The Carrie Bradshaw Philosophy of Life

I fail to understand how so called 'feminists' lay claim to the TV show/movie 'Sex and the City,' as if it were a badge of honour and have taken the show as their banner. Why?

There is even a reporter working on a local radio station and writes a column whose aim in life is to be just like 'Carrie Bradshaw,' once again why?

This character is supposedly so emancipated that she can have sex whenever and with whomever she likes. Guess what so can monkey's in a zoo but unlike people, monkey's do not make choices they go on base instincts.

The entire format of the show is based on empty women who try and fill the void in their empty lives by having sex sometimes with complete strangers, where is the heroism in that? Where is the freedom in allowing their bodies to be used and abused and then tossed on the garbage dump as their so called lovers move on to their next new 'love interest.'

This is not a show about women's emancipation it is about women's enslavement. This group of women will do just about anything in order to 'marry a man of their dreams,' and if it doesn't work out, well there is always the divorce courts.

Heroic women? I think not!

The TV show should have been renamed 'Desperate & Dateless in New York.'

From reviews that I have read Carrie Bradshaw spends most of the show chasing one man who is so loathe to marry her that he runs away.

Is this how we want women to be represented? As so desperate they will sleep around, have abortions, but hey they always wearing their Jimmy Choo heels and Vera Wang outfits.

Is this character really how modern women want to be? Shallow, superficial with their brittle smiles and even more brittle personalities.

I find it very sad indeed and indicative of a hedonistic lifestyle that the character portrayed by Sarah Jessica Parker is seen as a role model for women.

Give me the Donna Reeds, June Cleavers and Carol Brady's any day. What do YOU think?

Written by Marie

Who Are the REAL Yummy Mummies?

It seems strange to me that people such as Angelina Jolie and Madonna can traipse around the world adopting little children from various Nations. While good solid parents who live wholesome lives go on long waiting lists.

Amongst the Hollywood elite it has almost become a fashion accesory to have at least one adoptive orphan in their families. In some cases it is also because many actresses simply do not wish to lose out on movie roles or gain weight. So rather than have their own children they adopt, this way they get a child, minus the pounds around the waistline.

Yet are these 'yummy mummies' really so 'yummy'? It is a well known fact that Angelina Jolie has some serious personal issues. This is a woman who carried around a vial of one of her now ex-husbands blood. Angelina is also very open about being bi-sexual and seems now to be in the grips of an eating disorder. Yet we are told by certain media luminaries that Angelina is considered to be a great mother?

Who makes these decisions?

We have all witnessed Madonna's personal hatred of the Catholic Church and her constant need to blaspheme what all Catholics hold dear. Her own life is also one of extremes as she globe trots around the world and kisses other female singers on stage. Yet, she is also considered a 'Yummy Mummy'. Why?

Every child has the right to a stable home life, to enjoy a good education and to be loved by their parents. The parents are obligated to raise their children to be good and compassionate citizens. A child must have routine and a sense of security for their own well being. Yet why are so many middle class couples being denied the right to adopt?

What a child does not need is to have wealth thrown at them in replacement of love. They do not need to be dragged around the world because of their parents lifestyle.

In the end who makes the better parents, a good wholesome loving couple, who are actually married? Or the Hollywood neurotic glamour queens?

Who are the real Yummy Mummies, those who give their children a stable and secure life? Who go without luxuries so their children can have the essentials of life? Who stay up when their children are sick despite their own weariness?

Or those who have plenty of money, can hand their children over to Nanny's but seem to have no morals?

What do YOU think?

Chastity Ring Banned From School

A young girl from England has been fighting for the right to wear a chastity ring, though I applaud her courage it does concern me that she may be bullied for her stance against loose morals.

It does seem to be a case of unfair discrimination in that it is only a ring, not a banner. Is the school authorities Anti-Christian by opposing this young girl from wearing the ring? Is it a case of different policies for different relgions? At the same school Muslim and Sikh students are allowed to wear their headscarfes and religious bracelets as an expression of their belief system.

Surely if they have banned Lydia from wearing her chastity ring then why have they not taken this stance across the board and banned all Faiths from wearing religious items?

I admire Lydia's courageous stand in taking on the authorities for discrimination but I am also concerned for her wellbeing. What if she is bullied by other students for wearing the ring? Again, what if young boy's see the ring as some type of macho challenge or competition to see if Lydia can hold true to her faith?

I would like to know what both mothers and fathers think of Lydia's bravery? And would you allow your daughter to do the same thing?

I see this as yet another attempt by the secular minority to impose their views on Christianity and Christians. It is an attack on our Faith and should we tolerate it?

Lydia seems to be a young girl of immense strength of character I pray that she will be victorious.

Memos from your child

Don't spoil me. I know quite well I shouldn't have all I ask for. I'm only testing you.

Don't be afraid to be firm with me. I prefer it. It makes me secure.

Don't let me form bad habits. I have to rely on you to detect them in the early stages.

Don't make me feel smaller than I really am. It only makes me behave stupidly.

