feminine-genius

Terminate the distractions

This timeless piece (which means I got to it over a year late) shows the similarities between Jews and Christians in holding onto the essence of ritual without getting swept away in the push for etertainment and "relevance."

My son William was recently invited to his friend Josh's bar mitzva. William had never been to a bar mitzva before, and he's still talking about it. The invitation was a video tape of Josh, dressed like the Terminator and doing an Arnold Schwarzenegger impression: "Come to my bar mitzva, or else!"

When I dropped William off at the five-star hotel ballroom, everything was decorated to look like metal. There were robots standing guard with blinking eyes and moving arms; destroyed tanks and cars strewn about (rented from a movie prop house); and inflatable jungle gyms and slides, all in camouflage colors. There was even a life-sized Arnold Schwarzenegger cutout for guests to sign.

After the aliya latorah, Josh made his grand entrance on a "T2" motorcycle - his bar mitzva gift from his parents! Following the motzi, a live rock band played modern techno music. Josh did a really cool robot dance. During the traditional candlelighting ceremony, Josh lit 13 candles with a butane lighter shaped like a Terminator rifle. My son wished he could take it home with him.

Many of our children--goyim though they be--are invited to bar (and bat) mitzvas in middle school, which provide interesting views into modern (more liberal) Jewish life. They usually emerge after hours of fun with trinkets, personalised clothes, shades, and heaps of party favours--all of which makes the actual ritual itself bearable. (Some families allow their kids to skip the synagogue and go directly to the party, which is mistifying.)

It is reminiscent of our attempts to make the sacraments "fun" or worse, lavishly competitive. There are even those who will postpone the sacraments until enough money is saved for the right reception or until the bride can fit into a slinky dress (post-partem). In Equador, a family I met didn't baptise their daughter, knowing they couldn't afford the chickens necessary to feed the extended family, so they were going to wait for another child and hope to manage a two-fer.

The short-term goal, for parents, is often to make rituals fit into our lives with minimal spiritual discomfort, although the irony is that the mundane trials become even more traumatic.  After planning her own son's bar mitzvah began to reach crisis mode, the mother

made a dash for my bookshelf to retrieve my dog-eared copy of the Book of Jewish Values to see what the ever wise and rational Rabbi Joseph Telushkin might have to say about the situation. He didn't let me down.

"Out of the desire not to appear cheap or unloving to their children, many... Jews feel forced to spend far more on [bar mitzva] parties than they can or want to," he writes. "Furthermore lavish parties often end up diminishing, sometimes even eliminating, the religious significance of the bar mitzva. For many of the celebrants, what counts is the 'bar,' not the mitzva."

What we desperately need, says Telushkin, are some "wealthy moral heroes... prominent, affluent Jews in our largest Jewish communities - to throw a simple bar or bat mitzva celebration, one in which the party is very pleasant and celebratory, but not lavish." In doing so, he holds, "the good they would do for their fellow Jews would be almost incalculable."

Thank you Rabbi Telushkin! The same goes for Christian weddings, where the warantees on the piles of gifts often outlast the actual unions. Kids may enjoy Terminator rifle candle lighters, but the flame itself is often overpowered by the schtick. Mothers--as keepers of the flame and builders of culture--would do well to be the moral heroes and teach children that ritual is often meant to be sacrifice. If it is pleasing to God, then He'll provide the reward, not Arnold.

Dilemma of the day

Laura Ingraham finds a gem, in which a woman is clearly confused about her priorities (not to mention rational thought):

Dear Abby: I have been in a relationship with “Wade” for six years. The situation is this: He has gotten into trouble and can’t be around children because he’s a registered sex offender. I have an 11-month-old daughter by him. I want to be with Wade and work our relationship out, but if I do, I’ll have to give custody of my daughter to my parents and live in my own place with him.

I think we can say that the "women's liberation" movement was grossly misnamed, for such women are in shackles of their own making -- as firmly bound as any women who have ever graced the planet. She is probably no more stupid that any others in the sisterhood. Whether her daughter breaks free from the death spiral is anyone's guess. Jesus, Mary and Joseph! When will folks see?

Evolution isn't working

For all the assurances of the sexual left, the women aren't falling into line about being able to "love 'em and leave em:"

OTTAWA, June 26, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In the last several decades many have claimed that the sexual and feminist revolutions freed women to enjoy casual sex without fear of adverse consequences. Yet according to Professor Anne Campbell from Durham University in the UK, the negative feelings reported by women after one-night stands suggest that they are not well adapted to fleeting sexual encounters. Her findings are published online in the June issue of Springer's journal, Human Nature.

