feminine-genius

A chivalrous man

I was saddened to read of the death of Jesse Helms, who--fittingly-- passed on to His Maker early this morning.

"We'll never forget how he battled, especially during those first lonely years, to protect our liberties, preserve our family values and keep America strong. There he was, standing day after day to a government Goliath, crying out like a voice in the wilderness," former President Ronald Reagan said in a 1983 speech. "Bit by bit, he became more than a lonely crusader. He grew into a lionhearted leader of a great and growing army."

Many political observers credit Helms' support for catapulting Reagan to the presidency in 1980 and accelerating the conservative agenda – cutting taxes at home, fighting communism abroad and opposing many government social programs – at the national level. He also served as Reagan's right flank for years, allowing the president to make political compromises as needed. "(I decided to) stay to the right of the president's right and make it easier for Reagan to be Reagan," Helms wrote in his memoir.

We all owe him a debt of gratitude. It will take courage for someone to take up this mantle--and yet in the time since his retirement in 2002, there has been no singular replacement. RIP, from an appreciative bystander.

Belgium, 2008

A 21 year old woman was raped in a major Belgian train station with passers-by ignoring her plight. Two North African immigrants accosted her as left her train and said she should be wearing a head-scarf. (She was not a Muslim.) Thus they held her at knife point and assaulted her.

Is this the way of the New Europe? Is this what women can expect? Rogue immigrants and detached local men? Is this the accumulation of years of post-Christian malaise, the banality of sexual prurience, outright rejection of a chivalric code and waves of Muslims?

Her father, of course, is outraged. She is hospitalised. Police are mulling about looking for clues. No bystanders have come forward to help. Not during, not after. Without God, moral duty withers. (Duty to Allah, evidently, is a thing apart.)

No chivalry here

Chivalry is the code that says that the stronger have an obligation to protect the weaker. This can apply to fathers protecting their families, policemen protecting citizens, soldiers protecting a nation and governments legislating for the benefit of their constituents. The Netherlands see it differently:

The National Anti-terrorism Coordinator (NCTb) has decided to withdraw personal protection from MP Rita Verdonk. She is baffled, she said on TV programme Knevel&Van de Brink.

According to Verdonk, Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin informed her by letter last Tuesday that her bodyguards would be withdrawn on 4 June. She is only still being 'escorted.' This means that instead of permanent bodyguards, she will only have a car behind her following at a distance.

Verdonk is the leader and founder of Proud of the Netherlands (TON). The party, currently running second in the polls, was set up in April. Verdonk is critical of Islam.

Now bodyguards might sound like overkill for the equivalent of a congressman in this country, but in her situation, she is a definite target:

Verdonk, when she was still Integration Minister, came to be closely guarded because there was a realistic threat of an attempt being made on her life. As MP as well, the threat remained of such a nature that bodyguards were considered necessary. But NCTb sees no need for bodyguards any more, despite the recent political murders of Islam critics Pim Fortuyn (2002) and Theo van Gogh (2004).

Verdonk said yesterday in De Telegraaf newspaper: "Muslim radicals and leftwing extremists know one thing: If I come to power, then I will tackle them." (...) "I do not feel safe." (...) "You do not have to google for long to come across very ugly things about me!"

The alignment of events--in which all paternal authority has been eliminated--begs a deeper question. Why withdraw protection so that those who abuse paternal authority have a subtle invitation to act? (I don't mean to sound cryptic--but a whole new project has begun for me. Prayers appreciated.)

Good legislation

Despite being labeled as another indicator of the "nanny state, over at NRO, I firmly believe that Rep. Paul Broun's legislation to ban pornography sales on military bases is a good thing. This is not an effort to ban the consumption of the vile stuff, only not to be a party to making it available. Some good emails have come into the Corner, making the point better than I could:

Adultery is still a violation of the UCMJ, and sexual behavior is a major factor in unit cohesion. We have long forbidden military members use of government equipment (particularly computers and computer networks) and, while I was in the Navy (’95-’07) the NEX and MCX (Navy and Marine Corps exchanges) did not carry pornography. I don’t know about AAFES. This was typically supported by officers and senior enlisted. Mid- to Junior level enlisted did not like it. The fact is, character matters and it matters tremendously in combat. Encouraging behavior that corrupts character (gambling, excessive alcohol, sex) is contrary to the military’s best interests. I know there are those who think these are "manly" vices and indicate a robust military. I did not find it so.

