Gender Equality vs. Gender Roles

There is nothing wrong with traditional gender roles.  However, in my opinion, there is something wrong with forcing traditional gender roles on someone.  Still, reporters discussing a survey seem shocked and appalled that about 40% of teenage boys in Canada (compared to about 15% in the UK) think women should take care of their family and house, and about 45% of teenage boys think men should be tough.  The solution, according to them, and according to the perpetrator of this survey, is to teach gender equality to children well before they begin school and for schools to focus more on breaking down gender stereotypes.  Of course, while this survey is being reported on, I am confused, as always.  I do not see the inherent horror in believing in traditional gender roles.  Of course men and women should be treated as, and thought of, as equals, but that is not necessarily incompatible with traditional gender roles (and especially not with acknowledging that they are different).  I reckon the media is becoming more and more demented.  Of course, tradition is backwards, unenlightened, and moronic.  And those who believe in it all want to oppress and brutalize women, who are, of course, according to them, objects designed for performing the duties that are below men.  And, of course, schools are meant to be tools used to program children with progressive, or “enlightened,” viewpoints as a means to erode tradition’s oppression. 

My god, this is nauseating.  

An Appalling Case of Progressivism

This is precisely the reason I am a proponent of socially conservative values (h/t GayPatriot):

Officials in Basel [Switzerland] have agreed to rename the “sex box” after receiving some 3,000 letters of protest from parents angered by the controversial trove ofwooden penises and fabric vaginas set to be used in a new sex education programme for playschool and primary school kids. 

Christoph Eymann, Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP), responded to parent’s protests in an interview with SonntagsBlick. 

“It was no doubt stupid to call it a ’sex box’ – we will change that. But we will stick to our goal: to get across to children that sexuality is something natural. Without forcing anything upon them or taking anything away from their parents,“ he said. 

Many parents say they do not understand why sex education needs to be taught to children as young as four.

I can see the point of educating teens about sex, but four year olds?

Eymann said he understood that one line in the programme, “touching can be enjoyed heartily”, could be misconstrued, but insisted: “It is not about ‘touch me, feel me’. We want to tell the children that there is contact that they may find pleasurable, but some that they should say ’no’ to. Kids can unfortunately can become victims of sexual violence already at playschool age." 

Eymann said he would prefer if sex education was taught to children at home but argued that education officials needed to respond to the realities of today. 

“We currently live in an oversexualised society. There is uncontrolled distribution of pornographic material that can reach young children. Some primary school children know the TV schedule until 2am. We would like to offer these children firm support, which is often not available in the family. The box is only an aid. I trust the teachers to approach the material with care.”

Yes, we do live in an oversexualized society.  However, making it further oversexualized is not the solution.  And, this is perhaps the worst part:

Some parents have called for their children to be exempted from sex education. Eymann says he is strictly against exemptions, although he is aware this will not make him many friends: 

“Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has. The shared values that it teaches are very important. I would definitely like to keep this. The explanatory lesson can be portrayed in a way that doesn’t offend“, he said.

This is one of those things that would make me check the date if it weren't August (in case it were April 1st).  Still, I have a difficult time thinking any sane person would actually think this is the solution to anything.  While I am opposed to government intervention into the actions of people in private (as long as they are not causing harm to anyone), it is clear to me that children, especially children this young, are not rational, and cannot understand sex and what its significance is.  Sex is a natural thing, but, it has the capability of causing problems when it is not understood rationally.  I would prefer to live in a society where sex is not out in the open, where it is private.

In addition, it is totally unacceptable for parents not to be able to pull their children out of this program.

NOTE: I almost titled this post "Mental Porn for Pedophiles" but I decided not to.

An Ideology of Hatred?

Here is an excerpt from an editorial piece by Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League:

The attacks in Norway seem to stem from a different source. They are the first to emerge from a relatively new, specifically anti-Islamic ideology that moves beyond religious or racial prejudices to incorporate anti-Islamic sentiment as the focal point of a larger worldview.

Growing numbers of people in Europe and the United States subscribe to this belief system; in some instances it borders on hysteria. Adherents of this ideological Islamophobia view Islam as an existential threat to the world, especially to the “West.”

Moreover, they believe that leaders and governments in the Western world are consciously or unconsciously collaborating to allow Islam to “infiltrate” and eventually conquer democratic societies.

