Dennis Prager

To be admired by the women they love
12/19/2010 – Dennis Prager -

It is said that the one question about men and women that even the great Sigmund Freud, father of psychoanalysis, could not answer was: What do women want?

Whether or not Freud actually admitted his ignorance on this question is irrelevant. The very popularity of the anecdote testifies to one incontrovertible fact: A lot of men don’t know the answer.

It is probably fair to say that a lot of women also don’t know the answer. If they did, all they would have to do is tell men. That would solve the riddle — and make most men and women very happy.

So, to the extent that this is a great riddle, it is so because most members of both sexes seem not to know the answer.

Adding support to the widespread belief that what women want is close to unknowable is the underlying presumption that just about everybody knows what men want.

The number of Internet jokes that portray women’s wants as complex and men’s as simple is a testament to how widespread these assumptions about the two sexes are. Three examples illustrate this:

The first example is the one that begins: “HOW TO IMPRESS A WOMAN.” Listed beneath that heading is this: “Compliment her, respect her, honor her, cuddle her, kiss her, caress her, love her, stroke her, tease her, comfort her, protect her, hug her, hold her, spend money on her, wine and dine her, buy things for her, listen to her, care for her, stand by her, support her, hold her, go to the ends of the Earth for her.”

That long list is followed by: “HOW TO IMPRESS A MAN.” And listed beneath is this: “Show up naked. Bring food.”

The second Internet example: “Q: What is the difference between men and women? A: A woman wants one man to satisfy her every need. A man wants every woman to satisfy his one need.”

And a third Internet example shows a box divided into two parts. Under the part labeled “Women” are 40 dials and knobs. Under the part labeled “Men” is one switch, marked “On-Off.”

As with most generalizations, there is much truth to these. Nevertheless, I take issue with both presumptions: that what women want is a riddle that would stump the Sphinx and that what men want is so easy it could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

In fact, I believe that both are relatively simple to answer (though neither is simple to achieve).

What does a man most want? Answer: He most wants to be admired by the woman he loves.

One proof is that the most devastating thing a woman can do to her man is to hold him in contempt. That is so devastating to a marriage that, over time, it is often more toxic than an affair. I am fairly certain that more marriages survive an affair, as difficult as that is, than contempt. Of course, this goes in both directions, but when a woman shows contempt toward her man, his very manhood is called into question.

My father and mother were married 69 years. As my brother and I have heard countless times, “She put me on a pedestal” was the quality my father most often cited in describing what a wonderful wife my mother was. She admired him, and to him that was everything. On the other hand, in describing her love for my father over all those years, my mother never once said, “He put me on a pedestal” (despite the fact that he constantly praised her). Rather, she always spoke of what a “great man” he was, how “brilliant,” etc. Of course, this is just one example, but I think it applies to the majority of men and women.

The obvious upshot of this thesis is that in order to gain a woman’s love a man must make — and keep — himself admirable.

Boys know this instinctively. Studies that have observed boys and young men reveal how much harder they work at anything — sports come immediately to mind — when they know girls are watching them.

That is why many single men in our society (often erroneously but understandably) place so much emphasis on what car they drive: They want to impress women. Yet, men couldn’t care less what car a woman drives. In fact, for most men a woman arriving on a first date in a relatively inexpensive car renders her more desirable than if she showed up in an expensive luxury car — unless the man is looking to be supported by a woman. But few women are attracted to a man they know in advance they will have to support.

So, although the Internet jokes are right about men wanting sex, it isn’t sex men most want from their woman. They want to be admired — and sex is one manifestation of a woman’s admiration for her man. When a man is regularly denied sex, in his eyes that means that his wife does not hold him in high esteem. Worse, he actually feels humiliated as a man. That, not the sex per se, is why regular denial devastates a man.

So, then, if what a man most wants is to be admired by his woman, what is it that a woman most wants?

That is the subject of the next column.

But here’s a hint. If we begin with the assumption that men and women are made to bond with one another, what she most wants must be in some way related to what he most wants.

As we shall see, it is.

HT: NRO

America is an idea.

6/11/2010 – Carol Negro -
America is not a plot of land. It is not a culture. It is not a nationality. It is not a set of traditions or customs. It is not a government. It is not a people. It is not a book of laws. And it certainly isn’t a race.

America is an idea.

That’s why anyone can become an American. Embrace the idea (and fill out a few forms) and you’re an American.

You’re one of us.

Most other nations are nationalities. Their heritage depends on blood and territory. America is portable. We carry it around in our hearts and minds.

If you bomb our cities, you can’t destroy America. If you ruin our economy, you can’t destroy America. If most of the continent falls into the ocean, you can’t destroy America. Even if you kill most of us, you can’t destroy America.

Because wherever two or more of us are gathered in her name…America is there.

Here is the secret: We don’t live in America. America lives in us.

