Two Cents.

It's been a few weeks since the publication of Kay Hymowitz's article, "Where Have the Good Men Gone?" Comments have been posted, responses have been written. In a sense, there's not much else to say. In my estimation, Hymowitz is dead-on in her description of what is now called "pre-adulthood" - the twentysomething (or thirtysomething) who is free of familial obligations, is professionally successful and financially stable, and is well-educated. The milestones that used to mark adulthood for men and women -- providing for one's wife and children, taking care of a household, and bearing children, are not being met. To be sure, these other things are certainly goods in themselves, and serve to better society in some substantial regard. I, for one, am very proud of my graduate degree and my profession as a teacher of young women. It does feel good to be earning a competitive salary, and to hold my head up high in a room filled with other men and women my age, proud of my accomplishments and interested in those of the people in my company. These experiences we are having in pre-adulthood, well, at least some of them, give our lives some color and interest.

However, Hymowitz is also right that advertisers, marketers, and entertainers are all tempting us to give into desires for superficiality which is easy and experiences that are fleeting with no-strings-attached, distracting us from our most visceral area of vulnerability -- the desire to be loved. Though Hymowitz describes what is going on, she doesn't provide the way out:

What explains this puerile shallowness? I see it as an expression of our cultural uncertainty about the social role of men. It's been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.

No matter what demographic or sociological shift occurs, or what milestones are or aren't met, men and women, more than boys or girls, desire to be in loving relationships that are deeply satisfying. I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim that single men or women stuck in this limbo are particularly happy. At this point, it's not a matter of shifting the blame from one sex to the other, or to the act of sex itself. It's a matter of cultivating relationships of charitable friendship, calling one another to "man (or woman) up," and to meet milestones in the formation of character. Even if masculine and feminine virtues are said to be outdated, they are ingrained in our humanity, and will find a way back into society, if only we would have the "fortitude, courage, and fidelity" to try.

The Gospel of Tolerance

I would love to write an essay on this topic, but teaching and extracurricular activities preclude me from it right now. However, I can post, and so, here goes.

Any thoughtful Catholic is aware of the "gospel of tolerance" that is being preached by our brothers and sisters in the Church. It's the "good news" that all are invited to the table of the Lord, because we can no longer call anything a sin if it can be attributed to nature. Since God created us as we are, we should allow everyone to be as they are, and to respect their life choices, lifestyles, and life trajectories. Live and let (others) live.

Somewhere or another, people are saying that this is a central tenant of Jesus' own message and preaching.

This "gospel" is poisonous for the Christian, in that it takes something good (refraining from one person passing judgment on another person's soul) but mixes that up with evaluating and judging actions, which is in fact, a moral imperative. We are called to evaluate moral action, character, and sin so as to elevate each other and ourselves to perfection in Christ. I am hearing this "gospel" preached from the pulpit, discussed at meetings (even at reputable Catholic institutions), and of course, from my students who think that any statement on morality is a statement of intolerance, bigotry, or closemindedness.

I'm at a loss right now as to how to convey how the tolerance of Christ is not equated with moral relativism. The truth is, that Jesus does no condemn us but at the same time elevates us to perfection. It's right here, in the actual gospel. How else can we convey that "anything and everything goes" is not, in fact, what Christ says? How can we talk about nature and its proper end?

Superfreaks

Has any ever written to a television station? Because I'm really close to doing so. I'm fed up with virginity being construed as some sort of deviation from nature.

As I was unpacking the last remnants of my trip to France this week, I decided to put on mindless television in the background, namely, Grey's Anatomy. Why? I have no idea. For some reason I'm still holding out hope that this show will touch on very human pain and redemption, but instead, it just riles me up.

One of the latest episodes was entitled, "Superfreak," and intended to tackle the fact that all of us, no matter how put together we seem, struggle with some sort of neurosis or fact about ourselves which can make us feel like a "freak," or just really odd. Someone suffered from arachnophobia, another from PTSD, and another....from being a 28-year-old virgin. As a 26-year-old virgin, I was infuriated, mostly because the young woman didn't seem to be bothered by it, until she was ceaselessly taunted by her colleagues and mocked during several of the vignettes.