Left-wing “multiculturalist” sentiments tear down traditional European culture, they argue, allowing Muslim immigrants to replace it with “their own” culture and values. The result, they claim, will be the demographic, cultural and, eventually, political suicide of the West — unless action is taken to stop it.

These ideas are no longer geographically isolated. The Oslo perpetrator in his manifesto quoted extensively from the writings of European and American bloggers — including Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller — who promote a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the pretext of fighting radical Islam. Because of the reach of the Internet, these ideas float freely across borders and are reinforced by like-minded bigots.

This belief system goes far beyond anti-Islamic prejudice based on simple religious or racial grounds. In a sense, it parallels the creation of an ideological — and far more deadly — form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on the backs of the previously dominant cultural and religious forms of anti-Semitism.

The presence of this new ideological form of anti-Islamism is clear in the Norway attacks. The perpetrator, though motivated by anti-Islamic sentiments, did not attack or kill Muslims. Rather, he reserved his extreme actions for those “traitors” whom he believed to be collaborating with and allowing Muslims to take over Norway (and Europe). He chose targets related to the Labour Party, the alleged “multi-cultural Marxists” who dominated his thoughts.

Breivik’s acts are so far the only major incidents like this. Perhaps they will remain unique. His thinking, however, is certainly not. Thanks to his carefully sourced manifesto, we can identify many of his intellectual influences, and they are prominent on both sides of the Atlantic. And many people hold views similar to Breivik’s. In the United States, we have seen frequent manifestations of this ideology, including the eager promotion by anti-Islamic zealots of a growing conspiracy theory about “creeping Sharia law.”

One bizarre twist to Breivik’s warped worldview was his pro-Zionism — his strongly expressed support for the state of Israel. It is a reminder that we must always be wary of those whose love for the Jewish people is born out of hatred of Muslims or Arabs.

The obvious danger to Americans and Europeans is that as this movement grows and solidifies, more people may become motivated to violence by this hateful ideology.

In America, the polarization, vitriol and fear engendered by anti-Islamic activists must be replaced by reasoned and civil debate. We must rally the voices of reason to overcome the voices of intolerance before it is too late.

What is clear to me is that either Mr. Foxman or I misunderstand this ideology.   However, given the following, I am pretty sure it is he who misunderstands it:

• Muslims attack gays in San Francisco, Washington, and even Amsterdam.  However, that is nothing compared to how gays are treated in Muslim nations. 
• Honor killings are widespread among Muslims.
• Pedophilia is sanctioned by the Quran. 
• Since 9/11, Muslims have committed over 10,000 terrorist attacks, resulting in over 60,000 deaths and over 90,000 injuries.

Those are just a few examples of why I believe Islam is a threat.  If immigration by Muslims to some locations is not curbed, we may see more examples of Malmö, Sweden, where:

• The presence of an Israeli sports team caused a riot.
• Emergency workers do not enter heavily-Muslim areas.
• Heavily-Muslim areas are plagued by rampant unemployment. 
• Crime is widespread; one in three families is affected by "immigrant-fueled crime."
• Over a 20-year period, the number of rapes has tripled. 
• Jews risk their safety by not hiding their religion. 

Malmö appears to have problems because of its quarter-Muslim population.  Assuming the above is correct, multiculturalism and immigration have turned the well-functioning Swedish society into one with many problems.  If certain locations continue their policy of multiculturalism, then they too may see the same problems (if they haven't already).  

It is important to make a distinction between Muslim extremists and everyday Muslims.  The former is likely a tiny fraction of the entire Muslim population.  And, although some people may believe otherwise, I would not judge someone negatively based solely upon their religion, even if it were Islam (however, I may not hold the same attitude toward the Westboro Baptist Church and a few others).  It is, of course, the Muslim extremists that are responsible for all of the terrorism.  However, the same cannot be said for the other things that I mentioned above.  I do realize that there also exists a more liberal version of Islam.  However, that does not erase the evident correlation between Muslims and the above.  Having said that, I would not automatically attatch any of those things to any Muslim without evidence that suggests they may have perpetrated them.  To do so would be, among other things, logically fallacious.  

So, it appears that you simply need to consider Malmö when Mr. Foxman says this...

Left-wing “multiculturalist” sentiments tear down traditional European culture, they argue, allowing Muslim immigrants to replace it with “their own” culture and values. The result, they claim, will be the demographic, cultural and, eventually, political suicide of the West — unless action is taken to stop it.

