USA TODAY reports:

A plan to crack down on ultra-loud grunting in women’s tennis has been “unanimously green-lighted” by the WTA players’ council, representatives from all four majors and the International Tennis Federation, according to USA Today.

“It’s time for us to drive excessive grunting out of the game for future generations,” WTA CEO Stacey Allaster told the publication.

Women athletes are so driven to display brawn and aggression that far more than a ban on excessive grunting will do the job for future generations. At this rate, there will be no future generations.

INGRES, as we have discussed before, was famous for his portraits, including official portraits of Napoleon and idealistic renderings of nineteenth-century European artistocrats. While living in Rome, he also executed many drawings of wealthy tourists, usually family portraits full of character and charm. Here is his drawing of Charles Hayard and his daughter, Marguerite, a work which captures the subtle tenderness between a father and his child. The girl depicted  is precocious, intelligent and clearly proud of her father. They seem utterly comfortable in each other’s arms. Ingres was fascinated with the clothing of the period and its interplay with personality. Here, the father’s stiff high collar and military cuffs  contrast with the slim, fragile child he clasps. The drawing examines the ever-powerful tension between masculine and feminine, both necessary and incomplete. Neither smiles here, at least not in the way we tend to think of smiles today; both are content.

Ingres is famous for saying, “Le dessin c’est la probité de l’art,” or “Drawing is the probity of Art,” so great was his conviction regarding the power of the simple outline. One of his inspirations was the British sculptor and illustrator John Flaxman, whose illustrations of Homer’s poems captured action and personality with simple outline and silhouette. How is it possible that lines on paper can bring so much to life?

Odysseus in the Underworld, John Flaxman, 1792

Read More »

IZZY, who is 17 years old and lives in Canada, writes:

There is a contingent within the Men’s Rights Movement, which can be found in various places on the Internet, that pushes the idea of artificial wombs. They say that selectively choosing boys over girls is a good thing. They actually advocate exterminating one sex. To state this simple fact will incite rage, name-calling, and the oh-so-tired label of “feminist”from the Men’s Right Movement. One must ask, however, what makes them speak this way? It may be obvious to say, but most MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) are young men who have had no success with women, and so hate them for denying them. Though this is a foolish way to judge someone, it is one of the reasons why they think they way they do. Instead of seeking better opportunities, they flock to the idea that to get rid of all women is the best thing. Read More »

FEMINISTS, such as Anne-Marie Slaughter, often claim that  companies have an obligation to create an equal number of positions for men and women because equality is profitable. The expenses of accommodating women employees in demanding jobs, so the argument goes, are ultimately compensated. If employees devote much less time to their jobs and are often distracted, productivity increases.

This fantastical argument, rehashed in Slaughter’s latest piece in The Atlantic, defies common sense. It has also been refuted. See British academic Catherine Hakim’s long report on the subject.

Despite the many forces pushing equality, there is virtually no organized resistance to this flawed thinking and the coercive project of workforce quotas. There is promising news, however, from Britain. A businessman, Mike Buchanan, has started a new organization, Campaign for Merit in Business, to resist “positive discrimination for women.” He writes:

The reasons for the ‘imbalances’ between the numbers of men and women in the senior reaches of organisations in general, and in the boardroom in particular, are very well understood, although not widely understood. They’re attributable (as are phenomena such as the ‘gender pay gap’) to the choices freely made by men and women with regard to the world of work and have nothing to do with discrimination against women.

Read More »

THOMAS F. BERTONNEAU writes:

My computer catastrophe of last Thursday wiped out all my e-mail records including my e-mail addresses. I am asking my correspondents to e-mail me at dactylic@verizon.net so that I might rebuild my address book. About a dozen of the friendliest ones are regular readers of The Thinking Housewife.

Thank you.