America is an idea.

The greatest, purest, sweetest, most sublime idea in the history of the world. It lifts man up, it blesses him, it encourage him, it enlightens him, it civilizes him, it opens his heart, it makes him kind and generous and honest and brave and free. It makes him smart and successful and industrious. It makes him innovative and cheerful. It makes him happy, honorable, and honest.

America is an idea.

And it is that idea that is under constant assault in the halls of power, the press room, the classroom, and the screening room.

Who seeks to murder the idea seeks the destruction of America.

What specifically is this idea? It is that man is created with certain inalienable rights, including Life, Liberty, and Property. It is that man has the right to self-government, the right to be left alone, the right to the fruit of his labors, the right to dispose of his property as he sees fit. It is that all men are created equal under God and the law, and that no man can take away these rights, and that the sole duty of government is to protect them. It is that government must be accountable to The People, not the people to the government. It is that ours is to be a nation of laws, not of men, and that no one is above the law. It is that justice is blind. It is that man must be virtuous if he is to be free. It is that human rights come from the creator and cannot be abrogated by men.

The entire goal of the Left is to murder the idea of the goodness and righteousness of freedom, of self-reliance, of independence, of merit, of virtue, of hard work, of honor, of courage, of sacrifice, of loyalty, of morality, of faith, of the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

The Left, in politics, media, education and entertainment, despise the idea that is America. And they are doing everything in their power to promote a replacement “idea” — one that distorts the language of freedom to promote the serfdom of dependence, twists the meaning of truth to tell lies, seeks to limit freedom, mocks faith, virtue and morality, undermines self-reliance and the independent spirit; one that disdains (or punishes) hard work, laughs at frugality, and sneers at sacrifice; one that approves of murdering new life, regulating liberty, confiscating property, and seizing the fruit of our labors. One that denies the Creator and those annoying and inconvenient inalienable rights.

They seek to replace a divinity with a corpse.

Since America is the idea, plotting the overthrow of the idea is plotting the overthrow of America.

They may love their jobs, their plot of land, their privileges, their personal wealth, their property, their family, their friends, their clubs, and their cars. They may love California wine and Maine lobster and Southern Fried Chicken, Texas barbeque, and Boston baked beans. They may love museums, and lighthouses, and beaches and palm trees and big salty lakes, and waterfalls and huge canyons, and redwoods and geysers and cowboys and Indians. They may love football, and Santa Claus, and Martin Luther King Day. They may love fireworks, and Hollywood, and Harvard. But they don’t love America.

They have already killed her in their own hearts. And they are trying to kill her in ours and our children’s with their unconstitutional laws, their biased reporting, their false history, their immoral and undermining “art.”

They seek nothing less than the death of the American idea, which is far worse than the conquest of territory. They mercilessly and tirelessly work toward the destruction of the American soul.

HT: American Thinker

Today, the Boy Scouts are fighting the last battle in a lost cause. Any man who stands up to the “women’s movement” is completely marginalized as a sexist and homophobe. These names have become just as stigmatizing as “racist” used to be. It is no wonder that women now are the majority of college graduates and are increasing their role in every institution from private enterprise to public service, including the military. Is this a healthy trend? The answer is clearly “no.”

Edward Gibbon chronicles the increasing femininity of the Roman Empire in his six-volume work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He catalogues the progressive decadence that rendered the once-proud republic into spoils for barbarian hordes. The consuls in the early republic, who were warrior-generals adhering to a strict code of honor, gradually gave way to the backroom emperors who were no more than brazen criminals and thugs. It is the same script in all noble human enterprise: The fabric which bred success is torn apart by the complacency of the successful. When warfare is demonized as violence and negotiation is raised to an art, the end is near. Today, we are there.

Today’s politics reminds me of the make-believe kingdom of Queen Herzeloyde. She was the mother of Parzival, the hero of Wolfram von Eschenbach’s 12th-century epic poem Parzival. This masterwork is widely touted as a literary cornerstone of Western civilization. It not only extolled the virtues of knighthood and chivalry, but it also exhorted men to overcome all obstacles on the path to individual greatness.

Parzival’s mother was married to a knightly king whose military campaigns against worldly evil kept him away from his kingdom for years on end. Herzeloyde is heartbroken to hear of her husband’s death and vows to keep her son sheltered from the knightly world. She sets up a royal court in the wilderness with a deadly sanction against anyone who would allow her son to come in contact with a knight. The boy grows up oblivious of the outside world until he confronts two knights in shining armor on horseback. His mother is distraught to discover that there will be no discouraging her son’s ambition to become a knight. She goes so far as to dress her son as a fool upon his setting out upon his adventure in hopes that he will be humiliated and return to her.