Of course, I was a chaplain, so I tended to see those negatively affected by these vices. Those "positively" affected didn’t come to see me.

And the reality of life in the military:

I have been in the U.S. Navy since 1988 and I wholeheartedly agree that pornography should be banned from military exchanges.  There is no reason for it to be there, as it is widely available elsewhere for those who want it.  The military continually tells us that they care about military families and that fostering stable family lives helps personnel to better cope with the stress of long deployments.   Peddling pornography does not square with the pro-family message.

The military is hard enough on families.  We deploy personnel away from their families for months/years at a time and we station members of the opposite sex together in units, while their wives and husbands sit at home and wonder what is going on.  As a Navy Officer, I did a Mediterranean cruise back in ’93.  When we returned from that deployment, four of the sixteen sailors in our small department (16 in all) filed for divorce from their wives, due to things that had happened while they were gone.  And that was before women served on ships, I can just imagine what goes on now.

Deployments are unavoidable, as is (unfortunately), deploying men and women together and housing them in close quarters during times of extreme stress.  It may be a small gesture, but refusing to sell products that unquestionably undermine marriage, is something the military should do.

Having been a navy wife with husband deployed for very long periods of time, I was grateful not to have to even wonder about distractions -- since he flew jets, which comprised an all-male community at the time. Like all JO's, he counseled enlisted men, many of whose lives were often already a complicated mess. Certainly the authorities cannot provide the very materials that add to the problems.

In the end, those who support this legislation are going to have to use and be comfortable with certain language: duty, honour, sacrifice, dignity, integrity, character and (yes) chivalry. There is a manly code that undergirds a stable fighting force. The warrior cult exists -- and without it, the mission crumbles. These notions may be laughable in the wider world, but the military must make some effort to hold onto them, or it becomes just one more government jobs program.

UPDATE: Lisa Schiffren comes back with a defense of immorality of keeping troops in order:

Back in 1991, during Desert Storm, I worked at the Pentagon. I was, at first, taken aback to see routine message traffic cross my desk discussing explicitly the logistical arrangements for "R&R" for the troops. How were the boys  at bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and how were they going to get action? The problem, I still recall, was that the normal ports of call in nearby Africa were having problems with AIDS, which was still newish. Whichever country was the traditional port was very miffed at losing the business, because those soldiers at the bars and brothels were a big source of hard currency. Almost anywhere in a reasonable distance was under the sway of the mullahs. I bet you're wondering how the military solved this problem. My recollection is a little hazy, since this was something I followed mainly for entertainment (as did my Special Ops colleagues). But I believe the government of Romania made an offer. Eastern Europe was just emerging from the Soviet boot, and a bunch of those countries really wanted the business. Romania was judged to have better resort infrastructure than most. And I also believe that one of the less religious Gulf emirates decided that it would allow a few huge "party ships" to dock just offshore. I suppose we transported our troops to Romania. I don't know who brought the hookers to the ships. Everyone winked and nodded, and the troops carried on.

Yes, Kathryn, we want our forces to be honorable and decent. And mostly they are. Even the ones who go drinking and whoring Saturday night, mutter prayers in a foxhole. That is fairly traditional human behavior, which does not bear excessive scrutiny. Whatever Judeo-Christian values we choose to practice and live among here at home, in peace, we are better off not feminizing or Christianizing the military any more than we can avoid.

So chastity is too feminine or Christian for the US Army. Then you have just sided with the enemy, and I don't mean Al Qaida. You've thrown in with the notion that "boys must be boys," that Romanian whores are better than frustration or "going blind," that "traditional human behaviour" is adequate, and that STD's and divorce will simply have to be the price for American military interests.

