PRAYER is the expression of desire; its value comes from our inward aspirations, from their tenor and their strength. Take away desire, the prayer ceases; alter it, the prayer changes; increase or diminish its intensity, the prayer soars upward or has no wings. Inversely, take away the expression while leaving the desire, and the prayer in many ways remains intact. Has a child who says nothing but looks longingly at a toy in a shop window, and then at his smiling mother not formulated the most moving prayer? And even if he had not seen the toy, is not the desire for play, innate in the child as is the thirst for movement, in the eyes of his parents a standing prayer which they grant?

We ought always to pray is the same as saying: we must always desire eternal things, the temporal things which serve the eternal, our daily bread of every kind and for every need, life in all its fulness earthly and heavenly.

                              — A.D. Sertillanges, The Intellectual Life

(more…)

ONE THING that has not been mentioned in the discussion on domestic violence is that violent women are celebrated on television and in movies as never before.

Robin writes:

While I am not sure either that this is what women actually desire to watch, I will say that women do watch such programs often because they are so terribly confused as to the actual definition of womanhood in society today. Often, the women where I live behave exactly like men in almost every way in their day-to-day lives: women operating heavy lawn equipment, women doing difficult physical labor, women working in traditionally masculine jobs in factories and women running the family finances and almost completely orchestrating the lives of their husbands and boyfriends, expecting their men to act as their “wives” when they arrive home from work.  (more…)

SIMONE writes:

Judging by the title of your blog, it is fairly safe to assume that you refer to yourself as a ‘housewife.’ I’m sure it hasn’t escaped your attention that nowadays many married women who stay at home to raise their children and support their husbands prefer to be known as‘homemakers’ or a ‘stay-at-home-moms.’ If pressed on the issue, these women would probably argue that ‘housewife’ is an old-fashioned term which is not inclusive of single mothers and unmarried cohabitants who are not employed outside the home.  (more…)

JEAN-PAUL de Montréal écrit:

THE AUTHOR Joyce Maynard, divorced and 55, has satisfied a serious case of maternal lust by adopting two children from Ethiopia. Joining the significant number of Western parents who pursue global utopianism in their own homes, Maynard spent $20,000 to adopt the two girls, taking them far from their own county to bring them to California. Several months into the experience, she has written about it for More magazine, explaining how this new home filled with Western comforts and the love of strangers is better than the modest orphanage these girls left behind.

“I didn’t do this to be noble,” Maynard writes. “I was a mother in need of some children.” Well, at least she is honest. (A father is irrelevant; he doesn’t even come up as a necessity in any way.) Nevertheless, one suspects, given the amount of time she spends detailing the life she has created for her adopted daughters in More (a magazine devoted to more of everything), that she does indeed see her actions as noble. (more…)

AMY CHOZICK in today’s Wall Street Journal writes about the new television show “Nikita:”

The show reflects new thinking among television network executives: Their core audience—female viewers—want to see a woman take down the enemy, preferably with a little bloodshed along the way. The approach overturns years of belief that violent shows turn off women who prefer to watch earnest nurses, headstrong housewives or quirky career women.

I am not convinced that this is what viewers want, but this and the other shows mentioned by Chozick do reflect the cultural celebration of aggression in females. And, it is clear viewers will chow down on the junk that is fed to them.                                   (more…)

THE WORLD is full of Verena Tarrants. Verena, remember, is the heroine of Henry James’s 1885 novel The Bostonians. She is the naive girl enamored of feminism. It is her life and religion, but the main reason she has fallen under its sway is the power and will of one particular feminist, the Boston aristocrat Olive Chancellor. Olive is symbolic of the many demagogues, the Gloria Steinems and Simone de Beauvoirs, the Katie Courics, Oprah Winfreys, and Sarah Palins, who have led far more submissive women into the feminist trenches.

