Funny Because It's True

Typically, I am the first to wave the red flag when I see women disguising their all-too-natural gift for manipulation as intellect or altruism, but in the case of this very cute and very true article about the not-so-glamorous, day-to-day of married life, I have to delight in the writer's playful twist on the less viscious form of maniplation I'll henceforth admiringly refer to as "cleverness."

In "What Shamu Taught Me About a Happy Marriage," writer Amy Sullivan gives both spouses a chance to laugh at themselves as she explains her discovery that husbands (and humans in general) are not at all unlike the circus animals she found herself researching for a book project, and can be easily trained by heeding just a few simple principles. As she says, "The central lesson I learned from exotic animal trainers is that I should reward behavior I like and ignore behavior I don't. After all, you don't get a sea lion to balance a ball on the end of its nose by nagging. The same goes for the American husband. "

And as she wisely concludes as she pokes fun at herself at the end of the article, so can the American wife.

Clearly this isn't gospel truth, but it is a nice reminder to not take our own or our spouse's weaknesses so seriously. Hopefully it will give you at least a hint of a smile too....

Need to get your Blood pumping?

Read this review of, "Getting Serious about Getting Married", a not-so-sensitive self-help book for single women outlining all the "how-to's" of landing a spouse. You just have to put your mind to it. Take charge of your own destiny. Set priorities. Focus.

Is anyone else already annoyed?

On the upside, I do agree with reviewer Camerin Courtney who seems to give this book it's due criticism for oversimplifying the ever-complex world of guy-girl friendships and dating relationships. And, for pointing out some faulty biblical premises, "Her case for marriage as God's will for all believers rests largely on the story of Adam and Eve. Maken argues that since God said it wasn't good for Adam to be alone and then solved that problem not with a brother or friend or neighbor but with a spouse, that must mean every other person throughout the course of history is God-designed to be married. " Hardly!

While I agree the general principles of personal responsibility and moral agency hold in the realm of dating, I am also sympathetic about the reality that many excellent women remain single for inexplicable purposes. Sure, being a little pro-active never hurt anyone but when it comes to romance, sheer will can only get you so far. Marriage is not merely a solution to loneliness (Lord knows there are plenty of lonely married people) nor is it an end that justifies any means, and it is certainly not to be pursued as an "accomplishment."

Marriage is a sacrament, a covenant, a gift. Certainly we have responsibility to engage that gift as it is bestowed to us, and to do the hard and necessary work to keep our hearts open to that possibility, but it is not up to us to be masters of our own destinies. If that's the premise we start from, these do-it-yourself marriages are unlikely to last long in any case. Good marriages take nothing less than grace, a free gift we cannot earn, but only gratefully receive. Shouldn't that be the same posture we take initially as well?

More Than Just a Broken Arrow

If having sex in college is so "normal", why are its affects seemingly so abnormal? Here is one FASCINATING piece from the Washington Post a few weeks ago titled, "Cupid's Broken Arrow" about rising rates of male impotenece among college-aged men.

Fascinating in part because it seems so unlikely but also because it seems to make sense. As the article says, It seems that for a sizable number of young men, the fact that they can get sex whenever they want may have created a situation where, in fact, they're unable to have sex. According to surveys, young women are now as likely as young men to have sex and by countless reports are also as likely to initiate sex, taking away from males the age-old, erotic power of the chase.

And while the power of the chase is certainly part of the problem, other factors may contribute as well. As the article goes on to say, "Combine performance anxiety with binge drinking and the abuse of drugs on campus and it's no wonder that problems are showing up at college clinics in numbers that give the lie to the adage that impotence is reserved for the old (Bob Dole) or crazy (Jack Nicholson in "Carnal Knowledge"). The younger models who now appear in commercials for Viagra and its pharmaceutical clones reveal that the drug makers know (hope?) what the rest of us don't: Some members of the Game Boy generation are losing their game."

What seems most interesting to me is that besides the brief mention of sexually aggressive behavior in the first graph (quoted above), the abnormal frequency and emotional disconnection that often accompany casual sex are not explored extensively as significant factors in this phenomenon. Instead, relatively mundane factors like stress, anxiety and diet are cited as significant sources. Forgive me if I don't believe that eating Taco Bell and taking AP curses in high school is more at fault for early impotence than, say, masturbation or promiscuity. If anything I would think that guilt or emotional disengagement or overstimulation or simple boredom are far more likely culprits.

Seems to me we shouldn't be surprised that the unbridled sexual license we have not only permitted, but encouraged, on college campuses has resulted in an irony this pointed. After all, the chickens always come home to roost.

The Sanctity of Holy Matrimony - and Porn for the Whole Family

Will wedding nonsense ever cease? As if it's not silly enough that the average wedding costs $40,000, or that you can order/certify any old officiant online, or that most brides spend more than a year of their lives planning for a 4-hour event that often has little more communal significance than the number of gifts a couple receives.....

We now learn that even with all the necessary acoutrements of a $50K+ Martha Stewart wedding you haven't FULLY captured the perfect day unless your photographer gets a shot or two of the bride in her skivvies. That's right, according to the Wall Street Journal today, Brides Gone Wild: A booming nuptials business is catering to brides who want to document what they looked like getting dressed for the altar. Jon Weinbach on sultry wedding photos -- and the mother-in-law's reaction.

According to the article, "The multibillion-dollar wedding industry is offering a revealing new twist on the old bridal portrait. Catering to older and more independent brides -- and reflecting popular culture's turn toward the risqué and voyeuristic -- more photographers are setting up in dressing rooms to immortalize unguarded, preceremony moments. Wedding albums and public photographer Web sites alike are filling up with a different view of the bride -- daddy's little girl cavorting in lingerie, adjusting a bra or hiking her gown for a bathroom break."

Forbid the thought that a bride might not fully recollect what panties (or thigh-highs or boy pants or bustier) she was wearing on her wedding day when she flips through that album 25 years from now! Much better that her children and parents and in-laws should think her a total whore than risk the loss of that precious (and explicit) memory....

Or this, many independent-minded brides are poking fun at so many white bouquets and demure poses. "Being like a virgin is very different than being a virgin," says Julie Albright, a marriage therapist and sociology professor at the University of Southern California. For the many brides who have been living with their fiancés for years before taking the leap, mugging for risqué shots can be a way of playing up the irony of donning a traditional dress. "The white gown and veil is a kind of performance or drag -- like Madonna in her video for 'Like a Virgin.

I have to wonder if voyeurism and dressing in "drag" is REALLY part of the fairytale little girls dream about when they think of their wedding day. Seems unlikely. Most women I know, at least, strongly prefer that their fiancee's marry them for, oh, say, their mind or character and NOT primarily for their body, which will inevitably change as time and the womb and gravity all conspire against it. But maybe that's just my un-independent mind talking.

If only I had rememberd to get that bathroom break shot as part of my own album.... Darn.

A Darn Good Reason For My Absence

Thanks to all of you faithful readers who are still checking this blog after many months away.

After one very nauseous and shamefully unproductive first trimester (READ: I'M PREGNANT!) I am back and armed with a bevy of bloggable stuff. First, a very small, and very alien-like picture of the much-anticipated Baby Harris, gender TBD. This pic was at 8 weeks, baby is now about twice the size and 15 weeks old. Has arms and legs now as well as a few dozen vital organs as I understand it.

Hurrah for babies!

Now This is what I call a Retreat

Not that anyone cares, but this Shangri-La-looking place on the Chesapeake Bay is where I'll be spending the weekend. I will leave to go there in less than an hour to join another several hundred women for our Church's annual Women's Retreat. I have to admit, I have never done the "women's retreat" thing and I feel a bit ambivalent about it even now, but given that a 4-star resort is part of the package I am thinking it can't be all bad.

