What’s Wrong with the World

The Catholic news service ZENIT interviewed Professor Anthony Esolen recently on the subject of masculinity and civilization. The result is a tour-de-force of probing intellect and wisdom.

The other night I dropped in on the O'Reilly No-Spin-Zone. He was in the middle of an interview, and the spinner at the plate was ABC's John Stossel, who sometimes makes sense, just as O'Reilly is sometimes Catholic. They were discussing the current case of the D.C. Madam, who, it seems, is threatening to ruin some prominent reputations. She claims not to have been involved in prostitution, but O'Reilly and Stossel took it for granted that that is in fact what she was providing. But, said Stossel, so what? Who was getting hurt? he asked. Why are we trying to put people in jail for this sort of activity? Don't people own their own bodies? He lays his thoughts out at more length here.

I was late yesterday morning. (To where isn't important). I wasn't the only person to arrive late. Some still-unexplained though not uncommon phenomenon had turned a twenty-five minute drive into an hour.

The equanimity of the folks arriving late was uncharacteristic of the modern world: enough so that people started talking about it. A lovely pregnant woman related how two thirty-something self-besuited males (I will not say men, though that is the word she used) shoved roughly past her and an elderly woman in order to get the elevator.

That got me to wondering how much the drive in had helped condition the attitude of the narcissuits.

If I own it, I can pierce it. If I own it, I can paint it. It is mine, mine, mine, and I can do what I want with it.

That is the message that the staples-through-the-eyebrows crowd is attempting to convey, about their bodies, with their self-mutilations. Apparently Eve Ensler did not understand that when she said:

I went from Beverly Hills where women were getting vaginal laser rejuvenation surgery--paying four thousand dollars to get their labias trimmed to make them symmetrical because they didn't like the imbalance. And I flew to Kenya where [women were working to stop] the practice of female genital mutilation. And I said to myself, "What is wrong with this picture?"

Mr. Jeff Culbreath, a friend of many of us here, has a brilliant essay up on why and how to resist feminism. Go read it.

A happy Fathers' Day to the dads out there, especially...

--my husband, Tim,
--my dad, Henry W. of Chicago (who won't be able to read this, because he doesn't have a computer, but I had to mention him)
--my fellow bloggers at WWWtW who are dads, and
--Todd, our kind host.

Great fathers are part of what's right with the world. Thanks, guys!

...A Marlene Dietrich quote which I found somewhat intriguing and provocative:

To be completely woman you need a master, and in him a compass for your life. You need a man you can look up to and respect. If you dethrone him it's no wonder that you are discontented, and discontented women are not loved for long.

Update: for those so inclined, here is the Wikipedia entry for Dietrich.

Treating people as things is where most evil starts, and employees are real people not things. As real people employees have human natures, and human nature isn't Kantian universalism or Nietzschean will-to-power or whatever: human nature is social, human beings are raised by mothers and fathers in families, and not everyone is a father at all let alone is everyone equally a father all at the same time. To hire a father is to hire a person who has primary responsibility for materially providing for his family; such a hiring is a different kind of thing from hiring a teenager to mow the lawn or hiring an older mother with an empty nest looking for some extra cash to spend on the grandkids.

Employment as an institution which treats a father of five as a fungible productivity unit equivalent to a bachelor, or a single woman, or even a wife and mother, is a deliberate institutionalization of inhumanity. Deliberate institutionalization of inhumanity is a moral evil, so the institutionalization of equal pay for equal work is immoral.

That doesn't imply that in every case a woman should make less money than a man, or any such risible extrapolation. It doesn't mean that a family-man slacker should draw more pay than a diligent spinster. Human beings being what they are, exceptional circumstances are common and varied, judgement of individual circumstances is always required, and few things are more inhuman than "zero tolerance" categorical rules about the nuts and bolts of everyday life as actually lived.

But as some kind of categorical employment imperative backed by the force of law, the concept of equal pay for equal work is fundamentally inhuman and immoral. There is a basic difference between treating people as human beings with inherent dignity and treating them as interchangeable fungible productivity units, despite how amusing it is to say "fungible productivity unit".

I understand the objections: it is presently illegal to hire and set pay based on marital status and children, it is difficult to get employers to do the right thing, if fathers are morally entitled to greater pay - a living wage - than those who do not have the garnering of a living wage as their natural duty, well, capitalism as presently consitituted is going to lock fathers out of the workplace, fragment jobs into contract work and piecemeal jobs, and hire the cheapest workers. I get all that.

So much the worse for how things are presently constituted.

One of the interesting dialectical pivot points in recent discussions we've had about employment discrimination is charity. At some point our Christian culture degenerated to the point where "charity" started to mean "acts which are nice to do but always optional". Another thing which seems to have come along for the ride is that charity has become more abstract: the notion seems to be that charity is a marketplace selection of opportunities from which we can arbitrarily choose what we want.