Professor Campbell looked at whether women have adapted to casual sex by examining their feelings following a one-night stand. She hypothesized that if women have adapted, they should rate the experience positively. To test this theory, a total of 1743 men and women who had experienced a one-night stand were asked to rate both their positive and negative feelings the following morning, in an internet survey.

Prof Campbell added: "Evolution often acts through positive or negative emotions which draw us towards adaptive behaviours or drives us away from harmful ones. For example, we enjoy other people's company but get depressed if we spend too much time alone. Basic emotions guide us down pathways that have been advantageous for our ancestors. It seemed obvious that if our female ancestors really were adapted to short-term relationships they ought to enjoy them."

Overall, however, women's feelings were much more negative than men's. 80 percent of men said they had overall positive feelings about the experience, compared to 54 percent of women.

The predominant negative feeling reported by women was regret at having been "used". Women were also more likely to feel that they had let themselves down and were worried about the potential damage to their reputation if other people found out.

"What the women seemed to object to was…the fact that the man did not seem to appreciate her. The women thought this lack of gratitude implied that she did this with anybody," Professor Campbell explained.

There seems to be some serious hard-wiring in the way here. It would seem that the need to be "appreciated" is blocking the necessary evolution to "mindless animal couplings." I'd also like to commend that 20% of men who aren't so base as to enjoy sex without some level of commitment. I'd also speculate that drugs and alcohol probably have a lot to do with the folks who claim "no regrets."

Sheer myopia

Seventeen girls in one high school made a pact to each try to conceive a child. Various mating rituals take place, including using older men of dubitable qualities -- and the community is stunned.

The pregnancy rate at the 1,200-student school is four times higher than the previous year, and officials were shocked to learn that men in their 20s had fathered some of the babies, Time.com said. "We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy," Sullivan told Time.com.

The Gloucester baby boom is forcing this city of 30,000 to grapple with the question of providing easier access to birth control, something this largely Catholic enclave is slow to embrace, the site said.

Perhaps there are not enough clues:

• kids are inundated with contraceptive materials already;
• kids are told that promiscuity is modern day fun;
• the girls wanted to be pregnant;
• standards indicate any living male would do for sperm donor;
• the repeated tests were to acertain who succeeded.

The feminists have obviously failed in showing that motherhood is a trap, since the girls "reacted to the news that they were expecting with high fives and plans for baby showers." But the educators prove themselves just as hard-headed, straining at gnats (sex often leads to babies--yikes!) and swallowing camels ("nice" girls engage in party games like "trysting with vagabonds" in order to be single parents).

Two glaring examples that show that those who are forming the youth are often clueless in the most important matters. John Dewey, call your office.

The mommy trifecta

Had a mildly fun time putting this together for Catholic Exchange, despite the depressing trend.

Last year, the New York Times looked into a recent phenomenon in the United States called “the mommy job.” Dr. David A. Stoker explained it succinctly: “Aimed at mothers, it usually involves a trifecta: a breast lift with or without breast implants, a tummy tuck and some liposuction. The procedures are intended to hoist slackened skin as well as reduce stretch marks and pregnancy fat… The severe physical trauma of pregnancy, childbirth and breast-feeding can have profound negative effects that cause women to lose their hourglass figures.”

Let’s parse that. The negative effect he outlines is not impacting health but beauty. When women lose that “hourglass” figure, we have a problem. When even the New York Times‘ fashion section questions the mindset that “pathologize[s] the postpartum body,” then you know a trend has hit a sociological wall.

When will women learn?

Plus ca change...

I suppose every generation thinks the next is clueless. I've read so many biographies covering the span of hundreds of years (the latest being this one) and each parent looks at his children, worrying about their direction, tendencies to sloth, and adherence to silly ideas.

This trend comes to mind as the "best and brightest" of Saint Louis insulted a remarkable 83-yr-old woman, being honoured by Washington University.

At today’s commencement ceremony held on a sunny Brookings Quadrangle, [Phyllis] Schlafly did not seem to notice the hundreds of backs turned to her while a citation heralding her accomplishments was read. A tense hush settled over the gathering of more than 14,000 people. Schlafly responded with a tranquil smile she held for several minutes as she was given an honorary doctorate of humane letters.