And, when he says this,

This belief system goes far beyond anti-Islamic prejudice based on simple religious or racial grounds. In a sense, it parallels the creation of an ideological — and far more deadly — form of anti-Semitism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries on the backs of the previously dominant cultural and religious forms of anti-Semitism.

...you must simply remember how unlike modern Muslims the Jews of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were.  That is, they cannot be effectively compared.

And, to this...

The obvious danger to Americans and Europeans is that as this movement grows and solidifies, more people may become motivated to violence by this hateful ideology.

In America, the polarization, vitriol and fear engendered by anti-Islamic activists must be replaced by reasoned and civil debate. We must rally the voices of reason to overcome the voices of intolerance before it is too late.

...I say, although I cannot speak for anyone else, my ideology is not hateful.  I wish to propagate reasoned and civil debate.  Based on all the evidence I have seen, I have reason to deem Islam a threat.  If I am presented with evidence that contradicts the evidence I have seen, then I would be more than willing to reconsider my position.

I am not hateful; my position is quite empirical.  And, I will again condemn Breivik's detestable, evil actions.  I hope I have effectively communicated how my ideology is not hateful.  This appears to be yet another example of the acknowledgement of reality being confused for hatred.  Only through civil and reasoned discussion can things be effectively understood, and violence accomplishes absolutely nothing (aside from when it is necessary for protection).

Some Vitriol Worthy of "Daily Kos"

Every night at 7:00 PM, the inane diatribe of nonsense popularly known as “Entertainment Tonight” rears its pug-fugly face on my TV screen when the news is over.  And, I can’t change the channel fast enough.  Any second spared of their nonsensical rantings about drivel no one in their right mind should ever care about in the slightest means one extra day of sanity at the end of my life.  Gossip is the lowest form of anything.  Why don’t Entertainment Tonight’s viewers join those of us whose IQ is higher than “below average” in not giving a rat’s ass about what costume Lady Gaga wore at some stupid award show or what bonehead Jennifer Anniston is dating?  Seriously, who cares?  Why do people obsess over these morons whose only talent is looking like a plastic cup that spent too much time in the microwave?  And what kind of society puts these morons (oops, sorry, “artists”) above people who risk their lives every day to keep people safe, or above scientists who are finding cures for diseases?  And, even if actors’ and musicians’ names are widely known (which I don’t actually have a problem with), why does every fricking detail about their lives need to be scrutinized?  They aren’t that goddang interesting!  Very rarely do you see a comparable level of obsession with professional athletes, who, in my humble opinion, are vastly more talented and skilled.  This must be one of the very few ways in which non-Western societies are actually superior.  

Okay, maybe that wasn't even close to the level of vitriol at "Daily Kos."  Anyway, I needed to vent on how oddly furious I become every time that sideshow appears on my television.  Do not expect this style of writing from me again.  

What is Wrong With Norway?

I will admit that prior to the terrorist attack in Norway last Friday, I did not know very much about Norway.  When I think of Scandinavians, I think of people who are unemotional, logical, and efficient.  I realize that that is just a stereotype, and stereotypes cannot be accurately applied to everyone belonging to a certain group (in fact, I should know that better than most people).  However, stereotypes usually have some degree of accuracy, as they must come from somewhere (having said that, I have never met a Canadian who has the stereotypical Canadian accent, pronounces "about" like "aboot," or frequently says "eh"; perhaps that is an Eastern Canadian thing).  And, the more I learn about Norway, the more I realize how inaccurate that stereotype is.  In fact, Norwegians, in general, seem to harbour an irrational hatred toward both Israel and the United States, as well as an irrational compassion toward Muslims and terrorist groups such as Hamas.  I must say that I am disappointed in some of the information I am learning, as I have always been quite fond of Scandinavia, the homeland of some of my ancestors (and, a side note: I am also dismayed at the notoriously liberal Netherlands, also the homeland of some of my ancestors).

Here is some background on Norway:

Norway uses a "Nordic Model," which Wikipedia describes as:

This particular adaptation of the mixed market economy is characterised by more generous welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilizing the economy. It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.

I will say that this seems to work well for them.  Of course, that doesn't mean that it would work well in other societies.