I'm wading through A Distant Mirror, an account of the 14th century which is full of death, destruction, pillage and rape. I'm no naif, but "God Bless America" means something. Look at the outcry over sexual attacks from US soldiers in the Japan and the Philippines recently.

This has to be thought through better, but I'm discouraged, knowing the mainstreaming of porn everywhere. This reaction reminds me of the Casey decision that said "women have arranged their lives around access to abortion," so it has to remain available. Same with men and access to "flesh."

UPDATE: another very good comment here.

One soul touched

This remarkable post by a pacifist honestly recounts how wall-to-wall Pope this week has caused him profound rethinking of his world-view and an unexpected change of heart towards the responsibilities attached to freedom.

Its relation to feminine-genius is its bearing on chivalry, and the call to defend the defenseless. Violence is not good, certainly, but it occasionally becomes necessary to protect home and hearth. When chivalrous men exist, women and children live in peace, without nagging anxiety. Knowing that this layer of protection is in place allows children to flourish in security -- becoming better adults. This is edifying. Better a man to come at chivalry thoughtfully, treading carefully towards the fullest expression of his vocation than to barrel in recklessly with nary a second glance. We're all better for his honesty.

Hone the soul first

Over the course of one short morning, I've witnessed so much goodness in men. There was the ever-marvelous husband who roused the family early and drove us all to church, the holy priest who read the Mass, the gentle smile from the struggling elderly man who had undergone a surgery earlier in the week, the unknown father who held his young daughters on his lap at the Junior Legion of Mary meeting afterwards, the vigilant blogger who knows a good article when he sees one, and the gracious priest who took the time to try to show women God's love -- which is based on what the world cannot see.

Father Tad writes thusly about the misguided reasons so many women are opting for implants:

As a general rule, there should be a compelling therapeutic reason whenever we elect to undergo breast augmentation, because surgery and anesthesia always involve risks. Breast implant surgery is not considered “therapeutic” in the traditional sense, except for women who have undergone a mastectomy, or otherwise suffered significant breast damage, in which case the procedure may indeed represent a reconstructive or restorative therapy. Implants, of course, are serious business -- real surgery with real side effects and strange things that can go wrong. [snip]

Women who feel a strong need to augment their breasts may also be struggling with deeper personal and spiritual issues regarding their own self-image. All of us are keenly aware of the way that people react to us when they first meet us, and whenever they respond negatively to our appearance, it can damage our self-esteem. In our society, attractive people often end up receiving preferential treatment, and this seems especially true for women. The result is a peculiar kind of pressure on women: on the one hand, they are valued for their beauty and feel compelled to conform to the societal ideal. On the other hand, elective breast augmentation seems to go too far in an effort to meet that ideal. It seems to cross an ethical line by saying that women should alter their healthy bodies in very radical ways in order to conform to what is portrayed on television or in glossy women’s magazines. The escalating use of pornography among men may also be contributing to this pressure to conform to the digitally enhanced and hyper-sexualized images of the computer screen. As one woman put it, “If you have friends who gossip about your flat chest, you need new friends, not new breasts.”

It was good of him to show a male equivalent, in the body-building mode, so that the reader sees that we're all prone to these vanities and the need for human respect. Most importantly, he noted that the immediate satisfaction that implants can provide will soon sour, leading the woman to assess herself and find the next flaw to airbrush.

We live in a visual, plastic age. Succombing to it will never satisfy, and relationships based on such externals will never feed the souls. Go deeper -- not with a scalpel, but with the precision of solid prayer. Find out who you are before God, and let Him perfect you.

UPDATE: Back to "good men," how about this for "icing on the cake"?

What are the guys thinking?

Father Finelli has an excellent interview with Tarek Saab on podcast #102. I'm out of the loop on Apprentice, since I am sans telly, but evidently Mr Saab has used his participation on that show as a launching pad for a fantastic book, Gut Check: Confronting Love, Work and Manhood in Your Twenties. Nota bene: one commenter on the book noted that it's wonderful for mothers and young women, since it helps them to decipher the young men in their lives and the beautiful vocation to which they are called. Please, if the Paschal Rabbit brings more than candy in your house, let this be a gift in many baskets.

