feminine-genius

Tired old clichés

Thirty years ago called--they want their banners back. Cherie Blair (wife of former UK Prime Minister) leads the charge into cultural oblivion:

Blair suggested that children raised in households with a full-time mom lack a sense of independence and can’t make their way in the world because their moms don’t have “professional ambition.” “I also want to be the best possible mother, but I know that my job as a mother includes bringing my children up so actually they can live without me,” she remarked.

Soooo, that essential education is supposed to start in infancy -- by dropping the child with paid caregivers who will begin the task of explaining that mother has better things to do? And then extensive pre-school programs, and then after-school care until the child is old enough to be a latch-key kid, and then ... hope for the best? Why not just set up state-run orphanages with weekend visits for parents?

Every psychological serious study screams that this woman is wrong (the same woman who not only wants her children not to need her, but told the world that her fourth was a contraceptive snafu).

But, all that said, I think we need to consider the frightfully small demographic she's targeting: the "yummy mummies" who "describe young, attractive women who live on their husband’s wealth, staying home full-time with their children."

Adding that women who decide to get married to rich men and “retire” at home are unfulfilled and “dangerous,” Blair said, “you think how can they even imagine that is the way to fulfil yourself, how dangerous it is.”

Ignore the fact that many women sacrifice a great deal to be home with their children; ignore the fact that tight economies make it increasingly difficult for single-income families to persevere; ignore the fact that more than half of children are not sharing a home with their biological fathers; ignore the fact that marriage is often not on the radar screen for many couples with children (refusing even the attempt to establish stabibility for the sake of their children); and ignore the fact that, until this generation, marrying a man with a steady income was considered highly prudent. What has possessed these women not only to abandon their own children (while calling it the best formation possible) but to insult all women who choose differently?

Such is the insecurity of feminists -- and it always has been thus. Getting an education isn't enough -- feminists must also rig all the schools so that boys are handicapped and girls surrounded by hyper-esteem programs. Being pro-abortion isn't enough -- feminists must also indict those who choose to bring their crisis pregnancies to term, calling them selfish and unworthy of the "sisterhood." Enjoying the workplace isn't enough -- feminists must also trash all those who prioritise their children, even for the few years when the children are quite young and benefit by their mothers' presence.

Ah well, like all pro-choice women, only some choices are valid, and those are justified by pummelling all the rest. The story includes this non-surprising factoid:

Blair said her view of motherhood was shaped by her own experience of her father abandoning her mother when she was a child.

Woe to those who scandalise the little ones...  Poor dear.

Let brothers be brothers

While the military has seen politically-driven encroachment of women into myriad all-male enclaves, Stephen Kilcullen makes and excellent case for keeping them out of the Rangers.

It is this culture of excellence and selflessness that attracts young men to the Ranger brotherhood. The Ranger ethos is designed to be deadly serious yet self-deprecating, focused entirely on teamwork and mission accomplishment. Rangers put the mission first, their unit and fellow soldiers next, and themselves last. The selfishness so rampant elsewhere in our society has never existed in the Ranger brotherhood.

And that is the secret of the brotherhood's success. Some call it "unit cohesiveness" but what they are really describing is a transition from self-interest to selfless service. The notion of allowing women into Ranger School because denying them the experience would harm their careers makes Ranger graduates cringe. Such politically correct thinking is the ultimate expression of the "me" culture, and it jeopardizes core Ranger ideals.

In his piece, he uses the key arguments that have the most weight:

• there is a warrior cult (a brotherhood) that is hard to define;
• this brotherhood is key to the cohesion of the unit;
• the cohesion of the unit is critical to the success of the mission;
• the military mission cannot defer to the private interests of any individual.

This has been the problem with political tinkering for many decades: individual "rights" (that have little/nothing to do with the military mission) have undermined the ability of our armed forces to do their job. Just as the politicians in Washington DC who tried to fight the Vietnam war (by imbibing the daily news and gauging public opinion) proved disastrous to the mission, so has using the armed forces as a social networking guild and means of advancing the sexual revolution.

The military has changed many policies in recent years, based on individual self-interest masquerading as fairness and antidiscrimination. As we debate new policies, decision makers need to ask two simple questions: Is a proposed move good for the majority of service members? And does it improve or hinder our ability to execute our mission?

After all, the military does not exist to provide careers. It is a responsibility, a way of life and a higher calling that only 1% of our citizens choose to follow. A top-notch fighting force composed of dedicated and strong men who are the very best at what they do is what defines our armed forces—and the Rangers as among their best. Let's not destroy this small but incredibly important culture under the banner of "me."

Either the US has enemies or it doesn't. Either its mission is to prevail or it isn't. If women (and persons with same-sex attraction) distract a unit from performing its tasks, then the mission should take precedence over these games. Perhaps the Rangers will succeed where other groups haven't, but there's no guarantee.