James’s hero, Basil Ransom, succeeds in converting a feminist. He does so in a way very similar to that described by Brandon B. and Heady G. in this entry. (more…)

WAL-MART FACES a class-action suit by a million female employees who say they are the victims of sex discrimination. This may become the largest employment discrimination suit in U.S. history. The case is fueled by two stunningly wrongheaded assumptions: that government should have any say in compensation and promotion and that women are the same as men.

If the case proceeds, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for a company as large as Wal-Mart to disprove that it engages in sex discrimination. After all, men and women are different and any  large employer would necessarily show some pattern of sex discrimination. The initial suit was filed in 2001 by six former and current female hourly workers and managers who accused Wal-Mart of a pattern of denying women workers equal pay and opportunities. The women alleged they made less than men doing the same jobs, although they had equal or more experience. Others said men were favored for promotions into managerial positions. Hundreds of thousands of female employees have since jumped on board the case, hoping to ride this horse to the races along with the lawyers who have magnanimously sought them out. (more…)

   I once asked the nothingness, What shall I do? What shall I do? And, a voice spoke. Do nothing. Stay where you are.

  The legal power of a father,—for a mother, as such, is entitled to no power, but only to reverence and respect,  the power of a father, I say, over the persons of his children ceases at the age of twenty-one: for they are then enfranchised by arriving at years of discretion, or that point which the law has established, as some must necessarily be established, when the empire of the father, or other guardian, gives place to the empire of reason. Yet, till that age arrives, this empire of the father continues even after his death; for he may by his will appoint a guardian to his children. He may also delegate part of his parental authority, during his life, to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco.                    Commentaries on the Laws of England, Sir William Blackstone, 1765-69                           

JACK W. writes:

I am young and in the position of trying to change a liberal, but naturally feminine woman. This can be very difficult, especially with a woman who is attached to liberalism for non-rational reasons (for example if her family or social identity involves allegiance to feminist ideals) and resists purely dispassionate discussions of feminism and the nature of a good marriage, almost as if with a chip on her shoulder. The only readily available appeal to her emotional side is to plainly declare what I would offer as a husband and what I would expect from a wife. This buys time and further discussion, but fear of loss cannot normally by itself catalyze a change in worldview – I wonder to what extent true change is possible for most.

A liberal woman is a corrupted woman – usually corrupted at a young age to view the world through a distorted lens. This process usually occurs on a mostly unconscious level, and it’s a rare woman who has attempted to rigorously place her liberalism on a theoretical framework. At best, many such women read, or read about, such books as The Feminine Mystique or The Second Sex,or perhaps some other readings handed out in women’s studies classes or in highschool, providing them with a mythology for their world, and themselves, that some women call on more than others in their lives. (more…)

WESTERN SOCIETY is steadily reverting to matriarchy and witnessing the progressive erosion of democracy. The two developments go hand-in-hand because it is impossible to maintain democracy with large numbers of female-headed households. Formal recognition of paternal authority is necessary to reverse this trend. Men should have primary custody of their biological children, as was commonplace in Western democracies two hundred years ago. This is one of the most basic means of checking the expansion of socialist government and the decline of the family.  Here are continuing comments from readers on the issue of presumptive paternal custody, which was discussed in this entry.

(more…)

  A READER writes: I really like these simple yet profound observations. My husband and I have commented on this "look" often. We are far from perfect, but have held fast to the narrow path, and that involves fresh air, books, music, food cooked at home, and lots of creative play borne out of "boredom." We have prayed for friends who value similar things, and have been blessed in this regard. Just yesterday, a friend and I were able to talk on the patio as we witnessed games of dolls, slides, wagons, and dirt unfold on the lawn. Such play does give a sparkle to the eyes, roses to the cheeks, and tone to the muscles. My nieces are not so blessed, and it is always a privilege for us to have them over for a day or two, feed them, and give them a taste of carefree childhood existence apart from screens, daycare, and marital strife. Thank you for expressing so concisely some notions that have been swirling in my mind.  Laura writes: Most children get some outdoor play, some idle time, and some homecooked food but in general the wholesome childhood has become marginal and atypical. To raise children in the way you describe is now subversive, a radical stance  against a sick society.