PAUL writes:

My brother was a combat medic in Vietnam. I don’t ask him about his horrific experiences, but they come out from time to time. He recently told me about his platoon crossing a river and trying to avoid huge Chinese claymore mines (much bigger than American claymores). His platoon used makeshift flotation devices such as tree branches. Read More »

PENNY writes:

Your recent entry on women who want to have it all made me think of the author Emilie Loring. She wrote romances from the 1930s through the ’50s. Her heroines were spirited, can-do women who tried to make the world a better place. They had a sense of humor, were loving, and believed in family. The heroes were hard-working men who, like the heroines, placed duty above personal desires. Read More »

DANIEL S. writes:

According to American researchers, societies in which the belief in a literal Hell is accepted as the norm have a lower level of crime than those that eschew damnation and divine punishment for a universalist Heaven. Read More »

FRED OWENS writes:

Compare the photos. The first one shows the Supreme Court Justices in 1917, with stern and serious faces — one would even describe them as being “judgmental.”

Of course, we don’t see the justices of 1917 in their private moments, and no doubt they smiled, joked, and laughed at certain moments in their lives, but they reserved their serious faces for their serious work of judgment.

But we’ve come a long way, baby. Now we serve up justice with a smile in this 2012 photo of the Supreme Court. Let’s be lighthearted, joyful and casual — not “judgmental” or, God forbid, serious.

Read More »

C.S. LEWIS said many of our most hailed scientific advances do not represent a conquest over Nature so much as a conquest of some men by other men. So it is with contraception. “Each generation exercises power over its successors; and each, in so far as it modifies the environment bequeathed to it and rebels against tradition, resists and limits the power of its predecessors,” Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man.

There are at least four ways in which the mass acceptance of contraception represents a form of subjugation of some by others. Read More »

A PRINCETON professor who left her job in the State Department because it was wrecking havoc on the lives of her teenage sons, has tiresomely written about it in Atlantic Magazine, as if reporting on this type of conflict for the very first time. Joining the ever-swelling ranks of women who exploit their personal lives for journalistic fame and fortune, Anne-Marie Slaughter has created a virtual firestorm of controversy, however, because she states that it is hard for women to have it all. What is the solution? Slaughter asks.

The solution is this. Women can have it all, she says, but only when women have it all. Yes, friends, this is the startling crux of her argument. She writes:

The best hope for improving the lot of all women, and for closing what Wolfers and Stevenson call a “new gender gap”—measured by well-being rather than wages—is to close the leadership gap: to elect a woman president and 50 women senators; to ensure that women are equally represented in the ranks of corporate executives and judicial leaders. Only when women wield power in sufficient numbers will we create a society that genuinely works for all women. That will be a society that works for everyone.

The essay is no less oblivious and dishonest than the mountains of other pieces by whining feminists.

I suspect one reason it has caused such a storm, and Slaughter is viewed as something of a traitor despite her full support for feminism, is that she has had the audacity to speak of the difficulty of raising even teenage children with a high-powered and well-paying job. That’s a no-no.

Slaughter’s focus, of course, is on the happiness of women and not on the ultimate effects of their decisions on their dependents, on the mood and temper of society at large, or on employers forced to tolerate the relatively low retention rate and “flexibility” of women employees.

Read More »

DIANA writes:

What on earth happens in the mind of an impressionable adolescent when he, or she, is told that the Ancient Greeks thought love between two men was the highest form of love, as they are told in this highly-touted sex education book for pre-teens, It’s Perfectly Normal? I imagine that it throws the boys into extreme confusion, and makes the girls feel ugly and undesirable. Which is the intended effect.

Interesting, that they don’t mention that homosexuality among the Ancient Greeks involved pederasty.

Read More »

CONSTANCE writes:

I read this opinion piece in the New York Times and thought it would be of interest to you and other readers of your site. The author, a professor of philosophy, argues that the decision to have children is the biggest ethical decision we make. But the fact that it’s a decision at all is a byproduct of contraception, abortion, and the mentality that fertility should be controlled at all times. What about those of us who let God and nature take their course instead? Are we opting out of the hard ethical decision-making, or are we acting unethically for not taking control in the first place? I also noticed that she thinks through in depth what parents owe a child but fails to address what a child might give to a parent, especially as pertains to the parent’s access to the full range of human experience and character development.