Norway is an extremely wealthy, oil rich nation.  It has one of the world's highest standards of living, and has had the world's highest Human Development Index (HDI) ranking for 8 of the past 10 years.  According to the American think-tank Fund for Peace's Failed States Index, Norway is the world's most well functioning and stable nation.

Aside from the efficacy of Norway's economic policies and the weath Norway's oil provides to its small population, Norwegian society appears to be highly flawed (at least from my biased perspective).  Please read this excellent post by Bruce Bawer at Pajamas Media (h/t Diogenes Borealis).  Here are some excerpts from that post:

This lack of security was certainly not unusual for Norway, where the police don’t carry guns, and where the very idea of police carrying guns is widely looked upon as some holdover from an earlier stage of human evolution. But — hello — in front of the main office buildings of a Western European government? After 9/11? It seemed sheer madness.
...
When I first heard the news of the explosions at those buildings, my first thought, of course, was that it was a jihadist attack. But it wasn’t: it was a right-wing lunatic. It wasn’t jihad. It was a meaningless killing spree by a madman, like the ones at Columbine and Virginia Tech. A headline in one Norwegian newspaper today noted that the death toll in Oslo and at Utøya yesterday was higher than at Columbine and Virginia Tech combined. The Norwegian media have always reported on mass murders by lone gunmen in the U.S. as if they were things that could never happen in Norway: rather, they were symptoms of a sick society that Norwegians could never possibly understand. In Norway, they use the term “amerikanske tilstander” — American conditions. It never means anything good. Yesterday’s nightmare, from a Norwegian perspective, was the most American of American conditions.
Those of us who thought, in the first hours after the blasts in downtown Oslo, that we were witnessing yet another act of jihad can be forgiven. In a way, it made sense. 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai — why not Oslo? Then again…Norway, although a member of NATO with troops in Afghanistan and Libya, was not exactly in the forefront of the struggle to defeat jihad. On the contrary.  Norway calls itself “the peace country.” For years, the Norwegian government and cultural establishment have striven to communicate to even the most extreme elements of international Islam that they want to be friends.  They've shown their good faith in a number of ways: 

...

• They’ve dropped displays of Islamic totalitarianism down the memory hole.  Two years ago, on two separate nights, a small army of Norwegian Muslim youths rioted in the heart of Oslo, turning a usually placid quarter into something reminiscent of Sarajevo or Beirut at their worst.  The alleged motive for this explosion of violence was displeasure over the situation in Gaza; the real intention was to mount a display of power — to intimidate, and to communicate to Norway that their time had come, and that they had better be listened to with respect, or else.  And in February of last year, another small army of Muslims, this time not rioting boys but sullen-looking men in long coats and full beards, gathered in downtown Oslo, in the same square where Vidkun Quisling once held his Nazi rallies, and listened with apparent pleasure while a young speaker named Mohyeldeen Mohammed threatened Norway with its own 9/11.  Both of these events came and went, and the people who make decisions about this sort of thing plainly decided that it would be best to pretend that they had never happened.

• They’ve openly supported terrorist groups.  In the last few days, one of the major stories out of Norway has been the declaration by Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of his country’s support for the effort by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to seek United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state.  This stance scarcely came as a surprise, given the Norwegian government’s longstanding effort to “build bridges” to Hamas.  It was Støre, after all, who — when a couple of dozen Western diplomats walked out on a rabid anti-Israeli speech by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at the 2009 UN conference on racism — was the only Westerner who chose to stay and hear him out.

...

During those hours when we all thought this was a jihadist attack, one thought that crossed my mind was that this would change the political map of Norway. For years, the Progress Party, which is the second largest of Norway’s seven or eight major parties, has led the way in calling for more responsible policies on the immigration and integration of people from Muslim countries — and has been demonized as a bunch of right-wing extremist xenophobes who hate Muslims. I assumed that after this attack, Norwegians would vote in a Progress Party-led government in the next elections. Now it appears that the man who committed all these murders is a former member of the Progress Party and is, indeed, a right-wing extremist xenophobe who harbors (according to Dagbladet) a “violent hatred for Muslims” and multiculturalism, and who targeted the Labor Party youth camp because he blames the ruling Labor Party for the Islamization of Norway. Norway’s political future looks very different now, in short, than it did 24 hours ago.

