Erick Erickson wrote a must-read piece to the young men of the conservative movement. It’s good stuff and especially important considering men are to be future leaders at home, at church, etc.
Women will be future leaders, too, and I was dismayed to see how many of them either looked frumpish or like two-bit whores.
First, are these young people being taught anything by their parents? I was at another service-oriented gathering of young women where the girls were in tight bandeau-skirts (you know, the kind of tube-top skirts that hookers wear on street corners?). They were sitting with their mothers. What is going on here?
Second, have women so internalized feminist dogma that they see themselves in only two ways? Butch, men-lite wannabes or 3rd wave sluts who empower themselves by screwing every available horndog man?
Neither path is a way to self-love and respect, mind you. Both tracks will inhibit future success.
Women, if you’re at a conference where you’re learning to be a future politician or wish to succeed in the business of politics, dress the part. No, you don’t have to be in a business suit with pearls. However, modesty is a minimum. So:
1. No cleavage. That’s right. Cover that up. I say “no” in absolutist terms because women will show a tiny bit and that’s okay, but really, in a business environment where ideas are the priority, a dude thinking about your ta-tas is counter-productive.
2. Skirts no more than three finger-widths above the knee. Why do I even have to write this? Well, because someone is allowing these girls out of the house with mini-skirts that reveal too much.
3. Save the stilettos for Saturday night on a date with your boyfriend.
4. Bend at the knee. No, I don’t want to see your butt.
Young women, you degrade your own value by dressing and then acting the ho.
I cannot even tell you how many girls have told me that all they want is to get married and have babies. They do not seem to make the connection that a young man is not interested in getting married and making babies with a girl who is so easy as to have a one-night stand over a CPAC weekend (or any other weekend.)
You know what a guy thinks when you slut-it-up? He thinks: If she’ll do that with me, she’ll do that with anyone.
This is not politically correct advice, mind you. Young ladies at college are encouraged to embrace their sexuality and flaunt it on the one hand (empowerment!) or to be tough, gruff and make-up free (man’s world!) to be taken seriously.
A successful woman can be tough and beautiful, modest and stylish, smart and sexy while still being chaste and having expectations of men.
The conservative movement means conservative values–promoting behavior that will lead to a sound society. Family is at the basis of this. Sexuality, and the self-management of it, is at the core of family.
A man who will use self-restraint, respect a woman, honor her enough to not pressure for sex–is a man who will more likely be faithful in marriage, work and life.
Likewise, a woman who sees herself as more than a sex-object and realizes she doesn’t need to be a man in order to be worthy, who carries herself with confidence and modesty, will attract men who want to get married and make babies.
It is disheartening that these ideas even need to be written about, but clearly they do. If, at the number one conservative conference of the year, young men and women are looking and acting like the cast of Jersey Shore, it’s time to reset the compass.
It’s past time.
P.S. Parents, your children reflect your standards, or lack thereof. For. Shame.
UPDATED: Worth a read. A father gives his account of young women and says, in his article, The Death of Pretty:
Most girls don’t want to be pretty anymore even if they understand what it is. It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity. Something to be used up and thrown out.
Of course men play a role in this as well, but women should know better and they once did. Once upon a time you would hear girls talk about kind of women men date and the kind they marry. You don’t hear things like that anymore.
But here is the real truth. Most men prefer pretty over hot. Even back in 6th grade I hated the “hot” Olivia Newton John and felt sorry for her that she had to debase herself in such a way. Still do.
Please read the whole thing.
Well, at least Wonkette is consistent. They are for sluttiness! Yay! Let’s promote STDs, drunken debauchery, casual sex, and by extension, the inevitable unwanted pregnancies and abortions that result. Isn’t being progressive positively regressive? Like it’s some big cultural evolution and progress to have humans rut like animals.
Dan Riehl welcomes Tube Tops.
There is, in fact, a sort of intellectual jujitsu that a few conservative males practice, wherein they decline to respect women in the egalitarian John Stuart Mill sense (because, doncha know, that’s feminist, and it’s bad), and yet they decline to do it in an Old-World, gentlemenly sense (because that would be old-fahioned, and we’re all very modern around here). These two approaches can overlap, but in a certain type of male they might both be eschewed . . . and that is a recipe for caddishness.
I’ve seen it, and it isn’t attractive.
But, you know: these matters of etiquette aren’t easy, no matter where one stands on the social-conservative spectrum. And conventions . . . well, they can be dicey arenas when it comes to the etiquette of flirting. (Rebecca Watson just called to point out that a guy once tried to coffee-rape her in an elevator, which, you know . . . made me sigh heavily.)