In the discussion on natural obligations employers have toward the men providing for families who work for them, this has manifested in two ways.

The first way has been to treat the contingent obligation an employer has to provide for the basic dignity and needs of employees, and in turn the loyalty and diligence that an employee owes to his employer, as optional: as things not required as a matter of reciprocal justice, but rather as gratuitous and completely optional gifts.

The second way this notion has manifested itself is in the idea that charity (and therefore justice) is fungible: that there is no particular charitable obligation of employer to employee in justice but rather that the employer's obligation is just to some abstract charity-in-general, an obligation (to the extent it is one at all: see the previous point) which can be discharged by giving to one of any number of charitable opportunities in a marketplace of opportunities.

I wrote this in 1986, two months before I proposed to my wife, Frankie, and 13 months before we were married. I had planned to post this on Valentine's Day, February 14. But, being a preoccupied man, I forgot.

Rod Dreher has been posting a veritable cornucopia of resigned commentaries, tinged perhaps with a measure of despair, on the apparently inexorable societal death march towards the dissolution of marriage since the California Supreme Court's issuance of its egalitarian diktat. In the most recent of these commentaries, each of which has broached numerous substantive issues meriting further comment, and relied upon the MacIntyrean judgment that moral disagreements in late modernity are incommensurable (late modern 'ethics' being essentially emotivist, its valorized ideals of selfhood, autonomy, and desire regarded by classical and Christian ethics as the collective fons et origo of those problems moral theory is supposed to solve), Dreher references Margaret Liu McConnell's recent essay on marriage in the American Conservative, en route to a citation of Scalia's typically prescient dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, averring that he found her argument wanting:

But we must recognize that insisting that traditional marriage is best for raising children is not effective. A better approach is to emphasize that traditional marriage promotes the ideal that no parent should abandon his child. Who would argue against that? It’s consistent with other governmental policies in the area of child welfare. It’s in accord with human nature. But making the argument requires the courage, honesty, and humility to say that some ways of procreating are not as good for the general welfare as others, whether the parents are of the same sex or are married heterosexuals.

Adoptive parents do God’s work when they provide homes to children, and those homes can be as loving and stable as the home of any natural mother and father. But adoption is a humane response to what is already a tragedy in a child’s life, the loss of a parent. Those adorable adoptees from China, for example, are the byproduct of a cruel policy of child restriction that has lead to the deaths of thousands of children.

Reproductive technology, like adoption, without doubt can produce children who are loved by their new parents in homes as stable as those of any biological parents. But the various techniques, when employed by same-sex couples, always require that at least one of the child’s natural parents give up the child. This tempting world of sperm banks and egg brokers is the domain of the affluent and easily verges toward eugenics.

Adoption and reproductive technology as methods of forming our next generation are no foundation for a stable society. Social order doesn’t depend on parents being forced to give up their children for adoption because of poverty, illness, supposed unfitness, or the brutal policies of a foreign country—nor on parents giving up their children in advance of birth in sterile, scientific transactions. Those historical Supreme Court cases declaring marriage a fundamental right lauded the stability-promoting aspects of marriage, emphasizing the good that radiates throughout the broader society from the promise the man and woman make on their wedding day: “Marriage … creat[es] the most important relation in life … having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution.” “Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties.” The promise of the married couple to keep and care for one another and for their children engenders a respect for unconditional responsibility that serves us all.

Extending marriage to same-sex couples would leave no other institution to promote the ideal that every parent promises to care for his child. It’s easier for fathers to walk away from their responsibilities when society no longer promotes the simple norm that a child belongs to both parents equally, and each has a duty to care for the child—the norm encompassed in traditional marriage. As the NAACP, La Raza Centro Legal, and the National Association of Social Workers know, the pain and deprivation caused by the erosion of this norm fall hardest on the poor.

