THIS IS the Queen Victoria statue near Hyde Park in Sydney, Australia. The Queen’s get-up is part of a public art project that “celebrates the power of creativity in unexpected spaces.” Public art is another term for public desecration. Is that a dish brush (or toilet bowl brush) in Victoria’s hand?
The children who see this statue will probably never forget it. They will forever regard the Queen as a buffoon.
COLLEGES, which are always seeking new marketing schemes now that they aggressively pursue a business model, almost universally advertise their study abroad programs. For $50,000, or whatever the going rate for tuition, parents send their college students to a foreign country for a year. Why should a young person party in his native country when he can live hard on an international scale? (more…)
TRADITIONALISTS working for a turnabout in Western culture are often asked this question. What guarantee is there that civilization will be restored? Doesn’t it appear we are fighting a losing battle and, if so, why not hunker down and prepare for the worst?
THE NUMBER of married adults has fallen to its lowest level since the government began keeping records more than 100 years ago. According to Census Bureau data in today’s New York Times, 52 percent of the population over 18 years is now married, as opposed to 57 percent ten years ago. That’s a drop of five percent in just a decade. For the first time in recorded history, the number of never-married young adults, between 25 and 34, exceeds those married.
IMAGINE if instead of lame “Family Day” proclamations, a single prominent politician stood up and said words similar to those of Theodore Roosevelt when he spoke before the National Congress of Mothers in 1905:
In our modern industrial civilization there are many and grave dangers to counterbalance the splendors and the triumphs. It is not a good thing to see cities grow at disproportionate speed relatively to the country; for the small land owners, the men who own their little homes, and therefore to a very large extent the men who till farms, the men of the soil, have hitherto made the foundation of lasting national life in every State; and, if the foundation becomes either too weak or too narrow, the superstructure, no matter how attractive, is in imminent danger of falling. (more…)
YOU KNOW family has become a marginal institution when we have national “Family Day.” Stouffers, the maker of frozen dinners, is one of the sponsors of the event, which encourages families to do something radical – sit down and eat dinner. Columbia University, also a sponsor, says that families that eat dinner together are less likely to have teens who use drugs. Above is one of the photographs on the Family Day website. Two moms and their child. [Or, perhaps as noted below, it is a mother with two daughters?] Wouldn’t it be nice if eating dinner together were all it took to rescue families?
Do any of the corporate, government or academic sponsors of this event say anything important? Family Day sounds, at best, trite and meaningless and, at worst, outright dangerous. Do these sponsors have any idea why families don’t eat dinner together? (more…)
REPUBLICANS continue to do a fine job of normalizing family breakdown and sexual freedom. This breezy New York Times profile of Carl P. Paladino includes information about his dog, his favorite vodka and his favorite nighttime ritual. He “travels to the home of Sarah, his daughter from an extramarital relationship, and puts her to bed.” (more…)
GAIL AGGEN writes:
When I read the reasons Theodore Dalrymple gives for the increase in domestic violence in the U.K., I felt that more needs to be said about specific causative behaviors, and the dehumanizing influences that spawn and maintain them. For example, if you visit Britain, you cannot help but notice that excessive alcohol consumption is rampant, as is here illustrated. When I was there, I saw this myself. (more…)
IN HIS 2007 book In Praise of Prejudice, Theodore Dalrymple, who formerly worked as a clinical psychiatrist in Britain, offers a compelling theory for an increase in domestic violence. He attributes the rise to two factors: sexual freedom and the cult of non-judgmentalism. The first makes men insecure about the fidelity of their companions:
How does a man who lives in a sexual free-for-all, in which any casual encounter between a man and a woman may lead to a sexual liaison, bind a woman to him with hoops of steel, to ensure her fidelity? This is his problem, because he knows that his intrinsic charms, merits, and attractions are minimal, or at any rate, no greater than those of a thousand other men around him.
In these circumstances, it is best to fill his beloved’s waking hours with thoughts of himself and with nothing but thoughts of himself.
The second prevents women from judging the obvious and discriminating accordingly:
They have accepted, perhaps without knowing it, the modern prejudice against prejudice, a prejudice that in their case might have preserved them from beatings and sometimes from death itself. The argument they have accepted goes something like this: the observation that men who dress and present themselves in a certain fashion and tattoo themselves heavily are bad men is at best a rough generalization, which is itself probably the result of class or ethical bias in the observer.
Dalrymple’s insights, based on encounters with “thousands” of men and women, are excellent and plausible. I highly recommend the book. Here are extensive quotes from Chapter 26, The Dire Social Effects of Abandoning Certain Prejudices. (more…)
FRED WRITES:
I really appreciate your work at The Thinking Housewife. It has made a difference in my life. As a life-long liberal I have had the gravest doubts about things, and I find that you have opened new doors of thought for me. It may have been that I was wrong about many things.
Wrong, but I don’t feel guilty and I don’t count it as a sin, to be wrong about things and to make great efforts in service of those wrongs.
JOSH F. writes:
I’ve come to reject the “homeschooling” label. When people ask where my kids go to school, I simply tell them that they don’t go to “school.” They are educated, I say in a matter of fact manner, by myself and their mother. The idea behind rejecting this label is self-evident. First, it’s entirely normal to be miffed by those that believe they are making a great sacrifice by “schooling” their kids with teacher experts. The time/money benefit alone provided by “school” is enough to put the “sacrifice” of “schooling” one’s children into serious perspective. I also have no desire to bring the isolated nature of “school” into the home nor am I seeking to be part of a collective of “homeschoolers.” (more…)
THE REV. JAMES JACKSON writes:
In the post on the Pope’s visit to England, you mentioned several things and I’d like to respond to them:
THE PIZZA industrial complex is spreading its tentacles day by day. Notice the fine print on this coupon.
IMAGINE GIVING $100 million to a soulless, ineffective and corrupt bureaucracy to further its soulless, ineffective and corrupt projects. You might as well take tractor trailers full of cash, drive them to a major port, dump the cash in barges, haul the money out to sea and then dump it in a watery grave.
A HOMESCHOOLING MOTHER writes:
Would that Oprah and Bill Gates would concern themselves with their own families and people in their local neighborhoods. Of course, they are historically common, the plutocrats who seek to incline the hearts and minds of our children toward their universal schemes (which is generally away from the traditions of their parents).
The classicist Thomas Fleming discusses this and how to deal with it in his 2004 book, The Morality of Everyday Life: Rediscovering an Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition. I give but a fragment. (more…)