The juveniles were joined by many professors, some of whom walked off stage to mark their disgust with the conferral of degree to Mrs. Schlafly. Believing most likely that she opposed women making their mark in the public square, the elderly dynamo believed exactly the opposite (being a tremendous success on the political stage). She was firm in noting that all the rights that women needed were already imbedded in the Constitution, which seems to be true given the progress women have made sans ERA. What could be the problem, then? Was there another agenda, hidden and subversive that drove people to love or hate this Amendment?

Kathryn Lopez remarks on what a prophetess Phyllis was with her opposition to the ERA:

Even though Congress overwhelmingly approved the ERA in 1972—passing the House 354-to-23 and the Senate 84-to-8—and the amendment would subsequently be ratified by more than 30 states (but not by the 38 its supporters needed), Schlafly fought the nonsensical Equal Rights Amendment to its death in 1982.

While explaining why the big push for the federal Equal Rights Amendment ultimately failed, in her book Feminist Fantasies Schlafly reprinted some of her old objections: "ERA would put 'gay rights' into the U.S. Constitution because the word in the amendment is 'sex,' not 'women.' Eminent authorities have stated that ERA would legalize the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and generally implement the gay and lesbian agenda."

And guess what? In the latest example of Schlafly's prescience, on Jan. 20, 2006, a Maryland court struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban based on the Old Line State's Equal Rights Amendment.

And thus it's ironic that the judicial end-run of this week coincides with the honorary degree. The behaviour of the students (and faculty) makes clear that consitutional concerns are not a priority with the new generation, other than the concerns about how to undermine the work of the founding fathers.

God bless this remarkable woman, who proves that one determined soul can do so much good.

UPDATE: More incivility at this college, though a little more rambunctious. Ryan Sorba's topic was "The Born Gay Hoax."

There were at least two uniformed police officers, a security guard, and one university official in the room [on the campus of Smith College]. They made no serious effort to stop the rioters. They mostly just stood and watched. Members of the Smith Republican Club tried to stop people from taking over the podium area, but they were easily overwhelmed by the rioters. After a few minutes police and university officials ordered Ryan Sorba to leave “for his own safety.”  After that, the rioters used the microphone to exhort the crowd.

The following morning the president of Smith College issued a statement (here) about the incident [characterising] Ryan Sorba’s views as “reprehensible” and makes a lukewarm statement that she'll be “investigating possible violations” of Smith College’s policy regarding freedom of expression. Then she announces a pro-lesbian event taking place that evening that “stands in contrast to Mr. Sorba’s views.”

Free speech is a one-way thoroughfare, it seems; and academic inquiry is an oxymoron. But then, there were sit-ins and riots ever since the founding of universities. Hence the title of the post.

Baby booty

Michelle Malkin alerts NRO readers about trash for tots, courtesy of a fashion line by Beyonce:

One of the children wears sparkly, killer high heels (more pint-size Pussycat Doll than Dorothy from The Wizard of the Oz) and another slouches, gangsta gal-style, with a neon pink boa, leopard-skin fedora and stilettos. An even younger model is a toddler-aged Beyonce Mini-Me with huge hair, skinny jeans, spike-heeled leather boots, and attitude to match.

Abercrombie & Fitch prompted an outrage a few years ago with its line of thongs for elementary school girls and pedophilia-chic catalogues. And, of course, Calvin Klein started it all with 15-year-old Brooke Shields purring that “Nothing comes between me and my Calvins.” But the House of Dereon photo spread sinks even lower. It’s sick and it’s wrong, and it’s not social conservatives who first said so. Fashion and celebrity websites have been buzzing with outrage over the past week.

“Pimp my kid,” decried one blogger. “Dereon Girls ad too adult,” concluded another. Gossip king Perez Hilton polled readers on whether the ad was appropriate. The overwhelming consensus: Hell, no.

The creepiness factor is heightened by the fact that women were responsible for marketing this child exploitation. I’d ask: “Where was Beyonce’s mother to tell her daughter to wipe all the gunk off the Dereon models’ faces?” But Beyonce’s mother — who has helped manage the “Bootylicious” singer’s career from childhood — is her eager and willing partner in crime.

Sad to say, I don't think these attitudes are confined to ghetto aspirants. Chatting recently with Helen Alvare, she noted that she's considered making a "no cleavage before 9am" rule in her classrooms, and has been stunned to see what the other mothers in her daughter's Catholic school push their daughters to wear. Indeed, her priest insists that quite often the mothers are worse that the daughters.