My virginity is not something that I am ashamed of, nor is it something that I lord over people who are sexual active. It is something I am convicted about, and not something that makes me a "freak." Why is it okay to engage in all sorts of sexual behavior but not to remain chaste? Why isn't hooking up portrayed as the unnatural route instead of abstinence (which, by the way, was mocked on The Office this past week, too)? Why am I the one with the problem?

With a movie entitle, "The Virginity Hit," out in select theaters documenting a young boy's loss of virginity and mocking the experience, I want to scream loud and proud that this is not a disease, not something freakish. Will you join me?

A New Twist on Veiling: Burqa Barbie

Yes, you did indeed hear that correctly. I found this video via Susie's Big Adventure Blog and I busted up laughing!! Since Islam is still on my brain and I have been thinking about how to answer my own query put to you about the difference between the motivation of the provocatively dressed woman and the excessively veiled (Islamic) woman. I think this little video illuminates some of my own thoughts, as does this 2002 Op-Ed by Maureen Dowd (I know, I know, she is mostly awful, but this is fascinating). She writes of her experience in Saudi Arabia that she has with their morality police about not being properly veiled in public at a mall in Riyadh with one of her (male and native) friends:

The three-story mall was so chockablock with designer stilettos, bondage boots, transparent blouses and glittering gowns with plunging necklines that it would have made Las Vegas blush.

I felt drab, dressed in black to suit Saudi standards with a scarf over my hair, a long skirt, a sweater over a T-shirt and flats. An earlier outing with a pink skirt had caused my Ministry of Information minder to bark: ''Get your abaya! They'll kill you!''. . . . Suddenly, four men bore down on us, two in white robes, one in a brown policeman's uniform and one in a floor-length brown A-line skirt (not a good look). They pointed to my neck and hips, and the embarrassed diplomat explained that I had been busted by the vice squad.

''They say they can see the outline of your body,'' he translated. ''They say they welcome you to the mall, which is a sign of our modernity, but that we are also proud of our tradition and faith, and you must respect that.'' The police took my passport and began making notes about the crime, oblivious to the irony of detaining me in front of the window of another lingerie shop displaying a short lacy red slip.

This is precisely what does not make sense to me about the whole Islamic veiling phenomenon: women are demanded to veil to cover their bodies which are viewed as sexual objects. However, it seems that even the women themselves see their bodies that way!! And, what's more - as long as it is within the bounds of marriage, they revel in it!! (Never mind the whole polygamy issue that is legal in many Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia). This seems to me to the paradox that is well...ridiculous. No one wants to see women dressed in shorts or a skirt that has her backside hanging out and tops that show more than anyone cares to see. But the other extreme, burqas and niqabs - simply seems to me to encourage it. As far as I can see, it is simply the same kind of sexual enslavement that we are constantly bombarded with through other means such as pornography, trashy clothes, and people like...Lady Gaga. And it is stuff like this that brings out that angry feminist in me. So I am done.

I Love Tennis.

Also, he is not too hard watch. And his serve and forehand are absolutely amazing. The seventh man ever to win a Grand Slam. Gotta love great sports moments!

Are You Normal?

After a long first week of school I decided to take myself to a salon and get a pedicure. I only treat myself to this rarely, but, after all, I stand on my feet for about 5 hours a day, and they are taking a beating. While in the chair, trying to relax my toes, I picked up one of the many magazines available for patrons. I honestly can't remember which magazine it was, but as I was leafing through it, I came across a feature page called "Are You Normal?" This particular month's question was "Are you normal about porn?"

What kind of question is that? What is normal about porn?

Although I was disgusted by it, I was so fascinated that this was even a feature piece, so I glimpsed at what was said (clearly aware that by their standards, I am not normal about porn). There were quizzes and polls to be taken and read, indicating that it was totally casual to watch with your boyfriend and not anything to be ashamed of. How would that conversation about what to watch on television even go down?!?!

