to. And so far, I haven't tasted any alcohol that I've enjoyed. When you think about it, if we trust/expect eighteen-year-olds to be able to vote for leaders for our country and state, if we expect sixteen-year-olds to be able to drive safely and correctly and not kill other people through stupid driving, why can't those kids be able to decide whether or not they should drink or carry a gun? Unfortunately, most sixteen and eighteen year old American kids today aren't responsible enough to be driving or voting, but I don't think government restriction will make them any more responsible. Most likely it will do the opposite.

Oh well! I had a pretty good birthday. It involved chocolate, high-speed internet, and the BBC production of "Bleak House". So sad! We're eagerly awaiting the last CD from Netflix. Our anticipation really gets dragged out with our current Netflix plan. During the middle of the movie a bat flew right into our living room and startled us all! Dad had to kill it (which was too bad) while we all hid in the bathroom. So there you have it! My birthday.

Thanksgiving food

Happy Thanksgiving! I'm in the mood for truffles, so I'm off to try this recipe:

1/2 C. butter, softened
2 1/3 C. confectioner's sugar
1/2 C. cocoa
1/4 C. whipping cream
1 1/2 t. vanilla

Cream butter in large mixer bowl. Combine 2 1/2 cups confectioners' sugar and the cocoa; add alternately with Cream and vanilla to butter. Blend well. Chill until firm.

Book Review: “My sister’s Keeper” By Jodi Picoult.

Our local book club picked this book to be “book-of-the-month”. It’s a provoking book, and I think Mrs. Piccoult meant it to be. I have to say, I DID NOT LIKE IT. I emphasized that because in all the reviews I read I found nothing but flattery and praise for Mrs. Picoult’s “beautiful, heartbreaking, controversial, and honest book.” Please, does anyone else NOT like this book? “Known for writing novels with provocative themes centered on family conflict and difficult moral choices, Jodi Picoult presents the story of a child whose sole reason for existence is to assure a genetic match for her terminally ill sibling.” You’d think with such “provocative themes” more people would disagree with her books! In talking about morals and ethics, none of the reviews seem to address what IS right and wrong. Mrs. Piccoult doesn’t seem to address it clearly herself. I think she does it fairly subtly. I feel like the whole book was meant to be propaganda.

In short, the story line of “My Sister’s Keeper” is this:
“Conceived in vitro, 13-year-old Anna Fitzgerald has decided to sue her parents to stop them from using her as "spare parts" for her older sister, Kate, who suffers from leukemia. After years of having her bone marrow and blood used to keep Kate alive, Anna now refuses to donate a kidney and strives for her own personal freedom. She hires lawyer Campbell Alexander to represent her, even as her own mother, a former civil defense attorney, fights her in court.”

These are the main issues in the book:
• A “Designer Baby”. Basically cloning. Is it possible? Is it legal? Biblical?
• A minor donating blood, bone marrow, and maybe even a kidney. Possible? Legal?
• Parental rights. Anna has to sue to get her parents to stop taking her body parts? Possible?

Probably the biggest issue I feel Mrs. Piccoult is arguing against is Parental Rights. In her story she portrays it so that the reader feels that the parents should have absolutely no right to make decisions in their daughter’s life, because in the story they are, in a way, abusing her. I think what a lot of people would take away from this is that parents have too much control over their children’s lives. I feel that’s what Mrs. Piccoult wants people to understand from this book.

I am totally for parental rights. God put parents in charge of their children’s welfare. The idea of no parental rights comes from the liberals, saying government should be in charge of all children. I received this email in response to some questions about medical laws and parental rights:

“It is against federal law for parents (or anyone) to force children to donate blood or any other form of human tissue. According to The National Health Act 61 of 2003, Section 56(2), human tissue can not be taken from a person without written consent from the PERSON. The minimum age of consent is 18; anyone under 18 cannot donate organs or tissue. I'm not entirely sure about blood donations. According to the Human Tissue Act 65 of 1983 section 18(aa), a child the age of 14 can consent to donate blood (with a reliable witness). I highly doubt that blood or tissue would ever be taken from a child without their consent, except for the gravest circumstances.

Therefore the premise of this book is rather far-fetched, and I'm not sure it can be rationalized. Federal law often requires parental consent for minors undergoing medical operations not so that the parent can control the child, but so they can protect him! If a child does not want an operation, the parents are there to back him up. If the doctor wants to force something on a child that the parents believe is harmful, again they are there to protect him.

Honestly, the entire premise actually verges on child abuse. This girl was 'created' simply to meet someone else's needs which means that her human rights are not being preserved. Is it not abusive to create a specific baby simply to take from it for the sake of someone else? In my personal opinion, the conception of this child constitutes sufficient child abuse that the parents would no longer have rights to that child.”
(As far as I can tell, “designer babies”, basically cloning, is not yet possible on such a level)

The Red Cross says that to give whole blood, platelets or plasma you must:
• be at least 17 years old (16 for whole blood in Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska with parental consent)
• weigh at least 110 lbs.
• be in good health
Those younger than age 17 are almost always legal minors (not yet of the age of majority) who cannot give consent by themselves to donate blood. (Each state determines its own age of majority, which can be different for different activities.).

And as far as kidney donations go:
“In 2004 the FDA approved the Cedars-Sinai High Dose IVIG therapy which eliminates the need for the living donor to be the same blood type (ABO compatible) or even a tissue match. Since medication to prevent rejection is so effective, donors need not be genetically similar to their recipient. Most donated kidneys come from deceased donors, with some coming from living donors.”

So it wouldn’t really be necessary to take a kidney from a minor, and it’s not legal for minors to donate blood or organs. The whole story seems to be totally unrealistic, not at all based on truth, and an attempt to sway people’s minds against Biblical principles. I wish people really would think about these issues, and not just digest the latest novel on the shelf and then base their worldview on it.