ARCHBISHOP Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia has agreed to let an eleven-year-old girl, Caroline Pla, play football in a Catholic league, reports The Philadelphia Inquirer. The archbishop overruled a panel of experts who had advised against allowing girls to play, partly for safety and — most disturbing of all — legal reasons. The girl’s parents, friends, teammates and coach all hail the decision as a great advance for Caroline and for girls in general.

Pla can already participate in an array of athletic activities, from field hockey to basketball, softball and soccer. And yet we are supposed to believe it a serious injustice that she is excluded from this one sport. She may say in all innocence that she passionately loves football, but her eagerness to play is not ultimately about a love of football. That’s not possible. Only a girl who dislikes or who misunderstands football would want to play the sport. Football is inherently and inalterably masculine.  It can accommodate girls only by becoming an entirely different sport.

Pla — again, the innocent mouthpiece of a sports-obsessed, feminist mentality — explains why this is a good development for her. It has nothing to do with sports:

“I did learn a really important lesson in life,” she said. “If there’s something you don’t like, you can change it. In the end, it can turn out the way that you want.”

Caroline has learned to disregard athletic traditions; to overlook what others want (not many boys want girls to play football) in order to get what she wants, to cross dress as a boy and to value rough aggression.

For years Catholic schools and colleges have been encouraging feminist careerism and assertiveness in girls. Girls altar servers have replaced boys to a large extent. Catholic femininity has been eclipsed. Of course, not many girls want to play football. But that’s beside the point. Even if only a few play, girls in general will be further masculinized by this additional refusal by idiotically immature adults, such as Pla’s parents and coach, to reinforce sex differences.

The archbishop has shown extraordinary weakness. Or I should say, he has shown the very ordinary weakness of men in positions of authority today.

Read More »

DANIEL S. writes:

The paleo-conservative, Serbian Orthodox writer Srdja Trifkovic has written a piece for Chronicles expressing tentative optimism about the recently elected Pope Francis:

Many of us non-RC traditionalists all over the world had awaited the news from Rome with some trepidation. In the end it turned out to be rather good. Pope Francis, the first non-European Bishop of Rome since Gregory III (d. 741), is universally described as “modest” and “moderate”—which is much preferred to the dreaded “bold” or “courageous,” in the sense that those words are used by the global media. Read More »

IT’S ONE of the great ironies of modern life. The liberated woman is exhausted. She has very little erotic energy once she’s married and has children. The sexual revolution isn’t all that much fun after all.

Read More »

AT Galliawatch, Tiberge writes about an anti-immigration campaign by the organization Bloc Identitaire in France. It features the above poster. The English translation is: “Smile, you have been replaced.”The group states:

From advertisements to television fare, from the standardization of products to the standardization of tastes, from the erasing of borders to the disloyal creation of job competition for workers from all over the world, everything is being organized so that a new population replaces our own deeply-rooted people.

AT the website Rorate Caeli, Marcelo González, an Argentinian journalist at Panorama Católico Internacional, gives his view of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has been elected pope:

HOW rare and refreshing it is to see men in charge, exercising their rightful public authority. Feminism has not conquered all. Whatever may be said about the liberalism within it, the Catholic Church remains steadfastly masculine at the top, as is seen in this image of the papal conclave. No other major institution in the West forthrightly prohibits women from leadership.

How endlessly stupid it is for people to say such exclusiveness is anti-woman. Such charges are an affront to men. They are expressions of hatred toward men because they presume male indifference and even contempt for women. They are based on wicked and hateful assumptions. Such claims are at odds with reality and the inexpressible interdependence of men and women. God made two sexes to elevate us, to bring us closer to the heights. Only a weak and insecure woman —  a woman who is oblivious to her own strengths — takes offense at the sight of an all-male gathering.