Nonetheless, aside from the hackneyed conceits of late modernity and its increasingly strident nominalism, such an argument ought to be persuasive, though the matter is considerably more grave than McConnell expresses. It is not merely that emotivist-nominalist marriage, extended to homosexuals, will enshrine in law the principle that some parents must abandon their children for the sake of the rights-regime, but that such a marital regime entails the commodification of children. Children, in Christian thought, are a supervenient grace; upon the intrinsic good of the conjugal, self-giving love of husband and wife, the gift of new life supervenes, both ratifying and expanding the good of marital love. More than this, a marriage open to children instantiates the great cosmo-theological principle that through self-giving, self-sacrifice, and abnegation (marriage is regarded as both loving and martyric), the world is reborn; by dying to ourselves, we instead receive life more abundantly. Such an order also renders our origins concrete and particular; we are rooted in particular histories and places and lineages. The deformation of marriage to accommodate homosexuals* will definitively ratify and cement in place a contrary principle, once children are factored into the 'marital' equation: children, desired by many such couples, will become objects of felt entitlement, and claim-rights upon their 'inclusion' in such marital units will be asserted; but because such unions are intrinsically infecund, the claim will thus be that adoption and reproductive technologies be enshrined as rights, so that all can claim their 'rights' to produce or possess a child. The child will no longer be a gift, a living symbol of a love which precedes him and envelopes him, but something something acquired or created, to the end that someone might 'fulfill himself' or realize his private conception of the meaning of the universe; this will entail the apotheosis of the consumerist mentality of us moderns: as we consume - according to the logic of advertising & etc. - in order to create our very selves, the things we acquire being instrumentalized towards the satisfaction of transient desire, so even children, sundered from natural biological origins, will be instruments of lifestyle preference-satisfaction. This is the gateway to the final frontier of commodification. When once we admit into law and culture the idea that some persons exist, or may be brought under the discipline of existing, so as to complete the world-images of others, conjured from the nothingness of their desires, a fathomless abyss of evils will lie before us.

C. S. Lewis said that women are fidgets and men are lazy.

I find that there is a fair bit of truth in this, though both can be either. (I'm frightfully lazy myself, and a fidget, which explains why I blog.)

But it occurred to me that Lewis's evaluation of male and female traits might have some relevance to a recent fad from which some of you may have suffered--the assessment craze.

As is well-know by now, Bristol Palin, Governor Palin's 17 year-old daughter, is pregnant. The McCain-Palin campaign released this information because of the completely inane speculations of the Far Left blogosphere about Governor Palin's pregnancy. Bristol, who needs our prayers and respect, has chosen life, and will marry the baby's father.

There is a certain irony in all this: Ann Dunham (b. Nov. 29, 1942) was 18 when she gave birth to Barack Obama II on August 4, 1961. Thus, it is likely that Ann was pregnant at 17 with a child sired by a 24 year-old Kenyan exchange student.

Life presents us with certain hardships, some of which are the consequences of our actions. These are the times at which the exercise of virtue becomes the most difficult as well as the most rewarding. Thankfully, there are still many Ann Dunhams and Bristol Palins residing in our communities. We have much to learn from them.

(Cross-posted)

In a forthcoming article already online, "Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy," Newsweek religion writer Lisa Miller offers a biblical defense of same-sex unions.

Responses to this have come from Rob Bowman (Evangelical), Mollie Hemmingway (Lutheran), Carl Olson (Catholic), and Al Mohler (Southern Baptist). They are all very good, though Bowman's is the best of the lot. Here's an excerpt from his piece:

Proposition: It is far more important that the electorate be of outstanding moral character, prudence, and wisdom than it is to extend the franchise to as many people as possible or to insure that every conceivable interest group is formally represented by voters who are members of that group. Other things equal, it is better to live in a good polity without the right to vote than it is to live in a tyrannical, decadent polity with the right to vote.

(Cross-posted)

My sister, Elizabeth Beckwith, is publishing a book this Fall with Harper Collins, Raising the Perfect Child Through Guilt and Manipulation. Above is a picture of her and the book's cover, which has just appeared online at Amazon.com, which includes this blurb about her:

Provocative statement for discussion: The besetting vice of women is vanity. The besetting vice of men is sensuality. Feminism exacerbates both vices, hence making both men and women maximally unhappy with reality as they find it.

Slightly longer discussion: Women are naturally vain and want to be admired. Contemporary feminism teaches them to want to be admired both for traditionally feminine traits such as beauty and motherliness and for traditionally masculine traits such as professional accomplishment and financial independence and success. Women come to believe that if they are perfect in all possible areas, they will be admired in all these areas, and then they will be happy. Men are naturally sensual and want a physically easy life with their physical desires satisfied with little trouble. Contemporary feminism teaches them that if they have a perfect woman, they can have it all, too. The woman who is perfect in every way will satisfy her husband's physical desires, make sure the kids are taken care of somehow (or make sure there are no kids), and take the financial stress and pressure off of her husband by making plenty of money on her own.

Since reality does not usually work out this way, both men and women raised with feminist ideology find themselves unhappy.

Discuss.

HT to Michael Liccione for an interesting Facebook discussion that prompted these thoughts.

This occurred a couple of days ago, but I neglected to mention it. I posted about the controversy last week (here and here), and it is only fair that I give Letterman a proverbial pat on the back: Good for David.

If truth be known, I have always been a huge fan of Letterman, and very much enjoy his humor. I have always had a weakness for liberal comedians, the music (though not the politics) of leftist folk singers, German ice skaters, and Alaska governors . Go figure.