The bottom line is, treat people decently. If you’re wrestling with heavy-duty personal demons such as uncontrolled anger—or a tendancy to proposition new acquaintances‐don’t drink as heavily, even if there is a hosted bar.
She brings up a good point on acting respectful. And that’s really what I’m talking about here–dressing, acting respectfully, appropriately (man, I hate that word).
It’s a matter of even knowing what is respectful attire, action, etc. This all makes me seem terribly old-fashioned. And it probably makes me seem hard on women.
If a woman is looking for a man, don’t act like a little girl, don’t dress provocatively and then be appalled when you’re propositioned, and have a couple standards for behavior–your own and his.
These sorts of things used to be taught. Now the rules and expectations are so blurred and confusing, there’s a certain amount of blithering hysteria involved in the Western mating ritual. Girls really have no concept of their own value and are shocked at being treated as a commodity.
Question: Were loose standards the standard for getting into the bloggers lounge? Inquiring minds outside the room want to know.
Have you seen the medical doctors on the news dance around the behavior of their colleague who implanted eight (that took) embryos into a single mother of six children ages 2-7? It would be amusing if the consequences of the misbehavior weren’t so serious. And make no mistake, the doctor who did this was wrong. It wasn’t a mistake or an error of judgment or anything else. The doctor who did this was an amoral jerk. The mother was clearly unstable. And the taxpayer will get the joy of helping to care for this little debacle.
Far from being a rare, “bizarre story”, the problem of multiples resulting from fertility treatments is not rare. It’s commonplace. And, it’s risky and costly both to the mother and the babies. What is bizarre is that the woman was single with so many kids already.
The mom’s story puts the choice crowd in a quandary, because, of course, there’s nothing wrong with single motherhood. And there are lots of great single moms. And no one should tell any woman what to do with her body. Her body. Her choice. For example:
I believe strongly that women themselves should decide how many children they have – or don’t have. I myself am the mother of four children – and I would very much like to have a fifth. To many people, that is simply Too Many Kids (and they don’t mind telling me that). But as I’ve written before, I believe reproductive freedom goes both ways, both in the choice NOT to bear a child and in the choice to bear more than the statistically acceptable number of children. That is a personal choice. And there are certainly many families with more than 10 children who are happy, loving and stable. However, the circumstances in this case appear to point to a woman who is already unable to care for the large family she has, and who will now have eight more young children, many or most of whom will have special needs, because higher order multiples are often born with serious health and developmental problems.
That’s all fine and good, but Ms. Grantju fails to point out her own circumstances: she’s a working mother of four kids married to the father of said children. She is not doing this alone.
I also agree with her to a point. If a stable couple wants to have a big family, that’s their choice. There are families who neglect the one kid they have. And, there are families who neglect their big families. There is no magical prescription.
However, it’s pretty much a guarantee that a single mom with fourteen kids under the age of seven is going to have a hard time. And this feminist woman blames…..the doctor. No doubt he’s an evil cretin. But what about the mom? There is an adult, mid-30s woman here who chose this for herself. HER choice. HER body.
And then there’s another strain of liberal ideology vying to make their belief system a grand social experiment. Environmentalists want to control the number of children everyone has. That’s the solution to the above sort of stupidity: treat every family the same and restrict children, period. And of course, the “correct” number of kids just happens to be the number of kids the guy who wants to restrict everyone’s rights has:
Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.
A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.
“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”
So how will these insane people solve the conundrum? Single mothers with 14 kids aren’t bad. But having too many kids is bad for the environment. A woman’s body is her own. But a woman should think of the earth and only have two.
There will be no distinction made between people who can actually love and support a big family and people in no position to do so. There will be no discussion of the morality of these fertility treatments, period. There will be no desire to punish the doctor because the medical profession fears any sort of governmental scrutiny (right now there isn’t any when it comes to fertility clinics).
Mostly, there will be no common sense. Common sense would mean judging, condemning even, and that would take some discernment. Something would have to be right. Something would have to be wrong.
So, we have two strains of leftist ideology–both, taken to their logical ends, result in cultural suicide. Both are wrong. But no one will say so because it might make someone feel bad. I wonder which form of suicide the West will choose.
Hi all! Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas and joy-filled family time!
We’re on our way to Australia’s Gold Coast. That’s the Great Barrier Reef. If I can, I’ll report from there. Still can’t figure out pictures to my great frustration.