The limits of womanhood

The ever-eloquent defender of authentic masculinity, Anthony Esolen, has a lovely essay on the Boys Scouts, noting that one troop had an unprecedented eleven Eagle Scouts recently, which has turned heads even at the Washington Post.

The boys, who called themselves the Viking Patrol, were initially a bunch of whiners and losers, "ninnies" as one of the leaders called them, lying down in the middle of the trail along one of their first hikes, a gentle three-miler.

     The article doesn't give too many details about what transformed them.  A couple of things do stand out, though.  The leaders seem to have responded to the boys' sissiness by making things more difficult for them, not easier.  The turning point came when, on a hike in Alaska, the boys didn't want to pitch their tents, didn't want to hang their food up so as not to attract bears, didn't want to set up their latrines, and so on.  So the leaders left them to themselves.  The result was that they did organize themselves after all; they formed a team, and got the jobs done.  After that, they were on their way.

Where this intersects with the vocation to femininity is the realm of understanding that men are formed, ultimately, by other men. Steel on steel. What would I have done if a little fellow fell whimpering onto the path, sure he couldn't continue? Maybe sit with him encouraging, wheedling, challenging, etc. But leaving him? Never. That's the difference, and it worked. We coddle and comfort, which has its place, but that's not what makes boys into men.

The title, Per Aspera ad Astra, translates into "through adversity to the stars" indicating the firm place that trials should have in the formation of young men. Few of us resort to bubble wrap, but the temptation is great. Esolen knows the dangers and suggests this line for a political candidate (given the controversy surrounding public funding of a group guilty of "hate crimes.")

What if a man like Mr. Obama could set aside the metaphysics of the Left, and notice, as a plain matter of fact, that the Boy Scouts work.  Such a man could then say, to those who would harry the organization out of existence, "Leave it alone.  I don't agree with some of their principles, but I don't see anything else on the horizon that works as well as they do.  By executive order, I will funnel as much money as I can to cities and counties to work with the Scouts, because I care about one thing and that alone: to save as many boys as I can from the gangs, the gutters, and the grave.  I want results."

Highly unlikely, but that doesn't stop us from putting programs into place that will allow boys to rub shoulders with men. Sadly fathers aren't always available, so men may have to reach beyond their own progeny, for the sake of the wider community. We have to back these initiatives with prudence and prayer.

Competing for vice

Melanie B has found an excellent piece written on the foundation of chivalry which says crisply all I've been trying to explain over the years about the masculine vocation. Michael P. Foley writes:

When St. Paul tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church (Eph. 5:25), he is essentially telling them to put the welfare of their spouses high above their own, even to the point of death.

Today the concept of “ladies first” is more often than not condemned as quaint or chauvinist, but when it is properly understood and practiced it reflects this Christ-like conversion of male power and aggression to the selfless service of others. It presupposes that if a Christian man is designed to rule, he is to exercise that rule paradoxically by serving, just as Christ exercised his lordship paradoxically by humbly washing the feet of his apostles (John 13:4–16).

This is part of the sign of contradiction that Christianity offers. Sadly, those who don't get what the faith is proposing also don't get what men are asked to do -- rather they see what fallen nature does and they work from there. Melanie concludes:

Of course, it isn't really surprising that feminists don't get chivalry. If you don't understand Christianity, rejecting it as "patriarchal" and therefore de facto evil, you won't be able to comprehend its fruits either. At the heart of chivalry, Foley explains, is Christ's example of selfless love and service. At the heart of feminism is a me-first grasping at power and privilege which is antithetical to a Christian vision of true human dignity.

Beyond this, feminists, in their effort to out-do men, usually choose masculine vices and trump them. This goes for randiness, obsessions with one item or another, and power struggles. Bad for men. Worse for women.

A wish list

One dedicated monk is exercising chivalry by looking out for the needs of these cloistered sisters. This would provide the basis of some "good deeds" this summer -- alone or with your children. I think with the young ones, the fun would be in wondering what they're doing with the jewelry and the film cases...