Academia, with the help of the media, has labeled all reference to manly virtue as patriarchal, sexist, and homophobic. Womanly virtue, on the other hand, is extolled. Caring, compassion, sensitivity, and understanding are virtues meant to blur the distinction between good and evil and drown out the call of manly conscience to “do the right thing.” Like a mother who refuses to see the evil in her son, the feminist professors cast all moral standards as relative and subjective.

Exit the cowboy and enter the mama’s boy. Queen Herzeloyde would have no problem raising young Parzival in today’s schools, as devoid of examples of manly virtue and rugged individualism as they are. All reference to the service of a higher calling — to God and country — has been replaced by the call to community service with the emphasis on care and compassion for the downtrodden.

We now have a would-be queen named Pelosi who sits atop a vast bureaucracy dedicated to rooting out all reference to God and a higher calling while making sure that any reference to manly virtue, rugged individualism, and decency is stigmatized as “hate speech.” No nation has ever demonized manhood to its own reward. A nation that renounces violence, no matter how just the cause, signs its own death certificate — and for a violent death at that.

HT: American Thinker

by Bob Lonsberry | 4/22/2010

Earth Day is a crock.

It is the high holy day of the environmentalism cult and I choose not to engage in that particular brand of idol worship.

I choose not to worship the earth as if it were a god and I were a savage. I am its steward, not its slave. I wasn’t created for it, it was created for me.

Man exists not as an accidental product of earth’s evolution, the earth exists as a home for man. It did not produce us, it was produced for us.

God made the heavens and the earth, and he made them for a purpose – and humankind is that purpose.

The problem with Earth Day is that it gets everything bass ackwards. It views the planet as the priority, when in actuality humankind is the priority and purpose. The earth was created by God, but man was created in God’s image.

The environmentalists’ perversion of the relationship between man and nature seeks to turn things completely upside down, fostering confusion and degeneracy. Applied through government mandate, the principles of environmentalism choke off human progress and prosperity.

They also deny the fact that the earth is a gift to man from God.

And it has been stocked with the things that are necessary to support human needs for as long as God intends for humans to populate this planet.

Coal, for example, is not some evil substance interlarding the earth as a temptation to energy excess. It is, rather, a gift from God to give us light and heat, to fuel our industry and better our lives. The oil and gas fields around the world are not environmental cancers, they are miraculous aids to transportation, manufacturing and physical comfort.

They are all blessings.

They are causes for rejoicing.

But those who would leave them in the ground, who would turn their back on their bounty, are showing indifference and ingratitude. They are spitting in the face of the God who provided these resources for us.

Granted, we are not to be despoilers of the earth, we are to be its stewards. It is not moral to waste or to be filthy, to destroy just to destroy, to leave things – large or small – in an ugly and dangerous state. And we should take care of what we are responsible for. Good farming, construction, logging, drilling and mining practices conserve our resources so that they last longer and are used more efficiently.

We should turn off the lights when we leave a room, conserve water, protect our soil and let nothing whatsoever go to waste. We should reuse our trash when possible and produce less trash in the first place.

We should let some trees stand and some vistas go untouched by the hand of man. The beauty of nature is of practical worth, it is in and of itself a resource that – in balance – should be preserved. We should only kill things that we’re going to eat, or which are going to eat us. We can also kill things that are messing with our stuff – like bugs on our crops and mice in our houses.

But it’s got to stay in balance, and the needs of man must always trump. The world doesn’t stop for a snail darter or a spotted owl or some obscure species of desert wildflower.

We are shepherds of the earth. That means we must protect it and watch over it and keep it safe.

But we have to remember the context and purpose of that protection. The shepherd, after all, watches over the sheep so that he can shear their wool and eventually eat them. His stewardship is self-serving and fully directed toward his own self-interest.

And so is ours.

Earth Day is a great day to remind ourselves of the bounty of the earth, especially when managed under the ingenious hand of industry. It is a day to thank God for the richness of this earth, which supports us all so well. It is a day to worship the God who made the earth – but not the earth itself.

And it is a day to redouble our efforts to resist the paganism of our day, the cult of environmentalism. It is scientifically and morally wrong, it is nothing but the worship of a very large idol.

I don’t go along with it. And, I wager, neither do you.

HT: Bob Lonsberry

We The People Reject Obama's Vision for America

The Daily Constitution | We The People | 3/25/2010

Dear President Obama,

“We The People” have stated resolutely we reject your vision for our country. You claim you have not heard us.
“We The People” have assembled across America resisting your efforts to subvert our constitution and undermine our liberty. You claim you have not seen us.

Since you have not acknowledged our message, let us here present it once more for if as President Wilson said, “a leader’s ear must ring with the voices of the people,” the time has come.

Our greatest treasure is freedom – the absence of restraints on our ability to think and to act. The corollary of freedom is individual responsibility. We believe in the power of the individual.

A few years ago President Bush said, “History moves toward freedom because the desire for freedom is written in every human heart.” Let us add that we will preserve it only as long as devotion to freedom is expressed in the heart of our actions.