Read More »

A READER recently sent the following quote  from Father, the Family Protector by James Stenson. Except for his statement, “After God, Mom comes first,” which undercuts a father’s authority, Stenson makes important observations about the love and respect a man should show his wife:

[A] mother’s authority in the home, her ability to teach and lead, depends enormously on the her husband’s obvious respect and support for her. So a good father is above all a loving husband. He is a man who leads his children to love and honor their mother, his beloved wife. Where the children are concerned, he insists that they respect and serve her, exactly as he does. Every healthy family sets rules in place, some standards to direct the children’s attitudes and comportment. But the number one rule among smart, effective fathers is this: After God, Mom comes first.  Read More »

THE Home Renaissance Foundation is an interesting think tank in London that promotes domesticity with a cool, modernist style. Here is the organization’s latest video, part of its “Homemakers Project.” It’s a wonderful thing to see Western academics actually speaking up for housewives as they do here.

There are many worthwhile links on the organization’s website. However, the foundation’s call for the “professionalization” of homemaking is misguided. Only by valuing efficiency above all else can homemaking be considered a profession. Efficiency is not the highest goal of the domestic sphere. Homemaking, like the priesthood, is a vocation, not a profession. Domesticity deserves to be taken seriously and that seems to be the foundation’s main emphasis, but calling for professionalization of homemaking is wrong.

Read More »

DANIEL S. writes:

The establishment liberal media never seems to miss a beat when it comes to attacking the Catholic Church as anti-woman and is forever insinuating that the Church is responsible for “institutional” discrimination against women simply for refusing, for traditional doctrinal reasons, women priests. These same feminists and liberals that are full of ressentiment toward the Church on the other hand will defend the the Muslim hijab and support the continued Muslim immigration into Western nations, despite religiously-endorsed violence against women by Muslim men (and women!). Read More »

LESLIE BELL, a psychotherapist writing in The Atlantic, tells young women who are worried about devoting themselves too much to men in their twenties that they should go ahead and have serious relationships — and pursue demanding careers too. This is the feminist solution: Be all things at once. In practice, this model boils down for most women to shortchanging private life and marriage. Bell writes:

I would never advocate that women return to the stereotype of the single woman pining for romance. But I do believe that young women who are taking risks in so many other important areas of life should also pursue experiences that may, on their face, seem to be at odds with independence and progress. The successful woman who is in a relationship is not the same as the pining woman. She’s the one who is acknowledging the full range of her desires.

Men are useful for fulfilling women’s “full range of desires.” Self is all.

In a similar vein, Erin Callan, the former chief financial officer of Lehman Brothers, writing in The New York Times, wishes she had balanced her career and personal life better. She is now childless and on her second marriage. She doesn’t come to the conclusion that she shouldn’t have had a high-powered career at all — and she certainly doesn’t conclude that she deprived a man of an important position or that she deprived others of the children she never conceived. No, she wishes she had had everything.

I didn’t have to be on my BlackBerry from my first moment in the morning to my last moment at night. I didn’t have to eat the majority of my meals at my desk. I didn’t have to fly overnight to a meeting in Europe on my birthday. I now believe that I could have made it to a similar place with at least some better version of a personal life. Not without sacrifice — I don’t think I could have “had it all” — but with somewhat more harmony.

But, yes she does think she could have had it all: “I could have made it to a similar place with at least some better version of a personal life.” Feminists believe they are entitled to top careers with no grueling sacrifices. One reason Callan became a top executive was that she was willing to do things such as eat meals at her desk.

What both these women deny is that most competent human beings desire mastery — not balance. Balance — in the feminist sense of the word — is a deadly bore.

WHEN Jesus told us to love our neighbors as ourselves, what did he mean? The modern interpretation is that we should love others more than ourselves. At The Orthosphere, Kristor writes:

[W]e are to love the good and hate the bad in other people just as we love the good and hate the bad in ourselves. In order to do that—in order to move closer to goodness and further from wickedness in ourselves, and in our society, and in the creation at large—we must discriminate between good and bad, and choose goodness. That we forgive the wickedness of our enemies does not automatically make them friends; and if they cannot let go of their deadly hatred of us, then in order to control the risk to us of their hatred, we must perforce destroy them with it. In that case, we cannot survive to forgive them except by defending ourselves, and working their destruction, however that may grieve us.