I will say that I thought many of those same things.  He said it better than I ever could.  More:

...it is deeply depressing to see this evil, twisted creature become the face of Islam criticism in Norway. Norwegian television journalists who in the first hours of the crisis were palpably uncomfortable about the prospect of having to talk about Islamic terrorism are now eagerly discussing the dangers of “Islamophobia” and “conservative ideology” and are drawing connections between the madness and fanaticism of Breivik and the platform of the Progress Party. Yesterday’s events, then, represent a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.

It is evident that Norway is anti-Israel and pro-Palestine.  I am not capable of comprehending this, given Norway's claim of being "the peace country."

These points are important to consider, and I hope, for their own sake, Norwegians get some common sense.   Conservatives are not responsible for this man's horrible act of terrorism, and any rational person should be able to see that acts of violence on the part of those opposed to jihad are not only hypocritical, but also counter-productive (not to mention horrible).  It saddens me that "Islamophobes" are labelled as "extreme far-right."  "Islamophobia" is not racism.  Any rational person should be able to distinguish between the two.  The reason I put that in quotation marks is that it is a label with an (unjustifiably) negative connotation.

I will reiterate something I said in a previous post: I do not hate Muslims in general.  I hate jihadists, Muslim extremists, and Sharia law.  I hate Islam's treatment of women and homosexuals.  I hate some Muslims' and Islamic nations' views of Jews and Israel.  I hate the hatred these Muslims spout and act upon.  I hate the hatred Islam engenders.  I am making a distinction between Muslims and Islam here.  Islam is a hateful and oppressive religion.  Not all Muslims are hateful or oppressive.  The vast majority of Muslims are not violent.  For the record, I also hate extreme Christianity.  I hate extremism.  I hate violence.  And I hate unjustified hatred.  I believe my hatred is justified.  I realize that I failed to effectively communicate my views in that previous post, and I apologize for that.  Hopefully I managed to clarify my views in this post.

Furthermore, I hate the bleeding-hearts who hatefully accuse conservatives of unjustified hatred.  Yes, some conservatives do posses unjustified hatred.  But, the majority of conservatives are much less hateful than most bleeding-hearts realize.  Any rational person should be able to distinguish between uncompassionate, frank discourse and hatred.  Over 60,000 people have died as a result of Islamic terrorism.  Islam is a threat.  Although most Mulsims are not a threat, it is difficult to distinguish between the ones that are and the ones that aren't.  Western nations are slowly transforming into Islamic nations.

UPDATE: See also, this.  Norway is repulsively soft on criminals.  

So Much Death

At least 43 people have died in a train crash in China.

Six people were killed at a shooting at a birthday party in Texas.

Thousands are thought to be dead as the result of the famine in Somalia.

And the death toll of the attacks in Norway has risen to 94.

So why is Amy Winehouse receiving so much attention?  Yes, she died, and that is unfortunate, but how is her death any more tragic than those of the thousands of other people who died?  What has Amy Winehouse contributed to society that is so significant that her death should receive so much attention?  I do not understand this.  I do not understand why celebrities are placed on these pedestals that elevate them above the rest of society.  I do not mean any disrespect to Amy Winehouse or her family.  I just don't understand the inequality.

The Importance of the Traditional Family

Here is an old post from 2005, written by Jane Galt.  It is about gay marriage, but that is not the reason that I linked to it.  It is quite long, but it is very well written and it contains a lot of useful information.  The information that I am primarily interested in refers specifically to families, and the importance of the traditional family unit to society.

To sketch a brief history of welfare, it emerged in the nineteenth century as "Widows and orphans pensions", which were paid by the state to destitute families whose breadwinner had passed away. They were often not available to blacks; they were never available to unwed mothers. Though public services expanded in the first half of the twentieth century, that mentality was very much the same: public services were about supporting unfortunate families, not unwed mothers. Unwed mothers could not, in most cases, obtain welfare; they were not allowed in public housing (which was supposed to be--and was--a way station for young, struggling families on the way to homeownership, not a permanent abode); they were otherwise discriminated against by social services. The help you could expect from society was a home for wayward girls, in which you would give birth and then put the baby up for adoption.