When President Lincoln dedicated Gettysburg National Cemetery he declared, “It is for us the living to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus so nobly advanced.”

That unfinished cause for which our soldiers willingly go to battle and for which so many have given their lives is a free United States of America. It has been nearly one hundred fifty years and the work President Lincoln spoke of is not finished. In fact, that work will never be finished.

Freedom is the capacity of self-determination. It is not an entity but a condition and conditions change. Freedom can expand, yet so can it contract.
You promised change when you took office, Mr. President, but subjugation is not change we wanted or will accept.

You have expanded government, violated our Constitution, confounded laws, seized private industry, destroyed jobs, perverted our economy, curtailed free speech, corrupted our currency, weakened our national security, and endangered our sovereignty.

By compromising our nation’s cultural, legal and economic institutions, you are ensuring that our children will never achieve the same quality of life as we enjoy today. Through generational theft you are robbing the unborn of opportunity.

This is not acceptable. Not in America. We did not become a strong nation through hope but rather through self-reliance.

No one better understands the relationship between individual achievement, dignity and strength than our armed forces. Through every war our soldiers have held this nation’s destiny in their hands. They have not failed us. They cherish freedom enough that they are willing to die for it.

Our duty to them and to ourselves is to treasure freedom enough to live up to it.
We accept the challenge, Mr. President. That is why we are assembling across the land to deliver our message to you as often and in every way we can. Dismiss us at your political peril.

Our great nation is a Republic. We will not accept tyranny under any guise. Your policy to redistribute the fruits of our labor is Statism and will not be tolerated.

By our honor, Mr. President, we vow forever to resist coercive government in America. Patriots will not stand silent as you attempt to dismantle the greatest nation on earth. “We The People” will defend our liberty. We will protect our beloved country and America’s exceptionalism will prevail.

God Bless the United States of America!

Sincerely,

We The People

We The People Reject Obama's Vision for America

HT: New Ledger

Can something as simple as good manners help to stem the coarsening of our culture? Yes!

Cord Ivanyi, a Latin teacher at a Phoenix high school, was tired seeing the boys in his class subject the girls to vulgar words and behavior. The behavior was disrespectful, and disrupting to his classes. So Ivanyi decided to give the boys an example in chivalry. When a girl got up to go to the restroom, Ivanyi stood as a sign of respect. When she came back to class, Ivanyi held the door for her.

As he told AOL News writer David Knowles, “She had this funny look on her face, and the other kids giggled a little.” But it wasn’t long before Ivanyi was teaching the boys to do things like pull out the girls’ chairs when they sat down. Now, he says, “Ninety-eight percent of the boys stand now when a girl enters the room, and the girls love it.”

This now-routine show of respect has led to a difference in the way the boys behave around the girls. Being taught to show respect for them leads them to feel more respectful toward them.

It doesn’t please the feminists, of course. One recently told me that she’d kick me if I held a door open for her. But that’s ok—they need to learn as well.

Ivanyi is not the only one who understands the link between etiquette, attitudes, and behavior. In a recent Wall Street Journal piece, journalist Meghan Cox Gurdon notes that while proms retain old traditions like corsages and chaperones, student behavior is often vulgar. Gurdon quotes etiquette expert Emily Post, who wrote in the 1920s that, at public dances, couples were expected to demonstrate modesty and decorum because they were in public.

And Mrs. Post had no illusions about how teenagers would behave if chaperones were absent: Young men would try to paw their dates, or worse, she wrote. Today, it’s not unusual for girls to plan to lose their virginity on prom night.

Modern girls get no help from Peggy Post, a descendent of Emily Post. In her new book, Prom and Party Etiquette, Post says that when it comes to sex on prom night, she “made a conscience decision not to try to lecture teens or tell them what to do.”

This is sheer insanity. Eve Grimaldi, dean of students at a girls’ high school in Washington, D.C., understands that you cannot deal with moral issues without moral instruction. Moral neutrality is not neutral in a fallen world. Refusing to take a stand just allows kids to pander to their worst instincts.

This is why, on prom night, Grimaldi brings an armload of sweatshirts with her. Girls wearing immodest gowns are forced to put one on. Grimaldi also keeps a sharp eye on the way dancers behave. Good for her.

In an article in Christianity Today, I once quoted the great historian Arnold Toynbee. He contended that one clear sign of a civilization’s decline is when the elites—people he describes as the “dominant minority”—begin mimicking the vulgarity and promiscuity exhibited by society’s bottom-dwellers. The result: The entire culture is vulgarized.

Christians need to resist the slide into vulgarity by creating strong countercultural influences. We can start by elevating our own standards in speech and dress, if we need to.

And we should applaud teachers who are teaching good manners and decorous behavior to the young—manners and behavior that teach kids to view one another and treat one another with the respect they deserve.