[FYI, the Derion line is found here. I couldn't get past the music for a snapshot. Enter at your own risk.]

From the other side of the pond

A short while ago, this blog noted the clash of cultures when one cricket team in India introduced American-style cheerleaders. This excellent column takes the debate further, in questioning first, why the cheerleaders differ from the degrading sexual escapades currently emanating from "Bollywood," and secondly, whether such promiscuity in general is helpful to women overall:

Indian sexuality — in films, advertisements, magazines, public discourse — is today as unapologetically raunchy as anywhere else in the world. And maybe that’s what’s at the heart of the cheerleaders debate — and it’s a point that we have all entirely missed. Is manufactured sexuality really a mark of liberation for women? Or have we just internalised all the worst clichés of post- feminist clap-trap in the name of emancipation?

In our attempt to break Indian women free from the conventional orthodoxy of right-wing moralists, have we just replaced one kind of stereotype with another? And with one that is as oppressive and unforgiving?

She argues her way into the classical liberal trap that says that 1. any restriction on speech or behaviour is reprehensible; and 2. any idea that aligns a theoretician with "right-wing moralists" has to be eschewed out of hand. Thus she has to defend freedom to be trashy, abortion on demand, and women's liberation in all forms; no wonder that she finds herself stewing about "raunch culture" in all its glory.

Hey, if "moralism" is your unequivocal enemy, then anything goes. That would be your "cul-de-sac of choice," my friend.

Frogs and cricket

Everyone's heard the analogy about debasing culture, in which it's likened to the proper cooking of frogs. If one tosses a frog into very hot water, he'll jump out immediately. The trick is to put him in lukewarm water and turn up the heat g r a d u a l l y.

Well, they didn't get the word in India and, out of the blue, tried to use "western" cheerleaders (dare we claim these sort of things?) at cricket matches. Everyone was appalled.

Officials equate their gyrations and suggestive hip-hop dancing to that of the city's bar girls who were banned on grounds of obscenity two years ago.

"All the organizers are doing by making scantily clad white women dance in front of huge crowds is to stoke the base, voyeuristic and sexual insecurities of the Indian male. It's revolting and crude," historian Ramachandra Guha said.

But many cheerleaders said they were "disgusted and disturbed" over the suggestive remarks from Indian spectators.

"We do expect people to pass lewd, snide remarks but I am shocked by the nature and magnitude of the comments people pass here (in India)" cheerleader Tabitha from Uzbekistan said.

"Be it a 70-year-old or a 15-year-old kid they all letch at us and make amorous advances.

"We are living in constant fear of being molested," she bemoaned.

Meanwhile, some of the cricketers too objected to the cheerleaders. "The girls in skimpy dresses should be removed from the ground as this is distracting to batsmen," Pakistan's aggressive scorer Shahid Afridi said. "Cricket itself is an entertainment and does not require such cheerleaders to entertain," he added.

So let's see, the players, the officials, the fans and the cheerleaders themselves are all unhappy. Must be someone up in the front office laughing himself silly about his "forward-looking" hijinx. Interesting that their outfits are likened to those of obscene bar dancers and they draw lecherous comments from spectators. Where's the surprise? The only [on-going] surprise is that well-boiled westerners manage to disassociate the gyrating and flesh from its natural corollaries.

Couldn't resist

Yahoo (where I get my mail) offered women tips on how to get to Date #Two with men, which intrigued me. Obviously I haven't dated in decades and don't encourage my children to date but I was curious about the contemporary "rules." Even a little worried about how bad the advice might be. Not to worry -- chatty, common sense things. This tip pleasantly surprised me:

#6: Don't chase your date. Never deprive a man of the thrill of the chase. Besides, it's so much fun being caught! A woman can always initiate a first tea date, but after that, it's up to a man to decide whether he wants to pursue you. Entice men, play with them, and then release them! Allow men to initiate and take the lead in moving your relationship forward.

Romantic Rule: When men chase you, they're much less likely to fly away.

How true. How hard to convince young ladies of this. "Things have changed!" they insist. No, some things don't change -- not deep down in the way it matters. I know our high school prom situation now is such that the guys simply wait for girls to ask them. Then they go "dutch." Not much fun, and disappointing for the girls in the end. And remember the "way back" rule that you had to say Yes to the first fellow who asked, or you couldn't go? (Agony.) Boys have no such rule. "Nah," to one girl quickly changes to "Sure" for the right one. Scoundrels!