I WAS talking with a high school student about George Washington the other day. We were discussing the first president’s character and life as described in Richard Brookhiser’s biography of Washington, Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington, a book which the student is reading.

The student said matter-of-factly, “The good thing about George Washington is that no one says he was homosexual.” Read More »

Walenty Lisek writes:

I’ve been reading your thread “More on Conservative Apologetics” and was struck by the caricature of atheism which was presented. Being both right-wing and being an atheist isn’t a popular combination. To many it may seem unnatural or contradictory for someone to embrace both positions. But this is because of the prejudices of our age and not due to any inherent conflicts.

The word “atheism” literally means what it says “a” – without, and “theism” – god; “without god” is a pretty good definition. A more grammar friendly wording would be “without belief in god” or another formulation “believing god does not exist.” Read More »

OLIVIA  ELIOT writes:

I’m e-mailing to thank you wholeheartedly for the work you do on your blog. I’m a 21-year-old student, attending one of the more liberal universities in Ontario, and I’m surrounded daily by feminists, pro-abortionists, radical homosexuals, and anarchists, all supported by the university. It settles my mind, and keeps me sane, to come home after a long day, and read your blog.

I study physics because it fascinates me, but my plan, God willing, is to become a wife, and homeschooling mother of several children. Since starting to read your blog this year, I feel much more able to enter into debates and discussions with people who think that my plans are silly, and I do so with very little fear.

Your posts – and the ensuing discussions – about sexuality have been extremely helpful as well. This is an issue that is especially pertinent on a university campus. I felt compelled to compose this letter to my student newspaper recently, in reaction to some really alarming events I had seen advertised: Read More »

SAVE THIS blog from shipwreck! Get me off this mast. Please give here to the future existence of the Thinking Housewife.

Read More »

A MINNEAPOLIS WOMAN has set up a website to take reader input on whether she and her husband should abort their 17-week-old fetus. According to The Daily Mail, she is upfront about why she has difficulty with the idea of motherhood:

‘I’m not convinced that I want to change the status quo. I feel that as I age I’ve actually gotten more selfish and set in my ways…

‘I’m afraid that I will eventually regret starting a family and “settling down”, as they say. ‘I fear that the constant pressure to be the perfect wife and mother while maintaining a full-time job will eventually cause my brain to implode and lead to a nervous breakdown.’ Read More »

KRISTOR WRITES:

Alan Roebuck’s recent essay on conservative apologetics reminded me of what James H. wrote in this entry:

Years ago, while speaking to a left coast female physician at a conference, I went into my spiel about how important it is for a woman to spread her wings, have a career, fulfill her destiny and realize her full potential. Of course she nodded dutifully in agreement, an expression of bovine resignation written on her face. After just a few seconds I added, “and if a total stranger has to raise your children, well then so be it! After all, you can easily find a minimum wage employee to love your child just as much as you do.” Read More »

HERE is another compelling portrait by Gilbert Stuart, a painting of Sarah Wentworth Apthorp Morton (1759-1846), the wife of Boston lawyer Perez Morton, who famously cheated on her with her sister. Mrs. Morton was known for her poetry, which she sometimes wrote under the pseudonym of Constantia. She lost three of her five children. The painting now belongs to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.

ARTIFICIAL contraception and economic changes are generally believed to be the main causes of the dramatic decline in birth rates of the last two centuries. There is a strong case to be made, however, that there was at least one other important factor. The drop in fertility parallels the growth in the modern state school and the industrialization of childrearing.

Fertility in America began to drop significantly from the 1830’s onward, decreasing by 50 percent between 1800 and 1900, with the greater part of that drop occurring after 1870. Between 1870 and 1920, the American birth rate declined by 30 percent.* According to The History of Contraception from Antiquity to the Present Day by Angus MacLaren:

“In Utica, New York, for example, native-born middle-class women who had begun their childbearing in the 1820s had on average 5.8 children; those who began ten years later had only 3.6 children.”

This was a region of heavy industrialization, which was obviously a factor. Read More »

THEY had all had breakfast in Ms. Curtis’s sleek bamboo kitchen. Ms. Curtis made waffles; Mr. Petrini made bacon upstairs in his apartment and brought it down with him. The night before, they had had dinner at the Curtis-Hetfield dining table and then moved upstairs to watch “The Birdcage” in Mr. Petrini’s living room (his television is closer to the fireplace). Then they all retired to their own bedrooms, including Ms. Curtis and Mr. Petrini. Hers opens to the garden; his is on the third floor. (A pause to savor the luxury that each member of this family enjoys.)

You may think this is an excerpt from a Dorothy Parker short story, but in fact it is a real life description of a Manhattan couple who have created what The New York Times portrays as an enlightened arrangement for their post-divorce romance. She lives with her family in the ground-floor apartment and he lives with his in the top floor apartment. They commute between the two abodes.

Thousands of post-divorce couples eke out an existence in grubby apartments with unmade beds, their fortunes permanently diminished by the plutocratic standards set by America’s elite, while the Curtis and Petrini households are “fluid,” sun-lit and well-applianced.

