Speaking of mixed marriages, is the stunning blonde wife of Tiger Woods, the Swedish model Elin Nordegren, deserving of sympathy? After all, she did physically attack her husband. If she were a man, assault charges probably would have been filed by her spouse. On the other hand, her sudden lack of self-control is not difficult to understand. Not difficult at all. Here are two views.

A male reader writes:

I see her as having attacked him in screaming rage and humiliation. I see her, in 60 seconds of intense fear and hatred, as defending her pride, her dignity and her honour as a beautiful young wife cheated and betrayed; as a young mother defending her home and her children. 

During her 60 seconds of violence she forgot about the private jets, the cars, the houses and the yachts. She forgot about the money. I like to imagine that for those few seconds she wanted to kill him for being a rat instead of a man. I respect her. I like her for it.

Mrs. N. writes:

I was grieved to see the comment of the male reader in your blog. Why on earth would we applaud a woman for forgetting herself so completely as to think she had the right to resort to physical violence? Mrs. Tiger is hardly the first woman to find herself married to a man who has been unfaithful to his vows. As a society, we discipline our sons to the point of emasculation for exhibiting any form of aggression and yet we encourage our daughters to give vent to every emotional whim and applaud them, when a truly devastating blow comes, for devolving into hysterical lunatics thrashing around without control. Tiger may have been deserving of a punch in the nose, but not from his wife. It is unfortunate that shame has lost much of its usefulness as a behavior modifier in our culture because they are equally deserving of a healthy dose of its benefits.  

(more…)

A male reader writes:

I have become a daily reader of yours and just finished your pieces on public “I love you’s” and “mom” as slightly smarmy, sentimentalized uses of the language. I fully agree. 

I am an overly-educated soon-to-be-elderly unrelapsed Catholic and father of a lovely daughter whom I had to raise essentially alone in the face of relentless poisoning by her mother. It wasn’t easy, let me tell you. 

I could never understand how a mother could do such a thing to her own child. My daughter is, in some ways, still paying the price for it. 

I will skip several steps in the usual tedious syllogism and repeat what you already know: The so-called sexual revolution was the worst thing that ever happened to young women. 

(more…)

  Dead love is a terrible thing, lying stone cold on the hearth of our minds without any movement or sign of life. But living love can seem dead. It experiences its own comas. The reality of what is lovable awakens it. We could not possibly keep before us what we have perceived about the people we love any more than we could preserve intact the vision of spring when it is winter. Love is nothing without memory and memory sleeps. One day we awaken and we are standing at the cottage door. Beyond lies the ocean and the wild moor. We remember.    

  Is love a serious thing? Or is it easy and cheap? Here's what I think. Love is so serious and delicate, one should never wave its banner in public, except during weddings and catastrophic events, such as volcanic eruptions or earthquakes. "I love you!" one cries out as one slips into the crack that has just opened in the earth. In that case, it's okay if one's private devotions are displayed. I could never loudly tell someone - husband, friend, child or parent - that I loved him while I was speaking on a cell phone standing in line at a supermarket or eating in a restaurant or waiting in a packed elevator. Is there something wrong with me? This emotional promiscuity is everywhere. Perhaps I am frigid, maybe even autistic, but I say anyone who can wear his heart so visibly on his sleeve may not truly possess one. Since the advent of this amazing technology, I have heard many dozens, maybe even hundreds, of  women tell their husbands and children they loved them over the phone. I was once waiting to vote in a presidential election when a middle-aged woman told a man over the phone that she loved him. He apparently made some witty remark. She protested that she definitely did love him. But, she said, if she were living in Europe, where the men were more interesting, she probably wouldn't. I suspect people like being heard telling others that they love them. Love has become a status symbol. To fail to publicly display it is like keeping a beautiful diamond…

  There is Christmas cheer in Washington. According to this story in yesterday's New York Times: An unusual holiday message began appearing this week in the nation’s capital on the sides of buses and trains. “No god? ... No problem!” reads the advertisement featuring the smiling faces of people wearing Santa Claus hats. “Be good for goodness’ sake.” Similar campaigns by evangelical atheists have taken place in other cities in the United States and Europe. But it seems believers haven't figured out how to react yet. Should they be hurt or outraged or perhaps indifferent? According to one prominent Christian spokesman, they should be hurt. Ian Urbina reports in the Times: “It is the ultimate Grinch to suggest there is no God during a holiday where millions of people around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ,” said Mathew D. Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious law firm, and dean of Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Va. “It is insensitive and mean.” I don't follow Staver's thinking. Any believer who encounters strident atheism for the first time in the form of an ad on a bus has probably lived a life so sheltered and secure from secularism he can hardly be laid low by this one encounter. No, I can't see believers breaking down at the sight of these ads. Most likely they swim in a sea of un-belief. They are accustomed to strident atheism. Many have been strident atheists. They can handle one…