Don't correct me in front of people if you can help it. I'll take much more notice if you talk to me in private.

Don't protect me from consequences. I need to learn the painful way sometimes.

Don't make me feel my mistakes are sins. It upsets my sense of values.

Don't be upset when I say "I hate you". It is not you I hate, but your power to thwart me.

Don't take too much notice of my small ailments. Sometimes they get the attention I need.

Don't nag - if you do, I'll have to protect myself by appearing deaf.

Don't make rash promises. I feel badly let down when these promises are broken.

Don't forget I can't explain myself as well as I would like to. This is why I am not always very accurate.

Don't tax my honesty too much. I'm easily frightened into telling lies.

Don't be inconsistent. It completely confuses me and makes me lose my faith in you.

Don't put me off when I ask questions. If you do, you'll find I stop asking and seek information elsewhere.

Don't tell me my fears are silly. They are terribly real to me.

Don't ever suggest that you are perfect or infallible. It gives me to great a shock when I find out your are neither.

Don't ever think it's beneath your dignity to apologize to me. An honest apology makes me surprisingly warm towards you.

Don't forget how quickly I am growing up. It must be hard to keep pace with me, but please try.

"Train up a child in the way he is to go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it"

....Proverbs 22:6

What's The Deal With Harry Potter?

A private correspondence between the then Cardinal Ratzinger and Gabriele Kuby, a Bavarian-based Roman Catholic sociologist, has brought to light the Popes opinion on the impact of the Harry Potter phenomenon upon our youth. It seems incredible that sales of this book have sky rocketed and that children with the consent of their parents are willing to sleep overnight outside book stores so as to be the first to buy the latest episode in this 'cult' fiction.

The questions we need to ask are these: 1. Are these books dangerous to young minds? 2. Do these books promote wizardry? 3. Do they open our youth to the prospects of searching the occult as if it were a 'cool' idea which may lead them to experiment with powers over and above their maturity or ability to control? 4. In short, is 'Harry Potter' an open door way to making the occult acceptable?

What may appear as harmless can have devastating affects if children are being seduced into alternative 'religions' of the 'new age', or indeed if they begin openly experimenting with the occult i.e.,: Ouija boards, seances, casting spells, voodoo dolls and other forms of the supernatural. If this is so, then it is the responsibility of the parents to protect their children from this form of seduction whether it be in books or films.

When The Church makes a statement or even if it is a private discourse between two people who are well respected in matters of Doctrine, when Cardinal Ratzinger who was then Prefect for the Doctrine of The Faith, and Ms. Kuby find these books to be having an adverse affect on our youth, do we casually dismiss their grounded advice in preference to what the media is espousing, as if the media had somehow become 'credible' over and above Cardinal Ratzinger?

Charles Colson has also made some valid points on his piece on the craze for Harry Potter books. Are children reading such classics as 'The Lord of the Rings' and the 'Narnia Chronicles'?

Personally, I have not read nor seen any of the Harry Potter books or movies and was wondering what do parents think of this phenomenon created by J.K Rowling?

As faith filled Catholics do we take note of our erstwhile leaders when they speak out or are we listening to the liberal media, as the 'frenzy' for the latest 'Harry Potter' books hits the stands?

The Surrended Wife-Does It Work?

I read an extract in a magazine about a new book called 'The Surrended Wife..'. The book is how one woman transformed her unhappy marriage into a blissfully happy one by becoming agreeable to her husband at all times.

I read the article and can see the benefits in that over the years and due to the feminist movement(which is Anti-woman) the roles between men and women which were once clearly defined have now become so blurred that men feel confused and frustrated that nothing they do seems right.

The basis of the book is that wives become totally submissive to their husbands, they no longer quarrel even if the husband is wrong, the wife simply stays silent, rather than correct her husband. The book also suggests that a wife be always agreeable to her husband when he is in the mood for sex, the wife is never to say no, irrespective of her mood.

Even though this sounds good in theory I wonder just how practical it is in real life? Even though the author of the book Laura Doyle says she practices what she is writing about, I have to wonder how feasible this idea is in this modern world we all inhabit?

For instance I have Christian friends who also lead traditional 'the male is the sole provider' philosophy. Larry worked in a factory on a minimum wage, his wife, Sally was a stay at home Mum of 4 children all under 12 years. Three of their children were in private school, which was very costly. I saw over the years how Larry grew more and more tired, while Sally made do with what she could on such a low income. At the end of the week their children would have cereal for their evening meal, simply because they had run out of food and had to wait for Larry's pay day. This placed a terrible burden on Larry's shoulders, and though Sally was a very good & thrifty housewife, still life was difficult. Then oneday Sally bought a large bag of dried apricots in order to make jams, tarts etc. When Larry found out that the cost was $20 he lost his temper and reminded Sally that ' it is MY money, you're spending' did this make Larry a horrible person? No! He was simply exhausted, being the sole provider for a large family was becoming too much.