DEAN ERICSON writes:

The ordeal of Elizabeth Smart’s kidnapping and rape began when her mother gave a panhandler five dollars. That act of Christian charity was then followed by another when Mrs. Smart offered panhandler Brian Mitchell to come work on her property raking leaves and fixing a skylight. The horror that resulted is well known. So if it may be true that angels will come in disguise to test us, as your commenter Mike suggested, it is also true that devils will do the same. If everyone followed a policy of giving to every panhandler the streets of our cities would quickly fill with a horde of them. The sure result would be social chaos and danger as the flock of sheep was fleeced by legions of flim-flam men, psychopaths, drug addicts, petty criminals, and perhaps even the occasional genuine worthy beggar. Read More »

.

JOHN P. writes:

There is a flip side to the issue of daycare for the young and that concerns elder care. While old people are not being developmentally warped by state caregivers it is often a cold experience for them, even if they are competent – which is not always the case. I recently elected to live with my mum and provide care to her in her declining years (very daughterly of me!). She did not like the nursing home where she was residing and wanted to live on her own but could not manage it due to her advanced years. She tells me I am the best caregiver she ever had (beaming with pride :) Read More »

.

MIKE writes:

I enjoy your site, and follow it daily. However, I believe you and Mr. Auster are wrong in stating that “one should not give money to beggars, period.” I do not believe this statement can be reconciled with Christian Scripture, doctrine, or history. The Lord Himself commanded his followers to “give to everyone who begs from you.” (Luke 6:30.) He did not indicate that only “worthy” beggars should receive. Likewise, Scripture states that angels will come in disguise to test us. “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.” (Hebrews, 13:2.) Christian history is filled with stories of saints who encountered angels in the form of beggars sent to test them. Who is to say that the beggar you next meet will not be standing with God before you on the Day of Judgment? Read More »

Y. writes:

I’m reading the excerpt on Amazon about St. Bosco’s dreams. I just finished through page 217, and it’s basically what parenting is about. True, loving parenting is true, loving discipleship, and a way to nurture the child’s relationship with God. As St. Bosco found with his teachers and the children in their care, to do that the parent must be with the child continuously and be an active part of the child’s world.

“DAYCARE” centers should not have the word “care” anywhere in their names. They should be called daytime orphanages or simply child maintenance centers. Even though many good people work for them, and many good people send their children to them, these institutions cannot provide humane care and are major breeders of contagious childhood diseases.

Feminism’s support for the institutionalization of babies and children, support which is nothing less than an assault on individual freedom and society at large, is unforgiveable, particularly since the most vocal feminists have rarely consented to the institutionalization of their own children. Those most likely to use daycare are those who are middle class or poor. The standards of feminism contain what G.K. Chesterton called a “plutocratic assumption.”

One of the paradoxes of early childhood neglect is that it often creates narcissistic personalities. The individual denied of affirmation early in life compensates for this deprivation with exaggerated self-assertion. We  have become a society of narcissists because we are a society that deliberately deprives children of love. It’s one thing to neglect children because there is no choice. It’s another thing to do so and say it is good. Children sense the moral tone of all actions. They are more alive to moral reality in some senses than adults. They are never fooled though they may not be conscious of the deception. Read More »

THE EARLY American portraitist Gilbert Stuart, who painted the first six presidents and is best known for his unfinished portrait of George Washington, also captured the complexity and beauty of femininity in his canvases of Colonial women. Here is his portrait of Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis, another oppressed drudge and domestic deadbeat from our collective past. She even called herself Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis. What a fool. She loved her husband so much she actually used his full name. Imagine that. I call that slavery, pure and simple.

Perhaps men turned to Cubism and other forms of abstraction in portraiture because femininity was being drained from the world. There were fewer faces left to paint.

Notice the lack of adornment on Mrs. Otis’s face. She wears no makeup or earrings. With her artfully arranged tendrils and white bodice, she radiates femininity from within. The more women possess the character and manner of a woman, the less make-up they require.

Read More »

JESSE POWELL writes:

I have experienced in just the past month a new kind of begging that I have never seen before. I live in a city where encountering beggars is a routine experience. Typically a bedraggled man will approach and ask for some money, very timid, very humble; if you just walk on by he shows no persistence, if you give him a dollar he will thank you profusely and praise you for how generous you are. This ritual repeats itself endlessly, becoming a part of big city life. 

In the past month, however, I have twice been approached by women looking traumatized and frightened. Each said she was fleeing an abusive husband or escaping from some serious family trauma. Read More »

PHYSIOGNOMY is the art of judging character from facial features. At View from the Right, Thomas F. Bertonneau analyzes the physiognomic aspects of feminism. He writes:

There are any number of distinctly unfeminine women in Obama’s administration or regime. Janet Napolitano comes to mind, perhaps also Sonya Sotomayor and Hillary Clinton. Yet “unfeminine” somehow misses the point, because the effect is not primarily of a lack of femininity as it is of the positive co-presence of an irremediable irritation with existence and a misanthropy that finds its outlet in sweeping moral condemnations and in ordering people about. These traits are of course incompatible with femininity. In Napolitano’s features, for example, I see no trace of ordinary compassion and little of anything meaningfully human; I see the face of a politicized apparatchik who happens to be female but who is, by virtue of total identification with an ideological cause, de-sexed and in large measure dehumanized. Read More »

JAMES H. writes:

Years ago, while speaking to a left coast female physician at a conference, I went into my spiel about how important it is for a woman to spread her wings, have a career, fulfill her destiny and realize her full potential. Of course she nodded dutifully in agreement, an expression of bovine resignation written on her face. After just a few seconds I added, “and if a total stranger has to raise your children, well then so be it! After all, you can easily find a minimum wage employee to love your child just as much as you do.” Read More »