  When did grown women start publicly referring to themselves as "moms"? The other day, Sarah Palin said she was concerned about foreign policy as "a mom with a son in Afghanistan." Soccer moms, hockey moms, stay-at-home moms, working moms, single moms. What ever happened to 'mother'? Rule #1 of domestic nomenclature: Do not refer to a woman as a mom unless you are that woman's child.  Rule #2: Do not refer to yourself as a mom with anyone who is not your child. The less time and energy women expend being mothers, the more adorable motherhood becomes. This cornball vocabulary trivializes and demeans an exalted and timeless institution, this sacred vocation that has wrecked more lives than any other. A mom is decorative. A mother is severe and semi-official and disturbingly ever-present. A mom sits in the bleachers and yells, "Go, Buster! I love ya!" A mother takes you by the ears and scrubs your mouth out with Fels Naptha. As Florence King said, "Let's face it: We like the idea of motherhood, we like the symbols of motherhood, we like the metaphors of motherhood, and we like the cute, casual vocabulary of neo-motherhood that we have cooked up, but we don't like motherhood..."

What kind of woman calls herself a “rogue?” A liberal, feminist, roguish kind of woman. John Lofton of the American View makes this and other excellent observations about Sarah Palin in his radio show on the Oprah interview. He dares to call Palin a non-conservative and to denounce Christians for supporting her. I wonder if he has hired bodyguards.

Lofton makes a couple of points I have made. He says Palin’s comment during the Oprah interview that she felt sympathy for women who choose abortion was tasteless, improper and hypocritical.  He also calls the Palin family a model of domestic abnormality.

  (more…)

In a previous post, a reader asked about the reasons for Oprah’s staggering success. I gave a few superficial reasons, and discussion followed. But I did not probe a major factor in this success: Oprah’s role as spiritual leader. 

Oprah takes trivial matters, such as fashion, relationships, shopping and cooking, and skillfully blends them with issues of ultimate meaning and destiny. This deft combination of the small and the large, the high and the low, is at the heart of her ascendancy. Oprah is more than a talk show host. She is captain at the helm of a ship heading through the troubled waters of self discovery. The spiritual answers she provides deeply appeal to women today.

Oprah is not radically new in providing these answers and American women have been tending toward these beliefs for well over 150 years. Religion in America has been in the process of being feminized since at least the nineteenth century.  But Oprah is new in the extent of her cultural reach. No American minister ever had Oprah’s audience of more than 20 million viewers five days a week.

(more…)

Mrs. N. comments on the previous post regarding the lamentable ‘Ms.’:

I grew up in a small midwestern town that in my mind’s eye was not unlike the fictional town of Mayberry. Unmarried women carried the title Miss. A married woman was addressed by her husband’s first and last name, i.e. Mrs. John Smith. If a woman was widowed, she was addressed by her own first and last name, i.e. Mrs. Jane Smith. Letters were addressed as such and many women signed their checks and other binding documents in this same manner. 

(more…)

  A commenter named Richard W. at View from the Right has a great essay on the inevitable collapse of the federal government. This event is to be welcomed, he argues, and holds out thrilling possibilities for cultural renewal. The behemoth must die. Richard writes: I view our position now as analogous to an airplane which loses its engines in flight. The pilot and copilot know the flight is over. There is no way to avoid a crash landing, only procedures to follow to increase the chances of survival. Those of us who understand the situation in America are like those pilots. One of our duties is to tell the rest of the crew and passengers what is going to happen, but it's not the main task at hand. The main task is survival. In our case survival has multiple levels. Individual and family survival must come first. We need to ensure that despite the increasing societal chaos we retain health and hearth. At the level above that is the survival of a larger group or community: one's church, one's neighbors, a close nit group of friends. At the next level is survival of critical cultural and political institutions. We must all make our own plans for family and group survival. It is at this third level of the survival of these larger institutions that we need to talk, plan, and work towards agreement. Clearly the "thing" which is failing and must be destroyed…