‘Tis the season of school concerts and behold the cherubic angels sing and play bells and perform vague “winter” music. But I’m not going to talk about political correctness run amok in our schools. No, today, I’m going to talk about the ugliest year in school–the year we all look back on with regret.
Fifth grade is ugly.
There were over fifty kids gathered last night. Individually, the kids are cute in an awkward, pot-bellied, big-pawed puppy sort of way. Collectively, the effect is hideous.
Teeth are too big for heads. Boys don’t care about personal hygiene and they are in serious need of some. Hormones are making bodies bulgy in all sorts of places. Girls are heads and shoulders taller than the boys. Some boys are midgets. Some look like short men. Kids are still coerced by parents, or just don’t care very much, about pants that are too short, hair that’s too straggly and long, glasses that are too big for the face, and shoes that don’t go with the clothes. Fifth grade is a fashion disaster.
And I’m not casting any stones here. I wish I could find the picture so I could scan it and show you people what I looked like in 5th grade. I’ll try to describe it. First, mom put me in a brown plaid shirt–you know, because plaid looks so good in pictures. I think I might have worn one of those bolo ties that were popular in the day. (Who could forget the leather vest stage? You know you had one.) Then there were the big man glasses. Those were awesome. They were the glasses that came with the insurance plan, don’t you know, and looked great on boys AND girls. They were straight across the top and too big with rounded bottoms. Did I mention that I carried a violin case everywhere?
There is a saving grace. In fifth grade, there still seems to be a measure of ignorant bliss. That is, the lack of self-awareness confers happiness. By seventh grade, a kid becomes aware and therefore miserable and that’s kinda sad. Wouldn’t it be great to hold on to nerdy selves and embrace it and not go through thirty years of angst trying to be something we’re not, only to come back around to who we were to begin with? It’s not like our essence changes, but we do try to package ourselves for public consumption–and let’s face it, to mate and be mate-worthy.
5th grade might be ugly, but its the beauty of the age that really makes grown-ups mourn.
Why does it take getting pounded by life to tenderize our hearts to the suffering of others? Some don’t get tender, of course. Some, like Javert, feel wronged and pursue “justice” until the end of their days. They keep track of every slight and spend their days plotting revenge. Mercy is weak, kindness naive.
Some who suffer retreat from life and become a non-entity. And some who see these people retreat condemn them. The Anchoress addresses this notion:
John never demanded notice. Likely he never believed he was worth anyone’s noticing. When you are rejected by your parents at a young age, never quite included in “the family,” that can happen.
It has never been my habit to decide the spiritual fate of someone else; in fact I loathe nothing more than folks who presumptuously declare they know the state of someone else’s soul, because of this scripture verse or that. These people, to me, seem unloving, empty and oddly disconnected from the scripture they quote…as though their intellect has cut off from their heart. Other people mean well, but…I know tomorrow my email will contain a few missives from people who will quote scripture at me and enumerate to me all the reasons my brother is not now in the peace of Christ.
I say to hell with that. He was loved into being; he was baptized and sealed. The people who were supposed to teach him the way in which to go spun him madly, incessantly – then allowed him to get dizzy and lost. He lived a sad, tortured life the best way he knew how – quite imperfectly, but then his tools were also very insufficient and his trust was non-existent. I cannot claim to know anything, but I do not believe that a loving God would look upon this much-sinned against man and reject him once again, as he was rejected all his life.
Pain. There is so much pain. And while many people have empty souls, who knows what their lives would be like if love touched them? Only God knows the answer to that.
Pre-post caveat: I am not a financial adviser, so this is for what it’s worth.
The New York Times has an unintentionally funny article about talking to family members about their finances:
It’s started coming up in asides I hear from middle-aged friends who are concerned about their parents ending up in the poorhouse. And I see it in e-mail from people in their 60s and 70s, who can’t believe their offspring got mixed up in funny mortgages and wallets full of credit cards.
But often, the grown children don’t know precisely how the devastation in the markets has affected their parents’ portfolio, and the older parents don’t know what their children’s monthly debt payments are.
What the writer fails to mention is the obvious: If Obama follows through with his plans, children who receive an inheritance from their parents will likely be taxed into oblivion. The so-called death tax will be back. Capital gains taxes will increase. So, the smart thing for families would be to transfer the deed, sell the house to the kid, whatever, to avoid the taxes in the future. And it would be smart to do it now. In addition, if an older family member intends to sell the house and move into special housing, doing it now would be a good idea. Only problem? In many parts of the country, you can’t sell a house if you want to.
