feminine-genius

Mixed bag of ideas

This article makes some excellent points, and ignores some key factors in the question about why baby boomers have the highest divorce rates -- higher even than the generation that followed them:

Boomers' unique social history may make them more divorce-prone than other groups. Why? Baby boomers, those 79 million born roughly between 1945 and 1964, are a specific cohort because of the conditions and events that they both experienced and, sometimes, created. Boomers came of age as relatively pampered children of a great postwar economy. With their adolescent disrespect for the past and their theme of "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll," they pushed against the restrictive conventions of social life their parents more or less had accepted...

As young adults, large numbers of them were part of the civil rights, anti-war, gay rights and women's movements. Books and magazine articles in their time attacked (and counterattacked) traditional gender roles -- and the institution of marriage and its traditions.

Boomer women experienced more recreational sex and more sex partners than women in previous generations. New job opportunities and careers helped create the changes in household formation (such as who was or wasn't home during the day, who did less or more housework, and who wanted more or less sex) that disrupted traditional marriage.

As a result, the boomers experienced decades of relationship innovation, creating cultural confusion about whether marriage was necessary, and what made an excellent -- or even adequate -- marriage. As boomer men and women wavered between choosing self-fulfillment over older traditions of duty, loyalty and lifetime marriage at any cost, the institution of marriage became, over time, more of a voluntary association than a predictably permanent one.

All very true. They rejected the traditions that they inherited (and which created the comfortable world in which they lived) and preferred innovation. 

Then there is this observation, which explains SO much:

They are fighting fiercely to remain youthful, to stay employed and/or passionately engaged with life, sexually vibrant (particularly with the help of new medical interventions) and regard their 50s and 60s as every bit the opportunity for love and sexual attraction that their 20s and 30s were.

Yes, all those awkward ads are targeting baby boomers for these very reasons. They rejected the normal boundaries all those years, and even now refuse to accept that nature says slow down.

Ah well, now we come to what's missing. It's obvious that the parents of the baby boomers gave them so much: stable homes, a good education, material comfort, opportunities, etc. But what they didn't give them was faith. The very faith that sustained their parents and grand-parents through two horrid world wars, a depression, and sometimes very trying family dynamics was evidently not worth passing along, rather they thought that mammon alone could give them what they needed. 

Most likely, a large number did try to explain virtue, but that message was lost in the cacophany of materialism and innovation. And that leads to the next missing piece: contraception. Without a firm grounding in religious doctrine (why chastity is essential) there were fewer and fewer visible contraindications to promiscuity. They engaged in promiscuity because they could -- the chance of pregnancy was significantly diminished -- and naturally the decisions that flowed from such imprudence were highly self-destructive.

So with no allusion to faith or virtue, what is the author's conclusion? She believes that the younger generation will do much better because they know how much suffering broken families cause, they marry later, they are more economically sophisticated, and they live together at far higher rates -- which is supposed to be some sort of silver bullet to the divorce monster. Tragically. Misguided.

The next generation is far less capable of life-long commitment, they are less family-oriented, they don't see marriage as integrally related to children, they have fewer children overall, cohabitation actually contributes to a far higher divorce rate should the couple move to the altar, and there are fewer role models and sources of reliable advice should they marry and encounter difficulties. And most importantly, without sacramental unions, the graces necessary to carry a couple through the challenges of a life-long union simply aren't available. In short, many of them are simply walking wounded -- the casualties of their parents' cherished "innovations." 

Since the source for the article is CNN, one wasn't expecting to find the wisdom of Solomon, but the inability to read even the most basic tea leaves is discouraging. A reliable diagnosis of such cultural crises is essential, but despite the interesting start, this case the author comes up woefully short. 

Male apprehension

Finally an honest column about the reason why men are reticent to show the usual kindness towards women:

Offering a seat to a pregnant woman on the Tube (or elsewhere in life) is too often confused with "sexism" – as equalities minister Jo Swinson unhelpfully reminded us earlier this year when she said it would have been sexist for her male colleagues in Parliament to offer her a seat, heavily pregnant, because they thought she 'needed' it. Equally, holding a door open for a woman can be wrongfully seen by some sexist behaviour: 'how dare the man think I'm the weaker sex and do this for me; as if I need it, I'm independent ... blah blah'.

We've forgotten the art of manners in this country. It's got nothing to do with sexism; it's often just the right thing to do to hold a door or offer a seat to someone who may need it more than you. Or forget *need* and admit it's just a nice, polite, lovely thing to do, to be kind to your fellow citizens whom you otherwise will probably never see again.

Men are so afraid of being accused of being sexist pigs they give up. Plenty of my male friends have openly admitted they don't even sit down in an empty seat on the Tube anymore for fear of a pregnant woman getting on at the next stop and having the awkward 'do you want my seat/ No, I don't/ I really don't mind/ I don't need it' tussle where both parties end up feeling silly. They'd rather leave it vacant for another man to deal with the inevitable.

The reason men are no longer as polite as they used to be? They're scared of getting it wrong, on the whole. There's also the argument that traditional acts of chivalry are frowned upon as "suspicious". Men are nervous their acts of kindness will be taken the wrong way – or send the wrong signal (either that he thinks he's better than her, or that he wants to date her, or both).