Plus, I'll be sharing my probably less-than-helpful thoughts on "Faith & The Work Place" at a panel tomorrow afternoon, which my close friends know will mostly include tips on how to ask forgiveness from colleagues. :) Maybe I'll learn a thing or two from the other panelists.

Have a nice weekend one and all!

Accidents Happen

And it's a good thing they do! After all, it was by accident that I came across this unique blog, Modestly Yours, while I was playing catch up on my oft-forgotten blog this week.

Take note, I am not one to put myself in the "modesty camp", per se. Heaven knows I love a tube top/strapless sundress as much as the next girl. However, I do like that this is a blog by women for women and on-the-whole they seem rather reasonable on the subject. The fact that they have some college-aged women contributing gives me a great sense of hope. Take for instance their take on Wendy Shalit's book, A Return to Modesty. I am sad to say I haven't read this book, but have no fear, I plan to do so ASAP.

In the meantime, I offer up this thoughtful review (a bit out-of-date) from Christian Century (scroll down to see the text). This excerpt from the book piqued my interest:

If men are brought up, as today's boys are, believing that girls always want the same thing they do from sexual encounters, and that it's evil and sexist to assume otherwise, then they are that much more likely to be impatient and uncomprehending of a woman's "no." Female modesty gave men a frame of reference for a woman's "no." Without that frame of reference, but instead taught from day one that women are always as ready to receive advances as they are eager to make them, the modern male always takes a "no" as a personal rebuke. That is why women today must link arms, charge down campus in their anti-date-rape rallies, screaming "No means no!"

For a bonus treat, go to this 1999 edition of First Things to check out a review by Ms. Shalit, "Daddy's Little Girl" as well as a review of her own book, "A Return to Modesty" by Sarah Hinckley. I must say I am a bit wary of this stereotype described by Hinckley:

Exhibit A of this need is Shalit’s description of end–of–the–century American mating rituals. First there’s the hook–up. That’s where young men and women gather in some communal territory, like a frat house or bar, medicate themselves with liquor, and then engage in any range of sexual activities, oblivious to all factors beyond momentary attraction. The next stage is the dumping: the male disentangles himself from the perceived "clinginess" of the female’s attempt at emotional involvement. The final stage is the check–up, in which the thoughtful male makes sure that the dumped female is still in fairly good health and, if he is especially enlightened, offers her the chance to talk about "what went wrong." This three–tiered process is what is known as "having a relationship." Get used to it or get out.

It is a critique, only because I think one of the more destructive trends in college circles is not the sexual aggression and flippancy of men but of women. However, I am far from dismissing the book for this small critique (especially having not read it) and I am encouraged by what she goes on to say:

Shalit wants women to be women again. She sees the deep perversity of the "androgyny project" of the past thirty years that demands manhood of women and a diminution of manhood among men, but refuses to tolerate womanhood in women. It is anything but a liberation from old shackles: instead, it is a suppression of femininity, a direct assault on the oft–touted blessing of diversity.

As soon as I (finally) return my current stack of books and thus get of the library blacklist, this will be the next one on my shelf. Check it our for yourself.

Vivo la Visa!

From IT Week yesterday, "A group of 18 financial institutions and internet providers have joined forces with child advocacy groups in the US and Europe in an effort to eradicate commercial child pornography by 2008."

All I have to say is WELL DONE. I always knew I had good reason to love Visa.
For more great news about corporations taking responsibility for penalizing child predators instead of passing the buck, see the full articles here or here.

Growing the Party

Well folks, it's an election year so this is a common theme for us Washingtonians, but typically "grow the party" conversations revolve around microtargeting efforts or Get-Out-The-Vote initiatives or maybe a direct mail campaign. Rarely do they focus on generativity as the key to capturing votes as USA Today does (sort of - smile) in its article this week on The Liberal Baby Bust.

Here is a quick excerpt from writer Philip Longman, on his theory that falling birth rates among progressive secular elites in America will ultimately result in a rising number of conservatives and a reshaping of American politics in future generations:

Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

...Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

This article ties in nicely with a lecture I attended today at which Maggie Gallagher, a prolific writer and advocate for marriage, made a compelling case for the importance of procreation within marital unions. She outlined, as she always does, why marraige is a universal anthrolopological phenomenon in practically every ancient and modern society: 1) because sex creates babies 2) because societies need babies in order to survive 3) because babies need fathers as well as mothers and marriage. As she said, "When a baby is born we always know a mother is close by..." implying that since physiology doesn't naturally tie a father to a child a social institution, i.e. marriage, acts to unite the father to the child via sexual union with the mother.

She spent a great deal of time on her second point, that societies need babies to survive. As she said it, "whether or not to have babies is optional for a couple but it is not optional for society." Plainly put, if society does not replace its population with each generation it will decline and ultimately cease to exist. Doesn't seem like rocket science, eh? Still, it is a hotly contested point, especially among liberal advocates of population control and advocates of gay marriage who hate to concede that procreation is a uniqueness only heterosexual marriages can boast. To say otherwise is akin to bigotry and hate speech.

In any case... this is just food for thought. Check out some of Maggies' longer articles as you have time. My favorite phrase from her on the gay marriage question is that "this is an us problem not a them problem" i.e. it is heterosexuals who have the responsibility to honor and uphold the meaning of marriage among themselves first and foremost.

Sarah Leon and I might actually BE soul mates....

At the very least I am certain we would be friends (assuming the unlikely chance that we ever actually meet what with her being a stranger living in Northern California and all) but still...

Check out this fantastically candid post by my like minded blogging pal-to-be, on her observation Soul Mates are Dumb.

I concur.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day! For those who don't know much about the holiday (myself included) here is a bit of history about Old Pat:

It is known that St. Patrick was born in Britain to wealthy parents near the end of the fourth century. He is believed to have died on March 17, around 460 A.D. Although his father was a Christian deacon, it has been suggested that he probably took on the role because of tax incentives and there is no evidence that Patrick came from a particularly religious family. At the age of sixteen, Patrick was taken prisoner by a group of Irish raiders who were attacking his family's estate. They transported him to Ireland where he spent six years in captivity. (There is some dispute over where this captivity took place. Although many believe he was taken to live in Mount Slemish in County Antrim, it is more likely that he was held in County Mayo near Killala.) During this time, he worked as a shepherd, outdoors and away from people. Lonely and afraid, he turned to his religion for solace, becoming a devout Christian. (It is also believed that Patrick first began to dream of converting the Irish people to Christianity during his captivity.)

I encourage you to read this eloquent prayer by the Saint (forwarded to me by my pal Meredith, thank you!)

More catch-up blogging to come....

A bit more on "Big Love" before I move on...

Charles Krauthammer covers Big Love in his column today so I thought I'd pass on his compelling argument:

As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

For more info check out thefull column here.

Big Love and Big Lies

It's a good thing Stanley Kurtz said it all here, because learning about HBO's newest show, Big Love, about a fictional polygamous family has me speechless!

Take this astounding observation by Ginnifer Goodwin, the actress playing Margene, one of Bill Henrickson's (Bill Paxon) three wives on the show, when she says that for many women, polygamy "is the answer to their problems, not a problem in and of itself." WHA?!?!?

What kind of alternative gender universe does Ms. Goodwin live in? Any woman who has attended middle school or high school knows the one thing that draws out the worst in women is OTHER WOMEN. Now, obviously the reverse is also true, that women can also draw out the BEST in other women but typically that isn't the case when it involves winning the attention of a man...

