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!