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.” (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. (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. (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 :) (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? (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. (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.

(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. (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. (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.” (more…)

IN THE past thirty years, we have witnessed a huge increase in the amount of time young children spend away from mothers in institutional daycare or in the care of relatives or hired babysitters. Studies have shown that this non-maternal care affects childhood behavior. But very little has been written about how non-maternal care affects the individual over the long term. 

The Rev. James Jackson, pastor of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Littleton, Colorado, wrote this fascinating essay about the possible links between daycare and anti-social behavior by college students. He included the essay in his pastoral bulletin yesterday.  I have never heard a priest or preacher speak out against the scourge of daycare. Judging from what churches have said on the growth of institutional care for children, one would think it was a non-issue, rather than a pressing threat to the individual and society.

Here is Rev. Jackson’s essay: (more…)

  I HAVE been living in the ninth circle of computer hell the last couple of days, which is why I have been slow in posting and responding to comments. My main machine contracted a malicious virus and my alternatives are not as efficient. By the way, do not open e-mails without a subject line, even if they are from people you know and trust.

. A PREVIOUS essay by Alan Roebuck on the need for conservatives to "evangelize" sparked interesting debate here, with some readers objecting to Mr. Roebuck's fundamental optimism. The conversation became heated when one commenter argued that the traditionalist movement must find him a wife. Mr. Roebuck now has a second essay on conservative apologetics at the Intellectual Conservative. He writes: Liberals don't just hold false beliefs. They're also lost souls, participants in a false and destructive way of life. They need to hear the good news that liberalism is false and there's a better way for them and for America. And we conservatives need liberals to hear the good news so we can have hope of igniting a counterrevolution that will restore a properly-ordered (or at least tolerably-ordered) American society. Mr. Roebuck, who uses religious language to describe a secular movement, urges the modern conservative to see himself as a metaphysical missionary.

  BRISTOL PALIN has become a walking - and dancing - advertisement for the joys and freedoms of single motherhood. See her "dancing with the stars" here.

.

JESSE POWELL writes:

A multi-page article called “Housewives of God” on the teachings of wifely submission in several Evangelical churches has appeared in the New York Times Magazine. As far as I know this is the most mainstream news coverage the patriarchal movement has ever received. Molly Worthen, a writer on religious issues, profiles Priscilla Shirer as a typical example of an empowered woman who really leads a feminist lifestyle preaching that “Satan will do everything in his power to get us (women) to take the lead in our homes. He wants to make us resent our husband’s position of authority so that we will begin to usurp it. . . . Women need to pray for God to renew a spirit of submission in their hearts.” (more…)