Then they had a section called "The Next Best Thing," which featured something besides porn that helped attract you to a man. Some common responses about attractive men included a man that is put together and dressed nicely or a man who opens the door for you. How are these things secondary to pornography in attracting a woman to a man? How are these the "next best things"?

Unfortunately, I was more riled up after my pedicure than when I had entered. Forget relaxing my feet; these suggestions about what is normal simply made my toes curl.

Meeting People

Julian and I were recently talking about how we'd like to meet people other than the young single catholic crowd in our city (which is great, but can be stifling). The conversation went something like this:

A: I want to meet people.

J: so do I. how do we do that?

A: I don't know. join a class or something.

J: or go to bars.

A: yeah, but then comes the question "what do you do" and you answer, I teach theology. And then you end up talking about theology anyway.

Obviously this is a bit of a witness, but its not exactly what we're looking for. All the same, the conversation reminded me of a great Mary Tyler Moore episode where Rhoda hits on the brilliant idea to join a divorce group so she can meet single men...and possibly win a trip to Paris. Mary ends up being vice-president of the club. Watch it:

One of the Best Marriages on TV

Stop what you are doing now and go rent (or watch online) every season of Friday Night Lights that you can get your hands on. I have not watched such a tremendous show in a long time (okay, since Lost finished). I started watching the show this summer after my brother had been recommending it for a few years, and I'm so glad that I did start watching. I love football, and I appreciate (to a certain extent), what it's like to live and breathe the experience of the team as my older brother, who I idolized (and still do) played for four years at our competitive regional high school. The performances of nearly every cast member are convincing and emotionally-charged with subtlety in glances, pauses, and delivery that make you invest in their well-being and good. My heart is tugged by every episode.

Now, in full disclosure, the show chronicles very wounded men, women, and teenagers, who are not always able to live out the Christian morality they hear preached in their southern Texas churches on Sunday. However, I am prepared to stand behind the statement that the marriage of the characters Coach Eric Taylor and his wife Tami is one of the best marriages that I've ever seen portrayed on the small or the large screen. The show films all aspects of a marriage that is (at least) 15 or so years in....what solid, daily communication looks like, what issues are important and not so important, what it's like to put the other person's good ahead of your own in real situations and decision-making, how difficult but vital it is to keep the fires burning, what it looks like to walk with someone in joy and sorrow, what it's like to parent (and to parent well) a teenager, etc. I really can't stress how impressed I am with the writing, acting, and overall portrayal of two people still very much in love and who work with all of their might to stay that way. It's really the most beautiful witness I've seen in awhile, and one that I haven't seen written about in Christian circles.

If you watch it, let me know if you agree. Sometimes it's just nice to have and to celebrate little glimmers of light in the media that model in a realistic fashion the culture of life and the practical application of the theology of the body.

Male Friendship

Last weekend I had a fascinating discussion about male friendship, spurred by this article describing the modern misconception of the relationship between Cardinal Newman and his dear friend Fr. Ambrose St. John:

[Newman] was not afraid to be very close indeed to a few people. "The best preparation for loving the world at large, and loving it duly and wisely," he wrote in a letter, "is to cultivate an intimate friendship and affection for those who are immediately about." Hence his deep friendships with those "immediately about" him: John Bowden as a student, Richard Hurrell Froude and Frederic Rogers while a don at Oxford, and Ambrose St John as a Catholic priest.

St John had been in Oxford with Newman; they became Catholics together, and were ordained priests in Rome at the same time. When Newman founded the Oratory in 1848, St John was one of the first members. Being 15 years Newman's junior, when he died suddenly aged 60, Newman was devastated. "I have ever thought no bereavement was equal to that of a husband's or a wife's," he wrote, "but I feel it difficult to believe that any can be greater, or any one's sorrow greater, than mine." Some 15 centuries earlier, St Augustine in his Confessions wrote in the same way about the death not of his mistress, but of his best friend. "My eyes sought him everywhere, but they did not see him; and I hated all places because he was not in them, because they could not say to me, 'Look, he is coming,' as they did when he was alive and absent."