The description of public housing in the fifties is shocking to anyone who's spent any time in modern public housing. Big item on the agenda at the tenant's meeting: housewives, don't shake your dustcloths out of the windows--other wives don't want your dirt in their apartment! Men, if you wear heavy work boots, please don't walk on the lawns until you can change into lighter shoes, as it damages the grass! (Descriptions taken from the invaluable book, The Inheritance, about the transition of the white working class from Democrat to Republican.) Needless to say, if those same housing projects could today find a majority of tenants who reliably dusted, or worked, they would be thrilled.
Public housing was, in short, a place full of functioning families.

Now, in the late fifties, a debate began over whether to extend benefits to the unmarried. It was unfair to stigmatise unwed mothers. Why shouldn't they be able to avail themselves of the benefits available to other citizens? The brutal societal prejudice against illegitimacy was old fashioned, bigoted, irrational.

But if you give unmarried mothers money, said the critics, you will get more unmarried mothers.

Ridiculous, said the proponents of the change. Being an unmarried mother is a brutal, thankless task. What kind of idiot would have a baby out of wedlock just because the state was willing to give her paltry welfare benefits?

People do all sorts of idiotic things, said the critics. If you pay for something, you usually get more of it.

C'mon said the activists. That's just silly. I just can't imagine anyone deciding to get pregnant out of wedlock simply because there are welfare benefits available.

Oooops.

Of course, change didn't happen overnight. But the marginal cases did have children out of wedlock, which made it more acceptable for the next marginal case to do so. Meanwhile, women who wanted to get married essentially found themselves in competition for young men with women who were willing to have sex, and bear children, without forcing the men to take any responsibility. This is a pretty attractive proposition for most young men. So despite the fact that the sixties brought us the biggest advance in birth control ever, illegitimacy exploded. In the early 1960s, a black illegitimacy rate of roughly 25 percent caused Daniel Patrick Moynihan to write a tract warning of a crisis in "the negro family" (a tract for which he was eviscerated by many of those selfsame activists.)

By 1990, that rate was over 70 percent. This, despite the fact that the inner city, where the illegitimacy problem was biggest, only accounts for a fraction of the black population.

But in that inner city, marriage had been destroyed. It had literally ceased to exist in any meaningful way. Possibly one of the most moving moments in Jason de Parle's absolutely wonderful book, American Dream, which follows three welfare mothers through welfare reform, is when he reveals that none of these three women, all in their late thirties, had ever been to a wedding.

Marriage matters. It is better for the kids; it is better for the adults raising those kids; and it is better for the childless people in the communities where those kids and adults live. Marriage reduces poverty, improves kids outcomes in all measurable ways, makes men live longer and both spouses happier. Marriage, it turns out, is an incredibly important institution. It also turns out to be a lot more fragile than we thought back then. It looked, to those extremely smart and well-meaning welfare reformers, practically unshakeable; the idea that it could be undone by something as simple as enabling women to have children without husbands, seemed ludicrous. Its cultural underpinnings were far too firm. Why would a woman choose such a hard road? It seemed self-evident that the only unwed mothers claiming benefits would be the ones pushed there by terrible circumstance.

 ...