What is saddest to me is the idea that women are well-served by polygamy. I wonder if anything could be further from the truth. Women are wired for relationship in a way that is unique and different from men. This isn't to say men aren't relational- please don't hear that- but simply that women are profoundly different than men when it comes to relationships. As one of my oft-quoted favorite writers Sharon Hersh discusses, in the Garden of Eden, man was created first and was alone, whereas woman was created from man, and after man, so that from the very beginning woman identified being as"being in relationship to another" whereas man, in his very nature, understands being as "alone" and ALSO being as "in relationship to another".

The consequence of this observation becomes profound as Hersh goes on to say that in her practice as a counselor, and through a number of studies, she has found that men tend to express fulfillment when they achieve a sense of independence and self-sufficiency whereas women tend to express fulfillment when they achieve a sense of security in relationships. Note that this doesn't have to mean relationships with men, but just relationships with other people.

I ponder on this as I think about Ginnifer Goodwin's statement that polygamy is good for women. Can it be that constant competition and comparison and envy and all the other complexities sharing a sexual partner entails really helps women develop a sense of security in relationships? What about their children and the assurance that they will never have their father's full attention? How do you maintain a sense of stability when one man's commitment is divided 4 ways?

Hardly seems like Big Love to me, it's more like one Big Lie and I concur with Kurtz that this sort of pop culture activism has frightening consequences for how we define family, and ultimately society. Is polygamy really the building-block definition of the family institution upon which we want to build our culture? yikes.

Celebrating International Women's Day

the NRO way! Check out this link to see just a few of the women worth celebrating today. For the record, half of the women who are offering names of women worthy of celebration deserve to be on the list themselves! (Note: Ann Corkery and Lisa Thompson ESPECIALLY)

Also, special props go to my friend and colleague Shonda who made iced gingerbread woman cookies in honor of the Day. She goes on my short list of women worthy of celebration!

And the Oscar goes to.....

A bunch of whining pimps? Did I hear that correctly?
That's right, the Oscar winner for Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures is none other than the ever-enriching and classic score titled, "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp".

Just to give you a small taste of Hollywood's latest touch of class here are a few lyrics from the song (BEWARE: the following content contains exclusively offensive material):

[Chorus] You know it's hard out here for a pimp (you ain't knowin) When he tryin to get this money for the rent (you ain't knowin) For the Cadillacs and gas money spent (you ain't knowin) Because a whole lot of bitches talkin shit (you ain't knowin) Will have a whole lot of bitches talkin shit (you ain't knowin)

[Verse] Man it seems like I'm duckin dodgin bullets everyday Niggaz hatin on me cause I got, hoes on the tray But I gotta stay paid, gotta stay above water Couldn't keep up with my hoes, that's when shit got harder North Memphis where I'm from, I'm 7th Street bound Where niggaz all the time end up lost and never found Man these girls think we prove thangs, leave a big head They come hopin every night, they don't end up bein dead Wait I got a snow bunny, and a black girl too You pay the right price and they'll both do you That's the way the game goes, gotta keep it strictly pimpin Gotta have my hustle tight, makin change off these women, yeah

For a more truthful perspective on this song, check out this article, Pimp Pop Culture Brushes Aside Girls' Fate, in the Washington Post about real pimps and real VICTIMS of pimps. As the columnist observes:

Of course, songs and stories about black pimps are nothing new. But never before has the degradation of black women at the hands of stereotypically thuggish black men been so deeply engrained in popular culture. Through internationally marketed music videos, especially, African Americans have emerged as the only people on Earth who immortalize their mothers and sisters in the worst derogatory ways.

And this is hardly the beginning of a much more evil story about the thousands of women who are trafficked for sex around the world every day. Despite shameless advocates who claim to protect the "rights" of "sex workers" worldwide, the story of real pimping and real victims is nothing to celebrate. Let's not kid ourselves. No little girl aspires to be a prostitute. It is slavery of the worst kind because its proponents call it "liberation." Don't even get me started....

Sex and the Meaning of Marriage

Having just come back from my sister's bridal shower, and in anticipation of her upcoming wedding, I have been thinking a lot about how and why we celebrate the marriage customs that we do and what significance they hold for how we plan not just for our weddings, but for our marriages.

What seems especially striking to me as I come away from this weekend of celebration is the integral role friends and family play in slowly and winsomely drawing the betrothed couple into the larger community through various wedding traditions over the course of an engagement. Take the bridal shower, for example. This seemingly superficial party actually reflects rather profound truths about what a bride (and groom) will need within marriage. By gathering just women together to celebrate with the bride, it affirms the need for both bride and groom to have gender-specific friendships to rely upon as they navigate the sometimes universal and sometimes specific gender gaps that inevitably emerge within marriage. It also defines the woman and man as having unique needs, unique interests, and unique desires for marriage.

More profoundly, the bridal shower is often the first stage of an engagement in which a couple's anticipated sexual union becomes something that is marked with communal significance. Never have I been to a bridal shower where sex was "off-the-table", so to speak. To the contrary, it is often a common topic of conversation as older and presumably wiser women ask questions, share advice, joke, offer encouragement, and testify that sex - while private and intimate - also has public implications. There is often talk of babies, for instance.

With these thoughts and observations in mind I offer this thoughtful and instructive piece by Jennifer Roback Morse who explores the meaning of sex not only within marriage but for society. While this piece generally speaks of marriage as a policy question(which is undoubtedly a controversial approach) the principles and guidelines she offers for helping us understand marriage as a question of human sexuality rather than a question of contractual allowances is a constructive framework, I believe.

As she writes:
Many people celebrate the uncoupling of sexual activity from both of its natural functions, procreation and spousal unity. But by doing so, we have capsized the whole natural order of sexuality. Instead of being an engine of sociability and community building, sex has become a consumer good. Instead of being something that draws us out of ourselves and into relationship with others, our sexual activity focuses us inward, on ourselves and our own desires. A sexual partner is not a person to whom I am irrevocably connected by bonds of love. Rather, the sexual partner has become an object that satisfies me more or less well.

She is speaking of the broad societal view of sexuality here, of course, yet it is this observation that causes me to reflect on how stark the contrast is that we can see when marriage and traditional customs insist on a different reality. The bridal shower forces, at least in a small way, the undoing of this commonly held notion that sex is ultimately a private affair. We have showers, in part, to remind the bride that her decision to be married, and thus to be sexual, touches a larger community. And while the community is obviously not entering into her bedroom in a literal sense, it is asserting itself as an entity that has borne witness to her and her husband's covenant . It will hold the couple accountable to others. It will celebrate in their union and in their children. It will provide support when that same sexual life or union creates shame or deep hurt or disappointment. Ultimately, as she goes on to say, it is not government or economics that can reshape our understanding of sexuality,but community alone that has the power to give us a fuller understanding:

...we have already redefined the social context of marriage in the name of equality for women. But equality is a political concept. Rights and entitlements are the vocabulary of politics. By contrast, human sexuality is about gift and gratitude: the mutual gift of self to one's partner, the gift of life that results, and the gratitude tinged with awe that is the only reasonable response to both. Using political concepts, such as equality or freedom, to describe marriage obscures this crucial connection between sex and gift.

Anyway... this is a poor summary but that's why there's a link. Check it out. :)

An Apple for the Day

Fiona Apple that is....

My own day was hectic and rushed and very un-Ash-Wednesday-like , but I did find this good piece, Anxiety in Search of Love, by Dennis Haack, whom I trust, which recommends Fiona's new CD. Incidentally, the review turns out to be a great little post for the start of the Lenten season as we are all urged to slow down and reflect on our own sorry brokenness and overwhelming need for redemption.

***

SIDE NOTE: I have to admit that at first I almost skipped over this piece because I had convinced myself Fiona burned a cross at a concert I attended in high school (YIKES, eh?) , but then-- just a few minutes ago--I realized that wasn't Fiona Apple at all!!!! It was Alanis Morissette?!?! Phew. Turns out I do like Fiona Apple after all and it's just Alanis who I can't stand. So glad my fuzzy memory cleared that up for itself.