The article concludes with a eye towards the failing of modern culture with regards to understanding male friendship:

Do we – can we – today applaud such friendship? Do we – can we – make room, now, for such "evidences of sweet brotherly love"? Men and women often have intense friendships with members of their own sex, friendships that have no sexual component; yet we are losing the vocabulary to speak about them, or we are embarrassed to do so.

(If you have a strong constitution, you need only look at the comments to discover the veracity of his complaint.)

A favorite professor, Anthony Esolen, has written extensively on this topic. His most developed expression is found in Touchstone Magazine, and is available to read online. Here's a snippet. Do read it all, and let us know your thoughts, friends!

Shakespeare, or his narrative persona, expressed in his sonnets a passionate love for an unnamed and not too loyal young man, so Shakespeare must have been homosexual—despite the absence of evidence, and despite his persona’s explicit statement in sonnet 20 that the young man’s sexual accoutrements are of no interest (or use) to him whatever.

The bachelor Abe Lincoln long shared a bed with his closest friend, Joshua Speed, and later wrote letters expressing, with what seems a touch of self-deprecating irony, his fear that he would be lonely once Speed had taken a wife. Lincoln therefore must be homosexual. No matter that men (and women too) commonly shared beds, and also commonly spoke of their friendship in strong, earthy language that now embarrasses. The poet Edmund Spenser, celebrator of his own wedding in one of the most brilliant poems in English, used to share a bed with his friend and fellow scholar at Cambridge, Gabriel Harvey. There you go.

“Your love to me was finer than the love of women,” laments David in a public song, when he learns of the death of his friend Jonathan. We know why. The godlike hero Gilgamesh and his friend Enkidu walk hand in hand into the dark forest of Humbaba. No wonder then that at Enkidu’s death Gilgamesh will weep inconsolably, letting his hair grow long, flinging away his royal robes, and leaving the city to wander in the wilderness.

A Reply

I've been mulling over Agatha's post on the destructiveness of porn in our culture. This is a tough one. I have experienced people in my life who definitely had a problem with addiction to pornography, and it is beyond destructive. I can even remember some of the boys in high school bragging about their porn collections. At the time, I did not speak, fearing to seem 'uncool.' Oh, to be who I am now back in those days!

I struggled with commentator Aaron's objectives - because addiction to pornography is something that men relapse into (and women too, I am sure - not that I endorse her, but Oprah did a recent show on how the porn industry is more and more marketing 'soft' porn to women, a topic for another post, perhaps.) It is really difficult for women to be a crutch to the men in their lives struggling with addiction. Aaron suggests to us ladies that we should help and encourage fulfilling relationships in those we know with porn addiction. And this is really hard to do, as porn destroys a person's ability to have a fulfilling relationship. I don't have the answer to this, all I know is that porn is seriously evil. And Aaron's advice is good advice, but it is not easy. Let's pray fervently for an end to this epidemic!

"Lady" Gaga

Even the name is confusing. A lady? Seemingly far from it. Gaga? A reference to baby language or men's ogling eyes? Just what does this 23-year-old think of herself? And is America really paying attention?

In the piece that I shared with the Magdalene sisters, several points have emerged that I think are worth thinking about as modern, Catholic women (and by the way, Edith, the beats at the very least are helpful in cardio workouts, so I think you can cut yourself some slack).

1. In a postlapsarian world, women use sex (or at least their "wiles") to manipulate men to get what it is that they want. This sin is not new, ladies and gentlemen. Gaga has not invented it. Here I disagree with the author:

The genius of Gaga is to make it seem obvious — more so than even Madonna once did — that feminine sexuality is the perfect shucking knife. And Gaga is explicit in her insistence that, since feminine sexuality is a social construct, anyone, even a man who’s willing to buck gender norms, can wield it.