Divorce, in the nineteenth century, was unbelievably hard to get. It took years, was expensive, and required proving that your spouse had abandonned [sic] you for an extended period with no financial support; was (if male) not merely discreetly dallying but flagrantly carrying on; or was not just belting you one now and again when you got mouthy, but routinely pummeling you within an inch of your life. After you got divorced, you were a pariah in all but the largest cities. If you were a desperately wronged woman you might change your name, taking your maiden name as your first name and continuing to use your husband's last name to indicate that you expected to continue living as if you were married (i.e. chastely) and expect to have some limited intercourse with your neighbours, though of course you would not be invited to events held in a church, or evening affairs. Financially secure women generally (I am not making this up) moved to Europe; Edith Wharton, who moved to Paris when she got divorced, wrote moving stories about the way divorced women were shunned at home. Men, meanwhile (who were usually the respondants [sic]) could expect to see more than half their assets and income settled on their spouse and children.
There were, critics observed, a number of unhappy marriages in which people stuck together. Young people, who shouldn't have gotten married; older people, whose spouses were not physically abusive nor absent, nor flagrantly adulterous, but whose spouse was, for reasons of financial irresponsibility, mental viciousness, or some other major flaw, destroying their life. Why not make divorce easier to get? Rather than requiring people to show that there was an unforgiveable, physically visible, cause that the marriage should be dissolved, why not let people who wanted to get divorced agree to do so?
Because if you make divorce easier, said the critics, you will get much more of it, and divorce is bad for society.
That's ridiculous! said the reformers. (Can we sing it all together now?) People stay married because marriage is a bedrock institution of our society, not because of some law! The only people who get divorced will be people who have terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!
Oops. When the law changed, the institution changed. The marginal divorce made the next one easier. Again, the magnitude of the change swamped the dire predictions of the anti-reformist wing; no one could have imagined, in their wildest dreams, a day when half of all marriages ended in divorce.
There were actually two big changes; the first, when divorce laws were amended in most states to make it easier to get a divorce; and the second, when "no fault" divorce allowed one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage. The second change produced another huge surge in the divorce rate, and a nice decline in the incomes of divorced women; it seems advocates had failed to anticipate that removing the leverage of the financially weaker party to hold out for a good settlement would result in men keeping more of their earnings to themselves.
What's more, easy divorce didn't only change the divorce rate; it made drastic changes to the institution of marriage itself. David Brooks makes an argument I find convincing: that the proliferation of the kind of extravagent [sic] weddings that used to only be the province of high society (rented venue, extravagent [sic] flowers and food, hundreds of guests, a band with dancing, dresses that cost the same as a good used car) is because the event itself doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to, so we have to turn it into a three-ring circus to feel like we're really doing something.
A couple in 1940 (and even more so in 1910) could go to a minister's parlor, or a justice of the peace, and in five minutes totally change their lives. Unless you are a member of certain highly religious subcultures, this is simply no longer true. That is, of course, partly because of the sexual revolution and the emancipation of women; but it is also because you aren't really making a lifetime committment [sic]; you're making a lifetime committment [sic] unless you find something better to do. There is no way, psychologically, to make the latter as big an event as the former, and when you lost that committment [sic], you lose, on the margin, some willingness to make the marriage work.

From the above passages, I conclude that society exhibits sensitivity to initial conditions.  That is, a minor change can cause more minor changes, and, after a period of time, that series of minor changes adds up to a much more significant change.  Given that conclusion, any change to society (through a change in law, for example) has the potential to cause further change.  For that reason, change to society should not be engendered unless there is a good reason for it.  Society will always change and evolve on its own, but any engendered change may have unpredictable, and undesirable, results.

See also this post in which I talk about traditional gender roles and this post in which I talk about the innocence of children.

Gender Bending Diversity Training

Gender Spectrum Diversity Training sounds hideously politically correct on its own, but that was the name of a program targeted towards kindergarten students:

Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, CA has joined the chorus of those wishing to mainstream 'gender-bending' by enacting a program this week that, according to a press release, tells kindergarteners 'there are more than two genders.'

 The kindergarten through fifth grade school hosted a 2-day program for students titled, 'Gender Spectrum Diversity Training,' in which single-sex Hawaiian geckos and transgender clownfish were brought in to teach children that 'there are different ways to be boys. There are different ways to be girls,' according to Redwood Heights principal Sara Stone. Students received gender diversity training as they learned about 'boy snakes that act 'girly'.' 

This is only the latest example of what seems to be a New-Age, gender-bending agenda pushed into the mainstream media by those who refuse to accept the traditional sex differences between men and women. A couple in Toronto, Canada has sparked outrage because they refuse to assign a specific gender to their infant 'Storm,' preferring instead to believe 'a child's sex should not determine his or her place in the world.

Firstly, I highly doubt kindergarten students understand what gender is.  If little boys act like girls sometimes, they are not self-conscious about it.  They don't understand that what they are doing is "gender bending."  Secondly, lizards and fish are not comparable to humans.  There are numerous species that exhibit transsexuality (called hermaphroditism in biology).  For hermaphroditic species, either having both male and female sexual organs simultaneously or changing sexual organs at some point is common, if not universal.  Clownfish, unlike humans, are hermaphroditic (they are born male, but may become female).  Obviously, kindergarten students would not be able understand that, but deriving a "lesson" from a flawed comparison seems unethical to me.  That is not to mention everything else that is horribly wrong with indoctrinating children with this politically correct "gender bending" agenda.  