The saddest part is that high school wasn't even THAT long ago... ugh.

And Now for Something Fun & Mindless

A visit to Daily Candy! The web's best source for fun local treats and treasures. Every day offers a new adventure in fashion, food or just plain fun. Enjoy!

Moral Motherhood

I would be lying if I claimed to be bright enough to comprehend everything embedded in the heady pages of Father Neuhaus's impressive journal, First Things (the subscription is in my husband's name for a reason). Still, from time to time I find a nugget of readable and comprehendable insight that revolutionizes my world. This month's opinion piece, Pregnancy & Moral Labor by Agnes R. Howard, provided me with one of those rare and coveted opportunities to feel smarter and more insightful than sheer objectivity would otherwise suggest.

Prompted by language in the 2004 report from the President's Council on Bioethics that calls for "an effort to express our society's profound regard for human pregnancy and pregnant women", Howard launches into a compelling and theologically rich explanation of pregnancy as a moral act and moral labor by women, which cultivates virtue and honors mothers with a unique position as co-creators with God.

In an illustration of pregnancy as community she writes:
Pregnancy is a primary community, an exhibit to onlookers, as well as to mothers of interdependence, charity, and life together. It qualifies our assumptions of autonomy, the liberal romance with individuality and self-sufficiency. None of us at the beginning is autonomous, and the continuation of the species depends on the partial sacrifice of autonomy that women make in childbearing. Learning to extend oneself on behalf of the child in utero (and observing women who provide this aid and comfort) nurtures community within and beyond the family.

In discussing pregnancy as work and virtue she continues:
Pregnancy is not just waiting but real work. Exactly what kind of work is it? Terms offered by the market are not much help: It is not evaluated like salaried tasks, and phrases like "maternity leave" construe the event as though it were vacation or hiatus from meaningful employment. We might better avail ourselves of theological categories to help make sense of women's labor in this phase of procreation: Hospitality desribes the mother as welcoming a needy guest, Self-denial honors the pains and costs of that nurture, and Stewardship observes the boundaries of her agency in respecting Providence.

Throughout the article she effectively juxtaposes this holistic view of pregnancy agaist the more prevalent societal view that pregnancy is akin to manufacture:

After thousands of years of assuming generation and the child's soul to be primarily a male accomplishment, the discovery that mothers contribute both seed and matter might have inspired fresh consideration of maternity. Instead, we have passed from the ancient description of babies as essentially man-made to considering them as basically self-made.

...Maternity is not manufacture. A woman carrying a child is not making a baby in the sense that she can control the outcome. She is working together with God in the creation of a new human life, of which, at the end, is not the author.

And on and on she goes with her superb and winsome argument about why pregnancy - not just reproduction or procreation or the raw science of fertility, but pregnancy itself- has moral connotations for the lives we live. Unfortunately, because First Things has a policy not to post the contents of its current issue until a new issue is released, Ms. Howard's article is not yet available online. This is what the intellectually elite commonly refer to as a BUMMER. I will post the link as soon as it is available.

Vanity Bare

So much for this being the month for Valentine's Day or the even nobler Black History Month. After this week I am officially re-dubbing February "Month of the Mainstream Nudey Mag."

First we have the "Why-bother-with Swimsuits?" Issue of Sports Illustrated featuring 10 topless cover girls (covering themselves with their arms of course, how modest!) . And now, not to be outdone, Vanity Fair just released its newest issue featuring a stripped bare Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johanson on the cover with an additional promise of 47 barely covered actors and actresses within its pages.

So what is "the buzz" on this new spread? Here are a few comments from a FoxNews report :

The reason female stars disrobe is simple, says Janice Min, editor of the much-read celebrity magazine US Weekly. "It's tried and true. You show some cleavage on an actress. You make her look sexy. You make her look hot." She needs to be hot — because in Hollywood, "you have to be sexy to be a successful actress. You just have to be."

So where's the nude photo of Brad Pitt? Or George Clooney, who appears later in the issue, dressed, amid a bevy of women in flesh-toned bras and panties? Let's face it, Min says: Women do like to see sexy men — just not with all their clothes off.

"Men just aren't viewed as sex objects in the same way that women are," Min says. "Women don't think about men being naked in the same way that men think about women."

Hmmm.... Men just aren't viewed as sex objects and women are. Well, now that that's settled....
WHA?!?!?!?!

What boggles my mind is why these women who are successful in their chosen professions, who are attractive, who seemingly have all the things women around the world think they want to be satisfied, Why are THESE women posing nude? Is it for the sake of art? Is it to make a statement of some kind? (not for liberation I hope) Do they think they have to? Or could it be that they really think it's no big deal? Sadly, if I had to guess, my money would go to that last one.

Why do I think that? For one thing, because I know that I have personally justified any number of otherwise embarrassing choices with the idea that none of it was a big deal. Also, because I lived with several girls in college and I observe women in my life everyday who have a similar laissez-faire attitude about their own sexuality. "So I took my shirt off at a party because I had one too many gin-and-tonics....what's the big deal?" Or , "So, I kissed a 40-year-old stranger but I barely remember it....what's the big deal?"

This passive, "whatever" attitude about our sexuality is harmful to women primarily because whether or not we strip naked for the world to see does matter, or maybe I should be more direct and say It IS a big deal. It matters in how we see ourselves and how we come to shape our own identity, it matters how others perceive us. Most of all, it matters because it exposes our deepest vulnerabilities in a forum that has no context to receive our flaws or insecurities with grace. We open oursleves to be seen and critiqued as a sum of our physical parts rather than seen and accepted as a whole person. Sure, a woman can say - and even believe - her body exposed is not a big deal or even that it will ensure her acceptance, but eventually her experience will tell her otherwise.

Case in point? Read the last sentence of the article:

So buzz-worthy was the VF cover, Min says, that her magazine went out and asked people what they thought of it.

The answer? Most thought the actresses looked better with clothes on.

OUCH!

Idolspizing Our Frenemies

Just about every woman I know will feel like they have a friend in Ann Hornaday after reading her article in today's Post, That Wonderful Woman! Oh, How I Loathe Her.

Describing the female phenomenon of being able to idolize and despise another woman at the same time, an emotion she dubs "idolspizing", Hornaday explores the root of woman's most vicious and unique brand of vice.

As she writes:
We all have them, those close friends, colleagues, casual acquaintances or complete strangers whose lives and careers exist -- it seems to us -- solely as a rebuke to our own. We respect them, admire them from afar, maybe even love them -- but with a twinge of . . . what exactly? Jealousy? Envy? White-knuckled rage? They're the people who are constantly reminding us that we'll never quite measure up. They're the valedictorians to our salutatorians, the bestsellers to our mid-listers, the mid-listers to our never-published, the homecoming queens to our also-rans. They seem to have sprung fully formed from our ugliest competitive streaks, our egos at their most fragile, our deepest self-loathing. They are our own squandered potential, fully realized.

It's amazing to me that this article ran just one day after the aforementioned Bravehearts book club met last night in my living room to discuss two nauseatingly accurate chapters about what else BUT jealousy and envy. Yet, unlike Hornaday who does no more than diagnose the vice, BraveHearts author Sharon Hersh instead offers a construct for understanding this uniquely female occurence. As she explains:

Jealousy grows out of a longing to be considered, remembered, inlcuded. Jealousy is cultivated by a desire for permanence, security, and abiding relationships. Jealousy is vulnerable to loss, winces at betrayal, and hates unfaithfulness. The roots of jealousy reveal the holy longing for relationships that God has written on our hearts.