HT: BreakPoint

Your life, freedom, prosperity, and health are worth some hard choices.

Catholic Online | by Jennifer Hartline | 2/20/2010

Freedom is in the decisions you make, the things you purposely choose and the exercise of your will. Stop playing the victim and be the woman of integrity God made you to be.

One of the women Tiger Woods had an affair with has retained an attorney. I watched this attorney on TV explaining profusely why this poor woman was so victimized by Tiger, how much damage he did to her life and her career, and why Tiger must own up to his wrongful treatment of her and offer a very humble apology. Only then can talk of monetary damages proceed.

It was the victim routine again. “The Victim” should be a Broadway production by now. Everyone is a victim nowadays, but I find it especially irksome when women play the victim-card for themselves or each other, as the liberal feminist attorney did for her client. It’s always the big, bad man being mean to the poor little woman. And then she cries, “How could you treat me this way?” I’ll tell you how – you let him.

Ladies, I’m going to do you one better than your liberal feminists sisters will do and tell you that freedom isn’t free. It costs something and requires conscious effort to protect. And the responsibility is yours. Stop blaming men for treating you badly and kick up some dust on your way out.

Here’s the thing: the empowerment you seek, the freedom you crave – it’s all in your mind – literally. It’s in the decisions you make, the choices you purposely choose and the exercise of your will. It is forfeited in the careless choices you make and the bad decisions you won’t turn from. It is lost in the mistakes you refuse to learn from and correct. It is restored when you decide to stop playing the victim and become the woman of integrity God made you to be.

It’s all up to you. It always has been. Are there men who treat women terribly? Absolutely, and I’m not releasing those men from their guilt. But why is it that here in Land of the Free there are so many women – bright, educated, accomplished women – who allow it? They would rather cry victim, suffer terribly and unnecessarily at the hands of a complete jerk than use their heads, make a truly empowered decision and walk away. Somehow it’s better to seek revenge in a courtroom after the fact than to use the power of their minds and stay out of trouble in the first place.

It really is all in your mind and your will. It isn’t easy, but so what? Isn’t your life, your freedom, your prosperity, your health, your body, your heart worth some hard choices? Who’s calling the shots anyway? You are.

I learned that lesson the hard way. Before I met my husband, I dated a man who was very charming and extravagant. Gary was quite successful at his job and had a fancy car and loved to dine at restaurants all the time. He brought me flowers unexpectedly, and would shower me with love notes and surprises. He was very romantic and I found it all quite irresistible. He was also a very troubled man, having grown up in a profoundly abusive home. Under the surface, he seethed with rage, and when it bubbled up, it was frightening. He would become verbally abusive, demeaning, cruel, and he would lose all control of his temper. He did not physically strike me, but he would delight in beating me emotionally.

Those scary scenes were always followed by great remorse and affection, and thus our relationship went on like this for nearly two years. He shared with me the horrific stories of the abuse he endured as a child, and my heart broke with compassion and love for this wounded man. We’d pray together for healing, and even went together to seek counseling for his rage. I thought that because I loved him, I could and should help him get well. I saw all his good qualities – there were many – and thought how unfair it was that this man was basically ruined by his cruel parents.

Someone needed to stand by him, and it was going to be me. Yet, my own heart was never comfortable with the thought of spending my life with him, and fear gnawed at me constantly. In my soul, I knew the relationship was wrong for me, but I was in love with him and I didn’t want to abandon him.

The blow-ups of rage became more frequent, our fights became more intense, and I was disintegrating into a victim mindset. I thought I’d be heartbroken for life without him, yet my soul was telling me I’d be a battered woman for life if I didn’t end the relationship now.

I’ve heard God’s voice with unmistakable clarity only a few times in my life, and one night on the floor in my apartment, sobbing, He asked me quite simply, “Is this what you want?” I whipped my head around to see who had come into my room because the voice was audible in my ears. I heard God’s voice. Again, I heard Him: “Do you really want to give your heart to a man who will hurt you?” Suddenly, my tears dried, my mind cleared and I heard myself say out loud, “No.”

Then came His answer to me. “Then make your choice.”

It was my choice and God would let me make it and He would let me have whatever I chose, be it good or bad. I was not a victim, I was a willing participant and it was high time I made a better decision for my life. The responsibility was mine and I had no one to blame but me. As much as I thought I loved Gary, I could not change him or fix him or heal him. I could only stay and surrender my freedom to a man who would continue to hurt me. Gary stopped beating me with his anger the instant I stopped letting him.

I released him to the Lord, moved away and cleansed my mind and heart with God’s truth. Less than a year later, I met my wonderful husband and with great joy I gave my heart to a loving man who will never hurt me or our children, and God is as happy as I am that I made such an excellent choice. My life could have been very, very different. I shudder now to think of it. I thank God every day for His grace that saved me.