Read More »

FRED OWENS writes:

My left-wing buddy, Alan Archibald, is blogging away like hell fire, but you are not able to keep up with him — not that anyone is keeping score.

I’m thinking there are other things going on in your life that are more important than the blog. This is good. And protecting your privacy is a key part of your message.

But I’m hoping that some kind of message of assurance from you would be welcome to your devoted readers, of which I am one.

Thank you for all your work.

Read More »

DAVID writes:

I must thank you profusely for your insightful posts. The interracial marriage discussions are of particular interest to me as a product of miscegenation. My father is a Jew and my mother Chinese. I am a college-age male living at home and my parents have been fighting recently with the looming threat of divorce. They mostly argue when they think I cannot hear, but their voices carry through the walls.

In one argument my mother accused my father of being a racist who doesn’t care about Chinese culture. He accused her in turn of only marrying him out of rebellion, not love. Both are probably correct to a certain degree.

Read More »

ROBERT HUBER writes in Philadelphia Magazine on “Being White in Philly,” a majority nonwhite city. Huber describes — blandly and without indignation — the squalor and fear that are common in many parts of the city due to black crime and negligence. He says whites deliberately adopt a sunny attitude. They live in denial, never stating the obvious and removing what is disturbing from their thoughts. Huber deserves credit for admitting that many things are left unsaid, but he then predictably concludes that the real problem is that whites and blacks don’t try hard enough to connect. If only whites could manage to engage blacks in “dialogue,” everything would be better.

That’s all liberals have to offer on the subject of race: endless “dialogue,” a merry-go-round of talk that leads to nothing more than dizzying, incapacitating white guilt and confusion. It inevitably leads to one conclusion: whites are to blame in some form or another for black dysfunction. Dialogue is an exercise in escapism.

Huber’s lengthy piece includes an interview with “Jen,” a white woman from Fairmount who criticizes her white neighbors for refusing to send their children to an elementary school that is 74 percent black. In the comments section following the article, we find the honesty that Huber never approaches himself. A reader writes that “white peoples brains would blow up” if anyone spoke the truth about the “overt disdain” many blacks possess toward whites. He writes: Read More »

IN THE Supreme Court case over Proposition 8, the California law that prohibits same-sex “marriage,” the Justice Department has filed a brief arguing that children have no inherent interest in being raised by a mother and father. Thus the federal government defends the most radical social experiment ever conceived.

Terrence Jeffrey from CNS News reports:

So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defensible interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.

The brief that the Justice Department presented to the Supreme Court discussed children only as items controlled by others, not as individual human beings who have God-given rights of their own. It simply assumes that a child has no inherent right to a mother or father and that the only right truly in question is whether two people of the same-sex have a right to marry one another and that that right encompasses a right to adopt and foster-raise children. Read More »

JESSE POWELL writes:

In January 2013, the most recent month for which U.S. Census data is available, the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) of all women in the United States from 25 to 54 years old stood at 74.0 percent.  This is the lowest rate since July 1991 when it stood at 73.9 percent.  The LFPR for women first hit 74.0 percent in September 1989. The peak in women’s LFPR was in April 2000 when it touched 77.3 percent.

For men in the same age group their LFPR was 91.7 percent in April 2000 and 88.6 percent in January 2013.  This means from April 2000 to January 2013 men’s LFPR dropped by 3.1 percentage points and women’s LFPR dropped by 3.3 percentage points; about the same amount.  So it cannot be said that there is a return to traditional sex roles going on with men increasing their participation in the workforce to match the level of earlier years and women leaving the workforce because now their men are taking care of them; only the women leaving the workforce part is happening.  Still women leaving the workforce on a sustained basis as appears to be happening is totally new.

From 1870 to 2000 women’s participation in the workforce continually increased; a trend of at least 130 years ever since record keeping on the subject began.  Now since 2000 women’s participation in the workforce has declined to where it was in 1991.  This kind of regression is totally unprecedented since 1870.  From 1870 to 2000, every single decade saw an increase in women working; usually of a substantial ratio.  The growth in women working was slow from 1990 to 2000, but was rapid for all the decades preceding 1990, even during the recession of the 1970s.   Read More »