AND later... "if jealousy fears to lose what it has, envy is pained at seeing another have what it wants for itself... Envy wallows in wishes and fantasies of things being different than the way they are. Envy ultimately wants to eliminate the object of envy. Envy destroys what it most admires and cannot have for itself." "

To be clear, Hersh is not justifying jealousy as a minor flaw. To the contrary, she goes on to discuss its destructive and painful effects in great detail. Yet for both writers, what seems remarkable to me is how consuming, distracting, and universal such petty comparisons can be. Hersh, presumably, has taken an inventory of Christian women and found that jealousy and envy are rampant. Likewise, Hornaday has presumably taken inventory among her New York writer friends and discovered the same phenomenon. What is equally remarkable is how epidemic their proportions are uniquely among women.

If I had to pick between Hornaday's perspective. which seems content to simply identify the trend in pettiness and rest in the justification that she's not the only one (heck no!), or Hersh's take, I much prefer Hersh's explanation which allows my weaknesses and insecurities to take context in a bigger story that helps me put words to disappointment or frustrated desire rather than pretend none of it really matters in the first place. Dreaming and desiring and loving and longing all demand high risks, but when we dismiss our losses (whether perceived or real) as nothing more than "a little healthy (or petty) competition" too often we diminish the very dreams that lie at the root of our envy.

Sucks-To-Be-Spoiled is More Like It

As a fellow "twentysomething", I'm not typically one to rain on our parade, yet I am inclined to agree with twenty-plus writer Daniel Gross in his recent critique, The It-Sucks-To-Be-Me Generation:Twentysomethings who can't stop whining about how the economy is screwing them. The article reviews two new books about why 20-30-year-olds in America are facing unprecedented economic disadvantages and how they deal with the angst and woe those disadvantages inevitably create. As the unsympatheric Gross writes here:

...twentysomethings, by contrast, have their whole lives in front of them. Want a cheaper house? Quit Manhattan and move to Hartford, Conn. Want to make more money? Pick a different field.

In Kamenetz's book, there are plenty of poor, self-pitying upper-middle-class types, disappointed that they can't have exactly what they want when they want it. Sure, it's tough to live well as a violinist or a grad student in New York today; but the same thing held 20 years ago, and 40 years ago. To improve their lot, twentysomethings have to do the same things their parents should be doing: saving more, spending less, building skills that are marketable, and aligning aspirations with abilities. It's tough to have a bourgeois life at 26.

It sounds heartless to admit, but I endorse Mr. Gross's assessment. There are certainly economic difficulties and challenges to being young, no doubt. However, I think the far greater challenge for up-and-comers lies in how we equip those of us who are well-trained in the art of instant gratification for the lifelong endeavor of building sustainable and fulfilling lives.

The reality this article (and presumably the books) fail to explore are the incredible opportunities that are uniquely available to our generation, particularly for women who have the greatest access to education and professional advancement than in any generation prior. I learned a long time ago that ingratitude is the root of envy, so rather than dwelling on all the things that are out-of-reach in our immediate twentysomething futures, I think we'd best embrace the opportunities at our fingertips and leave the economic conspiracy theories to the fogies.

Miss (and Mr.) Independent

Well, I figure by now I've covered sex, politics and religion so why not round it out with one more dinner-party-faux pas... MONEY. But not JUST money, no, the gender politics of real estate investment to be exact.

In today's NYT an interesting piece, "For Men, A Fear of Commitment" examines why single women are twice as likely as single men to buy homes. As the writer, Stephanie Rosenbloom, observes, the phenomonenon among both genders likely has more to do with establishing identity than leveraging (or not leveraging) investment:

"They [men] consider buying a home detrimental to their independence, as it tethers them to one location, squelching any youthful fantasy of a nomadic existence. Indeed, for many single men without children, buying a home is a commitment akin to getting married — and they are content to put it off.

Single women on the other hand seem more interested in establishing a sense of security, or "nesting," as several brokers and buyers put it. They consider buying a home an act of independence. It is an asset, a symbol of their financial strength and proof that they need not wait for a man of means to provide them with the security they crave.

This is not a battle of the sexes. It is a battle of semantics. Both men and women view their decision to buy or not buy as a declaration of independence, though they have cultivated very different definitions of "independence."

As I read this article I am sad that this false notion of independence-as-liberty has taken such a strong hold among my peers. Not to say that independence is all bad (nor is home-buying for that matter) but rather that no other values seem to rival it, like say, community or honesty or sacrifice or discipline. I don't have a poll or a study to prove it, but I doubt that these non-tethered grown men are feeling nearly as fulfilled as they insist they are in their lives as as perpetual rush chair. Nor do I think that women are being completely honest when they assert that fulfillment can be achieved outside human relationship through finacial and professional achievement alone. But then again, maybe that's just a hunch.

NOTE: For more on money and the gender gap catch this review of "Why Men Earn More" at NRO

Who doesn't love John Cusack?

Apparently I'm not the only one, according to this fun though rather meaningless story about his most-beloved character, Lloyd Dobler, from the 80's cult classic Say Anything.

And while the story itself is nothing more than some Valentinian fluff, I did find this quote about the appeal of Lloyd's character interesting:

"Fake love is a very powerful thing," Klosterman observes. "I once loved a girl who almost loved me, but not as much as she loved John Cusack. . . . It appears that countless women born between the years of 1965 and 1978 are in love with John Cusack. . . . But here's what none of these upwardly mobile women seem to realize: They don't love John Cusack. They love Lloyd Dobler. When they see Mr. Cusack, they are still seeing the optimistic, charmingly loquacious teenager he played in 'Say Anything.' . . .

While I doubt Mr. Klosterman, the author of the deeply reflective book Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs, intended anything too significant in these comments, he is still able to capture quite a bit about how unhealthy idealism can stagnate relationships. I agree with him that fake love is a very powerful thing. It is also the thing that too often inhibts the real thing.

More often than not, we find we are not characters in a romantic comedy as much as we are broken people in broken relationships striving for something good, and maybe even glorious, despite the bumps and brusies along the way. Still, most of us would agree that despite their inevitable challenges, relationships, whether romantic or not, are better to have than not. I like how Jack Johnson says it in his song "Better Together:

Love is the answer
At least for most of the questions in my heart
Why are we here and where do we go
And how come it's so hard
It's not always easy and sometimes life can be deceiving
I'll tell you one thingIt's always better when we're together

My friends know a thing or two about community

My newly published friend Susan enhances an already well-written article on Navigating the College Tranistion with her valuable insight about friendships and community:

We work out all the questions of life and faith in the context of other people. And those people affect - for better or for worse - our beliefs and behaviors. The people you surround yourself with make all the difference in the world.

You can find the full article and other interesting pieces about faith and vocation in the excellent Canadian Journal Comment.

For the record, I like to think that my friendship with Susan is included in the category of making "all the difference in the world. " It certainly is true of her for me.

Bitter or Better Off?

On Wednesday, the New York Times ran a confused editorial by Judith Warner titled "The Parent Trap" arguing (at least as best as I can tell) that because women still tend to do the bulk of household chores in any given family, feminism has failed to reach one of its most basic objectives. As she writes here:

The fact is, no matter how time- or sleep-deprived they are, working women today do upwards of 70 percent of household chores for their families. The gender caste system is still alive and well in most of our households. After all, no one really wants to do the scrubbing and folding and chauffeuring and mopping and shopping and dry-cleaner runs. (I'm leaving child-minding out of this; in a happily balanced life, it doesn't feel like a chore.) Once the money for outsourcing runs dry, it's the lower-status member of the household who does these things. It is the lower-status member of the household who is called a "nag" when she repeatedly tries to get other members of the household to share in doing them.

This is just one indication that the feminist "revolution" that was supposed to profoundly reshape women's lives remains incomplete. Another is the fact that there are no meaningful national policies to make satisfying work and satisfying family life anything but mutually exclusive for most men and women.