Ladies, the choices are ours to make. The Lord longs for us to protect our hearts and our freedom by using the good sense He gave us to make good decisions. I believe He weeps when we choose badly and then refuse to take responsibility for our choices. The power we need to live full, happy and free lives rests in the decisions we make. This woman who believes Tiger Woods has wronged and damaged her must start by looking in the mirror. There she will find the person who is responsible for her unhappiness, and the person who can change her life starting right now.

God’s abundant grace is there, waiting to be poured out on those who will choose well. Decide carefully, choose well, and you will live well. “Preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight; they will be life for you, an ornament to grace your neck. Then you will go on your way in safety, and your foot will not stumble; when you lie down, you will not be afraid; when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.” Proverbs 3:21-24

—————–
Jennifer Hartline is a lifelong Catholic, an Army wife and mother of four precious children. (One in heaven.) She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online on topics of Catholic faith, family, Life, and politics. She is also a serious chocoholic. Visit her at My Chocolate Heart.
—————–

HT: Catholic Online

The reason for the importance of this question is simple: Males untutored about how to control their natures will likely do much harm. Conversely, males who are taught to how to control themselves and to channel their drives in positive directions make the world a much better place. The good man is a glory of civilization; the bad man ruins it.

Throughout American history, American society asked, “How do we make men?” (It was understood that “man” meant a good man.) Anyone who thought about the subject knew that boys who are not transformed into men remain boys. And when too many boys do not grow up into men, women suffer and society suffers.

What is a man (as opposed to a boy)? The traditional understanding was that a man is he who takes responsibility for others — for his family, his community and his country — and, of course, for himself. A man stood for ideals and values higher than himself. He conducted himself with dignity. And he was strong.

For much of American history, making boys into men was understood to be of supreme importance, and society was usually successful. When I was a boy in the 1950s, without anyone expressly defining it, I knew what a man was supposed to be. And I knew that society, not to mention my parents, expected me to be one. It went without explicitly saying so that I would have to make a living, support myself as soon as possible and support a family thereafter.

When I acted immaturely, I was told to be or act like a man. I wonder how many boys are told to “be a man” today; and if they were, would they have a clue as to what that meant? It would appear that for millions of American boys, this has not been the reality for decades. Many families and society as a whole seem to have forgotten boys need to be made into men.

There are numerous reasons:

1. The distinction between men and boys has been largely obliterated. The older males that many American boys encounter are essentially older boys, not men. They speak, dress, and act similarly (think of men who “high-five” young boys instead of shaking their hands). And they are almost all called by their first names. Even when a boy (or girl) addresses an adult male as “Mr.,” many men will correct the young boy or girl — “Call me” and then give the young person his first name. This is often true even with regard to teachers, physicians and members of the clergy. When a young person calls an adult by his first name, the status of the two individuals has been essentially equated. Boys need men to respect. It’s not impossible to do so when they call men by their first names, but it makes it much harder.

2. Boys today have fewer adult men in their lives than ever before. Many boys are not raised by any father. More are not raised by a father who lives in the home full time. Nearly every teacher and principal American boys have in elementary and high school is a female. The boy’s clergy person and physician may well be women. And few male figures in contemporary film radiate manhood as defined above.

3. The ideals of masculinity and femininity have been largely rendered extinct. Feminism, arguably the most influential American movement of the 20th century, declared war on the concepts of femininity and masculinity. And for much of the population, it was victorious. Indeed, thanks to the feminist teaching that male and female human beings are essentially the same (note, incidentally, that no one argues that male and female animals are the same, only human beings are), untold numbers of boys have been raised as if they were like girls. They were denied masculine toys such as play guns and toy soldiers, and their male forms of play — e.g., roughhousing — were banned.

4. America has become a rights-centered rather than a responsibility-centered society. Aside from helping to produce a pandemic of narcissism, the rights-centered mindset is the opposite of the obligation/responsibility-centered mindset that makes a boy into a man. It is not good for either sex to be rights-preoccupied; but it is particularly devastating to developing men, as men are supposed to be obligation-directed. The baby boomer generation helped destroy manhood in most of the ways described here. One additional example was its widespread slogan, “Make love, not war.” One cannot come up with a more unmanly piece of advice: “Don’t fight for your country, screw girls.” If the greatest generation had adopted that motto, Hitler and Tojo would have won. A few years ago, the city of Chicago named a street after Hugh Hefner, a man who has played games much of the day and night, lived in pajamas and devoted his life to sex — quite a model of manhood for American boys.

5. There are few places where men can bond with other men. One major way men become men is by associating with other good men. The only places left where this normally takes place are sports teams and the military. The same holds true for boys. And much of society is now working on breaking the most significant all-boys institution, the Boy Scouts.