Lydia McGrew's recent post on gender-neutral language reminded me of Michael Bauman's essay that appears as a chapter in his book, Pilgrim Theology. As most of you know, Mike is a frequent commentator on this blog, often playing the part of Socratic tormentor of bleeding-heart papists. In any event, in "Verbal Plunder: Combating the Feminist Encroachment on the Language of Theology and Ethics," Mike takes no prisoners. Here is an excerpt:

Anthony Esolen has recently published a hard-hitting piece on the Catholic priest scandal and its relation to America's growing "boy problem." Esolen argues that American Christians, including Catholics, are too committed already to the feminist agenda to face the urgent need for new, distinctive institutions that cater to boys and that promote healthy male bonding for boys and young men.

Esolen is surely right that there are many Christians who are indifferent to the need for old-fashioned boys' schools and clubs that promote a healthy masculine culture.

But there is an additional question that his article raises: Just how difficult, not only culturally but also financially and even legally, would it be to do what he suggests? More: How difficult is it now to be allowed to do anything effective to help males in America?

In January 2010 my parents are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. And at the end of this month my wife's mother will be celebrating her 85th birthday. So, Frankie (my wife) has been turning old photos into electronic ones so that we can put together some home made slides and iMovies for our parents. (So far Frankie has put together an incredible video slide-show for her mother, with wonderful music. My wife is truly amazing).

One of the pictures we scanned was the one below. It was taken on July 11, 1987 (coincidentally,the Feast of St. Benedict) at the top of the Dunes Hotel & Casino, where we had our wedding reception. It was one of the last photos taken that evening. It's such a great photo I just had to share it with the WWWtW crowd.

Anthony Esolen has responded via e-mail to my post below on boys. He has some excellent practical advice, which he has given me permission to post. In my opinion, getting a boy out of the public schools should be priority #1 for parents.

Over the last twenty years I've met and taught about two thousand freshmen, in Providence College's Development of Western Civilization Program. When you meet so many students in a big room, every day of the week for a year, you not only get a decent impression of a cross section of the freshman class (about one fifth of it, at our school), you also have a chance to evaluate what sorts of backgrounds are producing what sorts of students. I've found that if a young man speaks forthrightly to me, looks me in the eye, and takes an interest in something other than regions below his belt, he has been, about nine times in ten, homeschooled, or a graduate of an all-male Catholic school. Over and over I have found this to be the case. In other words, sometimes all that's required for health to return to the body is to remove it from the poisonous atmosphere. I'm intrigued, for instance, by the math scores of homeschoolers; not that homeschoolers distinguish themselves particularly well in that subject, as compared to what students seventy years ago used to do in math. But once you take boys out of school, they resume their modest but appreciable superiority in math, and they rise up to the level of their sisters in verbal ability. And if you take your boys out of the feminist-dominated schools (and it really is difficult to overestimate just how deeply entrenched feminism is in the schools, from the coed gym classes to the history textbooks) and place them in an all-boys school (where, for example, they might study the battle plans of Hannibal), they breathe more easily, they can be themselves, and they can be hammered into shape if need be -- as they themselves will be the first to tell you. So my first recommendation is pretty simple. Trust the health of the boy's nature, and take him out of the poison. Oh, by the way, that will mean doing something to the television, too.

My sister, Elizabeth Beckwith, is now a blogger. She is blogging on the Psychology Today website in conjunction with the October 6 release of her first book, Raising the Perfect Child Through Guilt and Manipulation (Harper Collins, 2009) You can find Lizzie's blog here. Here's an excerpt from her latest post:

It pains me to read the stories about the suspicions that South African runner, Caster Semenya, might really be male. Although mine was on a much smaller scale, I too felt the sting of gender misidentification in second grade following a short haircut that my mother tricked me into getting. In a few short snips I went from looking like Samantha Micelli to looking like I was in a Ramones cover band fronted by eight year-olds. That Sunday I was at church with my family when my 18 year-old brother, Jimmy, ran into an old friend. The friend pointed in my direction and asked, "Is this your little brother?" I was wearing a skirt for crying out loud! I wanted to kill this jerk, (which was especially terrible since we were at church, but I guess on the positive side, I could have immediately received absolution following my rampage.) I can't even imagine the humiliation had this indignity been plastered all over the television and newspaper, "Elizabeth Beckwith, is she or isn't she? Her new haircut is raising suspicions. " My mother who had missed the exchange with my brother's friend, noticed I was upset on the walk back to the car. Humiliated, I re-enacted the scene for her. Always one to raise her children up and tear down any naysayers, she didn't miss a beat. "That guy's an idiot. Did you see his girlfriend? He doesn't know what gorgeous is!" I felt comforted by my mother's unspoken logic that "only an idiot would not recognize that I was a pretty little girl." (Then I went home, locked myself in my bedroom and rehearsed a fictional future meeting with my brother's friend in which I was the most famous movie star in the world and he was lurking in a corner, weeping at my beauty and his horrendous error in judgment.)

You can read the whole thing here.

(Originally posted on Southern Appeal)