In human culture, there is a reason for the social construct of gender: that males and females are fundamentally different and have fundamentally different roles.  I think women should have the same rights as men, but that does not mean that women are the same as men.  If small children have problems with their gender, then they should be allowed to deal with that on their own.  This is yet another example of the illusion that life is easy and everyone loves everyone that children are perpetually exposed to in schools.  Life is hard, and it is even harder when you think it is easy.  Instead of indoctrinating children with vile ideals and exposing them to sex at a disgustingly early age (see also, this post), schools should focus on teaching children things like science and math and let them establish their own ideals through their own experiences.  

Society is gradually becoming more accepting of deviance of gender roles.  What is wrong with the expectation that men act like men and women act like women?  In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that.  School is a joke and parents are becoming so over-protective that their children are not mature enough that they can't function in the real world because they never had the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.  The world is gradually becoming an abhorrently progressive dystopia.  The traditional family unit is important to the health of society.  I will go into that in more detail in a subsequent post.  For now, I will conclude that, given that premise, traditional gender roles are also important for the health of society.  Exposing children to androgyny cannot be good.  

I also wanted to say something about this, the Toronto couple that is raising a "genderless" child that was mentioned in that article I linked to.  

A Toronto couple is taking their beliefs about parenting and gender stereotypes to new heights: They refuse to tell people the gender of 4-month-old Storm, reports the Toronto Star. Even the kid's grandparents are in the dark. “In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s(he) wants to be?!”

I do believe that parents (not schools) should be able to raise their children how they want to, but this seems almost criminal.  This has to be some form of child abuse.

Militant progressivism has reached a new low.

Think of the Children

I am hearing a lot about sexual abuse of children.  If there is something that makes me question whether I am a compassionate person, it is this.  I can think of few things that are greater injustices.  The people who commit these atrocities do not deserve to live.  They effectively took the life of their victims.  I am not sure if there is a difference between compassion and a sense of justice.  Compassion is an irrational thing.  I do not believe, however, that a sense of justice is.  I cannot be certain of whether or not what I am feeling is compassion.  All I know is that the sexual abuse of children makes me sick.  Like so many other things, it is a terrible injustice.  In a truly just society, the evil people who commit sexual abuse of children would be put to death for destroying the life of an innocent child. 

Society must give every child the opportunity to be successful.  Our society is disintegrating into one that caters to the often-immoral desires of adults, rather than one that caters to the healthy upbringing of a child.  It is not society’s responsibility to raise children, but, in my opinion, it is society’s responsibility to ensure that children are given equal opportunity to do what they want with their lives.  This opportunity can manifest itself in various ways.  I believe that the best thing that society can do to ensure that children are given an equal opportunity is to allow them to be free of what can take that opportunity away.  An observation that I have made is that many words seems to have an alternate meaning that is somehow sexual in nature.  I hypothesize that the disintegration of the English lexicon is evidence of the disintegration of society.  This is just one example of the increased sexualization of society.  I would hate to live in the past, but I believe we can, and should, learn lessons from it.  Society should move towards a moral existence where children may have the opportunities they should have; where their innocence cannot be corrupted.  I do not think, however, that the government should enforce this on the populace.  It is the responsibility of individuals to uphold this.  I am uncertain of how to approach this; there seems to be a fine line between enroaching on liberty and keeping society moral.  All I can be certain of is that society is becoming an increasingly hostile place in which to raise children.  I think, some way or another, that sexuality needs to leave the view of impressionable children and it needs to go behind doors.  The law must be enforced, but total reliance upon the government is the wrong way to go, in my opinion.  To me, this is a very difficult issue, and I can’t put forward a real solution.  I just know that something should be done, and society as a whole should focus on the children. 

And, to be clear, the information about me is not set in stone.  I am a young person, and I am malleable.  I apologize for this wavering post.  I am not sure what exactly I want to say, but I think that this issue is important and that the more people who discuss it, the better.  And, part of the reason I read blogs, and part of the reason I started one, is to learn more about myself and to learn more in general.  Writing this post is a way for me to try to judge what I think is ultimately important and to try to figure out what kind of person I am and what kind of person I want to be.  I do realize that this post is deceptively self-serving.  But that does not necissarily alter the unfortunate truth.  The reason I am saying this is that I want to be transparent and acknowledge my ulterior motives in writing this.  This blog is an experiment.  That is all it is.  But, if there is some way I can do some good, however small or large it may be, is a great bonus.  I hope this post may, somehow, do some form of good to someone other than myself.  At the very least, I hope it might cause anyone who might happen to read it to think about this issue.