6. Males no longer have distinctive roles. Men do best when they are relied upon, when needed; and they feel most needed when they do something distinct from women. This exists today in sports and the military. It is symbolic — significantly so — that there are no more “men at work” signs on highways. Now “people” are at work. “Men” have disappeared.

7. Many churches and synagogues have been feminized. This has occurred in at least three important ways: Clergy are increasingly female (and touchy-feely males) — for the first time in Christian and Jewish history; God is often depicted as androgynous and no longer either demanding or judging (He just loves all the time); and religion has been changed from morally and theologically demanding to a therapeutic model. So religion, too, has become yet another place where boys encounter few men, and few masculine models (even in God, as noted, is no longer masculine).

8. Instead of the traditional American model of masculinity, which was a rare combination of masculine toughness and stoicism with doing good (e.g., Superman), boys are now taught to be preoccupied with their feelings and with (unearned) self-esteem. They are not even allowed to lose; all boys playing a sport are given trophies, not just winners.

9. Increasingly, marriage is regarded as optional. The most obvious expression of men assuming responsibility — marrying a woman and taking care of her and their children — is no longer a male ideal. Vast numbers of men quite openly admit to having problems with the C-word (commitment) and responsibility of being a family’s sole breadwinner.

When boys do not become men, women assume their roles. But they are not happy doing so. There are any number of reasons American women suffer from depression more than ever before and more than men. It is difficult to believe that one of those reasons is not the very emasculation of men that the movement working in their name helped to bring about. And so, a vicious cycle has commenced — men stop being men; women become man-like; men retreat even further from their manly role; and women get sadder.

HT: DennisPrager.com

After forty years of preferential treatment in schools and the job market, many women are now better-educated and make more money than men. These changes should surprise no one — especially not social science researchers. Those who work with the data know that there has been a profound shift in marriage itself and that marriage rates are declining. Many women are finding it difficult if not impossible to find a husband who is their financial, career, or social equal. With the decline in manufacturing jobs and their lack of higher education, many men don’t have the money or job prospects to marry. Yet much is being made of a new study by the Pew Research Center finding that the benefits of marriage are now greater for men than women.

This is news? Who hasn’t noticed the increase of single women, the increase of single mothers, and the cultural change where marriage is derided by the media and opinion leaders? Pew can tout the benefits of marriage for men all they want, but popular culture sends our young people — especially men — a different message. The Pew study notes that women are leaving school better-prepared for today’s job market, but the “same ole-same ole” educational priorities reign, and our boys are still getting a raw deal in school.

We’ve spent forty years pushing girls ahead and holding boys back. The big news of the Pew study is that we can finally discuss facts that previously were politically incorrect. The real cultural change that the study reflects is that after all these years, it is finally acceptable to point out that marriage is a good thing — even for men.

Fry and Cohn used census data from 1970 and 2007 to compare U.S.-born married couples ages 30 to 44. They found that this cohort of Americans is the first in U.S. history to have more women than men with college degrees — college grads in 1970 were 64 percent men, 36 percent women; in 2007, 53.5 percent were women and 46.5 percent men. During the period of 1970 to 2007, women’s earnings grew 44 percent, while men’s only grew 6 percent (though men, on average, still make more money, women’s income gains are sharper and the disparity has narrowed). In 1970, only 4 percent of husbands were married to women earning more than they; in 2007, 22 percent were in that situation.

During the current recession, more men are losing jobs than women, which will increase the income disparities. Not only is the unemployment rate for men higher than for women, but the gap that has opened up between the two is nearly three times as great from this recession as compared with the previous one — i.e., 2.2 percentage points compared with 0.8 percentage points.

During the period of the study, median household income increased 60 percent for married men, married women, and unmarried women, but it increased only 16 percent for unmarried men. The loss of manufacturing jobs is believed to be the primary reason for income losses for unmarried men without college degrees. Those with college degrees made income gains of 15 percent (compared to 28 percent gains by unmarried women).

The Pew authors and others acknowledge in the fine print that after forty years of women in the labor market, the changes in family life are becoming evident. This is explained by recognizing that most women did not work outside the home in 1970, while now, most do. The researchers also point out that change came because of the decline in manufacturing and male-dominated jobs and the expectations of college-educated women to have careers.

Other scholars are quick to add that it is not just the financial aspects of marriage that are changing. They quietly call women the “victims” of the educational and financial role-reversals — while their advances in education and career are increasing their authority and decision-making roles within the family, their increased education and money-making ability is also decreasing their ability to find a husband of equal economic and social status. In 1970, 84 percent of women 30-44 years old married; by 2007, only 60 percent married (and black women had even lower percentages).

Stephanie Coontz, research director for the Council on Contemporary Families, claims that men are discovering that they need marriage more than women “from the standpoint of physical and mental well-being.” Coontz attributes men’s willingness to marry “up” as evidence of the fact that marriage “is becoming increasingly important to their economic well-being as well.” Other scholars point out that those who recognize the value of marriage are the better-educated men and women.