At my age, there is no cause for confusion on the last point, so I can just offer a motherly smile and hearty thank you for every chivalrous action. (I can also give the hairy eyeball to those who neglect me -- I've even just stood there to allow them a second chance!) Perhaps this would make a good new year's resolution -- the next generation of women will benefit tremendously from thoughtful men.

A mother evolves

This mother of twins (one boy, one girl) has changed her thinking on "gender stereotypes" by actually watching her children, and has some cute observations. 

Boy/ girl differences aren't colour-coded but the distinctions are deep rooted and genetically programmed. From day one Agatha has been emotionally cute, screaming blue murder to be held and from her new, lofty position she would smile smugly at her grounded brother. Charm personified in front of visitors, dough-eyed and cooing, and always preferring to sit on a male knee. In short, she has learned how to adapt her performance in front of different audiences.

Multitasking comes naturally as she clings on to both walkers simultaneously, flitting from one toy to another in rapid succession, looking to us for entertainment. You might say, like most women, she's an attention seeker – it takes one to know one. Turning on the waterworks, being deliberately obtuse, or embracing strangers are all classic tactics that I've employed over the years. I can see her little mind whirring – how can I maximise the attention potential of this situation? That's ma girl.

Emotionally more straightforward, Benjamin spent the first three months eating and sleeping. He hit the protein shakes hard and got massive, at which point he started to compete and to make himself heard. Something that resonates for men throughout their life time – the association between physical prowess and confidence.

He can focus on one activity, albeit looking at his boardbooks (with which he's obsessed), watching a cartoon or happily playing by himself in the playpen.

That said, as a mother of more than one boy and more than one girl, I can attest to the fact that there is a tremendous range with both. I think stereotypes can be deadly (either clinging to them or obstinately rejecting them), and yet we can now attest to the fact that there are physiological differences in male and female brains. 

What is marvelous, though, is that this mother has changed in her own thinking, taking the cues from her own children and acting on them:

"I don't care if my son grows up to become a cross-dressing star of musical theatre," I declared 18 months ago, determined not to force society's gender expectations upon them. "And if my daughter wants to be a 16st lumberjack, so be it."

But this Christmas I'll be listening to my maternal instinct and giving what I think Benny and Aggy want – a big red bus and a baby doll, respectively.

There's still a long way to go to discover the innate vocation of each--which is not as superficial as choosing toys--but at least she'll stop forcing square pegs into round holes. It's a start. 

The dignity of manhood

Social scientists are beginning to connect the dots on how the disintegration of the family is not only harming individuals, but is also at the heart of the growing wave of violence.

Another shooting, another son of divorce. From Adam Lanza, who killed 26 children and adults a year ago at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., to Karl Pierson, who shot a teenage girl and killed himself this past Friday at Arapahoe High in Centennial, Colo., one common and largely unremarked thread tying together most of the school shooters that have struck the nation in the last year is that they came from homes marked by divorce or an absent father. From shootings at MIT (i.e., the Tsarnaev brothers) to the University of Central Florida to the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Ga., nearly every shooting over the last year in Wikipedia’s “list of U.S. school attacks” involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place.

The social scientific evidence about the connection between violence and broken homes could not be clearer. My own research suggests that boys living in single mother homes are almost twice as likely to end up delinquent compared to boys who enjoy good relationships with their father. Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has written that “Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.” His views are echoed by the eminent criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, who have written that “such family measures as the percentage of the population divorced, the percentage of households headed by women, and the percentage of unattached individuals in the community are among the most powerful predictors of crime rates.”

While broken families were rare fifty years ago, that is no longer the case. More children now live without their biological father in the home than with, which is stunning statistic. That means that not only do fatherless children not see their own dads, they don't see many of their friends' dads either. 

So we have many children growing up fatherless. The girls are encouraged to excel in school and a lot of energy is spent on building their self-esteem. They find classrooms geared to their success, a sports culture that is enthusiastic for their participation, and colleges that believe in them.

But what about the boys? If they don't see their own dads, what do they see -- in the classroom, through the music industry, at the movies, on their ubiquitous screens? To put it mildly, the role models are lacking -- and often completely toxic. Where can they turn to understand the dignity of manhood?

And what of contemporary men, those whose turn it is to create and care for the next generation? Who will there be to choose from when these [materially] successful young women wish to create families and build culture? Camille Paglia has some choice words for the current situation:

Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.

It was always the proper mission of feminism to attack and reconstruct the ossified social practices that had led to wide-ranging discrimination against women. But surely it was and is possible for a progressive reform movement to achieve that without stereotyping, belittling or demonizing men. History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children. Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.

And yet feminism has heaped scorn on masculinity and decried the strengths natural to men. It has feminised the classroom, the workplace, and in many places the church sanctuaries. God the father has been replaced with gender-neutral imagery, and grrl power has been pumped into through the very pipes of most institutions.

