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In the meantime, I offer up this thoughtful review (a bit out-of-date) from Christian Century (scroll down to see the text).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.