What is rather shocking to me, though, is the explicit, grandiose, and very "in-your-face" manner in which Lady Gaga is using her sexuality (and oftentimes a violent sexuality) to assert power, self-expression, and liberation from any cultural stereotypes of a woman. I think we have arrived at a place where even her actions are not as shocking to us as they should be. We are becoming comatose in the face of such wild sexual escapades. What will happen when our children think these images are normal to see and experience? What will happen if men (even good, Catholic ones) continue to expect rather extreme behavior in the bedroom to be turned on? What will happen when my young, female students think it is normal to hum, "I want your horror/I want your disease/I want your everything as long as it's free" at a younger and younger age?

2. A Catholic feminist must know that Simone de Beauvoir does not offer the answer for the liberation of women from being objectified by men.

The goal of “The Second Sex” is to get women, and men, to crave freedom — social, political and psychological — more than the precarious kind of happiness that an unjust world intermittently begrudges to the people who play by its rules. Beauvoir warned that you can’t just will yourself to be free, that is, to abjure relentlessly the temptations to want only what the world wants you to want. For her the job of the philosopher, at least as much as the fiction writer, is to re-describe how things are in a way that competes with the status quo story and leaves us craving social justice and the truly wide berth for self-expression that only it can provide.

No, Nancy. Men aren't going to objectify women an less if we throw out a "age-old" norms of what it means to be a woman. I think lumping sexual gratification of men into the same category of other "gender norms" is a mistake. De Beauvoir not only "re-defines" femininity, but she says that femininity is not even a reality. However, there are some realities to femininity that can't be dismissed, or redefined, or relegated to social conventions. Instead, they should be celebrated by women. The gifts we have are actually very powerful, and can be used very powerfully for the good. The problem, as I see it, is that Simone de Beauvoir and Lady Gaga both fail to escape becoming objectified by men. Both are on a quest to move beyond stereotypes and to break from from what they find to be oppressing. The problem, though, is that what is oppressing them both is a failure to see their value precisely in their creation as women -- ladies, even. To be a lady is a privilege and a responsibility, and it requires more guts, more confidence, and more self-respect than what is being offered today by pop star or philosopher alike.

The Archives of Atrocious Celebrity Fashion

Why is Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes at the top of this post? Did you ever think you'd see the day we'd begin posting about those two? Well, here's why.

It's easy to get sucked into celebrity gossip. VERY easy. Luckily, I have willfully blinded myself to the popular celebrity gossip websites. I get my fill of celebrity gossip from the celebrity fashion blog Go Fug Yourself. The subtitle says it all: "Fugly is the new pretty."

Jess and Heather share daily the most horrendous and hilarious celebrity outfits. They are witty, well read, and have a near encyclopedic knowledge of pop-culture, which makes their commentary hilarious, and totally un-vacuous. It's quite a feat for a celebrity blog. Plus, you learn all sorts of awesome things about fashion. Case in point, yesterday's post on Maggie Gyllenhal (below) elicited these wise words:

In many respects, I feel like I could Photoshop a septuagenarian's head onto this and you'd be like, "Yeah, all right, looks feasible." Except that no septuagenarian worth her blue rinse would pair a slacks suit that painfully sensible with a shawl made out of an airplane napkin. Score another point for the older generation.

I laugh out loud daily at their commentary, bad puns, pop-culture references and nostalgia, and amazing ability to find the worst outfits. Get your celeb fix from this lovely duo. You won't be disappointed.

More Comments on Our Brave Women

Yesterday I linked to an enlightening series on women in the military, probably highlighted this week because of Memorial Day. The articles are a bit old at this point, so I'm hoping they publish more soon. I find this topic particularly fascinating, primarily because I dearly love a young woman who is serving in the Army. I don't know anyone who has worked harder mentally, physically, or emotionally to accomplish all that she has in the past few years.

I don't really want this to turn into a conversation about whether or not women should be in the military, but rather a conversation about some of the meaty material that the NYT provides us with. The Magdalene Sisters have already begun to explore the role of women in the workplace, and what this series offers is a glance into an incredibily demanding place of employment and service.