This may be prove another confused battle where political correctness invites women into situations where their very presence (no matter how sincere and well-qualified) weakens the team in incalculable ways. And it undermines the core feminine vocation: which is to give life, to nurture it, and sustain through their physical and spiritual motherhood. Anytime that we forget that truth -- and the man's call to protect it to the extent of laying down his own life for it -- we've poisoned our very culture and reason for living.

Every story an urgent story

In China, there are too many stories like this to count, and yet God weeps over each one:

Cao Ruyi, 37, and her husband Li Fu have a six year old daughter. Her husband reports that Cao [five months pregnant] was taken from their home and “dragged by more than a dozen government family planning officials and security guards.”

Bob Fu, president of China Aid Association ... has been in touch with Cao’s husband since the arrest. Fu also spoke to a family planning official in Changsha City and was told that Cao had two options: “to abort the baby or pay over $24,000 penalty.”

She may have already had the first of two abortion-inducing injections. Her husband pleaded:

“Help us - I will never sign the consent form, but we also need the public to help stop a forced abortion. Tell them to please help us!”

Imagine that plea from thousands of couples daily. Steven Mosher was on the Drew Mariani show today, giving more details about the horror that is modern China. I know you'll pray for Cao Ruyi and her baby -- and all the families under duress because of this draconian policy.

Being provocative

A good interviewer is transparent, so that his questions draw out the best answers from the one being interviewed. Vittorio Messori -- best-selling author of books eliciting thoughts from both John Paul II and Benedict XVI -- has been an enigma to most of his readers, but now he offers some deliberately provocative comments concerning marriage, suggesting that we “return to pre-arranged marriages.”

He explains further:

If marriage is not just continuous emotional chirping, but it is a pact for life, it is worth re-evaluating the wisdom shown in the past, when parents chose their daughters’ husbands. So many of my forty year old single or separated female friends have confided to me that we should go back to pre-arranged marriages. Instead of leaving everything up to chance, it is better to put our trust in someone who has experience and is able to make an informed judgement based on temperament, whilst taking into account factors such as age, solidity and perhaps even material wealth as well…”

And yet, if a culture hasn't been choosing well for several generations, then at what point will young people be able to trust their parents' judgement--parents who are more than likely themselves to have been divorced, and probably struggling with many dimensions of their faith. Wisdom is a gift of God that accumulates among the faithful over the years. That might be a problem in some places, no? 

He continues, pinning the blame for bad matches on smarmy romantic notions:

[I]t is precisely this romantic Nineteenth century concept of love which is steeped in rhetoric from the Italian novel Heart and full of women whose only role is to care for the family that has ruined the Catholic family. If anything, the role of Catholics today is to combat romantic love. Marriage, I repeat, cannot be based on emotions, because emotions are, by nature changeable. Without faith in Jesus, the promise of “forever” made between a man and a woman would be irrational.

Now, interestingly, I've met a couple whose marriage was arranged. They were very happly, having been raised in southern India. They had only met briefly when going down the list of suggested spouses drawn up by their parents. She was something like the sixth on his list, and he was the second on hers. A fifteen minute discussion sealed the deal.

"What did you talk about?" I asked, shocked.

"School plans. Job prospects. Basic stuff." was the cheerful answer.

They were delightful and deeply Catholic. But the key element was that they shared a rich culture and their families had been doing this for centuries. It was an art. When the children are young, the parents take note of their peers, and they watch the development, the formation, the school progress, the growth in virtue. They keep tabs on the families they admire, and take note of the ones who would make good spouses for their children. For them--with all of those added layers--it worked.In fact, although they were living in the States, their families back in India were keeping their eye on prospects for their children, whom they hoped would continue the tradition.

It probably doesn't work for everyone, but with both the man and the woman given the veto power and a chance to size up each prospective mate, it has quite a good success rate. The added benefit was that the entire community was invested in each marriage, and if either the husband or the wife in a union began to stray from his or her responsibilities to the family, the people close to them offered fraternal correction, based on the Gospel.

Could it work in the diverse societies now found in the West? Where everything including food, entertainment, work ethic, and lifestyle are hyper-individualised? Highly doubtful, but would it be worse than what we have now? Hmmm, perhaps just a different kind of bad.

Interesting idea, but maybe one for the back shelf. Way back.

a Mad world dissected

Yes, I'm a Mad Men fan, and here's an article about this week's show:

What I saw in the episode were two seemingly unrelated stories coalescing into one. Besides the tragedy of Lane’s choices, there was the story of Sally, an angry young girl caught between two self-absorbed parents, Don and Betty. She endured their eventual divorce and ensuing marriages, with each seeing her more as annoyance than person. Since she didn’t want to go on a ski vacation with her mother, Sally acted out in the most insolent way possible, ramping up the decibels of rudeness until her mother relented and sent her to spend the weekend with her father. There—unannounced and inconvenient—she could proceed with a surreptitious plan to meet with a young man.

Spoiler alert. The rest is here...  [and the most compelling discussion, as ever, here]