Not long after Larry's statement Sally got a part time job as a cleaner from 6PM to 9PM. I saw with my own eyes how much this helped their particular family unit, Larry's furrowed brow was now gone replaced by a non worried loving husband and father. Their family roles did not change in that Larry remained as Head of the Home while Sally was his helpmate in life both as wife and also in sharing the financial burden.

I wondered what different generations would think of this book, and its message? Should ALL wives be stay at home Mum's? Or should they share the financial burden of supporting their families?

Should wives be so totally submissive to their husbands, never being able to express an opinion that differs from their husbands? Or would the husband find this boring?

Let me know what you think of this particular lifestyle? Is it viable? Or too stifling? And do men really want stepford wives?

New Book, Old Lie-The Secret

I find it incredible that this book which is totally hedonistic has become a number one best seller in almost every Western culture. What is wrong with us as a society when so many can become seduced by the almighty dollar, or the lure of botoxed beauties? What does our Lord teach us but to put ourselves LAST. This book is the complete opposite. I am stunned at it's apparent success. I have not seen Oprah or read the book but I do know BALONEY when I hear it. Any Thoughts anyone?

************

What if I promised you that you could make anything happen—anything!—just by wanting it to happen?

You would think I was crazy, and you would be right. So why is a book based on this premise selling so fast that bookstores cannot keep it on the shelves?

Rhonda Byrne's The Secret has been on the New York Times bestseller list for months, and a DVD version is also selling out everywhere. Byrne is selling the tempting message that anything you want is possible and easy to get.

This isn't just about keeping an optimistic attitude to improve your life—it goes far beyond that. Byrne says a force called the Law of Attraction guarantees that if you think positive thoughts about what you want, you will get it. "The Universe" will bend over backwards to hand you whatever you wish for: money, a better job, a spouse, anything.

Byrne's claims are absurd on their face. She swears repeatedly that the Law of Attraction never fails, that it's as reliable as the law of gravity. So what happens if two people both use "the secret" to make opposite things happen—for instance, if one wanted a sunny day and the other wanted rain?

Somehow, Byrne forgets to address this topic.

But that's not the worst part. Among all the positive rhetoric are some very ugly concepts. While you are rearranging the universe to suit your own wishes, Byrne claims, you must avoid people who might inspire negative thoughts. So you should never look at overweight people or let sick people tell you about their illness.

Furthermore, if some people are poor, it "is because they are blocking money from coming to them with their thoughts." (Jesus Christ, she announces, was actually a millionaire.) And people involved in tragedies and disasters brought it on themselves. They did not want enough not to "be in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Friends, I am not exaggerating. It's all in there.

Tim Watkin reports in the Washington Post, "I watched Bob Proctor . . . one of the 'gurus' Byrne quotes most often, being asked on 'Nightline' whether the starving children of Darfur had 'manifested'—that is, visualized—their own misery. In utter seriousness, he replied, 'I think the country probably has.'"

But Byrne is not saying you should not care about other people. You should care about them—because it is good for you: "If you think thoughts of love, guess who receives the benefits—you!"

Unfortunately, people are really swallowing this stuff. And it is dangerous. The book contains examples of people who supposedly cured themselves of cancer without treatment, and people who bought expensive things because they just knew the money was coming in—I saw many of those in bankruptcy court when I was a practicing attorney. Karin Klein reports in the Los Angeles Times, "Therapists tell me they're starting to see patients who are headed for real trouble, immersing themselves in a dream world in which good things just come."

Byrne has scammed millions of people by appealing to their pride and greed, and she is making a fortune. But I will tell you this for free: Byrne's hot new trend is simply a repetition of the oldest lie there is—"You shall be like God."

That's the secret, not of success, but of misery.

Two Wolves-Dealing with Adversity

On Paula's insightful blog, Receiving Light she has brought forth quite a few topics on our sensibilities and how we can and should view adversity. Her pieces reminded me of an old Cherokee saying.

An elder cherokee was teaching his grandchildren about life. He said to them, "A fight is going on inside me. It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves.

One wolf represents fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other stands for joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.

This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other person, too."

The children thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old cherokee simply replied,"The one you feed."

**********

How we deal with adverse comments, gossip or actions done against us will define what 'wolf' we are feeding.

At times it is very easy to confuse sensitive with over-senstive, whats the difference? A sensitive person is aware of another's feeling, they speak with honesty and compassion towards all, they in essence put another persons feelings above their own. An over-sensitive person on the other hand will become defensive and take everything as a slight towards themselves, they essentially place themselves over and above everyone else.

We can also look towards one of our greatest Saint to understand the difference between a sensitive soul and an over-sensitive one. To borrow a quote, from that great Mystic St. Teresa of Avila.

"They are too attached to their honor. . . .These souls, for themost part, grieve over anything said against them. They donot embrace the cross but drag it along, and so it hurts andwearies them and breaks them to pieces. However, if thecross is loved, it is easy to bear, this is certain."

This state of over-sensitivity is a form of pride, though those who habour these feelings may think themselves quite humble, they are instead the opposite.

In the end we must ask ourselves, what wolf are you feeding?