I find the third video here really interesting. I can't imagine what it's like to have to prove oneself physically by having to push oneself to make the male requirements, which are undoubtedly strenuous for males. I also appreciate her insights into dealing with death, consoling a unit, and finding meaningful work after her tours of duty.

One thing that Sergeant Bumgarner speaks to is the constant fear and vulnerability of being a woman on base with men. I can imagine a general sense of fear in another country and I can obviously imagine fear when engaged in combat. But the fact that women fear their own brothers in uniform, and the fact that MOST cases of sexual assault go unreported, AND the fact that women (even the married ones) fear getting pregnant is really grostesque to me and very contrary to the thing which our armed services are asked to protect and fight for -- true human liberty. This seems to be the next big frontier for women in the military...freedom to be protected and as protect others.

Women at Arms

This looks like a really interesting series. Busy beginning of the week, but I'll post on it, I promise! Maybe we can read it together, sisters?

Wedding Fail

I've been perusing wedding websites a lot recently, because I promised my best friend from college that I'd make her wedding invitations. So, I've been sourcing ideas. Which is great...pretty dresses, beautiful flowers, wonderful colors: lots of details to brighten my day!

But I recently came across a wedding venue in LA called Vibiana, and it nearly broke my heart. It is a beautiful, huge, old church, in a that whitewashed California Baroque style, that is no longer used as a church: it is merely an event venue. But it still has most of the archetectural details--like gorgeous white marble side altars (not to mention the ornate high altar, see below).

With only the merest hints of its old use as a place of worship, this becomes a cool venue--a nearly blank canvas upon which I can thrust my vision for MY BIG DAY. It is, to me, symbolic of everything that is wrong with the wedding industry today. And it just breaks my heart.

Why I Like Glee

I confess: I've become a Glee Groupie. I originally began watching it to see what the big fuss was when my students would come in on Wednesday mornings chatting about the previous night's episode. However, what started out as research became a really fun-filled hour on Tuesday nights. I love musicals, and I love music from all different eras and genres. This show has it all. I also think Glee does a really good job tackling important issues (most particularly their regular stories about persons with disabilities and anxiety disorders like OCD). I'll be really happy if they continue to explore the many dimensions of their lead characters. Oh, and the cast does all of its own singing, which is pretty cool.

Above all, I have to say, I love the character of Sue Sylvester. She is downright hysterical in her meanness...not because it's okay to say the things she does, but because she is so over-the-top that she makes me giggle. But even Sue has many layers, no doubt not all of them exposed yet. Jane Lynch does an amazing job playing her.

If you don't watch it, I say give it a shot. If nothing else, you'll be singing along to a song or two that you forgot you loved so much!

Beating Breast Cancer

When I was in high school I participated in a 5 K race on Mother's Day that supported breast cancer research. My friend, A, had several relatives who were trying to beat or who had beaten breast cancer, and it seemed like a worthy cause. I remember the beautiful race through Philadelphia, feeling united with thousands upon thousands of people for a good cause.

About 8 years later, I know someone personally who is trying to beat breast cancer, and the treatment is absolutely wicked. She's a tough cookie though, and seems to be pulling through well. Her prognosis is great, and for that I'm grateful.

The month of May brings much breast cancer awareness with it, and I find it fitting since it is the month of Our Dear Lady...why wouldn't we support women? But the more I read about our culture, the less hopeful I am that we're going to beat it (or at least help prevent many cases) with our current policies and educational strategies. Something needs to be done!

Let's take the Susan G. Komen organization for starters. The most notable group in the movement to cure breast cancer donates a significant amount of money to Planned Parenthood. Sure, it's done in the name of mammograms and breast health services, but from what I've read, there is nothing stipulating that any money goes directly towards those services. Once the money is in PP's hands, they are free to allocate it however they deem appropriate. Now, it's bad enough that the money is going to PP, but the fact that research supports a pretty strong correlation between abortions before a full-term pregnancy and the onset of breast cancer (in addition to the use of oral contraceptives and hormones during menopause) cannot be ignored. Therefore, the largest organization committed to eradicating breast cancer is contributing to an organization that can actually provide "services" which can cause breast cancer. When I found this out, I was horrified. Here's a really great video which explains it all.