The interesting part about this article is that Warner says at the outset that she works out of the home part-time and stays at home part-time. Assuming she approaches her household duties as part-time work, to some extent or another, doesn't it just make sense that she would do proportionately more laundry than her husband who works full-time outside the home? I get that she is trying to make a universal plea here on behalf of all mothers everywhere who have to work all day and then mop (oh the horror!) but for some reason, I have a hard time believing her work-at-my-leisure and stay-at-home lifestyle is the picture of female oppression.

One of Warners big "beefs" is that our cultural and social institutions haven't changed sufficiently to support women in this new era of "work/life balance" so, of course, I had to smile when I found this great article, "Employers Step Up Efforts to LureStay-at-Home Mothers Back to Work" in the WSJ just one day later explaining how America's companies are stepping up efforts to create opportunities for women to more easily work and mother at the same time:

A growing number of employers are taking major steps to help women with an age-old problem: Returning to the work force after taking time off to raise kids.

Booz Allen Hamilton, Lehman Brothers, Deloitte & Touche and Merrill Lynch, among others, are working to lower the barriers with targeted recruitment, special retraining, mentoring, and new kinds of employment relationships designed to keep ex-employees tied to the firms. While such programs amounted to a trickle in the past, they've now grown to a stream, and a few employers are beginning to reap results.

I think I would be willing to march on Washington with Warner if she could convince me that feminism is in fact all-powerful enough to one day prove my mother wrong and make the chores do themselves, but in the mean time I think I'll keep enduring the great feminist burden of cleaning up after myself.

All sexed up and no place to go

I've heard a lot of "buzz" about Pamela Paul's book, Pornified: How Pornography is Transforming Our Lives, Our Relationships and Our Familes . I even went so far as to check it out from the library (not ready to purchase it until I know more). This interesting piece, The Pornification of America, from the Boston Globe last week makes me even more curious about this edgy book.

On the one hand, when I read the article I think I am very much inclined to nod vigorously in agreement with Ms. Paul:

What is new and troubling, critics suggest, is that the porn aesthetic has become so pervasive that it now serves as a kind of sensory wallpaper, something that many people don't even notice anymore. The free-speech-versus-censorship debates that invariably surround actual pornography do not burn as hot when the underlying principles of porn are filtered more subtly into the mainstream. And those principles, critics say, often involve reducing women to subjugated sex objects while presenting men in dominant roles.

Braving the inevitable accusations of prudery, which they reject, critics such as Paul are sounding the alarm. They say the current hypersexualized climate distorts the attitudes of young people toward sex and relationships. In particular, they contend it has a damaging effect on the self-image of young women and girls, who are confronted with a culture that objectifies them while disguising it as female empowerment.

On the other hand, I am troubled by her comments in the conclusion of this article such as the unfounded assumption that conservative religion exacerbates the effects of pornogrpahy in culture (wha!?!?) and her argument here that suggests smoking and sex are comparable addictions:

Whether or not that happens, Paul hopes that porn's hold on the culture will eventually be weakened as the ramifications of its watered-down versions sink in. "Our culture once glamorized cigarette smoking to a large extent. It was promoted by the medical establishment, the film industry, TV," she says. "But once the evidence of harm began to be disseminated by the government, and by schools and the private sector, the number of people who started smoking went down. My hope is that once people realize the negative effect that pornography has on individuals, their children, their wives, and society as a whole, there will be a mind-set shift."

From all that I know, sex is a far more potent drug than nicotine in its power to shape or misshape one's life and identity. More importantly, its misuse renders effects that reach far beyond lung disease. Beyond the risks of physical harm, sex is a drug that threatens to damage a persons very soul.

I hope she is less cliche in the rest of her book.

The best line in this article? It comes from social historian and author Barbara Dafoe Whitehead when she says, "We have an aging society and an adolescent culture."

Well said.

NOTE: If you can't link tothe Globe article, email me and I'll send it to you: harriskc@gmail.com

The Marriage Gap

My husband told me about this thought-provoking article on marriage that ran in City Journal last week and now, having finally read it, I think it is only right to pass it on to the blog world.

Kay Hymowitz, a fascinating contributor who writes like a sociologist although she is actually an English professor, explores the growing socioeconomic divide between women who marry and women who don't. She then expands on the sociological impact and trends that result from marriage. I have no idea what ideological camp she is in, but based on everything I've read she seems to err toward thoughtful conservatism and she cares deeply about the poor. Here is a brief excerpt outlining her argument about why marriage still has significance as a social institution:

There is something fundamentally different about low-income single mothers and their educated married sisters. But a key part of that difference is that educated women still believe in marriage as an institution for raising children. What is missing in all the ocean of research related to the Marriage Gap is any recognition that this assumption is itself an invaluable piece of cultural and psychological capital—and not just because it makes it more likely that children will grow up with a dad in the house. As society’s bulwark social institution, traditional marriage—that is, childbearing within marriage—orders social life in ways that we only dimly understand.

For the full (lengthy) article, click here.

Next on the list

Reading for pleasure hasn't been my forte in recent weeks, but the next book on my list is most definitely Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson. I have now had a total of three trusted friends recommend it and I just read this great review of it on NRO so my next stop is Amazon for a purchase.

I'll post on it again once I have a review of my own to share, but for now I have sufficient confidence that this tidbit is worth passing on to others.

Here we go again...

The annual Ivy bachannal, subtly dubbed "Sex Week at Yale", is back again starting February 13 in celebration of Valentine's Day (as in SAINT Valentine, the Roman who was martyred for refusing to give up Christianity for anyone who was wondering...)

Ron Rosenbaum attended the Week's inaugural year for Atlantic Monthly in 2003 and wrote this telling piece from his experience. He dubs Day 4 the "Spiritualization of Sex" which is a theme I find particularly interesting and particularly prominent in most best-selling novels these days.

Which, incidentally, reminds me of Dan Heimbach and his relatively new book "True Sexual Morality" that talks about this rising trend in American culture.

For more on this sex-week-like phenomenon, check out this short article by Federica Matthewes-Green, "What to Say at a Naked Party"

The Feminine Mystique

Best-selling author and founder of modern-day feminsim, Betty Friedan, died on her birthday Saturday at the age of 85. Her most well-known book, The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963, set the groundwork for allowing women to build careers. It also provides the justification for modern-day feminism's insistence on abortion rights and homosexual unions, despite the fact that Friedan herself initially believed "the women's movement had to remain in the American mainstream, that men had to be accepted as allies and that the family should not be rejected." (Wash post article is here)

While I am not too fond of Friedan and what I believe to be a misguided understanding of women's sources of fulfillment (The NYT outlines some of her own personal struggles here), I agree that many of the questions she explored are universal for all women, as she writes, "A woman has got to be able to say, and not feel guilty, `Who am I, and what do I want out of life?' She mustn't feel selfish and neurotic if she wants goals of her own, outside of husband and children."

She musn't feel inherently selfish or neurotic for having the desire to utilize her talents and gifts, no, yet she also must acknowledge (like people of every gender must) when those desires do in fact lead to selfishness or neurosis, as strong desires are often want to do. As reponsible actors in a moral universe, women and men alike must learn to find the true source of their longings and pursue them in the context of families, friends and communities rather than simply as independednt agents.

As Frieden's own inconsistency and evolving ethic suggests, by defining fulfillment only by acheivement of an abstract goal, women are destined to spend a life constantly revising and changing and expanding that goal to fit their needs (real or perceived) of the moment. Instead, I believe women are mush wiser to explore the deep questions of existence and identity within the context of relationships with other women AND men to set goals and benchmarks with the help of others. For one woman, motherhood may bring the height of fulfillment and to insist upon a career is to rob her of great purpose and joy, whereas another woman may live to practice law and to be homebound is to stifle her. In most cases, as in most of life, I think it is probably a bit of both. The challenge for women to navigate with one another is how to strike a balance in the midst of these unavoidable tensions, not to ignore them.