And then, of course, the elderly have lost their portfolios in the latest stock dive. And their kids are mortgaged to the hilt and losing their job. To help matters, Obama has promised to let the Bush tax cuts go away. So for all Obama’s opining about lowering taxes, they’re going to increase and not just for so-called rich people.
Bottom line: People are stuck. The Baby Boomers, the biggest generation, march ever closer to retirement. They care for their elderly parents who are living longer due to medical advances, and that’s a good thing. But there are financial realities.
Obama will bailout the car companies. He voted for the Wall Street bailout. Who will bailout the taxpayer?
Every year in Houston, children die after being left in hot cars. In the last two days here, two children have died. The child who died today, a three year old, tried to save himself:
As the temperatures rose in his mother’s locked truck on Thursday, authorities said the little boy managed to free himself from his car seat and climb to the front of the vehicle, where he put a key in the ignition.
But the 3-year-old died before he could escape the sweltering heat that soon overtook him in the truck’s cabin, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office said.
Cameron Thomas Boone, who celebrated his third birthday last month, was the second child within less than 24 hours to die in the Houston area after a loved one drove to work, locked the vehicle and forgot about them. The boys were the third and fourth children to die in hot vehicles in Harris County this year.
I don’t know how you live after this. It’s so disturbing. How can you charge a parent with a crime? What kind of penalty can be worse than what they live with? Invariably, a family member is on the way to work and forgot the child.
My biggest fear, in Houston, is accidentally leaving my keys in the car, or something like this happening. It is stressful being distracted and having a bunch of kids to herd. Terrifying.
A relative enrolled their child in a drowning prevention class. She is five months old and can float now and save herself. Go watch this video–as a parent, it is absolutely frightening to watch.
I have mixed emotions. On the one hand, of course children should be taught to swim as young as possible. It’s a non-negotiable at my house, not only because we have a pool, but because I just believe that all children should know how to swim, and at a young age. They also need to know how to rescue someone else because so many children drown trying to save a friend or sibling.
Still, does training like this give parents and families a false sense of security. The child in the video was clearly fatiguing. The training buys a parent precious minutes, but does it make tragic events more likely because parents or care-takers are less vigilant?
Cross-posted at RightWingNews.com
It reads like some good erotica, but this story in the Times Online extols the virtues of a consensual incestuous relationship between a brother and sister. Okay, so some lady anonymously reveals her story, without guilt.
The comments contain the interesting social commentary, though. After reading them, I’m figuring, Britain isn’t luging down the shitter, it’s already there. Here are just a couple:
My moral compass isn’t based on antiquated notions of morality. It’s based on harm. If someone is unintentionally harmed or abused by your actions, it’s probably wrong. If it’s consensual, have at it. There’s no reason to base moral judgments on anything else. That’s just absurd.
A beautiful, honest and from the heart article. I could not begin to imagine the emotion you felt when writing it.
James, Bournemouth, England
It was really nice to read indeed. I think the lady is very lucky to have such a fantastic relationship with her brother.
Of all the comments, it is refreshing to note that there were only a couple of judgemental, fearful ones. It was a wonderfully honest account of what was real for two people! It happened! Humanity is amazing and evolving-as Fred from Bristol said, years ago it would have been about homosexuality!
Ellegee, Purbeck, UK
Her brother moved on, but would choose her. She is in a relationship, but still thinks of him. Their family would be destroyed should their secret be revealed. Their current relationships would probably be deeply troubled, if not undone. Should a child have come from the relationship, genetic problems, etc. would have resulted (but they were “careful about birth control”). Um, yeah, but how many kids are walking around today who were born in spite of diligent birth control? If one is heart-broken, he or she has the anguish of seeing the person at every family get together. There is no escape. An incestuous relationship, even a consensual one, is fraught.
And these ramifications were lost on the readers of the article. What in the hell? As one anthropologist commented, “There are few universal social taboos, incest is one of them. Millions of years of evolution can’t be wrong.”
Progressives snort about the whole notion of a slippery slope, but if Western Civilization isn’t skiing down one right now, I don’t know what qualifies. The ultimate goal of post-modern thought is to make all behavior equal. There is no right and wrong. There are just experiences. Well, experiences have consequences. People are affected. Families are affected. Society is affected for society is made up of people.
And right now, society is getting sicker because the people who make up society are getting sicker.
The daughter who had been put in a coma and was the reason why the secret family was discovered in the first place, emerged from her coma this week. The family adjusts to their new reality which includes gazing at clouds through protective sunglasses–as their eyes and minds become accommodated to the wide world.