Read More »

AT The Heritage American, Stephen Hopewell has a fascinating post on his experience at the local library with the latest board books for babies. The books aggressively assert racial diversity, even to the point of depicting animals as black or white, and yet ironically it is white parents who are the most frequent borrowers. Hopewell writes:

[A]m I the only one who feels like I am being targeted or manipulated when I am presented with book after book with a black child on the cover, to take home and read to my white baby?

But like so many features of our culture today, the new norms for children’s books were established with no honest public debate and no understanding of what was being given up. There is an opportunity cost to every choice made; energy expended on making children’s books “diverse” is then not used for some other creative purpose. And these products, in my mind, are very unsatisfactory.

Read More »

THREE extraordinary developments in women’s fashions have occurred over the past 100 years. They are so widely accepted that most people barely notice them anymore. They are:

1) The gradual acceptance of pants. Once exclusively reserved for men, pants were completely embraced by the 1960s and are so universal now that a first violinist in a major orchestra in my area sits with her legs spread-eagle during the performance. She is wearing pants and is considered free to sit in any position.

2) The rise of informality. Everyday clothes worn 100 years ago would be considered special occasion dress today. Even nuns wear T-shirts and jeans.

3) The striking increase in revealing clothing.  Unisex pants lead to camisoles and other forms of public lingerie, clothes that are unambiguously feminine. College presidents and congresswomen even wear low-cut blouses.

These changes have not liberated women. Far from it. They have confined them. They have encouraged women to ape men. They have caused them to lower themselves, especially in the eyes of their children, as a pseudo-man is necessarily inferior to a real man. They have created a world that is less beautiful and less ceremonious. Sixteenth-century peasants dressed with more dignity than wealthy Western women today.

All of this is by way of introducing a remarkable document on this subject. No one has expressed the consequences of these changes better than one particular man writing 52 years ago. Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, the Archbishop of Genoa, wrote a prophetic letter to local clergy in 1960 on the subject of the increasing appearance of women in “trousers.” Archbishop Siri maintained that the adoption of masculine dress by women would ultimately spell disaster:

When we see a woman in trousers, we should think not so much of her as of all mankind, of what it will be when women will have masculinized themselves for good. Nobody stands to gain by helping to bring about a future age of vagueness, ambiguity, imperfection and, in a word, monstrosities.

When a sense of the eternal feminine is lost, there is a flattening of society. He wrote:

The consequences of such violations are not a new outline of man, but disorders, hurtful instability of all kinds, the frightening dryness of human souls, the shattering increase in the number of human castaways, driven long since out of people’s sight and mind to live out their decline in boredom, sadness and rejection. Aligned on the wrecking of the eternal norms are to be found the broken families, lives cut short before their time, hearths and homes gone cold, old people cast to one side, youngsters willfully degenerate and — at the end of the line — souls in despair and taking their own lives.

His letter, posted at Catholicmodesty.com, is well worth reading in its entirety. These are extreme words, but all of it has come true.

Read More »

A GROUP of Catholic nuns began a well-funded bus tour yesterday to campaign for more federal monies for the poor. While the most vulnerable members of society suffer the ravages of the sexual revolution and the loss of the sacred, these leftist sisters of mercy insist what people need most is government charity. Confirming the image of America’s religious sisters as political hucksters, these nuns are committed to a desacralized society. Pray for these foolish revolutionaries. They know not what they do. Their minds have been steeped in Kumbaya.

THE NEWS media reported last week that Obama’s executive order granting work permits to illegal immigrants who came here as children would give citizenship to some 800,000 people. The number is closer to two to three million, according to Roy Beck at Numbers USA. He blames Republicans in Congress for their failure “to tackle immigration priorities the last two years.”

— Comments —

Buck writes:

Roy Beck’s column is about numbers; about the economics. No one is better at that than Beck. Sadly, he says nothing about the existential damage being done to the American nation; the permanent and fatal damage. If the United States had the extra three million jobs, would Beck see this as a problem or a solution? Would any but a few Americans care that they are disappearing as a people – jobs or no jobs?

Read More »