In addition, the "recommendations" in the new health care bill encourage doctors and women to wait until age 50 to get mammograms instead of starting at at 40. Thank goodness for the American Cancer Society which is refuting this and circulating the invaluable, life-saving recommendation that women at 40 get yearly check-ups.

So, what's a pro-life, pro-woman person supposed to do? The first step is education. Tell women about the link between abortion, oral contraception, and hormones and the onset of breast cancer. Secondly, contribute to organizations who are really trying to eradicate this cancer from society. These organizations pledge not to fund abortion facilities or research that is destructive to nascent, embryonic life.

Let's get to it!

While We're On the Topic....

Agatha's post of Bristol Palin's abstinence message provoked some reflection for me these past few days. First of all, I found the end of it repulsive. Not the progressively getting poorer and more haggard looking Bristol, though I thought that in very poor taste. But even more so, I found her words 'Pause before you play" utterly revolting - is she reducing sexuality to mere 'play?' Is she saying pause and put on a condom? Is she saying pause and reflect upon what you are about to do? Is she saying pause and wait until marriage? What exactly is the message? I don't know, and I certainly don't think she really portrayed the message quite well, whatever it was meant to be.

And while we are on the topic of teen pregnancy, there is an 11 year-old girl in Mexico City, who, despite pressure from gaping feminists, refuses to have an abortion because she realizes that there is 'a life growing' inside her womb. There are no details about what happened to this poor child, but God has given her a heavy cross indeed, and she bears it with dignity - "out of the mouth of babes." In a follow-up article, Catholic News Agency describes the pressures many young women (and girls) face in Mexico City from pro-abortion organizations:

First they find a girl who has been raped and they keep her hidden and inaccessible to any kind of assistance. Second, they expose the case to the media without revealing any details of her clinical history. . . .

Third, they center their media message on the idea that the legalization of so-called ‘therapeutic abortion’ is the solution for saving the lives of women. Fourth, they present themselves as the saviors of the life of the mother, and anyone who opposes their pro-abortion demands are quasi-criminals.

Sound familiar? It should. It's the same type of strategy Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe) describes happened to her during Roe v. Wade.

The real problem, according to Bristol Palin (well, apparently so) and the Catholic News Agency articles above is teenage promiscuity, and we might add, promiscuity in general. And for a humorous and irrational take on that subject, check what this Iranian cleric has to say...

Life Lessons

It's only Wednesday, and it's turning out to be a very long week. You know I love teaching, but this week I have had too many occasions in a 48-hour period in which I've had to talk to students about how they speak to me. I know teenagers will be teenagers, and I remember having trouble biting my tongue on occasion, but I don't remember ever speaking to a teacher in the way that my students have been addressing me. It's rude, it's un-called-for, and it's actually very shocking. I'm having a difficult time getting myself to the point to call them in one-on-one to talk to them. Is it my place to explain to them that what they are doing is inappropriate? Am I stepping into the parents' domain? Will they listen to me when I am so young?

I have decided to talk to them. However, they are girls, and girls cry when they think that they have hurt you. It's been hard to be stern, to be honest, and to be clear all while being sensitive to their sensitivity. I don't know how parents do it. Well, for some of them, clearly their parents didn't do it.

Anyway, this is all to say that I could use a prayer or two! Vocations are not easy, are they?

Bristol Palin's Abstinence Commercial

When I heard about this commercial in the political gossip column of our local newspaper, I was really quite surprised. This seemed entirely wrong headed. Now that I see it, I must agree with Mr. Archibold (of Creative Minority Report) that it is not sending the right message. Or, that the right message is lost in everything else. This could be Jamie Lynn Spears saying "I'm rich and Famous so abstinence doesn't matter to me" and it would be about as effective.

Thoughts?