It is here that I would direct my women friends back to Sharon Hersh's book, Bravehearts, which offers a number of practical and contextualized responses to the seemingly insatiable desires of a woman's heart. She prescribes honest friendships, trusting faith, and patient waiting rather than a progressive agenda loaded with entitlements. Lilian Barger's book, Eve's Revenge is another great resource.

So this is Women's Lib?

[This is from Friday, February 3 -- delayed post]

If you have been watching Fox News anytime over the past 24 hours you could not have missed its obsessive coverage (or should I say lack of coverage) of the third annual Lingerie Bowl.
Now, I won't even bother to ask the obvious question, "What is so newsworthy about the flippin' panty parade?" -- because that has been made perfectly clear to me by every male colleague in my office. A titillating story is a titillating story, apparently.

What does interest me is how well the "Bowl" illustrates what I think is the most fundamental flaw in feminist thinking. By defining feminism's success on its ability to enable women to somehow become like men, very bright women often fail to acknowledge what would otherwise be a very logical boundary between what is mobilizing and what is mortifying. Rather than defining success in terms that seek to create opportunities for women to become more fulfilled as women, modern feminism (unlike the original feminists of the 1920s) more often rely on women to outplay men at their own game using the same terms, particulary when it comes to sex.

The outcome isn't just the masculinization of feminine sexuality, but it also has the added adverse effect of emasculating men who have undoubtedly become increasingly passive toward sexually dominant women who leave little to be discovered or desired. It also perpetuates a growing disinterest in "traditional" sex in favor of exotic, and often demeaning forms of kinky or violent sex that takes the person almost wholly outside of the act and leaves pleasure as the only object. Take this tasteful column from ESPN's "Page 2" about last year's Bowl which describes this man's boredom with the lack of stimulation offered by the 7-on-7 tackle game of half nude women:

"As it turned out, the Lingerie Bowl was about as titillating as tossing a football through a tire hanging from a backyard tree. Suprisingly, the football was almost decent, in a Pop Warner/XFL-ish sort of way. On the other hand, the sex appeal was sorely lacking. Blame it on the player outfits, which simply weren't skimpy enough. I was counting on thongs. Tassels. A smattering of pasties. In short, everything a reasonable person might expect in return for a cover charge. Yet both teams were decked out in short-shorts and what appeared to be Kevlar-plated push-up bras -- not bad, but nothing compared to Janet Jackson's Super Bowl halftime number."

Naomi Wolf called it years ago and expands on this phenomenon in the Porn Myth (linked in a January Post below). But I still wonder where women went wrong. If a tulip were to aspire to become the most tuliplike it could be, why would it define its goals as aquiring all of the attributes of a tree or a shrub? Likewise, why would women who desire to become as wholly woman as they can be aspire to develop characteristics of men? I find the same thing puzzling in the fight for gay marriage because I can never understand why homosexual men and women have any interest in borrowing what is an inherently heterosexual benchmark as their gauge of success, (doesn't that seem illogical?) but then again that is another story.....

Even a Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day

And so it is with Maureen Dowd, who embedded this remarkable observation (for her) between her more typical lines of chronic discontent in the column, "Oprah!How could ya?"(I linked it here although it really isn't worth the read):

Despite George Washington and the cherry tree, we no longer have a society especially consecrated to truth. The culture produces an infinity of TV shows and movies depicting the importance of honesty. But they're really talking only about the importance of being honest about your feelings. Sharing feelings is not the same thing as telling the truth. We've become a country of situationalists.

As I said, even a broken clock....

Girls (and Boys) Gone Wild... again

I'm sad I missed this great piece by David Brooks just less than a month ago, but thanks to best friend Susan (pictured here with much beloved hubby Nate) I have the opportunity to post it now. It's about time for her debut!

David Brooks is an interesting guy who I like mostly because he chooses to err toward optimism rather than the stereotypical pessimism most bright people who get paid to write about all that's wrong in the world do.

The piece is titled "Bondage and Bonding Online: Online social contact leaves much to be desired" and it offers shrewd insight into the impact of personal blogs (watch out!) and other online information-sharing resources like Facebook.

Brooks argues, "The idea on these sites is to show you’re a purebred party animal, which leaves us fogies with two ways to see MySpace. The happy view is that this is a generation of wholesome young people building nurturing communities, and the smutty talk is just a harmless way of demarcating an adult-free social space.

The dark view is that these prolonged adolescents are filled with earnest desires for meaningful human contact, but they live in a culture that has provided them with no vocabulary to create these sorts of bonds except through cleavage and vodka."

I agree with Susan that that last line is so true it makes me want to throw up. The increased sexualization and objectification of women at younger and younger ages is startling in-and-of itself but it becomes downright scary when you consider the reality Brooks spells out here:

"To get the attention of fast-clicking Web surfers, many women have posed for their photos in bikinis or their underwear or in Penthouse-parody, “I clutch my breasts for you” positions. Here’s a woman in a jokey sadomasochistic pose. There’s a woman with a caption: “Yes, I make out with girls. Get over it” — complete with a photo of herself liplocked with a buddy.

The girls are the peacocks in this social universe. Their pages are racy, filled with dirty jokes and macha declarations: “I’m hot and like to party. Why have one boy when there are plenty to go around?!” The boys’ pages tend to be passive and unimaginative: a guy posing with a beer or next to a Corvette. In a world in which the girls have been schooled in sexual aggressiveness, the boys sit back and let the action come to them."

More on this sad phenomenon later, but for now... YIKES.

Something about Mary

Well, I may not be a Catholic but I sure like a lot of what their intellectual history has to say about life and embodiment and purpose and vocation. Here is a small excerpt from an article in this month's Touchstone that has been on my mind for a few days. While the article itself is a little too Mary-rific for me, I do think this observation about the uniqueness of women's physiology and our heritage as daughters of Eve and gracegrandchildren of Mary is a thing worth pondering:

Men are often tempted to think that their bodies were made for their own use. To a great extent this is true for everyone: Your hands, sir, are yours, they are for your use, and mine are for my use. A man can indulge this illusion of autonomy even further by supposing that even his genitals are there for himself. They’re a source of at times almost compelling drives and intriguing sensations. Even his testes are useful for him, in that the hormones they produce provide certain secondary sexual characteristics he has an interest in maintaining.

But a woman’s body has all these nooks and crannies which are no use to us but evidently were put there for someone else. Don’t get me wrong: We women have our pleasure doodads and our own hormonal self-interest as well. But then, well, there’s the womb. That’s not there for me. I can do without it. It was obviously put there for someone else. The same is true of mature mammary glands, rich with branching ducts and reservoirs, as they are found in nursing mothers and as they are not found in childless females, however nubile and Partonesque they may be.

Our female bodies are connectors: Inter-connectedness is not just a concept, it’s built into us. This gives us the sense that we find in Mary’s Magnificat, of being, within our own bodies, the living link between past and future: “Behold, all generations will call me Blessed. . . . His mercy is on those who fear him, from generation to generation. . . . As he spoke to our ancestors, to Abraham and to his posterity forever.”

Mary sees ancestors past, and posterity future, linked in the center of her being. Her person—her body, her soul, her faithful heart—is the connector. She who is more spacious than the heavens. This makes autonomy, as an ideal, a poor fit for women. Women have a special gift, even a genius, for bondedness.