The Pew study notes, “Those with more education are far more likely than those with less education to be married, a gap that has widened since 1970. Because higher education tends to lead to higher earnings, these compositional changes have bolstered the economic gains for being married for both men and women.”

The Pew study describes current trends as a “cause” for the value of marriage increasing dramatically. They note that in 1970, the “typical man did not gain another breadwinner in his household when he married.” Today, married men have a wife’s income — an advantage the unmarried man does not have. The Pew study reports that “[t]he superior gains of married men have enabled them to overtake and surpass unmarried men in their median household income.”

Sure it does, but sadly, only the well-educated men and women are aware of these facts. By the time many of our young people wake up to these facts, they are no longer young, nor do they qualify as desirable, highly eligible choices in the marriage market.

. . . more

The Declaration opens:

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty…We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

The three issues that Declaration signers see as preeminent and the rationale for opposition:

Human Life

The lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are ever more threatened. While public opinion has moved in a pro-life direction, powerful and determined forces are working to expand abortion, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, and euthanasia…We pledge to work unceasingly for the equal protection of every innocent human being at every stage of development and in every condition. We will refuse to permit ourselves or our institutions to be implicated in the taking of human life and we will support in every possible way those who, in conscience, take the same stand.

Marriage

The institution of marriage, already wounded by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is at risk of being redefined and thus subverted. Marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all. Where marriage erodes, social pathologies rise. The impulse to redefine marriage is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil law as well as our religious traditions…Marriage is not a “social construction,” but is rather an objective reality—the covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize, honor, and protect.

Religious Liberty

Freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized…Attacks on religious liberty are dire threats not only to individuals, but also to the institutions of civil society including families, charities, and religious communities. The health and well-being of such institutions provide an indispensable buffer against the overweening power of government and is essential to the flourishing of every other institution—including government itself—on which society depends.

With these three issues in mind, and aware of the secularist undermining of tradition and culture, the signers resolved:

Unjust Laws

As Christians, we believe in law and we respect the authority of earthly rulers. We count it as a special privilege to live in a democratic society where the moral claims of the law on us are even stronger in virtue of the rights of all citizens to participate in the political process. Yet even in a democratic regime, laws can be unjust. And from the beginning, our faith has taught that civil disobedience is required in the face of gravely unjust laws or laws that purport to require us to do what is unjust or otherwise immoral. Such laws lack the power to bind in conscience because they can claim no authority beyond that of sheer human will.

Therefore, let it be known that we will not comply with any edict that compels us or the institutions we lead to participate in or facilitate abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other act that violates the principle of the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every member of the human family.

Further, let it be known that we will not bend to any rule forcing us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality, marriage, and the family.

Further, let it be known that we will not be intimidated into silence or acquiescence or the violation of our consciences by any power on earth, be it cultural or political, regardless of the consequences to ourselves.

We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Orthodox signers of the original Declaration include:

• Metr. Jonah Paffhausen Primate, Orthodox Church in America (Syosset, NY)
• His Grace, The Right Reverend Bishop Basil Essey The Right Reverend Bishop of the Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America (Wichita, KS)
• Fr. Chad Hatfield Chancellor, CEO. And Archpriest, St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (Yonkers, NY)
• Fr. Johannes L. Jacobse President, American Orthodox Institute and Editor, OrthodoxyToday.org (Naples, FL)
• Fr. Patrick Reardon Pastor, All Saints’ Antiochian Orthodox Church (Chicago, IL)
• Fr. Alexander F. C. Webster, Ph.D. Archpriest, Orthodox Church in America; Professorial Lecturer, The George Washington University (Ashburn, Va.)

You can sign the declaration on the Manhattan Declaration website.

From OCA News:

NEW YORK, NY (OCA Communications) – His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah, Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, and the Very Rev. Chad Hatfield, Chancellor of Saint Vladimir’s Seminary, were among some 125 US religious leaders who signed a 4,700-word declaration addressing the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty here recently.

The statement, known as the “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” issues “a clarion call” to Christians to adhere to their convictions and informs civil authorities that the signers will not “under any circumstance” abandon their Christian consciences. The text of the declaration, which already has generated considerable controversy, was released on Friday, November 20, 2009.

“The Manhattan Declaration is the result of several months of dialogue among Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christian leaders culminating in a gathering of approximately 100 leaders in New York City on September 28, 2009,” Catholic News Agency [CNA] reports. “Attendees considered an early draft… but the document was entrusted to a drafting committee.”

“We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths,” the Declaration reads. “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.

“We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral,” the signatories explain.

But, CNA reports, they also made clear that “we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

The signatories explained that they speak now because in order “to defend principles of justice and the common good that are now under assault.”

“We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but we will under no circumstances render to Caesar what is God’s.”

. . . more