So the men check out. They won't commit, they won't protect, and they won't father. Is it any wonder that so many of the boys go wild, sowing mayhem, taking out their aggression on a society who believes that their very masculinity is the problem. Those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind.

Honour men, masculinity, and fatherhood. Collaborate with men for the good of the children. Male and female He made them, and He saw that it was good. Let's do what we can to restore a healthy culture in which all children can thrive.

Advent musings

Yesterday, I had the privilege of speaking with Wendy Wiese, who was filling in for Sean Herriott on Relevant Radio's Morning Air. A link to the half-hour interview is here. Since the time always flies, we raced through some ideas on the Blessed Mother and our preparations for Christmas, but there were a few ideas left undeveloped:

• Saint Ambrose says that Our Lady learned from the shepherds who visited her. They must have related what they had seen and heard (which she didn't see or hear) and their genuine faith and wonder edified her as well. It's not that she was lacking, but surely this was another item that she stored in her heart, and then later shared so that we would have a more fullsome account of what transpired;
• Saint Cyprian says "You cannot have God for your Father if you do not have the Church for your mother." I spoke of the "single-parent family" that constitutes Protestantism. They have God the Father and love him dearly, but they have no room for Mary (outside of the Christmas season) even though the Scriptures they depend on say, "behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed" (Luke 1:48b). Whether you consider the Church for your mother or Mary (who is the first fruit and most perfect image of the Church), both are missing in the non-ecclesial sects, which impacts their entire faith;
• I only glanced on the notion of living in the moment, which Mary did, but it's an essential point. As long as we're reduced to living in time, all we have is now. NOW. I cannot love tomorrow until it becomes now. I can only love in this very instant, and then it is gone. We have to prepare, we have to be prudent, and we have to anticipate all the needs of tomorrow, but we have to do that while living fully in the present moment which is our greatest gift -- it's a gift because that is where God is for us finite creatures. He's eternal, we are not. So love now, live now, be present to God and neighbour now;
• I expand on Our Lady here, in an essay which unpacks a little more of the nativity story, and especially the question that Mary had previously asked of the Angel. Saint Jacob of Serug has some penetrating thoughts on that exchange. 

Let's use these last days of Advent to clear out the detritus and make room for the Saviour. He alone will grant us the peace and wisdom we need!

Safe, legal, and rare?

The proponents of legal abortion have insisted that when women don't have access to safe ways to end unwanted pregnancies, they will endanger their lives by seeking unsafe methods. The coat hangar was long a symbol of what frantic women resorted to when they couldn't find a doctor. 

Now, there are so many lies in that premise that it's hard to know where to start. Few women actually lost their lives over self-induced abortions, and placing unwanted children for adoption allowed many childless couples to open their homes and hearts to infants in need of a mother and father. While "back-alley abortions" were previously decried as horrific, modern-day facilities still go unregulated because pro-aborts say that meeting basic health standards would be too onerous.  

But finally, the procedure itself will never be safe. Setting aside the tragedy of a dead child, we have a mother who is encouraged to procure an abortion (often underaged, often without parental knowledge, often without the authorities knowing that statutory rape has been committed) and in all cases, without the pertinent information that she is significantly increasing her chance of getting breast cancer.

Dr. Joel Brind, professor of endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York and a director at the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, has highlighted a Chinese peer-reviewed study that shows that

incidences of breast cancer in China increased at an “alarming rate” over the past two decades, corresponding with the rise of the Chinese Communist Party’s one-child policy.

The researchers reached their conclusions after examining 36 studies that investigated the associations between abortion and breast cancer. The overall risk of developing breast cancer among women having only one abortion increased by 44 percent. 

Calling it the “dose-response relationship” researchers also found that the risk of breast cancer increased as the number of abortions increased. Two abortions increased the risk by 76 percent, three by 89 percent. 

The researchers called their findings “consistent” with those of Dr. Brind, who found in a 1996 meta-analysis that women had a 30 percent greater chance of developing breast cancer after aborting their child. “Not only does [the study] validate the earlier findings from 1996, but its findings are even stronger,” Brind told LifeSiteNews.com.

This blog has long promoted Dr Brind's essential work, and are gratified to see that this meta-study backs up all of his warnings--warnings that the American Cancer Society and American Medical Association have consistently ignored. This is not the only ratification of his work:

The Chinese research follows on the heels of two similar studies earlier this year. One study published in the Indian Journal of Community Medicine in May found a 6-fold greater risk of breast cancer among Indian women with a history of induced abortion when compared to the women with no such history. A similar study from Bangladesh published in the Journal of the Dhaka Medical Collegein April found that women with a history of induced abortion had a 20-fold increase in likelihood of developing breast cancer when compared to women with no such history. 

To that end, we now highlight his new site, which (interestingly enough) didn't show up immediately on the google search--even when the title was completely entered. (I'll try that again in a few weeks to see if he is still marginalised by the internet PTB.)

Please familiarise yourselves with the data, with the risks, with the studies -- so that you can offer a concrete [non-moral] reason for rejecting abortion. Abortion supporters have always accused pro-lifers of ignoring the women who are in a difficult situation, but this shows that choosing life is the best choice for the baby--and the mother!