Book Club

Last night marked the first gathering of the BraveHeart Book club in my living room. There was no shortage of fanstastic women there and the discussion affirmed the perennial truth that we are all much more alike than we think we are!
Here is a link to the book by Sharon Hersh that inspired it all: Bravehearts: Learning to Love with Abandon. While I am not typically a big fan of the "Christian inspiration for women" kind of book, I am impressed with Hersh's practicality and winsome truth-telling about women's unique desire for relationships and seemingly insatiable longings to know and be known. She is very observant about women in general and is particularly good at translating her own experience into a story that resonates with all women. PIck up a copy and start your own club. It's fun!

And the Winner is...

Looking for something good to read? Check out ANYTHING written by Lauren Winner. Check out her website for books and links at: www.laurenwinner.com

Love her.

Weekend Reading

Thanks to some friends who are starving for grace though they are unaware of their hunger, I have started reading a wonderful, interesting and charming collection of short stories by Mark Helprin titled, "The Pacific and Other Stories." While Helprin is a devout Jewish-American, his stories are some of the most Christian I have read in awhile.

Here is one excerpt from the opening story about an accomplished Italian impressario who represents the leading soprano of the world, Rosanna Cadorna, at Italy's most prestigious opera house, La Scala. He is disenchanted with the fame and indulgence that have emptied his life of purpose since he discovered Cadorna several decades ago. I believe this small excerpt gives a hopeful perspective of the post-modernist age we are in today, and provides a winsome argument for how humans are to live holistically, with both heart and mind:


I am not a well educated man except that I have educated myself, and, because I have educated myself, what I say will not stand up, for lack of recognized authority. This in turn leaves me free to say what I will, in the hope that, like those small forces that do not threaten empires and are thus not fully pursued, the things in which I believe can survive in some high and forgotten place until the power of empire subsides.

And although I know that few will listen to or credit this, I think we are in a lost age, in which holiness and charity have been traded for the victory and penetration of knowledge, though all the knowledge in the world has not brought us any further than where we can go without it even in the outermost halls of grace. I believe that more is to be known and apprehended from the beauty of a face than in delving, no matter how deep, simply into how things work, no matter how marvelous that may be. The greatest substance of the world is immaterial, the province of the heart, and its study cannot be forced or reasoned. Merely to touch upon the edge of things in parsing their mechanics is to forswear their fullness, for the entry to this fulness lies not in science but in art. I cannot prove this, for it cannot be proven, but I claim, assert, and have seen it.

Some Tips for the Men

Here is an entertaining (and possibly even pratical?) piece from today's Post advising men to treat their wives as clients and to approach their marriages as they would approach work.

My particular favorite is tip #5 regarding that lost art known as listening: "If it's important, seek clarification. If not, just let her talk." What woman doesn't smile at this reality? :)

His approach is a bit utilitarian, but there are some nuggets of truth here: "View marriage as your most important task, Haltzman urges men, and pursue success as you would anything else that matters. The assumption is it's a lot more pleasant, and the payoffs far greater, to live with a woman who is satisfied, secure and feeling loved compared to one who is none of the above."

Who can argue with that?

Marching on Washington

Today marks the 33rd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in America and, as always, there was a March on Washington to mourn and/or celebrate the event, depending on what kind of inevitably insensitive banner you brought with you.

Rather than enter the fray with button and banner in hand, I thought I'd share this good, principled piece by Kate O'Bierne, which I find to be full of hope for women: http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/obeirne200601230842.asp

Worth noting: Kate is a very cool woman (must be the name) who I do not know well at all, however, I do know that she is astoundingly bright, has a great husky voice, and makes me think smoking is sexy and intellectually advantageous. hmmmm......

Sex and the City...

is one of the least redemptive and most addictive shows on television, but I would be lying if I said I have never watched it.

Here is a piece that Lilian Calles Barger wrote when SITC was going off the air back in 2004(another dated article, I know!): http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0408&article=040838

Barger is too generous, I think, when she says, "Through hookups and breakups, Sex and the City explores this fundamental human experience [i.e. that the body is the place where the most profound human desire is exposed]."

In my limited viewing I have not found exploration of deep themes to be a primary concern of the show's writers, and in fact I think the show is profoundly deceptive. I do, however, think Barger is right on in her explanation of the body and its role in our identity.

If you like Lilian as much as I do, you should also check out her excellent book: Eve's Revenge. A good review is here: http://www.ransomfellowship.org/R_Barger.html Rumor has it her second book is going to be released SOON!

Some favorites

Lest you think I am only interested in casual sex, here are a few links to some articles about Natural Family Planning (a.k.a. "NFP") --the antithesis to casual sex. It is regimented. It is unspontaneous. It is anything but casual.

The first is an article by my much beloved friend Claire. I have great respect for Claire because she is the only friend I know who has the courage to practice NFP faithfully and without exception simply because she believes in the principle of it: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-01-018-v

The second is a review by my most kindred pal Laura. Laura studies great protestant theologians like Oliver O'Donovan and other obscure and brilliant writers from times past. (Whoops, my husband just told me O'Donovan is still alive. What do I know?) She makes me feel smarter just knowing her. Although to be fair, I must say I feel the same way about Claire. Oh, and p.s., Laura sounds like a Catholic in this piece but she isn't. http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/2004/sepoct/6.28.html

Now for the real stuff

I love Naomi Wolf even though I feel like she and novelist Tom Wolfe (no relation) are alike in that they are both incredibly observant about human nature and tell mostly true stories about people and life, but their stories inevitably lead you nowhere. I like a story that gives me hope--or a coherent explanation about life at least--not just a whole bunch of observations that get me nodding and thinking and then end by telling me it's all just fate.

Anyway, one piece by Naomi that I do love, even though it isn't new, is this article about pornography and the irony of feminism gone awry: http://nymetro.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/ There is another article on that same site titled The New Position on Casual Sex that is worth a read if you are willing to be sadddened by the emptiness of it all.

Speaking of casual sex, if you have not yet read Tom Wolfe's newest novel, I Am Charlotte Simmons go to Amazon and pick up a copy for you and one for a friend: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312424442/sr=1-2/qid=1137946338/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-6363575-7318311?%5Fencoding=UTF8
This is a book that should be talked about. Not because it is so deep you can't understand the metaphor, but because it is so raw and honest about sex in college that you (like me) will likely have some deja-vu moments that remind you of experiences you would much rather forget. Since numbing isn't the same as healing, it's better to re-visit those moments with a friend who can empathize and/or sympathize...

Meet the Family

So, here are my sisters. I am the middle of three and we also have a half sister, Maggie (not pictured) who is the youngest, but we love her like a full-blown sister.

My mom will have her cameo later as the most fantastic women is the world, but for now this is a glimpse of how I became a feminista (in the non-radical sense, of course). It is a little known fact that if you grow up with two great sisters and a single mom you are pre-programmed to cherish having girls in your life.

NOTE: Mom got married when I was 12 and step-dad Gary is much loved, but he still ain't one of the girls.

A few things about me

I like beer, as shown here. I particularly like beer from Eastern Europe which is what (and incidentally also where) I am enjoying this one.

Sadly, I am off beer and caffeine at the moment in a New Year's resolution effort to be healthy. It's going well, thanks. January is not the most tempting season for beer in any case.

I also like red wine a lot (pinot noir is a favorite) but none of these fun facts have much to do with why I care about women. See next post.

Welcome to FemmeFantastic

I have entertained the idea of this blog for some time and now it all begins... my years and months of acquiring silly, and some not-so-silly, opinions and thoughts about the world of women and girls. On my personal resume-of-what-matters I hold the title of daughter, sister, friend, wife and perhaps one day I'll add mother. It may not count for much in my 401K, but these are the roles and the relationships that give me life and open my eyes to see the world as it is and how it should be.

This blog contains the burdens I feel for the unique challenges, fears, hopes and glories of women in the millenium. Some of it will be personal and some universal. We'll see what happens.